Do Americans believe they didn't lose the Vietnam war? [Archive]

JSchmidt

20th July 2003, 02:13 PM

" The weapons inspectors claim about 10,000 gallons of anthrax and other weapons are unaccounted for."

And they key-word was 'unaccounted'...not that he has them.

"and the no fly zones were still in place"

Ah yes, the no fly-zones...even in the UK, they're still arguing whether they were legal or not...a very good case can be made for that the Northern no-fly zone certainly wasnt and that it stank of hypocracy. The Northern no-fly zone was created to 'protect' the Kurds, after the coalition after the first Gulf War didnt support them , as they hinted they would do, if they rose against Saddam...only problem was that the exact same Kurds that were fighting against Saddam were also fighting against Turkey, so when the US/UK weren't flying, Turkey would take to the air and bomb the exact same Kurds that the US/UK were 'protecting'.
As one of my RAF-friends put it:
"Tuesday was called 'bomb-the-kurds-day'. Eevry Tuesday,we would stand down and the Turks would fly into Iraq and bomb the Kurds".

" the security council itself said Iraq was in violation for failure to cooperate, thats why sanctions were (ed)...still in place".

Yes, but none of the sanctions sanctioned going to war. Furthermore the case for going to war (WMD's) appears to have been null and void.
Bush went in with his "With us or against us" shotugn diplomacy from the get-go and it backfired. Had he actually tried to build a case on plight of the Iraqi people, he might have been able to gather UN support for the war. There's very little doubt in my mind that the decision to go to war was taken before they even approached the UN. Whatever Blix turned up with was irrelevant and was even twisted to support the argument for the war....and *that* is my main issue with the whole thing. Not that they went to war, not that Saddam is gone, but the way they went about it.

Jakob

samurai999

21st July 2003, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by JSchmidt
"none of those opposed to war offered anything more than wait some more."

That's not entirely true. They seriously doubted the US/UKs claim that Iraq was a 'clear and present danger' and in clear violation of Security Council resolutions...and on the same note, we are now told to 'wait some more' for WMD's to turn up, despite the US 'knew where they were' and had 'clear evidence' that Saddam possessed I don't know how many tons of this and that...and what has turned up?..a few ancient artillery shells capable of carrying chemical weapons.
The whole focus on the 'poor' iraqi's didnt happen until just before the war, when the propaganda machine changed gear.

Jakob

I understand the doubts the opposition had and the discrepancies now, but what was their SOLUTION to the problem before the Iraq war? Thats my question. it seemed their solution was to go about doing more UN inspections. What kind of idiot dictator leaves evidence of WMD out in the open where inspectors can get to it, especially at that time? He knows inspectors are coming and the UN is watching him. He even destroyed a bunch of Al-Samoud 2 long range ballistic missiles to show the world that he is a "good man". His representatives agreed with the UN about random inspections, backtracked, balked and then suddenly agrees again later? It seems as if he was taking the UN as suckers. The UN inspections weren't really random either since they were tracked at almost every step by foreign news cameras. Saddam would be stupid not to watch those broadcasts to see where they were going. He does have satellite television.

Tim

kendomushi

21st July 2003, 10:27 AM

Do you really think that after watching the Iraqi people suffer for 12 years under the combined weight of Saddam and UN sanctions that a coalition could have been formed to oust Saddam by force if needed based on the plight of those people? That is a very noble view but entirerly unrealistic.
Every nation acts in what its leaders believe is the countries and their own best self interest. It is extremely rare that any political entity gives a rats behind about any humanitarian cause unless it furthers their own agenda in some way.
The economic truth is that the world was getting quite used to Iraq as it stood under Saddam and with the Russians, French, and others making economic gestures towards them, there is no way a consensus based on the humanitarian plight of the Iraqi people could have come into being in less than a decade. Given another few years of status quo and a Democratic president and I bet the US would have been kissing up to Saddam again as well.

kendomushi

21st July 2003, 10:37 AM

I agree that war is a terrible thing.
I mourn for the loss of innocent life and disruption of daily living.
I was in the US forces in Europe during the gulf war.
I was involved with the treatment of Kurds after the war.
I wake up every day now expecting the terrible news that someone I know has been killed in Iraq.
War is terrible.
I wish President Bush had found another way.

But as Samurai999 says and I have asked many times, to those of you who curse the war, what other option besides "do nothing" would you offer?

IRJ

21st July 2003, 12:43 PM

Maybe someone should start a new thread for all of this about Iraq? As it seems to have deviated from my original question.

However, to add my two cents, I would agree with kendomushi that getting rid of Saddam was much better than doing nothing. It's naive to think that weapons inspectors would have done anything about it.

The thing I don't like is how Bush went out about it in the worst way possible, doing a very poor job of selling the world on getting rid of Saddam.

doubissu

16th September 2003, 09:04 AM

If you step back a little and look at the bigger picture, isn't it strange that for at least a hundred years, the US has always been involved in a war or invasion of some kind ? And there's always been a convenient evil in the world that the President had to save the world from (through direct instruction from God himself of course) : communism, terrorism, socialism, Castro, Arafat, Chavez, Allende,... what's next ?

Gee the US government really has other countries' peoples security and interest at heart... Or would that have to do with pure hypocrisy and economic interest ?

In my mind that hypocrisy, the way the good people of America are lied to and the civilians whose lives are messed up because of constant US intervention are much worst than a dictator here and there...

some here watch too much Fox news...

Eddy

slidercrank

16th September 2003, 11:05 AM

In my mind that hypocrisy, the way the good people of America are lied to and the civilians whose lives are messed up because of constant US intervention are much worst than a dictator here and there...

First, your "big picture" left out Hitler, and I highly doubt that anyone who went through that period would agree with you that "their lives were messed up by the US and they would have been better off under Hitler."

Second, as someone who never has to deal with the threat of communism other than watching the TV news, you have no idea how many people in the world are grateful that the US has found it its business to stick up for the small guys against the communists. South Korea and South Vietnam were little guys that no one else in the world would have lifted a finger to help. Granted the US did a half job in the former case and an atrocious job in the latter, it did not change the fact the others stood by while the US fought (I'm not forgetting that many other UN nations contributed troops in both cases, but I'm convinced had the US not taken the lead, no one else would have contributed anything.)

Even in the present, no one else in the world really gives a damn about the problem of democratic Taiwan vis a vis the People's Republic of China. Despite the overwhelming economic prospect that the PRC offers, the US is standing by Taiwan and it's the only nation in the western world to do so. Its stance gives the US no political, economic and military advantages, but it still stands by Taiwan, the underdog in all senses of the world.

Anti-US is in vogue now, even in the US. And that's really too bad.

From someone who and whose family are grateful that the US has decided it is its business to be the world police and has made the world a better place to live in.

doubissu

16th September 2003, 05:20 PM

First, your "big picture" left out Hitler, and I highly doubt that anyone who went through that period would agree with you that "their lives were messed up by the US and they would have been better off under Hitler."

Well I certainly won't suggest that... or that Hussain is a benefit to his country. All I'm saying is that surprisingly enough there's always a bad guy around, that the media and the foreign policy leaders focus on (instead of say, focusing on the problems at home). What if for once, they tried to solve the issues here instead of exporting american capitalism (oups, I meant freedom) ? Maybe then there would be less of what you call anti-US sentiments here and abroad ?

It's one thing to invade in order to rid a country of a problem (big-bad commies, taliban, hussain,...) but it takes even more balls to retire smoothly and not take the colonial route. So far, on the former, US has done an ok job, but failed miserably on the latter (in the international public opinion).

You don't know that "the world is a better place to live in" because "US has decided it is its business to be the world police". I bet the majority of people around the world would say the exact opposite.

Eddy

KhawMengLee

16th September 2003, 06:44 PM

Even in the present, no one else in the world really gives a damn about the problem of democratic Taiwan vis a vis the People's Republic of China. Despite the overwhelming economic prospect that the PRC offers, the US is standing by Taiwan and it's the only nation in the western world to do so. Its stance gives the US no political, economic and military advantages, but it still stands by Taiwan, the underdog in all senses of the world.

You must be joking. Taiwan is the direct idealistic and political opposite of Taiwan. Why do you think the US supported South Korea and Japan? Especially after WWII with Japan. Definately not for the pure good of the nation...its the ole' fear of the domino effect on the spread of communist ideology.

Yes, PRC offers huge economic prospects but at the same time Beijing and Washington don't see eye to eye.

Taiwan having no political, economic and military advantage for the US? Jesus, its a bloody island right off the coast from China. The US has a free hand at landing troops and equipment and weapons there. No advantage?

Think of the cuban missle crisis where the ruskies parked a few thermo nuclear warheads off the coast of USA in Cuba and you would have some idea how Taiwan is an exceptionably scary thorn in one's side.

slidercrank

16th September 2003, 06:55 PM

You don't know that "the world is a better place to live in" because "US has decided it is its business to be the world police". I bet the majority of people around the world would say the exact opposite.

I do know that the world has been a better place because of the US. It's not empty rhetorics; I can give you examples:

WW2: Removal of Nazis and Japanese militarists. As the result, Europe and East Asia achieved peace and unprecedented prosperity.

Cold War: The US safe-guarded the prosperous and democratic Europe that took so much blood to build against the Soviet threat. In the end, the people on the other side of the Iron Curtain decided to topple their own governments and joined the West. I'm sure they were grateful that the US stayed after WW2 and didn't return to its isolationist root.

Korean War: Defense of the South. Even though the present day South Korean kids think otherwise, no one can deny they have a better life now than their northern brethrens. South Koreans now build cell phones, PC's, cars and ships for the world. North Koreans eat tree barks for dinner. Is South Korea a better place to live now because of the US?

Vietnam: The US was courageous enough to get involved but not steady enough to stay. The result, boat people fled by the 10's of thousands. Communists ran amok in Cambodia and massacred millions. Indochina was a worse place because the US didn't stay and finish the job. My first college roommate fled Vietnam on a boat. I'm sure he wished he didn't have to take such a hazardous journey to the US to enjoy life's happiness; I'm sure he wished the US had stayed so that he could have enjoyed the same happiness in his own homeland.

Taiwan: Without the US protection, the Chinese communist madness of Great Leap Forwand, Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Square Massacre would have propagated to that island. The people of Taiwan achieved first prosperisty and then democracy because of the US taking a stand that no one else in the world would.

Grenada, Panama and Kuwait: No first hand experience for me on these countries, but last I heard, no one in those countries are starving and oppressed. Can't say the same for North Koreans.

Iraq: Ongoing. History will judge it. But if the US track record is any guide, I think in the long run, it'll be a better place to live.

slidercrank

16th September 2003, 07:11 PM

You must be joking. Taiwan is the direct idealistic and political opposite of Taiwan. Why do you think the US supported South Korea and Japan? Especially after WWII with Japan. Definately not for the pure good of the nation...its the ole' fear of the domino effect on the spread of communist ideology.

Yes, PRC offers huge economic prospects but at the same time Beijing and Washington don't see eye to eye.

Taiwan having no political, economic and military advantage for the US? Jesus, its a bloody island right off the coast from China. The US has a free hand at landing troops and equipment and weapons there. No advantage?

Think of the cuban missle crisis where the ruskies parked a few thermo nuclear warheads off the coast of USA in Cuba and you would have some idea how Taiwan is an exceptionably scary thorn in one's side.

You must be joking. Look at the size of the market of China vs. Taiwan: 1.3 billion people against 23 million people. No other country in the world that has a market-based economy will have anything to do politically with Taiwan. Only the US will. And it does that at the peril of losing shares of Chinese market to the Europeans who are more concerned about selling goods to Chinese than any ideological concerns.

And Taiwan to China is not Cuba to the US. If you think Taiwan poses an offensive threat to China's security, you are smoking something good. China has nuclear missiles. Taiwan doesn't, so right there your Cuban analogy ceases to apply. China also has more than 400 surface-to-surface missiles with conventional warheads aimed at Taiwan. The US has not allowed Taiwan to develop or acquire any surface-to-surface missile that can reach China (lest China be provoked!). And no, the US has no marines, no planes, no ships and no missiles based in Taiwan. And no one in Taiwan is even thinking about landing anything in China other than tourists.

Taiwan is an exceptionally scary thorn in one's side? In 1996, when Taiwan held its first direct and democratic Presidential election, China responded by staging missile exercise which involved firing a long range surface-to-surface missile from its shore, over Taiwan and then splashing it into the water off Taiwan. I know what I'm talking about; my parents lived and are still living under the path that missile took. Do explain to me how Taiwan threatens China or how Taiwan is eager to have the US "attack China" from Taiwan so Chinese missiles can rain down on their homes.

For someone from Malaysia, your view of East Asian affair is surprisingly ill-informed.

LNGUYEN

16th September 2003, 11:22 PM

First, Vietnam

We invaded the Cambodia but we didn't kill million of people. They did the killing themselves, remember POL POT. They even invaded Vietnam first. Here was what Pol Pot said "If one Cambodia soldier killed 50 Vietnamese, we will finish Vietnam in no time" If you don't believe me, searching for its history. Of course, they created a convinient reason for Vietnam to invade Cambodia, but they killed 2.5 millions people of their own.

For Taiwan, if Taiwan was under Mainland control, do you think who else could keep the Com. China undercontrol. Right now, The US always back up the Taiwanese even though they don't allow the Taiwanese to develop weapon. the reason is they don't want to provoke China. However, backing up Taiwan, the US also send a message: Hey, I can land my troop right at your next door.

The thing is I beleive nobody will use his troop just for the purpose of good wills. If no national interest, no involvement, it is simple as that. Technically, Saddam was not under our control, the French and Russian had opportunity to the rich oil country like Iraq, and we couldn't do anything about that. Will we allow to let those countries out of our sights? Iraq also is unstable region which will effect Saudi and other region next to it and those regions are a direct national interest to the US.

slidercrank

17th September 2003, 07:36 AM

However, backing up Taiwan, the US also send a message: Hey, I can land my troop right at your next door.

After the Korean War, you think the US is eager to have another land combat with China? Not to mention today's China is nuclear-armed. Your and KhawMengLee's impression that the US is doing what it's doing because it wants to be a military threat to China via Taiwan is the kind of misunderstanding that causes wars between nations. Taiwan wants nothing more than having a credible military deterrent so that terms won't be dictated to it by China, like the Czechs were by the Germans in Munich Accord. No one in the world would help Taiwan, except for the US. Why is the US doing it? Surprising to you as it might be, but it could be just that the US has a bit more of principles than other nations. No one in the US, and most of all, no one in Taiwan, wants to have US forces based in Taiwan so an offensive action could be launched on China and bring a full-scale war upon their own home. Ever since 6/25/1950 when the North Koreans crossed into South Korea, the US policy in the Taiwan Strait has always and very consistently been to prevent military conflict across the Taiwan Strait at all cost. It has leaned on Taiwan heavily so that nothing provocative can come from that quarter. It has no leverage on China other than to sell just enough defensive weapons to Taiwan, so that China would not attack across rashly. If you think otherwise, you need to be more articulate and explain where you got such an idea from.

LNGUYEN

18th September 2003, 07:20 AM

Of course the American does not want to have another combat with the Chinese. However, they don't want the Chinese to spread their military influence too. If you think the Chinese never think about expand their teritory of influence, you are deadly wrong. History of thousand years proved that. Look at the Spatly islands now. Countries around it claim piece of it but the Chinese claim them all. They even landed their troops their and attacked other part of the islands. I said that the American doesn't want to provoke the Chinese so they limit Taiwan to develop weapons. However, they keep the Taiwan under their protection to send the message to the Chinese that in case if need, they are not affraid to face the Chinese again. If you live next to China like I was before moving to the US, you should know the Chinese better than you know yourself. The Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese, Malaysian, Indonesian, and Philipino, we all know the Chinese very well. The Chinese develop their military power not just for parade only, just like before in the history.

cinderandsmoke

9th October 2003, 02:52 PM

To the Original Question about America's perception of the Vietnam War:

The Vietnam War is America's shame; we don't like to talk about it with Non-American's. We all know, whether we admit it or not that we Lost. We lost because politically we were shamed into pulling out and because (I am not sure of the exact numbers) over a 100,000 dead American soldiers just didn't sit well with the population (for other countries however, in a war this is just a drop in the bucket). Some people do feel that we won because the kill ratio was like 1 US Soldier : 13 Vietcong and if we went all out we could have leveled the entire country without breaking a sweat. Vietnam is a perfect example of what happens when the CIA runs wild.

Second, (Believe me when I say this) there is a large portion of the American population, both professional and amateurs, that do nothing but analyze, criticize and scrutinize every single thing that goes on in this country. Everything from what politician voted for what bill to whom he slept with. For the most part what Americans believe is as close to what really happened as possible, whether we will admit it to other Non-Americans is and individual issue. In a lot of countries around the world doing this could get you fired, alienated or killed. So, America police's itself just fine. It isn’t perfect but we are ahead of the curve.

Third, Every Goddam country in the world does what is in its best interest; it's just that America is so big it is hard for us to hide our own agendas. But like I said we are not alone in this unwritten policy EVERY country does it. Also, every country has evils that it does not want to talk about or will go so far as to deny it ever happened. Ex. The Japanese army killing 10 million Chinese. As far as I know the Japanese Gov't doesn't like to talk about this subject and at one point even went so far as to try and erase it from textbooks and so forth. Saddam gassing his own people, Hitler’s Germany killing 8 million Jews, England in India and Africa, Western Countries and the Opium wars in China.... etc. So if it is easy to name Americas numerous flaws (Slavery, Killing off most of the native population) it is because we point them out first in hopes of at least trying to fix it.

Finally, it really bothers me that American are so apologetic about being Americans because they are afraid of how other countries might see us. It doesn't matter what we do other countries will always hate America, or be overly critical of America its the curse of being on top. America gives god only knows how much aid to other countries on a yearly basis, in food, money, medical aid and Resources. Oh! is that country next to you bothering, well just pick up the phone and Dial 1-800-AMERICA-HELP and they'll come running (Well as long as it fits in with the current Administrations Agenda, not that their is anything wrong with that, you always have to cover your back cause no one else will) In the recent incident with Iraq we went to so much trouble to make sure that we only hit military targets (I am not saying we were always accurate). I don't think that any country has ever gone to such efforts in wartime with another country that has pissed them off for so long. And that is what most wars are about one country pissing off another country.

In General I appreciate most cultures/Countries and I think that we all have something that we can contribute to each other. There is no one ultimate society or country we are all just trying to get by on what we have and for the most part doing a really bad job at it. Who know maybe this will be more a more civilized world 500 hundred years from now.

Thanks for you time,

Cinder

P.S Even though it's my first class, I really dig Kendo

Blue_Dragon

19th October 2003, 04:58 AM

Sanjuro

19th October 2003, 06:01 AM

Slidercrank...you're Taiwanese? Me too...just moved to the US for college.

I just have to say that with the present Administration, it would be hard to say with confidence that Taiwan would be backed up with American military aid in the case of a Chinese invasion. While Bush has made it clear that he would support Taiwan "as far as it is necessary" in the case of Chinese aggression, those are only words. American aggression against China would involve the Russians, which would entail who knows how many chain reactions. Besides, the US already has a large portion of its troops committed to foreign soil for a signifcant part of the near future. In short, Taiwan is in more trouble than one would think...

just my opinion

Fantasia

20th October 2003, 08:54 AM

My pair o' pennies.

1) America lost Vietnam. Our goal was a democratic country, and we did not achieve that goal. Was the only war (not the only conflicts of course, but the only full-fledged military action with a declaration of war) that we ever lost.

2) To respond to several of the more misguided among you:

"Maybe they should get all the civilians who lost relatives and loved ones to supposed "mistakes" made by coalition forces into a room with Bush and Blair. Lets see how they can justify the war then, eh?"

--Easily. You think if you rounded up families of the few French civiliams we killed accidentally while driving out the Germans in two world wars, they would complain? Or how about we put families of people Saddam tortured, raped, and killed in the same room and let all three groups talk it out?

That's not entirely true. They seriously doubted the US/UKs claim that Iraq was a 'clear and present danger' and in clear violation of Security Council resolutions.

--The UN Security Council itself declared that Iraq was in violation of their 13 separate resolutions. And yet they wouldn't do anything about it. The UN is a paper tiger. Who's going to care about their resolutions if nobody will enforce them?

And they key-word was 'unaccounted'...not that he has them.

--See, under the Clinton administration, he did an amazing job of swinging the onus of "proof" to the UN. But read the original resolutions- it was IRAQ'S job to PROVE that they had destroyed their existing, documented weapons and dismantled the program to create them. He never provided that proof, and somehow it was decided that Saddam would be innocent until proven guilty of possessing things he shouldn't. Ask the 5,000 gassed Kurds about the onus of "proof" of Saddam's guilt.

If you step back a little and look at the bigger picture, isn't it strange that for at least a hundred years, the US has always been involved in a war or invasion of some kind ? And there's always been a convenient evil in the world that the President had to save the world from (through direct instruction from God himself of course) : communism, terrorism, socialism, Castro, Arafat, Chavez, Allende,... what's next ?

--So you're saying that there's been times in the world where evil and evil men and women simply didn't exist? Are we the world's police at the moment? Yes. Does the rest of the world want it that way? Believe it or not, yes, because then they don't have to do the job themselves. Of course people disagree with it, here in America as well as the rest of the world. But we have security forces in scores of countries, and those countries WANT us there.

--Later somebody commented on this same thing, making a snide comment about our imperial tendencies. Do you see America CONTROLLING any of these countries we have supposedly "invaded"? Do you call our liberation of France and other European countries in two world wars an INVASION? No quite the opposite. We liberate these countries and set up their governments, make sure things are running, and slowly leave, leaving military forces ONLY if the new countries still want them there. We took countries we not only liberated but countries that were our ENEMIES and turned them into some of the most economically and politically powerful countries in the world.

Look at North Korea and South Korea. In North Korea the culture was DEVASTATED by communist Russian rule. Tradional instruments, art, music, dance all forbidden under severe punishments. The economy was destroyed as well. Look at South Korea. Heavily western-influenced culture? Sure. But the traditional culture is STILL THERE. People act like we crammed our culture down other countries' throats, but that is just ignorant. Culture transfer is merely a by-product of free-market economy. If the PEOPLE of South Korea really didn't want Western culture in their country, it wouldn't have entered in any great force.

One last thought. I don't think I've EVER heard an American complain that European culture was the driving force behind ours.

additions

16th January 2004, 05:34 AM

y'know.
i could've sworn that it was america that was supplying germany with nickel and rubber and otehr general materials for building weapons....

then after the lusitania got sunk in british waters, that germany had declared a war zone, they decided to join in the fight.

or have i gotten my wars mixed up?

Shiro

16th January 2004, 06:56 AM

Anti-US is in vogue now, even in the US. And that's really too bad.

I wouldn't say anti-US, I would say anti-Bush

Shiro

16th January 2004, 07:13 AM

After reading through the whole thread im finally glad some one just said it like it is:) WTG! cinder

As for america being to applogetic Your right there too! Like i give 2 crap what france thinks.

ITs only a Flesh wound!

America?! Appologetic?!!! In what parallel world do you live?!

You stormed Iraq without giving a damn about what the rest of the whole wide world thought! You might not be giving a damn about what france or Belgium think, but Iraq is nearly at Europe's doorstep, so we don't give a damn about what you think and we all hope to kiss your 'dear president' goodbye real soon.

Get rid of the guys who hi-jacked the white house and then we'll talk.

samurai999

16th January 2004, 08:12 AM

Finally, it really bothers me that American are so apologetic about being Americans because they are afraid of how other countries might see us. It doesn't matter what we do other countries will always hate America, or be overly critical of America its the curse of being on top.

Damn Straight. I'd rather have Bush than Bill Clinton kissing ass any day.
Although it's one thing to hear others' opinions and integrate them in order to help us or help others, its another to totally say "yes sir, anything you say sir".

I will vote Bush again. First of all, he doesn't take BS. Secondly, he's willing to put forth a plan to put the US on Mars by axeing the ISS projects and the old, decrepid Shuttle Program (which Clinton screwed because he stripped NASAs funds). I was hoping and praying that somebody would take that bold step. Thirdly, maybe deep down inside I like him because all the liberals (there are quite a few) in the Bay Area loathe him and I am sick of watching them on TV.

My0.02(US),
Tim

gsx1100s

23rd April 2004, 10:45 PM

I'll give you an Australian perspective on things. Of course you lost , so did we! We were there as well and lost a significant amount of troops as well. No where near what you guys had to deal with but a death in a family is a loss full stop.
If you know anything about Australian history you will know that we were defeated at Gallipoli, during WW1.The Turks basically stopped our advance at the beaches at Gallipoli. they were awesome fighters and worthy of our respect.My Grandfather was a stretcher bearer at Gallipoli and fought in Europe as well.
I am about to head of to the war memorial in Victoria ,Australia to commemorate that sacrifice . It is ANZAC day in Australia ( ANZAC stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) I will stand and be proud to honour both the death of many valiant Australians in those first waves on the shores at Gallipoli but also to honour the bravery of the Turkish that repulsed our attacks. If they kept us at bay they must have been bloody good soldiers . They were led by Attaturk so they must have been bloody good!
This loss was our "baptism of fire" as it became known. It created the legend of the "do or die" Aussie , and it all stemmed from a huge screw up and a defeat .
So whats the point?????
Who won or lost is irrelevant . the horror of war and its lessons,the brief glimpses of bravery and humanity are what should, and do , last.
thats all that should be discussed . it's not a football game

cheers michael

litige

24th April 2004, 07:15 AM

Damn Straight. I'd rather have Bush than Bill Clinton kissing ass any day.
Although it's one thing to hear others' opinions and integrate them in order to help us or help others, its another to totally say "yes sir, anything you say sir".

I will vote Bush again. First of all, he doesn't take BS. Secondly, he's willing to put forth a plan to put the US on Mars by axeing the ISS projects and the old, decrepid Shuttle Program (which Clinton screwed because he stripped NASAs funds). I was hoping and praying that somebody would take that bold step. Thirdly, maybe deep down inside I like him because all the liberals (there are quite a few) in the Bay Area loathe him and I am sick of watching them on TV.

My0.02(US),
Tim

Bill clinton is not in the next vote list. So why bother with him?
Don't you see that bush doesn't care less about space?
he wants the votes.
vote for him go.
Let 300 billions go to the army rather the ones around that may be suffering.
Go and keep propragating war.

litige

24th April 2004, 02:00 PM

Bleda

24th April 2004, 05:38 PM

America?! Appologetic?!!! In what parallel world do you live?!

You stormed Iraq without giving a damn about what the rest of the whole wide world thought! You might not be giving a damn about what france or Belgium think, but Iraq is nearly at Europe's doorstep, so we don't give a damn about what you think and we all hope to kiss your 'dear president' goodbye real soon.

Get rid of the guys who hi-jacked the white house and then we'll talk.
Shiro you enjoy having an independent country? With friends like this perhaps we shouldn't have bothered.

samurai999

24th April 2004, 08:26 PM

Bill clinton is not in the next vote list. So why bother with him?
Don't you see that bush doesn't care less about space?
he wants the votes.
vote for him go.
Let 300 billions go to the army rather the ones around that may be suffering.
Go and keep propragating war.

But the point is that Clinton is the one that screwed the aerospace field in America by further closing the budget spigot on Nasa. I also have come to the realization that no matter who is running for prez, he(or she?) is gonna try to appease everybody to get their vote. Clinton, Kerry, Bush(both of them), Gore, Reagan, Mondale, whoever. They ALL will say anything to get votes. But at least W seems want to go in the direction of furthering space exploration so thats why I'm voting for him. I don't really see anything close to that from Kerry. I talked to one guy at JPL (Nasas Jet Prop lab in Socal) at a career fair at Stanford and they have immediately opened up 150 positions for college grads since Bush announced those plans.

Plus, I am for enforcing gun laws and not creating newer more constricting ones. I have seen many of my friends who are law abiding gun owners who have suffered through the registration bit in California still get screwed because of some idiotic loophole that makes "normal guns" that they use for marksmanship tournaments into "assault weapons". Republicans are generally for the former while Dems are for the latter.

My 0.02$(US)
Tim

Shiro

24th April 2004, 08:57 PM

Shiro you enjoy having an independent country? With friends like this perhaps we shouldn't have bothered.

Are you insinuating that you have attacked Iraq because you cared about our safety? That would have been a nice thought, but.....

1) your 'President' doesn't care about us.
2) we knew for sure you were lying about the dangers of Saddam being in power in Iraq.
3) the US unleashed religious fanatics, do you really think I feel safer now?

And where are those WMD's we were supposed to be afraid of? :p

OK, you saved our ass in World War II and I'm the first one to say we should be grateful about it. But don't forget the French helped you around 1776, so I was kinda hoping for a mutual friendship between the US and Europe, but no...... the US always want to show off about how good they are and how righteous they can be.
I have no confidence anymore in your government and I think it's a feeling that is shared by lots and lots of people around the world. Who is to blame? Some of your Presidents, no one else.

Bleda

25th April 2004, 02:02 AM

Are you insinuating that you have attacked Iraq because you cared about our safety? That would have been a nice thought, but.....

1) your 'President' doesn't care about us.
2) we knew for sure you were lying about the dangers of Saddam being in power in Iraq.
3) the US unleashed religious fanatics, do you really think I feel safer now?
1) Your right he doesn't care about belgium, he cares about the USA and stopping people from threatening us.

2) Then you must not be living anywhere near the same planet that i live on if you think Saddam in power in Iraq was not dangerous lol. Saddam should have been killed in desert storm but the UN pulled the plug. 12 Years later the man was re-arming, was in the process of making new illicit trade agreements, and was still laughing in the UN's face.

3) Religious fanatics are fanatics with or with out the attack. If they were going to be dumb asses and blow themselves up they were going to do it anyways. Now instead of just hurling themselves at jews they hurl themselves at their own citizens.

The french helped us in 1776. They then joined us in a revolution of their own, followed by help from US in WWI, followed by saving their butts in WW2. How on earth does france helping us translate into "europe" helping the USA?

I say we return to our isolationist roots, pull out our rediculous foreign aid debt, call in all the money all the countries owe us and pay off our own debt and watch the world go to shit when the police dissapears and leaves em for the wolves.

Shiro

25th April 2004, 03:15 AM

1) Your right he doesn't care about belgium, he cares about the USA and stopping people from threatening us.

2) Then you must not be living anywhere near the same planet that i live on if you think Saddam in power in Iraq was not dangerous lol. Saddam should have been killed in desert storm but the UN pulled the plug. 12 Years later the man was re-arming, was in the process of making new illicit trade agreements, and was still laughing in the UN's face.

3) Religious fanatics are fanatics with or with out the attack. If they were going to be dumb asses and blow themselves up they were going to do it anyways. Now instead of just hurling themselves at jews they hurl themselves at their own citizens.

The french helped us in 1776. They then joined us in a revolution of their own, followed by help from US in WWI, followed by saving their butts in WW2. How on earth does france helping us translate into "europe" helping the USA?

I say we return to our isolationist roots, pull out our rediculous foreign aid debt, call in all the money all the countries owe us and pay off our own debt and watch the world go to shit when the police dissapears and leaves em for the wolves.

1) Bushboy cares about his own pocket, not about you, fellow American Citizen.
2) Where on earth did I say Saddam should have been left alone? He was something you should keep an eye on, but it wasn't the worst one around there. Besides, why did the US finance him? :) Remember that picture with him shaking hands with Don Rumsfeld? Cute isn't it? :) It's like Bin Laden, it's true it's a real b*st*rd..... he didn't even say thank you for the US funding and the weapons......
You don't believe me? Try non biased media for a change.
3) Wrong again. Actually Bush managed to do something good in Iraq, he united enemy factions ..... against the US. They're fighting the US and people who colaborate. And eventually, when the US will leave, they might try to build a state like Afghanistan used to be with the Taliban.

How on earth does france helping us translate into "europe" helping the USA? France is one of the main driving forces behind the European Union. I like to talk about them helping you, because Americans like to hate them. Without France America might have been only a dream :).

Ok, now you will think that I'm a dumb America-hater, but I'm not. I wish that all the soldiers in Iraq come back safe. I don't blame them, they're doing their jobs. I'm blaming that 'patriotic' Administration that squats the White House. Bush's pocket is not something worth dying for.

Bleda

25th April 2004, 03:40 AM

1) Bushboy cares about his own pocket, not about you, fellow American Citizen.
2) Where on earth did I say Saddam should have been left alone? He was something you should keep an eye on, but it wasn't the worst one around there. Besides, why did the US finance him? :) Remember that picture with him shaking hands with Don Rumsfeld? Cute isn't it? :) It's like Bin Laden, it's true it's a real b*st*rd..... he didn't even say thank you for the US funding and the weapons......
You don't believe me? Try non biased media for a change.
3) Wrong again. Actually Bush managed to do something good in Iraq, he united enemy factions ..... against the US. They're fighting the US and people who colaborate. And eventually, when the US will leave, they might try to build a state like Afghanistan used to be with the Taliban.

France is one of the main driving forces behind the European Union. I like to talk about them helping you, because Americans like to hate them. Without France America might have been only a dream :).

Ok, now you will think that I'm a dumb America-hater, but I'm not. I wish that all the soldiers in Iraq come back safe. I don't blame them, they're doing their jobs. I'm blaming that 'patriotic' Administration that squats the White House. Bush's pocket is not something worth dying for.
1) Please justify how liberating a nation puts money in bush's pocket this is the stupidest statement i have seen yet lol.

2) Saddam was the lesser of 2 evils during the iran era it was him or qaddaffi so you pick which one is worse. Bin Laden was funded to resist the russians attempt to absorb afghanistan. We helped them stop that just like we continued to supply free-french forces and anti-german forces in WWII.

3) If you think the war in iraq has done only that then your non-biased media is bull or your blinders are filtering everything else out that isn't anti-american. Try these on for size:
* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
* An interim constitution has been signed.
* Girls are allowed to attend school.
* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Bet you didn't see much of that in your little anti-us newscasts.

As for france being a driving force behind the EU, i still don't see how THEY translate into the rest of europe. We owe a debt to france which we repayed numberous times and we owe the english for their mutual help and support. Just cause the rest of the countries are friends with france doesn't mean they get any type of reward.

BTW with out the US, europe would just be an old memory of some blonde haired blue eyed arian. Heck not even UK could have resisted german military power at that time w/o the US's support and supplies. And if you think americans hate france you should ask more french people what they think about the US.

KhawMengLee

25th April 2004, 04:18 AM

1) Please justify how liberating a nation puts money in bush's pocket this is the stupidest statement i have seen yet lol.

2) Saddam was the lesser of 2 evils during the iran era it was him or qaddaffi so you pick which one is worse. Bin Laden was funded to resist the russians attempt to absorb afghanistan. We helped them stop that just like we continued to supply free-french forces and anti-german forces in WWII.

3) If you think the war in iraq has done only that then your non-biased media is bull or your blinders are filtering everything else out that isn't anti-american. Try these on for size:
* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
* An interim constitution has been signed.
* Girls are allowed to attend school.
* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Bet you didn't see much of that in your little anti-us newscasts.

As for france being a driving force behind the EU, i still don't see how THEY translate into the rest of europe. We owe a debt to france which we repayed numberous times and we owe the english for their mutual help and support. Just cause the rest of the countries are friends with france doesn't mean they get any type of reward.

BTW with out the US, europe would just be an old memory of some blonde haired blue eyed arian. Heck not even UK could have resisted german military power at that time w/o the US's support and supplies. And if you think americans hate france you should ask more french people what they think about the US.

1) Bush and not to mention several of his staff have significant connections with several firms involved in rebuilding and the oil industry...hint hint.

2) Yes..he was. But it goes to show 2 wrongs don't make a right. What you reap is what you sow.

3)* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.

Yup, funny how a whole battalion refused to fight in Fallujah. Even General Whatzisname Sanchez(US Commander in Iraq) said that 1/10 Iraqi soldiers are on the rebel side and that they are inefficient.

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

KhawMengLee

25th April 2004, 04:23 AM

I say we return to our isolationist roots, pull out our rediculous foreign aid debt, call in all the money all the countries owe us and pay off our own debt and watch the world go to shit when the police dissapears and leaves em for the wolves.

Erm...you know the US owes more to overseas investors than what overseas investors owe to the US. If they pull out, your economy collapses.

Shiro

25th April 2004, 08:05 AM

Exactly, KhawMengLee :)
Iraq is one of the biggest oil reserves in the world.... And almost all the members of the Bush administration have strong ties with Oil companies.
Dick Cheney and Haliburton for example....

2) Saddam was the lesser of 2 evils during the iran era it was him or qaddaffi so you pick which one is worse. Bin Laden was funded to resist the russians attempt to absorb afghanistan. We helped them stop that just like we continued to supply free-french forces and anti-german forces in WWII.

Ah yes, I shouldn't have questioned America's great experience when it comes to choosing and supporting dictators and terrorists... (Pinochet,
Shah, Ben Laden, Saddam, some kuwait dictator, .... ). But I remember having heard several times, the US supported both Iran and Iraq in their war against each other.

3) If you think the war in iraq has done only that then your non-biased media is bull or your blinders are filtering everything else out that isn't anti-american. Try these on for size:
* Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
* School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
* Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
* The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
* The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
* Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
* The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
* 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
* Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
* Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
* Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
* Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
* Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
* An interim constitution has been signed.
* Girls are allowed to attend school.
* Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Bet you didn't see much of that in your little anti-us newscasts.

Off course all those things are compared to the period between the two gulf wars, but you should look at Iraq before the first Gulf war and the US imposed embargo..... The standard of life was fairly good there before 1991. (example: about 97% of the Iraqis were able to read and write back then). That embargo only hurted the people of Iraq not Saddam. It's the US' fault it was maintained for so long.
Granted, Saddam deserved that war but why did the US punish the people instead of Saddam himself? And why did the US encourage the chiites to revolt only to let them get slaughtered?

As for france being a driving force behind the EU, i still don't see how THEY translate into the rest of europe. We owe a debt to france which we repayed numberous times and we owe the english for their mutual help and support. Just cause the rest of the countries are friends with france doesn't mean they get any type of reward.

You don't seem to understand that there is some kind of European feeling around here, we are really a union. There may be differences between European countries but the way your Administration insulted France and Germany was taken as an insult by most of the other European countries.
And don't even think about mentioning the UK, Spain and Italy. Their governments acted entirely against the will of the large majority of the folks there (I'm talking about at least 85-90% of the people there) back before the war. Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi just did it because they wanted to kiss Bush's arse. Oh and for the Polish, they just wanted to buy American military stuff.
That's quite a coaltion, really....

BTW with out the US, europe would just be an old memory of some blonde haired blue eyed arian. Heck not even UK could have resisted german military power at that time w/o the US's support and supplies. And if you think americans hate france you should ask more french people what they think about the US.

I didn't forget that and I mentioned I was grateful for it in my earlier posts. But being grateful doesn't mean I will get down on my knees for the US for the rest of my days. Being grateful is different than being a Blair oops... puppy for the US. What you did in Iraq was wrong and I won't shut up because some guy waving a star spangled banner wit an overinflated ego tells me to. The french don't like being insulted and they have a big ego too, so it's nothing to be worried about.....

It's time to snap out of it, you're not necessarly right because you are American.

KhawMengLee

25th April 2004, 08:29 AM

* Girls are allowed to attend school.
.

Erm...Iraq is not Afghanistan. Saddam was a Sunni...meaning religious wise they were moderate. The shiites are the one's who are usually fanatical, who now, thanks to Bush's "democracy" will probably come to power because they are in the majority.

Most Iraqi and Iranian women I've met are well educated. Then again they were all Sunni...ironically, the Iraqi women/girls who were not allowed to go to school were from the Shiite side.

Bleda

25th April 2004, 09:39 AM

Shiro let me ask you exactly what we did wrong with the liberation of iraq. Was it that we ruined france's chances of getting in closer with the dictator than they already were, or just jealousy that we didn't wait for the UN to keep spitting out non-solutions?

As for the devistation of the gulf war that is every bit as much a UN fiasco as it is anyone elses and we're all in that one together.

What France did to the security counsel is just as big of an insult as anything we could have done. Saying they will opposed ANY US resolution just because they can (this was actually said by the french president) is childish and irresponsibility to the extreme.

Also khaw girls were not allowed at iraq public schools. If you want your child schooled you had to find some alternative method of doing it. Bush's profits off this are marginal at best and the companies appointed to work iraq are done by a counsel made of congressman completely seperate from bush including both republicans and democrats so i doubt they are saying hey lets give bush some extra money! If anything economic was gained/lost its France lost a cheap oil supply and the world gained a new source for its economy.

litige

25th April 2004, 12:32 PM

Bleda

25th April 2004, 02:49 PM

To Bleda!

Tell me...what do you care about Irak?
What do you care about Saddam?
Tell me, why liberate the iraki people?
Why not liberate all the other ones that are SO MUCH MORE suffering in other places of the earth?
DO you liberate people by actually killing them?
Can you tell you are safe?
Are you really safe?
Are you more afraid of walking in the streets because of a plane might land on your head, or because you could get shot by one of the many many criminal in your country?
(Do you know all the facts about your president?
About it's operation? OF COURSE NOT!!!!)
Do you really think God is helping your nation to liberate the Iraki people?
Do you know that Bush is an Oil Baron?
Do you know that he doesn't care less about space?
Did you know that he thinks E.T.'s speak Etilian?
What do you think about the numbers of gun in your country, the number of people they kill, and their utility?
Do you know the annual sum of money that goes into the army?
And the the people in your country?
.................................................. .................................................. ....Hope you can aswer the questions. -I care about iraq because its a nation with people in need much like cuba (i'm cuban btw).
-Saddam is a dictator that oppresses the freedom and terrorizes his people because he can. An evil man deserves to be punished.
-Liberating oppressed people and giving them a shot at a free like is something everyone deserves.
-I wish we could liberate everyone including my family in cuba but we can't so we have to start somewhere. Its stupid to expect a country to waste millions on liberating every little bitty country and ruin its own economy in the process. The US does more than its share of helping the oppressed in the world, obvious examples are all of the UN peacekeeping missions we participate in, Iraq, south korea, taiwan, and easter europe. Some good is better than no good imo.
-If the people are too blind to see what they are defending is oppression then the yes lethal force can be the only way. I'm no fool that thinks diplomacy works in all situations.
-Depends on your meaning of safe, i feel i am as safe as i need to be.
Same as above, i'm safe enough for it not to bother me, when my time is up not much i can do about it.

-First of all whats with this "many many" criminals thing lol, you make it sound like our streets are just filled with ruffians and murderers. I live in miami where we have one of the highest violent crime rates in the country and even then its not enough to make me worry about getting shot while i walk down the road. I feel more worried about large scale terrorizm than i do about general crime. Crime fluctuates but for the most part is decreasing each year and doesn't nearly kill as many people or have quite the devestating effect that large acts of terrorism have on morale and the well being of the nation as a whole.

-Yes i do feel God is helping us right now in our liberation of Iraq. If he was truely against us than a country with such religiously staunch people like iraq, we would not have such a large majority (over 85% of the population) of the population supporting us in their own homelands.

-Bush may be an oil baron but he has absolutely NO control over what companies are in iraq. It is all handled by a seperate committee consiting of both democrats and republicans. His personal gain from this affairs is inconcievably small from this affair just like every other oil mogul in the world. Infact most oil exporting countries have shown a decrease in sales since iraq began pumping oil. Supply and demand plain and simple. That would be like saying that since The owner of eguchi is a member of the IKF then he must be directly influencing and corrupting IKF decisions. Its a rediculous claim by any stretch of the imagination.

-He cares more about space than Kerry or clinton and he has shown this by increasing nasa funding and putting money into the space program. I would like to see more money into nasa but atleast he didn't cut its funding like Clinton. If he didn't care about space he woulda cut the budget even more for them and force even less space research.

-If he doesn't speak etilian then what does he speak since you are obviously such an expert on a scifi figure? Its a fake language i could call it etiliese and i would still be right.

-Gun numbers are difficult to find due to military weapons, hand guns, rifles, shotguns, assault rifles, illicit, unregistered, smuggled weapons etc. Guns in the year accounted for 9240 homocides total, less than 4 per 100,000 people. Guns are used for sport, hunting, sport, self-defense, military, security, etc. If you are asking if i am worried about guns and their illegality, no i fully support guns and allowing citizens to own them. Pulling guns now out of legitimate people's hands would just leave them in the bad guys hands. If guns would have never existed then i can see outlawing them but too late now. Besides its nore more irresponsibility than letting people drive a car or practice iai.

-Current military funding (upkeep, construction, research and developement, and the cost of funding the army in iraq and bases around the world) accounts for 399.1 billion dollars a year. This number is down from the cold war era.

-I am not sure what you mean by the people in my country but if you are asking if we support the president and the war in iraq then yes, the majority does support the presidents decision and the war in Iraq. Bush's approval rating going into this last year of his 1st term was higher than any previous president's approval rating since Roosevelt in WW2.

samurai999

25th April 2004, 05:03 PM

To Bleda!

Do you know that he doesn't care less about space?

What do you think about the numbers of gun in your country, the number of people they kill, and their utility?

.................................................. .................................................. ....Hope you can aswer the questions.

I don't like politics, but these two issues hit home so I'm gonna have address some issues here.

If Bush doesn't care about space, then Kerry will probably axe NASA in favor of some social security or the "lets tax all of the upper crust" budget proposal. I wouldn't mind if Bill Gates got taxed up the wazoo, but I'm afraid that the upper-middle and maybe the whole middle class will get the brunt of this as well in light of our current budget. The Dems are generally like this. Tax now, ask questions later. But back to space, at least Bush wants to go pushing forward. I haven't heard ONE peep out of Kerry. I for one don't want to see the human race stuck on one planet. We need to become explorers again. It sorta gives the human race a focus. Sort of a "this is where we need to go next as a team". Look at what is happening in the world. Religious cults and fanaticism, wars, crazy dictators, political bickering, fights in various sovereign govts, etc. Dont' know about you but if I stayed cooped up in the same place for too long, I'd go crazy too.

Let me tell you that guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is the most cliched and therefore the most IGNORED statement describing the situation on guns. I like guns. But I am not this gun toting "outlaw cowboy" who rides through the wild wild west shooting anything that lives. I usually use guns to teach me hand-eye coordination, patience, to hunt, and to have fun in general. The Democrats generally head in a direction of "lets restrict guns" all together by reintroducing more and more laws. Republicans go for enforcing the law. Let me remind you that guns are inadamant (sp?) objects that need a mind to direct the bullet inside. If the mind is that of a killer, then that bullet will kill. If the mind is of a law abiding citizen who uses guns properly and RESPONSIBLY, then no. Japan has a no-gun policy and they still get guns from the black market in other areas of Asia and Russia. Britain has a no-gun policy and they still get stuff off the black market? Remember the man in Britain who went on a shooting rampage in the school yard a while back? The law didn't really help prevent that, did it? I can go on and on about this stuff, but the point is more gun laws hurt the responsible, law abiding citizen more than the criminal.

Tim

Shiro

25th April 2004, 08:26 PM

Bleda, look at this: http://www.internationalist.org/rumsfeldsaddamwww.jpg

The US funded and supported Saddam. Besides, the Liberation of Iraq was an argument Powell and Rumsfeld used only after they realized they wouldn't have a lot of allies with the WMD argument.

Where are those WMD's? NOWHERE, even American propagandists didn't mention them after Baghdad fell.
Besides, why is your government asking the UN to clean up the mess it made in Iraq now? I thought the US didn't think the UN could do a good job........

And are you forgetting the US are hiring people that worked under Saddam now? Isn't that a sign of weakness?

I am not seeking out Anti-American media.... EVERY single media I come accross talks about it like that!

About the gun issue:
I agree on the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but I would make sure people can't get guns that easily.....
Ok, you can still get guns on the black market in Europe, but look at the numbers of people killed by guns in the US and compare it the the total of all the European countries.....

Shiro

25th April 2004, 10:38 PM

And why aren't you answering some of my statements? Mainly those where I mention the US government sponsored dictators and terrorists.

KhawMengLee

25th April 2004, 10:59 PM

And why aren't you answering some of my statements? Mainly those where I mention the US government sponsored dictators and terrorists.

It's the ole' tactic of answering to a mistake with distraction. e.g. Mr Bush I thought we went to war for WMD's? Yes, but Saddam is a terrible man who murdered thousands of innocent iraqis.

dennis

25th April 2004, 11:32 PM

Blede, do you honestly believe that this war on Iraq was justified? I will give you that Saddam is an evil SOB, but who do you think trained him to use the chemical weapons which he has used to kill countless Kurds and other Iraqis (thats right it was us the USA and by the way Osama Bin Laden also received his education here and was outfitted with pretty much all the weapons he has by the USA when the Russians invaded Iraq during the 80's). What we did was a completely unjustified preemptive attack (which the justification of turned out to be a complete lie) whose likes have not been seen since Pearl Harbor (thats right this war has completely justified Pearl Harbor like the Patriot Act legalized watergate) and this action has set a dangerous precedent that our precedent can declare war on a country simply by indicating a possible threat that they "may" have weapons of mass destruction and they "may" use them against us. The argument after the fact has been that it was to liberate the Iraqi people but 1. this does not look like liberation we are simply occupying a land where we have created anarchy 2. The UN has outlawed the Assasination of world leaders (i know he wasnt assasinated but it is part of the same act as the second part) and the overthrowing of foreign governments so why isnt the USA on trial for war crimes? 3. to believe that democracy can be arrived at through a foreign invasion of a country is quite naive 4. the liberation of the Iraqi people was never once mentioned before the war while they still had us believing in the weapons of mass destruction. This whole war on terrorism has turned into nothing more than a McCarthy style communist witch hunt only this time it is "terrorists" we are after. Now dont take this to mean that I sympathize with terrorists I simply find George W. Bush's exploitation of a National Tragedy for his own personal motive absolutely disgusting and I find it abhorable that the voting population of this once great country (I am only 15 and therefore cannot yet vote) is allowing this moron for lack of a better term to strip us of our rights and force us to live in constant fear as in the Cold War era. Well I shall end this post here since it is getting quite lengthy and most people wont read something this long, but if any of you think you have a response to this feel free to respond and I would be glad to refute it.

dennis

25th April 2004, 11:44 PM

Oh and by the way, I realize Bush will get reelected and that approval rating is incredibly ridiculous (and the americans are known to have an unwavering support of their president during wartime sadly enough) b/c the majority of americans i will be the first to say are completely ignorant of world affairs and politics. As long as we can fill up our SUV's and we can live our luxurious lifestyle then we never question our leaders which is a sad fact because dissent is what this country was built on and with the new public sentiment the ignorance of it is truely reminiscent of the Cold War I am near expecting to be black listed for this post b/c now if you speak against the war and american policy then you are automatically "on the side of the terrorists". I will leave you to think on the words of the great Mark Twain "Patriotism is loving your country at all times, and your government when they deserve it."

Bleda

26th April 2004, 03:43 AM

Bleda

26th April 2004, 03:47 AM

Bleda

26th April 2004, 03:51 AM

It's the ole' tactic of answering to a mistake with distraction. e.g. Mr Bush I thought we went to war for WMD's? Yes, but Saddam is a terrible man who murdered thousands of innocent iraqis.
Khaw the statement i said to dennis has the same application to you aswell. We went because of the UN violations, the biggest that he had WMD since he was unable to show that he had destroyed the WMD. BTW incase you don't know the burden of proof in this case was placed squarely on saddam by the UN back after desert storm. He was considered guilty until he proved himself innocent, hence the US and the coalition made the clear assumption. God only knows where the 5,000 tons of anthrax and other chemical weapons that saddam can't quite tell where they are anymore went.

samurai999

26th April 2004, 04:01 AM

About the gun issue:
I agree on the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but I would make sure people can't get guns that easily.....

The last part of that sentence is saying something almost exactly the same as "lets introduce more restricting laws". If not, that type of statement can be mis-interpreted to mean "lets introduce new laws". If you mean lets prevent criminals and irresponsible people from getting guns by enforcing the current laws, then sure. But the point is laws don't totally prevent criminals from getting guns. In some instances, the rate of crime actually goes up. Why is this? They can go to foreign countries such as Mexico, Hong Kong, etc and smuggle them back here. Plus, the criminals know in this instance that people don't have guns so it is easier to commit crimes against them. If you were a criminal with a gun trying to rob a store or commit a murder, would you do this against a gun owner or a person who doesn't own a gun? This is what Dem law makers still don't seem to understand IMHO.

I eventually want a 30 cal bolt action rifle. If the Dems get their way, because of an idiotic few, eventually ALL guns including assault weapons might eventually be banned.

My 0.02$(US)
Tim

samurai999

26th April 2004, 04:10 AM

As for the invasion, I believe that if Iraq wasn't so wishy-washy in its response to the US about their WMDs the US might have not gone in. Iraqs foreign minister (AKA puppet) kept saying that they won't send information, they refuse to do anything unless the UN did something, and that they refuse to listen to the UN. Confusing, but that is how confusing their responses were.

Finally, when the "drop dead" date was upon them, they said "we want more time". This always sends a signal to other people that something is up. Did Iraqs gov't (timearchy) understand that? They finally sent the information, but it was interpreted as nonsense. The communication was so bad that it convinced the US govt that they were hiding something. It seemed as they were putting on a show for the UN while doing something else under the table.

Tim

Shiro

26th April 2004, 04:55 AM

Shiro you still didn't answer the question of what the US did wrong. Iraq was in clear violation of 13 UN sanctions, it had thousands of tons of chemicals unaccounted for as stated by the UN and was sooner or later going to habve to be dealt with. The burden of proof was on saddam to show he had destroyed all his chemicals, he couldn't so one has to assume he has them. The assumption went sour but it was the only assumption that could be made at that time. This is all the justification that was needed for this war. Saddam was in clear violation, had been threatened time and time again and still refused to show any proof of compliance so we attacked. Its no different than a junkie who has to report to his parole officer and never does it making up excuses. The cops are coming after him one way or another.

Isn't it clear enough? The US started a war based on lies to gain influence over one of the world's biggest Oil reserves. He used 9/11 and terrorism as an excuse to go in. Now you'll probably aske me why the US cleaned up Afghanistan too, huh? Well that's because Afghanistan is a good place to build petroleum pipelines. President Karzai used to work for Enron too..... Coincidence?
The taliban where just an obstacle bewteen Bushboy and the oil business there, so he eliminated them. Granted, eliminating the taliban was a good job, but Bush probably didn't do it to avenge the 9/11 victims.
Isn't that enough reasons to hate the Bush administration?

Shiro go and look at history during those times and see who you would have supported. The US does not assassinate candidates so it has to go with who is available at the time. A great example of this is cuba. Batista was a dictator, Castro came with the revolution, the US supported batista since Castro was the greater of 2 evils. What were they supposed to do kill both people instead?

No no, the only thing I would have wanted you to do was not killing the guy the people in that country voted for..... :D I won't comment about Cuba since I don't think I know that much of it, though.

Osama was trained not to be a terrorist but to fight off the invading russian army that was trying to assimilate afghanistan during the cold war. He was the military leader at that time of afghanistan so who were we supposed to support, akhbar the camel jockey?

Ever heard of Massoud? He was fighting the Russians and fought the Taliban after that. He was for the creation of a secular democratic Afghanistan. The US could have checked before throwing with cash and weapons...... Try to look things up about Massoud instead of telling me things about Saddam I already know.....

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565237/Hussein_Saddam.html

Read that statement on saddam, particularly the part about the 70's where he acted as a peace keaper in the middle east, built schools, universities, hospitals to better his peoples lives. He was not always the dirty scum bag, (or atleast he kept it hidden) but at one point was actually doing pretty darn well for his country. The US supports good leaders but unfortunately we aren't fortune tellers so we couldn't see this coming.

Ok, then why did you give weapons to him AND the country he was fighting? (Iran - Iraq, you know....)

I love how you say i ignored this part of your argument when in fact i said the same thing before just in a more concise way. Of course you seem to ignore that and instead ignore MY question as to what exactly the US did wrong with attacking iraq.

When did I do that? The only thing you said about Saddam until now was "boohoo he's bad, his people suffer ONLY because of him.....".....

One more time........ Wrong things the Bush Adminstration did:
- They attacked a country based on lies and assumptions, ignoring international law.
- They forgot that Saddam was what he was thanks to the US.
- The Bush Administration ignored and minimized serious threats about an imminent attack in the US, so they have a party of responsability in 9/11.
- The US supported dictators and terrorists throghout the 20th century.
- The Bush Administration abused the tragedy of 9/11 to achieve things that are probably very profitable for them.
- The Bush Administration didn't really help the 9/11 commission by refusing to declassify documents (even documents of the Clinton Administration, wich makes me think they already knew something about it) and making sure no member of the administration was to appear before the commission (wich eventually happened when Rice testified under a huge pressure from the public opinion). Ever wondered why most families of victims of 9/11 were pissed off at the Adminitration?

And the list goes on and on, but those things aren't even related to the Iraq crisis, like the Kyoto protocol and things like that.

I doubt there is anything you can say that will change my mind. All the things I mention here are things I heard/read/saw several times from various sources. You should try non-american media for a change. Did I check American media? Yes I did.

Shiro

26th April 2004, 05:08 AM

About guns, yes, there should be more restrictions. If more guns would make a country safe, America would be the safest place on earth..... it isn't the case, so....... And why do you need an assault riflle?

As for the invasion, I believe that if Iraq wasn't so wishy-washy in its response to the US about their WMDs the US might have not gone in. Iraqs foreign minister (AKA puppet) kept saying that they won't send information, they refuse to do anything unless the UN did something, and that they refuse to listen to the UN. Confusing, but that is how confusing their responses were.

Finally, when the "drop dead" date was upon them, they said "we want more time". This always sends a signal to other people that something is up. Did Iraqs gov't (timearchy) understand that? They finally sent the information, but it was interpreted as nonsense. The communication was so bad that it convinced the US govt that they were hiding something. It seemed as they were putting on a show for the UN while doing something else under the table.

Tim

Ok, but in the meantime the weapon inspectors had no opposition, they were shown what they asked for. It's too easy to blame the UN, you should look at how the US acted too. The US belittled and insulted every country who disagreed with their lies, don't you think I have the right to tell the Bush Administration to go to hell now?

Where are the WMD's you were so afraid about? And did you know Saddam opposed organizations like Al Qaeda too?

KhawMengLee

26th April 2004, 05:23 AM

Khaw the statement i said to dennis has the same application to you aswell. We went because of the UN violations, the biggest that he had WMD since he was unable to show that he had destroyed the WMD. BTW incase you don't know the burden of proof in this case was placed squarely on saddam by the UN back after desert storm. He was considered guilty until he proved himself innocent, hence the US and the coalition made the clear assumption. God only knows where the 5,000 tons of anthrax and other chemical weapons that saddam can't quite tell where they are anymore went.

Yes, I hear you. But the UN inspection teams and the US cheif weapons inspector have both stated that Saddam didn't have those weapons. Even before the war started.

The brunt here is that the reasons for starting was bullshit. I remember Powell going before the UN showing an "intelligence" video of a truck circling a building saying it was a mobile weapons lab...saying it was irrefutable proof of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Today he says he was wrong...go figure.

You think the Iraqis like the US there? Remember what Ghandi said "We would rather prefer the bad government of our own people, than the good government of a foriegn power."

Its a Vietnam all over again. I once sat down with an old Vietnamese man and asked him about the war. One of my questions was "why" the Americans lost. He said, "At the end of the day it was my people, they(NVA) were my people, against them(AMerica)."

Fullajah, okay....Saddam's neck of the woods. But Najaf...that's shiiteville, the side that the US forces thought would be supporters. Now you have Al Qaida in there as well...something that wasn't there before.

Is the situation better...no.

KhawMengLee

26th April 2004, 05:41 AM

http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25975

Iraq
More than 600 American soldiers have died in Iraq - six more just last weekend. More than 3,000 have been wounded or maimed. Reliable accounts say more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives.

I have nothing but respect for all our American service-persons, who serve where the are told in defense of our Constitution-regardless of their politics (indeed,it seems those are their politics) as well as those private citizens who have chosen to help rebuild Iraq , and I'm glad that Saddam is no longer a dictator. I have to wonder, though, at the strategy of this administration, not only with Iraq, but with the world community and, most importantly, U.S. citizens.

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. U.S. weapons inspector David Kay- a man whose work I know, and whose opinions in this matter we all can respect - has reported that they probably weren't there,(before the war, David Kay was certain that they were there, and so was I) and that the U.S. government should honestly admit that it was mistaken. They haven't. President Bush and his administration now repeatedly say the fact that the principal argument for going to war with Iraq has turned out to be false doesn't matter. There was no "imminent" or "urgent" threat from chemical or biological weapons and Iraq wasn't developing a nuclear threat, as was claimed before the war. The best explanation is that intelligence was manipulated and selectively reported to justify a worst-case scenario previously arrived at on political grounds. The worst is that the case was fabricated. Either way, the president of the United States misled the American people into going to war. A book based on documents from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill , and the webpage of Project for A New American Century make clear that this administration decided to go to war with Iraq even before Sept. 11, and the "facts" were never the decisive factor. CIA Director George Tenet has virtually said that his agency's efforts to prevent the Bush administration from "overstatement" on Iraq were a failure.

Iraq remains chaotic and unstable. Divided factions threaten any political solution, and the largest faction - the Shiites - probably will not support a new provisional government. In July, the United States plans to turn over sovereignty to a new Iraqi government that does not yet exist, a transition that would clearly not be happening if there were no American election in the fall, again a purely political calculation. It is indeed a good thing that the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein is over, but that worthy goal should and could have been accomplished, over time, in much better ways, with greater cooperation, and with a better exit strategy for the U.S. Iraq is now a big mess with no clear or responsible exit strategy in sight and is likely to remain so for a very long time.

The Bush administration's argument that the war with Iraq was a critical battle in the war on terrorism also is not compelling. It can now be argued that the Iraq war may ultimately make the defeat of terrorism more difficult, because of the division it caused among key allies, the deeper resentment it has triggered in Muslim countries, and the failure of the war to produce the promises of democracy in Iraq or the beginning of a Middle East peace agreement, which seems further away than ever. The war in Iraq has proven to be a great distraction and diversion from the fight against terrorism, rather than a necessary component. Already, one third of Afghanistan is again under Taliban control. Osama bin Laden has yet to be found, and the networks of terror are more dispersed throughout the world. Indeed, terrorists from other countries are now in Iraq, where their bombings of civilians are exacerbating the already violent situation, and al Qaeda has carried out a successful and massive terrorist attack in Spain.

In Spain 201 people died from bombs on commuter trains, with hundreds more injured. American columnists are attacking the Spanish people for caving into terrorists because they defeated the pro-American Spanish party in their elections. What they don't say is that the vast majority of the Spanish people were against their government's decision to support the U.S. war with Iraq, which was therefore an undemocratic decision-remember all those people marching in the streets? Or that the ruling party lied to the Spanish people in an attempt to blame the commuter train attacks on Basque separatists and distract attention from al Qaeda.

What the U.S. government and its media allies seem to be saying is that the proper response of the Spanish people after being bombed should have been to vote for the policy of George W. Bush. They didn't. Good for them.

__________________
Aaron J. Cuffee

"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it.It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there...How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there?...I think to have American military forces engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in this fashion."-Then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney , 1991

dennis

26th April 2004, 05:42 AM

Oh and dennis just so you know unlike pearl harbor saddam was already targeted since desert storm 1 (you would have been around 3 at the time) and under strict UN sanctions. The US attacked because it had enough of Saddams shennanigans and inability to prove that he had destroyed his WMD.

If you know your enemy has a gun and he says "I got rid of it" so you ask to frisk him and make sure and he says "Okay but you can only touch here, here, and here. Please ignore what i have hidden everywhere else" what is the only assumption that can be made?
I am aware of the strict UN sanctions (and that debacle of an Oil-for-Food program) that were placed on iraq but why is it that we seek to attack someone who we "suspect" of having WMD's when that maniac Kim Jong Il is waving his hands in the air in N.Korea saying I have a Nuke I have a Nuke and he is threatening the use of it. Wouldnt you consider the guy holding the smoking gun more dangerous then someone you saw with a gun once (sorry for the analogy i just pulled it out of thin air as a tool to emphasize my point).

dennis

26th April 2004, 05:52 AM

oh and also in response to your statement about the antrhax, by us invading iraq we have essentially allowed any trace of that anthrax (if he had any) to be lost it is what happens whenever a regime change occurs. just like the countless suitcase nukes that are still missing from the collapse of the USSR

litige

26th April 2004, 06:00 AM

-Yes i do feel God is helping us right now in our liberation of Iraq. If he was truely against us than a country with such religiously staunch people like iraq, we would not have such a large majority (over 85% of the population) of the population supporting us in their own homelands.

I feel sorry for you.

Niels

26th April 2004, 08:36 AM

Bush: Iraq, you'd better get rid of your nuclear weapons or we'll bomb you!
Iraq: We don't have any nuclear weapons.
N Korea: We do.
Bush: Well then get rid of your chemical weapons!
Iraq: We don't have those either!
N Korea: Ummm...we have nukes now.
Bush: We KNOW you've got chemical and nuclear weapons! Get rid of them!
Iraq: Even if we did, which we don't, we can't even hit the USA!
N Korea: We can nuke California all we want.
Bush: Shuddup North Korea, no one cares! Iraq, you'd BETTER disarm!
Iraq: But we don't HAVE anything!
N Korea: Oh fuck it, blow up Los Angeles...
Bush: Iraq, I'm warning you... *BOOM*

:smiley:

KhawMengLee

26th April 2004, 08:42 AM

heh... :smiley:

litige

26th April 2004, 08:47 AM

samurai999

26th April 2004, 09:46 AM

About guns, yes, there should be more restrictions. If more guns would make a country safe, America would be the safest place on earth..... it isn't the case, so....... And why do you need an assault riflle?

Ok, but in the meantime the weapon inspectors had no opposition, they were shown what they asked for. It's too easy to blame the UN, you should look at how the US acted too. The US belittled and insulted every country who disagreed with their lies, don't you think I have the right to tell the Bush Administration to go to hell now?

Where are the WMD's you were so afraid about? And did you know Saddam opposed organizations like Al Qaeda too?

I don't know about you, but it seemed as if the European countries just didn't agree period. It didn't matter what the US did. To me, the issue is that they didn't like Bush so therefore, they disagreed in order to disagree.

Yes the UN inspectors were shown areas that were ALREADY devoid of any WMDs but nothing really else. Also IIRC, they weren't allowed access to certain areas and in addition, Iraqi officials had plenty of "advance notice" to prepare for the coming of the UN inspectors. If you were a dictator who didn't want auditors to know something and given the fact that they were coming, wouldn't you want to hide things? The way that Saddams gov't .. ahem.. timearchy presented their information and the mischevous ways they've acted in the past, I didn't really believe their intentions as truthful. Sure US actions aren't totally truthful either, but I'd rather believe in our gov't rather than an unstable dictator. As for Saddam opposing Al Qaeda, maybe he did, but his mind is wanders all the time and therefore, his intentions. He might have been harboring terrorists in one instance while stating his opposition to the public. There are billions of places for them to hide things and if they were more solid in their presentation of their case, then the US might have believed them.

As for guns, I'm not saying to put in more restrictions (more written laws), I'm saying to enforce the laws in place right now better. Also, I am not saying that America is the "safest place on Earth". Have you ever considered that some of the stats of the killed that are given out to the public INCLUDE criminals? And where did I say I needed an assault rifle? Is a 30 cal. bolt action rifle considered an assault rifle? If so, why don't we make bb guns assault rifles as well? Why don't we make paintball markers (or guns) assault rifles as well? Paintball markers and bb guns can maim or kill, why not outlaw them? This is the grey area that the argument is about in a nutshell. As for why I would want a gun I already explained this before.

Tim

Shiro

26th April 2004, 03:57 PM

I don't know about you, but it seemed as if the European countries just didn't agree period. It didn't matter what the US did. To me, the issue is that they didn't like Bush so therefore, they disagreed in order to disagree.

We weren't disagreeing just for the fun of it, we were disagreeing because we felt that the situation could become really bad if you went in. American media made it look like we did it for fun, but it wasn't the case at all. Besides, european countries weren't the only ones to disagree, so ......
And since when is it illegal to disagree with the US?

Yes the UN inspectors were shown areas that were ALREADY devoid of any WMDs but nothing really else. Also IIRC, they weren't allowed access to certain areas and in addition, Iraqi officials had plenty of "advance notice" to prepare for the coming of the UN inspectors. If you were a dictator who didn't want auditors to know something and given the fact that they were coming, wouldn't you want to hide things? The way that Saddams gov't .. ahem.. timearchy presented their information and the mischevous ways they've acted in the past, I didn't really believe their intentions as truthful. Sure US actions aren't totally truthful either, but I'd rather believe in our gov't rather than an unstable dictator. As for Saddam opposing Al Qaeda, maybe he did, but his mind is wanders all the time and therefore, his intentions. He might have been harboring terrorists in one instance while stating his opposition to the public. There are billions of places for them to hide things and if they were more solid in their presentation of their case, then the US might have believed them.

The US systematically disagreed with everyone who tried to talk them out of this war, they were the ones that didn't want to listen to anybody. The weapon inspectors could have done what they wanted, the US didn't want to agree with them period.
I remember seeing Hans Blix on the news saying they showed what the inspectors asked and that they didn't meet any opposition. Plus, it's been a year the US are in Iraq now and where are those WMD's?
Saddam harboring terrorists is very unlikely, Bin Laden, for example, didn't like Saddam because he wasn't a religious dictator. Ben Laden put his feelings aside when the US were about to attack Iraq and said Iraq should be helped, but before that, they were more like enemies.

As for guns, I'm not saying to put in more restrictions (more written laws), I'm saying to enforce the laws in place right now better. Also, I am not saying that America is the "safest place on Earth". Have you ever considered that some of the stats of the killed that are given out to the public INCLUDE criminals? And where did I say I needed an assault rifle? Is a 30 cal. bolt action rifle considered an assault rifle? If so, why don't we make bb guns assault rifles as well? Why don't we make paintball markers (or guns) assault rifles as well? Paintball markers and bb guns can maim or kill, why not outlaw them? This is the grey area that the argument is about in a nutshell. As for why I would want a gun I already explained this before.

I don't know a lot about gun names, I just assumed the model you wanted was an assault rifle because you talked about assault rifles right after it, sorry for that :). But still, why do you need a gun?

Bleda

26th April 2004, 05:29 PM

Shiro

26th April 2004, 06:19 PM

Actually shiro Cherac came out and stated that he would oppose any US resolution "because we can". He was basically confessing that his whole reason for opposing the US is because he felt like it at the time.

So? He has the right to oppose the US and he used it then, no big deal. He didn't do anything illegal, he just used France's veto in the security council.
I thought your 'dear President' didn't care about other countries, so why do you talk about this now?
Chirac is not the only one wo opposed the war, so it's quite inaccurate to point a finger only to him.

Bleda

27th April 2004, 12:18 AM

Shiro

27th April 2004, 01:25 AM

Right above you said
"We weren't disagreeing just for the fun of it, we were disagreeing because we felt that the situation could become really bad if you went in."
Cherac basically said he was disagreeing for the fun of it. That and he didn't want to loose his cheap cheap oil and trade he was getting from Iraq.

With we I mean Belgium and last time I checked Chirac is the President of France. It's not because Chirac disagreed for the fun of it that the others were doing it.
I do agree on the fact he didn't want to loose his cheap oil, but then again, he did what was legally available for him (the veto in the security council), so what's wrong? He didn't start a war based on lies.
The only reason you don't like him is that he refused to kiss Bush's behind, that's all.
And this proves my point: as soon as things don't go your sweet administration's way they start whining and complaining like a bully that doesn't get a toy or something.

samurai999

27th April 2004, 02:03 AM

We weren't disagreeing just for the fun of it, we were disagreeing because we felt that the situation could become really bad if you went in. American media made it look like we did it for fun, but it wasn't the case at all. Besides, european countries weren't the only ones to disagree, so ......
And since when is it illegal to disagree with the US?

A lot of Europeans didn't like Bush to begin with to me. Even before the invasions and starting from the point where he won the election. The Europeans (well at least the ones I knew) were used to and liked Clinton a lot and were disgusted that Bush won against Clinton's understudy. And for the record, Dole did win the '96 election but thanks to Perot, Clinton won. Same thing except in reverse in 2000 with Bush and Nader. It seems like a lot of this rides on the media since they can inform and therefore INFLUENCE a lot of people. I thought the media here was generally all leaning towards the liberal side so they lean towards being against Bush. Plus they made every Democratic president seem like God while they made every Rep. president or presidential candidate (Especially in Norcal) seem like the "bad guy". Not just Bush.

The US systematically disagreed with everyone who tried to talk them out of this war, they were the ones that didn't want to listen to anybody. The weapon inspectors could have done what they wanted, the US didn't want to agree with them period.
I remember seeing Hans Blix on the news saying they showed what the inspectors asked and that they didn't meet any opposition. Plus, it's been a year the US are in Iraq now and where are those WMD's?
Saddam harboring terrorists is very unlikely, Bin Laden, for example, didn't like Saddam because he wasn't a religious dictator. Ben Laden put his feelings aside when the US were about to attack Iraq and said Iraq should be helped, but before that, they were more like enemies.

I could say the same for Europe. They systematically disagreed with the US. Why? They almost always agreed with Clinton? And I still think those WMDs are somewhere. Saddams timarchy didn't give the world a clear answer as to where they were. Even the captured scientists and officials would give unclear answers. From that, I mean one answer at one time and another answer the next.

I don't know a lot about gun names, I just assumed the model you wanted was an assault rifle because you talked about assault rifles right after it, sorry for that :). But still, why do you need a gun?

Which one? The bb gun? I don't really want one. A paintball gun (marker?)? To play paintball. It is a growing sport in America as well as internationally. A .30cal bolt action? Again, this gun at the most is a semi auto gun if you put in a clip and even then, you need to move the action repeatedly to fire the next round. I would like to use this gun for marksmanship and hunting. I have merit badges in rifle and shotgun for Boy Scouts and always had fun doing target practice. There is a BIG difference btwn a bolt action rifle and an assault rifle.

my 0.02$(US),
Tim

mingshi

27th April 2004, 03:00 AM

Remember the man in Britain who went on a shooting rampage in the school yard a while back? The law didn't really help prevent that, did it? I can go on and on about this stuff, but the point is more gun laws hurt the responsible, law abiding citizen more than the criminal.

Incidentally I did a short (graphic design) project on gun violence during my undergrad years... slightly before Bowling for Columbine was screened in Cannes. Anyway here's what you need to know before arguing about what gun laws you would like to choose. Besides looking at the age of the "criminals", on many occations the guns involved were obtained legally by an adult. You just never know your kids have the ablity to unlock wherever you hide your guns...

*********************
THE ARCHIVE PROJECT
--a series of factual data about school shootings
(the following is a simplified version without details of what happened and follow-ups... See what you can remember... Newest first - and only 2 were from outside USA)

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

Date: Apr 26, 2002
Location: Johann Gutenberg High School, Erfurt, Germany
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Robert Steinhaeuser (19)
No. of Victims: 16 dead, 1 injured
Arsenal: Austrian-made Glock 17 pistol, a pump-action shotgun (not used). He was a member of a gun club.

Date: Mar 5, 2001
Location: Santana High School, Santee, California, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Charles Andrew Williams (15)
No. of Victims: 2 dead, 13 injured
Arsenal: .22-caliber handgun (kept locked in his father's carbinet)

Date: May 26, 2000
Location: Lake Worth Community Middle School, Lake Worth, Florida, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Nathaniel Brazil (13)
No. of Victims: 1 dead
Arsenal: .25-caliber pistol (took from his grandfather's house)

Date: Feb 29, 2000
Location: Buell Elementary School, Mt. Morris Township, Michcan, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): (name disclosed) Age 6
No. of Victims: 1 dead
Arsenal: .32-caliber semiautomatic pistol

Date: Jan 19, 2000
Location: Ridgewood High School, New Port Richey, Florida, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Steven Moschella (17)
No. of Victims: 1 dead
Arsenal: .22-caliber handgun (stolen days earlier during a string of burgularies)

Date: May 20, 1999
Location: Heritage High School, Conyers, Georgia, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): TJ Solomon (15)
No. of Victims: 6 injured
Arsenal: .357-caliber Magnum pistol, .22-caliber rifle (from his stepfather's locked gun carbinet)

Date: Apr 20, 1999
Location: Columbine High School, Littleton, Colorado, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Eric Harris (18), Dyland Klebold (17)
No. of Victims: 13 dead, 23 injured
Arsenal: Intratec-Dc9 handgun, Hi-point 9mm rifle, Sawed-off double barrel shotgun, pump-action shotgun, 2 20lbs Propane bomb, 24 pipe bombs

Date: Jun 15, 1998
Location: (Unidentified high school) Richmond, Virginia, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Quinshawn Booker (14)
No. of Victims: 2 injured
Arsenal: .32-caliber semiautomatic rifle

Date: May 21, 1998
Location: Thurston High School, Springfield, Oregon, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Kipland Kinkel (16)
No. of Victims: 4 dead, 22 injured
Arsenal: .22-caliber Ruger semi-automatic rifle, Glock 9mm pistol (bought by his father)

Date: May 19, 1998
Location: Lincoln Country High School, Fayetteville, Tennessee, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Jacob Davis (18)
No. of Victims: 1 dead
Arsenal: Magnum bolt-action rifle

Date: Apr 24, 1998
Location: Parker Middle School, Edinboro, Pennsylvania, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Andrew Wurst (14)
No. of Victims: 1 dead, 2 injured
Arsenal: .25-caliber handgun

Date: Mar 24, 1998
Location: Westside Middel School, Jonesboro, Arkansas, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Andrew Golden (11), Mitchell Johnson (13)
No. of Victims: 4 dead, 10 injured
Arsenal: Remington .30-06 rifle, .44 caliber Ruger, Smith $ Wesson .38 revolver, Remington 742, Unversal .30-caliber rifle, stolen from Golden's grandfather

Date: Dec 1, 1997
Location: Heath High School, West Paducah, Kentucky, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Michael Carneal (14)
No. of Victims: 3 dead, 5 injured
Arsenal: .22-caliber Ruger pistol

Date: Oct 1, 1997
Location: Pearl High School, Pearl, Mississippi, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Luke Woodham (16)
No. of Victims: 3 dead, 7 injured
Arsenal: .30-caliber hunting rifle

Date: Feb 19, 1997
Location: Bethel Regional High School, Bethel, Alaska, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Evan Ramsey (16)
No. of Victims: 2 dead, 2 injured
Arsenal: pump-action shotgun

Date: Mar 13, 1996
Location: Dunblane Primary School, Dunblane, Scotland, UK
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Thomas Hamilton (43)
No. of Victims: 17 dead, 14 injured
Arsenal: 2 Browning 9mm Hi-Power handguns, 2 Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum handgun

Date: Feb 02, 1996
Location: Frontier Junior High, Moses Lake, Washington, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Barry Loukaitas (14)
No. of Victims: 3 dead, 1 injured
Arsenal: Assault rifle, 2 handguns, 78 rounds of ammunition

Date: Nov 15, 1995
Location: Richland School, Lynnville, Tennessee, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Jamie Rouse (17)
No. of Victims: 2 dead, 1 injured
Arsenal: Stolen rifle .22-caliber with 400 rounds of ammunition

Date: May 26, 1994
Location: Ryle High School, Union, Kentucky, USA
Name(s) and Age (brackets) of suspect(s): Clay Shrout (17)
No. of Victims: 4 dead
Arsenal: .380 Colt, locked in the glove compartment fo his father's Jeep Cherokee

KhawMengLee

27th April 2004, 03:09 AM

Which one? The bb gun? I don't really want one. A paintball gun (marker?)? To play paintball. It is a growing sport in America as well as internationally. A .30cal bolt action? Again, this gun at the most is a semi auto gun if you put in a clip and even then, you need to move the action repeatedly to fire the next round. I would like to use this gun for marksmanship and hunting. I have merit badges in rifle and shotgun for Boy Scouts and always had fun doing target practice. There is a BIG difference btwn a bolt action rifle and an assault rifle.

my 0.02$(US),
Tim

U sure dude...? I just got a FN P90...modified to full metal specs, RIS rails installed, Walther Red dot scope and tuned to a nice and painfull 380-450 fps. Waiting ot do the same to my M4A1...maybe next month after I get me paycheck;)

Actually shiro Cherac came out and stated that he would oppose any US resolution "because we can". He was basically confessing that his whole reason for opposing the US is because he felt like it at the time.

Yep, and the bush administration has used their veto to support their butt buddy Israel. Oh, Jenin massacre investigation...ummm...oh, Israel says to veto it....okay. Assasination of Hamas leadership to destabilize the Palestinian state...okay no probs...well, Veto any opposition from the UN.

The main concern here is that the basic american joe/jane is a person like you and I are just people. I meet u on the street we can be friends.BUT> The foriegn policies of the Administration are going to come back and bite the public in the arse. And the public are the ones who suffer. 9-11...where do think that came from? From the Administration's and past admins likes with Bin Laden. Future attacks will follow...not just from Al Qaida but now from younger fanatics made up from sympathisers overseas and Iraqis who lost their loved ones in Iraq(ie. collateral damage victims). Is Bush stopping terrorism...no. Is he making us safer...no.

This gung ho go in with blazing guns attitude just leads to trouble. Take the Black Hawk Down incident, bad planning and underestimating the enemy created a major cluster fuck for the US troops. Not only that but the US commander had the audacity to demand, not request, Malaysian and Pakistani troops send their APC's in. And they get mad when the commander refused to respond immediately, even scuffing at his reason that because they did not deem to inform him of the operation he needs more time to arrange logistics. I mean they had a spy there...why not follow the target to where he stays and extract him at night...better than trying to do it in broad daylight.

Same in Iraq...repeating the old misttakes of the Germans, using the Blitzkreig tactic of fast hits and heavy assault. Unfortunately, you gained territory but not the local support. There is no security infrastructure set up...and now every day more trouble and deaths happen.

Better to er on the side of caution than to rush in blindly.

Bleda

27th April 2004, 04:08 AM

Way to take the statement out of context khaw lol. Got to love blind-side debating tactics such as "shit he's got us, quick change the subject to something that no one is even talking about!". I'm going to have to disagree with your comparison to Black hawk down and iraq. The US DOES have the support of the general population in Iraq. The average citizen is quite happy to not be under threat of death from their government constantly. Someone used ghandi's quote and i must say that ghandi has never lived in a land with a maniacal dictator. If you think for one second that a country such as cuba under the dictatorship of Castro would not welcome a foreign "forced" democratic government then you aswell don't know what its like. It's easy to say alot of stuff but until you've experienced it you just can't say how a person would really feel about it. I just wish the US would decide that cuba has enough strategic value to go in rape the army and pull an iraq on it so i can finally visit it with out having to worry about being arrested and inprisoned for doing absolutely nothing.

To shiro, What happened to this great European Union you just finished saying was like one big country with France as a major leader in it? So when its convenient you lump yourself into the group but if things start to turn a little sour you throw em to the wolves. BTW the war in Iraq was technically legal since it was enforcing current sanctions and ample time was given for Iraq to come into compliance. War was declared and carried out, no assasinations, no war crimes.

Also someone said that all that missing anthrax will now be unaccounted for, does that mean you too believe that it was infact in iraq before the war and now gone? Guess that means even YOU believe there were WMD there prior to the invasion.

KhawMengLee

27th April 2004, 05:37 AM

Way to take the statement out of context khaw lol. Got to love blind-side debating tactics such as "shit he's got us, quick change the subject to something that no one is even talking about!". I'm going to have to disagree with your comparison to Black hawk down and iraq. The US DOES have the support of the general population in Iraq. The average citizen is quite happy to not be under threat of death from their government constantly.

Yup, sure...general population support...yup

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040426/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_20

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An explosion leveled part of a building as U.S. troops searched it for suspected "chemical munitions" on Monday, an American general said. Two soldiers were killed and five wounded, and a cheering mob of Iraqis looted their wrecked Humvees, taking away weapons, a helmet and a bandolier.

erm...I also do not recall anyone getting my by the plumbs...how so? Your contention is that:

Iraq is better- erm...no...bombings every other day. Food shortage, water, etc and general poverty.

Iraq is safer- erm...once again as above.

Iraqis(Majority) love the Coalition- erm...rite...so thats why both shiite and sunni groups are rebelling. And every time a US convoy is hit and Soldiers die the crowd throw a party.

US never lied about WMDs- The UN weapons team, said he had none. Period. This was during the time Colin Powell was selling his BS about mobile weapons labs, which I need remind you he admitted as false. The US top weapons inspector too now says Iraq has nothing.

I think it is you that keeps evading our replies. Every time we make a case with facts you seem to repeat your argument with no basis...ah, well...can't argue with a fanatic(tho, this probably applies to us too;))

KhawMengLee

27th April 2004, 05:42 AM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=1&u=/ap/20040426/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_barzani_interview

Just to add...talk about biting the hand that feeds you...

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The current president of Iraq (news - web sites)'s U.S.-picked Governing Council, Massoud Barzani, said Monday that American mistakes helped lead to the military deadlock outside of Najaf and Fallujah because Washington allowed "an army of liberation" to become "an army of occupation."

Barzani, the head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, led an anti-Saddam Kurdish militia for decades.

When asked what he would do to resolve the sieges of Fallujah and Najaf, Barzani said: "If it were me, I wouldn't have allowed it to come to this by making earlier mistakes."

"I probably wouldn't have made the mistake of letting an army of liberation turn into an army of occupation," Barzani said. "This was the biggest mistake."

He said an Iraqi interim government should have been quickly set up after the war.

Iraq's army should have been reformed and restructured rather than disbanded and Iraqi troops should have been patrolling cities rather than U.S. soldiers.

"Certain problems could have been avoided had it been done in a better manner," Barzani said.

Shiro

27th April 2004, 06:43 AM

Way to take the statement out of context khaw lol. Got to love blind-side debating tactics such as "shit he's got us, quick change the subject to something that no one is even talking about!".

Nice try, but what Khaw said is not off topic to me. Off course, you don't think that way because you probably still think we're radical anti-americans and that all we say is bs......

The average citizen is quite happy to not be under threat of death from their government constantly. Someone used ghandi's quote and i must say that ghandi has never lived in a land with a maniacal dictator. If you think for one second that a country such as cuba under the dictatorship of Castro would not welcome a foreign "forced" democratic government then you aswell don't know what its like. It's easy to say alot of stuff but until you've experienced it you just can't say how a person would really feel about it. I just wish the US would decide that cuba has enough strategic value to go in rape the army and pull an iraq on it so i can finally visit it with out having to worry about being arrested and inprisoned for doing absolutely nothing.

How do you know for sure the people are happy there? I don't think they are happy at all.... As you said yourself, they had schools and hospitals with Saddam, now they have to be careful not to become colateral damage every time they go out.....

To shiro, What happened to this great European Union you just finished saying was like one big country with France as a major leader in it? So when its convenient you lump yourself into the group but if things start to turn a little sour you throw em to the wolves. BTW the war in Iraq was technically legal since it was enforcing current sanctions and ample time was given for Iraq to come into compliance. War was declared and carried out, no assasinations, no war crimes.

When did I say Europe was one big country?
The European Union is a union of countries, not one country. There is a special bond between countries like France, Germany and Belgium, for example. I don't consider France as my leader, I consider it as a friend, besides, the capital of Europe (and the place where the Nato is located) is Brussels (the capital of Belgium, in case you don't know).
And when did I say I disagreed with Chirac on this? I just said it was true France has/had oild dealings with Iraq. I even support Chirac's decision. Why would he have caved in to the US war ideology if he didn't believe it would be good or if he didn't feel good about it?

Also someone said that all that missing anthrax will now be unaccounted for, does that mean you too believe that it was infact in iraq before the war and now gone? Guess that means even YOU believe there were WMD there prior to the invasion.

There were WMD's, I agree on that. But these are the WMD's the US gave him :).

Bleda

27th April 2004, 09:13 AM

Khaw the Un inspectors never said that there were no WMD's in iraq. They stated that iraq was unable to come up with evidence for the missing WMD that were there after desert storm and had suddenly dissapeared.

I disagree on iraq being better or not. Terrorism is occuring but also much good is happening, electicity, clean water, schools, economic growth are all occuring now as a result of the invasion. the terrorist attakcs are fairly isolated in their locations centering mostly in the same areas that are dominated by the minority rebels. I guess this is a matter of view but i see it as getting better not worse. @ shiro saddam BEGAN those projects, he abandoned them later and left the country in ruins. do a little research on iraq its pretty obvious how shitty a job he was doing and how maniacle the man truely was (hey prisoners err citizens i know i have over 15 palaces but i need another one, all of ya'll are going to have to cut down to 1/2 a meal a day now!).

Also khaw the majority of the iraq public does support the US at the moment. Every poll they have taken of citizens shows that the overwhelming majority support the US troop right now and the rebel numbers are extremely low as compared to the # of people in iraq. Its like saying the entire country of belgium is a bunch of criminals next time someone is sentenced to jail.

Shiro you're going to love this but did you know that Belgium, France, and England all supported both Iraq AND iran during the Iran-Iraq war? Even better the US sold NO weapons to IRAQ, the onlything the US provided to iraq during this time was intelligence on the iranian positions (both real and fake). Its weapons were all sold to Iran and did not include chemical weapons. FRANCE was the main provider of Iraq's high-tech weapons in 1982 contrary to the claim that it was the US that sold them to Iraq and the USSR supplied the AFV's, assault rifles, planes, and munitions.

samurai999

27th April 2004, 03:42 PM

Incidentally I did a short (graphic design) project on gun violence during my undergrad years... slightly before Bowling for Columbine was screened in Cannes. Anyway here's what you need to know before arguing about what gun laws you would like to choose. Besides looking at the age of the "criminals", on many occations the guns involved were obtained legally by an adult. You just never know your kids have the ablity to unlock wherever you hide your guns...

Ahh.. Bowling for Columbine featuring Americas favorite (and biased) ultra-liberal director Michael Moore. All of these crimes you list were comitted due to irresponsible acts by parents, gun owners, etc. Unfortunately even registered gun owners can be irresponsible. One of our members at my dojo collected rifles and used them for marksmanship tournaments. He has two kids at home and they can't even find his guns nonetheless look at them. For the kids at littleton, jonesboro, etc. They all had irresponsible parents who obtained guns legally, didn't take care of them and left them for their kids to use. Kids at that age don't really know any better/ aren't responsible enough to handle guns. Therefore it is upon the parents to be responsible for them. Most of the irresponsible parents I knew at home didn't have a lock for their guns, left them in easy reach of their children or left them in their kitchen cabinets or drawers, and didn't watch their kids because they were too lazy to watch them or were too busy. Therefore there isn't any reason for them to buy a gun is there? It is these types of people who ruin it for the other people who actually follow the law and owns their firearms responsibly. Again, instead of more laws that introduce more loopholes and give democratic lawmakers every reason to ban guns from the US, lets enforce the existing laws better.

Tim

Shiro

27th April 2004, 07:28 PM

Khaw the Un inspectors never said that there were no WMD's in iraq. They stated that iraq was unable to come up with evidence for the missing WMD that were there after desert storm and had suddenly dissapeared.

Yes, they said it..... I remember Hans Blix clearly saying it but the biased american media probably never showed that.....
The US has been in Iraq for a year now, having acces to the whole country, what did they find? NOTHING!

I disagree on iraq being better or not. Terrorism is occuring but also much good is happening, electicity, clean water, schools, economic growth are all occuring now as a result of the invasion. the terrorist attakcs are fairly isolated in their locations centering mostly in the same areas that are dominated by the minority rebels. I guess this is a matter of view but i see it as getting better not worse. @ shiro saddam BEGAN those projects, he abandoned them later and left the country in ruins. do a little research on iraq its pretty obvious how shitty a job he was doing and how maniacle the man truely was (hey prisoners err citizens i know i have over 15 palaces but i need another one, all of ya'll are going to have to cut down to 1/2 a meal a day now!).
Also khaw the majority of the iraq public does support the US at the moment. Every poll they have taken of citizens shows that the overwhelming majority support the US troop right now and the rebel numbers are extremely low as compared to the # of people in iraq. Its like saying the entire country of belgium is a bunch of criminals next time someone is sentenced to jail.

What Iraq are you talking about? I check CNN Europe on a regular basis and every time they talk about Iraq they show fights, ruined streets, explosions, smoke, Iraqis dancing on exploded humvees...... yeees, they reeeeeeeeaally support you....... I never said Saddam was a saint, but at least the streets were safe with him......
And the fact there are more soldiers killed in action after the war than during the war isn't exactly doing your point a favor......

I had a good laugh when you talked about the poll..... :)
Off course the overwhelming majority that takes the poll is pro US.... I don't think a lot of people who oppose the US would have taken the poll..... Imagine a guy, shooting at the US, dropping his gun for a couple of minutes to answer the poll.... :)
But seriously, a poll in this situation can in no way be accurate.

Shiro you're going to love this but did you know that Belgium, France, and England all supported both Iraq AND iran during the Iran-Iraq war? Even better the US sold NO weapons to IRAQ, the onlything the US provided to iraq during this time was intelligence on the iranian positions (both real and fake). Its weapons were all sold to Iran and did not include chemical weapons. FRANCE was the main provider of Iraq's high-tech weapons in 1982 contrary to the claim that it was the US that sold them to Iraq and the USSR supplied the AFV's, assault rifles, planes, and munitions.

I know the US weren't the only ones to support Iran or Iraq... :p But now you are blaming France for providing weapons to a country that the US considered as an ally back then...... somehow, that doesn't sound very logical.....

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.

Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions.

I still heard from various sources you did give weapons to Iraq and until you prove me it's wrong, I will believe they really did. This already proves you gave money to Iraq in order to allow it to buy weapons.

I don't know if Belgium provided weapons or not (though I think we didn't), but I did a little research and all I could find was about MEDICAL support. I don't know if you're aware of it, but Belgium is sort of neutral.... so I don't think it's that bad that we provided medical support to both sides.....

Bleda

28th April 2004, 12:24 AM

Not a single source claims the US provided weapons to Iraq so until you can find one that does I consider you wrong. Every single report agrees that france gave the hi-tech. Russia gave the AFV's, rifles, and general munitions, the US gave money (as did many many many nations) and intelligence. The US's weapons went to Iran just as your own source said right there that you quoted.

The United States provided intelligence information, bogus and real, to both sides, provided arms to one side, funded paramilitary exile groups, sought military bases, and sent in the U.S. Navy
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

Its not a very flattering article for the US, infact it points out every major wrong we did in the Iran-Iraq war and yet it can't even say we sold weapons to iraq. This was corroborated by UN troops in desert storm btw. I know quite a few soldiers i asked about this since this debate started, the only US hardware they faced were WWII relics such as pineapple grenades and some mines. The rest of the weapons were soviet and french orgin.

The US has been in Iraq for a year now, having acces to the whole country, what did they find? NOTHING! The US was in europe for 5 years before they found the first concentration camp. Did those exsist or do you believe we made them up too? Even if they don't find WMD's the plain and simple fact is that there was reasonable and justifiable cause to believe they were refusing to disarm their known WMD's (mainly because they were unable to state otherwise as they had said for other chemical agents). If a police with probable cause searches your house and finds nothing except for murdered citizens, illicit materiel, and illegal plans then did he do something illegal because he couldn't find the thing he was looking for?

I check CNN Europe on a regular basis
Try watching the stories that aren't named something along the lines of "More rebel attacks in fallujah" or "Blast rocks same troublesome district of baghdad". I've seen actually quite a few stories about iraqi schools, iraqi government, iraqi police, iraqi children, iraqi hospitals. If you are only looking for the bad, thats all you will see. Take the blinders off and look at all the news.

Imagine a guy, shooting at the US, dropping his gun for a couple of minutes to answer the poll...
First of all the ARMED resistance that you just described is less than 5% of the population. You're litterally talking a couple thousand out of the millions of iraqi's. Second they take polls from anyone and everyone and usually the people that take polls are the ones that have somethign to complain about to get their "voice" out. 3rd, even if it is just pro-US thats still more people already than the rebels have lol. Why not actually look up the polls instead of bashing something you obviously didn't think through.

I don't know if you're aware of it, but Belgium is sort of neutral.
Belgium supported both dictators during the war supplying money to both sides as international credit and medical aid. You weren't nuetral, you played both sides and called it humanitarian aid.

samurai999

29th April 2004, 06:47 AM

Shiro

29th April 2004, 06:54 PM

My friends over here don't call CNN the "communist news network" for nothing. :D News reporters, though their primary job is to present fact, can put their own spin on the facts and call it fact. People who are watching this, many times, are influenced by these tidbits of information.

Tim

Well, then you know what I think about real American media like Fox and stuff..... :) They're doing the same, but with conservative ideals..... :)
But, "communist news network" or not, when I see gunfire and fights in a country it's NOT going well there..... And I'm not only seeing this on CNN, but on every media that talks about it! You will criticize whatever I say as long as I don't agree with you, anyway, so......

Now to Bleda:
I'm giving you some credit about the US giving weapons to Iraq, but I still doubt it. But still.... giving intelligence to one side and weapons to the other is still nothing to be proud about.
And about Belgium supporting both dictators..... I'd like to see where you got that info from.... I did a research and I didn't find anything. And don't come blabbing about "but you only checked anti-american/pro-belgian/pro-EU/liberal/communist sources!", just show me where you found the info and I'll take a look at it. And giving humanitarian aid to both parties of a conflict is not a breach of neutrality. Who are you to talk? Your nation created more mess through the CIA and shit like that than any other country!

D-day happened on June 6th 1944 and the war ended in May 1945..... don't know where you got those 5 years from..... besides, the extermination camps were located in eastern Europe, so it's kinda normal you didn't find any of them going through France and Belgium. The RAF flew over them a couple of times but couldn't make out what they really were and I think the Russians found the first ones. And about the concentration camps, yes, there were concentration camps in western Europe, but it would have really been a shame if you only found them after 5 years......
Look at this map: http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blmap.htm
And there you have it..... I don't agree with you so you try to insult me..... No, I'm not a negationist, in fact, my grandfathers and several uncles of my parents are WWII veterans and WWII I consider very intresting, as a matter of fact. Actually, your statement about the camps is simply wrong, so you're the one inventing stuff about it.

Now back to Iraq.... if they really had such dangerous weapons, how come Iraq fell that easily? I know you don't like this, but the credibilty of the US towards other countries is SERIOUSLY undermined by the fact it's been a year and that you still haven't found anything. I remember Colin Powell at the Security Council, waving with pictures and documents, saying he was ABSOLUTELY sure they had WMD's, he even knew where some of they were..... now, one year later, the US found zip, nada, nothing .... Colin Powell even admitted the reports were fake, isn't it obvious he lied about it?

I'm not saying the US aren't trying to do something good for the people there, I'm saying the US went in without caring about what would happen after the war, thinking that it would straighten itself out "just because we're the US".
The liberation of the Iraqi people clearly wasn't a top priority on Bush's agenda.
Why are you bombing Fallujah if everything's all right? Why aren't there any US soldiers in some city if everything's going well?
Forget those polls, it's NOT going well. You really think I will believe you when you say Iraqis want you there when I see things like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3667205.stm ?
What is your 'president' trying to do? Upset the whole Arab world? Then he's doing great! I mean fully supporting Israel.... smart move when you try to pacify a muslim country, really......

Hell, I'm not scared of terrorists, I'm scared of a "US President" with an IQ less than his shoesize......

Shiro

30th April 2004, 02:36 AM

AWWWWWW How cute, Bush and Cheney together in front of the 9/11 comission..... Why are they so scared to testify under oath? :D
And why are they testifying together? Are they scared they might contradict each other? :D

Shouldn't Bush testify in front of the American people, anyway? He's always ranting on about how righteous he is, about how pure his intentions are... He shouldn't have anything to hide, right? :D

Bleda

30th April 2004, 03:25 AM

But, "communist news network" or not, when I see gunfire and fights in a country it's NOT going well there..... And I'm not only seeing this on CNN, but on every media that talks about it! You will criticize whatever I say as long as I don't agree with you, anyway, so......
Must not be going well in Ireland, must not be going well in pakistan, must not be going well in nepal, must not be going well in most african nations, must not be going well for columbia, must not be going well... The list goes on and on. If you ignore the good and only look for the bad then no where in the world is it going well.

I'm giving you some credit about the US giving weapons to Iraq, but I still doubt it. But still.... giving intelligence to one side and weapons to the other is still nothing to be proud about.
And about Belgium supporting both dictators..... I'd like to see where you got that info from.... I did a research and I didn't find anything. And don't come blabbing about "but you only checked anti-american/pro-belgian/pro-EU/liberal/communist sources!", just show me where you found the info and I'll take a look at it. And giving humanitarian aid to both parties of a conflict is not a breach of neutrality. Who are you to talk? Your nation created more mess through the CIA and shit like that than any other country!
Ehhh wrong, pretty much every major nation has done the same if not worse. Russia through out the cold war was influencing western powers. Did you know that a large percentage of anti-war media during the Vietnam era was started by russian operatives? What about the british through out the world aswell? Need a specific example try Nigeria. Or perhaps somethign closer to home such as all of the belgium colonies that were in Africa. They didn't seem to be given independence very easily now did they? Bottom line is every country does this, criticizing one country while ignoring the others is ignorant.

D-day happened on June 6th 1944 and the war ended in May 1945..... don't know where you got those 5 years from..... besides, the extermination camps were located in eastern Europe, so it's kinda normal you didn't find any of them going through France and Belgium. The RAF flew over them a couple of times but couldn't make out what they really were and I think the Russians found the first ones. And about the concentration camps, yes, there were concentration camps in western Europe, but it would have really been a shame if you only found them after 5 years......
Wow i didn't know WWII started on D-day, dang that whole thing bout the fighting starting in 1939 musta been a lie...

Now back to Iraq.... if they really had such dangerous weapons, how come Iraq fell that easily? Superior tactics, armament, and leadership. The iraqi's didn't expect us to attack so quickly and with such a withering amount of air power. The war was fought mostly from the air negating their ground weapons since their airforce was decimated right from the get go. Its a text book air assault.

I know you don't like this, but the credibilty of the US towards other countries is SERIOUSLY undermined by the fact it's been a year and that you still haven't found anything. I remember Colin Powell at the Security Council, waving with pictures and documents, saying he was ABSOLUTELY sure they had WMD's, he even knew where some of they were..... now, one year later, the US found zip, nada, nothing .... Colin Powell even admitted the reports were fake, isn't it obvious he lied about it? I would be interested to see where he said the reports were fake. And what is he lieing about? That iraq was unable to present any type of proof that they had disarmed their KNOWN WMD's that were there since the gulf war? Or is he lieing about Iraq being in violation of over 12 seperate UN resolutions before the war and refusing access to many areas of the country to UN weapons inspectors? I find it funny how our credibility is damaged by this but the other 40 or so nations involved aren't mentioned nor the fact that France's most obvious reason for opposing the war was that they had the largest foreign investment in Iraq.

I'm not saying the US aren't trying to do something good for the people there, I'm saying the US went in without caring about what would happen after the war, thinking that it would straighten itself out "just because we're the US". Where are you getting this from? The US had a plan for after the war since the inception. As soon as the war was over the US moved in many many companies to rebuild the infrastructure and economy of the country along with creating a new governing body that would try to sattisfy all the people of iraq. The massive rebuilding effort that is going on over there isn't something that just happened to be thrown together at a whim you know.

Why are you bombing Fallujah if everything's all right? Why aren't there any US soldiers in some city if everything's going well?
Forget those polls, it's NOT going well. Not everyone is able to accept change. It is an unfortunate consequence that the muslim religion is structured for follower to almost blindly follow a leader no matter what the cause. People that had good jobs working for Saddam, ex-military still loyal to saddam, radicals that believe anything non-arab is evil, are all causes of rebellion. Every rebellion has its strong points in this cause the 2 main strong points is fallujah and the city with Al-Sadr (i couldn't spell it if i wanted to so not going to bother butchering the name). Its obviously not going bad for the US or the iraqi's there when more power, schools, hospitals, phones, food, housing, police, and commerce are all going on though as opposed to before the war.

What is your 'president' trying to do? Upset the whole Arab world? Then he's doing great! I mean fully supporting Israel.... smart move when you try to pacify a muslim country, really...... So we are supposed to let Israel be crushed b/c some people who are angry about loosing a horrid dictator get their panties in a bunch? Bottom line is the fighting over there stems from stupidity and ignorance not politics. If we didn't support israel the leaders would find some other reason to hate the western world and the followers would still blow themselves up with the same enthusiasm.

litige

30th April 2004, 07:05 AM

Shouldn't Bush testify in front of the American people, anyway? He's always ranting on about how righteous he is, about how pure his intentions are... He shouldn't have anything to hide, right? :D

I tought of that too....pretty lame of him. Maybe he is afraid we see how stupid he is.

Shiro

30th April 2004, 08:58 AM

Must not be going well in Ireland, must not be going well in pakistan, must not be going well in nepal, must not be going well in most african nations, must not be going well for columbia, must not be going well... The list goes on and on. If you ignore the good and only look for the bad then no where in the world is it going well.

Don't try to change the subject, I'm talking about the behaviour of your government not about something else. Iraq is or will soon be worse than it was with Saddam and it's the US that are responsible for it.

Ehhh wrong, pretty much every major nation has done the same if not worse. Russia through out the cold war was influencing western powers. Did you know that a large percentage of anti-war media during the Vietnam era was started by russian operatives? What about the british through out the world aswell? Need a specific example try Nigeria. Or perhaps somethign closer to home such as all of the belgium colonies that were in Africa. They didn't seem to be given independence very easily now did they? Bottom line is every country does this, criticizing one country while ignoring the others is ignorant.

I asked you where you found out about Belgium supporting both dictators and if your only argument is "pretty much every major nation has done the same", I'll think you just made that up.....
You know how many people were suspected of being Russian operatives or communist back then? Everyone who publicly opposed the war could have been labeled that..... :)
Oh I know the US isn't the only country that did something wrong on this planet, the only difference is that the USA has an organisation whose main job is starting shit around the world (yep, that's the CIA I'm talking about).
Yes, Belgium made a big mistake with Congo (and don't say colonies, we had only one). Yes, Belgium isn't innocent in the Lumumba case and Belgium left Congo in the hands of Mobutu. We made errors, but we try to clean them up.
We don't start wars because of some hidden agenda, we didn't kill or topple elected leaders in foreign countries only to serve our own intrests. In some way you're right..... there are very few countries that are truly innocent, but the US seemed to collect blunders throughout the 20th century, it's almost like there's a contest between presidents of who makes the biggest!

I love it when Bush starts about freedom..... He passes laws that could have been passed by despots and then tells everybody he wants freedom.....
There's two kind of freedoms to me..... the regular freedom and the american freedom, where you are free as long as you're braindead and not questionning anything.....

And you obviously have a big sense of solidarity to...... The UK is virtually the only major country that still supports the US (I'm not counting Italy, Berlusconi is about to fall..... ok, Blair too, but he still tries to keep appearances high..... :)) and you still pull out bad stuff about them... nice example of what I hate about some Americans, really..... :D Allies are worth something to the US until they can sacrifice them to save their own butt.... brilliant.....

Wow i didn't know WWII started on D-day, dang that whole thing bout the fighting starting in 1939 musta been a lie...

I said D-day happened on June 6th 1944, where in this sentence do I imply the war started that day? The war started on September 1st 1939 with the invasion of Poland, I knew that, thank you.... The US entered Europe in 1944 in January with the battle of Anzio and in June with D-day, now count... are there 5 years between January 1944 and May 1945? ...

Superior tactics, armament, and leadership. The iraqi's didn't expect us to attack so quickly and with such a withering amount of air power. The war was fought mostly from the air negating their ground weapons since their airforce was decimated right from the get go. Its a text book air assault.

What I mean is: Don't you think they would have used some of their WMD's during the war if they really had some?

I would be interested to see where he said the reports were fake. And what is he lieing about? That iraq was unable to present any type of proof that they had disarmed their KNOWN WMD's that were there since the gulf war? Or is he lieing about Iraq being in violation of over 12 seperate UN resolutions before the war and refusing access to many areas of the country to UN weapons inspectors? I find it funny how our credibility is damaged by this but the other 40 or so nations involved aren't mentioned nor the fact that France's most obvious reason for opposing the war was that they had the largest foreign investment in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3597475.stm

The US Secretary of State has said a claim to the United Nations that Iraq had mobile laboratories may not have been based on "solid" intelligence.
If he made that up he could have made everything up about the WMD's, wich is more than enough reasons not to trust the Bush Administration on this.
And yes... I KNOW Saddam was in violation with UN resolutions, but the weapon inspectors were back, things were going rather well (I know what you'll say about this.... UN bla bla bla non-solutions bla bla bla war on terror bla bla bla) until the US decided to go in.....

Something had to be done, we all agree on that. But what makes you think you had the right to start this war? Iraq was a country you had to keep an eye on back then but IT WASN'T AN IMMINENT THREAT.
Besides, if you're so worried about WMD's, what about Kim Jong Il in North Korea, who almost hops around singing "I HAVE NUKES, I HAVE NUKES, I HAVE NU-UKES"?

Where are you getting this from? The US had a plan for after the war since the inception. As soon as the war was over the US moved in many many companies to rebuild the infrastructure and economy of the country along with creating a new governing body that would try to sattisfy all the people of iraq. The massive rebuilding effort that is going on over there isn't something that just happened to be thrown together at a whim you know.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3660837.stm

The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement.

They're high ranking brittish diplomats specialized in Middle East matters. Somhow, I trust those guys more than Bush......
And don't make me laugh..... off course you brought companies in! That was probably one of the reasons Bush wanted this war...... start a war so that people would invest in weapon producers. Because of that people like the Carlyle Group (Bush senior is in it and maybe W too, but I'm not sure) will gain more money. Then after the war is finished, bring companies in like Halliburton (very close to Cheney, I think he used to be CEO of it) and stuff even more money in your pockets! Wonderful plan, really.... :)

Not everyone is able to accept change. It is an unfortunate consequence that the muslim religion is structured for follower to almost blindly follow a leader no matter what the cause. People that had good jobs working for Saddam, ex-military still loyal to saddam, radicals that believe anything non-arab is evil, are all causes of rebellion. Every rebellion has its strong points in this cause the 2 main strong points is fallujah and the city with Al-Sadr (i couldn't spell it if i wanted to so not going to bother butchering the name). Its obviously not going bad for the US or the iraqi's there when more power, schools, hospitals, phones, food, housing, police, and commerce are all going on though as opposed to before the war.

They are Iraqis and Iraqis, as your 'President' said, are free now. So I don't blame them if they choose to fight the US, after all, it's THEIR country, not the US'. You don't have the right to call them terrorists, since the US violated international law with this war.

So we are supposed to let Israel be crushed b/c some people who are angry about loosing a horrid dictator get their panties in a bunch? Bottom line is the fighting over there stems from stupidity and ignorance not politics. If we didn't support israel the leaders would find some other reason to hate the western world and the followers would still blow themselves up with the same enthusiasm.

Oh yes, Israel is really crushed by the Palestininans, really...... look at them..... they only have tanks against....... oh wait, the Palestinians have no army! I don't support terrorism at all, but I can understand why they hate Israel (and I'm talking about Israel as a state, I don't mean anything antisemitic)..... YES, the suicide bombers should be stopped, I think everybody agrees on that.... But what Bush did by supporting Sharon was like spitting in the face of the whole Arab world (not only Iraq). All Sharon does is asking for more, the least he could do is stop provoking them uselessly.... But Hamas is as bad as Sharon, there's no reason I should put one above the other.

Shiro

30th April 2004, 09:04 AM

I tought of that too....pretty lame of him. Maybe he is afraid we see how stupid he is.

The simple fact he testifies like this already proves his stupidity.......

He testifies under PUBLIC pressure, but:
- he refuses to testify under oath
- he refuses to do it in PUBLIC
- he refuses to keep any record of the hearing (only notes are alloowed)
- he wants to testify with Cheney, probably because he's scared of contratdicting each other......

Even Scoobydoo would have done better...... :p

KhawMengLee

30th April 2004, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Bleda

Superior tactics, armament, and leadership. The iraqi's didn't expect us to attack so quickly and with such a withering amount of air power. The war was fought mostly from the air negating their ground weapons since their airforce was decimated right from the get go. Its a text book air assault.

Erm...you were sitting on their border. Building up troops etc I think they pretty much knew you were coming. Believe me, this was the end for Saddam and he knew it. If he had the goods he would have used it.

Originally Posted by Bleda

Not everyone is able to accept change. It is an unfortunate consequence that the muslim religion is structured for follower to almost blindly follow a leader no matter what the cause. People that had good jobs working for Saddam, ex-military still loyal to saddam, radicals that believe anything non-arab is evil, are all causes of rebellion. Every rebellion has its strong points in this cause the 2 main strong points is fallujah and the city with Al-Sadr (i couldn't spell it if i wanted to so not going to bother butchering the name). Its obviously not going bad for the US or the iraqi's there when more power, schools, hospitals, phones, food, housing, police, and commerce are all going on though as opposed to before the war.

The city is Najaf. And believe me it takes a lot for the shiites to jump on the same side as the sunnis...why? because the shiite were the ones against Saddam.

Something had to be done, we all agree on that. But what makes you think you had the right to start this war? Iraq was a country you had to keep an eye on back then but IT WASN'T AN IMMINENT THREAT.
Besides, if you're so worried about WMD's, what about Kim Jong Il in North Korea, who almost hops around singing "I HAVE NUKES, I HAVE NUKES, I HAVE NU-UKES"?

Because Bush is a coward. He's kicking the Rotweiler while its a puppy...Kim is a big dawg now that he has the goods...he can actually bite as well as bark.

Oh yes, Israel is really crushed by the Palestininans, really...... look at them..... they only have tanks against....... oh wait, the Palestinians have no army! I don't support terrorism at all, but I can understand why they hate Israel (and I'm talking about Israel as a state, I don't mean anything antisemitic)..... YES, the suicide bombers should be stopped, I think everybody agrees on that.... But what Bush did by supporting Sharon was like spitting in the face of the whole Arab world (not only Iraq). All Sharon does is asking for more, the least he could do is stop provoking them uselessly.... But Hamas is as bad as Sharon, there's no reason I should put one above the other.

Dude...don't worry about sounding antisematic. I hate this PC crap today where if you criticize Israel, you are an anti semite. Its total bulshit. They just had a conference on the rise of antisemitism in the world...I mean they are really milking the holocaust bandwagon for all its worth.

Now the holocaust was a tragedy. But the rise in anti-israeli(not anti sematic) is due to Israels actions and policy. Its not anti sematic it just the plain truth. WHat Israel has done in the past few years is nothing short of getting away with murder(Jenin etc). Now to liken their leaders with the Nazis is anti sematic? Crap, they are in the same bandwagon, SHaron and his cronies are one of the biggest war criminals to date...and I pity the innocent lives that suffer because of them.

KhawMengLee

30th April 2004, 10:23 AM

Iraq: Wants US in? Think life is better with the Invasion?

Doon't think so:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=3&u=/ap/20040429/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_poll_2

Poll: Iraqis Want U.S. Out of Country
1 hour, 12 minutes ago Add World - AP to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON - Despite concerns about their own safety, the majority of Iraqis say they want the U.S. and British troops now in Iraq (news - web sites) to leave within the next few months, according to a nationwide poll of people in Iraq.

"There's a sense of disillusionment," Gallup's director of international polling, Richard Burkholder, said Thursday. "They had higher expectations of us. If we can sweep their army aside in a matter of weeks, why can't we stabilize their country? We're a victim of their high expectations."

Seven in 10 said their lives or the lives of their family would be in danger if they were seen to be cooperating with the Coalition Provisional Authority currently governing Iraq. Almost two-thirds, 64 percent, said actions by the coalition have turned out worse than they expected at the time of the invasion.

While Iraqis are unhappy about the current situation in their country, almost two-thirds in the poll said they expect their country will be better off five years from now than it was before the U.S. and British invasion.

But half have doubts the United States is serious about establishing a democratic system in Iraq and even more, 57 percent, doubt the U.S. will allow Iraqis to design their own political future.

The CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll was taken between March 22 and April 9, before the latest rounds of fighting between coalition forces and insurgents. A relatively small number of the 3,444 face-to-face interviews were conducted more recently.

Almost six in 10, 57 percent, said they would like to see coalition troops leave "immediately, within the next few months," while 36 percent said they would like to see those troops stay longer.

Despite the reservations, Iraqis have mixed feelings about the effects of the U.S. led invasion.

_Six in 10 say ousting Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was worth the hardships they have faced since then.

_Half said they are better off since Saddam was ousted, while 25 percent said they are doing about the same.

Burkholder said the trend in Baghdad, where Gallup polled last August and September, reflects a drop in attitudes about U.S. troops.

Last August, almost six in 10 Iraqis said they had a positive view of how U.S. troops are behaving. Now, residents of Baghdad view U.S. soldiers negatively, by almost 8-1.

Only a quarter of Iraqis said attacks on U.S. troops are completely unjustified. Less than a third of Iraqis said the attacks are completely or somewhat justified from a moral standpoint. Another one in five said those attacks are sometimes justified.

Seven in 10 in the poll said they view the U.S. presence as an occupation and not a liberation.

Both Sunnis and Shiites shared the generally negative views of the U.S. mission in Iraq and U.S. troops.

But in the Sunni region in central Iraq, where troops have faced some of the strongest resistance , six in 10 said the attacks on U.S. troops can be justified morally.

The poll conducted by the Pan Arab Research Center of Dubai had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Shiro

30th April 2004, 06:41 PM

"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it.It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there...How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there?...I think to have American military forces engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in this fashion."-Then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney , 1991

Even better...... :D

Coherence isn't in is dictionary either :).

Bleda

1st May 2004, 04:21 AM

@shiro: Different war, different era, different purpose. That was the gulf war when the UN was stopping iraq from invading Kuwait. 12 years later the whole purpose of the war was to topple the government. Put in context that statement makes perfect sense when it was said, 12 years later is a relic of a past era of thinking.

@khaw: good article and very informative, thanks for posting it. Its nice to have new figures as the last poll was fairly old. The iraqi's will soon have their wish anyways since control is being handed over on june 30th. It's too bad the rebels don't realize that if they would lay down the arms and fight the system as a political party they would get a whole lot more done in Iraq than blowing themselves up.

Iraq was a country you had to keep an eye on back then but IT WASN'T AN IMMINENT THREAT. What do we gain by waiting for the country to become an imminent threat? We waited for germany to become an imminent threat in WW2 and woops too late they invaded. We waited for Iraq to become an imminent threat in desert storm and woops they invaded. The world waited, and waited, and waited, with N Korea and now they have nukes and there is no way to force them to disarm now since they will happily take the world with them into nuclear winter. If you are so sure that a military strike against North Korea was a better idea than against Iraq than thankgod you aren't in control or else the world would be getting pretty chilly right now.

The comment about russians being responsible for actions inside the US during the vietnam war came directly from a russian KGB agent interview about that period. They admitted to it not sure what other proof you want.

Oh I know the US isn't the only country that did something wrong on this planet, the only difference is that the USA has an organisation whose main job is starting shit around the world (yep, that's the CIA I'm talking about). KGB, CIA, MI6, Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (french CIA), every major world power has its own CIA. But you must be right only the CIA operates around the world.

I said D-day happened on June 6th 1944, where in this sentence do I imply the war started that day? The war started on September 1st 1939 with the invasion of Poland, I knew that, thank you.... The US entered Europe in 1944 in January with the battle of Anzio and in June with D-day, now count... are there 5 years between January 1944 and May 1945? ... The camps were there for 5 years, no one found them until the last year of the war. Reconaissance occured through out the war, it took actually goin in to find the camps. Reconaissance took place after the gulf war, it took actually going in to confirm/deny anything...

Don't try to change the subject, I'm talking about the behaviour of your government not about something else. Iraq is or will soon be worse than it was with Saddam and it's the US that are responsible for it. Not changing the subject just stating that your idea that armed resistance means its going bad in a country is complete bunk.

There's two kind of freedoms to me..... the regular freedom and the american freedom, where you are free as long as you're braindead and not questionning anything..... Yes that must be so true, especially with all the debates going on right in the United States. Seriously do you even think about the stuff you post before writting another USA bashing statement?

About colin powell lying, that article said that some of the CIA information was wrong, where does it say either government made up false intelligence? You're making conclusions with out justification, just like saying the US must have given weapons to iraq during the 80's because USA = bad.

And don't make me laugh..... off course you brought companies in! That was probably one of the reasons Bush wanted this war...... start a war so that people would invest in weapon producers. Because of that people like the Carlyle Group (Bush senior is in it and maybe W too, but I'm not sure) will gain more money. Then after the war is finished, bring companies in like Halliburton (very close to Cheney, I think he used to be CEO of it) and stuff even more money in your pockets! Wonderful plan, really.... :) More assumptions with ZERO evidence to back up any of those claims. If the whole idea was to inject a boost into the US companies why are there so many foreign non-US related companies working in Iraq. Why is haliburton not there already? Statements like these shake any credibility you have since they are based on pure speculation with no backing whatsoever except by your opinion.

Oh yes, Israel is really crushed by the Palestininans, really...... look at them..... they only have tanks against....... oh wait, the Palestinians have no army! But egypt, saudi. jordan, syria all do and if you think they will flinch for a second on invading israel if its left high and dry then you need to look into history a little more. These countries are held back by the threat of the US cutting aid and support if they do something to its ally. Read up a bit more on this subject before making claims that you aren't sure of.

And you obviously have a big sense of solidarity to...... The UK is virtually the only major country that still supports the US (I'm not counting Italy, Berlusconi is about to fall..... ok, Blair too, but he still tries to keep appearances high..... :)) and you still pull out bad stuff about them... nice example of what I hate about some Americans, really..... :D Allies are worth something to the US until they can sacrifice them to save their own butt.... brilliant..... Sounds alot like the European Union, hey USA ya we're your friend and ally, wait what? you want to put an end to saddam hussein? Sorry we're not your friend anymore, we like the dictator, he lets us make lots of $$$ by investing in him!
The US didn't turn its back on its allies, they turne their back on us because it didn't suit their economic ideals. They have a right to this opinion but the statement you made works both ways, if you hate the US so much then we can have the same ideals that we hate the EU because they are only our friend while they can get something from us.

mingshi

1st May 2004, 04:58 AM

What do we gain by waiting for the country to become an imminent threat? We waited for germany to become an imminent threat in WW2 and woops too late they invaded. We waited for Iraq to become an imminent threat in desert storm and woops they invaded. The world waited, and waited, and waited, with N Korea and now they have nukes and there is no way to force them to disarm now since they will happily take the world with them into nuclear winter. If you are so sure that a military strike against North Korea was a better idea than against Iraq than thankgod you aren't in control or else the world would be getting pretty chilly right now..
Hmm what makes you believe that Iraq wouldn't use their WMD or some hidden bio chemicals to happily take the world with them as well? You know, suicide bombers are just everywhere...

Shiro

1st May 2004, 07:08 AM

Hmm what makes you believe that Iraq wouldn't use their WMD or some hidden bio chemicals to happily take the world with them as well? You know, suicide bombers are just everywhere...

That's still something you haven't adressed, Bleda.
If Iraq was really that dangerous and if they really had WMD's, don't you think they would have used them?

That said, I'm starting to write the next post now... ;)

Bleda

4th May 2004, 08:38 AM

Hmm what makes you believe that Iraq wouldn't use their WMD or some hidden bio chemicals to happily take the world with them as well? You know, suicide bombers are just everywhere...
Chemical weapons != nuclear weapons. No matter how much saddam would have wanted to it would have been physically impossible for him to cause anywhere near the destruction north korea could. Can you imagine north korea nuking beijing or seoul? the death count would be in the millions.

KhawMengLee

4th May 2004, 12:07 PM

Chemical weapons != nuclear weapons. No matter how much saddam would have wanted to it would have been physically impossible for him to cause anywhere near the destruction north korea could. Can you imagine north korea nuking beijing or seoul? the death count would be in the millions.

You know you still aren't answering her question. If Saddam had WMD's why didn't he use them? Even on Coalition troops? Or Israel or Europe?

It's not a question of who does the more damage.

BTW, Looks like the prisoner abuse claims are real. And could be more extensive than just the Prisoners mentioned. I wonder whether the Pentagon/Whitehouse will cover this one up like the My Lai massacre? You know find a scapegoat...My Lai, Hundreds of women and children murdered and only one man takes the fall? That and he only got less than 6 years jailtime...

samurai999

4th May 2004, 02:28 PM

Well, then you know what I think about real American media like Fox and stuff..... :) They're doing the same, but with conservative ideals..... :)
But, "communist news network" or not, when I see gunfire and fights in a country it's NOT going well there..... And I'm not only seeing this on CNN, but on every media that talks about it! You will criticize whatever I say as long as I don't agree with you, anyway, so......

I don't think Fox is real American media. CNN is more followed than Fox and therefore it is smaller. It is a lone conservative voice (in the Bay area) in a big sea of media that is usually tilted to the left. Doesn't matter here in the Bay area with people who are quick to jump the gun wanting to issue new laws for this and for that wanting to make laws just for the sake of making laws. Where people are quick to sue and sip lattes while talking on their cell phones driving their SUVs or (insert overpriced exotic German car here). Anyways, although Fox more agrees with my tastes, the majority around here watch CNN. Lemme guess, you guys like Micheal Moore in Europe too?

(i actually sip iced mochas while doing my engineering homework, talk on my cell phone and drive a Subaru Impreza. :D LOL)

Tim

Bleda

4th May 2004, 05:22 PM

You know you still aren't answering her question. If Saddam had WMD's why didn't he use them? Even on Coalition troops? Or Israel or Europe?

It's not a question of who does the more damage.

BTW, Looks like the prisoner abuse claims are real. And could be more extensive than just the Prisoners mentioned. I wonder whether the Pentagon/Whitehouse will cover this one up like the My Lai massacre? You know find a scapegoat...My Lai, Hundreds of women and children murdered and only one man takes the fall? That and he only got less than 6 years jailtime...
1st question:What the hell do you expect me to say? I interrogated saddam personally and beat the truth out of him myself? Perhaps he lacked the capability to effictively deply the weapons, scud launchers, missiles, etc were not available to iraq during this war. It would make effective deployment very difficult and very dangerous to their own soldiers (mustard gas anyone?). Maybe he didn't want to have more war crimes attributed to him and his generals for using bio-chem weapons. By him NOT using the weapons it makes his chances in court much much better to not get the death penalty than if he had gone ahead and violated international law again using WMD's. I know you're trying to get me to say that if he had them he would have used them but i don't think thats true. Japan had many many many bio-chem weapons in WW2 but was unable to take full use of them due to a lack of effective ways to deploy it. For all any of us know it could be the same way here.

2nd question/statement: I don't see what this has to do with the US declaring war on Iraq. The soldiers tortured prisoners, name me a war where no one abused prisoners. It's human nature to seek evil on someone who has wronged you. I am sure the pentagon will try to minimize this news. It makes sense to do it and its the way the world works. Hell germany has outlawed pretty much anything that reminds them of WW2 in an attempt to play down their actions during that war. It would be a moronic government or individual that trumpets a flaw.

KhawMengLee

4th May 2004, 06:14 PM

1st question:What the hell do you expect me to say? I interrogated saddam personally and beat the truth out of him myself? Perhaps he lacked the capability to effictively deply the weapons, scud launchers, missiles, etc were not available to iraq during this war. It would make effective deployment very difficult and very dangerous to their own soldiers (mustard gas anyone?). Maybe he didn't want to have more war crimes attributed to him and his generals for using bio-chem weapons. By him NOT using the weapons it makes his chances in court much much better to not get the death penalty than if he had gone ahead and violated international law again using WMD's. I know you're trying to get me to say that if he had them he would have used them but i don't think thats true. Japan had many many many bio-chem weapons in WW2 but was unable to take full use of them due to a lack of effective ways to deploy it. For all any of us know it could be the same way here.

2nd question/statement: I don't see what this has to do with the US declaring war on Iraq. The soldiers tortured prisoners, name me a war where no one abused prisoners. It's human nature to seek evil on someone who has wronged you. I am sure the pentagon will try to minimize this news. It makes sense to do it and its the way the world works. Hell germany has outlawed pretty much anything that reminds them of WW2 in an attempt to play down their actions during that war. It would be a moronic government or individual that trumpets a flaw.

1) Goes back to the issue of WMD's. Saddam did have the means to launch them. He had Short Range Missles that could strike in the region. Remember two of them struck Kuwait? Tho, both did not have chemical warheads. Bottom line is that he had none and the Govt. was bullshitting the public and pumping them full of fear at Saddam's imaginary WMD's

It's like how Bill Hicks(God Rest His Soul) put it:

"At the start of Desert Storm it was The Elite Republican Guards! Desert Warriors! 7 Feet tall! Never Lost a battle!"

After that it was The Republican Guard....

By week 2 it was The Republicans sold us another crock of shit...

2) Well this has to do with the main case for going to war. Bush, after realising that no WMDs are likely to be found, went off in tangent saying human rights abuse was the reason for War. Abu Ghraib prison was a place of murder, torture, rape and pain...Bush in his great speeches of the evils of Saddam claimed that a ragime that does such evil is no more...

The pattern of abuse is spreading and more cases will turn up. This is a war the coalition is losing not winning. The issue here is one that it should not have happened...Bush had rushed in with guns blazing and now theres a shitstorm vietnam situation he can't get out off.

Now, back to your statement "Oh, prisoner abuse happens in every war", true but if you are going to use morality as a basis for this war then immorality on your people's part cannot be condoned or accepted...if not then, that would label you a hypocrite.

Now, its human nature to revenge a wrong...yes, but some of those guys in there weren't even involved in the militia....actually one of them was tortured by Saddam twice in that prison and the 3rd time it was by the coalition...the worse part being that he commented the US did worse. Now he's proclaimed that he is a die hard resistance fighter...more trouble..

Reducing the news is not the right way. It is not how the world works but US military justice works. The killing of civilians in My Lai, cover up, the rape of a teenager by US servicemen in Okinawa, whisk them away, hell, they even tried that with the korean teenager a drunken serviceman ran over and killed...but there was so much public outcry they handed him over. I think a lot more respect would be given if they did the right thing and let the guilty face the punishment.

Saddam murdered thousands, Massey(Lt. in charge of My Lai) and his men murdered hundereds. True the body count with Saddam was higher but one murder is the same as a hundred. Saddam will get his just desserts...Massey got a comfy life for butchering women and children. What's the link here? Double standards, do not impose on the world what you do not impose on yourselves.

Bleda

5th May 2004, 05:48 AM

KhawMengLee

5th May 2004, 08:38 AM

Until you can show me where all the tons of anthrax and chemicals that we KNOW exsists went i'm not so sure he doesn't have them stockpiled somewhere.

2)I never said i condone the prisoner abuse but you live in lala land if you don't expect it to happen. One thing that i love though is your attempt to connect everythign anyone of a nationality does to their government (or perhaps its only things that americans do that you attempt to fault the government for). The military gave no orders to torture anyone, it gave no orders to abuse the prisoners, it gave no orders to murder anyone. That was the individuals actions and they alone are responsible for what they did. This is in stark contrast to a regime that gave the orders and operated in this fashion. Stop trying to connect the government to the abuse, they weren't there and they didn't tell them to do it, they are as innocent as you and me for the actions of those soldiers.

My Lai A) Its an attrocity and should have never happened but the bottom line is its over 30 years old and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Attrocities happen from everyone and every country and often in much worse scales than just a couple hundred of people. If thats the worse that the US has done than we look like saints compared to many of the older nations around. B) Lt. Massey (whoever the heck that is) is not even related to My Lai, the commanding officer was Lt. Calley who was given life in prison and later released due to lack of evidence and accounts of what actually happened there. Perhaps they should have just imprisoned all the military to sattisfy your bloodlust and hate for americans?

Erm...so where is this proof that he had all that Anthrax? CIA? Are we talking about the same CIA that stated that there were mobile WMD labs which have now been shown to be false...the same CIA who supplied intelligence during Kosovo that the chinese embassy was a munitions factory? The same yahoos who said that he has WMDs? riiiiiiite...

1) Well...check the news. According to recent reports the soldiers in question are saying that was what they were ordered to do.

a) As I said before, you steal 1 dollar or 1 million you still are a petty low life thief. Crimes a crime...no point saying "Oh, but others have done worse."

b) whooops on my part;) Calley it was. "Bloodlust and Hate" for Americans? Hahaha, no no...once again dude you are going in blazing like a cowboy. No hate here, this is what civilized people call debate. You argue with fact and theory...no need to have accusations on who hates who here:P

Shiro

5th May 2004, 08:55 AM

Thats 2 missiles and god knows where they were launched from and if they were even prepared to put chemical weapons into them. He didn't have the infrastructure in place like he did in desert storm with all the scuds, LRM's, MRM's, or SRM's. His arsenal was depleted and its rediculous to think he could have used those weapons on the region at this present time. 3-4 years from now most likely he could have rained down death but right now we got em before he could put his hand in the cookie jar. Until you can show me where all the tons of anthrax and chemicals that we KNOW exsists went i'm not so sure he doesn't have them stockpiled somewhere.

Man, I was preparing a longer post, but I read this......
Saying what I quoted here is like saying Iraq wasn't an imminent threat and in some way admitting going to war was unnecessary!!! You're ruining your own point of views!

And about the prisoners...... I don't care how many US soldiers did things like that or if other countries did that in the past or not. It proves a lot about the mentality the US soldiers towards Iraqi.... those who let it happen and did nothing are responsible too, they should have stopped it.
Result: the Iraqi people will hate you even more.

News has proven several of my points in the last couple of days. Bush doesn't know what he's doing. Why does he still support the Sharon plan even if it has been rejected by Sharon's party?!
Top US diplomats are preparing (or have already sent) a letter to Bush because they are STRONGLY disapproving his way of handling problems in the middle east.

And stop referring to WWII, you don't know anything about it.
Comparing the camps to the WMD's? Ridiculous. The camps weren't hidden. They did exist years before they were freed, yes, but the Allied Forces and the Russians freed them as they were marching to Berlin. They discovered the horror of them on the spot, because the idea of such camps was virtually unknown before that. They did know where they were, but they mistook them for prisoner camps. Have you ever seen pictures of those camps? Have you seen how big they are? How on earth can you compare it to the wmd's?

The Allied Forces started to free occupied zones with the battle of Anzio in January 1944 and in June with D-Day, the war ended in May 1945, so where the hell do you get those 5 years from?!

You know why we didn't do anything against Hitler in the first place? Because (sadly enough) he was elected! He didn't seize power, he gained it through legal ways. There aren't enough words to say how much I despise his ideology, but at least he didn't cheat the elections (yes, I think Bush stole the elections :p).

Haven't you noticed that Europe didn't really have problems with the US back in the Clinton days? Hell, I liked Clinton. I'm not saying he was a saint, but at least he was a good ally. Bush on the other hand...... he wants what's good for HIM, not for the US, not for Europe, not for any country, but HIM. He was lucky daddy's friends at the Supreme Court stopped the re-counting of the votes.....

Man, I'm fed up..... you want evidence about Cheney being CEO of Halliburton and promising contracts before anything was decided? Just look it up. Besides, I'm not the only one that stated this here.

There is nothing you can say that will change my mind. One year ago, I saw Powell showing pics of buildings that were supposed to be chemical labs and stuff. Now, you still haven't found anything. My conclusion is he lied. And don't even dare to mention that "bad intelligence" argument, because even the CIA was saying to be cautious about it..... but no, your "president"/cowboy had to do his little run....... he did it, now deal with the consequences, draw conclusions and kick Bush and his cronies out of the White House.

Now, I'll go read some of Michael Moore's stuff :p You'll probably say it's bs, but at least his books are best sellers ;). So who am I going to believe? A best selling author (in the New York Times, I looked it up) or some random conservative Americans? Take a guess...... :D

Raziel

5th May 2004, 10:17 AM

"Victory without proving that you are superior is tempory at best." Veitnam was the stupidest and most pointless "war" the US ever got envolved in, it did nothing and helped no one. It never proved anything to anyone, and it never would have. I say loss.

Bleda

5th May 2004, 12:48 PM

Erm...so where is this proof that he had all that Anthrax? CIA? Are we talking about the same CIA that stated that there were mobile WMD labs which have now been shown to be false...the same CIA who supplied intelligence during Kosovo that the chinese embassy was a munitions factory? The same yahoos who said that he has WMDs? riiiiiiite...
The tons of antrhax and chemicals are from UN sources and his stockpiles from desert storm. These were weapons he was supposed to be dissarming and just happened to "loose track" of in the paper work. The WMD's were well documented since desert storm and Saddam could never quite say what he had done with all the tonnage.

1) Well...check the news. According to recent reports the soldiers in question are saying that was what they were ordered to do.
This is the same type of thing as the My Lai incident where the soldiers said they were "ordered" to do it then when they went back and checked the orders it ended up being more of an exaggeration and inference of the orders than a true directive. My Lai they told them to kill all armed resistance and take the town, by the time it got down to the grunt they had been told everyone was armed resistance and kill them all. Still not an excuse but i still can't justify holding the army or the government responsible for these crimes.

a) As I said before, you steal 1 dollar or 1 million you still are a petty low life thief. Crimes a crime...no point saying "Oh, but others have done worse."
I'll give you that but its still alot to fault one country for killing 300 people and ignore one that killed 400K. In the end though it doesn't come down to what nationality the people were who did this but that most of them were pretty sick individuals.

b) whooops on my part;) Calley it was. "Bloodlust and Hate" for Americans? Hahaha, no no...once again dude you are going in blazing like a cowboy. No hate here, this is what civilized people call debate. You argue with fact and theory...no need to have accusations on who hates who here:P
Sorry for that inference it just seemed you were faulting only the US while ignoring the rest of the worlds crimes. If you're going to throw stones better make sure to hit everyone that deserves one or be called on your reasons as to why some didn't get smacked.

@Shiro
There is a difference between and imminent threat and a clear and present danger. Iraq in its current state was an imminent threat, in a few more years it would be more than developed enough to have the capabilities to be a clear and present danger. North Korea was an imminent threat. Nothing was done and now it is a clear and present danger to the world. 3-4 years is not very long in politics or global issues, its a tick of the second hand.

As for WW2, if you think hitler was elected into government then its obvious who knows nothing here about WW2. He used loopholes, bribery, and subterfuge to gain his way into office. It was a bloodless coup and a masterpiece of politcal craft but it was hardly a popular vote that brought him into government. As for the 5 years, 1939-1945 is 6 years, although it was really more like about 5 years worth of true fighting hence 5 years. It wasn't until the last year that the camps were finally found to be what they really were even though they had done recon on them many times through out the war. They are easily compared to finding WMD's in a country that refused to open its doors since the best anyone could do was recon them and hope for the most accurate intelligence possible.

Its obvious you've made up your mind and refuse to debate with any kind of solid evidence past your own assumptions and ideas (USA must have given Iraq the weapons because they're BAD!!!) so its worthless to try to argue with you.

KhawMengLee

5th May 2004, 04:29 PM

There is a difference between and imminent threat and a clear and present danger. Iraq in its current state was an imminent threat, in a few more years it would be more than developed enough to have the capabilities to be a clear and present danger. North Korea was an imminent threat. Nothing was done and now it is a clear and present danger to the world. 3-4 years is not very long in politics or global issues, its a tick of the second hand.

Yeh, NK is a real threat in a sense. Then again unless threatened I don't think they'll ever use their nuclear arsenal. Pakistan is a real threat, they've done worse things than Saddam and they have Nukes as well...another example of a bastard dictator...except he's Bush's pet for now...another Saddam/Bin Laden in the making.

As for WW2, if you think hitler was elected into government then its obvious who knows nothing here about WW2. He used loopholes, bribery, and subterfuge to gain his way into office.

Sounds like a normal politician to me;)

As for the 5 years, 1939-1945 is 6 years, although it was really more like about 5 years worth of true fighting hence 5 years. It wasn't until the last year that the camps were finally found to be what they really were even though they had done recon on them many times through out the war. They are easily compared to finding WMD's in a country that refused to open its doors since the best anyone could do was recon them and hope for the most accurate intelligence possible.

Well, many things could be the reason for not finding the camps sooner. Recon at the time may not have been at best and you got to remember that people were more concerned about winning the war...meaning POW camps etc were on lowest priority. Weapons factories, command facilities, AMMO dumps etc were more on the high part of the list.

At the same time maybe the Allies just didn't really care. Remember Anti-semitism was not just in Germany. Europe, England, and even the US has a history of Anti Semitism...hell, look at good old William Randolf Herst(Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch prototype 1) he was blatantly anti sematic.

I'm not saying they didn't care that 6 million jews were wiped out. But maybe they did not realise the full horror of what that meant or what was going on in the camps until they actually saw them in flesh.

Bleda

5th May 2004, 05:40 PM

Yeh, NK is a real threat in a sense. Then again unless threatened I don't think they'll ever use their nuclear arsenal. Pakistan is a real threat, they've done worse things than Saddam and they have Nukes as well...another example of a bastard dictator...except he's Bush's pet for now...another Saddam/Bin Laden in the making.
Thats an unfair statement about pakistan since A) they are not a dictatorship and B) you are comparing what they do in times of war against their enemies that wish to wipe them out to what saddam did to his own people out of his self-interest. Its just not right to make that comparison nor try to say that because the US is allied with them they are suddenly horrible dictators, South Korea is a prime example of what the US can do to help a country.

Sounds like a normal politician to me;)
Thats some seriously bad politics then. If a politician tried that one in any of the well developed nations today the outcry would be horrendous and anything but "popular". Would love to see a politician that is appointed (never voted on) become the leader of a nation and then declare himself dictator for life in say oh, present day France.

Well, many things could be the reason for not finding the camps sooner. Recon at the time may not have been at best and you got to remember that people were more concerned about winning the war...meaning POW camps etc were on lowest priority. Weapons factories, command facilities, AMMO dumps etc were more on the high part of the list.

At the same time maybe the Allies just didn't really care. Remember Anti-semitism was not just in Germany. Europe, England, and even the US has a history of Anti Semitism...hell, look at good old William Randolf Herst(Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch prototype 1) he was blatantly anti sematic.

I'm not saying they didn't care that 6 million jews were wiped out. But maybe they did not realise the full horror of what that meant or what was going on in the camps until they actually saw them in flesh.
Now you're just stretching and at the same time making the point of the US government, that recon isn't always right no matter how sure anyone is of it. Bottom line is the allies couldn't find the camps in 5 years of recon, they had to physically inspect it. If saddam would have allowed the UN to physically inspect everywhere they wanted to unhindered and with out silly warning periods then this war wouldn't have happened either. We set down the law after desert storm, we gave em 12 years to get in line, then we enforced the law.

Shiro

5th May 2004, 06:08 PM

As for WW2, if you think hitler was elected into government then its obvious who knows nothing here about WW2.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitler.html

In the 1930 elections the Nazi vote jumped dramatically from 810,000 to 6,409,000 (18.3 percent of the total vote) and they received 107 seats in the Reichstag. Prompted by Hjalmar Schacht and Fritz Thyssen, the great industrial magnates began to contribute liberally to the coffers of the NSDAP, reassured by Hitler's performance before the Industrial Club in Dusseldorf on 27 January 1932 that they had nothing to fear from the radicals in the Party. The following month Hitler officially acquired German citizenship and decided to run for the Presidency, receiving 13,418,011 votes in the run-off elections of 10 April 1931 as against 19,359,650 votes for the victorious von Hindenburg , but four times the vote for the communist candidate, Ernst Thaelmann. In the Reichstag elections of July 1932 the Nazis emerged as the largest political party in Germany, obtaining nearly fourteen million votes (37.3 per cent) and 230 seats. Although the NSDAP fell back in November 1932 to eleven million votes (196 seats), Hitler was helped to power by a camarilla of conservative politicians led by Franz von Papen, who persuaded the reluctant von Hindenburg to nominate "the Bohemian corporal" as Reich Chancellor on 30 January 1933.

I didn't invent it.

Its obvious you've made up your mind and refuse to debate with any kind of solid evidence past your own assumptions and ideas (USA must have given Iraq the weapons because they're BAD!!!) so its worthless to try to argue with you.

I'm the only one who posted articles to back his sources. Ok, you posted one, but it didn't prove anything, because it mentions nothing about your statements.
And didn't I say I gave you some credit about the US giving weapons to Iraq?
Look in my earlier posts.
I made up my mind about the Bush Administration, not about the country itself. Hell, I'd be so pleased to know the USA is ruled by a decent president. We don't hate the country, we hate the way your "president" acts towards us and the rest of the world. The USA has a major role on the international scene, no one can deny it. So I'm willing to forgive all the shit they did in the past if the US Administration acts the way it's supposed to act.

Bleda

6th May 2004, 12:44 AM

Hitler was helped to power by a camarilla of conservative politicians led by Franz von Papen, who persuaded the reluctant von Hindenburg to nominate "the Bohemian corporal" as Reich Chancellor on 30 January 1933. That doesn't say he won popularly, infact he lost all the elections he was in. He put on a good showing but he was not the popular candidate. For more information reguarding how he really got into office here you go.

Though Hindenburg at first refused to appoint Hitler, a small group of men around the president urged him to do so. They felt that Hitler could be controlled and his popularity and talents could be used to further the interests of the government. As the year progressed, Brüning's successor Franz von Papen (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570413/Papen_Franz_von.html) grew unpopular as his attempts to revive the economy failed. Hindenburg replaced him with the political leader of the army, Kurt von Schleicher. Von Papen took revenge on Schleicher by joining forces with Hitler and Alfred Hugenberg. They talked the elderly Hindenburg into making Hitler chancellor in a cabinet in which von Papen would be vice-chancellor and most other ministers would be non-Nazis. On January 30, 1933, Hitler was sworn in as chancellor of Germany. Those who disliked the republic had persuaded the president to turn over authority to its sworn enemy.

Hitler was the appointed chancellor of germany, not the elected leader. The elected leader was hindenburg who was an easily manipulated old man. As soon as hitler got into a position of power he immediately suspended civil liberties and forced the subservient act on Germany, it allowed for them to make laws with out any legaslative approval. While technically his rise to power is legal through appointments and decrees his methods were unethical and decietful at best, even more so than any democratic politician.

You may have posted articles but in each article that you post for facts you try to draw assumptions that are not there such as saying colin powell was making up intelligence and lying when it was the CIA that was wrong. I've used facts to back up my claims and have posted where they can be found or from what authority. You seem to make claims and then quickly switch to another point when its clear you're in a loosing battle over them.

As for your statement about a "good leader" Clinton was a horrible leader that left our economy on the brink of collapse, our security woefully inadequate, and our military gutted. You liked him because he was a lap dog of the world with no spine or foresight of his own.

Bleda

6th May 2004, 12:58 AM

Shiro

6th May 2004, 02:09 AM

Going back through shiro i just noticed you posted less than 4 articles, 1 of them was the holocaust site which is fact, one was a map of WWII, one was the opinion of an ambassador, and the other was the one where you tried to claim that powell and blair were lying because the CIA's intelligence is not infallible. Where are all these fact articles you said you've posted?

They were in the post I prepared but didn't post, sorry 'bout that.... :D

Anyway, here they are:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=17&u=/afp/20040429/pl_afp/us_iraq_combat_politics_040429174920
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/30/politics/30tutw.html?ei=5062&en=912c322ad4d97044&ex=1083902400&adxnnl=1&partner=GOOGLE&adxnnlx=1083769281-cUW+Y3bMjrNmxkYESy8CwQ
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/30/opinion/30KRUG.html?ex=1083902400&en=4178ab30ccf5d178&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
http://www.nytimes.com/200a4/04/30/opinion/30HERB.html?ex=1083902400&en=57b8f1dce4054efe&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/29/abc.nightline/index.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040429/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_deaths_wolfowitz&cid=542&ncid=1480
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/30/politics/30LEAK.html?ex=1083902400&en=ac09d8e202808d80&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140172004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206793,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/opinion/meyer/main614915.shtml
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040429/news_1n29cheney.html
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040429/ts_nm/bush_poll_dc_2
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040426/ap_on_re_us/iraq_punished_contractors_6
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/042704A.shtml
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/27/election.main/
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16830
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16832
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20040430/pl_usatoday/cheneystaffaccusedofroleincialeak&e=4
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3653223.stm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=Iraq%20War%20Saudis
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/woodward.bandar/
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_sarasohn/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1082721539289071.xml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36265-2004Apr23.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0422-09.htm
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040420murs.html
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,611869,00.html?cnn=yes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1191321,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/14/wirq14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/14/ixnewstop.html
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16767
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1191483,00.html
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000485467
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0413/p09s01-codc.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3613473.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/11/wtact211.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3618953.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0411-04.htm
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1370
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/8419415.htm?1c
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/041304E.shtml
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=alAYP0sLUvys&refer=top_world_news
http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df04132004.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59416-2004Apr7.html

So many reasons why I don't like the Bush Administration..... I don't care if they're not all related to Iraq, but I hope you will understand the current "administration" has some apologizing to do.........

About the CIA, I based my thoughts about it on a 3-part documentary with ex-CIA operatives testifying about the things I mentioned. I'll look for the info of that documentary too.

Shiro

6th May 2004, 03:02 AM

Now you should ask yourself why Hitler was appointed...... Because he was the leader of the party with the most seats in parliament or because he was some lonely fanatical looney? Think about it....

By the time Hitler got appointed Chancelor, Hindenburg was quite unpopular and he was under a lot of pressure to step down. Now, since the NSDAP (the Nazi's) was the biggest party in parliament and since Hitler was very popular then (he came in second behind Hindenburg at the election), appointing him as a Chancelor was a logical decision for that situation and something that is actually legal.
You judge this with the American system in mind and you forgot the European system is quite different. We have a similar system in Belgium, we don't vote for a prime minister, we vote for a party and the party that has the most votes appoints a prime minister. I'm not proud of saying that, but there was nothing illegal with Hitler coming to power.
I know what you will say now: "You dumb Europeans gave the power to Hitler!".... But that happened in 1933, do you have the ability to look into the future?

Good or bad, your economy is worse now than it was under Clinton...
Why isn't Clinton in front of the 9/11 commission if the security was really that bad under him? In fact, the Bush administration refused to declassify documents from the Clinton era, wich makes me think he already knew something.....
Your military gutted? The US invests more in its military than the next 8 countries in together!

He wasn't a lap dog, he had some common sense, that's all......

Bleda

6th May 2004, 06:13 AM

Good or bad, your economy is worse now than it was under Clinton...
A quick look at Clinton's policies on our economy shows that Bush got saddled with

Clinton's neglect, clinton was lucky enough to run out of terms before his horrendous blunders showed up. The majority of the blame is squarely placed on Clinton's shoulders by pretty much every major analyst. Bush is a friend of the business and promotes new initiatives and growth within the economy.

Why isn't Clinton in front of the 9/11 commission if the security was really that bad under him? In fact, the Bush administration refused to declassify documents from the Clinton era, wich makes me think he already knew something.....

Clinton isn't infront of the 9/11 commission because he wasn't president when it happened. His security policies were still in effect though.

Your military gutted? The US invests more in its military than the next 8 countries in together!
Clinton cut the number of soldiers drastically during his time, cut funding for infantry equipment such as body armor, gas masks, chemical suits, APC's and closed many many bases. The military was gutted as compared to its former glory and thats obvious by our troops lack of protective equipment when this war began. We were not prepared for any conflicts under clinton's administration.

He wasn't a lap dog, he had some common sense, that's all......

Thats a matter of opinion but many americans feel that he, like john kerry, has no spine of his own but is fickle like the public. Whatever the public thinks is good today is what he does even if they completely change their minds tommorrow and he has to undo it. Clinton was a puppet president at best. Of course he was popular because he folded so easy and gave into every demand the international community wanted. China says, "We want ICBM technology! give me ICBM or i'll cry!!!" Clinton says, uh oh better make sure they can nuke the entire world, lets give it to em! Common sense my ass...

Bleda

6th May 2004, 06:17 AM

Looking through that list it looks like all you did was google and cut and copy. The majority of them don't show one way or the other on the administration at all lol.

As for apologizing i think the world owes us an apology as much as we owe one to them. When the world starts to apologize for all the ignorance they have thrown at us we'll apologize for not listening to their qualms about being overshadowed.

Bleda

6th May 2004, 06:29 AM

Shiro

6th May 2004, 06:59 AM

Looking through that list it looks like all you did was google and cut and copy. The majority of them don't show one way or the other on the administration at all lol.

What's wrong with using Google?
And yes, those are showing facts and not opinions, but that's what a good newspaper should do, no? ......
All those facts make me think the way I think about the Administration.
These are articles I actually read and as you can see, most of the sources listed here are American. So, no, I'm not blindly hating the administration.

Your arguments grow weak, buddy ;)

As for apologizing i think the world owes us an apology as much as we owe one to them. When the world starts to apologize for all the ignorance they have thrown at us we'll apologize for not listening to their qualms about being overshadowed.

HAHA an American conservative talking about ignorance......... :D

Shiro

6th May 2004, 07:15 AM

www.calpoly.edu/~doleary/bushaccomplishments.htm
www.ccd21.org/news/white_house_factsheet.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011221-2.html
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot07401.htm
http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh03110702.html

Thats a 2 minute search on google. Its not hard to find articles supporting the president or blasting the president. Not looking for people's opinions here, looking for facts to back up theories.

Ok, but ...
3 of these sites have a .gov suffix, wich means they are governmental institutions..... don't you think the site of the White House is biased when it comes to talking about things the White House does?

Plus: the second link you provided is a text issued by the White House -> biased.

And the first one is a blog! You know what a blog is?! It's just some guy that happened to stumble on a text issued by people SUPPORTING BUSH and he just posted it on his own personal site. The text comes from a right wing group, not an independent media......

I would feel insulted if I didn't pity you......

Shiro

6th May 2004, 07:29 AM

A quick look at Clinton's policies on our economy shows that Bush got saddled with

Clinton's neglect, clinton was lucky enough to run out of terms before his horrendous blunders showed up. The majority of the blame is squarely placed on Clinton's shoulders by pretty much every major analyst. Bush is a friend of the business and promotes new initiatives and growth within the economy.

Clinton isn't infront of the 9/11 commission because he wasn't president when it happened. His security policies were still in effect though.

Clinton cut the number of soldiers drastically during his time, cut funding for infantry equipment such as body armor, gas masks, chemical suits, APC's and closed many many bases. The military was gutted as compared to its former glory and thats obvious by our troops lack of protective equipment when this war began. We were not prepared for any conflicts under clinton's administration.

Thats a matter of opinion but many americans feel that he, like john kerry, has no spine of his own but is fickle like the public. Whatever the public thinks is good today is what he does even if they completely change their minds tommorrow and he has to undo it. Clinton was a puppet president at best. Of course he was popular because he folded so easy and gave into every demand the international community wanted. China says, "We want ICBM technology! give me ICBM or i'll cry!!!" Clinton says, uh oh better make sure they can nuke the entire world, lets give it to em! Common sense my ass...

Yeah whatever...... I know where you get your info from now......

I don't get your point..... if you say Clinton is responsible for 9/11 then "but he's not president anymore" is really a weak excuse for not putting him in front of the comission.....

Talk bs about Kerry all you want..... if Bush wasn't such a coward he wouldn't have deserted and he would have been to Vietnam.

Bleda

6th May 2004, 07:29 AM

Ok, but ...
3 of these sites have a .gov suffix, wich means they are governmental institutions..... don't you think the site of the White House is biased when it comes to talking about things the White House does?

Plus: the second link you provided is a text issued by the White House -> biased.

And the first one is a blog! You know what a blog is?! It's just some guy that happened to stumble on a text issued by people SUPPORTING BUSH and he just posted it on his own personal site. The text comes from a right wing group, not an independent media.....

Your articles are all just as biased. If you ignore the opinions on the sites and look at the facts the bottom line is those are things that he has done with or with out the fluff of the site. They are actions he has taken and not even the liberal media can deny facts about those actions. The first site is from Cal Poly reprinted from other sites that collected the facts. They may spin them in the conservative light but how is that any different than the liberals using liberal goggles on their news?
Many of your articles were things that were occuring and then they tried to link them to the president under a bunch of assumptions and opinions. The majority of them could not say that "this occured because the administration did this"

HAHA an American conservative talking about ignorance.........

I'm sorry but this has to be the most moronic, ignorant, and obviously stupid statement I have seen from anyone, liberal or conservative. If you can pull yourself away from blatantly hating americans and anyone who doesn't think the world should follow europe you'd see how loaded and rediculous a statement like that is. Just incase you still don't get it give me a reason why it can not say "HAHA a Belgium liberal talking about ignorance..." cause of course you know living in belgium you understand american society so well....

Ancalagon

6th May 2004, 07:50 AM

Ya, I guess most of us americans think we did just withdrawn. What we did was pretty stupid just backing out. Now most likely we will back out of the war on terror. That sucks.

Shiro

6th May 2004, 08:06 AM

Your articles are all just as biased. If you ignore the opinions on the sites and look at the facts the bottom line is those are things that he has done with or with out the fluff of the site. They are actions he has taken and not even the liberal media can deny facts about those actions. The first site is from Cal Poly reprinted from other sites that collected the facts. They may spin them in the conservative light but how is that any different than the liberals using liberal goggles on their news?
Many of your articles were things that were occuring and then they tried to link them to the president under a bunch of assumptions and opinions. The majority of them could not say that "this occured because the administration did this"

I'm sorry but this has to be the most moronic, ignorant, and obviously stupid statement I have seen from anyone, liberal or conservative. If you can pull yourself away from blatantly hating americans and anyone who doesn't think the world should follow europe you'd see how loaded and rediculous a statement like that is. Just incase you still don't get it give me a reason why it can not say "HAHA a Belgium liberal talking about ignorance..." cause of course you know living in belgium you understand american society so well....

Well, I got the articles from the Washington Post, the New York Times, CBS, CNN, .... They are mainstream American media.
The things you posted come from the people who are doing or supporting the shit I hate your administration and Conservatives for, don't you see the difference?

I did say American conservatives, not Americans. Learn to read.
And I really think it's funny :). You can say anything you want, I won't even feel insulted, with all the bs you gave me...... Don't you get the feeling you made a fool out of yourself?
Go on E-budo and look for Gene Williams, he has ideas like you too, you could be friends :). Oh but wait.... he probably hates cubans, so never mind.....

mingshi

6th May 2004, 08:20 AM

Clinton cut the number of soldiers drastically during his time, cut funding for infantry equipment such as body armor, gas masks, chemical suits, APC's and closed many many bases. The military was gutted as compared to its former glory and thats obvious by our troops lack of protective equipment when this war began. We were not prepared for any conflicts under clinton's administration...

Spending a major budget on military "defense"/ glory of the nation, instead of health care, education etc. for the citizens in your own country, is not very different from what North Korea is doing. Some people need to sort out their priorities...

Bleda

6th May 2004, 12:35 PM

samurai999

6th May 2004, 01:40 PM

Spending a major budget on military "defense"/ glory of the nation, instead of health care, education etc. for the citizens in your own country, is not very different from what North Korea is doing. Some people need to sort out their priorities...

Ya, but where is that health care/education money that my family spent in taxes go to? My parents haven't seen any of that health care money (even in Clinton's era). Oaklands/Haywards (local bay area) schools have been in the worst of shape since God knows when. Any time ANY politician says health care, or social security or we need to focus on domestic issues makes me puke since it never affects anybody I know or it never becomes their real focus. It is a cliched issue that in my eyes never gets fulfilled. Plus that "major budget on military defense" is partly going to NASA, and other major businesses that could give more jobs to unemployed people (engineers and technicians alike) such as myself. Priorities indeed.

North Korea? A guy who stands on 3" platform shoes and does his hair "tall" so that he appears taller is in control of the country's money compared to the US where budgets are made and distributed by a team of people who at least know something about economics and is voted on by a comittee (such as the House or the Senate). Even if it is all mostly going to the military, they can be going to things that help us and protect us. The Star Wars program was a big boom in the aerospace field since the rush to create anti-ICBM weaponry also created new branches into other fields.

Tim

samurai999

6th May 2004, 01:53 PM

A quick look at Clinton's policies on our economy shows that Bush got saddled with

Clinton's neglect, clinton was lucky enough to run out of terms before his horrendous blunders showed up. The majority of the blame is squarely placed on Clinton's shoulders by pretty much every major analyst. Bush is a friend of the business and promotes new initiatives and growth within the economy.

Clinton isn't infront of the 9/11 commission because he wasn't president when it happened. His security policies were still in effect though.

Clinton cut the number of soldiers drastically during his time, cut funding for infantry equipment such as body armor, gas masks, chemical suits, APC's and closed many many bases. The military was gutted as compared to its former glory and thats obvious by our troops lack of protective equipment when this war began. We were not prepared for any conflicts under clinton's administration.

Thats a matter of opinion but many americans feel that he, like john kerry, has no spine of his own but is fickle like the public. Whatever the public thinks is good today is what he does even if they completely change their minds tommorrow and he has to undo it. Clinton was a puppet president at best. Of course he was popular because he folded so easy and gave into every demand the international community wanted. China says, "We want ICBM technology! give me ICBM or i'll cry!!!" Clinton says, uh oh better make sure they can nuke the entire world, lets give it to em! Common sense my ass...

Remember also that under Clinton, the economy got better because of all of these dot.coms that got IPOs out. That was our version of a bubble economy. I am definitely NOT an econ major, but I think that the economy was better because it was like a illusory economy. These companies appreared out of nowhere without a business plan and since the internet was booming, the economy just blossomed. During the end of Clinton's era and when Bush was getting into office, the dot coms all went bust and the economy went down with them. Plus since 9-11, the economy went down even more.

Tim

Bleda

6th May 2004, 02:16 PM

Shiro

6th May 2004, 07:04 PM

When the world is peaceful and we don't have enemies jumping over each other to clutch the world at the throat then we can rethink our priorities. A prime example of this is how much we cut from the military when the iron curtain fell. The level of troops was no longer needed so we cut spending. Unfortunately the world is not peaceful yet and we are unable to cut our budget at the time.

@shiro its obvious you're beyond debate and are just in pissy mode cause you couldn't come up with any real facts except your opinion on how much you hate america. If you decide to continue your discussion try using facts and making points instead of the bullshit hate comments against americans that you're making now. You're no different than a muslim claiming islamic jihad because they "hate american conservatives!"

Real facts? Did you read all my articles? At least I came up with more than a few texts people in the White House wrote.... you should really try harder...
No I'm not pissed :) my friends and I are having a good laugh with what you write ;).
Now, tell me, where in this thread did I say I hate all Americans indiscriminately?
Hell, I hate belgian conservatives too, so why should I like the American conservatives?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm
Most of those persons died after the war was officially over, don't you think that's a good reason to think this war is a huge mess? And don't you think it's legitimate to question the bush policies in the middle-east? Or do you think all those deaths are fake?
Bush barely went to their funerals (I think he did go to one or two), he simply doesn't care about them. Quite cynical.... a deserter telling them to go die for their country......

Shiro

6th May 2004, 07:54 PM

Here is an interesting security resolution by the UN. Its what made the US led invasion of iraq completely legal and inline with the ruling of the security counsel.

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

Security Resolution 1441.

You only care about the UN when it can help you, don't you?
Yes, this resolution includes all means possible to make Iraq respect previous resolutions.... BUT this resolution was issued by the UN security council and the security council didn't vote in favor of the invasion, wich makes the invasion illegal. The fact it's in a UN resolution doesn't mean you're allowed to do whatever you want.
After the resolution was voted the UN weapon inspectors got back in Iraq, wich was a step in the good direction, according to LOTS of people. If Saddam would have said "F*ck it, I don't want the inspectors here", then I would have understood the invasion, but now......

And the biggest argument still stands: it's been a year US soldiers are in Iraq and STILL haven't come up with WMD's. If you look at the show Rumsfeld and Powell put up for the security council, I think that's quite outrageous....

Shiro

6th May 2004, 10:15 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040429/ts_nm/bush_poll_dc_2
:D

Bleda

6th May 2004, 10:54 PM

So in other words your a big ball of pent up hate and rage when it comes to people who don't agree with you...wow thats a good person to talk to about foreign politics.:rolleyes:

Bleda

6th May 2004, 11:09 PM

Real facts? Did you read all my articles? At least I came up with more than a few texts people in the White House wrote.... you should really try harder... I didn't have to i got all my facts put in the same place with a minimum of filler opinions. If you take the blinders off and read them including the "blog" site you'll see that its much easier to grab quick facts and accomplishments out of it than liberalized media pieces.

No I'm not pissed :) my friends and I are having a good laugh with what you write ;). I'm glad you're enjoying yourself then. I would hate for such ignorance to go wasted on useful things.

Now, tell me, where in this thread did I say I hate all Americans indiscriminately?
Hell, I hate belgian conservatives too, so why should I like the American conservatives? Hate is hate and your consistent use of that word leads me to believe you're a pretty angry guy when it comes to not getting your way. Mommy mommy the conservative guy is ruining my liberal opinions! It's okay dear you can always go to a muslim country and fight right in with the hate!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm
Most of those persons died after the war was officially over, don't you think that's a good reason to think this war is a huge mess? And don't you think it's legitimate to question the bush policies in the middle-east? Or do you think all those deaths are fake?
Bush barely went to their funerals (I think he did go to one or two), he simply doesn't care about them. Quite cynical.... a deserter telling them to go die for their country......
It's war, not fufu. People die unfortunately. The US casualty list is pretty low and well below reasonable limits. In previous wars 700 men went in a single battle as compared to a year and a half +. It won't bring back those people that died but they weren't draftee's, they knew what they volunteered for.

After the resolution was voted the UN weapon inspectors got back in Iraq, wich was a step in the good direction, according to LOTS of people. If Saddam would have said "F*ck it, I don't want the inspectors here", then I would have understood the invasion, but now......
Seriously what news sources do you watch? Saddam did tell the UN inspectors "Fuck it i don't want you guys to inspect any of my palaces or this, this, this, and this site. If you want to inspect anything else give me 3 weeks notice too so you don't suprise me."

Shiro

6th May 2004, 11:44 PM

I didn't have to i got all my facts put in the same place with a minimum of filler opinions. If you take the blinders off and read them including the "blog" site you'll see that its much easier to grab quick facts and accomplishments out of it than liberalized media pieces.

I thought the point of freedom was being able to check several sources of information in order to create your own opinion......
I knew this was going to happen..... "liberalized media"...... like it's a conspiracy against you..... try to look up some stuff about Rupert Murdock, before saying there's a conspiracy against conservatives......

I'm glad you're enjoying yourself then. I would hate for such ignorance to go wasted on useful things.

Oh I do, why do you think I'm still on this thread? :D

Hate is hate and your consistent use of that word leads me to believe you're a pretty angry guy when it comes to not getting your way. Mommy mommy the conservative guy is ruining my liberal opinions! It's okay dear you can always go to a muslim country and fight right in with the hate!

Like any good Bush puppy........ :) They don't agree with you? Compare them to terrorists........ :)
In fact, 9/11 is one of the reasons I hate Bush.... he abused the tragedy to serve his own goals, did almost nothing to prevent it and is very reluctant when it comes to helping the 9/11 commission......
Families of 9/11 victims probably hate Bush too, would you call them terrorists?
Believe me, I wasn't laughing at all that day.....

It's war, not fufu. People die unfortunately. The US casualty list is pretty low and well below reasonable limits. In previous wars 700 men went in a single battle as compared to a year and a half +. It won't bring back those people that died but they weren't draftee's, they knew what they volunteered for.

I know it's war :p and I definitely know people die in it. I just think they deserved to die for a good reason, that's all.
And as a deserter, Bush isn't really in the best situation to talk about patriotism......

Seriously what news sources do you watch? Saddam did tell the UN inspectors "Fuck it i don't want you guys to inspect any of my palaces or this, this, this, and this site. If you want to inspect anything else give me 3 weeks notice too so you don't suprise me."

Oh so that's why even American inspectors have found nothing so far? :D

KhawMengLee

7th May 2004, 04:22 AM

Oh so that's why even American inspectors have found nothing so far? :D

Yup, David Kay was Bush's top WMD inspector(now ex) and even he admitted a few months ago that Iraq had no WMDs.

http://www.review.udel.edu/article.php?article_id=2400

US wrong on Iraq, weapons inspector says

THE REVIEW/Ben Andersen

David Kay, former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says the United States must admit it erred in its assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

BY NICK NEBORAK

Staff Reporter

The United States should admit it was wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and correct the intelligence-gathering efforts of the nation, a former weapons inspector for the United Nations said to an audience of approximately 600 people in Mitchell Hall Wednesday.

David Kay, former U.S. chief weapons inspector in Iraq, focused his speech for the Global Agenda Lecture Series on certain aspects of working with the enemy-intrusive inspections.

He discussed topics such as the process of probing for weapons and the problems and issues that arise with intelligence-gathering efforts.

In 1998, when the United States did not find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kay said, an entire country was baffled at how so many people could have been mistaken.

Kay said it was a major intelligence failure, as well as a systematic failure on the part of the U.S. intelligence-gathering efforts.

The United States had a model of what Iraq was doing because it was able to gather some evidence, Kay said, but relied too much on defectors from Iraq.

These defectors began fabricating stories about weapons of mass destruction to other intelligence services in the country and became prominent sources of information.

The reason the United States. was wrong was because it failed to challenge assumptions and ask questions when it came to weapons of mass destruction still being manufactured in Iraq, Kay said.

"If you don't collect dots you shouldn't go around connecting them," he said.

Kay criticized the United States for not examining the reliability of the evidence it received from defectors, which was approximately 80 to 90 percent of its information. It would have given the entire country confidence that weapons of mass destruction were a reality in Iraq.

Kay discussed another suspicious circumstance regarding weapons of mass destruction. When the United States questioned Saddam Hussein, he acted foolishly by "throwing open his doors and saying they didn't have weapons of mass destruction."

The United States focused its efforts on the external facts regarding Iraq without going inside to find the truth, Kay said.

Iraq's own military officers thought they still had weapons of mass destruction, as did the entire United States, he said. It was this belief structure that sustained Hussein's power for so long.

"The belief that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction was an important part of his political survival," Kay said.

In closing, Kay stressed that the recent era of intelligence has not helped the United States win wars.

"Young men and women in the Army help win wars," he said. "Intelligence helps you to prevent wars, and the U.S. has probably lost credibility in that area."

Kay said the only way to improve the intelligence gathering in the United States is to acknowledge the errors that were made and find ways to correct them. If the United States does not do this, then the country has lost a major tool in preventing wars in the future.

"We must acknowledge that we blew it," Kay said as he ended his speech to a standing ovation from the crowd.

Freshman Paige Fitzgerald said she was glad she attended the lecture because it was a chance to gain knowledge about an issue that affects everyone.

"I was interested in hearing someone talk about the weapons program from an insider's point of view," she said, "because most people have a lot to say but don't have any actual knowledge about it."

She said she especially liked Kay's reference to connecting the dots because it helped her understand President George W. Bush's actions in Iraq.

Newark resident Bill Reichle said he attended the speech for one main reason: to learn.

"The most compelling thing I learned was in order to get beyond where we are today, someone has to admit that we made a mistake, and that's the president," he said. "We have to admit that we made a mistake, mend fences and get on with it, otherwise we're going to be bogged down with this mess for generations to come."

Reichle, who has attended other Global Agenda lectures, said they have all been important but this one was especially significant because of its wide effect on the country.

"It was a packed house tonight, he said, "so that shows you that it was an important topic that was well received."

The Global Agenda Lecture Series ends May 18 with a lecture titled "North Korea: Last Bastion of Stalinism," which will be given by John Merril, a State Department Intelligence and research worker.

Interesting thing about sources for going to war:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a8rOU69LnnPs&refer=us

U.S. Needs 250,000 Troops in Iraq, Weapons Inspector Kay Says
May 2 (Bloomberg) -- David Kay, who led the hunt for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, said the U.S. may need as many as 250,000 troops to keep the peace in the country, after basing plans for the occupation on false assumptions.

The situation in the Shia holy city of Najaf ``is beginning to look like a genuine civil rebellion'' with insurgents ``numbering in thousands,'' said Kay in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp.

Kay, who was the chief U.S. arms inspector from June 2003 through January 2004, said the U.S. needs to send in more troops to keep the peace. The U.S. currently has 135,000 troops in Iraq and plans to transfer power to a provisional Iraqi government on June 30.

``We need at least 200,000, probably 250,000 on the ground if you're going to provide security,'' Kay said on BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend. ``It's hopeless to believe you can turn this over on June 30 if the level of security remains what it's been the last three or four weeks.''

Kay said the U.S. had acted on ``clearly false assumptions about how the Iraqis would react once we entered the country.''

``There was a tremendous over-reliance on the Iraqi refugees who came out primarily through the Iraqi National Congress,'' he said. ``They told us what we wanted to hear in order to get the course of action that they wanted. I don't blame them, I blame us. We allowed ourselves to be fooled.

``The removal of Saddam is an important positive contribution both to Iraq and the region and the world. It's been undermined by our failure to achieve security and restart the economy. If we'd planned for the post war environment adequately before the war, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion now.''

Similar situations happened with the Cold War. People have assumptions and sometimes the line of questioning is heavily weighted towards only wanting one answer.

eg. Interviewers stress heavily on questions about Soviet human rights abuse and WMD production. The interviewee wants to stay in US and the more he addresses their fears the better his chances of staying are because he feels they are happy with the information he is providing.

Its happened as I said before in the former USSR where horror stories of mass graves and supposed illegal weapons sites have turned out to be false. Cooked up by the sources because that's what investigators wanted to hear.

Shiro

7th May 2004, 07:05 AM

Some more lecture for Bleda :):
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpgal293777723apr29,0,6861687.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5057255
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0503iraq-losing-ground03-ON.html
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5052755
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5840-2004May5.html?referrer=emailarticle
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3681289.stm
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAW7ICDWTD.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64323-2004May3.html?referrer=emailarticle
http://us.gq.com/plus/content/?040429plco_01

Bleda

7th May 2004, 07:17 AM

I thought the point of freedom was being able to check several sources of information in order to create your own opinion......
I knew this was going to happen..... "liberalized media"...... like it's a conspiracy against you..... try to look up some stuff about Rupert Murdock, before saying there's a conspiracy against conservatives......
The pages i cited where quick ones i found in under 2 minutes to show that i could use google to find pages that said what i wanted them to say easily too just like your news articles that ignore all the positive aspects and only talk about negative and opinions that are negative. I in no way shape or form endorsed the OPINIONS on the sites but the facts are clear cut and are pulled from several news reports. Its called a factsheet. Do you know what fact means? It means that no matter who says it, bottom line its a truth that no one can dispute, not even your little liberal mind.

Like any good Bush puppy........ :) They don't agree with you? Compare them to terrorists........ :)
Khaw doesn't agree with me, does that mean i compare him to a terrorist? Nope i compare ignorant blind hate folk who belong more in line with the ideals of the groups that they supposedly stand against. Seriously your statements on hate and opposition sound like you're a racist hate group member more than a liberal trying to "save the world".
BTW i never said i was a bush supporter, i'm neither for or against him. I am defending our nation against your ignorance though and our actions. I believe the war in iraq was a good thing and that its about damn time someone stepped up to the plate and showed the world the UN resolutions aren't paper tigers. Personally i would rather see reagan or GHB in there than GW but compared to kerry there is not much contest on who i think will do a better job.

In fact, 9/11 is one of the reasons I hate Bush.... he abused the tragedy to serve his own goals, did almost nothing to prevent it and is very reluctant when it comes to helping the 9/11 commission......
Families of 9/11 victims probably hate Bush too, would you call them terrorists? There you go making out of whack assumptions on something you have no clue about but feel like talking out of your ass again. If you think the government let 9/11 happen then you're seriously full of it. The 9/11 comission is a witch hunt like the McCarthy trials where they are just trying to blame someone for it. No one would have let that happen given the oppurtunity to stop it.

Believe me, I wasn't laughing at all that day..... Thats good to hear, atleast your blood lust for americans and hate stops at the death of innocent people. Or does it make you happy that lots of people that died that day were conservatives?

I know it's war :p and I definitely know people die in it. I just think they deserved to die for a good reason, that's all.
And as a deserter, Bush isn't really in the best situation to talk about patriotism...... A) Bush was not a deserter he was in the reserve units and no one has been able to make any substatiated claim as to the otherwise. His unit commander says he was present when required and had he been called up he would have had to go. What you're currently doing by spreading a false lie is called libel and is illegal btw.

B) You may not think its a good reason butyears down the line when the Iraqi people are under a stable government and there kids are enjoying new found freedom see how many of them think the soldiers died for no reason?

Oh so that's why even American inspectors have found nothing so far? If we find out that saddam did destroy the 5000 missing tons of anthrax and assorted other WMD's then be thankful that was done. My personal opinion is that the reason we can't find them yet is because either there stockpiled in that vast wasteland of a desert, as saddams on officers believe, or they were sold recently and are now on the loose due to how long it took the UN to finally act. Bottom line is the suspicion was there and there was just cause to invade the country, the question isn't so much about whether we find anything but rather lets find out what happened to all the missing stuff so that if it is still there we can recover. Of course many people are too blind to see that it doesn't matter if we find any aslong as we find out what happened to them and that takes alot more time than a year.

Here is an interesting quote from David Kay reguarding the international consensus on Saddam before the war.
"Iraq's own military officers thought they still had weapons of mass destruction, as did the entire United States, he said. It was this belief structure that sustained Hussein's power for so long.

"The belief that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction was an important part of his political survival," Kay said"

Bleda

7th May 2004, 07:27 AM

5 of your lectures told nothing that wasn't already known except throw opinions by random reporters on things i already know about. some of the links didn't even work right, one of the articles that you aparently didn't read well said that bush WASN'T to blame for the iraq scanadal that if it was anybody it was rumsfield, and the last article on colin powell was good, i read it in GQ and thought it was well written piece.

As for lecturing me, the onlything you've proven to me is that no matter how ignorant people say americans are, the rest of the world is just as ignorant and hateful.

gsx1100s

7th May 2004, 08:34 AM

Just a quick thanks to Jenny for that study on gun incidents in schools . I've filed that away for future referance.

regards michael

Shiro

7th May 2004, 09:05 PM

rumsfield

No no no, it's Rumsfeld, not RumsfIeld..... It's getting really bad if you can't even write the names of the people who rule you correctly ;)

Ok, if reading articles or watching news broadcasts from various newspapers and tv stations is being ignorant, then yes, I am ingnorant.

Last time I checked Rumsfeld was still a member of the Bush administration and Bush is responsible for the actions of his administration. He's not directly responsible, granted, but Rumsfeld liked to say he didn't care about international laws when it came to pow's, so it was Bush's responsability to say such ideas didn't please him.

Shiro

7th May 2004, 10:11 PM

The pages i cited where quick ones i found in under 2 minutes to show that i could use google to find pages that said what i wanted them to say easily too just like your news articles that ignore all the positive aspects and only talk about negative and opinions that are negative. I in no way shape or form endorsed the OPINIONS on the sites but the facts are clear cut and are pulled from several news reports. Its called a factsheet. Do you know what fact means? It means that no matter who says it, bottom line its a truth that no one can dispute, not even your little liberal mind.

You still don't understand......... the texts you posted are texts written by Bush supporters...... don't you think it's a bit normal they aren't talking badly about it...... I mean, texts issued by the WHITE HOUSE and I hope you know who is in the White House now...... They are working for Bush, do you really think they'll point a finger at Bush to say he did something bad?

What newspapers do you read and what news broadcasts do you check?

Khaw doesn't agree with me, does that mean i compare him to a terrorist? Nope i compare ignorant blind hate folk who belong more in line with the ideals of the groups that they supposedly stand against. Seriously your statements on hate and opposition sound like you're a racist hate group member more than a liberal trying to "save the world".

Khaw probably resists the urge to make fun of you better than me :).
Again, if you really think I'm just another America-hating retard, why do you bother so much about what I say?

Now answer these questions:
- Where in this thread did I say I indiscriminately hated Americans?
- Do you understand the word 'indiscriminately'?
- Can you show me where I posted racist statements?
- Why would I bother to say thank you to the US for what they did in WWI and WWII if I really hated American people?
- Do you realize that when I say 'Conservative Americans' I don't mean all 300 million Americans but just those whose policies I despise so much?
- Do you realize the articles I posted come from AMERICAN (not all, but most of them) media?
- Why would I bother to look in AMERICAN media if I blindly hate America?

BTW i never said i was a bush supporter, i'm neither for or against him. I am defending our nation against your ignorance though and our actions. I believe the war in iraq was a good thing and that its about damn time someone stepped up to the plate and showed the world the UN resolutions aren't paper tigers. Personally i would rather see reagan or GHB in there than GW but compared to kerry there is not much contest on who i think will do a better job.

Why do you think John Kerry is that bad? Because he might be too friendly to other countries? But seriously, tell me what's wrong with him...

There you go making out of whack assumptions on something you have no clue about but feel like talking out of your ass again. If you think the government let 9/11 happen then you're seriously full of it. The 9/11 comission is a witch hunt like the McCarthy trials where they are just trying to blame someone for it. No one would have let that happen given the oppurtunity to stop it.

I'm not saying they hosted the terrorists or something, I'm saying they were utterly incompetent in dealing with that matter.
If the comission went after Clinton or any other democrat you'd be throwing flowers at them....

Thats good to hear, atleast your blood lust for americans and hate stops at the death of innocent people. Or does it make you happy that lots of people that died that day were conservatives?

How do you know they were conservative? And did you know there were also non-American victims? There's even a belgian person who died in the WTC.
Besides, I don't say conservatives deserve death, they should just drop those blinds and stop thinking the whole wide world is after them.....

A) Bush was not a deserter he was in the reserve units and no one has been able to make any substatiated claim as to the otherwise. His unit commander says he was present when required and had he been called up he would have had to go. What you're currently doing by spreading a false lie is called libel and is illegal btw.

Since when is it illegal to disagree with you?
I'm not the first one who says he is: http://slate.msn.com/id/2094496/
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html

Ok, there are people saying he is and people saying he isn't. I personally think he is.

B) You may not think its a good reason butyears down the line when the Iraqi people are under a stable government and there kids are enjoying new found freedom see how many of them think the soldiers died for no reason?
If we find out that saddam did destroy the 5000 missing tons of anthrax and assorted other WMD's then be thankful that was done. My personal opinion is that the reason we can't find them yet is because either there stockpiled in that vast wasteland of a desert, as saddams on officers believe, or they were sold recently and are now on the loose due to how long it took the UN to finally act. Bottom line is the suspicion was there and there was just cause to invade the country, the question isn't so much about whether we find anything but rather lets find out what happened to all the missing stuff so that if it is still there we can recover. Of course many people are too blind to see that it doesn't matter if we find any aslong as we find out what happened to them and that takes alot more time than a year.

No, that's not a good argument indeed........ the Iraqi people want the US Army out of the country, what makes you think they will like the occupation if it goes on longer?

Here is an interesting quote from David Kay reguarding the international consensus on Saddam before the war.
"Iraq's own military officers thought they still had weapons of mass destruction, as did the entire United States, he said. It was this belief structure that sustained Hussein's power for so long.

"The belief that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction was an important part of his political survival," Kay said"

He said that before the war, now he says there's nothing :). Khaw backs me on this.

KhawMengLee

8th May 2004, 06:07 AM

[QUOTE=Bleda]
Khaw doesn't agree with me, does that mean i compare him to a terrorist? QUOTE]

Haha! You should. I am evil :devious:

Bleda

8th May 2004, 01:37 PM

You still don't understand......... the texts you posted are texts written by Bush supporters...... don't you think it's a bit normal they aren't talking badly about it...... I mean, texts issued by the WHITE HOUSE and I hope you know who is in the White House now...... They are working for Bush, do you really think they'll point a finger at Bush to say he did something bad? You're obviously worse at grasping concepts than I thought. As i said before IGNORE THE OPINIONS. Look at his ACCOMPLISHMENTS. Those pages are ACCOMPLISHMENTS that he has indeed done. They are FACT. Not eve you can say he hasn't done anything on that page. If you want opinion read an article, if you want facts go to a FACT SHEET such as i posted.

What newspapers do you read and what news broadcasts do you check? MSN news, Fox, Yahoo news, and the best news for international, Latin American news. If you ever want to get news with out any politcal opinions thrown in, nothing beats the latin american news since they are broadcast to so many countries in central and south america they can't afford to throw in biased opinions.

Khaw probably resists the urge to make fun of you better than me :). Or khaw is just more mature and less moronic.

Again, if you really think I'm just another America-hating retard, why do you bother so much about what I say? I don't take kindly to ignorants bashing my country, even if they are beyond help in their blind pursuit of anarchy.

Now answer these questions:
- Where in this thread did I say I indiscriminately hated Americans? I never said INDISCRIMINATELY, i said its obvious you're an anti-american who hates conservative americans and anyone who disagrees with you.

- Do you understand the word 'indiscriminately'? Yes, do you understand the word irrelevant?

- Can you show me where I posted racist statements? I never called you racist, i said you were LIKE a racist hate group member for your consistent use of the word hate for anyone not thinking like you.
EX: Hell, I hate belgian conservatives too, so why should I like the American conservatives?

- Why would I bother to say thank you to the US for what they did in WWI and WWII if I really hated American people? Because you're a hypocrite? I don't know, why don't you tell me?

- Do you realize that when I say 'Conservative Americans' I don't mean all 300 million Americans but just those whose policies I despise so much? And statistically speaking it is likely that EVERY person in america has a policy you dislike so much. To a certain degree everyone is conservative and liberal.

- Do you realize the articles I posted come from AMERICAN (not all, but most of them) media? And thats supposed to add credibility? American media is one of the most politically biased and easily swayed in the world. We are notorious for how easily our media is swayed to show only certain things. Case in point, the media during vietnam and the russians influencing it to cast an even worse light on the war.

- Why would I bother to look in AMERICAN media if I blindly hate America? Readily available on the web and especially by google. Not to mention Yahoo, MSN, and CNN are pretty much the big 3 in web news and are all american.

Why do you think John Kerry is that bad? Because he might be too friendly to other countries? But seriously, tell me what's wrong with him... Nope, I think we need an administration with better damage control than the current one honestly. I think JK is a bad choice though for both his economic priorities (welfare and social security needs to be reformed and re-evaluated. They're bankrupt because they give so much money to non-deserving people who claim disability and unemployement illegitimately. Not to mention its money coming out of my pocket to pay for paco's drug habbit because he says he has ADD), his hypocritical views on the vietnam war ( serving multiple tours then bad mouthing the soldiers at home), and his lack of support for nasa. I'm a big believer in space as a unifying cause for the world and think we need to support exploration, john kerry wants to cut nasa funding even more. His lack of a difinitive stance on issues also bothers me, if he can't make a decision for or against something when he is just campaigning then i am frightened to see him in the white house. The list goes on but those are my main quibbles with JK.
My main dislikes of Bush are his lack of communication with the world, his poor job of damage control on issues, and his sometimes overzealousness.

I'm not saying they hosted the terrorists or something, I'm saying they were utterly incompetent in dealing with that matter.
If the comission went after Clinton or any other democrat you'd be throwing flowers at them.... What matter were they utterly incompetent in dealing with? They didn't know about it, they had a report that planes MIGHT be hijacked, HELLO thats been known for years, its not something knew that came in with Bush. The 9/11 commission is bogus, its a pure and simple witch hunt and no i don't wish that on clinton or anyone else, he couldn't have done anything about it either. If there is anyone i would want to see stand before the 9/11 comission it would be the perpetrators themselves.

How do you know they were conservative? And did you know there were also non-American victims? There's even a belgian person who died in the WTC. There were many conservatives in the WTC, famous ones and not so famous ones including one of my mother's cousins. My family doesn't hate bush, we aren't "bush puppies" as you seem to call anyone who isn't completely liberal but we definately don't hate him.

Besides, I don't say conservatives deserve death, they should just drop those blinds and stop thinking the whole wide world is after them..... Take your own advice on this one, drop the blinds and stop thinking all problems can be solved with just talks.

Since when is it illegal to disagree with you?
I'm not the first one who says he is: http://slate.msn.com/id/2094496/
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.htm (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html)
None of those sites commit libel because none claim him to be either or. You're words are libelous(and hence illegal) because you falsely accuse him of being a deserter when not even those articles you posted say he is one. Infact the 2nd one clearly states that he wasn't a deserter since he most definately achieved his required number of days to be honorably discharged.

No, that's not a good argument indeed........ the Iraqi people want the US Army out of the country, what makes you think they will like the occupation if it goes on longer? The argument wasn't for or against the war, it was for the soldiers dying for a good cause. I honestly don't care if they like the occupation or not because they are brining it on themselves. If they would stop shooting each other and instead debate it out as political groups the US could pull out within the date they set. Instead they decide to shoot and blow each other up because they can't figure out the more intelligent course of action.

He said that before the war, now he says there's nothing :). He said that AFTER the war as a justification as to why the US and the international community believed there were WMD's in iraq. The quote is actually brand new from his latest talk and comes from the article khaw posted. He also said he believes that Iraq no longer psoses WMD's but thatit was a well known fact that they definately did up until recently. And he never said there's nothing, he says he doesn't think we will find any. Big difference. The cops may never find your stash of crack but that doesn't mean its not there...

*wonders why khaw's chest makes strange beeping noises*

doubissu

8th May 2004, 03:36 PM

Guys, please stop... I'm gonna pee in my pants ... This one's my favorite: "If you ever want to get news with out any politcal opinions thrown in, nothing beats the latin american news". Hmhhhh... maybe something like Guadelahara Gazette or Cancun Post?

Eddy

You're obviously worse at grasping concepts than I thought. As i said before IGNORE THE OPINIONS. Look at his ACCOMPLISHMENTS. Those pages are ACCOMPLISHMENTS that he has indeed done. They are FACT. Not eve you can say he hasn't done anything on that page. If you want opinion read an article, if you want facts go to a FACT SHEET such as i posted.

MSN news, Fox, Yahoo news, and the best news for international, Latin American news. If you ever want to get news with out any politcal opinions thrown in, nothing beats the latin american news since they are broadcast to so many countries in central and south america they can't afford to throw in biased opinions.

Or khaw is just more mature and less moronic.

I don't take kindly to ignorants bashing my country, even if they are beyond help in their blind pursuit of anarchy.

I never said INDISCRIMINATELY, i said its obvious you're an anti-american who hates conservative americans and anyone who disagrees with you.

Yes, do you understand the word irrelevant?

I never called you racist, i said you were LIKE a racist hate group member for your consistent use of the word hate for anyone not thinking like you.
EX: Hell, I hate belgian conservatives too, so why should I like the American conservatives?

Because you're a hypocrite? I don't know, why don't you tell me?

And statistically speaking it is likely that EVERY person in america has a policy you dislike so much. To a certain degree everyone is conservative and liberal.

And thats supposed to add credibility? American media is one of the most politically biased and easily swayed in the world. We are notorious for how easily our media is swayed to show only certain things. Case in point, the media during vietnam and the russians influencing it to cast an even worse light on the war.

Readily available on the web and especially by google. Not to mention Yahoo, MSN, and CNN are pretty much the big 3 in web news and are all american.

Nope, I think we need an administration with better damage control than the current one honestly. I think JK is a bad choice though for both his economic priorities (welfare and social security needs to be reformed and re-evaluated. They're bankrupt because they give so much money to non-deserving people who claim disability and unemployement illegitimately. Not to mention its money coming out of my pocket to pay for paco's drug habbit because he says he has ADD), his hypocritical views on the vietnam war ( serving multiple tours then bad mouthing the soldiers at home), and his lack of support for nasa. I'm a big believer in space as a unifying cause for the world and think we need to support exploration, john kerry wants to cut nasa funding even more. His lack of a difinitive stance on issues also bothers me, if he can't make a decision for or against something when he is just campaigning then i am frightened to see him in the white house. The list goes on but those are my main quibbles with JK.
My main dislikes of Bush are his lack of communication with the world, his poor job of damage control on issues, and his sometimes overzealousness.

What matter were they utterly incompetent in dealing with? They didn't know about it, they had a report that planes MIGHT be hijacked, HELLO thats been known for years, its not something knew that came in with Bush. The 9/11 commission is bogus, its a pure and simple witch hunt and no i don't wish that on clinton or anyone else, he couldn't have done anything about it either. If there is anyone i would want to see stand before the 9/11 comission it would be the perpetrators themselves.

There were many conservatives in the WTC, famous ones and not so famous ones including one of my mother's cousins. My family doesn't hate bush, we aren't "bush puppies" as you seem to call anyone who isn't completely liberal but we definately don't hate him.

Take your own advice on this one, drop the blinds and stop thinking all problems can be solved with just talks.

None of those sites commit libel because none claim him to be either or. You're words are libelous(and hence illegal) because you falsely accuse him of being a deserter when not even those articles you posted say he is one. Infact the 2nd one clearly states that he wasn't a deserter since he most definately achieved his required number of days to be honorably discharged.

The argument wasn't for or against the war, it was for the soldiers dying for a good cause. I honestly don't care if they like the occupation or not because they are brining it on themselves. If they would stop shooting each other and instead debate it out as political groups the US could pull out within the date they set. Instead they decide to shoot and blow each other up because they can't figure out the more intelligent course of action.

He said that AFTER the war as a justification as to why the US and the international community believed there were WMD's in iraq. The quote is actually brand new from his latest talk and comes from the article khaw posted. He also said he believes that Iraq no longer psoses WMD's but thatit was a well known fact that they definately did up until recently. And he never said there's nothing, he says he doesn't think we will find any. Big difference. The cops may never find your stash of crack but that doesn't mean its not there...

*wonders why khaw's chest makes strange beeping noises*

Bleda

8th May 2004, 05:28 PM

Guys, please stop... I'm gonna pee in my pants ... This one's my favorite: "If you ever want to get news with out any politcal opinions thrown in, nothing beats the latin american news". Hmhhhh... maybe something like Guadelahara Gazette or Cancun Post?

Eddy
Thats mexican. Latin American news is broadcast to multiple countries across the continent and include telemundo and univision. They have local news for the area you are in and also international news that they share amongst others. Obviously you have a very bad concept about the intelligence of the latin american. Saying a statement like that is like spitting in all of south americas face.

doubissu

9th May 2004, 04:26 AM

Try getting some news from areas that don't include "American" in their name... Pick any country in Europe or Asia for instance. You might find this exercise a bit enlighting. I think your post was very funny anyway ... That you get your news on Yahoo, MSN and Fox says a lot.

Back to lurking,

Eddy

Thats mexican. Latin American news is broadcast to multiple countries across the continent and include telemundo and univision. They have local news for the area you are in and also international news that they share amongst others. Obviously you have a very bad concept about the intelligence of the latin american. Saying a statement like that is like spitting in all of south americas face.

Bleda

9th May 2004, 11:28 AM

Have you actually tried watching any latin american news? Probably not since you seem to think latin american news is inadequate or unable to give facts. These aren't a single countries news, its many many nations that rely on these sources so they for the most part keep it very very bipartisan. Don't knock something till you've tried it. BTW i also check the BBC occasionally and find it has all kinds of opinions as well. For the most part yahoo seems pretty liberal and msn is a bit more conservative so reading both pages usually gives you a good view on things around the world. I would say 90% of my news comes from yahoo and msn, with the other 10% coming from the TV. (don't watch much TV since i don't have that much time to really.)

Shiro

9th May 2004, 07:33 PM

@Bleda: I won't say anything this time, since I know there's nothing I can say that you will even bother to consider. Instead, I will let the media talk.
Ok, I know, you don't think too highly of American media, but I don't care.... But if even American media talk that way about Iraq, don't you think there is a problem? I didn't invent what I say, they didn't invent what they say and I can assure you that European media echo the same thoughts and worries.

So, according to you, all of the next articles are bs?

Donald Rumsfeld Should Go
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/opinion/07FRI1.html?ex=1084507200&en=c456e059a3bc124f&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Did Military Try to Suppress Iraq Prison Photos?
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000506847

Cooks and drivers were working as interrogators
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1211374,00.html

Rush: MPs Just 'Blowing Off Steam'
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/06/opinion/meyer/main616021.shtml

Photos of Dead May Indicate Graver Abuse
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/politics/07DEAT.html?ex=1084507200&en=90c4a3bf9c4c5d12&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Soldiers Back in U.S. Tell of More Iraq Abuses
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5069732

Soldier: Unit's Role Was to Break Down Prisoners
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9130-2004May7.html?referrer=emailarticle

Inspector says he warned U.S. officials of Iraqi prisoner abuse
http://www.morningnewsonline.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=FMN/MGArticle/FMN_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031775300094&path=!news

Some Editorials Say Rumsfeld Must Go
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000506543

For Six Hours Onstage, the Rumsfeld Survival Rules Displayed, by the Man Himself
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/08/politics/08SCEN.html?ex=1084593600&en=c076ca6f7e44425a&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

U.S. Faces Lasting Damage Abroad
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7139-2004May6.html

Iraq: A Strategy for Progress
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=65960

Searching for the truth on escalating war costs
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/05/07/searching_for_the_truth_on_escalating_war_costs/

Events in Iraq Test President as Leader
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=3&u=/latimests/20040507/ts_latimes/eventsiniraqtestpresidentasleader

Defense secretary being put to test
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&ncid=2027&e=3&u=/chitribts/20040507/ts_chicagotrib/defensesecretarybeingputtotest

Abuse photos undermine Bush's religious rhetoric
Church leaders object to casting God on U.S. side
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/07/MNGV66H4IU1.DTL

Resign, Rumsfeld
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2647493

I think I made my point, the Bush Administration should come clean and go.
You love the country you live in and that's something I do respect. But if you really do, open your eyes and see that the current Administration is ruining America.

Bleda

10th May 2004, 01:43 AM

As i said before i don't condone prisoner abuse. I've seen about 90% of those articles you posted before and while i don't care for opinions (liberal or conservative) i never denied the facts given in the articles. I really do hope that all those responsible will be punished including rumsfeld if knew about it and did nothing. I'm not a fan of rumsfeld, never have been, i wish he wouldn't have been Sec of Defense, but nothing I can do about that. Seriously, if bush relieved himself of rumsfeld and got a bit less gunho Sec of Defense his other actions that don't include military really are a worthwhile cause and good for the nation. Everyone focuses on iraq and ignores the rest of the good he's doing.

I don't think he is ruining our country, the economy is slowly increasing, unemployement is decreasing slightly, national pride is at an all time high, and people are just proud to be americans again really. We do have some damage control to do for the international community, but on the whole i really do believe that 10 years down the line both afghan. and iraq are going to be better off for what is happening now.

Raziel

11th May 2004, 08:46 AM

Anyway so there I was right, in the middle of this jungle. Then all of the sudden there were like fifty guys around me And they were all like "we're gonna kill you" then they wipped out their pistols and I was all like "woah there's like fifty guys around me and they don't seem to like me" so I pulled out my lightsaber and they died.

Bleda

11th May 2004, 01:09 PM

Dude everyone knows you don't have a light saber. Now if you woulda said you whipped out your ninja sword and ninja skills and stealthily killed them all it would be different.

trainedkilla

1st June 2004, 01:26 PM

Compare the casualty numbers and then tell me who won.

KhawMengLee

1st June 2004, 03:03 PM

Compare the casualty numbers and then tell me who won.

Compare the dollars spent on ordanance per enemy dead and tell me who won.

Nearly a million per enemy dead...you might as well have just given them the money...you probably could have bought them over for less...

Oh, and if winning you're talking about, well...it all comes down to who still runs the country and who ran off with their tails between their legs.

slidercrank

1st June 2004, 05:37 PM

... So, according to you, all of the next articles are bs?

Cooks and drivers were working as interrogators
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1211374,00.html

Of the articles you posted, I clicked on one with the most incredulous title. And sure enough, it was utter BS, complete with a correction published days after the original article:

"The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and Clarifications column, Friday May 14 2004

... we quoted a remark Torin Nelson made about "cooks and truck drivers". Mr Nelson has asked us to make it clear that he intended the remark to be rhetorical. He did not mean that people from those jobs were actually working at the prison as interrogators."

Running a rhetorical remark on the headline of an article, clearly not the finest hour of British journalism.

Shiro

3rd June 2004, 07:53 AM

Running a rhetorical remark on the headline of an article, clearly not the finest hour of British journalism.

I totally agree on that. But at least they correct it themselves, not like some government I know that lied about wmd's and doesn't want to admit it even if they found nothing more than a year later....... :rolleyes:

Tholon

3rd June 2004, 10:32 PM

I haven't read all the 12 pages. So bear with me if this has been covered.

OK - US lost the war. But who won? On one hand you could argue that the Vietnamese won. On the other hand, did they really?
20 years with a communist regime? I don't know how many boat refugees how made it to Hong Kong. And how many that didn't make it.

So I guess one could say that the Vietnamese people also lost the war.

Skolld

4th June 2004, 07:31 AM

i've been reading the latest posts on this thread and to make sure you don't think all Americans are as pro-war as Bleda I'll respond with the following;

"Trying to eliminate Saddam... would have incurred incalculable human
and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We
would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq....
there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of
our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to
set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world.
Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United
Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international
response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the
invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an
occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

-- George Herbert Walker Bush, from his memoir, A World Transformed
(1998)

I happen to be a veteran of the 1st Gulf War when Bush Sr. was President and all of the reasons we didn't go into Iraq then are the same reasons we should not have gone in this time. Most Americans refuse to accept the fact that we could have been wrong. By invading Iraq on such dubious intelligence we have set a very dangerous precedent. We've told the world that their opinions are irrelevant to U.S. goals and that unilateral action is perfectly acceptable.
No one will argue that Saddam was a good man or that ousting him from power is a bad thing. but... The ends cannot justify the means.
Saddam had no connection to Bin Laden, Saddam opposed fundamentalsits and was such a meglomaniac that it is inconceivable that he would share WMDs with any outside source.
He also never made any overt threats toward the U.S., There are no recorded speeches promising to use WMDs on Americans. granted he had no love of us but he posed little to no threat to the U.S.
In Afganistan our stated objective was to capture Bin Laden, we have yet to achieve that goal and yet we still found time to invade another country and divert forces from our "real" problem. By invading Iraq we have probably produced more terrorists than we have stopped. Thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed in this conflict. These civilians were just as innocent as the men and women killed on Sep. 11th.
In my opinion Americans need to stop thinking that only American lives are important, all lives are important, American, Iraqi, all lives. How many people have to die?
We all practice an art that's focus is killing, I believe that by understanding death we can appreciate life a little more,
Soldiers on the battlefield have a much different appreiciation of life and death than politicians.
my 2 cents

Hotei

5th June 2004, 02:40 PM

SKOLLD- I just wanted to say thanks. It ridiculous that we're there now, and it unfortunate that you had to go the first time for the first Bush Bastard I regretably voted for. I'm just glad that there are folks out there like yourself that are still willing to take the few years our of their lives to serve in the manner you have, regardless of whether or not I agree with the situation.

If you ever find yourself in Oklahoma City look up Sen Shin Kan dojo, and you will be greeted warmly.

<gassho>

And THOLON? I'm probably going to screw this up completely, but I believe it was Einstein who said "You can no more win a war than you can win a train wreck." I'm inclined to agree. My kid is 5. She willnever be safe outside of her home country for the rest of her life. . . This is winning?

Shiro

5th June 2004, 05:41 PM

Yeah, it's great to hear a veteran talk that way and I am sure many of the US soldiers that are in Iraq now are questionning the policies of the current US Administration. The war they wanted is doing a lot of harm and not only to the USA.

What Bleda fails to understand is that I don't have anything against the American people (except hardline conservatives maybe :p :)), but against certain administrations throughout the century that did wrong things.

What Skolld said proves one thing: you cannot understand what a war really is unless you're in one. And if you know that none of the members of the current Administration has actually been in a battlefield situation it's more than legitimate to doubt about the fact they really know what they are doing.
Isn't it ironic.... a "president" suspected of being a deserter, telling the boys and girls in Iraq to "stay the course"......

Bush wanted this war so bad, even before 9/11, all he needed was an excuse. In my eyes he abused the 9/11 tragedy to get his filthy little war to make him and his friends richer.

not-I

6th June 2004, 12:58 AM

I try to stay out of threads on Bush or Iraq becasue the fronts are usually too static and it's one of the few topics that can really get me worked up. But sometimes i can't help myself.

The invasion of Iraq has been a series of mistakes from day one, to wit:

1.) Going there in the first place. Saddam was contained and no "immanent threat" to anyone except his own people. The U.S. has never had a problem supporting horrible dictators when it was in the interests of "national security." In any case, Iraq had been having the shit bombed out of it since the first Gulf War - there wasn't much military threat left. WMDs? hmm, where are they? Links with Islamist terrorists? Nope, Saddam was always a secularist and Bin Laden hated him. His "Islamic" act during GW1 was just a crude attempt to rile up support. The reason for invading was oil, pure and simple, and a geopolitical stage from which to secure more oil and gas. Bush and his cronies are making money, sure. But this is more about world domination, baby (see below).

2.) Telling the UN where to stick it. This is the age of globalization. Galvinizing world opinion against you and making opponents out of allies is just not smart. (Now Bush and Cheney have to go around and beg them to help clean up the mess he made.) All of the international sympathy for the U.S. after 9/11 was simply flushed down the toilet.

3.) Not sending enough troops for a long-term occupation. Everyone, including the former Army chief-of-staff, seemed to know that several hundred thousand would be needed. But Rumsfeld was so fixated on his fantasy of a "21st century military" that he simply ignored them and even belittled them in public.

4.) Disbanding the Iraqi army. Obviously, the Iraqi army had done bad things under Saddam, and several gung-ho Baathist generals and high-ranking officers would have had to have been purged (the very guys we seem to be dealing with now). But the army was one of the few institutions that was multi-ethnic and could have helped establish some kind of stability.

5.) Getting nervous in an election year and cutting deals with Islamist thugs and Baathist generals, trying to "speed up" the so-called "power handover," as well as planless stop-gap improvisation on everything. Ask any contractor what it's like dealing with the Coalition Authority. They'll tell you they have no plan at all.

In short, there was a plan for the war (Rumsfeld, who never saw combat, seemed to really get off on having people killed and things blown up with sophisticated weaponry), but absolutely no real plan for the occupaton (we can't say "peace" here). I guess they thought they'd just wing it.

As to the Bush administration, i think it's one of the most corrupt, incompetent, warmongering, and insane governments in modern American history. Just to review:

George W. Bush, "President" - Spent half his life as a party-hearty fratboy, payed for by his father, who also kept him out of trouble, and probably also out of Nam. Once managed a baseball team and later an oil company, which he successfully ran out of business, but not before cashing in all his stock options. Likes to spend a lot of time at his ranch, rather than at cabinet meetings. Not stupid, just incredibly lazy intellectually and likes to play the idiot on TV as the dumb, simple-minded "no bullshit" redneck act seems to go over well with many voters. However, he might actually be simple-minded enough to believe all the "freedom" and "democracy" crap he spouts. Doesn't matter, because he doesn't run the country. The next guy does.

Dick Cheney, Shadow President - ex-Halliburton CEO. Has always walked a fine line between "wise" investment strategies and corporate crime. Didn't serve - said he had "other priorites" in the 60s - yeah like cutting deals for obscene amounts of money. Recently took his friends on a fishing trip using Presidental jet. Likes to stay in the shadows, but has amassed more power than any Vice President in modern history. Used to think invading Iraq was a bad idea, but became the strongest advocate. Is used to running things. Bush needs him big-time. He had to have him along for the hearing, because Bush only knows the half of what's going on and always gets in deep shit when speaking without a telepromter. Cheney thinks big: big money, big oil, big gas, big-time geopolitical domination.

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of War - ultra-cynical, arrogant, vain, incompetent. Relies on microphone skills to eloquently say nothing, except when dropping misanthropist bombs. Doesn't think much of human rights or the Geneva Convention. In fact, doesn't seem to think much of humans in general. Former wrestler and Navy pilot - didn't see combat. Maybe overcompensating. Screwed up badly, but still thinks he's the greatest thing since Eisenhower.

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of War - extreme right-wing intellectual nut. Very big on pre-emptive strikes and world domination through securing Central Asian oil and gas reserves.

Condoleeza Rice, "National Security Advisor" - ex-Chevron director. Originally hired to coach Bush about basic geography and international politics (not an easy task, i'm sure) and advise him about national security, had her job stolen from her by Cheney after numerous fuck-ups. Not sure what she does these days, aside from keeping Rumsfeld and Powell off each other's throats and trying her best to avoid Congressional hearings. Also big on oil and world domination.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General - extreme right-wing evangelical fanatic. Had himself "annointed" for office. Thinks he's on a messianic mission from God. Author of Patriot Act, the greatest attack on U.S. Constitutional civil liberties since WW2.

Karl Rove, White House political advisor - Enron connections. Spin doctor and political pit bull extrordinaire. Has been Bush's man for dirty work for a long time. Bush nicknamed him "Turd Blossom." Will stop at nothing to annihilate political enemies. Has more power than anyone with his job title in history, is consulted about EVERYTHING.

The list could go on and on, mentioning other minor officials, but this is enough, i think. If you think i'm making all this up, try this link for some excellent, well-researched biographies. http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/ Nasty site otherwise, but their bios pull no punches and are relatively fair (Clinton's gang doesn't come off too well either). Some of this stuff would just be unbelievable, if it wasn't clearly documented.

The only member of the Bush Administration i have any kind of respect for is Collin Powell. Sure, he dutify made his priceless pro-war powerpoint presentation, but he has always been the faint voice of reason. See where it got him -- publically humilated by Rumsfeld and having the State Department's authority stolen from under his nose. I think the only reason he sticks around, aside from his soldier's sense of duty, is that he realizes he's the only sane one in the cabinet.

In short, i think Afghanistan and Iraq were just the beginning. These guys are nuts and they're serious about dominating the world, whatever it takes. The "war on terror" is a very convient excuse. If they can free up some resources in Iraq and re-introduce the draft, what's next? Syria, Iran, Central Asia, you name it. Be afraid, be very afraid. If Bush wins in November and Powell resigns, i think we can get ready for WWIII.

Ok, i'm an American and i was against the war and always against Bush. However, i do get kind of annoyed sometimes when people here in Europe start whining about how the U.S. simply does what it likes and plays the "world policeman." Well, i don't like it anymore than you do, but huge, powerful countries tend to do what they like when unchecked by other huge, powerful countries. That's just the way it is and has always been. Sure, all the moralizing about freedom and democracy is sickly hypocritical coming from Bush's mouth, but double-standards go along with Macchiavelian politics, which is what this administration openly practices.
But the EU can hardly agree on anything when it comes to foreign policy. If the U.S. hadn't gotten involved, i'd say war would still be raging in Yugoslavia. Whatever the U.S. does in the world, it's because of its own interests first and foremost. Occassionally though, there are some very good side-effects.

Oh yeah, as to Bush and Mars. Well, we've already racked up the biggest deficit since the Reagan era after Clinton managed to balance the budget and this will just about double it, but i'd say it's a good idea. But don't just send Bush, send the rest of the cabinet too, except Powell. As Secretary of State, he could take over as President. The world would be a better place for all of us.

Hotei

7th June 2004, 02:05 AM

Actually, I'm really in favor of sending them to do research on the Sun. . . Fired from a cannon on Earth. . . Naked. . .

The saddest part? I've been a registered republican since I turned 18. Being a republican used to mean something different. It used to mean that you were fighting to keep people like Junior from having as much power. Now it's just about profit.

How sad.

Okay, how about a new thread? Let's see. . . Oooh I've got a good one. . .
Go to "Lounge", and find "If you could put anyone in bogu and have a go at them, who'd it be?"

samurai999

7th June 2004, 04:31 AM

I do have to say (though I am registered as a Republican), he does not compare to Reagan at all. Through all the scandal and the cold war, there was something about him that sorta let us feel that everything was gonna be ok. Don't feel that with W.

Tim

Hotei

7th June 2004, 09:25 AM

I'm down with that. Reagan was, well, human, I guess. He made mistakes, and then admitted them. When he was an idiot he pointed it out and made a joke out of himself. Not like the TIT we have in the office right now.

KhawMengLee

7th June 2004, 01:19 PM

The reason for invading was oil, pure and simple, and a geopolitical stage from which to secure more oil and gas. Bush and his cronies are making money, sure. But this is more about world domination, baby (see below).
.

Yep, just noticed a bunch of news articles on the subject too...like the one about how Cheney said there is no link between Haliburton getting contracts and his office.

http://rds.yahoo.com/search/news/S=53720272/K=cheney+halliburton/v=2/SID=w/l=NSR/R=3/SIG=12td9fjfq/*-http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040601/pl_nm/iraq_contracts_halliburton_dc_5

http://rds.yahoo.com/search/news/S=53720272/K=cheney+halliburton/v=2/SID=w/l=NSR/R=1/SIG=12tm1377l/*-http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040603/pl_nm/iraq_contracts_halliburton_dc_9

Then there's the recent case with the Aussie catering company who was contracted, then lost its contract halfway when it already set up shop, to privide food to PMF firm KBR's staff in Iraq. The reason being investigated is that not enough kickbacks were payed to Haliburton.

The one most terrible is the reports by drivers in those PMF convoys you see getting blasted reporting that they were drfiving empty containers. They alledged that Halliburton/KBR were charging the govt. large sums for transport costs for non existant cargo being delivered. The drivers were angry that they were being put in danger/killed over nothing.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/8741717.htm?1c

Empty trucks, but full danger

Drivers wonder why Halliburton subsidiary sends them with no cargo.

BY SETH BORENSTEIN

Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Empty flatbed trucks crisscrossed Iraq more than 100 times as their drivers and the soldiers who guarded them dodged bullets, bricks and homemade bombs.

Twelve current and former truckers who regularly made the 300-mile resupply run from Camp Cedar in southern Iraq to Camp Anaconda near Baghdad told Knight Ridder that they risked their lives driving empty trucks while their employer, a subsidiary of Halliburton Inc. called Kellogg Brown and Root, billed the government for hauling what they derisively called "sailboat fuel."

While the cost in dollars of driving empty trucks back and forth is but a tiny part of the $327 million paid KBR so far (with an additional $230 million budgeted) for "theater transportation" of war materiel and supplies for U.S. forces in Iraq, a number of those involved complained that they were risking their lives for what was essentially a meaningless exercise.

Seven of the 12 truckers who talked to Knight Ridder asked that they not be identified by name. Six of the 12 were fired by KBR for allegedly running Iraqi drivers off the road when they attempted to break into the convoy. The drivers disputed that accusation.

In addition to interviewing the drivers, Knight Ridder reviewed KBR records of the empty trips, dozens of photographs of empty flatbeds and a videotape that showed 15 empty trucks in one convoy.

The 12 drivers, all interviewed separately over the course of more than a month, told similar stories about their trips through hostile territory.

UNNECESSARY WORK?

'Thor," a driver who quit KBR and got his nickname for using a hammer to fight off a knife-wielding Iraqi who tried to climb into the cab of his truck, said his doctor recently told him he might lose the use of his right eye after a December attack in which Iraqis with machine guns shattered his windshield.

His truck was empty at the time.

"I thought, 'What good is this?' '' he recalled.

Iraqi insurgents have killed two civilian drivers.

KBR, the Army and the truckers gave different reasons for why empty trucks were driven through areas that the drivers nicknamed "rockville" and "slaughterhouse" for the dangers they presented.

Some of the truckers charged that KBR is billing the Pentagon for unnecessary work. KBR described the practice as normal, given the large number of trucks it has delivering goods throughout Iraq. Army officials said longer convoys may provide better security.

The Army's contract with KBR calls for daily truck runs, but doesn't dictate how many trucks must be in a convoy or whether they must be full, said Linda Theis, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill. The area military commander or KBR officials might choose to run empty trucks as a security measure, she said.

KBR denied there was any problem with the truck runs. "KBR is proud of the work we do for the military in Iraq," said Cathy Gist, a spokeswoman. KBR truckers say they can earn about $80,000 a year, which is tax-free if they remain in Iraq for a year.

The empty trailer runs in Iraq peaked in January, February and March of this year, but have dwindled as violence has escalated, the drivers said.

'WE WOULD GO BOTH WAYS'

Earlier this year, as many as a third of all the flatbed trucks in a 30-truck convoy were empty, they said. Much of the time, drivers would drop off one empty trailer and pick up another empty one for the return trip.

"There was one time we ran 28 trucks. One trailer had one pallet" — a trailer can hold as many as 26 4-foot-square pallets — "and the rest of them were empty," said David Wilson, who was the convoy commander on more than 100 runs. Four other drivers who were with Wilson confirmed his account.

KBR documents viewed by Knight Ridder showed that one February run included 11 "MT" (trucker lingo for empty) trailers, 11 containers (which could be full or empty) and six with pallets on them. On another February day, three of 15 trucks were empty.

KBR officials said empty runs resulted from the lack of cargo at one depot. The company ran all the trucks so they'd be available to pick up cargo for the return trip. "This is the same as typical commercial trucking operations work in the U.S.," said Gist.

Drivers discounted that explanation. "Sometimes we would go with empty trailers; we would go both ways," said one driver who goes by the nickname Swerve and declined to be named for fear of retribution. "We'd turn around and go back with empty trailers."

COSTS ESTIMATED

KBR's contract with the Defense Department allows the company to pass on the cost of the transportation and add 1 percent to 3 percent for profit, but neither KBR nor the U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill., which oversees the contract, was able to provide cost estimates for the empty trucks. Trucking experts estimate that each round trip costs taxpayers thousands of dollars.

An independent expert on trucking economics put the cost of a 300-mile one-way run at a minimum of $1,050. Researcher Mark Berwick at the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute at North Dakota State University used a computer model, the fuel costs that Halliburton charged the Army and the truckers' salaries to come up with that figure.

Wilson and Michael Stroud, of the Seattle area, another former KBR trucking convoy commander, said the actual costs were probably far higher.

"It was supposed to be critical supplies that the troops had to have to operate," said Wilson, who returned to his Florida home after being fired by KBR. "It was one thing to risk your life to haul things the military needed. It's another to haul empty trailers."

Hotei

8th June 2004, 02:40 AM

Everything you need to know and haven't been told. (http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/)

samurai999

8th June 2004, 05:43 AM

Ughh.. Michael Moore. Overly biased left wing extremist and quite frankly, I don't trust him any more than I did our govts.

Tim

KhawMengLee

8th June 2004, 06:06 AM

Ughh.. Michael Moore. Overly biased left wing extremist and quite frankly, I don't trust him any more than I did our govts.

Tim

true...true...but then again Mr Moore is much more entertaining;)

Speaking of entertaining...this article just cracked me up...a case of the pot calling the kettle black...teehee

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=4&u=/ap/20040607/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_mideast

White House Decries Al-Jazeera As Biased

27 minutes ago

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

SEA ISLAND, Ga. - President Bush (news - web sites)'s national security adviser accused Arabic-language broadcaster Al-Jazeera on Monday of "purely inaccurate" reporting, suggesting the Qatar-based satellite station was presenting a biased account of developments in the Middle East.

Hotei

8th June 2004, 09:22 AM

SAMURAI999 - I agree, almost completely. I also think Moore is an over-biased zealot, but I've also seen several of his "movies" and there's no script. These folks just look stupid on their own.

Shiro

8th June 2004, 05:51 PM

Moore, over-biased? Off course! That's the whole point of his documentaries :).
What's the point of making a militant documentary against Bush and the Administration if you don't use everything available against him or when you say in the end "well ... maybe he isn't all that bad....."? ...... :)

KhawMengLee

18th June 2004, 06:09 PM

Hmmnnn...interesting article to do with those who say Haliburton is not corrupt and are the best to handle the contracts in Iraq:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8922543.htm

GOP refusing to allow testimony on Halliburton spending

By Seth Borenstein

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Halliburton Inc. paid high-priced bills for common items, such as soda, laundry and hotels, in Iraq and Kuwait and then passed the inflated costs along to taxpayers, according to several former Halliburton employees and a Pentagon internal audit.

Democrats in the House of Representatives, who are feuding with House Republicans over whether the spending should be publicly aired at a hearing on Tuesday, released signed statements Monday by five ex-Halliburton employees recounting the lavish spending.

Those former employees contend that the politically connected firm:

-Lodged 100 workers at a five-star hotel in Kuwait for a total of $10,000 a day while the Pentagon wanted them to stay in tents, like soldiers, at $139 a night.

-Abandoned $85,000 trucks because of flat tires and minor problems.

-Paid $100 to have a 15-pound bag of laundry cleaned as part of a million-dollar laundry contract in peaceful Kuwait. The price for cleaning the same amount of laundry in war-torn Iraq was $28.

-Spent $1.50 a can to buy 37,200 cans of soda in Kuwait, about 24 times higher than the contract price.

-Knowingly paid subcontractors twice for the same bill.

Halliburton is already under fire for allegations of overcharging the Pentagon for fuel and soldiers' meals. The latest accusations center on whether Halliburton properly keeps track of its bills from smaller subcontractors, Pentagon auditors said in a month-old report released Monday by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

The 36-page report by the Defense Contract Audit Agency said that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root had a billing system that was "inadequate," had numerous deficiencies and billing misstatements and that KBR didn't follow laws and regulations relating to spending and recordkeeping. Its contracting practices are so bad, the auditors said, that KBR shouldn't be allowed to bill the Pentagon directly without the government poring over every detail in advance.

Statements by the whistleblowers - five of whom were identified - and the government's audit report "portray a company and a contracting environment that has run amok," Waxman wrote in a letter to Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., on Monday.

Halliburton disputed the auditor's report and said Waxman was politically motivated.

Wendy Hall, a company spokeswoman, said Waxman's allegations do nothing "to feed a single member of our military, create a single unit of housing, repair a single oil well or supply a single piece of material for reconstruction."

Hall also noted that Halliburton continues "to be a target in this presidential election year. This is the 35th news release about Halliburton from the congressman's office since March 2003."

But one former Halliburton subcontracting manager, Marie deYoung, said in her signed statement that she had seen "significant waste and overpricing."

"Halliburton rarely collected adequate information from subcontractors to justify payment of invoices. When I attempted to properly verify invoice terms before setting up payment authorization, I was chastised," said deYoung, a former Army captain and chaplain who resigned from the company last month.

According to deYoung, Halliburton's financial staff lives at the five-star Kempinski Julai'a Hotel and Resort in Kuwait. "For a three-month period, the Kempinski hotel charged almost $1 million to house 100 Halliburton employees. By comparison, it costs less than $200,000 a year to lease tents that could house 400 soldiers. ... The military requested that Halliburton move into tents, but Halliburton refused."

Hall didn't respond to the specific charges made by deYoung and other employees, but said, "There are clear inaccuracies in these assertions. We take any charges of improper conduct seriously."

While the allegations of high prices and overcharging are startling, the Pentagon audit report found a larger problem in that Halliburton isn't controlling or watching what its suppliers charge, said Pete Singer, a Brookings Institution researcher who's written a book about private contractors' increasing role in the military.

KBR has a multibillion-dollar, multiyear logistics and supply contract that allows it to add on a profit of 1 to 2 percent and pass along all costs to the government. So far, the Army has agreed to pay KBR up to $4.55 billion for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In his letter to Davis, Waxman charged that since House Republicans won't let the whistleblowers testify Tuesday, the congressional committee is "not fulfilling its obligation to protect the taxpayer from waste, fraud and abuse."

Davis' spokesman Dave Marin said Republicans "simply had not had the time to properly flesh out, corroborate, investigate the many and wide-ranging claims that these individuals have made." If the whistleblowers turn out to be legit, he said, the committee may schedule "a follow-up hearing in the summer months."

Also Monday, the General Accounting Office released its assessment of contracting in Iraq and said most of the no-bid work was legitimately awarded. The GAO did have some objections to a separate Halliburton contract on restoring oil production capacity in Iraq.

Last week, Halliburton revealed that it's being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations of bribery in Nigeria for the late 1990s, when Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge of the firm. Last month, a dozen truckers told Knight Ridder that Halliburton sent them back and forth across Iraq with empty trailers more than 100 times.

Skolld

20th June 2004, 04:15 AM

Ughh.. Michael Moore. Overly biased left wing extremist and quite frankly, I don't trust him any more than I did our govts.

Tim

Michael Moore is kinda of like the poor man's Chomsky. Moore is entertaining but he tends to leave out a lot of details. Chomsky on the other hand is extremely well read on the detail and in his own right quite entertaining. :wink:

samurai999

22nd June 2004, 05:21 PM

He seems to piecemeal a lot of footage together and have that give some impact to the veiwing public. Some of that seems to piece together footage that sometimes have no relation and have the just the words talk. This sorta worries me cuz he can use that to give people the wrong idea or impression (or a totally one-sided view) on a topic. I did try to stomach Bolwing for Columbine, but I just couldn't watch these statements. It seemed more like propoganda than a film to me.

Plus, I view him as way too left. Almost communist. Maybe is. Maybe he should be Nader's buddy.

My 0.02$ (US)
Tim

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/dog.htm

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/williehorton.htm

Shiro

22nd June 2004, 09:13 PM

not-I

22nd June 2004, 11:01 PM

I consider Michael Moore to be in the tradition of radical American artist/trickster/agitators like Paul Krassner, Abbie Hoffmann, Saul Alinsky and Lenny Bruce, who all used humor to make their case, rather than a dry-bones intellectual dissident-type like Chomsky. The advantage of the former is that they can get away with all sorts of stuff in the name of art and principle. They know it and we know it, but we still get to laugh our asses off in the process.

Is Michael Moore entertaining? Yes.
Is he funny? Yes.
Is he annoying? Yes.
Does he manipulate material in an attempt to swing public opinion? Yes, but certainly less than Karl Rove, who has been known to propagate bald-faced lies as well as half-truths.
Is he buddies with Ralph Nader? Don't know, but he apparently voted for him last time around.
Is he a communist? Hmm, is Wesley Clarke a communist? Be careful about equating the support of Constitutional liberties and labor organization with communism.
Would i vote for him if he ran for public office? Definately not. In many cases, he seems to be as simple-minded as Bush is. He should just keep on being a funny gadfly with a passion.
Michael Moore is a man on a mission for whom the end justifies the means. However, i think the means in this case (messing around with film footage to make people look slightly more stupid and dishonest than they are) fully justifies the end (preventing the re-election of George W. Bush). The effects MM's means have are to get people asking "Can this be true?" The means of Bush/Cheney cause death and destruction. Some perspective is warrented here. MM is a filmmaker and author. He stretches some things, but he does provide a lot of information and direct references that is/are not available in the mainstream media. His basic principle seems to be that people are not stupid, and can think for themselves, beyond his obviously one-sided approach, something that the Bush administration does not seem to believe at all.

nalogg

23rd June 2004, 02:28 AM

Maybe this will help:
Excerpt from Red Dwarf:

Rimmer:
Perhaps you'd like to explain to me why it is that every major battle in history has been won by the side with the shortest haircuts?

Kryten:
Oh, surely not, sir!

Rimmer:
Think about it, why did the U.S. Cavalry beat the Indian nation? Short back and sides versus girly hippy locks. The Cavaliers and the Roundheads? One-nil to the pudding-basins. Vietnam: crew cuts both sides, no score draw.
AAAHAHAHAHA red dwarf is awesome!

KhawMengLee

23rd June 2004, 02:37 AM

AAAHAHAHAHA red dwarf is awesome!

yes...while some of the cast have gone to great heights..ie Danny John-Jules(Cat) acting in Blade II and Lock Stock and Chris Barrie (Rimmer) getting his own comedy series.

Some have gone of to the dark side ie. Craig Charles(Lister) in..ugh!...Robot Wars.

Robert Llewellyn(Kryten) where the hell is he?

Shiro

23rd June 2004, 07:16 AM

The footage I've seen so far talks for itself, Moore doesn't need to add much more....

Besides, you haven't seen it yet, so how can you judge it?

samurai999

25th June 2004, 11:51 AM

Shiro

25th June 2004, 05:49 PM

Well, I'm gonna vote for Bush again. Why? My future job in aerospace might depend on it.

1) What makes you think he cares about you or any american citizen?
2) What makes you think he will do it?
3) If the economy collapses, you might kiss your future job goodbye anyway..... you'd better vote for someone who has a better grasp of reality than Bush (=most of the peope on this planet).
Even Republicans start saying they'll vote for Kerry, isn't that a good hint?

Skolld

26th June 2004, 08:55 AM

Micheal Moore to me is the consumate complainer who loves to annoy people, especially me. He, in my eyes has done nothing but complain doing nothing himself (except show movies complaining about issue X). It does get really old. Would he do this too if Kerry or others were voted into office and did the same thing? I doubt it.

And the footage I saw speaks volumes to me too. Why doesn't he try being a politician. If he supposedly knows about all this dirt about the govt. and knows how to "move" the viewers watching, then why doesn't he run for office too. God knows I won't vote for him.

Well, I'm gonna vote for Bush again. Why? My future job in aerospace might depend on it. It's not that I am a "Kerry-hater" but I don't see anything from Kerry that has an inkling of helping NASA or any aerospace comapny in general. I personally wouldn't mind McCain as prez and I voted for him in the Republican primaries, but Bush won.

Tim

hmmmm, so let me get this straight, you don't really care about anything in the world except your future job with NASA.You want to vote for Bush because of your job? sounds a bit short sighted don't you think?
Michael Moore may annoy you, but it sounds like you're exactly the kind of person he set out to annoy, Americans who can't look past their own self-interests and realize the rest of the world does exist. Sooner or later it is going to catch up with us.
Moore's film may very well be "propoganda" but i don't think that's a bad thing, we need a little something to spice up our media, lord knows FOX NEWS isn't going to say anything the administration doesn't want it say. I'm at my wits end with all this nationalistic fervor coming from the American media. I say the more dissidents the better
and God bless the Freaks!

KhawMengLee

26th June 2004, 09:49 AM

Yeh, Moore's a fresh change to the usual propaganda BS. Dunno how th epublic can stomach anymore of Bush's crap on TV. Especially when he talks about terrorism on the rise(oh, I wonder why?).

samurai999

26th June 2004, 11:22 AM

1) What makes you think he cares about you or any american citizen?
2) What makes you think he will do it?
3) If the economy collapses, you might kiss your future job goodbye anyway..... you'd better vote for someone who has a better grasp of reality than Bush (=most of the peope on this planet).
Even Republicans start saying they'll vote for Kerry, isn't that a good hint?

Answers to 1 and 2. Who knows? But at least he seems to be intersted in it. I have not seen an inkling or anything from Kerry about supporting our space programs or any aeronautic or aerospace industry period. I remember that horrible period in time when Clinton was in it (and so do my professors).

Reply to 3... Which Republicans? The "Republicans"? The independents disguised as Republicans? Maybe Kerry does have a better grasp of the econ. But, I have seen him at "job rallys" where it was all union blue collar workers. I haven't seen too much support from the tech community.

Tim

samurai999

26th June 2004, 12:36 PM

hmmmm, so let me get this straight, you don't really care about anything in the world except your future job with NASA.You want to vote for Bush because of your job? sounds a bit short sighted don't you think?
Michael Moore may annoy you, but it sounds like you're exactly the kind of person he set out to annoy, Americans who can't look past their own self-interests and realize the rest of the world does exist. Sooner or later it is going to catch up with us.

Did I say that only my job matters to me? no. Did I say my future job was gonna be with NASA? no, but I'd like it to be. However, it is a field that I grew up admiring and dreaming about and I am LIVING THE DREAM RIGHT NOW and I hope that this continues into the future.. With Kerry, I don't see any sign of supporting any space program commerical or governmental. Everybody I know in the Bay Area dreams of being a what... A politician? A humanitarian? A doctor? An actor? Great! Good! Super! If it is your dream, then you should work hard to get to your goal. I worked my ASS off the past 7-8 years to work towards my goal of becoming a "rocket scientist" and I am about to realize that goal. So am I short sighted, not caring about anything else in the world except acheiving my dreams, my goal, and living MY LIFE? In your past statement, maybe so.

However, since you say I am short sighted, I will reply with this. What I want to contribute to the human race, if you want to go that broadly, is to contribute the gift of space exploration. Why? Why in hell would anybody want to contribute (or say something this cheesy) that with all the wars(necessary and unnecessary), all the famine, all the Muslim extremist fanatics out there we need defense against, poverty, etc. We need more important things like food to the needy, affordable health care, peace on Earth, better schools, goodwill towards men (or women or animals), etc. That is all true. I am not a "warmonger" or a person who "steals money from the donation jar". A lot of the research done by NASA (and by other military research facilities) went eventually to applications in the health industry, food industry, defense, and other areas which HELP the world instead of hurt. And by defense I don't mean bombs, fighters, etc. I mean scanning devices, early warning systems, etc. Why do you think NASA holds HS science fairs and space camps? To cultivate people's imaginations and to give them a dream and therefore a goal to accomplish. So for that matter, I do care about getting a future job. Did you think it was all about financial security? I hope not. If so, you are VERY SORELY MISTAKEN.

What next? Well lets see. A focus for the human race. so why should space be a focus for the human race? All of these beforementioned issues, I believe, really haven't been resolved in any administration. All this partisanship, all this bickering, all the complaining, all the mudslinging and BS patches on bills saying that "it will be better". This turns me off to politicians and politics in general. So when I see Moores stuff, I see the exact same thing, nothing different. No solution, just some of the same accusations, sensationalism and partisanship. I see space as the next "New World" and an escape from the crap spewed from politicians that I am forced to view every day, no matter what the administration. This is the next thing to be explored, and the next big thing to learn about. I believe that focusing on space exploration, that at least the human race can dedicate and focus on something that would benefit, not detract from society.

I hope you are an engineer saying what you said to me and I really do hope you understand the work that needs to be put into this to become one, what good can come out of the industry instead of the "evils", and that short-sightedness leads to failure, not sucess in my industry.

I apologize for the long rambling email, but I said what I think had to be said...

My 0.02$(US),
Tim

Will

26th June 2004, 01:54 PM

Tim, do you think anyone is actually going to read that whole thing?

Shiro

26th June 2004, 03:09 PM

Aerospace and NASA are good and all, but try to develop a decent social secuity system first. That New World-talk is beautiful but to me you sound like the comunists back in the 50's: "look, we are a great nation, we shoot people into space!" but they left a huge part of the people starving.

It's not that I'm against Aerospace and NASA, but try making this world a bit better before you go and ruin others.

Hotei

26th June 2004, 11:28 PM

I'm a Republican in a conservative state. I voted for Bush. (a fact I am loathe to admit these days)

3 years later my business is gone, 3 friends are dead from a worthless,wasted, illegal war, my Mother has had to sell her house and I have to support her in an apartment because her prescriptions now exceed (by about $300) her monthly fixed income.

Don't talk to me about space. Don't even pretend that you can still support that prick in any way because, at this point in history, he is indefensible. There is no excuse for his actions. His body is a waste of space. He is without merit as a human being.

I've been a loyal, registered Republican for almost 20 years, and I wouldn't waste my water to piss on that BASTARD if he were on fire.

When I registered 20 short years ago, Republicans stood for social responsibility. Now we're all about profit and making sure that those making the most pay the lowest tax rate.

We were the good guys that kept the government from spying on citizens on the other end of the phone. Now we secretly push bills through at midnight on holidays that make it legal to search your house without a warrant and hold a "suspect" for 2 years without even telling him why.

We were for building a strong job market in the U.S. Recently our glorious "leader" went on national television and touted the benefits of outsourcing jobs to other countries as a means of "streamlining" American business to make it more profitable.

Just how indispensible do you honestly think an aerospace job is, anyway? Are you honestly telling me that Bush is good for your job? I live 20 minutes from one of the largest Air Force bases in this country (Tinker.) A base that just lost almost 10% of it's civilian contract labor. Why? Because the contractors are now given incentives to outsource. Because the exact same products and patents can be researched, the exact same units can be produced, and the exact same conclusions can be reached by newly-graduated scientists and laborers in India, Canada and Mexico.

I'm not sure what Bush is, but he's not a member of the Republican party I joined.

Skolld

27th June 2004, 03:41 AM

I think you just proved my point for me Sam999. You see space as an "escape" from all the political crap. We as the human race don't need to escape from it we need to confront it. I realize that you have worked hard to achieve your dreams. It isn't unreasonable to want to achieve, nor would i discourage you from wanting to be a "rocket scientist" ( i know several, they're nice people, most of them work for GM now)
But let's face facts, Space exploration is never going to help the homeless or feed the hungry or give us affordable health care or better schools. Yes there have been great technological advances due to the space program and military research. but to tell you the truth i'm not satisfied with a few scraps from an industry that spends billions of dollars in resources to explore space and to develope the best ways of killing people.
Wouldn't it be better to take those resources and start an industry with the purpose of helping humanity from the beginning ( I know, there's no money in it, so it will probably never happen). If you want to explore something, how about the ocean, we know next to nothing about it. it's like Shiro said, let's take care of the real problems first and then we can move on to other things.
Oh and in regards to your question, I am not an engineer, although i'm not sure why that would be important. I still understand what it means to work hard to achieve my goals.

samurai999

28th June 2004, 05:18 AM

To Skolld:

I understand that there are other things to worry about, but what I have been focused on since I was a child was space, airplanes, and other mechanical things. I am not an economist, a politician, nor a scientist who could help with hunger or what not. And to show that I am not totally ignorant, I have donated to United Way (with the company I was with) for a bit until I realized that their whole front office was corrupt. I donated cans for the care packages used to "feed the troops" during the start of the Iraq war. I even donated to the university I graduated from until I entered grad school. I also want to donate to my local school district to help it out, but how do I help a school district where I see most of the ~10,000 people in it from places OUTSIDE MY DISTRICT? To me its sorta like the chicken and the egg except that the beginning is well defined, but there is no end. We aren't experts on policies, politics and what not, but isn't that why we vote in our representatives, so that we have somebody representing us?

And although aerospace applications can be used to (unfortunately) develop weapons and what not, they are also making things better by making non-lethal alternatives. Also, we don't directly make schools better by giving them money (usually more like throwing money at them and hoping it will make things better) but organizations like NASA also help school kids by sponsering science faires and space camps to realize their dreams, to give them an education and to give them focus in their lives. Unfortunately for me, I am in an industry where there is little care or consideration taken about it (since the cold war days) and the only news on it is when something disastrous happens (such as the Challenger, Columbia, the mistake in thrust units that sent a Mars probe in a bad entry trajectory, etc). Then media focus is huge, almost ridiculous. There is ocean exploration happening however (look up MBARI) and I actually have been interested in that for a bit, but the ocean and its depths don't interest me as much as space does.

Maybe I should be in another industry such as the auto industry. :D However, I believe that there is much good that can come out of the aerospace industry and we just have to find it.

And shiro, social security? For what? Social security in the US is going to be gone when I reach that age and my parents (who get social security are getting jack). I'd really rather donate to my Roth IRA accnt and use that as "social security" since withdrawal is tax-free. I actually see more and more working class people (blue and white collar) setting up Roth IRA because of that fact. Why do we need to improve social security when there are much better alternatives out there.

Tim

samurai999

28th June 2004, 05:39 AM

One last thing.. If things that benefit this country (as mentioned above) are important in the next election (and in any other election nonetheless), why are gay and lesbian rights a growing issue in the next presidential election? Why did SF have a vote on the having gender changes being covered by insurance? I not hatin' or anything, but I don't see that as a need but as a desire or want.

Tim

not-I

30th June 2004, 12:53 AM

One last thing.. If things that benefit this country (as mentioned above) are important in the next election (and in any other election nonetheless), why are gay and lesbian rights a growing issue in the next presidential election?
Politics in the U.S. (as well as in practically every other representative democracy today) are dominated by special interest groups jockeying for ever bigger pieces of budgetary and regulatory pie by buying into and influencing members of congress and the government. Bush's campain "war chest" is so full of money because he has accepted so many contributions from major corporations - they obviously expect something in return, and they sure as hell get it.

In the U.S. the main special interest lobbies are oil, weapons, and pharaceuticals. Those are the real power brokers. The gay/lesbian lobby is a joke in comparison. They make a lot of noise, but it's the Republicans who want to turn the "gay question" into a major election issue - i can only assume to divert attention from other matters.

One-issue voting is promoted by politicians, because it makes your choice so simple and ignores the complexities of politics and the world. (E.g. "I disagree with almost all of Bush's policies, but he says he's against abortion, so i'll vote for him.")

I can only guess at the Bush administration's motives for pursuing a mission to Mars, but i'm fairly confident it has a lot to do with big contracts for weapons industries. Remember that the Bushies still haven't given up pursuing the "Star Wars" thing. Beware of NASA being instrumentalized for military purposes. No one in the Bush administration is much of an idealist.

On leaving office, Dwight D. Eisenhower (in my opinion, one of the last great presidents) warned of the increasing power of what he called "the military-industrial complex." He was right, except nowadays, it's more like the corporate-industrial-military complex.

Skolld

30th June 2004, 01:44 AM

to be fair Samurai999 i never said you were totally ignorant, only short sighted.
but no worries mate. We all have to do what we feel is right.
My best advice, ask more questions.

SOLDIER

30th June 2004, 05:30 AM

Munnin

30th June 2004, 05:37 AM

"but honestly what makes you (complainers) think your opinion really matters"
So soldier you basically feel that we should just shut up and do what republicans tell us, and if we don’t like it we are cry babies? Nice.

Funny how those who don’t want to send soldiers off to their deaths are the people who are against soldiers.

Shiro

30th June 2004, 06:34 AM

for one i hear alot of complaining.." i did not get this" or "these people are starving"..alot of problems can be attributed to the government we all know that...but honestly what makes you (complainers) think your opinion really matters...examine this closer....iam an american soldier...tried and true and when i hear people say --" this illegal war" or this " busshit war" i get upset...these are the same people who will punch someone but get mad when there knuckles bleed...hey listen up cry babies.(meaning the ones against the war..) if you are not for us ..you are against us..and its winers like you that demoralize the country from the inside out..all a soldier needs to hear is how everyone is against what he is doing...basically trying to come home in one piece...it does not matter how it started and who really cares...when you are in the shit..you can care less about politics...politics are for people that could not stand on their own 2 feet so they make up doctrines and ideas to rally support....point is if you anit in the fight(serving your country) then do not comment on it...it really pisses me off that i got buddies that did not come back from afghanistan ...but i did..and as long as i breathe i will pressure my enemy..be it a iraqi trying to kill me..or some a..whole saying how this war is so just....wake up and realize if it were not for soldiers and marines you would have no forum to complain in...stick to civilian issues...this is not a good place to debate conflict......look up gameness in the dictionary....point is you either are or you are not..most of you are not....

EVERYBODY LOVES A SOLDIER WHEN THE HUNS COME A KNOCKING.....

Let me get this straight.... do you suggest people that are against war should be in one to have the right to be against it? That's the kind of logic that brought the marines to Iraq..... :)

Bush loves to say he did it for freedom, so why don't we have the freedom to say we don't like this war? Isn't freedom what you're supposed to fight for?

You sound like a neo-fascist gun-mad redneck to me.

Shiro

30th June 2004, 06:37 AM

not-I

30th June 2004, 07:49 AM

point is you either are or you are not..most of you are not....[/b]
Take it down a notch, soldier. No one is criticizing the work American, British and many other soldiers and marines are doing in Iraq. It's their job for crying out loud! While the prisoner abuse scandal doesn't do much for the "freedom and democracy" talk, i know very well that the vast majority of the military is completing their mission as best they can, watching each other's backs, and trying to come home alive.

It is sometimes said that "'You can't be against the war and for our troops," or "You're either for us or against us," but that is not the America i grew up in. The U.S.A. is supposed to be based on real freedom and democracy, not "My country, right or wrong." I'm talking about the America of Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, and Eisenhower, not the America of G.W., Enron and Halliburton. Being able to express your opinion is a guaranteed right, not a luxury, even in wartime. Anyone in power who wishes to curtail that right, with whatever justification, is closer to some banana republic than s/he is to the United States Constitution.

And if you want to take it from the "If you're not there, don't comment" angle, who the hell got us in this mess? Neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor Rumsfeld saw combat. They saw and see dollar signs. Is that a fair trade for human life?

Does my opinion as a "complainer" matter? Of course it does, just as every vote matters (remember last election?). If, though discussion, i cause someone to re-examine his/her opinions, or s/he causes me to re-examine mine, communication has taken place, and the world is a better place. Perhaps even voting decisions might end up getting changed, which is a big thing.

As to "crybaby," i admit to having cried a couple times upon seeing TV images of American soldiers in Iraq and wondering just what in God's name they are doing there.

KhawMengLee

30th June 2004, 11:28 AM

for one i hear alot of complaining.." i did not get this" or "these people are starving"..alot of problems can be attributed to the government we all know that...but honestly what makes you (complainers) think your opinion really matters...examine this closer....iam an american soldier...tried and true and when i hear people say --" this illegal war" or this " busshit war" i get upset...these are the same people who will punch someone but get mad when there knuckles bleed...hey listen up cry babies.(meaning the ones against the war..) if you are not for us ..you are against us..and its winers like you that demoralize the country from the inside out..all a soldier needs to hear is how everyone is against what he is doing...basically trying to come home in one piece...it does not matter how it started and who really cares...when you are in the shit..you can care less about politics...politics are for people that could not stand on their own 2 feet so they make up doctrines and ideas to rally support....point is if you anit in the fight(serving your country) then do not comment on it...it really pisses me off that i got buddies that did not come back from afghanistan ...but i did..and as long as i breathe i will pressure my enemy..be it a iraqi trying to kill me..or some a..whole saying how this war is so just....wake up and realize if it were not for soldiers and marines you would have no forum to complain in...stick to civilian issues...this is not a good place to debate conflict......look up gameness in the dictionary....point is you either are or you are not..most of you are not....

EVERYBODY LOVES A SOLDIER WHEN THE HUNS COME A KNOCKING.....

Firstly, a soldiers duty is to serve and not to question. They do not have the luxury to question and debate. However, the civilian body has that power. We have the power to voice issues and counter the unjust.

You may think we are against you but you are so far from the truth. You have entered a war based on false notions and are dying for lies and greed.

Against you? No, we are for your safe return.

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

Before the events of Iraq, I believe the world was a safer place. People felt genuine disgust and sympathy for 9-11. After the actions of the Bush admin in Iraq, Al Quida don't need to bother with recruitment drives anymore. The Kingdom of Saudi was a bastion of western support and now its population supports the terrorists.

Well, you reap what you sow.

Skolld

1st July 2004, 01:17 AM

for one i hear alot of complaining.." i did not get this" or "these people are starving"..alot of problems can be attributed to the government we all know that...but honestly what makes you (complainers) think your opinion really matters...examine this closer....iam an american soldier...tried and true and when i hear people say --" this illegal war" or this " busshit war" i get upset...these are the same people who will punch someone but get mad when there knuckles bleed...hey listen up cry babies.(meaning the ones against the war..) if you are not for us ..you are against us..and its winers like you that demoralize the country from the inside out..all a soldier needs to hear is how everyone is against what he is doing...basically trying to come home in one piece...it does not matter how it started and who really cares...when you are in the shit..you can care less about politics...politics are for people that could not stand on their own 2 feet so they make up doctrines and ideas to rally support....point is if you anit in the fight(serving your country) then do not comment on it...it really pisses me off that i got buddies that did not come back from afghanistan ...but i did..and as long as i breathe i will pressure my enemy..be it a iraqi trying to kill me..or some a..whole saying how this war is so just....wake up and realize if it were not for soldiers and marines you would have no forum to complain in...stick to civilian issues...this is not a good place to debate conflict......look up gameness in the dictionary....point is you either are or you are not..most of you are not....

EVERYBODY LOVES A SOLDIER WHEN THE HUNS COME A KNOCKING.....
For the record, I am a Veteran, I was in the first Gulf War under a much wiser Commander-in-Chief. I also saw time in Somalia. I too have friends that never came home. And I unfortunately have to say that there are people who didn't go home because of me.
But don't think for a second that because i'm against war I'm a cry baby.
War on every level sucks. I would never send someone else's child to do my dirty work. I don't believe in the war in Iraq. That doesn't make me your enemy.
This guy named Jesus once said "if you aren't against us, you're for us." That seems a lot more like wisdom to me.