PDA

View Full Version : Should we now invite the French



kenmac
04-07-2003, 12:47 PM
I believe the French said they will come join in the battle if we found WMD.
Yea Right!!!!!!!


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. forces near Baghdad found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons, the U.S. news station National Public Radio reported on Monday.


NPR, which attributed the report to a top official with the 1st Marine Division, said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire." It quoted the source as saying new U.S. intelligence data showed the chemicals were "not just trace elements."


It said the cache was discovered by Marines with the 101st Airborne Division, which was following up behind the Army after it seized Baghdad's international airport.


U.S. Central Command headquarters in Qatar had no immediate comment.


The United States and Britain launched the war against Iraq (news - web sites) to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq denies having such weapons.

Epita
04-07-2003, 12:52 PM
if it wasnt for the fact that i am on the floor, i would have fallen off my chair

Epita

sbrandt
04-07-2003, 01:04 PM
...to pick up after themselves like good little children.
Namely to come and collect all the chemicals, small arms and night-vision equipment they sold to the enemy.


"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without an accordian..." --Stormin' Norman Schwartzfopf--

sbrandt
04-07-2003, 01:07 PM
Schwartzfopf = Schwarzkopf

ninjaman
04-07-2003, 03:00 PM
Hmm, I doubt that the coalition forces could have returned home without having some chemical weapons to show off to the rest of the world. How convenient that they found some. Any reports of iraqi soldiers taking children out of incubators and throwing them out of windows lately?

Johan Grönwall

kenmac
04-07-2003, 03:05 PM
Any reports of iraqi soldiers taking children out of incubators and throwing them out of windows lately?


I DON'T DOUBT IT.
And did you really think they didn't have WMD?

Meaty
04-07-2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by ninjaman
Hmm, I doubt that the coalition forces could have returned home without having some chemical weapons to show off to the rest of the world. How convenient that they found some. Any reports of iraqi soldiers taking children out of incubators and throwing them out of windows lately?

Johan Grönwall

Nope, not that I know of, but lets try to run down the list of atrocities the Iraqi troops have committed so far. And if i leave any out, everyone please add to the list.

1) Executed prisoners of war.
2) Hide weapons in hospitals and daycare centers making them targets (putting innocent Iraqi citizens in danger.)
3) Firing on troops from daycare centers making them targets (putting innocent Iraqi citizens in danger.)
4) Dressing up as civilians to ambush troops (putting innocent Iraqi citizens in danger).
5) Pretend to surrender, then fire on troops (putting innocent Iraqi citizens in danger).
6) Forcing Iraqi's with the rape and murder of their wives and children if they don't fight
7) Shooting Iraqi's as they try to leave the cities.
8) Hanged a woman for waving to coalition troops.

Okay, this was just off the top of my head, please everyone add something.

robinson
04-07-2003, 03:18 PM
Oh they will find some for sure ! If they can’t find any they will get some of there own stuff over there and blame Iraq for it. You know this is a sick media war too, and who controls the media in this war ?

ninjaman
04-07-2003, 03:22 PM
These days, everyone has WMD. I know Saddam gassed the kurds and I will happily spit on his grave when he is dealt with. It´s just that if you go to war against everone who has inhuman weapons, you soon will have to wage war on the whole world. Who´s next? Who´s a much bigger threat than Saddam ever was: Iran, Syria, North Korea, Russia, China...? Heck, even us swedes has some questionable weapons that we talk quietly of. By the way, it´s weird to watch the TV-broadcats and see that the coalition forces are equipped with some swedish arms, like anti-tank launchers and personal carrying vehicles.

I just want to know why Iraq was pimp slapped and not the other guys? What´s the agenda here?

johan Grönwall

ninjaman
04-07-2003, 03:39 PM
1) Executed prisoners of war.
2) Hide weapons in hospitals and daycare centers making them targets (putting innocent Iraqi citizens in danger.)
3) Firing on troops from daycare centers making them targets (putting innocent Iraqi citizens in danger.)
4) Dressing up as civilians to ambush troops (putting innocent Iraqi citizens in danger).
5) Pretend to surrender, then fire on troops (putting innocent Iraqi citizens in danger).
6) Forcing Iraqi's with the rape and murder of their wives and children if they don't fight
7) Shooting Iraqi's as they try to leave the cities.
8) Hanged a woman for waving to coalition troops.



No one is accusing the iraqi military of being a beacon of humanity. If you corner a rat he gets desperate. All soldiers go crazy in war. No excuse, but an explanation. In Vietnam it happened to the U.S.A - it´s a sad fact that humans can do things like the above, but I guess it comes as no surprise to anyone.

But the above happened after the coalition attacked. I would like to know - why did they attack? WMD? Not likely. No viable proof presented. I am sure they will find some, but why start a war over a few Scuds and some rockets containing mustard gas? They haven´t even tried to drop it on the coalition forces.

Most countries won´t wage war unless there is some sort of profit to be made. This is true even of WWI and WWII. I´ve read somewere that many of the decisions that brought the west into the war was based solely upon economical considerations, not human. The concentration camps were known about early in the war, but not considered viable targets to bomb. War is surely the most perverse thing - the common man suffers but he who manages to stay out profits.

Johan Grönwall

kenmac
04-07-2003, 03:45 PM
Isn't Sweden over there by France?

ninjaman
04-07-2003, 04:03 PM
Isn't Sweden over there by France?

You are absolutely right, my friend, It´s us making them cuckoo-clocks and yoodling in the mountains. ;)

No really, Sweden is a bit farer to the north, in Scandinavia, squeezed in between Norway and Finland - you know, blondes with big boobs and all that... it´s not all a cliché though.... If I say Ingrid Bergman and Ingmar Bergman (not related), The swedish chef in the Muppet show (sounds a bit like we do), swedish meatballs and Absolut vodka? Well maybe not, we are such a small country. :p

Johan

Meaty
04-07-2003, 04:09 PM
I don't think that anyone who isn't naive will say that the economics of this war make it more inviting.

I dont pretend to think that the secondary intrests can be make you raise an eyebrow at times, but the disctinction is where the spoken reasons justify the war. Why do you think that the main opposition hasn't spoken outright of monetary gains to be had? Because it does not belong as part of normal debate. The oil in Iraq does not influence the reasons the coalition have made to go in. To argue against the reasons the coalition has put forth with the implications about Iraq's oil is bad arguing. Also, those same points about the spoils of war could be used at ANY time with ANY war, just or unjust, so it cannot apply.

At the end of the Gulf War, there was an agreement, the U.N. backed attack of Iraq would stop if Iraq complied to a list of requirements. They have since violated that agreement, thus, war resumes. WMD, well, looks like they found some today... we'll see i guess.

JohnD
04-07-2003, 05:09 PM
Hmm, I doubt that the coalition forces could have returned home without having some chemical weapons to show off to the rest of the world. How convenient that they found some. Any reports of iraqi soldiers taking children out of incubators and throwing them out of windows lately?

Whoo Hoo! I just won $20 from a friend of mine on a bet that I would find someone who would say we would plant WMD in Iraq and blame them. Thanks for the post man. I knew someone would come up with this crazy idea.

ninjaman
04-07-2003, 05:10 PM
To argue against the reasons the coalition has put forth with the implications about Iraq's oil is bad arguing.

Naa, it´s not bad arguing at all. As I said: most wars are started on economic grounds. Imagine this: the Saudis are getting more and more upset having american troops on Saudi Arabic soil. The House of Saud is seeing more and more opposition from the likes of Osama Bin laden and other radical islamists. They forsee a future where they have to close the U.S. bases or face a revolution. This situation is a fact.

The U.S faces a situation where they will have to find another place to lodge their troops else they loose their position of power in the Middle East, needed to protect and ensure the constant flow of oil into the U.S and the West. Time to set up shop elsewere. Iran would mean a much more devastating war than Iraq. Jemen is to backwater and a bit off. The Emirates thinks like the Saudis. Israel is to far away from the oil wells. Jordan has no harbours, needed to ship in more troops if needed and an attack would cause an international outcry. Syria is too well defended and would cost to much in lifes lost (well, maybe not if Israel joined in). Then who´s left? A country ruled by a crazy tyrant whose people hates him, who has no means to defend himself and who will be missed by no one. Let´s go there. It will be a good thing for the iraqis to get some democracy and they´ll have an obligation to let the U.S stay there for as long as they want to.

This is simple economical and political thinking, totally logical. Expect an encore in North Korea (to protect the asian markets). If this war was based upon humanitarian considerations, then the next front would be Cuba (communist police state), Burma (communist police state), a host of african countries (Zimbawe, Ivory Coast etc). But it´s not.

Johan Grönwall

robinson
04-07-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by JohnD
Whoo Hoo! I just won $20 from a friend of mine on a bet that I would find someone who would say we would plant WMD in Iraq and blame them. Thanks for the post man. I knew someone would come up with this crazy idea.

Don’t get me wrong I hope the USA will win this war!
But the media coverage is sick, you know that. The USA blames Iraq that they are using the American POW’s, and the next day you can see the Iraqi Pow’s on the screen.

ninjaman
04-07-2003, 05:18 PM
Whoo Hoo! I just won $20 from a friend of mine on a bet that I would find someone who would say we would plant WMD in Iraq and blame them. Thanks for the post man. I knew someone would come up with this crazy idea.

Keep on betting, cause it´s gonna get worse. By the way, the thing about the babies was a false story planted during Desert Storm by an PR agency hired by the U.S and it caused a massive reaction in the west, leading to an even greater resentment of the Iraqis than there was before. So why the heck should you trust anyone anymore? The truth is the first casuality in war.

Also, "we would plant WMD" - I don´t believe that the regular G.I Joe is part of some conniving evil plan to manipulate people. I just believe that there are people much higher up that will go to any lengths to ensure a "righteous victory".

Johan Grönwall

robinson
04-07-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by ninjaman
Whoo Hoo! I just won $20 from a friend of mine on a bet that I would find someone who would say we would plant WMD in Iraq and blame them. Thanks for the post man. I knew someone would come up with this crazy idea.

Keep on betting, cause it´s gonna get worse. By the way, the thing about the babies was a false story planted during Desert Storm by an PR agency hired by the U.S and it caused a massive reaction in the west, leading to an even greater resentment of the Iraqis than there was before. So why the heck should you trust anyone anymore? The truth is the first casuality in war.

Also, "we would plant WMD" - I don´t believe that the regular G.I Joe is part of some conniving evil plan to manipulate people. I just believe that there are people much higher up that will go to any lengths to ensure a "righteous victory".

Johan Grönwall
Thanks for that, that’s what I meant.

JohnD
04-07-2003, 05:31 PM
I'm sorry, but myself and just about everyone I know with my political views saw the "America planted the WMD" statement coming a mile away. As the days went on and on, and the anti-war politicians and citizens across the globe watched as the Iraqi regime began to fall...they got worried. Worried that they were, in fact, going to be proven wrong. I've always believed this, that most people think Saddam and his regime should be gone, and the WMDs discovered....but it can't be done by a republican American president. That's the problem. If Clinton were president now ( or Gore ), there wouldn't have been nearly as many protests...if any. Because a Democrat would have been calling the shots. I don't seem to remember any protests when Clinton launched 400 missles into Iraq...or when he invaded Kosovo. Also don't seem to recall him going to the U.N. first. You can take it for what it is...but as far as I'm concerned, people don't hate the war half as much as they hate Bush.

ninjaman
04-07-2003, 05:46 PM
If Clinton were president now ( or Gore ), there wouldn't have been nearly as many protests

From an european point of view, Republicans and Democrats are pretty much interchangable. It´s just that a Republican president does what the democrat only dream about. But you are right about the 400 rockets and everything - europeans only protest when they have nothing to gain. We - or should I say our elected - are just as driven by power as your politicians are.

I personally think that the fact that we had to turn to the U.S for help in the Balkan matters is shameful and that we should have been able to take care of the problems ourself. But it just shows what a center role the U.S plays when it comes to sheer power. She can pretty much do as she wants to and thats a bit unsettling, you know. Colin Powell talked about and sneered at "the old europe" a couple of months ago. But he missed the point. Europe has seen devastating wars for the last 1000 years and maybe we have learned the hard way that a fist in the face won´t solve all problems (but some, I must sadly agree).

Johan Grönwall

jricks
04-07-2003, 06:20 PM
You have GOT to be kidding me. Ok sorry for the outburst.

So Saddam has been making people hamburgers for 12 years and more, and the UN is not responsible in any way but America & Britain with embedded journalists are sneaking in to plant WMD's immediately after fighting their way into the region, conveniently manufactured in other countries, yet those countries aren't coming out and raging over the planting of false evidence... uh-huh... snicker.

Stay tuned... Later we'll be paying a huge group of Iraqi citicizens that we're being told don't want us there to begin with to get them to describe how the plants have been there for years and how the torture was all real, how their families were used as human shields and how pissed they are at the UN for doing nothing.... on, and on, and on.

Dang it, John_D, I couldn't find anyone to take that bet it was so obvious that it would happen. Running out of anti-American issues, so they're gonna make up some more... just couldn't find anyone that didn't see that coming.

Click here and feed a hungry child by clicking there...

http://www.thehungersite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/CTDSites
Truthorfiction.com says it's real, banner proceeds are donated... see the site decide for yourself.

ninjaman
04-07-2003, 06:58 PM
"conveniently manufactured in other countries, yet those countries aren't coming out and raging over the planting of false evidence."

Right on the money - who provided Saddam with the advanced weapon technology (not the AK47:s)? The dreaded New Zeelanders or the terrorists of Turkmenistan? Nope, we all know who went to bed with Saddam before he was considered a problem and had to be ousted. And I´m not just targeting the U.S here - escpecially the French are notorious for doing nuclear business with Saddam - "who cares as long as it pays?" (with a french accent). In this game, everyone is a hyppocrat (misspelled).

"the plants have been there for years"

Who provided the technology to build those advanced plants, do you think? Not that the coalition has been able to prove they are working now, but what the heck, Saddam is targeted and he is going down no matter what.

"and how the torture was all real, how there families were used as human shields and how pissed they are at the UN for doing nothing"

I think the Iraqi people will be most happy when all foreign influence is gone and they can rebuild their country as they see fit. A reflection: when Saddam came to power, he immedeatly made women equal to men, surpressed the priesthoods islamic powers, started housing projects, made medical care free for all and invested in education. Fine, he was a terror to his people, I know that. But I wonder now - who are the people who´s primed for taking over Iraq? Many of them are Saddams´opponents from over thirty years ago. These people were not exactly known for embracing democracy.

"Running out of anti-American issues"

Please...if critizising the american foreign policy is considered "anti-american", then democracy seems to be in peril in your country. You often hear americans argue this way when their administrations overseas adventures is put under scrutiny. Americans are very gung-ho and that is a good thing. And sometimes it clouds the perspectives. You must be aware that, and I have stated this on other forums as well, that american people are well liked and not looked down upon, especially in Europe. We have so close ties to you since the immigration days that it would be somewhat like shooting our own foot if we looked down upon the U.S. No, we do not look upon you as fat, stupid or illiterate. We like you, ok? That´s why we also will criticize you, as you are supposed to be able to do with friends.

It´s your administrations we sometimes have a problem with. They have many times behaved, shall we say, a bit too harsh when it comes to certain countries - starting way back in the 1800´s with invasions in South America and the Filippines and passing through up to our time with the support to fascist regimes as in Honduras, Nicaragua and Vietnam. And Iraq.

Johan Grönwall

jricks
04-07-2003, 09:59 PM
Ok... here we go.

(your quote) Hmm, I doubt that the coalition forces could have returned home without having some chemical weapons to show off to the rest of the world. How convenient that they found some.

--- This is criticising foreign policy? Wrong... this is hysteric Ameriphobia I think.

(your quote) Who's a much bigger threat than Saddam ever was:

--- What is so hard to understand about the difference between Saddam and other problem spots on the planet? What is it that escapes these topics about a war and cease fire with conditions and 12 years of specific UN resolutions that have been ignored? Have your read any of them? Do you want a world war? Let's go get everyone now or no one regardless of existing circumstances? That's what you're suggesting. Because we the world has so many problems we just should do nothing...

(your quote) I just want to know why Iraq was pimp slapped and not the other guys? What´s the agenda here?

--- See UN resolutions, 12 years and a few facts.

(your quote) I would like to know - why did they attack?

--- See UN resolutions, 12 years and a few facts.

(your quote) No viable proof presented

--- --- See UN resolutions, 12 years and a few facts.... calling him an international and humanitarian threat and the fact that he willingly ignored serious warnings about the conditions of his cease fire, kept torturing, kept lying, hiding, sneaking in weapons... .

(your quote) War is surely the most perverse thing.

--- Next to the Saddams who's atrocities make it an only option or those that stand by and watch societies eliminated without doing anything about it because it's not convenient or profitable or those that preach peace and do nothing, diplomatically or militarily to achieve it.

(your quote) you know, blondes with big boobs and all that.

--- Fair nuff, about the same level of your generalities on our policy really.

(your quote) They forsee a future where they have to close the U.S. bases or face a revolution. This situation is a fact.

--- Wow, maybe we forsee them as having telethons to fund terrorism and want out... I really don't care, I'd vote us outta there in a second. Maybe because we're splitting with our positions like we should have Saddam earlier.

(your quote) The U.S faces a situation where they will have to find another place to lodge their troops else they loose their position of power in the Middle East.

--- When the UN shuts down maybe we won't have to worry about being all around the world to support their personal agendas... believe me, I'm good with that and look forward to having our families home.

(your quote) who has no means to defend himself and who will be missed by no one. Let´s go there.

--- Yep, poor Saddam, he was more able to defend himself than his own population against him. We did give him 12 years and a final offer, he had a choice for a long, long time.

(your quote) This is simple economical and political thinking, totally logical.

--- Your logic so far is dependent on a lot of guessing and accusations and denial of existing facts so calling it logic is a little bit of a stretch in my opinion.

(your quote) Expect an encore in North Korea.

--- Yeh, since the UN ignored enforcing their own sanctions here too, and could possibly have put many countries at risk, it has become a problem that we'll probably have to deal with... why does the continued UN failure to stand behind their words make it our fault?

(your quote) If this war was based upon humanitarian considerations, then the next front would be Cuba.

--- If you ignore every other reason Saddam has caused this war, why it's happening, the chances he's had to prevent it, everything he's continued to do and everything the UN refuses to do... well, I guess.

(your quote) Republicans and Democrats are pretty much interchangable.

--- This is an alarming punctuation of how little you have studied what you're criticizing, but it sounds good right?

(your quote) I personally think that the fact that we had to turn to the U.S for help in the Balkan matters is shameful and that we should have been able to take care of the problems ourself. But it just shows what a center role the U.S plays when it comes to sheer power.

--- Yeh, it was shameful, but the big bad US used mysterious magic on you so it makes you feel better in your shame and kind of makes you feel better about it to make it look like it was unavoidable and all and really more our fault than yours the way we use oppressive measures on you to force our way into helping with your "matters". Can't even say it can you....The other words not politically correct enough? What did we get out of that one anyway, oil, land, colonization, billions of dollars in contracts?

(your quote) Europe has seen devastating wars for the last 1000 years and maybe we have learned the hard way that a fist in the face won´t solve all problems.

--- Ah, and you think we solve every problem with war... ok cool. Can't wait to see how our dissatisfaction with the UN, a little dispute with France, Germany, Russia, China over it all works out. If you're right, I guess we'll be at war with them all soon. Think again... no maybe start thinking about what you're really saying... could help.

(your quote) Saddam came to power, he immedeatly made women equal to men.

--- Sure did, starved, beat, tortured them and killed them equally as rapidly.

(your quote) Fine, he was a terror to his people, I know that. But I wonder now - who are the people who´s primed for taking over Iraq? Many of them are Saddams´opponents from over thirty years ago.

--- Yeh, yeh... not that they were exiled or anything as he stole an entire country for his own personal benefit...

(your quote) Please...if critizising the american foreign policy is considered "anti-american", then democracy seems to be in peril in your country.

--- Please, don't pull that trump junk, it's a copout like talking about your "matters". Debating our policy is only valid if you at least take some facts into consideration from the last 12 years.

(your quote) They have many times behaved, shall we say, a bit too harsh when it comes to certain countries - starting way back in the 1800´s with invasions in South America and the Filippines and passing through up to our time with the support to fascist regimes as in Honduras, Nicaragua and Vietnam. And Iraq.

--- Cool, lets go... lessee, in the 1800's... Napoleon Bonaparte ring a bell, Small Pox blankets... um, French Revolution... etc. Who was in Vietnam before us and exactly why did we end up there?

You see us so clearly in exactly the same way as has been answered for years but escapes detection or care, dunno, it is amazing. Do you really know the circumstances of your examples well enough to use them as examples with Americans to condemn us or our government? Do you clearly understand our Constitution, government structure, historic details? In a pub your comments might fly... but from my recent experience I've seen a potential reduction in that too.

I am not criticizing Europe or Scandinavia, but individuals cannot expect to get away with this stereotyped agenda thinking forever as a unique or educated argument against America.

I listen to European views all the time, we actually talk about them, and an unmentioned concept here, "perception vs reality".

When is the last time you considered your perception could be wrong? Me, I try to understand the specific influences, that's why I've read the UN resolutions 687 and 1441 and the security council press release upon releasing 1441.

How else are you going to talk about a situation created by them without resorting to the same ol stereotypes found right here in this post as the last one, and last one and last one. Subjects change, the free accusations veiled as discussions on our Democracy or policy or the lack of research into specific situations, much less frequently.

It's all power, it's all oil, it's all aggression and it's all America all the time, regardless of the circumstances, who else is involved, who isn't and who created it, that's not much of a discussion.

Prosprctor
04-07-2003, 10:34 PM
robinson..

Oh they will find some for sure ! If they can’t find any they will get some of there own stuff over there and blame Iraq for it.

And your point is ???




ninjaman...

Heck, even us swedes has some questionable weapons that we talk quietly of.

I hereby volenteer to interrigate all your women, starting with the two from ABBA :D


Syria is too well defended and would cost to much in lifes lost

I seriously doubt that Syria could mount more of a defence than Iraq could. We still got the 4th ID that hasn't used any weapons so far and they are 4 times more powerful than the 3rd ID who took Baghdad.


But it just shows what a center role the U.S plays when it comes to sheer power. She can pretty much do as she wants to and thats a bit unsettling, you know

Why is so unsetteling to you because we are the only superpower? We don't go off willy nilly atacking anyone.

ninjaman
04-07-2003, 11:17 PM
--- This is criticising foreign policy? Wrong... this is hysteric Ameriphobia I think.

You are too paranoic. No one is after you. Let´s have a discussion instead.

What is so hard to understand about the difference between Saddam and other problem spots on the planet? What is it that escapes these topics about a war and cease fire with conditions and 12 years of specific UN resolutions that have been ignored?

Let´s see: a country that defies UN resolutions, that kill, torture and maim people, that has weapons of mass destruction and are ready to use them, that are invading another country...Iraq? Nope, Israel. Go there next time.

See UN resolutions, 12 years and a few facts.

You call upon these resolutions when you see fit as a reason to invade. But you are ready to go against the members of the UN when you want to invade Iraq. Doesn´t make sense, does it? And if the U.S is to play a part in the UN henceforth it better start paying the annual fees and not hold back on the money to pressure the UN to do what it wants. I wonder how many humanitarian projects that had to be cancelled because the U.S refused to pay in recent years?

When the UN shuts down maybe we won't have to worry about being all around the world to support their personal agendas... believe me, I'm good with that and look forward to having our families home.

In one minute you want to go to Iraq to bring peace. The next you want to keep the troops at home. The UN isn´t an organisation belonging to Europe or Asia - it very much includes the U.S. I can´t see a world where the U.S shuts itself out from the rest of the world. You are the strongest nation and with that comes a grave responsibility - when the U.S start to act outside the rest of the world, naturally other countries start to worry. This has not only to do with the war in Iraq, but also in the way the U.S in recent years has withdrawn from things like the Kyoto protocol. There is a clear tendency that the U.S wants to go its own way. Fine, but as the last superpower you are obliged to play a part in world matters. Sorry, there is no other way.

so calling it logic is a little bit of a stretch in my opinion

On the contrary, as I have previously stated, the Iraq war is only the logical outcome of a policy that has been working since the 1800´s.

This is an alarming punctuation of how little you have studied what you're criticizing,

In Europe the Democrats could be considered something of a "rightist" party or at least to the right of the middle. The Republicans surely is 100% to the right. We have more parties and a bigger swing between left and right. In a way we have more to choose from but you have an easier pick - one out of two.

What did we get out of that one anyway, oil, land, colonization, billions of dollars in contracts?

The first section your text on Balkan is childish and not worth commenting on. As for the above: you get stability in Europe, which is good for business. But really, I think that Balkan was one on your "plus" account. Good boy!

Ah, and you think we solve every problem with war

Not every problem of course. But come on, was Grenada really a threat to the U.S? It was more like knocking over a fruit stand, wasn´t it?

Yeh, yeh... not that they were exiled or anything as he stole an entire country for his own personal benefit...

Your argumentaion is superficial. Way isn´t it interesting who´s gonna come to power in Iraq and what´s on their agenda? Is it possible to bring democracy to the Middle East at all? Will the new Iraqi government have to fight off terrorists or will they go to bed with them?

1800's... Napoleon Bonaparte ring a bell, Small Pox blankets... um, French Revolution... etc. Who was in Vietnam

Oh, if you read my posts, you will see that I go against the french also. They used to be some sort of superpower way back. But please, Napoleon sold Louisiana back to the U.S in the beginning of that century. You can´t blame others for the way you have handled foreign affairs from back then up until now. If you read some of what was said about other countries by your old presidents, you would gasp. Conveniently for me, I only have some texts in swedish.

Do you really know the circumstances of your examples well enough to use them as examples with Americans to condemn us or our government? Do you clearly understand our Constitution, government structure, historic details?

Do you really know your government? I only know them by their actions.

I listen to European views all the time, we actually talk about them, and an unmentioned concept here, "perception vs reality".

If by "perception" you mean anti-american, uneducated european thoughts and by "reality" you mean clearly seeing that Iraq must be brought down, then you will must understand that there is no final "reality", only "perception". When you take a stand you only swear to one of many possible "realities".

I salute you for taking in differing views. And still you think we are wrong. That´s totally ok. And I do not call you "anti-european" because of that.

Johan Grönwall

ninjaman
04-07-2003, 11:21 PM
Why is so unsetteling to you because we are the only superpower? We don't go off willy nilly atacking anyone

Of course not. It´s just that the U.S just isn´t "any other country" like, for instance, my little country. When you bark, the world pricks its ears (is that a good metaphor, guess not, but you know what I mean) :-)

Johan Grönwall

ingo
04-08-2003, 03:21 AM
Speaking of "shock and awe", has everyone seen the news-film where "some" american bastards in a fighter attacked a group of british soldiers with an journalist and killed most of them.
I've read about the killing of Iraqui civilists at a american checkpoint and the other "friendly fire" that killed British soldiers, but seeing that in realtime is really shocking. I think one should show that on TV everyday so everyone gets an idea about that dirty war, especially the interview afterwards with one of the totally shocked Brit soldiers that survived showed clearly the reality of war. I hope that guy can get back to real life soon without some braindamage, not to talk about the journalist who filmed this all. Strange but true there are now more Brits killed by Americans than by Iraquis, no wonder the French guys prefered to stay home safe.
This is not meant as anti-americanism, but as anti-war. These "war-games" of some braindead seniors like Rumsfeld and Bush (the sen. not his junior puppet) on one side and Saddam Hussein on the other side are simply unacceptable, especially when i see that they sent only 19 year old americans to war that have no clue what they were sent to.

jricks
04-08-2003, 05:55 AM
-- Let´s see: a country that defies UN resolutions, that kill, torture and maim people, that has weapons of mass destruction... --

Don't mistake the fact that I have huge concerns here... but are we talking about everything the UN is failing on or Iraq?

-- You call upon these resolutions when you see fit as a reason to invade. But you are ready to go against the members of the UN when you want to invade Iraq. Doesn´t make sense, does it?...--

This is not a conflict...why does it not make sense? We aren't defying them, they are defying their own resolutions towards Saddam and the cease fire restrictions and there "final warning". Why aren't you angry with them for allowing their deemed international threat to continue unchecked while killing off his own people - and others? They unanimously adopted 1441, his final chance, he did not meet the requirements of it clearly, bingo, blew it and the UN splits... that is the trend. All hail the UN, forget about everything they said, just can't do it.

-- And if the U.S is to play a part in the UN henceforth it better start paying the annual fees and not hold back on the money to pressure the UN to do what it wants.--

Here's a twist. How about if they want us to be part of it they stop creating false documents and signing them, and for some of it's members to stop selling weapons to Regimes under their resolutions that are determined to be international threats. It's quite the opposite of your position actually. Ingo will be happy, for awhile should we not figure it out together.

You know the annual fee thing always pops up somewhere but is not asked of anyone else. I definately think we should pay it up in full, regardless of carrying the all the expenses they don't, shake hands, smile exit the organization and let them structure it anyway they want without us. Sorry, building stays here. It would be available for rent though, prime New York real estate, should be a bargain, who pays for that today? I'd like to know why it's gone unpaid.

-- In one minute you want to go to Iraq to bring peace. The next you want to keep the troops at home. --

Why isn't the UN there after unanimously signing the doc that gave him "a final chance" 45 days and being lied to by Saddam... again? Standing behind your word does not conflict with prefering our families were home, nor does it mean we would stop helping others if they ask us for help.

--I can´t see a world where the U.S shuts itself out from the rest of the world. You are the strongest nation and with that comes a grave responsibility - when the U.S start to act outside the rest of the world, naturally other countries start to worry.--

After Iraq there may be some changes instigated from the people of America that have had enough of international meandering with their tax dollars. It's the population that is becoming weary of the consistent microscope of one sided views. I think we could feed more people, in more places, in less time than the UN can figure out their weekly schedules, which I believe would result in less war than the UN could be attributed to managing.

If you want to prevent more wars, I've said it before, make sure your neighbor's kids have enough to eat.

--Kyoto protocol.--

All my favorite subjects. What do your stats say? Any insite as to why the Alps have been melting for 150 years? Check out the Marshall Institute if you're interested in other info on it. I've checked out the international info too. You'll find that if every man woman and child and factory stopped using what caused these emissions we'd reduce our national output by about 15 percent I think it was.

Guess where the rest comes from?

Right here with your comment:

--Fine, but as the last superpower you are obliged to play a part in world matters. Sorry, there is no other way.--

Well, you answered your own question... it's being that super power too many say we have a responsibility to maintain. Our contribution to the problem is being reduced more rapidly and has been for longer than you might think.

--We have more parties and a bigger swing between left and right... --

Anyone born in America can run for President if they have the motivation. I'd like to see more serious candidates.

Democrats and Republicans could not be more polarized.

Democrats Big Big government increased taxes and more federal control of the States and people.

Republicans, smaller government lower taxes less Federal control of the States and people.

Each system would be radically impacted by September 11th or war.

And as always, both have weaknesses and strenghts.

--The first section your text on Balkan is childish and not worth commenting on.--

Why? Regretably you had to ask the US for help... believe it or not you had a choice. Can't you just admit that it wasn't a "matter" and admit we came when asked and left without taking and say, hey, thanks? That process is duplicated numerous times and yet we're still the necessary evil that adds to our being the worlds problem that people regretably turn to for help and love to criticize for the same. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you were trying to say.

--Good boy! --

I'm assuming you don't know that's a phrase we would use with our children so I'll let that go.

-- Not every problem of course. But come on, was Grenada really a threat to the U.S? It was more like knocking over a fruit stand, wasn´t it? --

Dangerous generalization to say we settle "everything" with war. I'll let you answer the Granada question with your own research. I'm having enough difficulty discussing Iraq and staying out of the nethersphere of typical beefs with America.

--Will the new Iraqi government have to fight off terrorists or will they go to bed with them? --

I don't know, I know what the UN says about them now, give me your facts and a couple examples I'd be happy to check it out. Is the middle east predictable? Which is the greater risk? What are the options? How's Afghanistan doing as an example now? Will they ever turn on us? Hey, some have (Osama).

--You can´t blame others for the way you have handled foreign affairs from back then up until now--

Man, I just can't get through on this. If we blamed everyone else for our "problems" like is frequently done to us, it would be news to me.

--Do you really know your government? I only know them by their actions. --

Learn more all the time, know more than some, less than others, watcha want to know? If you know our government by our actions then I'm glad you're aware of our good points too.

-- If by "perception" you mean anti-american, uneducated european thoughts and by "reality" you mean clearly seeing that Iraq must be brought down, then you will must understand that there is no final "reality", only "perception". When you take a stand you only swear to one of many possible "realities". --

No, not even close... it's more like creating your own "perception" of the definition of words regardless of a "reality" of the existence of facts defining them and letting it stand at that.

I have no problem with disagreeing about our views, or agreeing with you that war is horrific. But find it very unproductive and accusationally oriented to be talking about the result of a 12 year documented process while ignoring it as a foundation of the topics in the conversation.

That's it, far too many posts talking about the same issues and making zippo headway towards at least not being accused of planting our own WMD's is enough.

Ps. My grandfather was a Swedish immigrant in the early 1900's, still have family in Halmstaad.

ninjaman
04-08-2003, 10:19 AM
My grandfather was a Swedish immigrant in the early 1900's, still have family in Halmstaad.

Cool! My father is born in Halmstad. Just proves that people on this planet are closer than they know.

Johan

jricks
04-08-2003, 11:50 AM
Cool! Johan... you're right.

anieves
04-09-2003, 12:31 PM
humm, maybe most of the WMD have been destroyed during bombing raids... what a thought huh?

no matter how good the evidence is, there are going to be people saying oh yeah it was planted... bull****. Easy excuse isn't it.

The truth of the matter is that WMD will be discovered by tips from the free Iraqi people if they weren't destroyed by bombing. Now the main goal is to defeat the Iraqi forces.

JohnD
04-09-2003, 01:55 PM
Yeah, Iraqis will begin helping us with the WMDs cause the threat of execution is fading away. However, growing concern that some WMD have been moved to Syria.