US abandons the search for WMD [Archive] - The Lone Star Command Message Boards

Karmashock

Jan 14, 2005, @ 12:50 PM

"Well, what people keep forgetting is that most people did think he had WMDs before we invaded."
I've looked for some facts as to how many people thought there were WMD, and I cant find any. On what facts do you base your "most people" belief on?
Most of the UN statements, analysts, US, British, and Israeli intelligence. Basically everyone paying attention.

You do know that Saddam was purchasing weird equipment that really only had one purpose. Some people think that he was doing it to intimidate Iran, but as I said… he put on too good of a show. He made us think that he was going for it.

Either way… we know that he had larger designs… people like him always do. Nothing is ever enough.

"We all need to back away and see the big picture."
I backed up before the war and saw the big picture - I saw there were no WMD.
I say you can’t see the forest for the trees and you say you can see the forest… and point at a tree’s root.

Back up and see the big picture. Where do you see the world in 100 years? That’s the big picture. Iraq is a long term move.

I dont blame you for being too narrow-minded to see the truth, but to still be making the same makes over and over is pretty inexcusable.
Your pretension is hollow and sad. You still fail to see the big picture and are instead caught up in petty events that you think you can use to get a petty one up on me or my faction… it’s positively childish.

The only way that the US can guarantee that no muslims, or chinese will ever attack it like on 9/11 - is to destroy all the Muslims and the Chinese. I think you know that. I think that's what your suggesting. That is why people think you're a fascist.
9/11 was not and is not a prime threat. What is a threat are larger conflicts and political shifts. We do not want large self-sufficient alliances that can challenge our global position. A Chinese Islamic alliance would do that. The middle east could provide china with all the oil it could ever want while denying it to the west and at the same time the Chinese could provide the Islamic countries with the finest Chinese military hardware that oil money can buy.

Such an alliance wouldn’t need to listen to Washington, Geneva, London, or Paris. Bury your petty irrational bitterness and see the bigger picture.
==========================
He said "Thats why people think he is a facist"

He did not call him a facist.

Please read what people write before you put words in their mouths.
Actually, he’s called me a fascist in the past and is rather infamous for using that term rather freely on anyone that he perceives as either going to war when he doesn’t personally approve of it or when any rights are curtailed regardless of the reason or the extent in a way that he personally doesn’t approve of. Such loose definitions of the term rob it of it’s power… so when such people call you a fascist… it’s quite literally meaningless.
========================
Man, you said alot there. Morality is one of the most important things we have. You put that away and you got destructive methods being used to gain what you need.
And I remember when America used WMD's as one of their reasons invading Iraq, strange how they managed to surpress that one hey????
Something tells me karma, that you are certainly not a morale man.
Do you know what I even said in that quote? I dare you paraphase what I was trying to say in that section.

I seriously doubt you have any clue what I was talking about. All you did was look for one thing that you thought you could heckle me about and went for it... But by not bothering to understand the piece, your comments make no sense. Do you know 'why' I asked you to put your morality in your pocket?

I'll give you a hint... I said this pretty explictly... but you missed it and I'll point you to it again. I want you to see yourself for how alone you really are in the world. How alone both of us are... how alien our values are to so much of the world.

Back up and see the big picture...

Larsson7

Jan 14, 2005, @ 12:55 PM

Thinking is keeping it in your head, to yourself to be more specific. If you put it in words your saying. Either way the idea is being expressed, despite your defense on play of words.

Again - suas did not state that "I think Karma is a facist"

He stated that he could see why others would think that he is.

I personally have no opinion either way.

JADezimar

Jan 14, 2005, @ 12:58 PM

Again. He Wants to imply it. Or he would not say it at all. We all know this. And if others have said it, well they have said it. Again if you think it, it stays in your head. If you say it to someone, whether you tell them you think they are, or say they are it is calling them one. Again your playing on words.

shutupandshave

Jan 14, 2005, @ 01:05 PM

I have done in the past, on a handful of occasions - but then only usually with conditions attached - such as "If you think this, you're a fascist". However, here I was not calling him a fascist.

I will happily point out that I think he has fascist tendancies though... based on the fact that Karma wants to put his morals in the back pocket for a moment and stop Islam/China ever becoming a threat to the US... and by doing so will invade another country killing tens of thousands of people so the US had a foothold in the region.

Any other "well they might attack first" stuff is bollocks. Make friends with them - lets all get on eh? Sure there are some nasty people but knocking them down only gives them more reason to hate. There are nasty people in every country, and there always will be.

You cant eradicate a race of 3 billion people in an attempt to "stabilise" the world. It's absurd.

JADezimar

Jan 14, 2005, @ 01:09 PM

I will happily point out that I think he has fascist tendancies though... based on the fact that Karma wants to put his morals in the back pocket for a moment and stop Islam/China ever becoming a threat to the US...

Well we have not done this yet. If you consider Iraq thats sad. Sadaam has killed by far more people than we have. If your talking about the future that is all theory.

Karmashock

Jan 14, 2005, @ 01:18 PM

I will happily point out that I think he has fascist tendancies though... based on the fact that Karma wants to put his morals in the back pocket for a moment and stop Islam/China ever becoming a threat to the US... and by doing so will invade another country killing tens of thousands of people so the US had a foothold in the region.
Suas, WHY did I ask you to put your morals in your back pocket? I didn't intend for you to keep them there forever. Just for a minute because I think you're so busy whining about them that you don't see how fragile it all is. You think your values are universal and they're really not. Most people on earth don't agree with you about any of that stuff. Most of the countries that aren't western only follow that stuff right now because it's western enforced. These are hard realities that you need to come to grips with.

If it weren't for 300 years of European imperialism the world would never listen to the west about anything. Why should they? The millions England, France, Spain, and Holland killed in those centuries left their mark upon the world. First and for most a respect for western military power. Later on they acquired many of our value systems, economic systems, and even some of our religion.

It only came at the point of a sword though. That you think you can put the sword away and everything will remain the way it is forever is stupid. Steps must be taken on a regular basis to maintain it.

Have you been listening to anything I've been saying here? Or are you just looking for little quotes to take out of context to snipe me with? Because that's just pathetic.

Any other "well they might attack first" stuff is bollocks. Make friends with them - lets all get on eh? Sure there are some nasty people but knocking them down only gives them more reason to hate. There are nasty people in every country, and there always will be.
Why should they make friends with the west? Do you know what the Europeans have done to Islam and china over the years? Don't look to the Americans as the true source of this hate. The Arab and Chinese hatred of the west falls upon European shoulders. The US takes today only because we're the most powerful western nation. If we weren't allied with the west at all, we could make peace much more easily... but our ties to you make that impossible.

There are ancient hatreds... saying "can't we just get along" before that is liek going to Palestine and telling the two sides the same thing. It's totally futile.

You cant eradicate a race of 3 billion people in an attempt to "stabilise" the world. It's absurd.
I never suggested it... I never even hinted at it. I think I've made very clear that I want to keep the system under control through a system of very powerful alliances together with slow but steady cultural and economic exchange that should weaken their resolve.

When I read statements like your last one, it's hard for me to think anything but that you're just looking for something to freak out at me over... People that levy heavy recriminations over nothing find that their words quickly mean nothing.

The word facist from you means nothing more then air as of many conversations ago... you have no respect for the term.

Critta

Jan 14, 2005, @ 01:39 PM

Well we have not done this yet. If you consider Iraq thats sad. Sadaam has killed by far more people than we have. If your talking about the future that is all theory.

If only this were true.

Saddam has killed a lot of people, but nothing close to the amount killed by malnutrition and disease due to 10 years of sanctions. ;)

http://www.elmandjra.org/deaths.htm
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/f.dowker/genocideiraq.html
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/techgroup/GarfieldIrq-Cuba.PDF - most impartial and well rounded report.

The same could be said about deaths due to sanctions in Cuba and Libya as well.

shutupandshave

Jan 14, 2005, @ 01:41 PM

UN stats are biased. Only US blog sites and right wing party sites have the insight to make any comment about the world.

JADezimar

Jan 14, 2005, @ 01:52 PM

UN stats are biased. Only US blog sites and right wing party sites have the insight to make any comment about the world.

Hehe only people that read your crap over and over will know your sarcastic, so I will let them know that it is.

Sadaam Has had so much money. Yet you are saying there is no way he could have found food for his people. In no way shape or form to buy or Find a way to Raise his own in any way? As far as I knew His Army was pretty well fed. Basically he didnt want to spend the money to get the food. Now thats another Reason to say Sadaam was killing his people. The people dont survive that still remain there, if there is no food at all.

MVB

Jan 14, 2005, @ 02:26 PM

shutupandshave

Jan 14, 2005, @ 02:44 PM

I have said, many times on both your forums, that I did not and do not have enough evidence to say whether or not there are or were WMD in Iraq. I was biased slightly towards the "is not there" camp... but I was not at all sure.

Karma/JAD have problems understanding anything except black/white, and so I was trying to explain it to them in terms they could understand. I was getting through to JAD.

I would also like to point out, that people - including yourself have said I was wrong for disbelieving the WMD evidence. Therefore that makes me right when it turns out it was wrong.

Okay, MVB, Karma seems to see the situation like this.
Muslim/China = bad, and need to be taken down. Iraq was not really a problem, the real problem was Iran.
Iraq = easy win, so we can have a military base there to keep checks on Iran.

Now - if he is willing to support a war that killed tens of thousands of people based purely on getting a military base in Iraq (and he's not the only one - there are other people that agree with him)... I see the imminent deaths of MANY more people whom he actually has a problem with.

Yes there may be WMD found in Iraq now, but it wouldn't matter.

Larsson7

Jan 14, 2005, @ 02:47 PM

Suas, the US does not have to kill every Muslim and/or ever Chinese to ensure they do not attack us. That's ... ridonkulous.

Also, the search for WMD was called off; this means a) the US is not going to spend more troops looking for them in Iraq, b) there were none FOUND in Iraq (doesn't rule out them not being there, technically), and c) they COULD have been removed to a neighboring country long before US troops got to them ... our troops were not over all Iraq within 2-3 hours of starting .... it would have taken a very short period of time ... a few hours ... to truck WMD to a neighboring country, and by the terrorists who've gotten in, we know the borders to be very very sieve-like indeed.

I agree that WMD were not as readily available as was believed. I do not agree that calling off the search means "no WMD period." Being a man heavily dependent on actual evidence, suas, you must agree that this doesn't "prove" anything. It does make their existence less likely, or at least less likely to be discovered, and I'll gladly grant that fact.

What about this?

In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair faced similar criticism.

He told his party's annual conference in September that the "evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong."

"I can apologize for the information that turned out to be wrong," Blair said. "But I can't, sincerely at least, apologize for removing Saddam."

Full CNN article here in which it implies, in very strong terms, that there were no WMD and no further search would begin.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html

Karmashock

Jan 14, 2005, @ 02:48 PM

If only this were true.

Saddam has killed a lot of people, but nothing close to the amount killed by malnutrition and disease due to 10 years of sanctions. ;)

http://www.elmandjra.org/deaths.htm
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/f.dowker/genocideiraq.html
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/techgroup/GarfieldIrq-Cuba.PDF - most impartial and well rounded report.

The same could be said about deaths due to sanctions in Cuba and Libya as well.
So we were wrong to put sanctions on them and we were wrong to go to war...

Fuck we should have just left saddam entirely in the UNs hands to that he's be sitting in Kuwait... laughing.

What’s your solution?

If we can't use economic sections or military action... then what? call him nasty names? That seems to be the only thing the euros are good for these days... when ever you need someone to bitch till everyone's eyes bleed, just call them over... The enemy will likely kill themselves from the shear boredom of it.

From our perspective, it doesn’t look like you’re doing anything but coming up with reasons to hate on America… there is absolutely no fucking logic to most of your statements… all they have in common is that they’re anti US… which kind of renders them meaningless.

JADezimar

Jan 14, 2005, @ 02:50 PM

That seems to be the only thing the euros are good for these days...

I really give your props for that one.

From our perspective, it doesn’t look like you’re doing anything but coming up with reasons to hate on America…

A common thing that has enlightened me about the world since I have come to these boards. Funny thing is, when you start disagreeing with them Karma, or dig up dirt about there nations, they get pretty dirty.

Critta

Jan 14, 2005, @ 03:02 PM

MVB, the only two issues I have with this opinion:

1) Who in their right minds would want to take any WMD that Iraq might have had? The whole world saw what happened when the allies believed that Iraq had WMD. Add to this the generally poor relations which Iraq had with her neighbours and Syriah seems to be the only possible recipient. If I were in their shoes I would have turned any WMD away at the border for fear of invasion after the Iraq situation is resolved.

2) If Iraq had any form of WMD, would they not have used them on invading troops? Saddam must have known his game was up by the number of troops arrayed against him, surely it would have made logical (if not humanitarian) sense for a mad dictator to do as much damage to his agressor as possible before the invading forces crushed is regime?

Also bear in mind that the report deals not only with the search for actual weapons themselves but also on the analysis of thousands of documents and the like from the Iraqi regime looking for any kind of evidence of imports of weapons construction materials and evidence of active weapons programs.

The conclusion of the report was that Iraq had the remaining intellectual capacity and know-how to produce weapons, but had no active weapons production programmes and destroyed its stockpiles of WMD after the first war.

As you say, nothing can be proved either way, but for the reasons given above, combined with some research into the content of the WMD report I can say that I truly believe that there were no WMD in Iraq.

Karmashock

Jan 14, 2005, @ 03:25 PM

Critta,
1.Why would Saddam pretend to have them? He did purchase equiptment that could only be used for WMDs... that moble lab he bought from the germans... the high quality aluminum piping that was perfect for uranium enrichment... the quick quoting of yellow cake uranium in africa...

The dude was setting off our flags.

2) If Iraq had any form of WMD, would they not have used them on invading troops? Saddam must have known his game was up by the number of troops arrayed against him, surely it would have made logical (if not humanitarian) sense for a mad dictator to do as much damage to his agressor as possible before the invading forces crushed is regime?

2. One would think... However, you did note that the US expected Iraq to us them on us... and that we both took precausions in the invasion AND threatened Saddam that that would only make it worse for him.

If WMDs were used on us... the gloves would come off... and yes, we do restrain ourselves... a lot.

As to whether they were there or not... I just think it's safer to assume there were. Remember, we did find some stuff buried in a few scientist's backyards. They were given material to 'hide'... they just got a shovel and buried it next to their kid's swing. No one is going to find that.

shutupandshave

Jan 14, 2005, @ 03:35 PM

call him nasty names? That seems to be the only thing the euros are good for these days... when ever you need someone to bitch till everyone's eyes bleed, just call them over... The enemy will likely kill themselves from the shear boredom of it.

Yeah, damn those people that insult others eh Karma?

JAD, dont have you a slimy rock to lick?

JADezimar

Jan 14, 2005, @ 03:39 PM

Snakes dont lick Saus. They smell with there tongues. You should come up with an insult that would be more intelligent, and how do we say, more realistic in more ways than 1.

You Been gone awhile and you seem quite ferocious this time around. You always visit these forums on your period. (I am sure you come here when your in the mood to perade around your less than mature side) So other forums of people you like dont have to see your real self.

You see now thats an insult with many facts that add up.

Critta

Jan 14, 2005, @ 03:45 PM

From our perspective, it doesn’t look like you’re doing anything but coming up with reasons to hate on America… there is absolutely no fucking logic to most of your statements… all they have in common is that they’re anti US… which kind of renders them meaningless.

The thing you seem to be forgetting here is that the UK was just as involved in the continuation of the sanctions on Iraq as the US is, so to call that statement "anti-US" is just not true.

It cannot be denied that our contries are at least partially responsible for the humanitarian situation in Iraq, Saddam may not have helped the suffering of his people, but he is not the sole cause.

My proof of this is Iraq prior to the First Gulf War, there was an energy surplus, enough fresh water for all and the country, a valid economy and an alliance with the US. Saddam made a mistake in invading Kuwait, and those living under his regime have been suffering and dying in order to rectify this mistake.

Millitary sanctions - no problems from me.

Economic sanctions - have been proven time and time again not to hurt those in power, only the civilians living under their government.

In my eyes, we should have sorted this problem out at the time of the first Gulf War or not levied economic sanctions with a warning that if Saddam stepped out of line once more, he would be removed from power via millitary force.

Instead his people have suffered for 10 years and we have eventually launched a war which is both diplomatically and politically dubious. Do you think there would have been this level of foreign or local guerilla involvement if the allies were assisting one of Iraq's neighbours in fighting back an invasion before toppling the Baath party?

Logical enough for you?

shutupandshave

Jan 14, 2005, @ 03:48 PM

You should come up with an insult that would be more intelligent, and how do we say, more realistic in more ways than 1.

Such as -

You always visit these forums on your period.
I am a man, and I dont have periods.

Is everyone forgetting that Iraq asked the US if it could invade Kuwait, and it said yes?

Karmashock

Jan 14, 2005, @ 03:56 PM

Yeah, damn those people that insult others eh Karma?

JAD, dont have you a slimy rock to lick?
"Neither irony nor sarcasm is argument."

Do you have a point Suas? Cus, if making fun of people is all europe does and that's cool, then you must support anyone that does that??? or are you saying that no one that insults ever has a point?

You have no point, as the quote said. Come back and try again.
===================================
Critta,
You're not giving me enough options Critta...

Military sanctions don't work on a nation that is able to cheat not only military sanctions but economic ones too. He was getting enough money for food via the oil for food program... however, he preferred weapons. The French and Russians were happy to help him out there so long as they go a little more off the top.

What should have happened, is the UN should have allowed the US to do regime change in Iraq in the first Gulf War... It was the UN's mistake to not do that and it was the US's mistake not to do it regardless of what the UN said.

Lastly, Britain being involved in this or not doesn't make your statements any less irrational. You've made a damned if we do damned if we don't trap. Open one side of the trap or it becomes irrelevant. It's not a valid moral guide if it makes the same judgment no matter what you do.

This is in large part why the American people don't respect that thought process any more... We're tired of these traps and we're very good at spotting and discarding them now. When we see one, instantly ignore everything it says... it's garbage.

An insight into our world, Karmashock.

Critta

Jan 14, 2005, @ 03:57 PM

Critta,
1.Why would Saddam pretend to have them?

Iraq didn't have good relations with any of its neighbours. Nobody locally is likely to invade Iraq if they believe they have WMD that could be used against an invading force.

Saddam didn't believe that the allies would invade with no good reason, as such, he was more than happy for his neighbours to believe he had these kind of weapons.

With the millitary sanctions in place, the Iraqi army was a shadow of its former self, he may have considered this deception as a good way of deterring potential invaders.

At the end of the day, I am more than happy to accept the judgement of a US WMD specialist who has spent 2 years performing inspections and interviews with high ranking Iraqi officers, as well as scrutinizing all manner of Iraqi documents discovered after the invasion.

Link to the report (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/) if you are interested.

JADezimar

Jan 14, 2005, @ 03:59 PM

God that posts was boring. Where was the intelligent flaming I was waiting for. Sigh*

Talking about Suas last posts.

Critta
Iraq didn't have good relations with any of its neighbours.

Ya but all that changed after we invaded. Sadaam was seen as a hero to its neighbours for standing up to the U.S. Its still possible they were moved over the borders. For the Sake of Making it look bad.

shutupandshave

Jan 14, 2005, @ 03:59 PM

My point Karma, was that you are a hypocrite

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

It looks to me then, they are unlikely to find chemical weapons MVB.

Karmashock

Jan 14, 2005, @ 04:19 PM

Iraq didn't have good relations with any of its neighbours. Nobody locally is likely to invade Iraq if they believe they have WMD that could be used against an invading force.
There you go, so he made it look like he had WMDs and we thought he did.

End.

With the millitary sanctions in place, the Iraqi army was a shadow of its former self, he may have considered this deception as a good way of deterring potential invaders.
Actually, that had more to do with the fact that we blew the fuck out of them in the first war.

but what ever.

At the end of the day, I am more than happy to accept the judgement of a US WMD specialist who has spent 2 years performing inspections and interviews with high ranking Iraqi officers, as well as scrutinizing all manner of Iraqi documents discovered after the invasion.
The CIA told bush, "saddam is developing a nuke"... but then the CIA got fired.

The CIA is not who you want to put your trust on... they've been culled.

They didn't even have any secret operatives in Iraq... what kind of secret agents are they? Fucking sad.

The whole operation has been a country club for Boston ivy league douches... They spend more time talking about things then actually gathering intelligence. The NSA has been out performing them for years... and the NSA mostly listens to radio signals.

they read your email too... but don't tell anyone... they'll know and disappear you... and your little dog too.
========================================
My point Karma, was that you are a hypocrite
Nope, it was a sad deflection. There is no connection between me and Europe. Europe is a continent of nations with the ability to do things... and I act to the degree I can act. Europe chooses to bitch regardless.

try again... this time try to come up with an argument that doesn't center around some sad insult you've haphazardly crafted to damage my invulnerable ego...

Just seriously make a point... i've been making plenty that don't discuss your microscopic penis... so you should be able to too... that is... if you can. You're the only one causing problems now... keep it up.

and we did find chemical weapons... the ones we gave Iraq to fight Iran... but we found them.

Critta

Jan 14, 2005, @ 04:22 PM

Military sanctions don't work on a nation that is able to cheat not only military sanctions but economic ones too.

My point exactly. If the leaders can cheat the sanctions, what is the point in continuing them? All you are doing is harming the civilian population at this point.

What should have happened, is the UN should have allowed the US to do regime change in Iraq in the first Gulf War... It was the UN's mistake to not do that and it was the US's mistake not to do it regardless of what the UN said.

This what what I meant when I said "we should have sorted this problem out at the time of the first Gulf War".

However, why should the US have handled the regime change, surely it would have made more sense (and arguably caused less public dissent) if any change in government had been handled by the UN?

Basically this post shows that you pretty much agree with my judgement on how Iraq should have been handled, but disagree over the use of sanctions?

Lastly, Britain being involved in this or not doesn't make your statements any less irrational. You've made a damned if we do damned if we don't trap. Open one side of the trap or it becomes irrelevant. It's not a valid moral guide if it makes the same judgment no matter what you do.

Please give me details of which statements from my last post you believe to be irrational. Personally I can see that aside from the issue of sanctions, we all but agree on how Iraq shoudl have been handled. I fail to see how my statements can be irrational when they agree with what you are saying.

shutupandshave

Jan 14, 2005, @ 04:29 PM

I think the point about sanctions would be moot anyway - if there had been Regime change in Iraq after the first gulf war.

I am not sure Karma was saying that the US should have handled the regime change, I think he was saying that the UN didn't want it.

Critta

Jan 14, 2005, @ 04:32 PM

Actually, that had more to do with the fact that we blew the fuck out of them in the first war.

I didn't think I needed to mention this.. but if you want to have the last word on the subject, that's fine by me.

The CIA told bush, "saddam is developing a nuke"... but then the CIA got fired.

The CIA is not who you want to put your trust on... they've been culled.

They didn't even have any secret operatives in Iraq... what kind of secret agents are they? Fucking sad.

The whole operation has been a country club for Boston ivy league douches... They spend more time talking about things then actually gathering intelligence. The NSA has been out performing them for years... and the NSA mostly listens to radio signals.

they read your email too... but don't tell anyone... they'll know and disappear you... and your little dog too.

What is all of this in relation to? Trying to debunk the CIA because they release a report which disagrees with what you think?

I seriously need a little more explaination of what you are trying to get at here.

Karmashock

Jan 14, 2005, @ 04:36 PM

Critta,
We only did the sactions because the UN and specifically the europeans told us to go easy and that it could all be worked out through talk and diplomacy.

Sanctions were europe's idea... ours was to get saddam out of there.
However, why should the US have handled the regime change, surely it would have made more sense (and arguably caused less public dissent) if any change in government had been handled by the UN?
I'm just quoting you here because this is sort of annoying... the UN forbid us to do that. They absolutely told us that we would NOT have their approval if we did that. So George Bush 41 said "fine"... 43 said "fuck off". The UN earned that one.

Basically this post shows that you pretty much agree with my judgement on how Iraq should have been handled, but disagree over the use of sanctions?
I don't think you understand that the US isn't to blame for them. The euros like to suggest things things to us as half way measures then tell us we're bad for even doing that. If we do nothing we're said to be uncaring and if we go in and get the job done like in Iraq you start calling us facists...

It's fucking stupid.

Please give me details of which statements from my last post you believe to be irrational. Personally I can see that aside from the issue of sanctions, we all but agree on how Iraq shoudl have been handled. I fail to see how my statements can be irrational when they agree with what you are saying.
What you don't get is that your side has been very irradic and that no matter what we do we seem to end up the bad guy. It sucks... but we're to the point where we don't even care anymore...

You’ve just pissed us off so badily that there isn't much France or Germany could say that we'd get excited about... they're officially fucktards in the eyes of the US state department.

Just focus on this for a minute.
We do nothing and we're insensitive, selfish, and uncaring.
We do something half way and we're considered inhumane and blind to the suffering of innocents
We go in and clean house and we're fascists.

how exactly do we win here? The best minds in the US have given up... We've just given up... If you want to be our friends, then come along and have a beer. If you want to be fucktards, then we'll just mute you. *click* now you're a mime.
France--------->http://www.gilroydispatch.com/photo/img/f1928/Mad-Mime-CR.jpg

What's that? I can't quite hear that?... oh, you're climbing an invisible rope... neato. *thows the man a nickle and walks on*

shutupandshave

Jan 14, 2005, @ 04:40 PM

they're officially fucktards in the eyes of the US state department
Evidence please?

Karmashock

Jan 14, 2005, @ 04:42 PM

I didn't think I needed to mention this.. but if you want to have the last word on the subject, that's fine by me.

What is all of this in relation to? Trying to debunk the CIA because they release a report which disagrees with what you think?

I seriously need a little more explaination of what you are trying to get at here.
... Are you seriously saying you haven't heard how the CIA has been culled?

Dude... the CIA just got wiped... 80 percent of their top staff "resigned"... which is washington speak for 'were respectfully fired'.

Here is the first thing to come out of google...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5395999
But they've been getting hammered for over a year. Fuck, they even tried to blackmail senators and congressmen with secret information if they weren't protected...

Which is a fucking stupid mistake in American politics... they'd rather go down fighting then pussy down that out right corrupt bs. Turns out the CIA had nothing on them anyway... they're all talk.

you could have asked me what I thought of the CIA yesterday or two months ago and I would have said the same thing.

They're jokes.

If you seriously doubt me, I can get a lot of information for you. They've completely collapsed.

It turns out that they basically predict everything... and nothing...

they do a lot writing reports and not a lot of getting intel.

shutupandshave

Jan 14, 2005, @ 04:47 PM

Well after the CIA cocked up over the WMD thing, I am glad things are being done about it. Props to whomever got the shake-up happening.

I've still not found any evidence that says "they're officially fucktards in the eyes of the US state department ".

Not just that the US thinks they're fucktards - but it is actually official.

;)

Karmashock

Jan 14, 2005, @ 05:06 PM

First, thank Bush

Second, don't be more retarded than usual... it's like an intelligence anti mass... you might theoretically be able to make other people stupid just by being in close proximity to you with that aptitude.

If you have any boring comments, then I suggest you direct them to Mr Flibble.http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ian.ridley3/images/flibble.gif

Critta

Jan 14, 2005, @ 05:07 PM

Karma,

I don't think you understand that I'm not saying the US was responsible for the sanctions, the UN suggested them initially. The US and the UK have been the 2 main forces in keeping them in effect. I'm not blaming anyone in particular for this, however, can you see that between the innefectual sanctions and the destruction of the Iraqi power and water infrastructure at the end of the First Gulf War, the only people who have really lost out are the Iraqi people?

The only problem I have with this war was that there was no real reason for us to be there. Sure there was the WMD claim, but 20 years ago, both the UK and the US were freely selling Iraq WMD.

I admit I may have come to some wrong conclusions for the reasons behind the war, however I will stand firm on 2 points:

1) We would not have invaded if Iraq did not have the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world.

2) There would have been much less objection to the invasion if we had removed sanctions (thus pacifying France and Germany), then waitied for Iraq to step out of line and act agressively to one of its neighbours before invading (thus preventing the massive guerilla war which is occuring at the moment.)

Basically, if there was a good solid reason for war in Iraq, I would not have been against it at all, however I do take exception to a war being launched under a cloud of bullshit, when this happens, it is natural to start asking questions.

Fair enough, the CIA news has restored a LOT of faith in America for me. I have come to the realisation recently that a lot of the practices I disliked about the US, and a lot of the things the US have done which I feel to be unjust have been the work of the CIA.

shutupandshave

Jan 14, 2005, @ 05:12 PM

Perhaps now the CIA has been recognised as being wrong, we're going to end up with a hard line American that would rather have no evidence that wrong evidence.

Karmashock

Jan 14, 2005, @ 05:35 PM

Critta,
I see what you're saying. I just think you MUST keep things in context. The US wanted Saddam under control.

We wanted the war to 'mean' something.

We wanted him out!

The UN said no.

We said, so what then?

The UN said "sanctions".

We said... 'fine'.

Then the UN said, ok now how about nothing.

We said... WTF?

There by they were kept.

I refuse to accept responsibility for the people that were hurt by those sanctions. We offered Iraq all the money and supplies Saddam needed to help his people. But he bought weapons instead. He bought French rockets and russian radar.

When you look at poor people of iraq... imagine all the food those weapons could have bought.

We didn't starve his people... he did... period.

shutupandshave

Jan 14, 2005, @ 05:38 PM

When you look at things like that, yes the US did good, and the UN got in the way, but it's my understanding that things were not that simple.

1) the US only went to war with Iraq because it invaded Kuwait.
2) the US said that if Iraq went to war with Kuwait it would do nothing.

I think this throw a whole new light on things, although why would the US deliberately which to mislead Iraq about an attack on it?

Critta

Jan 14, 2005, @ 05:42 PM

Fair enough point, however, the point I have made several times is; if you had taken the UN up on their offer of 'nothing' as you put it, you may very well have had a legitimate reason to invade Iraq within 5-10 years.

Saddam was able to get around the sanctions anyway, as both you and the US government knew, so what difference would it have made?

As with all dictators, Saddam cared about himself first and foremost, spending his money on defence and to keep his regime from turning against him, the suffering of his people was no concern of his, and in his eyes a handy propaganda tool to help try and turn the world against his enemies.

We would have been better off all round if we had accepted nothing, can you see what I am getting at here?

Critta

Jan 14, 2005, @ 05:45 PM

I think this throw a whole new light on things, although why would the US deliberately which to mislead Iraq about an attack on it?

I think this was more of a situation where the US were forced to choose between 2 allies, on one hand they had the UN wanting to keep Iraq out of Kuwait, on the other Iraq were invading Kuwait.

Given the choice between alienating all of the UN nations and alienating Iraq, I know which I would choose.

Maybe the US thought that the UN would not get involved in this as they hadn't got involved in the Iran-Iraq war and numerous other Middle Eastern conflicts?

Karmashock

Jan 14, 2005, @ 05:55 PM

Fair enough point, however, the point I have made several times is; if you had taken the UN up on their offer of 'nothing' as you put it, you may very well have had a legitimate reason to invade Iraq within 5-10 years.
Its hard for us to make disisions that far in advance... our leadership changes every 4 years and it can change the whole US foreign policy instantly.

For this reason, we're fans of instant gratification because we don't know if tomorrow's plan will be the same as today's... therefore... win today.... a win is always a win.

Saddam was able to get around the sanctions anyway, as both you and the US government knew, so what difference would it have made?
It gave us teh right to fly fighters over Iraq for that whole time... we got to protect the Kurds...

good things did come of it... it was better then nothing.

We would have been better off all round if we had accepted nothing, can you see what I am getting at here?
Not really, you must agree that it would have been better still if the US had told the UN to fuck off and kicked saddam out under bush 41. Bush might have been relected too...

I don't see a down side.
==================================
I think this was more of a situation where the US were forced to choose between 2 allies, on one hand they had the UN wanting to keep Iraq out of Kuwait, on the other Iraq were invading Kuwait.

Given the choice between alienating all of the UN nations and alienating Iraq, I know which I would choose.

Maybe the US thought that the UN would not get involved in this as they hadn't got involved in the Iran-Iraq war and numerous other Middle Eastern conflicts?
Iraq wasn't much of an ally... more like someone we knew...

I think our first statement was largely one of confusion... honestly, I don't think we even considered going to war in that region of the world... our general reaction to most things at that time was "do what you want"...

not really a good policy.

shutupandshave

Jan 14, 2005, @ 06:04 PM

Interesting how it turned out that the Kurds had a stronger link with Al-Q than Saddam had.

JADezimar

Jan 14, 2005, @ 06:05 PM

What are you implying. If you want to reiterate this subject?

Karmashock

Jan 14, 2005, @ 06:13 PM

Interesting how it turned out that the Kurds had a stronger link with Al-Q than Saddam had.
not that I've heard... we're rather proud of the kurds. :)

Even if they did... that's going to be rather common in free middle east... just so long as they're is freedom of press and politics... if they wall themselves off, there will be problems.

shutupandshave

Jan 14, 2005, @ 06:17 PM

Actually I just went to look for some more information on this, and I cant find anything particularly recent - not that it means there isn't anything going on.

Karmashock

Jan 14, 2005, @ 07:59 PM

like I said, what bothers us more is if they wall themselves off... so long as roughly 20-40 percent has an afinity with american culture the country itself shouldn't give us problems... we can shame most of the terrorist stuff out of existence once their society is exposed to that kind of pressure.

At the end of the day though... if they're free and decided to kill themselves on american steal... we're here for them. But first, we're going to give them a choice.

shutupandshave

Jan 14, 2005, @ 08:16 PM

JADezimar

Jan 14, 2005, @ 08:18 PM

Just like anti America Only fuels the fire of Americans. Everyone cares about America so much it would seem to be some kinda Fear? Maybe what is it that draws so many of the worlds attention to America. If it is fear then maybe you should stop feeding the fire.

Karmashock

Jan 14, 2005, @ 09:12 PM

You seem to understand the EXTREME power and extent of US "propaganda" as you seem too, by a few statements you've made - and the "we can shame most of the terrorist stuff out of existence once their society is exposed to that kind of pressure" comment just now.

Have you ever considered that this is being used against the people of America?
... It is america... asking that question is like asking if someone's blood might be used against them.

McDonalds... you know that place that sells crappy burgers all over the planet? That is a symbol and function of US hegemony. No other nation has anything remotely like McDonalds. When we built one in Moscow, the Russians spent hours in line to have a taste of crappy American burger... and it tasted like freedom :D They started in my city. It isn't alien to us.... it is us. Those types of fast food places are extremely common in my area of the country... more so then any other part. McDonalds is without question the least tasty of the bunch... last one I'd export... but they're cheap and have a very good business model (I'll just clue you into how many fast food chains there are... Carl's jr, Fat burger, In and out, Burger king, Islands, Johnny Rocket's, A&W, and Wendy’s... and all of these are native to my state... all of them are national chains and highly successful... its cali soda culture). And despite what you may believe... we're actually getting more and more control over it as the old media giants become increasingly irrelevant. The networks and three big newspapers can't control total US media anymore. We're freer every day.

As to shaming people into doing things... that's nothing new... Britain shamed most of the new world out of slavery... how did you do that?

You just made it known that it was immoral.... oh you attacked slaving ships too... but if you had done that without declaring it immoral you wouldn't have gotten the traction. Furthermore, the colonies didn't need more slaves... we had moved to chattel slavery really early on so that the populations replaced themselves...

Look into your own history. We just want to give them freedom, open them up, and pacify them. That's it... no evil designs. Why did the British end make all the other western powers stop teh slave trade? Evil? No. They found it to be immoral...

Who were they to decide what was and was not moral?

They were the British fucking Empire... Heed the word.

I hope this explains why I both have no fear of my own culture and no regrets about impressing some of my morals on other societies. It’s in everyone’s best interest if everyone is free, happy, and feels important enough to have a vote that matters.

shutupandshave

Jan 14, 2005, @ 11:33 PM

We have...many times discussed that the things we did a LONG time ago are not relevant now.

JADezimar

Jan 15, 2005, @ 05:58 AM

You can say they are or not. But How many times has the pasts of AMerica been brought up? In evidence for your arguments.

Karmashock

Jan 15, 2005, @ 06:20 AM

We have...many times discussed that the things we did a LONG time ago are not relevant now.
In relation to what?... the crimes of the crown?

They are relevent... You're supposed to remember them and put that into perspective before you open your mouth.

Tank0

Jan 15, 2005, @ 06:56 AM

can both parties check out their ego's when entering this forum , when you read past the flames this is actually an interesting topic .

if you feel the need to be sarcastic of insulting group it at the top and mark the beginning of the actual debate . thanks

even my son who is 10 weeks old can see karma / jad / etc arent best friends wih Suas/critta/angel etc .... no need to start insulting eachother in each topic

Iraq wasn't much of an ally... more like someone we knew...

please Karma , sometimes you make serious mistakes , i am not blaming you but your media and school has given you a singlesided view on history . i am not saying the US is the bad guy but during the cold war the CIA has toppled many goverments and did everything the USSR did . operation Ultra , opertaion Phoenix , watergate , contragate , etc....

brief history

iran the major country in the middle east has a islamic revolution - despite CIA telling the prez there where no problems the sjah couldnt hold power
( cuba and iran both had a revolution against a US supported dictator )

with the hostages in iran the us prez was in really deep shit - it cost him it election

Reagan gets them out - giving in to terrorists - but gets popular .
the US now needs a major military power to stop iran - lets support a dictator who is anti muslimic - aha there is a former communist in iraq but at least he is anti islamic

all western countries do business with iraq , america's new favorite ally in the middle east - saddam needs a war to strenghten internal power and the US doesnt mind iraq fixing the iran trouble - the US and europe wash their hands in innocence , earning shitloads of money

after 8 years they give up - leaving millions of deaths - saddam needs a enemy for its people because without it the kurds and the sunnites will blame him for losing - saddam is desparate for money - aha lets invaid a ally of iran and a easy target - saddam says to the US i am going to invade kuwait - America answers to late .

the rest you know .

stating iraq was just a goverment "they knew" is the understatement of the year dude

Karmashock

Jan 15, 2005, @ 07:29 AM

please Karma , sometimes you make serious mistakes , i am not blaming you but your media and school has given you a singlesided view on history .
Actually, you’re quite wrong.

My school taught me all the events… every CIA misadventure. What I’m saying is what actually happened.

The simple fact with much of it was this (pay attention):
We were at war with the soviets!!!

Yes, it was a ‘cold’ war, but mostly because neither of us could attack the other without going to nuclear war. Minus nukes, we totally would have fought.

Saddam was NOT a friend. We never liked him. We never felt ‘close’ to him. He was useful… Period.

Again, He was not our friend… he was useful… period.

Do I have to go again? Because it seems with these posts I have to repeat myself three or four times to get it to register.

As to Kuwait, we were basically in a live and let live period there. Bush 41 didn’t want trouble with anyone.

What the US told Iraq was, “its not our business”… It was not late, it was confusion and a poor grasp of our larger role in the region.

Saddam went in, we realized we were actually responsible for this stuff… and the rest is history.
i am not saying the US is the bad guy but during the cold war the CIA has toppled many goverments and did everything the USSR did . operation Ultra , opertaion Phoenix , watergate , contragate , etc
We didn’t go as far as the soviets. To say that is to either exaggerate what the CIA did or not be fully aware of what the Soviets did.

We’re talking about Stalin’s country here… watch it.

Tank0

Jan 15, 2005, @ 07:52 AM

i am fully aware of what the USSR did .

but you are talking about the country of nixon and crossdressing Hoover .

operation ultra : drugging innocent citizens , experimenting with mind controle
operation phoenix : killing squads in vietnam leaving a black ace on the victims
kennedy assasination : ????
water gate : prez abusing its powers
chile : helping pinochet 11/9/1973 taking power http://www.trentu.ca/~mneumann/pinochet.html
contra gate : illegal weapons sales , dealing with terrorists
iraq-iran
afghanistan : helping taliban to controle afghanistan to stop drugs ( FYI since the taliban where removed shitloads of cheap heroine are flooding the world - not stating they are good what so ever )

and many others .....

be proud of your country but it has been far from innocent

Karmashock

Jan 15, 2005, @ 09:36 AM

operation ultra : drugging innocent citizens , experimenting with mind controle
operation phoenix : killing squads in vietnam leaving a black ace on the victims
kennedy assasination : ????
water gate : prez abusing its powers
chile : helping pinochet 11/9/1973 taking power http://www.trentu.ca/~mneumann/pinochet.html
contra gate : illegal weapons sales , dealing with terrorists
iraq-iran
afghanistan : helping taliban to controle afghanistan to stop drugs ( FYI since the taliban where removed shitloads of cheap heroine are flooding the world - not stating they are good what so ever )

and many others .....

be proud of your country but it has been far from innocent

Most of our crimes are older and far worse...

Actually, most of the stuff you're using there isn't very relevent... much of it is either exaggerated, isolated, or just plain wrong.

But the real point here, is that you don't keep order in the world by calling a meeting every few months and then agree to do nothing every single time no matter what is going on.... it's a recipe for disaster.

Morpheus

Jan 15, 2005, @ 10:17 AM

Actually, most of the stuff you're using there isn't very relevent... much of it is either exaggerated, isolated, or just plain wrong.

I don't suppose that you will at least for a fraction of a second consider this being true about the "good" acts USA has supposedly done in the past or doing right now?
Why do you always see just one side of a coin?

JADezimar

Jan 15, 2005, @ 10:36 AM

The Point is What have other countries done? Nothing. Atleast the USA is trying.

Karmashock

Jan 15, 2005, @ 10:51 AM

I don't see just one side... I don't exaggerate the good the US has done. I exaggerate neither.

Denying the good the US has done throughout hte world just by keeping power away from the soviets and chinese has done great good in the last 50 years alone is silly. Was it perfect? No... we're not gods... just men.

We do our best.

Tank0

Jan 15, 2005, @ 11:20 PM

Jad you really underestimate the efforts europe has done over the years must i remind you we where the frontline for more then 60 years . we objected the nukes being placed here but hey you placed them anyway . When the berlin wall fell and the powervacuum began in easteren europe we did everything to make sure the "revolutions" happenend with a few deaths as possible . could we have done it alone , NO but if you think all the succes was only caused by the US and its armed forces you are a misguided fool . you did bad things , europe did bad things and yeah the russian and chinese did bad things .

in the last years we have expanded the EU to the russian borders and soon we will border to Iraq . all those backward countries are costing us shitloads of money to develop , we are taking obsolete warschaupact troops and try to modernize them .everytime you start a war we are there to pick up the pieces and fund the rebuilding , we even send troops to relief yours .

if you call that nothing then i advise you to read more on the subject before you come post here .

Karma
offcourse the US had done great things , otherwise i wouldnt be typing this but stating the US always played it fair is false . both parties tried everything but throwing the kitchensink to get the final victory .

show me how it is irrelevant ? how it is exaggerated, isolated, or just plain wrong. the crimes i mentioned are bad enough and the CIA has had a meeting in the senate for most of the operations afterwards .
you are true you can t achieve anything without action but invading every country that could form a treath in the future without legimate reasons isn t improving the international security neither

Karmashock

Jan 16, 2005, @ 01:09 PM

we objected the nukes being placed here but hey you placed them anyway you think all the succes was only caused by the US and its armed forces you are a misguided fool .
These two quotes belong together. The Russian had designs on Europe… We were the deterent. We had nuclear bombers flying around the USSR 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year including Christmas just to keep the soviets at bay… we only recalled them when we had a reliable ICBM force.

If you think you had anything the soviets thought twice about, then you’re kidding yourself. Europe was crushed and any intact power could have taken it.

Have you forgotten the money we sent to you after the war? We paid for your reconstruction while guarding your boarders.

Europe has no right to sneer at American power.

in the last years we have expanded the EU to the russian borders and soon we will border to Iraq . all those backward countries are costing us shitloads of money to develop , we are taking obsolete warschaupact troops and try to modernize them .everytime you start a war we are there to pick up the pieces and fund the rebuilding , we even send troops to relief yours .
Again, keep in mind that WE paid for YOUR reconstruction. Think back to Truman.

Karma
offcourse the US had done great things , otherwise i wouldnt be typing this but stating the US always played it fair is false . both parties tried everything but throwing the kitchensink to get the final victory .
So the US and the USSR are morally the same? If heaven rained fire down on Gomorra would God be the same as the Devil?

Look at the nations we have freed… look at what they have become. South Korea is a good example

On the other side… you have North Korea.

Choose motherfucker.

show me how it is irrelevant ?

Hoover cross-dressing

Killing Viet Cong troops and leaving a card to taught the enemy

Kennedy’s assassination

Iran Contra wasn’t prosecuted because congress realized it was wrong and reversed its policy… They basically just admitted they were wrong to make it illegal after the administration explained itself… Look it up.
exaggerated
Operation ultra
Operation Phoenix
isolated
Operation ultra
Operation Phoenix
just plain wrong
We never helped the Taliban, we helped the Moshahadeen (sp) and NO they are not the same thing. We never gave aid to Osama bin Ladin or supported the base (English translation of his organization… arab names are beyond my spelling.).

Kennedy’s assassination as far as we know was just the act of one crazy guy. If it was more, it was very likely the Russians. Kennedy disgraced them and the shooter was a Marxist.

We have sins, but do us the respect of getting them right.

Tank0

Jan 17, 2005, @ 01:25 AM

yes MASTA , you HELPED PAY for the first reconstruction but hey heres a newsflash we did the rest ourselves.furthermore you drained all scientist out of europe . can you spell spaceprogram ???without european scientists??

If you want EU as partners then you ll have to realise that we have our own opnions .some you wont like but hey its not sneering .

you did defend us but not to garantee our freedom but to garantee US interests. if you really had europes best interests in mind you wouldn t have sabotaged the EU all these years and we would have a EU army instead of a clusterfuck that they call NATO .

YES i am a former commi who has opened his eyes a few years ago but i don t take sides with the USSR and i am certainly not proud of them .USSR was never really communist , with the rise of stalin the revolution got stuck in a totalitarian regime that Lenin wouldn t be proud of what so ever .

again you make the mistake that everybody that doesn t agree is a commi

dont call me motherfucker

killing people,toppling goverments,giving guns to terrorist, assasinating political figures,braking up strikes etc .... is good when the US does it but it is BAD when USSR does it ?????

NOPE they are BOTH wrong

i admit i cut a few corners to shorten my respons you always nitpick on the details so you wouldn t have to admit on the big points .

if they where so exaggerated , isolated or plain wrong , jow come the US senate had official hearingsabout them and was the CIA always everytime reprimanded ( kennedy other thread plz - too controversial )

i know US sins just as i know EU ,USSR and Chinese sins . guess what , a sin is bad for whatever cause you did it , so please stop taking the moral high ground during the cold war US was as bad as the USSR.

Thank your god the US freed countries but you have to admit that the US did make mistakes in the past by supporting Saddam and the Moshahadeen to stop the USSR .

again i am no Yank hater i am just trying to keep it real

Karmashock

Jan 17, 2005, @ 02:22 AM

yes MASTA , you HELPED PAY for the first reconstruction but hey heres a newsflash we did the rest ourselves.
here you go:
Between 1948 and 1951, the United States contributed more than $13 billion dollars (nearly $100 billion at present-day U.S. conversion rates) of economic and technical assistance toward the recovery of 16 European countries which had joined in the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC, forerunner to today's OECD) in response to Marshall's call for a joint scheme for European reconstruction.

And the effects:
The effects of the Marshall Plan were surprising to even its most optimistic of supporters. The years 1948 to 1952 saw the fastest period of growth in European history. Industrial Production increased by 35%. Agriculture had substantially surpassed pre-war levels. The poverty and starvation of the immediate post-war years disappeared and Western Europe embarked upon an unprecedented two decades of growth that saw standards of living increase dramatically. The communist threat to western Europe was greatly reduced as throughout the region the communist parties faded in popularity.

furthermore you drained all scientist out of europe . can you spell spaceprogram ???without european scientists??
Are you talking about the Nasi engineers that probably should have been imprisoned on war crimes charges?

Besides, we're a nation of immigrants. They left Europe and came to the US just like most of the people here... We had a right to leave and we're happier here.

If you want EU as partners then you ll have to realise that we have our own opnions .some you wont like but hey its not sneering .
How is it not smearing? You take nearly every opportunity to put us down.

you did defend us but not to garantee our freedom but to garantee US interests. if you really had europes best interests in mind you wouldn t have sabotaged the EU all these years and we would have a EU army instead of a clusterfuck that they call NATO
OH MY GOD!

NATO was founded right after WWII, you had NOTHING to stop the soviets. Furthermore, the US is the logical head of any western military alliance and has been for damn near a hundred years. Get fucking real.

We don't slow the EU down because we want to suppress Euros, but because the organization is often supported by people that are Euro separatists. This is not in ANY of our interests. Especially not during the coldwar.

YES i am a former commi who has opened his eyes a few years ago but i don t take sides with the USSR and i am certainly not proud of them .USSR was never really communist , with the rise of stalin the revolution got stuck in a totalitarian regime that Lenin wouldn t be proud of what so ever .
don't even start with that "soviets weren't commies" stuff. Communism naturally leads to that sort of leadership. It's inevitable.

dont call me motherfucker
Don't compare my people to the Soviets then. Doing so calls my people something far far worse then 'motherfuckers'.

I think you don't understand the gravity of that insult.

killing people,toppling goverments,giving guns to terrorist, assasinating political figures,braking up strikes etc .... is good when the US does it but it is BAD when USSR does it ?????
You're totally ignoring the 'why' in that. When the government takes your money, it's a tax, when someone jsut takes your stuff, they're a thief.

The US was as much as anything the leader of the free world. We did what we had to do to keep the soviets from controlling everything.

Again... Examine the two worlds.

Think of what the soviets would have made if unchecked.
Think of what the US would make if unchecked.

The two worlds are not comparable. One is nice the other is a slavish hell hole.

We value freedom and human dignity. The soviets only wanted power.

NOPE they are BOTH wrong
Moral relativism. Just because the methods are comparable doesn't mean the justifications or end results will be the same.

if they where so exaggerated , isolated or plain wrong , jow come the US senate had official hearingsabout them and was the CIA always everytime reprimanded
I don't know... One senator read the Phone book outload for like 8 hours straight in the senate once... Just because they talk doesn't mean there is anything to it.

i know US sins just as i know EU ,USSR and Chinese sins . guess what , a sin is bad for whatever cause you did it , so please stop taking the moral high ground during the cold war US was as bad as the USSR.
NO WE WERE NOT!

THE SOVIETS WOULD HAVE MADE YOU SLAVES! PUPPET STATES TO THEIR EMPIRE!

MY GOD, YOU"RE IGNORENT!

Thank your god the US freed countries but you have to admit that the US did make mistakes in the past by supporting Saddam and the Moshahadeen to stop the USSR .
Saddam was the best we could do at the time. What would have been your solution? We couldn't allow the soviets to get control of hte middle east.

Also, supporting the Moshahadeen was good. There was nothing wrong with that then or now. They weren't bad people and in fact we helped the decedents of them take Afghanistan back from teh taliban.

The Moshahadeen call themselves the Northern Alliance today...

You're so desperate to find ways to discredit us that you're not even making sense anymore.

again i am no Yank hater i am just trying to keep it real
Maybe that's "real" in a yank hating environment. But it isn't fair to the US.

We have always had honorable and noble ideals in all of this.

We do it for freedom, for liberty, for the general dignity and destiny of humanity.

I don't think someone from Holland could understand how important our ideology is to us. It's all we have. It is what makes us American... without it, we have nothing.

Morpheus

Jan 17, 2005, @ 05:42 AM

...We have always had honorable and noble ideals in all of this.

We do it for freedom, for liberty, for the general dignity and destiny of humanity...

Great words. I think you value the very cause for which USA was formed. I really do see that you mean better for everyone. Problem is..... the US government doesn't see it the same way you do. Do you really believe that the politicians sit down in the White House and go "Ok, let's see how can we bring liberty and democracy to other nations to make the world the better place." What do you think we care more about in Iraq - them having a true democracy to enhance their lives, or us getting contracts to rebuild Iraq and build a few thousands of McDonalds in there? You may choose the first, but I guarantee that our leaders are mostly concerned about the second choice. Not even talking about strategical placement of the US bases in the region.

One thing I still strongly disagree with you on - IMO, the USA is not the "president of the Earth". We need to stop sticking our long noses overseas and fix the problems in here. The terrorims against USA is not just blind hatred, it's due to USA always being so aggressive in the Middle East. And no, we do not have an obligation to free every single country from Communism/Dictatorship, let them do it on their own.

Karmashock

Jan 17, 2005, @ 03:58 PM

"Ok, let's see how can we bring liberty and democracy to other nations to make the world the better place."
Most presidents don't think like that.

For as stupid as bush might seem, the big reason why we like him is that he DOES seem to think like that. He's just crazy enough to honor his American values in the presidency. Read his speeches, interviews, and statement (better to read because listening is painful)... The only thing that bothers me about him is that his domestic policy is increasing the size of the government.

The government is smaller today then it was in relation of the economy 30 years ago... but it's still too big for most of our tastes. We still hope that it will go back to what it was when it was only about 1~5 percent of our system.

What do you think we care more about in Iraq - them having a true democracy to enhance their lives, or us getting contracts to rebuild Iraq and build a few thousands of McDonalds in there? You may choose the first, but I guarantee that our leaders are mostly concerned about the second choice. Not even talking about strategical placement of the US bases in the region.
I disagree. I think we went there to remove a dangerous person and bring freedom to the area so that our cultures might live in peace.

One thing I still strongly disagree with you on - IMO, the USA is not the "president of the Earth".
No, just the leader of western civilization and therefore the leader of the FREE world. Know that most of the world's population is still unfree. Tyrants exist all over the world and are the prime cause of all the world's problems.

They care nothing for the people, they just want to have enough sex slaves rich food last them the rest of their pathetic lives.

We need to stop sticking our long noses overseas and fix the problems in here. The terrorims against USA is not just blind hatred, it's due to USA always being so aggressive in the Middle East. And no, we do not have an obligation to free every single country from Communism/Dictatorship, let them do it on their own.
Actually, the Muslims mostly react to the fact that we're associated with the Europeans via Christianity, language, and culture. Their hatred and fear of them is largely what they're reacting to.

When Iraq is free and they see we mean no harm to the people... then we'll start really changing things.

If we leave, the tyrants will just keep pointing their unhappy radicals at powers like the US and Europe to avoid having them causing problems in their own countries.

shutupandshave

Jan 18, 2005, @ 12:35 PM

My school taught me all the events… every CIA misadventure. What I’m saying is what actually happened.
This is the same school that taught you that the UK is a republic.
This is the same school that taught you that the US doesn't take a median on individual income.

Your school is full of retards.

Karmashock

Jan 18, 2005, @ 08:26 PM

First, you still don't know what I was talking about and as you have no interest in resolving the misunderstanding, I'm not going to waste my time on it.
Second, this is a lie and distortion.

Seriously SUAS, all you want is to get the flame war going again... it's pathetic... so... it's flibble time.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ian.ridley3/images/flibble.gif

shutupandshave

Jan 19, 2005, @ 09:08 AM

What have I said that is a lie and/or a distortion Karma.

I object to that strongly.

Interesting though, how when I told you that the fibble guy annoys me - you now use him in every post to me. Does it make you feel better?

I think that goes a long way to proving that it's you that is only after a rise.

Pathetic.

No arguments, nothing to say... just insults and inflammatory comments. GJ Karma. You're a great debater.

Karmashock

Jan 19, 2005, @ 06:16 PM

The median point... look it up.

I didn't think the US census took that information. The Census has a bias towards taking 'family' info so it was more likely that they were taking 'household' income.

Eitherway, all you're doing is trying to start another flame war. Make a point that isn't a flame or shut up.

shutupandshave

Jan 19, 2005, @ 06:24 PM

What is a lie or distortion about it? You said the US doesn't do it and you were wrong. Whilst telling me the US didn't do it you repeatedly insulted my intelligence.

Spell it out - what exactly did I lie about.

Karmashock

Jan 19, 2005, @ 08:14 PM

You're making something big out of something small.

Your presented information in one form and I said I couldn't find information in that form from the US side. I also said that I didn't think the CENSUS department took info in that form. Which could have been the case.

I was wrong, but there is no shame in that mistake.

You're lying in that you're saying that I didn't think the US took that kind of information anywhere.

You're distorting in that you're making it bigger then it was and more significant.

The only reason you would do this is to flame.

I have no interest in that.

I do not want to continue this conversation. Either get on topic or shut up.

shutupandshave

Jan 20, 2005, @ 01:04 AM

Your presented information in one form and I said I couldn't find information in that form from the US side. I also said that I didn't think the CENSUS department took info in that form. Which could have been the case.

I was wrong, but there is no shame in that mistake.

There is no shame in that mistake - no shame at all... I have said before, that it was not the fact you made a mistake that was the problem - it was the way you attacked me even though you were in the wrong.

Lets look at the comment that arose from your "small" mistake?

These numbers are median, mine were mean.

Take a statistics course and call me in the morning.

The US doesn't take the median of individual income. It's not a statistic we compile... we do it for families though... If you can show me the household income in England, then your numbers will be relevant.

You were abuse even when wrong.

It took me chasing you through FIVE pages over 2 different threads to finally get you to admit you were wrong.
You made your innacurate post on "Nov 18, 2004, 02:03 PM"

It wasn't until "Nov 21, 2004, 02:40 AM" and approximately 40/50 posts from both of us discussing it until you said "I was in error" (which was followed by some flippant comment that cancelled out your half-arsed apology, but I chose to ignore).

If you didn't boast about how you're a genius, and how you're so high in your class at economics, and were insulting me WHILST you fucked up, it wouldn't have been a big deal.

As it was, you built yourself up, and then owned yourself with your own arrogance. THAT is why I bought it up.

Since you've apologised, you have said that I have never proven you wrong about anything - pretending this whole incident never happened.

Such as when you said 3 days after apologising:
"liar... I said that I didn't see any figures that listed the per person value. I knew that the US had a median..."

Well that quote I posted of yours clearly states that you said the US doesn't take the median value.

You own yourself.
Over and Over and Over.