World politics, alternative fuels, and an odd GPU comment (was Ati's 9800 is out) - Page 2

gmat · 03-07-2003, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by g.l.amour
so if we can't magically convert the whole world to democracies with our magic wand in one stroke then it is best to do nothing...?

Bombs never converted anyone to democracy. Never. Check your History.

Quote:

Originally posted by g.l.amour

what did the US do to provoke 9/11? there was no hostile foreign policy or anything.

Read the news a bit more. The motives, causes, etc. are pretty clear.

The "good vs evil" cliche is laughable. Get realist, see the situation today. The world can see down to the underpants of every iraki soldier, we know the munition count and exact weapons they have. Next to nothing. Do you think they're going to invade someone ? Tell me, who ? Iran ? Israel ? Syria ? Jordan ? who ? Each one of these countries are inifinitely more powerful than Irak, being economically or militarily.
Oh and explain me how they are to invade (or try to) the USA.

g.l.amour · 03-07-2003, 01:56 PM

gmat, do me a favour and read upon that first link i posted.

i understand your stance, really, and agree on some points.

some points though; do we let NKorea provoke its neighbours continuously? do we let them test warheads over Japan?

http://www.fas.org/news/dprk/1998/wwwh8903.html

it is easy for us europeans not to feel to threatened. they won't reach that far.

NKorea can't be compared to Iraq, that is clear. that still doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't try preventing them to sell their weapons of mass distruction to the highest bidder.

g.l.amour · 03-07-2003, 01:58 PM

btw: i think allied bombs did a pretty good job converting japan and germany to a democratic model

golovko · 03-07-2003, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gmat
I stand with history.

"France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rollin thru Paris with a German Flag on it." - Dave Letterman

Theres some history

g.l.amour · 03-07-2003, 02:04 PM

touché golovko

gmat · 03-07-2003, 02:10 PM

Japan was just modenizing anyway. And Germany was a democracy before Hitler took the power.
We live in the 21st century. And still we have to kill people, in the name of <insert deity or economic value here>. That's sad.

As for converting countries to other regimes, interior revolution is the way. CIA know really well how to do that.

I'm all for doing something for N Korea, i never said the contrary. But still the right for people to decide of their own destiny are not alienable. In the case of severe repressive regimes such as N Korea, a small hint from secret services, some patience, counter-propaganda, etc.. would be what to do. Well that's what is written in the article anyway.

gmat · 03-07-2003, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by golovko
"France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rollin thru Paris with a German Flag on it." - Dave Letterman

Theres some history

Fun quote, but historically inexact. Check your *real* history. And how Dalladier cooperated *willfully* with Hitler from the very beginning. How did he get there to begin with (thanks to extreme-right terrorists, called "la cagoule"). Well how it all began in '36 (Front Populaire, La Cagoule, etc).

Currently i'm not thinking that Saddam will invade *ANYONE* (did U check his neighbours, do you think their own secret services are incompetent ? Did U heard about Israeli intelligence service ? ). If you have evidence proving the opposite you're welcome.

g.l.amour · 03-07-2003, 02:20 PM

it is the way of converting. you are right.

to throw it into another direction. if anything we can be very happy to be able to be posting our differing opinions in here. i don't think there are any Iraqis or N-Koreans living there that can post here.

it is really sad that there are still alot of countries where freedom of opinion is a luxury available only to their dictator. will utopia ever exist?

edit: didn't mean to offend anyone, it was as you say, a fun quote.

airspirit · 03-07-2003, 02:36 PM

What is sad is that Iraq doesn't have to invade anyone. All he has to do is continue paying people to kill children.

What is the current amount he pays to the families of palestinian terrorists who blow themselves and Israeli civilians to kingdom come?

C'mon, are you so naive to think that if we were to leave Iraq unchecked that this guy would sit still and not try to expand his empire? Do you know how much the US pays each year in manpower and equipment to keep him from dropping the bomb on Jerusalem, Tehran, Paris, or wherever the fsck he wants?

Newsflash: WE KNOW HE STILL HAS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS.

Don't believe me? THE US SOLD THEM TO HIM. THE FRENCH SOLD THEM TO HIM. THE GERMANS SOLD THEM TO HIM. Fsck, everybody sold him components he needed to make all sorts of chemical and biological weapons. Since the disarmament agreement was made, hundreds and thousands of tons of these weapons still are unaccounted for. Unfortunately for illogical arguments, weapons like this don't disappear into the desert sands unless they are being hid.

We just kicked some of his people out of our country because they were caught gathering surveillience on tunnels, bridges, and other civilian targets in the US. He's paying terrorists in Israel. He's tried to bomb US targets internationally (in the Phillipines in 1991).

What the heck should we do with this guy, leave him alone to go about his scheming? Forget about the previous UN orders that he has wiped his ass with? The guy can't be reasoned with, regardless of what nutcases worldwide like to fantasize about, and we WILL be taking him out.

The reason that N. Korea is a different problem is that the tinpot dictator running that particular hellhole is a different type of crazy than Saddam. He also currently has nukes. If he knew that his nation/playground was going to be pulled out from under him, would it be too much of a stretch to imagine him using nukes? Even if he only uses them on the Peninsula, look on a map and check out how close Seoul is to the DMZ ... we're talking millions of deaths.

AND BY THE WAY, DON'T DEMONSTRATE YOUR IGNORANCE TO ME. THE US DOES NOT CARPET BOMB CIVILIANS. The reason that there is speculation that casualties in this conflict will be higher for the US if there is urban warfare is because the US would be hamstrung trying NOT to kill civilians. The US isn't the monster that your propaganda machine likes to make it out as ... that's the reason you're not speaking German and punctuating your sentences with swastikas.

Of course, those bastards that want to volunteer as human shields are a different story: since the practice of using and being a human shield is illegal under the Geneva convention, we would be perfectly justified in bombing them to hell.

g.l.amour · 03-07-2003, 02:56 PM

thk u US for showing the will and action to rid the world of yet another totalitary regime.

afghanistan has been cleaned out, now maybe iraq. who knows maybe even NKorea in a while. i hope u will forgive the oportunistic government of belgium, certainly not everyone stands behind it over here.

the lives of your soldiers will not be forgotten

TerraMex · 03-07-2003, 04:04 PM

I think the only danger to the world peace process is the US, in this particular subject. Fortunatly, im not alone, and that includes several governments.

Where does the US government gets off saying what other countrys should or should not do ? Saddam is a ass that needs to get his butt kicked, but not this way, and definitly not with those "made up" arguments.

Hey, lets declare war on Norway for having such high quotas of codfish. I think its criminal to the portuguese industry...

>What is sad is that Iraq doesn't have to invade >anyone. All he has to do is continue paying people to
>kill children.

Doesnt... Russia, the US, and a dozen countries do the same? How about several countries in Africa, Asia ... who do more and worse? Dont they count? Or do they situation favour the US ? Hmmm.

The US was the only country in history to use nuclear weapons... They used the army to test ground zero effects, radiation, etc (so did france thou). And used 2 bombs on Japan 3 days after Japan sent a surrender letter to Truman. They didnt care. He (truman) wanted to test the bombs and that was the perfect excuse. Same goes for biological weapons testing, they admitted openly just a few month ago that those tests existed, were done on civilians (and pregant women).

>What is the current amount he pays to the families of
>palestinian terrorists who blow themselves and Israeli
>civilians to kingdom come?

History lesson. 50 years ago there was no Isreali state. There was the Palestine controled by a reluctant british provisional government that didnt really like the palestinians...

A devastated europe had milions of jewish refuggies , scared (with good reason) , and with a need of protection from a menace that no longer existed. So France, US and GBritain (mainly) used that fear and cultivated a need for a place, a country where they could live. And used Palestine as the perfect target due the religious grounds. Sponsored by those 3 countrys mainly , borned Israel. The palestinians didnt have a real army, no real government, no real police. The Israelits were armed , sponsored, trained.

How can a people fight an enemy far superior, with no army, no infrastructures, no support?. Simple, guerrila warfare. Thats what it is, not terrorism. How would you feel if some country invaded yours in such a way ? What would you do? I've seen a movie stating that, american made, and the hero's did the same thing, guerilla, killed, and more. But it was against the russians... so it was ok.

Same during the WWII , had the germans won, the french resistance, who were very incive in their actions, would be called terrorists, not heros. Same thing. Just different points of view. Its the winners that change the names.

> WE KNOW HE STILL HAS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL
> WEAPONS

So? Its not like he used it to conquer half the planet. France, Germany, US , even Spain has bioweapons . The difference is that they call themselfs "civilized", and say saddam isnt. Its a power game. Control game. Not about weapons. The weapons argument is the "fall guy" for the "need for action". There is no shred of evidence that saddam is/was going to strike the US. It isnt in his best interest. He's a rich man, with oil money, treated, sold, sponsored by the US, France, Germany and others. It is not in his best interest to piss them off. He's also a tired man, and an old man, who doesnt need the comotion.

Its about control of one of the most oil productive area in the world. Having a good US military base would tip the scales, and probably the US could tell the United Arabes League what prices they think they should do... or else. Or even control the exits (exports of the area). Its pretty simple.

Heck, East Timor had his situation solved after large deposits of oil were discovered in the country... coincidence? Its about the money, and control. Control is the key word. before that , east timor was a nobody, and then, whoop, in half a year , the 25 year situation was solved. Woohoo.

>What the heck should we do with this guy, leave him
>alone to go about his scheming?

Of course. If the iraquians have it so bad, then they could do a revolution. Portugal had 2 in less then 100 years. And under a strict dictatorship. Thats what they should do. If they havent done it so far, then they're not that tired of Saddam , and those things must come from the inside, or the US will be seen as another invader. Besides, most of the poor conditions on the country is due to the constant sanctions and embargos currently active on the country. How's that for "civilized"?

And another thing, who sponsored, armed, and backed politics of Saddamn 20 years ago was the US, in favour of a good oil policy and prices. Now that they need a target, he's it.

>We just kicked some of his people out of our country
>because they were caught gathering surveillience on
>tunnels, bridges, and other civilian targets in the US.
>He's paying terrorists in Israel. He's tried to bomb US
>targets internationally (in the Phillipines in 1991).

Thats a laugh. So US can have spys and surveillance where ever they what, but if others do, they're terrorists ? Right.

How about the bombing of afganistan in the 70's ? Iran? Siria? Jordan? Covert Ops, assassination by the CIA, etc. Oh sorry, those were "liberty fighters". Not terrorists.

>The reason that N. Korea is a different problem is that
>the tinpot dictator running that particular hellhole is a
>different type of crazy than Saddam. He also currently
>has nukes.

Of course he has nukes. Do you think he wants see the US take the same road as the one took with iraq? Hell no. I was amused by the reaction of the Bush administration when they said N.Korea was from the axis of evil, then discovered they have the bomb. "Who let them in the axis? damnit, we didnt mean that, honest."

Besides, every industrialized country has the bomb, let them. They wont use it, nobody except the US have used the bomb. The repercussions are well know. Its a power game, not a threat of destruction. One of the main reasons the NK nuke program got brought back is simple. The US are the best, the specialist, in paying off others. NK is waiting for money, stretching out their hand. You just watch. A financial help and some other type of exports there , and puf.

>THE US DOES NOT CARPET BOMB CIVILIANS.

Afanistan, last year, in the 70's, in iraq, in Iran, in Somalia, etc. When the casualties are "acceptable", they will drop the bomb. Not just the US, everybody who "did" war thinks like that, its called winning. Just because it doesnt show up on CNN , doesnt mean it doesnt happen.

>The US isn't the monster that your propaganda
>machine likes to make it out as

No, he can be worse, but there are no saints, its a mean world out there. But your propaganda machine isnt working very well abroad. Internally yes, and thats why more than half the population is ignorant of what happens outside the country. But thats not your fault. They even control what o read (the papers and magazines, most of them we get here un europe, and they are highly "patriotic" in their speech, and have that arrogant tone), and what students have access to.

>we would be perfectly justified in bombing them to hell.

I rest my case. Thats a tipical answer "If we dont like, blow them".

Its like the foreign policy. "We come first, no matter the cost to others". Thats why the US has so many against them. A little consideration is in order. Its a matter of respect too.

>afghanistan has been cleaned out, now maybe iraq.
>who knows maybe even NKorea in a while.

Cleaned of what? The goverment there does nothing without asking the local warlords that are... taliban. Nothing is done in the country without the warlords that control the regions authorize it. Nothing has changed in that way. The war was a CNN war, to show something to the americans that watch tv. And a good part of the dead were civilians.

And Bin Laden would never be caught because if he died at americans hand , that would generate such a muslim movement , that would make 9/11 look like fireworks. That was a strategic move, not to get him. A good one i might add.

But the financial repercussions of 9/11 , the rise in unemployment, the instability with the "election" needed to be diverted. So enter Saddam, who , as been pretty quiet for 12 years. Perfect fall guy, to make expenses , take attention of the economical situation, make people walk in fear of another attack, and swallow any shitty measure that Bush administration puts out. Its a control thing. Unfortunatly, some people have "eyes wide shut" ...

As a final point, i have no problem with the american people, just with their rulers.

PS: Airspirit, nobody here is agaisnt you, we respect your opinion, and we will give ours. I just hope you respect them too.

cybrsamurai · 03-07-2003, 04:14 PM

TerraMex

Spoken like a TRUE humanitarian.

iroc409 · 03-07-2003, 04:50 PM

dammit!!!!!

i've only had my 9700 for a few months, and now i have to buy something else?

arg. i'll never win.

g.l.amour · 03-07-2003, 04:50 PM

i totally respect it. and he who is perfect can throw the first stone. but, as the american elected government respects the turkish democratic decision not to let US pass their territory, i respect the US to defend their territory against attacks. if bush screws up, he doesn't get reelected. just as much as our governments don't get reelected in europe supporting bush.

we can go on and on about how a utopic world should look. but right now i would like a UN to still exist in a couple of months; and that NATO still exists in a couple of months.

what are opinions over Kosovo? are there ppl who think that peacefull solution would have been reached over there without the stick of the US (that defied UN over that).

Blackeagle · 03-07-2003, 05:10 PM

(Off topic rant)

Those in power will conceed nothing without a demand and struggle, they never have and never will.

This is the ringing truth of history. The claim that bombs have never freed anyone is BS, and easy to prove as BS. Naked force has freed far more peoples of the world than any other means. France, Belguim, Neatherlands & the nordic countrys as well as north africa, China, and most of the island nations of the pacific far east ALL were restored to free nations and peoples by brute force in WWII. Had america stood clear of risk then none of these peoples could have thrown off the oppressors without decades of continuing conflict, if ever. Russia at least as far east as the Urals would have fallen. Of the nations engaged in conflict with the axis powers of evil then, only Great Britain had a fair chance of staying free without the US intervention. This IS historic fact, that many now tend to forget or dissmiss.

The freedoms of the US it's self was won at the point of the sword, bayonet and gun. This is also the truth of history.

Throughout history those who compromise with evil pay a high price for doing so. Even when others step forward to also pay along side them.

Would Europe have stayed free of the USSR without the promise of war with the US?? Not a chance. Those who can't see this are truly self deluded.

Is the US always right in it's actions?? He[[ no of course not ! ! But show me just one example of any dictator in history that, in possesion of such overwhelming advantage in arms vs. his surrounding nations did not use that force of arms in conquest.

Saddam may well be gone soon. The question is will the United Nations survive as more than a token, or at all? Many in the US are growing restive where the UN is concerned. Any major error by the UN will be it's total undoing with the majority of the US population. A number of the members of the US senate and house have already on several occasions called for the US to withdraw and even order the UN off america's soil. Bush's referance to the UN becoming irrelivant are not idle propaganda, although that would be without question a extreme result.

But if by chance Soddam is not removed, I ask all to consider this. If the UN members, led by France, Germany, Russia and China do prevail on the US not to act, and later a weapon of mass destruction is used by Saddam aginst anyone else, what will these nations do???????? They will do nothing in their own right. China and Russia have the means, but not the inclination, and Germany and France lack both the means and the will. But I have no doubt they would be quick to demand that the US clean up the mess THEY created. The excuses of Germany and France for their obstructionist stand now are hard to imagine.

I agree with Airspirit. I live in Mi. in the midwest far from Airspirit but the mood of the majority here are also in favor of war. Not by 90% but 60% will do. I also agree with what else he said. Best for the US to withdraw our forces from around the globe. Also withdraw ALL foreign aid to all nations that do not support us and never will. At which point we may as well "invite" the UN to move elsewhere, as they seem to find so much they dislike about the US. France perhaps? Then as a low key non leading member who also holds veto power, we can just block anything we don't like. But otherwise offer no aid or funding. Asia will be a differant place in short order, as will the middle east. At that point let France take the lead in restoring freedom and democracy.

Yeah, right.:shrug:

AS for N. Korea. Gmat, doesn't it seems hypocritical to suggest we take on the N. Koreans while decrying our going after Saddam. Ever think we most likly will do just that, after Saddam is gone?

As for "thousands of American and Iraqi's" being killed, you're half right. Remember the outcome the first time, "the mother of all battles"?? Why would anyone think the Iraqi forces can do better now?

I really do feel sorry for the Iraqi's forced into serving such a dictator.

They don't have a chance. Yet they also have no freedom, which is why they are in that situation.

bigben2k · 03-07-2003, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by g.l.amour
i don't think there are any Iraqis or N-Koreans living there that can post here.

I picked this up in Time magazine recently: you can surf the net for $1 an hour in Iraq, but the average monthly salary is $5, so they're surfing all right, if they're part of the elite.

I believe that Bush's reason to want to attack Iraq is not only oil related, it's also political: he can't get anyone's attention about his budget.

Well, he started it! Huffing and puffing about how he was going to attack any country that even remotely supported terrorism!

There is an estimate of the cost of war in the same article, and if I remember correctly, it's in the 35 B$ range (edit: includes the rebiud effort). Of course most analysts are quick to point out that the US won't pay all of it.

This is where, to me, it relates to oil: if you can stabilize the whole middle eastern region with a provisional government in Iraq, the price of oil should drop dramatically. This is good for Europe, but especially to the US, where the price at the pump has gone up 25% in the past six months. Heck, it might even allow the US to bypass OPEC, for a few years!

I'm still looking forward to a sub $200 9700.

phreenet · 03-07-2003, 05:13 PM

Excuse me guys, I started this by making the comment that gmat was paying way to much living in France. It should not have ended up with another Hate/Bash thread. Some of you know me from being a perment member of Pro/Chat and I can be very vocal on this issue, but I will refrain from that on this level. But skipping through some post by people it bothers me to see the kind of comments that people have posted. The attacks on Sept. 11 were not prevoked, the massive loss of life was caused by cowardly murderous people who had the sole intent to kill as many innocent civilans as they could. Keep in mind that both people who were sympathetic to the middle eastern issues and those who were not were killed needlessly. This my friends is NOT something you do to force change, this was just tring to kill as many people as possible. Furthermore, I read comments that stated there is much anti-war protest, that is true, and someone asked how come there isn't any pro-war protest. Well typically you don't protest in favor of a war, no one wants a war, not even Bush. But the facts are, if not for him possesing weapons, that Saddam is a terrible man, he ranks up there with Stalin, Hitler, and many many more... He should be removed from power, if not through demplomacy, then through force.

bigben2k · 03-07-2003, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phreenet
The attacks on Sept. 11 were not provoked, ...

I think we're all sharing opinions, but certainly, some are more vocal in their point. Otherwise, we're all still sharing.

As for 9/11 being provoked, no we didn't directly provoke this terrorist act, but these terrorists were provoked, by (what we perceived as) benign actions, namely, the US involvement in Israel, and many other parts of the world.

In other words; it's arguable. The US could have been more sensitive to the effect of their involvement, but you know what, there's no time/room for regrets. Enter cowboy diplomacy.

Personally, I'm glad to see the US feel a little bit of what Europe is going through, in terms of terrorism, but otherwise I agree, it was most definitely the wrong kind of action to take, to press a point.

As the now famous Japanese admiral once said: "I'm afraid that all we've done is awake a sleeping giant".

Blackeagle · 03-07-2003, 05:39 PM

g.i.amour,

Much respect. Sad to know that some even living in this country have forgotten so much of history of our own country.

But the liberal wing in the US is very good at that. Although the right wing can be just as bad in it's own way.

I'm one who does support the removal of Saddam by any means needed, unless he steps back and surrenders all WMD. His removal from power would be a plus as then you don't need to wonder what else he would be trying to buy or secretly build. But without WMD's his removal wouldn't be worth a war.

g.l.amour · 03-07-2003, 06:20 PM

well, my gut feeling has always been along with the US, as far as there are friends in foreign politics... the US has never failed to protect and help us. i know who got us through the cold war. i know how anxious my parents were of the russians being away for only a couple of 100 kms.

so pls pls pls, dont boil it down to US against Europe. boil it down to for and against. there is a fair share of all opinions in all countries of free opinion.

after reading that first link i posted of that Kagan dude it became ever so clear. most european countries (where germany and france wish to take up their long gone role of countries of world importance) think in european peace terms related to the rest of the world. it doesnt work that way. we had US occupation force stabilise our continent after WW2 if it weren't for that...

so we have our perpetual peace as Kant once found a contradictio in terminis. the US - UK gave the european continent their perpetual peace. seems weird that some political leaders have forgotten why the rest of the world sometimes doesn't listen to kind motivating words. we live in an amusement park, those rules can't be projected into a jungle.

anyway, bush isn't so stupid to think that foreign politic will save his arse. we might assume that he knows some facts that we don't know. one should logically assume that he calculates the war cost to be quickly repayed after that war.

i don't proclaim to be a capitalist pig, but i like my job, i don't mind paying for some less fortunate ppl in my country. but i'd like to keep my job. and if one might follow some left wing extremists in my country and we bully the US out of our Antwerp world port and such. woohoo, another economic blow onto a country like mine that already suffered greatly along with the US on economic terms.

so would i like an ideal world where i can make choices onto my conscience. sure i would like that. i'd first like to assure myself and loved ones a steady income so we can build houses and families. sure call me an egoist.

g.l.amour · 03-07-2003, 06:26 PM

btw saw a recent panorama documentary about NKorea. (rare thing). ppl over there have been convinced by kim yong il's gang that the US will be using nukes on them soon. puts their whole agressor role into another framework doesn't it.

airspirit · 03-07-2003, 06:33 PM

TerraMex and Cybr: if you're humanitarians, then what about the starving people of Iraq? What about the tens of thousands imprisoned? What about the children that are tortured to get information from the parents? The chemical weapons use on his own people? Supporting that is now HUMANITARIAN?

Did I miss the crazy train here?

FACT: Saddam invaded his neighbor, prompting us to kick his ass.

FACT: To prevent us from fully conquering Iraq and removing him from power, Saddam agreed to disarm. This was 1991. Until he disarmed, sanctions would be imposed on him.

FACT: From 1991 until 1996, Saddam sidestepped imposed inspections, refused to disarm, and illegally sidestepped sanctions to channel money to himself and his military, similarly misallocating funds that were SUPPOSED to go to feed his people. People starved and died. Many other got murdered, gassed, tortured, raped, and generally mistreated.

FACT: In 1996, Saddam kicked out inspectors, guaranteeing that his people would starve, and giving us the right to take him out under the previous agreement.

FACT: We didn't, because Bill Clinton was a pussy.

FACT: He continued starving, killing, and raping his people until the present day, continuing to ignore his obligation to disarm.

FACT: He has admittedly channelled money to palestinian terror groups to KILL CIVILIANS.

FACT: Removing him from power would be A GOOD THING [tm] for the Iraqi people.

YOU CANNOT DISPUTE ANY OF THIS REGARDLESS OF HOW PSYCHOTICALLY LIBERAL YOU ARE.

If you oppose war, you are pro-Saddam. If you are pro-Saddam, you advocate murder, torture, rape, and starving children. You are quite lousy, for humanitarians.

As far as your history, Terra, it is completely fscked, and I don't know what perverted stuff they teach in Portugal, but it wasn't until after the bomb was used on Japan that they surrendered. I've heard that rumor spouted by the left wing, and it is completely false. It is like denying the holocaust.

Oh, and guerilla warfare != killing children. I'm sorry, but that is like saying that the 9-11 attack was guerilla warfare. What a load of shit. In history, the Arabs weren't there until the muslim empires of old chased the Jews out. The difference is that it was a little further back. They both have a historical claim to the land.

The difference is that while the Israelis have repeatedly offered terms to the PA, the PA will never quit until there is NO ISRAEL. There is no peace to be made there. The PA is a joke, and it just serves to channel money to terrorist organizations. Killing children must be humanitarian too, huh?

It is rare I get riled up like this, but this liberal bullshit makes me sick. Start reading history: and not history off your favorite radical left wing web site. Start looking past the superficial Wouldn't It Be Nice [tm] crap and look into the meat of issues, and you'll see that there are times that call for action.

If you consider yourself humanitarians, wouldn't it be wonderful if the US went to each oppressive regime in line and straightened them all out? Wouldn't it? Well I'm sorry, but we don't have the resources. If you advocate fixing Africa or some such, then you fix it. We're too busy sending them drugs so they can survive a little longer and shoring up the economies of most of their nations. Fscking hypocrits. You talk about N. Korea ... we've had around 30-60K soldiers on the border for years preventing genocide. Do you care? ... Or does that not fit in your perverted world image? The only reason you're in a free nation is because of our dead bodies on European beaches, but you don't care. You don't care that we kept the Soviets from turning your country into another SSR ....

Tell me, what in the bleeding fsck are we supposed to do except ignore all your pissing and bitching? The UN is a crock of shit. NATO is outdated. Those operations were normally just the US and a few token brigades from other nations anyway. You guys are the most ungrateful people I've ever met.

I'm done now. I'm sick and tired of dealing with people who refuse to open their eyes. I need a frickin' beer.

TerraMex · 03-07-2003, 06:43 PM

>Would Europe have stayed free of the USSR without
>the promise of war with the US?? Not a chance. Those
>who can't see this are truly self deluded.

Really? Arent you?. Europe never "butted in" in the US/Uk vs USSR. Its was a show and tell war. US got a big missile, so did the russians. US got a brand new sattelite, so did the russians, and gave part of the info to the world. Show and tell.

Part two was the standoff. Do you really think the russians would go up agains a nuclear france, or uk , or even others . Simple, no. And had no problem with that in first place. And why the hell for? They had severe casualties during WWII , and Moscow came under attack. They had already experienced war for a lifetime. Against the US was simply a matter of "dick size", a competition, not a prelude to war. And in the end, you could see what that did to the russian economy, it was devastated. Even during the cold war, maintaining an army, in such a vast area, in an adverse conditions, they had very little chance to go into an allout war agains a full set of countrys.

>The freedoms of the US it's self was won at the point of
>the sword, bayonet and gun. This is also the truth of
>history.

Very true.

>Throughout history those who compromise with evil
>pay a high price for doing so. Even when others step
>forward to also pay along side them.

Evil is a relative thing. Usually the winners say whats evil and whats not. The rest is an opinion.

>in possesion of such overwhelming advantage in arms
>vs. his surrounding nations did not use that force of
>arms in conquest.

Most of the ones that can, do. See the Roman Empire. See the German Blitzkrieg. Or the might of the Napoleon's army. Every country on the planet was conquered, fought for. Even in recent history. So there's nothing new there. But because others did that, doesnt exonerate the ones that do today.

> At that point let France take the lead in restoring
> freedom and democracy.

The UN is not a "point and blast" body, its supposed to deal with adversity and find a reasonable way out of it by diplomatic efforts, if not bluntly interrupted by the US foreign policy. But lets say the UN move, US are cut off from it, and Europe sticks together, and Asia cools off.

Then what? US is as depedent on Europe , Asian economy as we are from US economy. Without the markets, the currencies going in and out, the exports and imports, the economy would plundge in both sides. Going solo isnt going to help the US economy in any point. Its an arrogant way to think that nobody else matters, that doesnt work anymore, its a globalized world now, and borders are getting thinner.

Another point is... freedom and democracy? Thats a joke. There are no free democracies. Understand that and you're half way there. The governments are always influenced by the big corporations, international agreements, financial arrangements, personal gains, corruption . Change the faces, but the policy still remains the same. So, i dont give that "true democracy" much credit. Its not a very good system, but are evolving, and hopefully , it will get better. I've seen some signs of that.

And , i've stated before, there are alot of censureship in the US, still hunting the impropriate thought, the not so appropriate book, even what goes on in schools. Teachers fired and prosecuted for giving a diferent ideia, or a remark. Books taken of of libraries. It still happens. Just like racism, it refused to die.

>They don't have a chance. Yet they also have no
>freedom, which is why they are in that situation.

They are in that situation for two simple reasons. One, saddam is there, and was put there by the US. Two, they arent tired enough of him or they would have a revolution.

>what are opinions over Kosovo? are there ppl who
>think that peacefull solution would have been reached
>over there without the stick of the US (that defied UN
>over that).

That was another. Its near a oil rich area. If it was in middle of Africa or Asia, nobody would know were Kosovo was. The bi lateral talks led to a inicial agreement between the two sides. It would have stopped the war, maybe a permanent peace treaty, if the the US didnt butt in. They bluntly sabotaged the talks, and bombed the hell out of the area. Now thats being a real humanitarian ...

to big ben 2k :

The foreign policy of the US only started to change during the late Bush Senior mandate, and took another format during the Clinton administration, to the best imo.

Btw, I liked the expression "Cowboy Diplomacy".

Anyway, the taliban were put into power by the US support of the regime during the cold war, and to be more specific, against the russians, who got their butt kicked. The main problem was that they left the country in rubble. A generation groing in that type of conditions, and a mentality that judged the US involvement in the area as "evil actions", same as russians, due to the fact that neither was asked, or wanted there, served the extremist factions a good, powerfull, and almost impervious enemy that they could hate. And with good reason, to a certain level .

It's just to say, i understand 9/11. Its not about agreeing or not. Knowing what caused it is understanding half the problem. The second part of the problem is changing mentalities, and "force" wont do that.

> I'm glad to see the US feel a little bit of what Europe is
> going through, in terms of terrorism

We've had alot during the 20th century, Spain with Eta, Great Britain with IRA , Portugal with the FP-25 , etc. Also, most countrys got involved in two world wars, and nobody wants to get his hands on another, as far away as it might be. So they are very moderate in this subject. They do realize Saddam isnt the nice guy but he isnt the only one, and force and violence is not always the course of action to take.

The US participated in both wars, but never (in those wars) suffered in the homeland like the europeans. For most, util 9/11, the world was far far way, and their problems were irrelevant. That changed, but for the worse. Now the US are taking a more offensive action against those problems. Its like scratching a open wound.

>This is where, to me, it relates to oil: if you can stabilize
>the whole middle eastern region with a provisional
>government in Iraq, the price of oil should drop
>dramatically. This is good for Europe, but especially to
>the US, where the price at the pump has gone up 25%
>in the past six months. Heck, it might even allow the US
>to bypass OPEC, for a few years!

Exactly. But i dont agree with that course of action. What next ? If the Arabe League pumps up the price the US bombs them too? Having a real military base there, gives it a dangerous precedent. Isnt it enought that the dollar drags so many currencys ? Or that the imports and exports policy of the US are ourageous ?

Im not very fond of OPEC rulings about who and what and at what price, but this way it may open a pandora's box.

>I'm one who does support the removal of Saddam by
>any means needed, unless he steps back and
>surrenders all WMD. His removal from power would be
>a plus as then you don't need to wonder what else he
>would be trying to buy or secretly build. But without
>WMD's his removal wouldn't be worth a war.

It wont happen that way, if Saddam said "you're all right, im getting out" , it would invalidate the US army there, it would make this past year look like a prelude to nothing, and Bush would be ridicularized, beucase, lets face it, he's been ready to invade for ages. The triumph of diplomatic ways would be a cold blow to the US who are taking it personally, and what , really what, area control.

cybrsamurai · 03-07-2003, 06:54 PM

airspirit

As much as our posts rile you up, your posts do the same thing to us.

Hows about this we wait 10 years and after we have pulled saddam out of power lets see how the Iraqi people are doing.
I dont have the time to answer your post but the bottom of it sums up my feelings right now

Quote:

I'm sick and tired of dealing with people who refuse to open their eyes. I need a frickin' beer.

g.l.amour · 03-07-2003, 06:55 PM

/sarcasm mode

US troops go away, we can deal with our problems alone. shit, why are you guys not moving???

/sarcasm mode

03-07-2003, 01:56 PM	#27
g.l.amour Cooling Savant Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: on da case Posts: 933	gmat, do me a favour and read upon that first link i posted. i understand your stance, really, and agree on some points. some points though; do we let NKorea provoke its neighbours continuously? do we let them test warheads over Japan? http://www.fas.org/news/dprk/1998/wwwh8903.html it is easy for us europeans not to feel to threatened. they won't reach that far. NKorea can't be compared to Iraq, that is clear. that still doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't try preventing them to sell their weapons of mass distruction to the highest bidder. __________________ yo soy un tiburón

03-07-2003, 01:58 PM	#28
g.l.amour Cooling Savant Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: on da case Posts: 933	btw: i think allied bombs did a pretty good job converting japan and germany to a democratic model __________________ yo soy un tiburón

03-07-2003, 02:04 PM	#30
g.l.amour Cooling Savant Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: on da case Posts: 933	touché golovko __________________ yo soy un tiburón

03-07-2003, 02:20 PM	#33
g.l.amour Cooling Savant Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: on da case Posts: 933	it is the way of converting. you are right. to throw it into another direction. if anything we can be very happy to be able to be posting our differing opinions in here. i don't think there are any Iraqis or N-Koreans living there that can post here. it is really sad that there are still alot of countries where freedom of opinion is a luxury available only to their dictator. will utopia ever exist? edit: didn't mean to offend anyone, it was as you say, a fun quote. __________________ yo soy un tiburón

03-07-2003, 02:36 PM	#34
airspirit Been /.'d... have you? Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Moscow, ID Posts: 1,986	What is sad is that Iraq doesn't have to invade anyone. All he has to do is continue paying people to kill children. What is the current amount he pays to the families of palestinian terrorists who blow themselves and Israeli civilians to kingdom come? C'mon, are you so naive to think that if we were to leave Iraq unchecked that this guy would sit still and not try to expand his empire? Do you know how much the US pays each year in manpower and equipment to keep him from dropping the bomb on Jerusalem, Tehran, Paris, or wherever the fsck he wants? Newsflash: WE KNOW HE STILL HAS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. Don't believe me? THE US SOLD THEM TO HIM. THE FRENCH SOLD THEM TO HIM. THE GERMANS SOLD THEM TO HIM. Fsck, everybody sold him components he needed to make all sorts of chemical and biological weapons. Since the disarmament agreement was made, hundreds and thousands of tons of these weapons still are unaccounted for. Unfortunately for illogical arguments, weapons like this don't disappear into the desert sands unless they are being hid. We just kicked some of his people out of our country because they were caught gathering surveillience on tunnels, bridges, and other civilian targets in the US. He's paying terrorists in Israel. He's tried to bomb US targets internationally (in the Phillipines in 1991). What the heck should we do with this guy, leave him alone to go about his scheming? Forget about the previous UN orders that he has wiped his ass with? The guy can't be reasoned with, regardless of what nutcases worldwide like to fantasize about, and we WILL be taking him out. The reason that N. Korea is a different problem is that the tinpot dictator running that particular hellhole is a different type of crazy than Saddam. He also currently has nukes. If he knew that his nation/playground was going to be pulled out from under him, would it be too much of a stretch to imagine him using nukes? Even if he only uses them on the Peninsula, look on a map and check out how close Seoul is to the DMZ ... we're talking millions of deaths. AND BY THE WAY, DON'T DEMONSTRATE YOUR IGNORANCE TO ME. THE US DOES NOT CARPET BOMB CIVILIANS. The reason that there is speculation that casualties in this conflict will be higher for the US if there is urban warfare is because the US would be hamstrung trying NOT to kill civilians. The US isn't the monster that your propaganda machine likes to make it out as ... that's the reason you're not speaking German and punctuating your sentences with swastikas. Of course, those bastards that want to volunteer as human shields are a different story: since the practice of using and being a human shield is illegal under the Geneva convention, we would be perfectly justified in bombing them to hell. __________________ #!/bin/sh {who;} {last;} {pause;} {grep;} {touch;} {unzip;} mount /dev/girl -t {wet;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} echo yes yes yes {yes;} umount {/dev/girl;zip;} rm -rf {wet.spot;} {sleep;} finger: permission denied

03-07-2003, 02:10 PM	#31
gmat Thermophile Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: France Posts: 1,221	Japan was just modenizing anyway. And Germany was a democracy before Hitler took the power. We live in the 21st century. And still we have to kill people, in the name of <insert deity or economic value here>. That's sad. As for converting countries to other regimes, interior revolution is the way. CIA know really well how to do that. I'm all for doing something for N Korea, i never said the contrary. But still the right for people to decide of their own destiny are not alienable. In the case of severe repressive regimes such as N Korea, a small hint from secret services, some patience, counter-propaganda, etc.. would be what to do. Well that's what is written in the article anyway.

03-07-2003, 02:56 PM	#35
g.l.amour Cooling Savant Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: on da case Posts: 933	thk u US for showing the will and action to rid the world of yet another totalitary regime. afghanistan has been cleaned out, now maybe iraq. who knows maybe even NKorea in a while. i hope u will forgive the oportunistic government of belgium, certainly not everyone stands behind it over here. the lives of your soldiers will not be forgotten __________________ yo soy un tiburón

03-07-2003, 04:04 PM	#36
TerraMex Cooling Savant Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Portugal, Europe Posts: 870	another rant. I think the only danger to the world peace process is the US, in this particular subject. Fortunatly, im not alone, and that includes several governments. Where does the US government gets off saying what other countrys should or should not do ? Saddam is a ass that needs to get his butt kicked, but not this way, and definitly not with those "made up" arguments. Hey, lets declare war on Norway for having such high quotas of codfish. I think its criminal to the portuguese industry... >What is sad is that Iraq doesn't have to invade >anyone. All he has to do is continue paying people to >kill children. Doesnt... Russia, the US, and a dozen countries do the same? How about several countries in Africa, Asia ... who do more and worse? Dont they count? Or do they situation favour the US ? Hmmm. The US was the only country in history to use nuclear weapons... They used the army to test ground zero effects, radiation, etc (so did france thou). And used 2 bombs on Japan 3 days after Japan sent a surrender letter to Truman. They didnt care. He (truman) wanted to test the bombs and that was the perfect excuse. Same goes for biological weapons testing, they admitted openly just a few month ago that those tests existed, were done on civilians (and pregant women). >What is the current amount he pays to the families of >palestinian terrorists who blow themselves and Israeli >civilians to kingdom come? History lesson. 50 years ago there was no Isreali state. There was the Palestine controled by a reluctant british provisional government that didnt really like the palestinians... A devastated europe had milions of jewish refuggies , scared (with good reason) , and with a need of protection from a menace that no longer existed. So France, US and GBritain (mainly) used that fear and cultivated a need for a place, a country where they could live. And used Palestine as the perfect target due the religious grounds. Sponsored by those 3 countrys mainly , borned Israel. The palestinians didnt have a real army, no real government, no real police. The Israelits were armed , sponsored, trained. How can a people fight an enemy far superior, with no army, no infrastructures, no support?. Simple, guerrila warfare. Thats what it is, not terrorism. How would you feel if some country invaded yours in such a way ? What would you do? I've seen a movie stating that, american made, and the hero's did the same thing, guerilla, killed, and more. But it was against the russians... so it was ok. Same during the WWII , had the germans won, the french resistance, who were very incive in their actions, would be called terrorists, not heros. Same thing. Just different points of view. Its the winners that change the names. > WE KNOW HE STILL HAS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL > WEAPONS So? Its not like he used it to conquer half the planet. France, Germany, US , even Spain has bioweapons . The difference is that they call themselfs "civilized", and say saddam isnt. Its a power game. Control game. Not about weapons. The weapons argument is the "fall guy" for the "need for action". There is no shred of evidence that saddam is/was going to strike the US. It isnt in his best interest. He's a rich man, with oil money, treated, sold, sponsored by the US, France, Germany and others. It is not in his best interest to piss them off. He's also a tired man, and an old man, who doesnt need the comotion. Its about control of one of the most oil productive area in the world. Having a good US military base would tip the scales, and probably the US could tell the United Arabes League what prices they think they should do... or else. Or even control the exits (exports of the area). Its pretty simple. Heck, East Timor had his situation solved after large deposits of oil were discovered in the country... coincidence? Its about the money, and control. Control is the key word. before that , east timor was a nobody, and then, whoop, in half a year , the 25 year situation was solved. Woohoo. >What the heck should we do with this guy, leave him >alone to go about his scheming? Of course. If the iraquians have it so bad, then they could do a revolution. Portugal had 2 in less then 100 years. And under a strict dictatorship. Thats what they should do. If they havent done it so far, then they're not that tired of Saddam , and those things must come from the inside, or the US will be seen as another invader. Besides, most of the poor conditions on the country is due to the constant sanctions and embargos currently active on the country. How's that for "civilized"? And another thing, who sponsored, armed, and backed politics of Saddamn 20 years ago was the US, in favour of a good oil policy and prices. Now that they need a target, he's it. >We just kicked some of his people out of our country >because they were caught gathering surveillience on >tunnels, bridges, and other civilian targets in the US. >He's paying terrorists in Israel. He's tried to bomb US >targets internationally (in the Phillipines in 1991). Thats a laugh. So US can have spys and surveillance where ever they what, but if others do, they're terrorists ? Right. How about the bombing of afganistan in the 70's ? Iran? Siria? Jordan? Covert Ops, assassination by the CIA, etc. Oh sorry, those were "liberty fighters". Not terrorists. >The reason that N. Korea is a different problem is that >the tinpot dictator running that particular hellhole is a >different type of crazy than Saddam. He also currently >has nukes. Of course he has nukes. Do you think he wants see the US take the same road as the one took with iraq? Hell no. I was amused by the reaction of the Bush administration when they said N.Korea was from the axis of evil, then discovered they have the bomb. "Who let them in the axis? damnit, we didnt mean that, honest." Besides, every industrialized country has the bomb, let them. They wont use it, nobody except the US have used the bomb. The repercussions are well know. Its a power game, not a threat of destruction. One of the main reasons the NK nuke program got brought back is simple. The US are the best, the specialist, in paying off others. NK is waiting for money, stretching out their hand. You just watch. A financial help and some other type of exports there , and puf. >THE US DOES NOT CARPET BOMB CIVILIANS. Afanistan, last year, in the 70's, in iraq, in Iran, in Somalia, etc. When the casualties are "acceptable", they will drop the bomb. Not just the US, everybody who "did" war thinks like that, its called winning. Just because it doesnt show up on CNN , doesnt mean it doesnt happen. >The US isn't the monster that your propaganda >machine likes to make it out as No, he can be worse, but there are no saints, its a mean world out there. But your propaganda machine isnt working very well abroad. Internally yes, and thats why more than half the population is ignorant of what happens outside the country. But thats not your fault. They even control what o read (the papers and magazines, most of them we get here un europe, and they are highly "patriotic" in their speech, and have that arrogant tone), and what students have access to. >we would be perfectly justified in bombing them to hell. I rest my case. Thats a tipical answer "If we dont like, blow them". Its like the foreign policy. "We come first, no matter the cost to others". Thats why the US has so many against them. A little consideration is in order. Its a matter of respect too. >afghanistan has been cleaned out, now maybe iraq. >who knows maybe even NKorea in a while. Cleaned of what? The goverment there does nothing without asking the local warlords that are... taliban. Nothing is done in the country without the warlords that control the regions authorize it. Nothing has changed in that way. The war was a CNN war, to show something to the americans that watch tv. And a good part of the dead were civilians. And Bin Laden would never be caught because if he died at americans hand , that would generate such a muslim movement , that would make 9/11 look like fireworks. That was a strategic move, not to get him. A good one i might add. But the financial repercussions of 9/11 , the rise in unemployment, the instability with the "election" needed to be diverted. So enter Saddam, who , as been pretty quiet for 12 years. Perfect fall guy, to make expenses , take attention of the economical situation, make people walk in fear of another attack, and swallow any shitty measure that Bush administration puts out. Its a control thing. Unfortunatly, some people have "eyes wide shut" ... As a final point, i have no problem with the american people, just with their rulers. PS: Airspirit, nobody here is agaisnt you, we respect your opinion, and we will give ours. I just hope you respect them too. __________________ "we need more cowbell."

03-07-2003, 04:14 PM	#37
cybrsamurai Cooling Savant Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ashland Posts: 296	TerraMex Spoken like a TRUE humanitarian. __________________ Air cooled my ass.

03-07-2003, 04:50 PM	#38
iroc409 Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: midwest side, yo Posts: 596	dammit!!!!! i've only had my 9700 for a few months, and now i have to buy something else? arg. i'll never win. __________________ :shrug:

03-07-2003, 05:10 PM	#40
Blackeagle Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: U.S.A = Michigan Posts: 1,243	(Off topic rant) Those in power will conceed nothing without a demand and struggle, they never have and never will. This is the ringing truth of history. The claim that bombs have never freed anyone is BS, and easy to prove as BS. Naked force has freed far more peoples of the world than any other means. France, Belguim, Neatherlands & the nordic countrys as well as north africa, China, and most of the island nations of the pacific far east ALL were restored to free nations and peoples by brute force in WWII. Had america stood clear of risk then none of these peoples could have thrown off the oppressors without decades of continuing conflict, if ever. Russia at least as far east as the Urals would have fallen. Of the nations engaged in conflict with the axis powers of evil then, only Great Britain had a fair chance of staying free without the US intervention. This IS historic fact, that many now tend to forget or dissmiss. The freedoms of the US it's self was won at the point of the sword, bayonet and gun. This is also the truth of history. Throughout history those who compromise with evil pay a high price for doing so. Even when others step forward to also pay along side them. Would Europe have stayed free of the USSR without the promise of war with the US?? Not a chance. Those who can't see this are truly self deluded. Is the US always right in it's actions?? He[[ no of course not ! ! But show me just one example of any dictator in history that, in possesion of such overwhelming advantage in arms vs. his surrounding nations did not use that force of arms in conquest. Saddam may well be gone soon. The question is will the United Nations survive as more than a token, or at all? Many in the US are growing restive where the UN is concerned. Any major error by the UN will be it's total undoing with the majority of the US population. A number of the members of the US senate and house have already on several occasions called for the US to withdraw and even order the UN off america's soil. Bush's referance to the UN becoming irrelivant are not idle propaganda, although that would be without question a extreme result. But if by chance Soddam is not removed, I ask all to consider this. If the UN members, led by France, Germany, Russia and China do prevail on the US not to act, and later a weapon of mass destruction is used by Saddam aginst anyone else, what will these nations do???????? They will do nothing in their own right. China and Russia have the means, but not the inclination, and Germany and France lack both the means and the will. But I have no doubt they would be quick to demand that the US clean up the mess THEY created. The excuses of Germany and France for their obstructionist stand now are hard to imagine. I agree with Airspirit. I live in Mi. in the midwest far from Airspirit but the mood of the majority here are also in favor of war. Not by 90% but 60% will do. I also agree with what else he said. Best for the US to withdraw our forces from around the globe. Also withdraw ALL foreign aid to all nations that do not support us and never will. At which point we may as well "invite" the UN to move elsewhere, as they seem to find so much they dislike about the US. France perhaps? Then as a low key non leading member who also holds veto power, we can just block anything we don't like. But otherwise offer no aid or funding. Asia will be a differant place in short order, as will the middle east. At that point let France take the lead in restoring freedom and democracy. Yeah, right.:shrug: AS for N. Korea. Gmat, doesn't it seems hypocritical to suggest we take on the N. Koreans while decrying our going after Saddam. Ever think we most likly will do just that, after Saddam is gone? As for "thousands of American and Iraqi's" being killed, you're half right. Remember the outcome the first time, "the mother of all battles"?? Why would anyone think the Iraqi forces can do better now? I really do feel sorry for the Iraqi's forced into serving such a dictator. They don't have a chance. Yet they also have no freedom, which is why they are in that situation.

03-07-2003, 05:13 PM	#42
phreenet Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Gloucester, Virginia Posts: 356	Excuse me guys, I started this by making the comment that gmat was paying way to much living in France. It should not have ended up with another Hate/Bash thread. Some of you know me from being a perment member of Pro/Chat and I can be very vocal on this issue, but I will refrain from that on this level. But skipping through some post by people it bothers me to see the kind of comments that people have posted. The attacks on Sept. 11 were not prevoked, the massive loss of life was caused by cowardly murderous people who had the sole intent to kill as many innocent civilans as they could. Keep in mind that both people who were sympathetic to the middle eastern issues and those who were not were killed needlessly. This my friends is NOT something you do to force change, this was just tring to kill as many people as possible. Furthermore, I read comments that stated there is much anti-war protest, that is true, and someone asked how come there isn't any pro-war protest. Well typically you don't protest in favor of a war, no one wants a war, not even Bush. But the facts are, if not for him possesing weapons, that Saddam is a terrible man, he ranks up there with Stalin, Hitler, and many many more... He should be removed from power, if not through demplomacy, then through force. __________________ Dual Pentium!!! 933@1107 Liquid Cooled.

03-07-2003, 05:39 PM	#44
Blackeagle Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: U.S.A = Michigan Posts: 1,243	g.i.amour, Much respect. Sad to know that some even living in this country have forgotten so much of history of our own country. But the liberal wing in the US is very good at that. Although the right wing can be just as bad in it's own way. I'm one who does support the removal of Saddam by any means needed, unless he steps back and surrenders all WMD. His removal from power would be a plus as then you don't need to wonder what else he would be trying to buy or secretly build. But without WMD's his removal wouldn't be worth a war.

03-07-2003, 06:20 PM	#45
g.l.amour Cooling Savant Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: on da case Posts: 933	well, my gut feeling has always been along with the US, as far as there are friends in foreign politics... the US has never failed to protect and help us. i know who got us through the cold war. i know how anxious my parents were of the russians being away for only a couple of 100 kms. so pls pls pls, dont boil it down to US against Europe. boil it down to for and against. there is a fair share of all opinions in all countries of free opinion. after reading that first link i posted of that Kagan dude it became ever so clear. most european countries (where germany and france wish to take up their long gone role of countries of world importance) think in european peace terms related to the rest of the world. it doesnt work that way. we had US occupation force stabilise our continent after WW2 if it weren't for that... so we have our perpetual peace as Kant once found a contradictio in terminis. the US - UK gave the european continent their perpetual peace. seems weird that some political leaders have forgotten why the rest of the world sometimes doesn't listen to kind motivating words. we live in an amusement park, those rules can't be projected into a jungle. anyway, bush isn't so stupid to think that foreign politic will save his arse. we might assume that he knows some facts that we don't know. one should logically assume that he calculates the war cost to be quickly repayed after that war. i don't proclaim to be a capitalist pig, but i like my job, i don't mind paying for some less fortunate ppl in my country. but i'd like to keep my job. and if one might follow some left wing extremists in my country and we bully the US out of our Antwerp world port and such. woohoo, another economic blow onto a country like mine that already suffered greatly along with the US on economic terms. so would i like an ideal world where i can make choices onto my conscience. sure i would like that. i'd first like to assure myself and loved ones a steady income so we can build houses and families. sure call me an egoist. __________________ yo soy un tiburón

03-07-2003, 06:26 PM	#46
g.l.amour Cooling Savant Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: on da case Posts: 933	btw saw a recent panorama documentary about NKorea. (rare thing). ppl over there have been convinced by kim yong il's gang that the US will be using nukes on them soon. puts their whole agressor role into another framework doesn't it. __________________ yo soy un tiburón

03-07-2003, 06:33 PM	#47
airspirit Been /.'d... have you? Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Moscow, ID Posts: 1,986	TerraMex and Cybr: if you're humanitarians, then what about the starving people of Iraq? What about the tens of thousands imprisoned? What about the children that are tortured to get information from the parents? The chemical weapons use on his own people? Supporting that is now HUMANITARIAN? Did I miss the crazy train here? FACT: Saddam invaded his neighbor, prompting us to kick his ass. FACT: To prevent us from fully conquering Iraq and removing him from power, Saddam agreed to disarm. This was 1991. Until he disarmed, sanctions would be imposed on him. FACT: From 1991 until 1996, Saddam sidestepped imposed inspections, refused to disarm, and illegally sidestepped sanctions to channel money to himself and his military, similarly misallocating funds that were SUPPOSED to go to feed his people. People starved and died. Many other got murdered, gassed, tortured, raped, and generally mistreated. FACT: In 1996, Saddam kicked out inspectors, guaranteeing that his people would starve, and giving us the right to take him out under the previous agreement. FACT: We didn't, because Bill Clinton was a pussy. FACT: He continued starving, killing, and raping his people until the present day, continuing to ignore his obligation to disarm. FACT: He has admittedly channelled money to palestinian terror groups to KILL CIVILIANS. FACT: Removing him from power would be A GOOD THING [tm] for the Iraqi people. YOU CANNOT DISPUTE ANY OF THIS REGARDLESS OF HOW PSYCHOTICALLY LIBERAL YOU ARE. If you oppose war, you are pro-Saddam. If you are pro-Saddam, you advocate murder, torture, rape, and starving children. You are quite lousy, for humanitarians. As far as your history, Terra, it is completely fscked, and I don't know what perverted stuff they teach in Portugal, but it wasn't until after the bomb was used on Japan that they surrendered. I've heard that rumor spouted by the left wing, and it is completely false. It is like denying the holocaust. Oh, and guerilla warfare != killing children. I'm sorry, but that is like saying that the 9-11 attack was guerilla warfare. What a load of shit. In history, the Arabs weren't there until the muslim empires of old chased the Jews out. The difference is that it was a little further back. They both have a historical claim to the land. The difference is that while the Israelis have repeatedly offered terms to the PA, the PA will never quit until there is NO ISRAEL. There is no peace to be made there. The PA is a joke, and it just serves to channel money to terrorist organizations. Killing children must be humanitarian too, huh? It is rare I get riled up like this, but this liberal bullshit makes me sick. Start reading history: and not history off your favorite radical left wing web site. Start looking past the superficial Wouldn't It Be Nice [tm] crap and look into the meat of issues, and you'll see that there are times that call for action. If you consider yourself humanitarians, wouldn't it be wonderful if the US went to each oppressive regime in line and straightened them all out? Wouldn't it? Well I'm sorry, but we don't have the resources. If you advocate fixing Africa or some such, then you fix it. We're too busy sending them drugs so they can survive a little longer and shoring up the economies of most of their nations. Fscking hypocrits. You talk about N. Korea ... we've had around 30-60K soldiers on the border for years preventing genocide. Do you care? ... Or does that not fit in your perverted world image? The only reason you're in a free nation is because of our dead bodies on European beaches, but you don't care. You don't care that we kept the Soviets from turning your country into another SSR .... Tell me, what in the bleeding fsck are we supposed to do except ignore all your pissing and bitching? The UN is a crock of shit. NATO is outdated. Those operations were normally just the US and a few token brigades from other nations anyway. You guys are the most ungrateful people I've ever met. I'm done now. I'm sick and tired of dealing with people who refuse to open their eyes. I need a frickin' beer. __________________ #!/bin/sh {who;} {last;} {pause;} {grep;} {touch;} {unzip;} mount /dev/girl -t {wet;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} echo yes yes yes {yes;} umount {/dev/girl;zip;} rm -rf {wet.spot;} {sleep;} finger: permission denied

03-07-2003, 06:43 PM	#48
TerraMex Cooling Savant Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Portugal, Europe Posts: 870	>Would Europe have stayed free of the USSR without >the promise of war with the US?? Not a chance. Those >who can't see this are truly self deluded. Really? Arent you?. Europe never "butted in" in the US/Uk vs USSR. Its was a show and tell war. US got a big missile, so did the russians. US got a brand new sattelite, so did the russians, and gave part of the info to the world. Show and tell. Part two was the standoff. Do you really think the russians would go up agains a nuclear france, or uk , or even others . Simple, no. And had no problem with that in first place. And why the hell for? They had severe casualties during WWII , and Moscow came under attack. They had already experienced war for a lifetime. Against the US was simply a matter of "dick size", a competition, not a prelude to war. And in the end, you could see what that did to the russian economy, it was devastated. Even during the cold war, maintaining an army, in such a vast area, in an adverse conditions, they had very little chance to go into an allout war agains a full set of countrys. >The freedoms of the US it's self was won at the point of >the sword, bayonet and gun. This is also the truth of >history. Very true. >Throughout history those who compromise with evil >pay a high price for doing so. Even when others step >forward to also pay along side them. Evil is a relative thing. Usually the winners say whats evil and whats not. The rest is an opinion. >in possesion of such overwhelming advantage in arms >vs. his surrounding nations did not use that force of >arms in conquest. Most of the ones that can, do. See the Roman Empire. See the German Blitzkrieg. Or the might of the Napoleon's army. Every country on the planet was conquered, fought for. Even in recent history. So there's nothing new there. But because others did that, doesnt exonerate the ones that do today. > At that point let France take the lead in restoring > freedom and democracy. The UN is not a "point and blast" body, its supposed to deal with adversity and find a reasonable way out of it by diplomatic efforts, if not bluntly interrupted by the US foreign policy. But lets say the UN move, US are cut off from it, and Europe sticks together, and Asia cools off. Then what? US is as depedent on Europe , Asian economy as we are from US economy. Without the markets, the currencies going in and out, the exports and imports, the economy would plundge in both sides. Going solo isnt going to help the US economy in any point. Its an arrogant way to think that nobody else matters, that doesnt work anymore, its a globalized world now, and borders are getting thinner. Another point is... freedom and democracy? Thats a joke. There are no free democracies. Understand that and you're half way there. The governments are always influenced by the big corporations, international agreements, financial arrangements, personal gains, corruption . Change the faces, but the policy still remains the same. So, i dont give that "true democracy" much credit. Its not a very good system, but are evolving, and hopefully , it will get better. I've seen some signs of that. And , i've stated before, there are alot of censureship in the US, still hunting the impropriate thought, the not so appropriate book, even what goes on in schools. Teachers fired and prosecuted for giving a diferent ideia, or a remark. Books taken of of libraries. It still happens. Just like racism, it refused to die. >They don't have a chance. Yet they also have no >freedom, which is why they are in that situation. They are in that situation for two simple reasons. One, saddam is there, and was put there by the US. Two, they arent tired enough of him or they would have a revolution. >what are opinions over Kosovo? are there ppl who >think that peacefull solution would have been reached >over there without the stick of the US (that defied UN >over that). That was another. Its near a oil rich area. If it was in middle of Africa or Asia, nobody would know were Kosovo was. The bi lateral talks led to a inicial agreement between the two sides. It would have stopped the war, maybe a permanent peace treaty, if the the US didnt butt in. They bluntly sabotaged the talks, and bombed the hell out of the area. Now thats being a real humanitarian ... to big ben 2k : The foreign policy of the US only started to change during the late Bush Senior mandate, and took another format during the Clinton administration, to the best imo. Btw, I liked the expression "Cowboy Diplomacy". Anyway, the taliban were put into power by the US support of the regime during the cold war, and to be more specific, against the russians, who got their butt kicked. The main problem was that they left the country in rubble. A generation groing in that type of conditions, and a mentality that judged the US involvement in the area as "evil actions", same as russians, due to the fact that neither was asked, or wanted there, served the extremist factions a good, powerfull, and almost impervious enemy that they could hate. And with good reason, to a certain level . It's just to say, i understand 9/11. Its not about agreeing or not. Knowing what caused it is understanding half the problem. The second part of the problem is changing mentalities, and "force" wont do that. > I'm glad to see the US feel a little bit of what Europe is > going through, in terms of terrorism We've had alot during the 20th century, Spain with Eta, Great Britain with IRA , Portugal with the FP-25 , etc. Also, most countrys got involved in two world wars, and nobody wants to get his hands on another, as far away as it might be. So they are very moderate in this subject. They do realize Saddam isnt the nice guy but he isnt the only one, and force and violence is not always the course of action to take. The US participated in both wars, but never (in those wars) suffered in the homeland like the europeans. For most, util 9/11, the world was far far way, and their problems were irrelevant. That changed, but for the worse. Now the US are taking a more offensive action against those problems. Its like scratching a open wound. >This is where, to me, it relates to oil: if you can stabilize >the whole middle eastern region with a provisional >government in Iraq, the price of oil should drop >dramatically. This is good for Europe, but especially to >the US, where the price at the pump has gone up 25% >in the past six months. Heck, it might even allow the US >to bypass OPEC, for a few years! Exactly. But i dont agree with that course of action. What next ? If the Arabe League pumps up the price the US bombs them too? Having a real military base there, gives it a dangerous precedent. Isnt it enought that the dollar drags so many currencys ? Or that the imports and exports policy of the US are ourageous ? Im not very fond of OPEC rulings about who and what and at what price, but this way it may open a pandora's box. >I'm one who does support the removal of Saddam by >any means needed, unless he steps back and >surrenders all WMD. His removal from power would be >a plus as then you don't need to wonder what else he >would be trying to buy or secretly build. But without >WMD's his removal wouldn't be worth a war. It wont happen that way, if Saddam said "you're all right, im getting out" , it would invalidate the US army there, it would make this past year look like a prelude to nothing, and Bush would be ridicularized, beucase, lets face it, he's been ready to invade for ages. The triumph of diplomatic ways would be a cold blow to the US who are taking it personally, and what , really what, area control. __________________ "we need more cowbell."

03-07-2003, 06:55 PM	#50
g.l.amour Cooling Savant Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: on da case Posts: 933	/sarcasm mode US troops go away, we can deal with our problems alone. shit, why are you guys not moving??? /sarcasm mode __________________ yo soy un tiburón

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)