Dav Posted July 30, 2004 Report Posted July 30, 2004 I'm sick of having Marxists tell us how to run our country in these forums. marxists? where?basically we're not trying to tell you how to run your country, we're telling you to stop running other's in a silly attempt to run yours. you can do pretty much everything you want in your country, so long as you respect your neighbors...just stop acting like a patronizing -*BAD WORD*- and we can all be friends again. and i'm not a liberal, i prefer "libertarian" The United States response it too the recent terrorist attack against us, we are saying no we will not put up with this -*BAD WORD*- maybe you will but we wont. If the rest of the world would just quit critizing the US and maybe help particpate then we would most likely listen to what they have to say. Like alot of you say in this forum, actions are louder than words, the US declaring war on terrorism and iraq maybe bad but not as bad as the rest of the world and US allies turning there backs on the US itelf. :swift: how is iraq war on terror? If i am not mistaken Saddam Husian was not a troorist under the classic definition. He was a dictator but no real threat to the US as we have seen from the lack of WMDs and the intelligance reports suggesting that if he had them he wouldnt be able to get anywhere near the US anyway.
Aileron Posted July 30, 2004 Author Report Posted July 30, 2004 I do understand how it works. I said that Bacchus was more liberal than Stalin, not that he was like Stalin. I can see that they are on the oppostie side of the libertarian/statist scale. In actuality, Bacchus is more like Karl Marx, because theorhetical communism was highly libertarian as well. Whether I'm right or wrong, the facts prove that he is still a radical extremist. I couldn't take the test everyone else took, but the test I did took placed me in the center. I'm tired of this -*BAD WORD*-ing "American arrogance" being spread around like this. The US tried diplomacy with the UN for almost a year before the invasion, and now we are asking for it again. We've been practically on our knees for the last 10 years and you call us arrogant just to get us to sink lower. For the longest amount of time, we have been the UN's lap dog, going into places like Bosnia and Kosovo for no reason other than to please our allies. -*BAD WORD*-, we went into Iraq the first time, when it probably was in our best interest to let them invade Kuwait. How do our allies repay us? When we need a situation that had been going on for ten years resolved quickly, they try to make it take forever to get resolved. When there is one possible flaw in our justifcation for toppling the most evil dictatorship left on earth, they stick it to us - over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the US needs new allies.
Bacchus Posted July 30, 2004 Report Posted July 30, 2004 the facts prove that he is still a radical extremist.haha, that's the best one i heard today! Radical extremist?! -*BAD WORD*- that, i'm not the one that bombed hiroshima, nor the one that's screwing up the world...i do not use "GOD" in all my sentences and i'm not praying to gawd either each time -*BAD WORD*- hit the fan. I DO NOT support WAR AND A 400 billion army FFS!!! From my point of view, a lot of americans are religious integrists you know....does that make me a radical extremist? I like the color blue, good books and movies, sex anytime i can have some, natural girls and mature woman. I like freedom and cultural differences. I love to spend days with muslims and taoists... yep, if you strip me of all this...i'll most certainly become a terrorist. *** I'm tired of this -*BAD WORD*-ing "American arrogance" being spread around like this. The US tried diplomacy with the UN for almost a year before the invasion, and now we are asking for it again. We've been practically on our knees for the last 10 years and you call us arrogant just to get us to sink lower. For the longest amount of time, we have been the UN's lap dog, going into places like Bosnia and Kosovo for no reason other than to please our allies. -*BAD WORD*-, we went into Iraq the first time, when it probably was in our best interest to let them invade Kuwait. How do our allies repay us? When we need a situation that had been going on for ten years resolved quickly, they try to make it take forever to get resolved. Whenthere is one possible flaw in our justifcation for toppling the most evil dictatorship left on earth, they stick it to us - over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the US needs new allies. poor you, you need new friends he? "We won't be proven wrong. We'll fight, fight, fight""maybe you're afraid, we're not""You turn your back on us""we're alone in our holy war but we have a mission, a goal, an objective""we rocks""The few, the proud, the marines"
MasterDrake Posted July 30, 2004 Report Posted July 30, 2004 umm yeah if you call being patriotic and trying to be the best we can arrogance umm yeah, don't hate because you your country may have no faith in itself
Aileron Posted July 30, 2004 Author Report Posted July 30, 2004 While I can defend Hiroshima, it was a different world back then, I'll simply point out that I didn't bomb Hiroshima either. I'm about as responsable as Hiroshima as you are, both of us being born a little less than 40 years after the event. So, you are saying if a handfull of Americans bomb a city, that all Americans share the same mindset? Your comment only points out your anti-American racism. You think all Americans are ignorant, arrogant, violent, and greedy, mostly because the European Media tells you we are. That comment is no better than those who judge all muslims by September 11th. I don't use God in all my sentences either - picking up a bible does not automatically turn you into Reverend Lovejoy. Even most clergy I have met do not act like so, and many share a watered down version of your idealogies. I know for a fact that the Vatican (I knew this before the post in the other topic) didn't support the operation in Iraq either. I didn't accuse you of being a terrorist. Rest !@#$%^&*ured, you are about as far away from terrorists as it is possible. I accused you of being extremist. So what? Being extreme is dangerous, but it isn't really wrong. You probably pushed your answers for a more liberal result anyway.
»1587200 Posted July 30, 2004 Report Posted July 30, 2004 I didn't bother reading the other 109 posts, but in reply to the original, all I have to say is "B.S."
Dr.Worthless Posted July 30, 2004 Report Posted July 30, 2004 So, you are saying if a handfull of Americans bomb a city, that all Americans share the same mindset? Your comment only points out your anti-American racism. You think all Americans are ignorant, arrogant, violent, and greedy, mostly because the European Media tells you we are. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Bacchus Posted July 30, 2004 Report Posted July 30, 2004 no, i'm not saying ALL americans are the same. I'm saying lots of americans share some "ideals" that i disagree with, approve of having the biggest army in theworld...which I disapprove strongly, lots of you agree with foreign policies that, imo, sucks so bad it hurts. oh, and in case ou didn't noticed yet...anti-americanism is at an all time high...and instead of listening to some consensual comittee (UN) and trying to go by the book, USA is making constant war. And your answer is :" so what, someone ought to what someone ought to do". Well, i'm only saying it's -*BAD WORD*-. utter, mindless, -*BAD WORD*-. FYI, and i know it probably won't help..it's internet, i could produce every kind of stories...I just fired one of my employee because he refused to serve americans. Even in the face of facts, you refuse to even admit to some sort of weirdness in how your gov is doing thing...why? Your patriotism is bordering xenophobia, most of you obviously don't know a thing about middle east and islam. USA actions is screwing up the world, why? because a lot of us not american simply disagree with how you do things. Simply put... USA is above the law. It's frustrating and it encourages battle, violence and intolerance.
Aileron Posted July 31, 2004 Author Report Posted July 31, 2004 I'm only being patriotic to balance out the forums. The reason why I defend the US so strongly is because a lot of people here attack her so much. If this forum was the opposite, I'd probably be taking the liberal side. It isn't xenophobia, its just trying to get a second opinion in. Well, we have come to something here. The real reason for all the outcry against the US about Iraq has nothing to do with the justification itself, but rather the going against the UN. It doesn't seem to farfetched, even if there are no WMDs in Iraq, that only means Bush picked the one bad justification of about 37 good ones. Hussein's regime was evil enough that no matter what the reasons taking him out was at very least morally nuetral. The real reason is because of the breakdown in helping each other out. For starters, I would like to point out that France is much worse than the US. The US is trying to reconcile the differences by trying to getting other nations to help in Iraq now. France seems to be interested in making the breakdown permanent. But France is one nation out of many. However, it is enough to make getting UN approval impossible. They, for some strange reason, get a permanent security council vote. If it was only Germany and Russia standing in our way back then, it would have been much more difficult for Bush to gain the 70% aprroval rating he had at the start of the war. Germany and Russia could have been persuaded, France could not. Thus, it really wasn't worth the effort. Given the current state of the UN, Bush can easily be excused for wanting to go around it. The real bungling of the war simply is the failure to rally general world opinion around us. Now, some of the more despotic nations had no desire to see the US release herself from the UN leash. However, respectable nations could be persuaded. I'm Monday Morning quarterbacking - but here is what Bush should have done. He should have tried to persuade the UN a little longer, not in hopes of getting UN approval, but in order to prove how nutcase the French government is. Then, the rest of the world would have forgiven us a lot more for going around the UN. The media isn't helping. People naturally distrust large powers. The world media is using this opportunity to sell anti-americanism. Thus, they make the war out worse than it is, and go out of their way to attack the Bush administration. What the Bush administration should do now is make up for what they didn't do at the UN - confirm that the French government is nutcase. Its easy to do, Chiracs approval rating is 35%, they aren't doing anything to help in Iraq, Chirac didn't even go an hour out of his way to attend Reagen's funeral.
sunnyd Posted July 31, 2004 Report Posted July 31, 2004 Bush sucks period. He started this 9/11 crap, how can 4 planes be hijacked on the same day? Someone should have been caught right? Hahaha what does French fries have to do with this? anyways Israel needs to be bombed those suckers can go to -*BAD WORD*- with bush. haha watch what happenes when the election comes close there is gonna be a attack some were and bush adnubustration finds out who they are - then more people would wanna vote for him - outa topic
Dr.Worthless Posted July 31, 2004 Report Posted July 31, 2004 Highly intelligent post Sunny, you should participate more often.
Bacchus Posted July 31, 2004 Report Posted July 31, 2004 I would like to point out that France is much worse than the US. The US is trying to reconcile the differences by trying to getting other nations to help in Iraq now. France seems to be interested in making the breakdown permanent.France and Villepin were questionning US report's objectivity over the very questionnable !@#$%^&*essment of Iraq's "threat" level. THAT was the first reason to go into Iraq. Not free the iraqis, not fight terrorism...it was first a pre-emptive war ...which btw, was the same reason Germany had to invade Poland. France followed in the UN wake, US WAS the one being unilateral. US was a major actor in UN or alliances "breakdown". Would you please stop denying that fact. then again, US is the only one that isn't signing international - neutral - treaties and you're not on the international court...and US threathened to used its veto concerning peace keeping mission if the council didn't accept to grant it a "special, derogatory, status. Bush picked the one bad justification of about 37 good ones Your pres. lied about US motives...oh yea, right...the intel was bad. However, it is enough to make getting UN approval impossible. They, for some strange reason, get a permanent security council vote. If it was only Germany and Russia standing in our way back then, it would have been much more difficult for Bush to gain the 70% aprroval rating he had at the start of the war. Germany and Russia could have been persuaded, France could not. Thus, it really wasn't worth the effort.Hey, US had a chance to convince the security council. Powell presented the case, the council voted. You simply losed. period. Given the current state of the UN, Bush can easily be excused for wanting to go around it. -*BAD WORD*- no. Given the current state of my neighbors mental health, you could as easily excused me for hitting him with a baseball bat. but here is what Bush should have done. He should have tried to persuade the UN a little longer, not in hopes of getting UN approval, but in order to prove how nutcase the French government is. Then, the rest of the world would have forgiven us a lot more for going around the UN.At the very least, France is acting responsibly toward its own; free schooling, free social service, free hospital. Crime rate is low compared to US and France's debates are amongs a lot of political parties. It's far from being perfect but if you ask me...i'll go there instead of USA without even the shadow of a doubt...which is to your advantage. confirm that the French government is nutcase. Its easy to do, Chiracs approval rating is 35%, they aren't doing anything to help in Iraq, Chirac didn't even go an hour out of his way to attend Reagen's funeral. Go to whom funeral? US support in Irak is going down by the week you know.
Dr.Worthless Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 Go to whom funeral? US support in Irak is going down by the week you know.Only one of the presidents that helped bring an end to the cold war, preventing Russia from basically turning a war weakened Europe into commieville. Sorry bacchus, the 35% approval rating was in reference to you claiming france is wonderland. As A was trying to point out, even his own citizens think he's doing a -*BAD WORD*-ty job (Chirac) His approval ratings are far worse than Bush's. France followed in the UN wake, US WAS the one being unilateral. US was a major actor in UN or alliances "breakdown". Would you please stop denying that fact. I'll call -*BAD WORD*- on this one. The US gave the UN EVERY CHANCE to be part of this, and they refused, so we did it on our own. WE ARE STILL PROVIDING EVERY CHANCE FOR THE UN TO BE PART OF THIS EFFORT, but Chirac's arrogance prevents him from doing it. Not free the iraqis, not fight terrorism...it was first a pre-emptive war ...which btw, was the same reason Germany had to invade Poland.Funny you should bring up a Hitler ran Germany, that was the last major case of a european alliance trying to appease a tyrant, guess what, It didn't work then and it sure as -*BAD WORD*- wont work now. And since you're bringing up past events, you're welcome for rebuilding Europe. Your pres. lied about US motives...oh yea, right...the intel was bad. Yep, last time I checked the President relies on intel to make his decisions. It was the very same intelligence provided the United States house/senate, they bought it to. Don't you remember that our president doesn't declare war, our legislative body does. I doubt you did, you're to blinded by your hate of America and its president. -*BAD WORD*- no. Given the current state of my neighbors mental health, you could as easily excused me for hitting him with a baseball bat.The UN is a broken s-*BAD WORD*- of what its founders hoped it to be. Want proof of its effectiveness? Just hop over to the thread I started and check out all the UN resolutions made pertaining to Saddam. My favorite is the 1992 resolution proclaiming "Saddam must immediatly cease in his inhumane treatment of his citizens". Alota -*BAD WORD*- good that did, heh. At the very least, France is acting responsibly toward its own; free schooling, free social service, free hospital. Crime rate is low compared to US and France's debates are amongs a lot of political parties. It's far from being perfect but if you ask me...i'll go there instead of USA without even the shadow of a doubt...which is to your advantage. I'm glad you think so highly of France. I'll be here enjoying the US of A. Thank you sir.
MasterDrake Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 At the very least, France is acting responsibly toward its own; free schooling, free social service, free hospital. Crime rate is low compared to US and France's debates are amongs a lot of political parties. It's far from being perfect but if you ask me...i'll go there instead of USA without even the shadow of a doubt...which is to your advantage. little more on that lets look france = tiny little country US = big giant country O please mister euro come help us with our crime since your so -*BAD WORD*- good at handling it, please open you wallet to the millions who need healthcare and about the school systems well nough said we own u
Aileron Posted August 1, 2004 Author Report Posted August 1, 2004 I forgot to thank you for firing that employee. There are enough differences between the US and Europe without idiots like that guy adding to it. This point can be made in a simple fashion. Since the breakdown in US/European relations, the US has tried to get everyone involved again, and France has tried to make the breakdown permanent. And no, attendance to Reagen's funeral wasn't mandatory. However, its a matter of politeness. Most other European leaders went through much greater effort to stop by. It was clear that Chirac wasn't so busy that he couldn't attend, or that it was too difficult for him to do so. Chirac didn't attend because he didn't want to pay respect to an American. How can somebody expect the US to be friendly to a government that refuses to even respect us? Admitingly, there may be a difference between France and Chirac. While maybe not the rest of the world, Bush can be excused for giving up on France.
Bacchus Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 Chirac didn't attend because he didn't want to pay respect to an American.Maybe Chirac wasn't invited...it's not like anyone could have go there without a vip card you know. And no offense, but i wouldn't have attend this show either. It's not disrespect, quite the contrary. expect the US to be friendly to a government that refuses to even respect us? Well, i undertsand i would even agree with you...but respect is earned, not forced upon and the USA isn't quite "respectful" of its neighbors either. Always meddling, a bit unsupportive, often uncooperative. You have to understand something very important here: More often than not, USA is feared. USA can be very unforgiving and is quick on reprisal or threats of reprisal. Respect and fear are of a very different nature. While maybe not the rest of the world, Bush can be excused for giving up on France.Bush can very think whatever he wants of France and/or Europe, even Canada...i don't care, the rest of the world wouldn't care either i'm pretty sure of it. The main problem is that what USA think is good for itself, it usually think it's good for everyone else. Which is the biggest error a country can make regarding the international community. ittle more on that lets look france = tiny little country US = big giant country ok, thanks. Very profound.Just so you know, France cut down its spending on the military and raised taxes to maintain free social services. whereas USA is usually advocating lower taxes and bigger army. I'd choose social services and health care instead of army. on a happier note= USA = 288 millions, EU=400 millions. And my -*BAD WORD*- is bigger than yours. The US gave the UN EVERY CHANCE to be part of this, and they refused, so we did it on our ownAgain: that's precisely the type of mindset i'm speaking about. WAKE UP! USA have nothing to SAY, or chances to give -*BAD WORD*-! it's supposed to be a -*BAD WORD*-ing PART of an INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION which is working on a DEMOCRATIC basis. YOU PRESENT A RESOLUTION, YOU TRY TO CONVINCE OTHERS THAT YOUR VIEWS ARE BETTER THEN OTHERS, YOU VOTE, YOU -*BAD WORD*-ING LOSED IT!!! WE DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU! WHICH PART OF THAT SENTENCE ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING??? Don't you remember that our president doesn't declare war, our legislative body does. I doubt you did, you're to blinded by your hate of America and its president. And we don't have to follow you everytime you dig a -*BAD WORD*- hole. I'm not blinded by hatred, i'm just saying that i disagree with what USA is doing, with the obviously "missionary" mindset of your pres and with constant warring and 400 billion army, etc. That being said, i'm tired of this bullhit, it's taking to much time and energy. Ciao.
MonteZuma Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 (1) Whether I'm right or wrong, the facts prove that he is still a radical extremist. I couldn't take the test everyone else took, but the test I did took placed me in the center. (2) I'm tired of this -*BAD WORD*-ing "American arrogance" being spread around like this. (3) The US tried diplomacy with the UN for almost a year before the invasion, and now we are asking for it again. (4) We've been practically on our knees for the last 10 years and you call us arrogant just to get us to sink lower. (5) For the longest amount of time, we have been the UN's lap dog, going into places like Bosnia and Kosovo for no reason other than to please our allies. -*BAD WORD*-, we went into Iraq the first time, when it probably was in our best interest to let them invade Kuwait. (6) How do our allies repay us? When we need a situation that had been going on for ten years resolved quickly, they try to make it take forever to get resolved. When there is one possible flaw in our justifcation for toppling the most evil dictatorship left on earth, they stick it to us - over and over .... I've said it before and I'll say it again - the US needs new allies.(1) Bacchus doesn't sound like a radical extremist to me. GWB is more of a radical extremist than Bacchus. (2) So are we. (3) Not with serious intent. GWB always wanted an invasion of Iraq. Anyway - so what if the diplomacy takes 10 or 20 years? Where was the imminent threat to the US or anyone else? (4) You don't know what it is to get down on your knees and beg. The US doesn't have to beg for anything - except respect. (5) The US has never been the UN's lap dog. The US goes into these countries for strategic reasons. Why would it be in the US' best interests for Iraq to annex Kuwait? If it was, then the US would have supported the invasion. That is what the US does. (6) In most cases, the same countries that supported the US in the first Gulf War war also the biggest supporters in the invasion. Invading a country to change a regime is not the same as liberating an occupied country. Can you not see the difference? There were dozens of flaws in the US' justification. Americans love a quick military fix for complicated political problems - that is why your government stuffs up so much. (7) Your government won't get them until it becomes less arrogant.
»nintendo64 Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 USA have nothing to SAY, or chances to give -*BAD WORD*-! it's supposed to be a -*BAD WORD*-ing PART of an INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION which is working on a DEMOCRATIC basis. YOU PRESENT A RESOLUTION, YOU TRY TO CONVINCE OTHERS THAT YOUR VIEWS ARE BETTER THEN OTHERS, YOU VOTE, YOU -*BAD WORD*-ING LOSED IT!!! WE DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU! WHICH PART OF THAT SENTENCE ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING??? enough said... -nintendo64
MonteZuma Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 (1) Well, we have come to something here. The real reason for all the outcry against the US about Iraq has nothing to do with the justification itself, but rather the going against the UN. (2) It doesn't seem to farfetched, even if there are no WMDs in Iraq, that only means Bush picked the one bad justification of about 37 good ones. Hussein's regime was evil enough that no matter what the reasons taking him out was at very least morally nuetral. (3) The real reason is because of the breakdown in helping each other out... (4) I would like to point out that France is much worse than the US. The US is trying to reconcile the differences by trying to getting other nations to help in Iraq now. France seems to be interested in making the breakdown permanent. (5) Given the current state of the UN, Bush can easily be excused for wanting to go around it. (6) The real bungling of the war simply is the failure to rally general world opinion around us. Now, some of the more despotic nations had no desire to see the US release herself from the UN leash. However, respectable nations could be persuaded. (7) I'm Monday Morning quarterbacking - but here is what Bush should have done. He should have tried to persuade the UN a little longer, not in hopes of getting UN approval, but in order to prove how nutcase the French government is. Then, the rest of the world would have forgiven us a lot more for going around the UN. ( The media isn't helping. People naturally distrust large powers. The world media is using this opportunity to sell anti-americanism. Thus, they make the war out worse than it is, and go out of their way to attack the Bush administration. (9) What the Bush administration should do now is make up for what they didn't do at the UN - confirm that the French government is nutcase. Its easy to do, Chiracs approval rating is 35%, they aren't doing anything to help in Iraq, Chirac didn't even go an hour out of his way to attend Reagen's funeral.(1) No. You still don't get it. 10,000 Iraqi civilians and countless Iraqi soldiers died. (2) It is heartless and arrogant to think that it is morally neutral to kill 10,000 Iraqi civilians and countless Iraqi soldiers just to get Hussein out of power. That is a tragic waste of life. The ensuing Chaos in the country is not morally neutral. Ghandi wouldn't have approved. (3) Keep telling yourself that. (4) No. The US is trying to dig itself out of the -*BAD WORD*-pile it created. (5) No. He can't. He won't be easily excused for this one. (6) See (3). (7) Yeah French are strange, but in the case of Iraq, the French have been proven right. It is the US have been proven to be the nutcases. ( People naturally distrust the Iraqis. The people also naturally think the French are strange. The fact that these countries get a -*BAD WORD*- of a lot more sympathy than the US, despite 9/11, demonstrates how utterly inept the current US administration is at managing foreign policy issues and threats. The French government offers thinking people a refreshingly honest and sensible interpretation of the Iraq issue. I used to think the French government was the epitomy of evil with things like nuclear testing, colonialism and the bombing of the rainbow warrior etc, but Iraq has given me new found respect for the French. The US has stuffed up big time. (9) Only if the US wants to lose even more respect.
Dr.Worthless Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 (1) No. You still don't get it. 10,000 Iraqi civilians and countless Iraqi soldiers died.So 10,000 Iraqi's die in the process of removing their tyranically dictator and all -*BAD WORD*- is raised. Saddam kills millions of his own citizens while ruling with an iron fist, and all thats done is spineless resolutions. Heh. (2) It is heartless and arrogant to think that it is morally neutral to kill 10,000 Iraqi civilians and countless Iraqi soldiers just to get Hussein out of power. That is a tragic waste of life. The ensuing Chaos in the country is not morally neutral. Ghandi wouldn't have approved. It is heartless and arrogant to think that standing on the sidelines barking resolutions of "you better stop or else" or "Thats bad, dont do that anymore meanie" did -*BAD WORD*- to help anyone in Iraq, or lessen Saddams threat. Ghandi sure as -*BAD WORD*- wouldn't have approved sitting back for decades and watching as Saddam pillaged, raped, and murdered his own citizens. Don't make America out as the bad guys in this situation, you'll lose everytime . I've said this before so let me say it again, Supporting Saddam in power in Iraq is supporting Rape, Murder, Torture, Genocide, and the whole other bag of tricks he used. You speak of peace, love, Ghandi, and all the other -*BAD WORD*-, but when it came to putting the muscle to the plow, all the UN did was sit back and spit out useless -*BAD WORD*- resolutions. The war very well could have been about something completely other than helping the Iraqi citizens, but when you try and make the US out as bad guys for the casulties caused by this invasion, and fail to mention the 20+ years of TERROR SADDAM PUT IRAQ THROUGH, you're full of horse-*BAD WORD*-. (4) No. The US is trying to dig itself out of the -*BAD WORD*-pile it created.Seriously, we dug your european !@#$%^&*es out of world war 2 by ourselves, we defeated Japan by ourselves, we rebuilt wartorn europe by ourselves, we won the cold war by ourselves, we sure as -*BAD WORD*- can handle Iraq by ourselves. Yes, I'm in a "GO USA" mood today, I'm getting sick of logging on these boards every day and reading about how bad the USA is, and how we've gotten ourselves in a situation that we cant handle. The fact is almost 2x more people were lost on 1 day during september 11'th 2001 than the US military has lost in over 1 YEAR OF COMBAT in iraq. Heh, hardly what I would call a failure. Wake up. (9) Only if the US wants to lose even more respect. Heh, I don't see the US getting any respect for all its past friendly dealings with Europe and the world. Removing a dictator from power magically erased WW1, WW2, ColdWar, over 70 years of bending over backwards helping our Euro friends with manpower, $$, support, etc. If all of this can be absolutly ignored with 1 "Screwup", then why should we give a -*BAD WORD*- about your respect? Yeah, Harsh post that will get tore up im sure, Right now I don't care. Worthless
MonteZuma Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 ...Harsh post that will get tore up im sure, Right now I don't care....If by harsh you mean misguided and wrong - then yes. If by torn up you mean that it was full of errors then yes - but I can't be bothered tearing up each sentence one by one this time - so I'll just make a general observation..... You have shown that you have very little understanding of history or your place in the world. That isn't surprising. I blame your education system. It churns out great geeks, but very bad historians and policy analysts. The US would not have won the war in Europe without allies. For example, I recently learned that Germany might have gotten the atom bomb before the US if it wasn't for a handful of Norwegian resistance fighters. The Russian and British effort in WW2 was inspiring and courageous. To belittle the efforts of smaller countries is not a surprising thing for an American to do. You are horribly misguided and people like you are the reason that the US is hated by so many. You are part of the problem, but I suspect that you can't see it because you are surrounded by so many other misguided and ignorant individuals. You would think that Americans would have learned something from September 11 (and Viet Nam for that matter), but as time goes by it is obvious that many of you have learned nothing.
Dav Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 I think the US acts as it is above the UN, so what if they were discussing the invation of iraq for a year? At the end of it they were going to do it anyway with or without support, they even made this clear in the later stages. You are going on about this "Patriotism", being patriotic does not mean you have to stand there and be a sheep to your presidant whilst he make radical decitions to invade other countries. I am patriotic to britan but i am growing more and more against the labour governmet. The thing i find about the US in iraq is thay are causing more problems then solutions, the culture and beliefs are very diffrent to our western way of life and people dont want their ways "poisoned" by americans. You may call it racism and in some ways it is but you cant forget the actions of the west througout histiory and many nations may NEVER forgive our nations for what we have done to them. Whilst we are on this topic i haeard that saudi araibia (sp.) have a huge hatred to the christian and jewish nations as christian and jewish religions are polycrastic in their view and thus evil. In fact as far as i know schools are filled with properganda against the west to bring the new generations into hatred for the western world. Put all that with invading a country then placing your views there dioes not make for good relations. Now let me get onto the UN. Yes it is supposed to be democratic Yes it is supposed to solve world problems The problem here is that its not so good at doing that, the reason id the security council having 5 perminate members including UK and the US. If they are always there they can veto anything that doesnt suit them at the expence of other nations. We have seen the US do this when it comes to israil (no surprise when the US sells israil its weapons). Surly it world work better if all nations had a vote and the majority vote wins, then the majority of nations are suited as appose to the security council regardless of the other nations. The arrogance of the US keeps coming up on this forum and i have to agree that the US is arrogant. How can anyone expect to place their views where everone to see them and expect all to conform? Things just dont work like that and to be honest you would have expected the US to have worked that out by now considering that has not worked in history. Im not going to say its only the US because many other nations show arrogance. Power corupts and absolute power corrupts absolutly i think we are stuck in the moddle of a classic case of this, the Power of the US is huge, but thet doesnt mean they are the worlds police. I think GWB needs a reality check to bring him out of this fairytale worldso he can see the impact all of this is having on the plannet.
Dav Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 I recently learned that Germany might have gotten the atom bomb before the US if it wasn't for a handful of Norwegian resistance fighters. The Russian and British effort in WW2 was inspiring and courageous. To belittle the efforts of smaller countries is not a surprising thing for an American to do. < :wtfwtf: > Its a disturbing thought in a way, it is impossible to imagine how the world would be if the germans accually has the atom bomb first. :wtfwtf >
Dr.Worthless Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Heh, While I do acknowledge my shortcomings, WW2 history isnt one of them. you have shown that you have very little understanding of history or your place in the world.OOO, I'll pick A.) "The only remaning superpower in the world", and I'll make that my final answer. The US would not have won the war in Europe without allies. For example, I recently learned that Germany might have gotten the atom bomb before the US if it wasn't for a handful of Norwegian resistance fighters. The Russian and British effort in WW2 was inspiring and courageous. To belittle the efforts of smaller countries is not a surprising thing for an American to do. Funny that you defend your claim that with a statement with the word "might" in it. The exodus of major scientific minds from Europe, Einstien and others, is what lead to the United States leaping forward in the nuclear arms race. Though, Hitler with a bomb would not have been a major deterant to the United States. At most Hitler would have forced Britain out of the war. Although he was working toward employing his newly created jet engine into a long range bomber, he would have nothing more than a prototype made by the time Russian forces were rolling into Berlin. The British faught valliantly, the RAF's victory over Germany's operation Sealion was nothing short of a miracle. Without British bases, and engineering, a mainland european invasion would have been impossible. Russian's employed a wonderful campaign of victory by blood, losing nearly 30 million in its fight with germany. Russian fighters often had no equiptment, no food, but faught tooth and nail to defend their homeland, and eventually be the first to march into Berlin. Coincidence that the two nations that faught along side the US, tooth and nail, during WW2 are still allies with them to this day. Britain of course our ownly remaning ally, while Russia is still keeps friendly relations with the United States. Ironically, the nation that was practically a non-factor in the war and needed to be bailed out of german control is the one giving us the most fits. Funny how that works. I'm in no way belittling other countries efforts in World War 2. The alliance faught valiantly to take over a technologically advanced opponent, with superior equiptment and tactics. Though I'll be the first to point out the fact that Europe would be one messed up place right now had the United States decided to just fight in the pacific theatre, and let the Europeans fight their crazy wars. Funny that you still don't acknowledge what the United States has done. Coincidental? I think not. Please, make the arguement that the United States wasn't the main factor for the allied victory during WW2, I'd love to see you attempt it. Though I suspect you'll just make a non-substance post full of "mabye's" and "mights", and continue to dig at the United States. That isn't surprising. I blame your education system. It churns out great geeks, but very bad historians and policy analysts. Funny thing is, losers don't write the history books, the winners do. It seems Canada's education system churned out a citizen that believes mabyes and mights won ww2, not the United States. I do get in moods upon occasion, but please do not insult my intelligence. I deal with your constant bashing of the United States, but if you want to make the insults personal trust me you provide alot of ammunition.
Dr.Worthless Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Its a disturbing thought in a way, it is impossible to imagine how the world would be if the germans accually has the atom bomb first A scary proposition for mainland Europe, yes. Hitler would not have the technology to get a bomb over to mainland United States though. The US and Allies, on the other hand, had complete control of Northern Africa, and access to countless other airports in Europe. We would have been able to deliver a bomb with Hitler's name on it to Berlin in quick fashion, had Hitler decided to hold Europe hostage with Nuclear weapons. Worse case scenario for the US would have been the Cold War with Germany instead of Russia. It would have been lights out for Europe though.
Recommended Posts