Saddam's lawyer [Archive] - Ultimatecarpage.com forums

Matt

01-08-2007, 03:13 PM

i did not suggest to agree with his views, but I was trying to explain how they might have originated:) It is often more important not to know what somebody thinks but more why he has those opinions

And my original post was to express my opinion that his opinions were tainted, per his opinion that everything must relate back to the American government's inadequacies and incompetencies. Criticizing America is "cool" right now. Drakkie is a poser. For no other reason does he post such things. If he were to ever demonstrate a true and proper understanding, then back up his beliefs with fact and logic, I may think differently. Drakkie is one of those people, mostly young and still dumb, who reads just the bare minimum on a subject and thinks that is enough to form an opinion. I see it all the time in class and I hear it all the time everywhere. Young Americans seem to be some of the worst at it, admittedly. If Drakkie is as un-American as he seems, then I would think he would spend every bit of energy he has not acting like a young dumb American. Right now, he is.

Matt

01-08-2007, 03:14 PM

bahahaha

Have you not noticed that almost everything he has posted lately is anti-US oriented material?

That isn't what has damaged the level of respect the rest of us have for him.

my porsche

01-08-2007, 04:14 PM

That isn't what has damaged the level of respect the rest of us have for him.
To me, at least it's his amazing mastery of anything and everything, or his halleucinations of that anyway.

Rockefella

01-08-2007, 05:10 PM

I started reading Drakkie's opening post to this thread and was waiting for something like "but we all know how America this and that..". Yep, I was right. FFS Drakkie, I'm not a fan of my nation's wartime agenda, but, c'mon!

Coventrysucks

01-08-2007, 05:49 PM

Mr.Tiv

01-08-2007, 06:10 PM

This is an interesting thread.

I do find it quite curious that the only people so-far moved to express their irritation at the "anti-Americanism" appear to be from the North American continent...

I'm sure you'd be just as vocal if he were being anti-Iclandic too, though. Really.

Anyway - the entire world hates America - didn't you know? :rolleyes:

And despite all of the good things that come from your country, people are more inclined to remember that time you offended their religion/race by with some vile injustice, than all those excellent episodes of Friends, or "coca-cola"*.

A man can only take so many snide comments about clogs and windmills, and ignorance of his above-average stature before he goes on the offensive!

Seeing as how most of the negative opinion of the USA is caused by idiots from your country - FDR, Bush, Tom Cruise, Britney Spears, Lindsay England - you get the picture, why not do something about them, rather than complaining about idiots from other countries who were complaining about your idiots in the first place?
Most people, no matter how much they disagree with the administration in power, will not take kindly to seemingly blind disdain for the nation from which they hail. Would you be suprised if a member made anti-semetic remarks and the most offended people were Jewish?

I have to say Matt has pretty much covered why this is so irritating, so I won't bother to repeat him. I will readily agree that America has produced her fair share of morons, but any country as populous as the US would-why judge all of us and the country we call home based on a few idiots and some absolutely horrible mistakes.

ruim20

01-08-2007, 06:35 PM

Coventrysucks

01-08-2007, 06:38 PM

Most people, no matter how much they disagree with the administration in power, will not take kindly to seemingly blind disdain for the nation from which they hail.

Only because "most people" are incomprehensibly moronic.

What does it matter to you if someone doesn't like your country? Do government agents come to your house and beat you every time a foreign national complains about foreign policy?

Quick! Defend the honour of the millions of people you don't know against the other millions of people you don't know but who are the other side of an arbitrarily-devised, imaginary-line!

That's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

Rockefella

01-08-2007, 06:49 PM

This is an interesting thread.

I do find it quite curious that the only people so-far moved to express their irritation at the "anti-Americanism" appear to be from the North American continent...

I'm sure you'd be just as vocal if he were being anti-Iclandic too, though. Really.

Anyway - the entire world hates America - didn't you know? :rolleyes:

And despite all of the good things that come from your country, people are more inclined to remember that time you offended their religion/race by with some vile injustice, than all those excellent episodes of Friends, or "coca-cola"*.

A man can only take so many snide comments about clogs and windmills, and ignorance of his above-average stature before he goes on the offensive!

Seeing as how most of the negative opinion of the USA is caused by idiots from your country - FDR, Bush, Tom Cruise, Britney Spears, Lindsay England - you get the picture, why not do something about them, rather than complaining about idiots from other countries who were complaining about your idiots in the first place?

* Although, I count both of those as a "vile injustice" - which just goes to show that you can't win.
Sure, it seems like we're screaming bloody murder because we're freedom loving, obese, Bush-lovers, not. I'll be the first one to say that I dislike Bush's reign, and that I'm against the Republican demeanor. But my only qualm is people like Drakkie who post threads like this with the blatant purpose of riling up conflict.

In another point you brought up:

Seeing as how most of the negative opinion of the USA is caused by idiots from your country - FDR, Bush, Tom Cruise, Britney Spears, Lindsay England - you get the picture, why not do something about them, rather than complaining about idiots from other countries who were complaining about your idiots in the first place?

What the hell are lowly citizens like myself, Matt, or Mr. Tiv supposed to do? Assassinate them? They get bashed in the media, we bash 'em on the internet, hell, we hate them. It's practically impossible for a young guy like myself to do anything about it.

Matt

01-08-2007, 06:51 PM

Only because "most people" are incomprehensibly moronic.

I think you missed the "blind disdain" part of his statement. Morons would not have a problem with blind disdain. Intelligent, logical and fair people would have a problem with blind disdain regardless of what subject said blind disdain happens to be directed.

Matt

01-08-2007, 06:54 PM

Why not say that USA has a "lying, vicious, capable of doing anything to get what they want" goverment? Isn't that what they've show us for so many years? Why the hell should we keep quiet and shut up about it?

I'm scared that one day my little country has something the US needs, and we all know what would happen! i bet we would somehow grow "weapons of mass destruction" in hour back yards or something!

How dare you defend that kind of politic! It's imoral! people die, three thousand of your one died away from home, doing something that not even them understood, even i know my goverment is croked and lies all the time, somtimes what i see on the news or read in the paper makes me ashame to live here. I don't understand how can you still be supporting such a lie and infamy to the hole world. It thrully sadens me.

How dare you misinterpret and twist the statements in this thread! It's immoral (notice the correct spelling)!

No one here is defending the actions of the administration. We are saying that anti-Americanism because of what an administration temporarily in power is doing is unfair and wrong. Keep in mind that only 51% of this country voted into office the current administration. Keep in mind that in the last Congressional election the electorate overwhelmingly rebuffed the policies of the administration. Please, think before you post and try for a tiny second to figure out where previous posters are coming from before you fly off the handle.

Matt

01-08-2007, 06:55 PM

Seeing as how most of the negative opinion of the USA is caused by idiots from your country - FDR, Bush, Tom Cruise, Britney Spears, Lindsay England - you get the picture, why not do something about them, rather than complaining about idiots from other countries who were complaining about your idiots in the first place?

Can you personally do anything about the negative press that comes from your country? Can you control the mass population of your country? I didn't think so. Don't expect us to, either.

Mr.Tiv

01-08-2007, 06:59 PM

There is nothing more to say except that, once again, Matt has said precisely what I wanted to, just a good deal more concisely than I would have.

Fleet 500

01-08-2007, 07:18 PM

Why not say that USA has a "lying, vicious, capable of doing anything to get what they want" goverment?

Why not say it? Because it's not true.

I'm scared that one day my little country has something the US needs, and we all know what would happen!

Yeah, like there's really something in your little country the U.S. would want. ;)

i bet we would somehow grow "weapons of mass destruction" in hour back yards or something!

A real "intelligent" comment. :rolleyes:

kingofthering

01-08-2007, 08:10 PM

Ok, as a fat, emo, gun loving American, blaming America's being the cool thing.
Yes, I agree under the Bush admin. we've gone from a superpower to dictatorship in a war that we created, but c'mon, it's not like Europe's perfect, although we did screw up the Middle East....

My turn.
Ok, I think the US has turned into a dictatorship where everyone has no privacy and the freedom speech/press has gone because the terrorists will want to control the propaganda in these times of war. Now they can open your mail if they suspect terrorism.

Fleet 500

01-08-2007, 09:57 PM

Hopefully, you're joking, "King."
The U.S. isn't any more a dictatorship now than during Clinton's two terms.

And I certainly hope you're joking about "no privacy" or "freedom of speech," and they can "open your mail." Where did you get that from? Lol.

But, again, you are of course joking.

Cyco

01-08-2007, 10:01 PM

He isn't, Fleet

Fleet 500

01-08-2007, 10:24 PM

Then everything he claimed is completely wrong! There must be a full moon outside. ;)

drakkie

01-09-2007, 12:52 AM

First of all I am not against the US people.

The leaders they elected though DO execute a policy I dont agree with. I dont agree with our Dutch politics either. But to post about Dutch politics,about which about 20 people on the forum might know, is not worth the effort :) And at the moment I find US policy much worse :o

It's practically impossible for a young guy like myself to do anything about it.

They seemed to find a way in the Vietnam era. Perhaps get into a party you agree with and fight for your ideas. I was thinking very seriously about joining local politics, I didnt and regret it now :o Especially as a young guy,you have a chance ! You dont have much to lose,right ?

There are a dozen ways,find them out !

Good luck.

drakkie

01-09-2007, 01:00 AM

Then everything he claimed is completely wrong! There must be a full moon outside. ;)

He aint wrong. For example airlines have major problems on flights to the US. For all we might know, the CIA might be looking for your adress now ! they have been given the right to arrest you, for your posts on the internet :) Atleast in the EU they have been given only partial rights. Not ideal,but atleast better :o Hell, it sounds like the communist prosecutions back in the days..

Ill end my post now,because else i might sound anti-us again :D

I just find the government has no right to infiringe your privacy.If it is the Dutch government,the US or the whateverstan's ;)

henk4

01-09-2007, 01:32 AM

OK, chaps, if I had found that video (but I am not a u-tube fanatic) I might have made the same post as Drakkie. His hints to US lies in the past do not sound like full blood american hatred, because we have seen a few US lies regarding the Iraqi question, one of the most shocking ones being the performance of former state secretary Powell in front of a UN audience.

What he lawyer has to say is unlikely but cannot be dismissed completely. The whole interview obviously took place before the execution of Saddam, so it is all water under the bridge, but for instance I would like to hear Rumsfeld's rendering of the meeting the lawyer claimed he had with Saddam.

So probably based on this post I will probably be lambasted by some of you as a notorious and blind anti-american but let it be then that way:)

Rockefella

01-09-2007, 01:34 AM

They seemed to find a way in the Vietnam era. Perhaps get into a party you agree with and fight for your ideas. I was thinking very seriously about joining local politics, I didnt and regret it now :o Especially as a young guy,you have a chance ! You dont have much to lose,right ?

There are a dozen ways,find them out !
Good luck.
It's not that simple. One voice won't change much, unless I showed up at the Capitol Building with a rocket launcher and a mission. Then I'd get arrested. It's strength in numbers that worked during Vietnam, and as you quoted, "I'm just one guy", and one guy can't do much.

henk4

01-09-2007, 01:36 AM

It's not that simple. One voice won't change much, unless I showed up at the Capitol Building with a rocket launcher and a mission. Then I'd get arrested. It's strength in numbers that worked during Vietnam, and as you quoted, "I'm just one guy", and one guy can't do much.

no, but if one guy does not stand up, nobody will. BTW, remember the one guy on the Tianamen Square in Beijing?

Fleet 500

01-09-2007, 01:37 AM

I just find the government has no right to infiringe your privacy.If it is the Dutch government,the US or the whateverstan's ;)
Would you explain exactly how how the U.S. government is "infringing" on my privacy?

henk4

01-09-2007, 01:39 AM

Would you explain exactly how how the U.S. government is "infringing" on my privacy?

that is why the services are called "secret":D

Fleet 500

01-09-2007, 01:40 AM

He aint wrong. For example airlines have major problems on flights to the US. For all we might know, the CIA might be looking for your adress now ! they have been given the right to arrest you, for your posts on the internet :)
You are the one who has major problems (in the lack of ability of making rational posts)! :)

Fleet 500

01-09-2007, 01:42 AM

that is why the services are called "secret":D
The whole claim of "loss of privacy" is ridiculous, of course. The last U.S. administration (Clinton) was doing exactly the same thing (wiretapping overseas calls).
It's just another example of "blame Bush for everything."

henk4

01-09-2007, 01:45 AM

The whole claim of "loss of privacy" is ridiculous, of course. The last U.S. administration (Clinton) was doing exactly the same thing (wiretapping overseas calls).

so here you implicitly admit that your privacy is being breached:D

Ingolstadt

01-09-2007, 02:08 AM

You guys staying in the western hemisphere need not worry that much, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark etc .... I stay in Malaysia, a Muslim country where i dunno what can i do if the US suddenly sent a Nimitz class carrier and claim that we're developing nuclear weapons, then bomb us...

although i know its quite impossible... (hopefully) as these things wouldn't have cross my mind when i watch Beyond 2000 back in the 80s and dreaming life in y2k would be a peace, war-less world, with no famine, cure for HIV.... however.... things ain't so optimistic as it seems, youngsters in Iraq who watched Armageddon and drink Pepsi under Saddams reign never have thought of how their country ended up as well....

It seems and sounds absurd when a kid in the 21st century could at the same time play PS2, and was slaughtered the next day. But hell, it happened. What wouldn't?

Rockefella

01-09-2007, 02:56 AM

no, but if one guy does not stand up, nobody will. BTW, remember the one guy on the Tianamen Square in Beijing?
True, but I was expecting someone to contradict me w/ an example. This one I couldn't remember but I google'd it and you're right, one man can make a difference, but it's not going to be easy.

henk4

01-09-2007, 03:04 AM

True, but I was expecting someone to contradict me w/ an example. This one I couldn't remember but I google'd it and you're right, one man can make a difference, but it's not going to be easy.

but it should also not be used by everybody as an easy excuse to do nothing.

Matra et Alpine

01-09-2007, 03:26 AM

Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle merite.
Josephe de Maistre 1811

Daz27

01-09-2007, 03:35 AM

I still havent watched the video yet, because straight away I noticed that drakkie was being bashed for bashing the yanks. Theres no way known that I am goin to stand here on a sopabox and say how bad the americans are etc etc. What I am going to say is that I wish they didnt have this stupid 2 term rule. If that were the case, Bill would still be in charge and we'd still be carrying on over another impeachment proceeding. Times were so much simpler then. But then I guess 911 would still have happened and there would have bee some kind of retribution dished out. But I would bet it wouldnt have been the typical texan all guns a blazing shoot em dead and ask questions later style like it has been with the current administration. I just hope, that afetr the next election there, that they get a person in power that a) has electrical activity nth of the neck and b) that person finds a way to unify their country, change the worlds sour view of their country and abdicates to give Bill Clinton another go cos I liked him. Have just heard Bush has bombed Somalia. What the **** would you want to bomb Somalia for?????

henk4

01-09-2007, 03:37 AM

Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle merite.
Josephe de Maistre 1811

spoken as a true democrat...:)

henk4

01-09-2007, 03:40 AM

Have just heard Bush has bombed Somalia. What the **** would you want to bomb Somalia for?????

The Americans are still searching for the people responsible for the bombing of the US embassies in Kenia and Tanzania. Now that the islamic government in Mogadiscio has been "removed" they feel free to start searching more "actively" in the southern parts of Somalia where islamic strongholds may still exist. The americans have been given a base in Djibouti (French controlled) at the southern entrance of the Red Sea.

Daz27

01-09-2007, 03:43 AM

This whole thing is basically the crusades all over again. Christian V Muslim. Its Bullshit ppl.

Coventrysucks

01-09-2007, 03:46 AM

Can you personally do anything about the negative press that comes from your country?

I don't care about any negative press about "my country".

Why do you about yours?

Don't expect us to, either.

So, you care a fair bit about the reputation of your country, yet expect to uphold that reputation against any criticism by doing nothing except asking the critics to stop?

nota

01-09-2007, 04:06 AM

Have just heard Bush has bombed Somalia. What the **** would you want to bomb Somalia for?????
'Ethiopia's paranoid fantasies have come together with the US Government's'

http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/bm/columns/595599.html

Daz27

01-09-2007, 05:29 AM

The US administration are a total bunch of wankers. END OF STORY

ruim20

01-09-2007, 05:43 AM

The US administration are a total bunch of wankers. END OF STORY

More like bankers...

Anyway, i was radical, as Matt pointed out. I still feel you guys (americans) haven't quite "seen" the true effects of your administration in the world and even on your own land.

jorismo

01-09-2007, 05:45 AM

Have just heard Bush has bombed Somalia. What the **** would you want to bomb Somalia for?????

From what I heard: there are some people suspected to work for Al Qaeda and now the US troops are blowing half of Somalia away... All this because of an attack at some US embassies back in 1998. FTR: that's almost 10 years ago...

Daz27

01-09-2007, 06:03 AM

Exactly, apart from the families of the victims, Who gives a ****???

Matt

01-09-2007, 07:34 AM

More like bankers...

Anyway, i was radical, as Matt pointed out. I still feel you guys (americans) haven't quite "seen" the true effects of your administration in the world and even on your own land.

If the Presidential elections had been held anytime in the last two years, Bush would be out of office. The Congressional elections showed that the American people are overwhelmingly against the administration policies, especially on Iraq. Every news poll shows that the American public is very much disappointed and even outraged at the way the war has been conducted. There are protests against the war and against Bush. There have been ever since his first election and well into his second term. There were even massive protests at his innaugural parade. There is more negative news about the Iraq war here than there is wherever you are, believe me. This is not a happy country right now. This is not a proud country. But, we have what we have and we know it's short-term. Cut us some slack.

Matt

01-09-2007, 07:37 AM

I don't care about any negative press about "my country".

Why do you about yours?

Reputable negative press I don't care about. Ignorant, poorly-focused and biased negative press I care about, as a journalism student and as a decent human being.

So, you care a fair bit about the reputation of your country, yet expect to uphold that reputation against any criticism by doing nothing except asking the critics to stop?

I'm asking the critics who make obviously ignorant and biased comments to stop. It makes them look a lot worse than us.

drakkie

01-09-2007, 09:27 AM

I'm asking the critics who make obviously ignorant and biased comments to stop. It makes them look a lot worse than us.

You want me with my still not too good vocabulary of english to write a very poorly written book ? My posts might lack a bit in the informational side, simpy because i can put it to words properly.

However calling me uninformed might be a bit off. I watch documentaries,read newspaper articles and many more about these matters. All from respected and mostly neutral sources (BBC,Dutch national tv,NRC Handelsblad paper, AD and plenty more). I also have contact with a Iraqi family and a dutch ex-soldier who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. They told things quite different from mainstream media. Overall, i dont think i am uninformed in this case.

Ignorant ? Not much i'd say.Atleast i try to also view both sides. One side mostly consists of propaganda though :o Biased ? Obviously. But what made me become biased ? Think about that and you'll realise the cause of all this behaviour by so many.

drakkie

01-09-2007, 10:30 AM

Would you explain exactly how how the U.S. government is "infringing" on my privacy?

For example the Inet providers must supply the government with all their customers data.The need to provide all moves made by them and all pages visited,with complete data. They can basically track almost all your moves.

IIRC they can tap any phone they want without ever needing some judge's approval (not 100% sure).

and many more.

Luckily the EU denied them acces,which they were demanding.

Edit:
Read this stuff and you'll a bit know more about it.
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf

Matt

01-09-2007, 11:28 AM

For example the Inet providers must supply the government with all their customers data.The need to provide all moves made by them and all pages visited,with complete data. They can basically track almost all your moves.

IIRC they can tap any phone they want without ever needing some judge's approval (not 100% sure).

and many more.

Luckily the EU denied them acces,which they were demanding.

Edit:
Read this stuff and you'll a bit know more about it.
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf

When I'm talking about ignorance, I'm talking about this. The government has not demanded the records from any ISP. They have requested them and MOST of the providers have handed them over with no complaints. True, about the phone tapping. This was done with no congressional permission or oversight. It also looks as if the actions will be found to be unconstitutional and illegal.

drakkie

01-09-2007, 11:43 AM

When I'm talking about ignorance, I'm talking about this. The government has not demanded the records from any ISP. They have requested them and MOST of the providers have handed them over with no complaints. True, about the phone tapping. This was done with no congressional permission or oversight. It also looks as if the actions will be found to be unconstitutional and illegal.

Well if I am reading the patriot act thingy it seems to me,that they were kind of forced to. They would have gotten sued or something otherwise :o If i am wrong, please quote the correct sentence. If possible explain it a bit,my english aint to good with these difficult words.They rarely pop-up on school ;)

And IIRC they DID demand them of the European providers.They just didnt give them and the EU defended them.

man 430gt

01-09-2007, 01:18 PM

bahahaha

Have you not noticed that almost everything he has posted lately is anti-US oriented material?
I have not really Keeping track of his post lately, don't really do that with anyone..:o

As for everyone saying how he's soo anti-american, who cares? Be you business and avoid the thread give your opinion on material posted, just don't bring it back to the member sharing it..

How about that to agree on?

Fleet 500

01-09-2007, 01:50 PM

True, about the phone tapping. This was done with no congressional permission or oversight. It also looks as if the actions will be found to be unconstitutional and illegal.
Actually, Congress knew about and approved it. It is perfectly legal because the president has executive privilege and also has the War Act to go by.
It is nowhere near being unconstitutional and/or illegal. Not at all.

Fleet 500

01-09-2007, 01:54 PM

so here you implicitly admit that your privacy is being breached:D
Nope. During a time of war, certain things are allowed. Wiretaps, in conjunction with the Patriot Act, has prevented at least a half-dozen terrorist acts.
Do I put the safety of the country above the privacy of overseas phone calls? Most definitely!

henk4

01-09-2007, 01:56 PM

Nope. During a time of war, certain things are allowed. Wiretaps, in conjunction with the Patriot Act, has prevented at least a half-dozen terrorist acts.
Do I put the safety of the country above the privacy of overseas phone calls? Most definitely!

so under Clinton you were also already at war?

Mr.Tiv

01-09-2007, 01:59 PM

Fleet 500

01-09-2007, 01:59 PM

For example the Inet providers must supply the government with all their customers data.The need to provide all moves made by them and all pages visited,with complete data. They can basically track almost all your moves.

Matt already answered this for me.

IIRC they can tap any phone they want without ever needing some judge's approval (not 100% sure).

and many more.

You're right; you're not sure. They don't need a judge's approval because many times they don't know if a call they are tapping will reveal any useful information. They can't ask for a judge's approval for every single (thousands) of phone calls!

So what are the "many more?"

Fleet 500

01-09-2007, 02:02 PM

so under Clinton you were also already at war?
No, and that's the point. These things were done under Clinton when we weren't at war; they are now being done under Bush when we are. And all I hear are dummies (not you) calling Bush "Hitler," "idiot," "criminal" or whatever.

There have been terrorist attacks in this country (9/11, of course)... I want the government to do what is necessary to prevent another one, whether it's by wiretaps, checking emails, whatever.

henk4

01-09-2007, 02:04 PM

No, and that's the point. These things were done under Clinton when we weren't at war; they are now being done under Bush when we are. And all I hear are dummies (not you) calling Bush "Hitler," "idiot," "criminal" or whatever.

There have been terrorist attacks in this country (9/11, of course)... I want the government to do what is necessary to prevent another one, whether it's by wiretaps, checking emails, whatever.

so the practice had been going on long before 9/11....and still 9/11 could not be prevented. Is that what you are saying?

Mr.Tiv

01-09-2007, 02:07 PM

so the practice had been going on long before 9/11....and still 9/11 could not be prevented. Is that what you are saying?
That sounds fair.

henk4

01-09-2007, 02:10 PM

That sounds fair.

was it intensified after 9/11?

Mr.Tiv

01-09-2007, 02:10 PM

was it intensified after 9/11?
Most likely, I'm not sure of that, though.

To be honest, as an American, who has seen the NSA hq, I am scared to death of the NSA. Massive windowless black boxes are very imposing. I don't agree with it's existance or it's methods. It's in my home state, and it has it's own exit/entrance for I-95 which is guarded by a four state police officeres 24/7(2 cars 2 officers each).

henk4

01-09-2007, 02:12 PM

Most likely, I'm not sure of that, though.

"secret" service:D

Mr.Tiv

01-09-2007, 02:15 PM

"secret" service:D
National "Security" Agency. America's FSB.

henk4

01-09-2007, 02:16 PM

National "Security" Agency.
and over 30 other "security" services:)

Fleet 500

01-09-2007, 02:25 PM

so the practice had been going on long before 9/11....and still 9/11 could not be prevented. Is that what you are saying?
It could not be prevented because Clinton created the stupid "Torricelli Principle." It banned obtaining information from former terrorists and other criminals, which led to a large part of the CIA's and FBI's information drying up.

Fleet 500

01-09-2007, 03:05 PM

What I am going to say is that I wish they didnt have this stupid 2 term rule. If that were the case, Bill would still be in charge and we'd still be carrying on over another impeachment proceeding.

Yeah, if Bill were still in charge, there was be terrorist attacks continuing and he would be doing little or nothing about it. Just like he did in the '90s.

But I would bet it wouldnt have been the typical texan all guns a blazing shoot em dead and ask questions later style like it has been with the current administration.

Yeah, guns blazing, shoot-'em-dead and ask questions later, even though Iraq was invaded almost 1 and 1/2 years after the 9/11 attacks and Bush had Congressional approval which Clinton didn't have went he ordered many of his attacks in foreign countries. I guess Clinton is even more of a "guns blazing" type of guy, even though he isn't from Texas. ;)

and abdicates to give Bill Clinton another go cos I liked him.

You can have him. He did enough damage in 8 years.

nota

01-09-2007, 05:52 PM

If the Presidential elections had been held anytime in the last two years, Bush would be out of office. The Congressional elections showed that the American people are overwhelmingly against the administration policies, especially on Iraq. Every news poll shows that the American public is very much disappointed and even outraged at the way the war has been conducted. There are protests against the war and against Bush. There have been ever since his first election and well into his second term. There were even massive protests at his innaugural parade. There is more negative news about the Iraq war here than there is wherever you are, believe me. This is not a happy country right now. This is not a proud country. But, we have what we have and we know it's short-term. Cut us some slack.
Matt you're an intelligent & decent guy. What would you rate as the main reason why US public opinion has turned against the war?

Is it because of an outward looking view, ie:

Embarrassment for US Govt lies paraded to the world as false justification to wage a 9/11 war against a non 9/11 third party
Abhorrence of the (initial & continuing) mass slaughter imposed upon the Iraqi people
Shame over US war crimes, including Abu Ghriab & Guantanamo etc
Regret at causing the virtual destruction a country
Guilt for usurping Iraqi oil assets

or moreso viewed in internal US terms:

Cost to US prestige & international standing
Cost to the US taxpayer
Cost in US lives
Growing realisation that the US has lost the war

From afar it seems to belong to the latter group, and particularly the last item

Overall, going to war against Iraq was widely supported in the US. America needed a target. It was a bipartisan decision backed by both Republican and Democrat, and majority electoral support enabled Iraqi-George to be voted in again, to continue the policy. Those tasty freedom fries (cooked in foreign oil) were too tempting to refuse. It seems only since the recent domestic realisation of US Defeat has there been the major opinion-shift you speak of, with America now viewed from within as a tragic 'victim of itself' .. whilst the calamity in and of Iraq still fails to register within US conciousness, nor apparently does the culpability

In the broad it's hard to accept Iraq as some kind of unrepresentative US abberation; rather it is merely a continuation of the long tradition of American realpolitik: eg inteference, subterfuge, oppression, puppet govts, regime change, war mongering, Imperialism

Jack_Bauer

01-09-2007, 06:22 PM

Is it because of an outward looking view, ie:

Embarrassment for US Govt lies paraded to the world as false justification to wage a 9/11 war against a non 9/11 third party
Abhorrence of the (initial & continuing) mass slaughter imposed upon the Iraqi people
Shame over US war crimes, including Abu Ghriab & Guantanamo etc
Regret at causing the virtual destruction a country
Guilt for usurping Iraqi oil assets

or moreso viewed in internal US terms:

Cost to US prestige & international standing
Cost to the US taxpayer
Cost in US lives
Growing realisation that the US has lost the war

From afar it seems to belong to the latter group, and particularly the last item

Well from this here "afar" (ie the UK) I would concur that the latter group is certainly prominent, but perhaps I'm not quite so cynical about Americans as you are. ;) I'd also say that points 1 and 3 from the first group were also hugely important in swaying public opinion against the war. America likes to see itself as the righteous up-holder of international justice, and its armed forces as agents of that justice. I think that to publicly see that both the government and sections of the armed forces had actually gotten their hands very dirty indeed over the whole Iraq shambles was an enormous shock for the majority of the American public. Their faith in their country being the worthy arbiter of international justice and liberal democracy has been shaken to the core by the shameful actions and revelations of the past 5 years.

That's how I see it from here in Blighty anyway, maybe Matt or other Americans of the forum may disagree...

Fleet 500

01-09-2007, 06:57 PM

Embarrassment for US Govt lies paraded to the world as false justification to wage a 9/11 war against a non 9/11 third party

Enough with that false claim. Many other governments made the same claims as the U.S. government. It wasn't a "lie."

In the broad it's hard to accept Iraq as some kind of unrepresentative US abberation; rather it is merely a continuation of the long tradition of American realpolitik: eg inteference, subterfuge, oppression, puppet govts, regime change, war mongering, Imperialism

Enough of that, too... making claims of the U.S. "war mongering" and "imperialism" is ridiculous. If it were true, we would have occupied and taken over Kuwait back in 1991 and went into Iraq and done the same thing.

IWantAnAudiRS6

01-09-2007, 07:08 PM

Enough with that false claim. Many other governments made the same claims as the U.S. government. It wasn't a "lie."
Slightly sweeping statement there. Might want to review that...

Enough of that, too... making claims of the U.S. "war mongering" and "imperialism" is ridiculous. If it were true, we would have occupied and taken over Kuwait back in 1991 and went into Iraq and done the same thing.
Bush described himself as a "war president".

And has it occurred to you that maybe you're not that great as a nation of arms? Or did you forget that you got soundly beaten by a bunch of midgets in straw hats back in the '60s and '70s? No, wait a minute... they don't actually teach that in schools anymore... :rolleyes:

Contrary to Hollywood, you can lose things.

Sorry.

Fleet 500

01-09-2007, 07:27 PM

Slightly sweeping statement there. Might want to review that...

I have reviewed it. Many times over the last several years.

Bush described himself as a "war president".

He did... but only after 9/11.

And has it occurred to you that maybe you're not that great as a nation of arms? Or did you forget that you got soundly beaten by a bunch of midgets in straw hats back in the '60s and '70s? No, wait a minute... they don't actually teach that in schools anymore... :rolleyes:

The U.S. didn't "lose" in Vietnam... we had won every battle. The people in Vietnam didn't want to help free their country from Communism; that was the main problem.

The_Canuck

01-09-2007, 07:42 PM

The U.S. didn't "lose" in Vietnam... we had won every battle. Yeah Just like 1812...:rolleyes:

:D :p

Coventrysucks

01-09-2007, 07:42 PM

Yeah, if Bill were still in charge, there was be terrorist attacks continuing and he would be doing little or nothing about it. Just like he did in the '90s.

Clinton was bad because he was too passive.

I guess Clinton is even more of a "guns blazing" type of guy, even though he isn't from Texas. ;)

Clinton was bad because he was too belligerent.

Perhaps Clinton did "nothing" about terrorism because he had the intelligence to understand that you cannot "defeat" terrorism, no more than you could defeat "romance", "jumping" or even "Wednesday".

The cause of terrorism is not a lack of armed patrols of towns and villages across the Middle East - so how can that be a solution?

The cause of terrorism is not British holiday makers - so how is it a solution to insist on invasive background checks into people's Credit Card records, Passport records, Email accounts, fingerprinting and retinal scans just to get to DisneyLand?

Terrorism as a threat to any person's personal safety is grossly overestimated anyway.

Consider that approximately 3000 people died on 11/9/01 due to terrorism in the USA - or 0.00001% of the population.

Consider that there were no large scale terrorist attacks in America for the 5 years preceding or following 11/09/01 (unless I've forgotten anything), making the average yearly death toll due to terrorism for the decade 0.000001% of the population per year.

40,000 deaths per year are caused by road accidents in the USA - you are over a hundred times more likely to be killed by a car than a terrorist, yet are people clamouring to have their car keys taken from them to prevent possible accidents in the way some seem keen to have their liberties taken away to save them from a terrorist attack that wouldn't happen anyway?

Logic surrenders.

nota

01-09-2007, 07:48 PM

Thanks for your input Jack :)

I'd also say that points 1 and 3 from the first group were also hugely important in swaying public opinion against the war. America likes to see itself ..
To explore .. from my observations (via TV & press reports, what US politicians tout, and internet reflections expressed by Americans etc) one gains the unavoidable impression that Americans are generally oblivious to the awful Iraqi sufferings, which have been imposed by America. It's like "gee look at that Arab, his head is blown clear off!" or "yuk, look how those uncivilised 3rd world'ers jabber hysterically at funerals" or "geez what a shithole" rather than any real sense of empathy towards the REAL victims

For those victims of US policy there appears a dispassionate US disconnect, while the overwhelming focus - and sympathy - belongs almost exclusively toward those comparitively miniscule US casualties

Conversely the horrific ongoing loss of Iraqi life and massive destruction therein fails to register, and is largely ignored or rates almost as an afterthought, at best - being of no real consequence or import to the American psyche at large

Kinda like the japanese 'loss of face' where you can only see reflections of a mirror, never through & beyond ..

Fleet 500

01-09-2007, 08:35 PM

Clinton was bad because he was too passive.

I agree.

Perhaps Clinton did "nothing" about terrorism because he had the intelligence to understand that you cannot "defeat" terrorism, no more than you could defeat "romance", "jumping" or even "Wednesday".

Doing nothing about terrorism allows it to flourish.

Terrorism as a threat to any person's personal safety is grossly overestimated anyway.

Consider that approximately 3000 people died on 11/9/01 due to terrorism in the USA - or 0.00001% of the population.

Consider that there were no large scale terrorist attacks in America for the 5 years preceding or following 11/09/01 (unless I've forgotten anything), making the average yearly death toll due to terrorism for the decade 0.000001% of the population per year.

40,000 deaths per year are caused by road accidents in the USA - you are over a hundred times more likely to be killed by a car than a terrorist, yet are people clamouring to have their car keys taken from them to prevent possible accidents in the way some seem keen to have their liberties taken away to save them from a terrorist attack that wouldn't happen anyway?

Logic surrenders

You call that "logic?" Trying to equate car accidents with terrorism?

IBrake4Rainbows

01-09-2007, 09:46 PM

I agree.

As do I. I honestly don't think he has any relevance in this argument, however.

Doing nothing about terrorism allows it to flourish.

Overdoing it does just the same thing. you can have apathy which leads to hate, but also overbearing.

You call that "logic?" Trying to equate car accidents with terrorism?

He's pointing out the banality of the fear associated with the word, it's connotations and how the fear it creates has been exploited to have further reaching effects than it should. people don't live there life thinking they're going to die in a car crash everyday, but there is more chance that they will die in one than a terrorist attack. And yet if you asked people what they were more afraid of they'd say Terrorist attack.

I recently read a poll which listed only 34% of people believe Dick Cheney is doing a good job as president. but over 50% of those same people believe there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Obviously those 16% or so are clueless to what he's doing, Him and the Administration. They're fantastic at their job, but what they choose to do with their abilities frightens me - they play on the worst political trick - Fear - to get what they want. people are scared of a threat which is very, very small.

its just not in perspective. and not in proportion.

Quiggs

01-09-2007, 09:53 PM

only 34% of people believe Dick Cheney is doing a good job as president.
I knew it all along! http://www.vwvortex.com/zeroforum_graphics/biggrin_upper.gif

IBrake4Rainbows

01-09-2007, 09:55 PM

Well.....crap. Or perhaps I'm being ironic :p

*Dick Cheney Is doing a good job at being Vice President.

drakkie

01-10-2007, 01:20 AM

Doing nothing about terrorism allows it to flourish

but atleast you dont start new hatred by young people like me. As you might know, they are usually quite passionate about things. The horrific actions by the Americans globally,just feed their hatred... Doing nothing,slowly makes them develop instead of letting it flourish.

And the "war on terrorism" is not a war folks ! It is just a propaganda thing. The government created fear, fooled the politicians too. Just a few thousand deaths in Iraq are the result.

And no, i wouldnt want to give up my privacy, for any "war". If I would be living in the USA i would have emigrated elsewhere when able.

henk4

01-10-2007, 01:20 AM

The U.S. didn't "lose" in Vietnam... we had won every battle. The people in Vietnam didn't want to help free their country from Communism; that was the main problem.

I think we are seeing the same problem in Iraq. The people don't want to be helped to free themselves from whatever it is they are having there......

BTW, I will already nominate the above for the most stupid post of 2007 on this forum. I can hardly imagine somebody is going to beat this one...

Fleet 500

01-10-2007, 01:26 AM

He's pointing out the banality of the fear associated with the word, it's connotations and how the fear it creates has been exploited to have further reaching effects than it should. people don't live there life thinking they're going to die in a car crash everyday, but there is more chance that they will die in one than a terrorist attack. And yet if you asked people what they were more afraid of they'd say Terrorist attack.

Overdoing fighting terrorism? Would you prefer we just sit back and not do anything about it?

It's still irrelevant trying to compare auto accidents with terrorist acts. One terrorist act usually kills a lot more people than one auto accident. And an idividual can usually prevent an auto accident by practicing defensive driving. An individual can't effectively prevent a terrorist attack.

nota

01-10-2007, 01:30 AM

henk4

01-10-2007, 01:33 AM

Overdoing fighting terrorism? Would you prefer we just sit back and not do anything about it?

It's still irrelevant trying to compare auto accidents with terrorist acts. One terrorist act usually kills a lot more people than one auto accident. And an idividual can usually prevent an auto accident by practicing defensive driving. An individual can't effectively prevent a terrorist attack.

I think you should sit down and start thinking what "terrorism" actually is. How does it come about? It is a self generating/self propelled machinery? It is action or reaction? You will probably call every act aimed at undermining the global position of the USA "terrorism" but did you ever try to put yourself in the position of others?

Maybe you have heard of an SF writer named Harry Harrison. About 40 ago he wrote a book called "death planet", which is about a planet on which an "earth" expedition has just set foot and to create a base they destroy/remove some local growth to make sufficient room. What happens is that the ecology of the planet allows the plants and animal to mutate in such a fast way that they start fighting back, and everytime the people think they killed them off sufficiently nature came back with new tricks. In the end they have to abandon the planet.... think about that and see the analogy with terrorism. I am sure the leader of that expedition would have called those plants and animals terrorists:)

Edit: The title of the book is "Deathworld" and it was originally published in 1960 by Bantam Books.

Fleet 500

01-10-2007, 01:34 AM

but atleast you dont start new hatred by young people like me. As you might know, they are usually quite passionate about things. The horrific actions by the Americans globally,just feed their hatred... Doing nothing,slowly makes them develop instead of letting it flourish.

Hatred is always going to be around. Interesting you make a claim of "horrific" actions by the Americans globally, yet ignore the actions of terrorists worldwide which are the real horrific acts.

And the "war on terrorism" is not a war folks ! It is just a propaganda thing. The government created fear, fooled the politicians too. Just a few thousand deaths in Iraq are the result.

Are you for real? Was there a terrorist attack in the U.S. on 9/11 or not? The government didn't "create" fear, the terrorists did. A "propaganda" thing? I think you are posting on this subject just to entertain me!

And no, i wouldnt want to give up my privacy, for any "war". If I would be living in the USA i would have emigrated elsewhere when able.

This is just as much a "war" as it was after Pearl Harbor was attacked. And I haven't given up and of my privacy that I know of. Neither has anyone I know. You are like many in the U.S. who won't understand until the next terrorist attack happens in the U.S. (which hopefully won't). Of course, then all they will say is that Bush didn't do enough and he should have done something about the terrorists hiding in this country.

Fleet 500

01-10-2007, 01:35 AM

Imagine the absolute gall of those ungrateful Vietnamese in refusing America's kind attempts to assist, as both they and nearby countries got carpet-bombed & poisoned almost back to the stone age courtesy of USA largesse
Don't forget the 1 million+ Vietnamese who were slaughtered after the U.S. left. They should have cooperated with the U.S.- they would have been much better off.

clutch-monkey

01-10-2007, 01:36 AM

Maybe you have heard of an SF writer named Harry Harrison. About 40 ago he wrote a book called "death planet"
off topic: that is a great book. and so are his other books.

Fleet 500

01-10-2007, 01:39 AM

I think you should sit down and start thinking what "terrorism" actually is. How does it come about? It is a self generating/self propelled machinery? It is action or reaction? You will probably call every act aimed at undermining the global position of the USA "terrorism" but did you ever try to put yourself in the position of others?

Maybe you have heard of an SF writer named Harry Harrison. About 40 ago he wrote a book called "death planet", which is about a planet on which an "earth" expedition has just set foot and to create a base they destroy/remove some local growth to make sufficient room. What happens is that the ecology of the planet allows the plants and animal to mutate in such a fast way that they start fighting back, and everytime the people think they killed them off sufficiently nature came back with new tricks. In the end they have to abandon the planet.... think about that and see the analogy with terrorism. I am sure the leader of that expedition would have called those plants and animals terrorists:)
I already know what terrorism is... the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons... violence committed or threatened to intimidate or coerce, as for military or political purposes.

henk4

01-10-2007, 01:39 AM

off topic: that is a great book. and so are his other books. I think this book is really ON topic as the analogy is striking.

henk4

01-10-2007, 01:40 AM

IBrake4Rainbows

01-10-2007, 02:08 AM

Overdoing fighting terrorism? Would you prefer we just sit back and not do anything about it?

I'm saying that instead of the Apathetic attitude of the Previous administration, and the Paranoid attitude of this one, perhaps theres another way. Not everyone wishes to be moulded as the US wishes them to be.

It's still irrelevant trying to compare auto accidents with terrorist acts. One terrorist act usually kills a lot more people than one auto accident. And an idividual can usually prevent an auto accident by practicing defensive driving. An individual can't effectively prevent a terrorist attack.

So you're saying an Individual can't prevent a Terrorist attack? could that Individual be, say, in the white house at the big chair?

Again you've managed to miss the point - this is about scale, scope and relevance. the Auto Accident issue is used because we're talking the scale of the incident - 3,000 people 5 years ago does not justify hardship for tens of millions, or the death of more soldiers than casualties.

It's used because of the scope - there is no big scare tactic, no "We've had an unconfirmed report of a madman driving down 5th avenue who could possibly endanger lives", nothing out of the ordinary. yet people still die, in larger numbers than Terrorist attacks. what is the government doing about that? seatbelts are still optional in many US states - and as much as i've heard the argument about how they cost more lives than they save the facts remain that when NCAP and the NTHSA crash test vehicles, the majority of dummies they deem to have survived the impact were wearing them. much like people who do. since Seatbelts have been introduced into Australia Coaches as a legal requirement, deaths from coach accidents have dramaticaly reduced.

The US is not an innocent party in these things, and to compare the actions of the US against barbaric terrorists somehow lowers people's expectations and thoughts of the US. Their actions shouldn't even be in the same catagory, let alone comparable, to these people.

Many of those 1Million + vietnamese DID cooperate with the Americans while they were there - why do you think they were slaughtered? much the same as Kurds in Iraq - the US told them to rise up, they did, and were brutally cut back because there was no back up.

Not a single person on this forum wishes another bomb was dropped, exploded or another innocent life to be extinguished. But playing on the fear that it might happen today, tomorrow, soon....and that everyone around you could do it is just not compatible with living in the home of the free. I'm hugely fortunate to live in my wide brown land but I'm genuinely fearful for my liberty - we're following the US's lead, to our own detriment.

nota

01-10-2007, 02:18 AM

Don't forget the 1 million+ Vietnamese who were slaughtered after the U.S. left. They should have cooperated with the U.S.- they would have been much better off.
Obviously the victors chose to stand as proud nationalists before foreign thugs - not kowtow like mice against alien invaders

It proved a winning strategy, as that "never lost a battle" US military got their arse & arsenal chased right out of town. And of course you conveniently fail-to-mention the millions killed by, on behalf and resultant to, those tender US mercies so benevolently bequeathed on that poor nation

Isn't it about time the US started cooperating with others?- the world would be much better off

Coventrysucks

01-10-2007, 05:14 AM

You call that "logic?" Trying to equate car accidents with terrorism?

If that's the level of debate you wish to engage in, I'm not going to bother.

Imbecile.

CdocZ

01-10-2007, 07:23 AM

Isn't it about time the US started cooperating with others?- the world would be much better off

I agree with this statement whole-heartedly. Particularly, when dealing with countries without democracy. America proclaims democracy is the best and whatnot, but acts like a royal arrogant arse when refuses to deal fully with a country. I mean, if you want a country to be less aggressive towards yourself, shouldn't you make it seem like you are dealing with them as a friendly neighbor, and not as the "neighbors who hate each other and are doing this out of requirement, reluctantly and only because the situation demands it"? I read this article last year on terrorism, doign research about Tony Blair's anti-terror plan, and one of the things that supposedly piss extrmists, and many thousands of others, off the most is the United State's reluctance to deal with those who do not believe democracy is the best way. Is freedom of speech and diplomatic relations only for what America deems the "democratic elite" of the world?

nota

01-10-2007, 09:30 AM

The circle turns ..

It is a typical nondescript village - like many others - in the northern Indian state of Bihar.

It consists of unplastered brick houses, dusty lanes, thatched structures and dirt-laden children with no shoes and running noses.

There appears to be little running water or other infrastructure.

But there is one thing about the village of Lakhanow - and other settlements in the area - that makes them strikingly different.

Ejaj Alam - a small-time civil contractor in his mid-30s - provides the answer: he has decided to re-name his three-year-old son.

Instead of being called Majhar Alam, Mr Alam has opted to call the boy Saddam Hussein in honour of the former Iraqi leader who was executed on 30 December.

What is more, the child will not be the only Saddam Hussein in the neighbourhood. There are more than 20 other Saddam Husseins in Lakhanow alone.

Local people say there are more than 100 Saddam Husseins in 27 adjoining villages dominated by mostly Sunni Muslims.

There is even a family with one son called Saddam Hussein and a younger sibling called Osama Bin Laden.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that all the children bearing the name of Saddam Hussein were born after the first American war with Iraq in 1991.

Before the war, the name Saddam Hussein was hardly used at all, says Mohammed Nizamuddin, whose grandson was born in 1991 and is called Saddam Hussein.

And, now after the recent high-profile and much photographed execution of the Iraqi leader, the villagers of Lakhanow have decided to name all the new born baby boys after him.

"This is our way to pay tribute to our leader. We want to carry on his legacy here at least in our village," said Ejaj Alam.

"God willing one day our village will be full of Saddam Husseins."

Other villagers feel equally passionate about the issue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6244425.stm

drakkie

01-10-2007, 11:57 AM

Hatred is always going to be around. Interesting you make a claim of "horrific" actions by the Americans globally, yet ignore the actions of terrorists worldwide which are the real horrific acts.

Tell that the the Iraqi guy I know,that was shot by US troops, while defending his wife and kids. He just held his not loaded gun,no more, but it gave him two bullets in his body.

Let's say the terrorists did 5000 US victims worldwide in the last decade. Estimated.

Now visit this website and be shocked.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Indirectly the US caused most. They fueled the fire of the extremists and they responded,bloody.

And dont forget about Afghanistan and Somalia either.

CdocZ you hit the nail on the head there !!!

Fleet 500

01-10-2007, 01:12 PM

If that's the level of debate you wish to engage in, I'm not going to bother.

Imbecile.
Lol. Look who's talking!
I would elaborate further, but I don't think you are capable of understanding. ;)

Fleet 500

01-10-2007, 01:17 PM

Tell that the the Iraqi guy I know,that was shot by US troops, while defending his wife and kids. He just held his not loaded gun,no more, but it gave him two bullets in his body.

There have been well over 100,000 troops in Iraq. You are going to condemn the whole military because of that very, very rare, isolated incident? There has always been improper behavior during a war. It can't be avoided; there is no such thing as fighting a perfect war because people are not perfect.

Let's say the terrorists did 5000 US victims worldwide in the last decade. Estimated.

Now visit this website and be shocked.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Indirectly the US caused most. They fueled the fire of the extremists and they responded,bloody.

And dont forget about Afghanistan and Somalia either.

Much deaths are caused by the terrorists/homocide bombers.

Fleet 500

01-10-2007, 01:22 PM

It proved a winning strategy, as that "never lost a battle" US military got their arse & arsenal chased right out of town. And of course you conveniently fail-to-mention the millions killed by, on behalf and resultant to, those tender US mercies so benevolently bequeathed on that poor nation

The U.S. left Vietnam due to political reasons, not because they got their "arse & arsenal chased right out of town." The U.S. could have leveled Vietnam very easily. Don't try to claim that N. Vietnam had a superior military and more firepower!

Isn't it about time the US started cooperating with others?- the world would be much better off

Isn't it about the the others started cooperating with the U.S.? France & Germany were too busy selling weapons to Iraq for oil and the U.N. was too busy being involved in the "food for oil" scandal.

Matt

01-10-2007, 07:03 PM

For the record, I'm out of this debate/conversation for two reasons.

1) I don't want anyone to mistakenly think I am aligned with Fleet. I think at this point, if I were to argue any point against some of the same people Fleet is arguing against, my opinions wouldn't be mistaken for his. I 99.9% disagree with Fleet.

2) I don't think most of the people I was arguing against can distinguish between being anti-American with being in disagreement with what the current administration has done. I never defended anything the administration has done and continue to have the same opinion of the American government I always have - mostly negative. I just don't feel that some people have the ability to distinguish between the American people and the American government.

Rockefella

01-10-2007, 07:05 PM

Fleet 500

01-10-2007, 07:20 PM

Matt

01-10-2007, 08:24 PM

I wonder what the 0.1% you agree with me is. ;)

That our country isn't AS villainous and AS bad as some people like to make it out to be.

The_Canuck

01-10-2007, 08:32 PM

That our country isn't AS villainous and AS bad as some people like to make it out to be.
Ill agree with that, also, some idiots In my school class actually expressed extreme disbelief that Dubya had graduated from Harvard (or is it Yale, what ever) just because he's Bush. C'mon people he not THAT retarded.(though some of his polices are...disliked)

I'm sick of the ignorant people who don't even remotely follow politics that think they know everything there is to know about the U.S and, how they think every American evil and/or stupid. The Anti-Americanism up here is just bunch of words backed up with no facts.

CdocZ

01-10-2007, 08:33 PM

Matt, that is probably the most ingenious idea I have heard in awhile. I'm serious, heh.

EDIT:

I'm sick of the ignorant people who don't even remotely follow politics that think they know everything there is to know about the U.S and, how they think every American evil and/or stupid. The Anti-Americanism doesn't up here is just bunch of words backed up with no facts.

Yeah. I try my best to never debate something that I have not seen at least 2 views on (unless its factual, objective, then one will do) it. Cause seriously, I hate it when people come into an argument with one side of an argument loaded up in their mind and they argue it, rather well sometimes even, but either have so many holes in their side, or are missing a whole point of view but still think they are right. Chances are I still do it sometimes, but hell, everyone does I bet, and still, better to try.

Fleet 500

01-10-2007, 08:52 PM

Ill agree with that, also, some idiots In my school class actually expressed extreme disbelief that Dubya had graduated from Harvard (or is it Yale, what ever) just because he's Bush.

You're right; they are idiots! :D

C'mon people he not THAT retarded.(though some of his polices are...disliked)

He's not "retarded" at all. He got better grades than Kerry did, btw (hence the nickname "D-student Kerry). I know it isn't 100% proof that he's very intelligent, but it certainly disproves the "stupid" myth which is out there. And every president has had policies which were disliked.

henk4

01-10-2007, 11:07 PM

Fleet 500

01-11-2007, 12:23 AM

for the record: I have quoted part of my own post (#14):)
Yes, but we both know that there are some people who will criticize the U.S. (government) simply because it is the U.S. (government).
Meaning, for them, nothing the U.S. has done or is doing is good.

henk4

01-11-2007, 12:26 AM

Yes, but we both know that there are some people who will criticize the U.S. (government) simply because it is the U.S. (government).
Meaning, for them, nothing the U.S. has done or is doing is good.

yes and we also (both?) know there are some people who will oppose any criticism of the US Government because it is the US Government...

Fleet 500

01-11-2007, 12:32 AM

yes and we also (both?) know there are some people who will oppose any criticism of the US Government because it is the US Government...
Right, and I am not one of them. I have many times criticized Bush for...
- Overspending
- Not closing the borders
- Giving tax money to those who didn't earn it (that was several years ago)

ruim20

01-11-2007, 08:47 AM

A real "intelligent" comment. :rolleyes:

Not wanting to put another logg on the fire, but, why that comment?

johnnynumfiv

01-11-2007, 08:54 AM

Tell that the the Iraqi guy I know,that was shot by US troops, while defending his wife and kids. He just held his not loaded gun,no more, but it gave him two bullets in his body.

A question for you. If you are in a war zone, where people are shooting at you and you don't know who is who, you see someone with a gun(which there is no way to tell if it is loaded or not) pointing at you or holding it up, what would you do? Would you feel that you life is in danger? Wouldn't the thought of kill or be killed go through your head?

CdocZ

01-11-2007, 10:18 AM

Right, and I am not one of them. I have many times criticized Bush for...
- Overspending
- Not closing the borders
- Giving tax money to those who didn't earn it (that was several years ago)

How about his ingenious ideas to go to mars and the moon again, primarily to colonize them :cool: The plan only had an estimated cost of around 10% of the U.S. Governments budget per year, for 10-20 years. I mean, seriously, utterly amazing idea.......25+ years from now when the required technology will either finally exist, or be close to existing, I mean.

EDIT: This is to show a specific example of the current administration's....love of some crazy things.

drakkie

01-11-2007, 12:09 PM

A question for you. If you are in a war zone, where people are shooting at you and you don't know who is who, you see someone with a gun(which there is no way to tell if it is loaded or not) pointing at you or holding it up, what would you do? Would you feel that you life is in danger? Wouldn't the thought of kill or be killed go through your head?

To describe the exact circumstances:

He was walkign through a town, towards a bakery, with his wife and his 7 year old son. He carried his AK74 along as a mean of defense.

When almost there, some jeeps came around the corner. They stopped and shouted at him to drop his weapon and hit the floor. Because he barely understands english,he asked his wife to translate a bit. She had received a much higher education than him. Apparently it didnt went fast enough. When he turned to them again, he pointed the gun at them, simply because of the movement he made, not intentionally. He was shot in the chest and arm. He was left for dead in the streets, until a neighbour brought him to hospital in his car. He was barely alive,but made it.

And no, I wouldnt have shot.

drakkie

01-11-2007, 12:12 PM

There have been well over 100,000 troops in Iraq. You are going to condemn the whole military because of that very, very rare, isolated incident? There has always been improper behavior during a war. It can't be avoided; there is no such thing as fighting a perfect war because people are not perfect.

Much deaths are caused by the terrorists/homocide bombers.

Reacting to the actions and aggresion of the USA.

Fleet 500

01-11-2007, 01:32 PM

Reacting to the actions and aggresion of the USA.
Yeah, like terrorists wouldn't perform their terrible acts if the U.S. wasn't in Iraq... terrorists were bombing and killing people all through the '90s. What's your excuse now?

Fleet 500

01-11-2007, 01:36 PM

How about his ingenious ideas to go to mars and the moon again, primarily to colonize them :cool: The plan only had an estimated cost of around 10% of the U.S. Governments budget per year, for 10-20 years. I mean, seriously, utterly amazing idea.......25+ years from now when the required technology will either finally exist, or be close to existing, I mean.

EDIT: This is to show a specific example of the current administration's....love of some crazy things.
I agree that was a dumb idea. But that's all it was... an idea.

Much less harmful than the blunders other presidents have made. Like Clinton trusting N. Korea. Agreeing to supply them with nuclear material (for "energy" purposes) and building (at the cost of U.S. taxpayers) two nuclear powerplants which cost $1 billion each. Then, of course, N. Korea uses the material to build nuclear weapons, ignoring the agreement. Way to go, Clinton! :mad:

Which do you think is more crazy?

henk4

01-11-2007, 02:07 PM

CdocZ

01-11-2007, 03:08 PM

I agree that was a dumb idea. But that's all it was... an idea.

Much less harmful than the blunders other presidents have made. Like Clinton trusting N. Korea. Agreeing to supply them with nuclear material (for "energy" purposes) and building (at the cost of U.S. taxpayers) two nuclear powerplants which cost $1 billion each. Then, of course, N. Korea uses the material to build nuclear weapons, ignoring the agreement. Way to go, Clinton! :mad:

Which do you think is more crazy?

I think paying money to find out how insanely expensive and utterly dumb an overly futuristic idea would be, and what it would require, than being a little too trustworthy and trying to be nice to a less fortunate country. I mean, sure, it is possible to be too trustworthy. But hey, maybe North Korea hates us because a bunch of other presidents were too paranoid, and untrusting around them. No, I don't know what foreign policy towards N.Korea has been like ever since the Korean war, or even that much about the situation.

Sure, it backfired, but how the hell can you get angry at Clinton. Unless you believe he has the power to see into the future.....? I'd say giving alot of the first generations of the Taliban and Al Queda their military training, so as to fight the Russians better, was far worse. But once again, how could they have known? Seriously, if you don't trust them they hate you, if you DO trust them, at least you are giving progress and friendly relations a chance.

EDIT: 20/20 Hindsight - don't abuse it.

The_Canuck

01-11-2007, 04:02 PM

Fleet 500

01-11-2007, 04:13 PM

Close the borders! Do you know who Americas biggest trading partner is? :p
Close the borders to illegal aliens.

Fleet 500

01-11-2007, 04:18 PM

But hey, maybe North Korea hates us because a bunch of other presidents were too paranoid, and untrusting around them. No, I don't know what foreign policy towards N.Korea has been like ever since the Korean war, or even that much about the situation.

No, N. Korea (the "leader," Kim Jong Il, of N. Korea, that is) hates us because he is a nutcase dictator who has killed many thousands of his own people.

Sure, it backfired, but how the hell can you get angry at Clinton. Unless you believe he has the power to see into the future.....? I'd say giving alot of the first generations of the Taliban and Al Queda their military training, so as to fight the Russians better, was far worse. But once again, how could they have known? Seriously, if you don't trust them they hate you, if you DO trust them, at least you are giving progress and friendly relations a chance.

EDIT: 20/20 Hindsight - don't abuse it
Oh, come on now... Reagan, the elder Bush, or G.W. Bush would never had made that stupid agreement with N. Korea. It's a lot different than comparing with Taliban and al Qaeda because they weren't supplied with nuclear material.

Fleet 500

01-11-2007, 04:22 PM

you might realise that when Clinton was president this forum did not exist. Otherwise he could have been a good topic.

Yes, he would have been a good topic. At one point, there was an average of one scandal almost every week breaking.

I hope you also realise that you are the only one who, whenever something about the current US government is being said, is referring to previous US governments, as if mistakes by previous governments gives the current one the right to make them too.

But there is a very good reason for that. A lot of today's problems exist because of the previous U.S. government, or last administration to be more accurate.

CdocZ

01-11-2007, 05:48 PM

No, N. Korea (the "leader," Kim Jong Il, of N. Korea, that is) hates us because he is a nutcase dictator who has killed many thousands of his own people.

Point made, realized, and accepted, my bad.

Oh, come on now... Reagan, the elder Bush, or G.W. Bush would never had made that stupid agreement with N. Korea. It's a lot different than comparing with Taliban and al Qaeda because they weren't supplied with nuclear material.

True. But neither is exactly good. I mean, you don't want a terrorist with a crude but working nuke, but I'd believe it's not exactly fun having a few thousand anti-American terrorists who were trained by none other than our own, using our own tactics and strategies to kill our troops. Both suck /-\ss.

But there is a very good reason for that. A lot of today's problems exist because of the previous U.S. government, or last administration to be more accurate.

Damn the British monarchies of old! :D

Pando

01-11-2007, 06:11 PM

Back to politics I see. Not surprised this has gotten a bit off topic. :)

What comes to the video, I am quite skeptic on how much truth there is in it. "Saddam was praying, when he got caught... etc." In my opinion it is just one mans attempt to glorify Saddam's image and make him live on as a martyr and I have no doubt in my mind that the Saddam's followers are buying every word of it without double-checking the statements or any further evidence.

The U.S. left Vietnam due to political reasons, not because they got their "arse & arsenal chased right out of town." The U.S. could have leveled Vietnam very easily. Don't try to claim that N. Vietnam had a superior military and more firepower!Not true. The US pretty much tried that in Vietnam and across the border in Cambodia as well:

The massive B-52 strikes (Operation Menu) deluged Cambodia for 14 months and delivered approximately 2,756,941 tons of bombs, more than the total tonnage that the Allies dropped "during all of World War II, including the bombs that struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki." According to historians Ben Kiernan and Taylor Owen, "Cambodia may well be the most heavily bombed country in history."Keeping in mind we're talking about limited areas in quite a small country, slightly smaller than Oklahoma (I looked that up for you Fleet), I'd say that qualifies as an attempt to "level 'em". That worked out well for the Cambodians didn't it?

N. Vietnam / Vietcong did not have superior firepower, but what they did have is superior tactics and far superior use of the conditions and terrain. The invading forces always have the disadvantage of being on foreign soil, especially democratic countries. The Vietcong took advantage of that and pretty much wrote the book on guerrilla warfare. This is relevant, because its the same tactics the Taliban are using in Afghanistan, the resistance in Iraq and now the extremists in Somalia.

CdocZ

01-11-2007, 06:25 PM

Pando

01-11-2007, 07:01 PM

Well, fighting on foreign land is not as big an issue now. The problem about that, and technology in Vietnam, is 1) back then, our troops training was rather basic, and 2) it was more "just shoot - you have the firepower".

Nowadays, the American military has probably the second most intense military training for standard soldiers, in all kinds of climates and terrains. Also, the military is MUCH more focused on getting as much "bang for buck" as possible - our military is far more stealthy, and accurate, than ever. So, now instead of unloading an entire magazine of ammo or a whole bomb rack for a small number of enemies, its much more efficient, with much less collateral damage.
Yes, well my argument was based on the fact that the people fighting "at home" can still use that as an advantage. I'm not implying that the US army isn't trained to fight in various terrains, which I know they are. Now, what I was saying is that if you are on enemy soil it is still a disadvantage. Especially for democratic countries as the ancient "kill all men - rape all women" tactic is quite out of the question. That's why the first gulf war was so much less complicated for the US as they were invited to drive a foreign army out of an allied country.

Let's simplify: In which case the foreign army theoretically always have to choose between two choices, to fight or to retreat. In the modern world when a country invades another sovereign nation, for what ever reason, the defending army has a third choice to hide and wait. Most of the times time is on the defenders side, especially against a democratic country where dissent among the people grows proportionally with the length of the war.

Fleet 500

01-11-2007, 10:08 PM

Not true. The US pretty much tried that in Vietnam and across the border in Cambodia as well:
Keeping in mind we're talking about limited areas in quite a small country, slightly smaller than Oklahoma (I looked that up for you Fleet), I'd say that qualifies as an attempt to "level 'em". That worked out well for the Cambodians didn't it?

The U.S. didn't use anywhere near the firepower she could have. In fact, the 1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater said that he could have won that war in about 6 months by the method I mentioned- continous bombing resulting in leveling the war zone. Be careful what you read on wikipedia; anyone can contribute information on that site and it isn't verified. I have found several errors when looking up Cadillacs.

N. Vietnam / Vietcong did not have superior firepower, but what they did have is superior tactics and far superior use of the conditions and terrain.

Then how come the U.S. never lost a battle?

The invading forces always have the disadvantage of being on foreign soil, especially democratic countries. The Vietcong took advantage of that and pretty much wrote the book on guerrilla warfare. This is relevant, because its the same tactics the Taliban are using in Afghanistan, the resistance in Iraq and now the extremists in Somalia.

I agree with that, in general.

Pando

01-12-2007, 09:04 AM

The U.S. didn't use anywhere near the firepower she could have. In fact, the 1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater said that he could have won that war in about 6 months by the method I mentioned- continous bombing resulting in leveling the war zone. Be careful what you read on wikipedia; anyone can contribute information on that site and it isn't verified. I have found several errors when looking up Cadillacs.I am aware of wikipedia's reliability. But even if the number would be a few tons off, it still wouldn't change what I was trying to say.

In the first half of the 20th century, warfare changed quite a bit. Weapons became more and more powerful, eventually reaching the stage that you could no longer throw everything you got on even your worst enemy. At the time of the Vietnam war the USA and USSR both had enough firepower to "level" the entire world. Luckily, perhaps out of mutual fear for the other superpower, they didn't. Especially post WWII a democratic nation cannot level another nation, period. Even if the US foreign policy has been quite self destructive, that would be political suicide at home and abroad and a stain the nation forever.

Then how come the U.S. never lost a battle?
I haven't been looking, but I haven't found a neutral source claiming this to be true. I guess the same sources you've got this information from probably make the same claim of every other post WWII war the US has fought in? The victories always get the media attention at home. Fact still remains that both sides took heavy casualties and of the main objectives: make Vietnam a communist/democratic nation only one succeeded. I find it hard to believe this was achieved without "winning one battle" but I guess it depends on how you determine the word battle. I guess the successful waging of guerrilla warfare didn't qualify.

Fleet 500

01-12-2007, 02:22 PM

In the first half of the 20th century, warfare changed quite a bit. Weapons became more and more powerful, eventually reaching the stage that you could no longer throw everything you got on even your worst enemy. At the time of the Vietnam war the USA and USSR both had enough firepower to "level" the entire world. Luckily, perhaps out of mutual fear for the other superpower, they didn't. Especially post WWII a democratic nation cannot level another nation, period. Even if the US foreign policy has been quite self destructive, that would be political suicide at home and abroad and a stain the nation forever.

You just answered your own question. Yes, the USA and USSR had enough firepower to level the entire world. And nowhere near all of the U.S.'s firepower was put to use in Vietnam. If it was, as Goldwater said, the war would have been over much sooner.

I haven't been looking, but I haven't found a neutral source claiming this to be true. I guess the same sources you've got this information from probably make the same claim of every other post WWII war the US has fought in? The victories always get the media attention at home. Fact still remains that both sides took heavy casualties and of the main objectives: make Vietnam a communist/democratic nation only one succeeded. I find it hard to believe this was achieved without "winning one battle" but I guess it depends on how you determine the word battle. I guess the successful waging of guerrilla warfare didn't qualify

I'll repeat... the U.S. won every battle in N. Vietnam. However, from what I've read, that would be every noteworthy battle. Meaning, I would guess, at least 20 or 25 troops.

Matra et Alpine

01-12-2007, 03:00 PM

You just answered your own question. Yes, the USA and USSR had enough firepower to level the entire world. And nowhere near all of the U.S.'s firepower was put to use in Vietnam. If it was, as Goldwater said, the war would have been over much sooner.
The only thing held back was the nuke and that would never actually ahve been committed in reality as it as a M-A-D weapon. It wouldn't be launched to save political face !!
Rolling THunder, Linbacker etc etc committed most of the available resources.
NOTE "available" .... that doesn't mean "all" so be careful of misreading biased historical accounts. A force cannot have 100% utilisation of anything.

I'll repeat... the U.S. won every battle in N. Vietnam. However, from what I've read, that would be every noteworthy battle. Meaning, I would guess, at least 20 or 25 troops.
yeah "won" the "battle" by using propoganda of 'body counts' to select a winner and moving more resources into an area where defeat had occured, hence turning the defeat to a "victory". That the opponents generally retreated in typical guerilla tactics makes that a false conclusion. With a few exceptions - like Tet - where the VC just got it all wrong and didnt' respect the artillery ranged on them.
But patriotic thinking prevents truth :D

Fleet 500

01-12-2007, 03:24 PM

A force cannot have 100% utilisation of anything.

True, that.

yeah "won" the "battle" by using propoganda of 'body counts' to select a winner and moving more resources into an area where defeat had occured, hence turning the defeat to a "victory". That the opponents generally retreated in typical guerilla tactics makes that a false conclusion. With a few exceptions - like Tet - where the VC just got it all wrong and didnt' respect the artillery ranged on them.
But patriotic thinking prevents truth :D

No, I mean won the battle, period. No "propoganda" needed. ;)

Matra et Alpine

01-12-2007, 05:04 PM

No, I mean won the battle, period. No "propoganda" needed. ;)
Well with the US MI providing the reports on when a "Battle" ended then of course they all came out as "win".
Often there were losses of men, material and ground over a period of days/weeks and then the US woudl through large forces to turn it around.
Following on from von Clausewitz, a "battle" would be what was tactically PLANNED. Re-active efforts to commit forces is what makes many "battles" amount to a war :D
But i recognise the resurfacing of your need to believe that all US activities are "best-in-class". As you wish.

Daz27

01-12-2007, 05:18 PM

I already know what terrorism is... the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons... violence committed or threatened to intimidate or coerce, as for military or political purposes.
Bugger me if thats not what the US Government has done since lil Bush got in... Call me stupid, but havent those idiots stuck their snouts in just about every single thing that has happened world wide since september 12 2001 and tried to pass it off as averting an act of terror on the US? I really, really think that they should be looking after the problems they have at home, ie health care and education and policing (domestically), you know, the basic shit a government does, and get that right, before they start worrying about other countries affairs.
I also think that lil Johnny Howard should shut the **** up too and stop running around, toilet paper in hand chasing after his bum chum G.W.Bush to wipe his arse when he gets himself into more of his self created shit...
End of rant.:D

henk4

01-13-2007, 03:00 AM

But there is a very good reason for that. A lot of today's problems exist because of the previous U.S. government, or last administration to be more accurate.

Wasn't that the G.W. Bush 1 period?:)
I hope you are trying to say that because for once I would fully agree with you...

Pando

01-13-2007, 04:22 AM

Yes, me too. And the snowball keeps on rolling, a lot of problems will exist in the future because of the self destructive policies of today's government.

IBrake4Rainbows

01-13-2007, 04:51 AM

If i see another decent argument turned into something, lacking any veracity or pretence of context, About Kerry or Clinton, one of my eyes will explode.

<you can see the footage on Youtube>

Fleet 500

01-13-2007, 01:54 PM

Wasn't that the G.W. Bush 1 period?:)
I hope you are trying to say that because for once I would fully agree with you...
No, I was referring to Clinton's blunders like:
- Not effectively doing anything about terrorism, which kept growing and growing throughout the '90s.
- Cutting CIA and FBI intelligence; banning those agents from obtaining information from former terrorists and criminals which usually have the most accurate information.
- Making that stupid deal with N. Korea... supplying nuclear material and building 2 billion dollar (each) powerplants in exchange for a promise from N. Korea that they wouldn't use the nuclear material to build weapons with (which is what they did anyway).

Fleet 500

01-13-2007, 02:01 PM

Bugger me if thats not what the US Government has done since lil Bush got in... Call me stupid, but havent those idiots stuck their snouts in just about every single thing that has happened world wide since september 12 2001 and tried to pass it off as averting an act of terror on the US? I really, really think that they should be looking after the problems they have at home, ie health care and education and policing (domestically), you know, the basic shit a government does, and get that right, before they start worrying about other countries affairs.
I also think that lil Johnny Howard should shut the **** up too and stop running around, toilet paper in hand chasing after his bum chum G.W.Bush to wipe his arse when he gets himself into more of his self created shit...
End of rant.:D
Nope, don't agree.
Technically, the war with Iraq never really ended; it was put on hold with the 1991 cease-fire agreement. An agreement which said that the U.S. had the authority to resume military action if it was broken (which it was, by Iraq, many times).
As for Afghanistan, al Qaeda training camps/the Taliban were there (the same al Qaeda and Taliban) which were linked to the WTC and Pentagon attacks.
In fact, Clinton sent more U.S. troops to foreign countries than Bush has!

We the U.S. would love to "stop worrying about other countrie's affairs" if they would stop attacking us in other countries (embassies) and in our own country!

IBrake4Rainbows

01-13-2007, 11:26 PM

No, I was referring to Clinton's blunders like:
......

<BOOM>

Told you, warned you twice.

Fleet 500

01-14-2007, 02:15 AM

<BOOM>

Told you, warned you twice.
Sorry, but when mistakes made in history are discussed, Clinton's name will turn up frequently. ;)

henk4

01-14-2007, 02:28 AM

Sorry, but when mistakes made in history are discussed, Clinton's name will turn up frequently. ;)

whereby poor Clinton was faced with some mistakes made by other presidents before him like:

Supporting Saddam in his war against Iran
Supporting the Taliban against the Ruskies
"Forgetting" to finish off Saddam in 1991.

Maybe American foreign policy is just a continuation of blunders, now culminating in this war, resulting in the loss of respect of a once great nation in the eyes of many a country in the rest of the world. (but as you have indicated in an earlier thread, you don't care about that in any way)

henk4

01-14-2007, 02:42 AM

In fact, Clinton sent more U.S. troops to foreign countries than Bush has!

I would personally (as an American:) ) be more interested in the percentage that came back home alive after being deployed abroad...

2ndclasscitizen

01-14-2007, 03:09 AM

And how many were asked to be there by the UN/NATO/etc

henk4

01-14-2007, 03:13 AM

And how many were asked to be there by the UN/NATO/etc

compared to the troops that were explicitly NOT asked for by the UN:)

IBrake4Rainbows

01-14-2007, 03:55 AM

Sorry, but when mistakes made in history are discussed, Clinton's name will turn up frequently. ;)

I forgot that the Previous administration is somehow responsible for the current situation in Iraq, how foolish of me.:rolleyes:

Wouter Melissen

01-14-2007, 03:57 AM

I forgot that the Previous administration is somehow responsible for the current situation in Iraq, how foolish of me.:rolleyes:
That and the trade deficit.

kigango123

01-14-2007, 08:25 AM

about the lawyer,some of the things he said are quite close to the truth
the mass graves have been known for way way longer than any information agency has let on.

henk4

01-14-2007, 08:53 AM

That and the trade deficit.

the trade deficit is just a sign of how happy other countries are to finance the overspending of the American people:)

Fleet 500

01-14-2007, 01:33 PM

whereby poor Clinton was faced with some mistakes made by other presidents before him like:

Supporting Saddam in his war against Iran
Supporting the Taliban against the Ruskies
"Forgetting" to finish off Saddam in 1991.

Maybe American foreign policy is just a continuation of blunders, now culminating in this war, resulting in the loss of respect of a once great nation in the eyes of many a country in the rest of the world. (but as you have indicated in an earlier thread, you don't care about that in any way)
We have been through this before. Saddam was supported because the U.S. didn't want Iraq to win that 8-year war and dominate the area.
And, obviously, the U.S. didn't want communist Russia to invade Afghanistan.
And it was the U.N. which suggested to kick Iraq out of Kuwait but not invade Iraq in 1991. But, of course, the U.S. is blamed for all of that (the Blame America First "logic!")

Fleet 500

01-14-2007, 01:34 PM

That and the trade deficit.
There was a trade deficit before Bush was president.

Fleet 500

01-14-2007, 01:38 PM

I would personally (as an American:) ) be more interested in the percentage that came back home alive after being deployed abroad...
And I would personally (as an American) be more interested in knowing that because of the troops being deployed (and the result of killing many al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists), the chance of a terrorist attack inside the U.S. is much less.
Yes, I am concerned about those who are deployed and wish they could all come back alive, but safety and freedom does involve some sacrifices. Especially when there are a lot of nutso terrorists who blow themselves up in order to kill as many others as possible.

henk4

01-14-2007, 02:13 PM

Saddam was supported because the U.S. didn't want Iraq to win that 8-year war and dominate the area.

read that again very carefully:)

henk4

01-14-2007, 02:19 PM

And I would personally (as an American) be more interested in knowing that because of the troops being deployed (and the result of killing many al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists), the chance of a terrorist attack inside the U.S. is much less.
Yes, I am concerned about those who are deployed and wish they could all come back alive, but safety and freedom does involve some sacrifices. Especially when there are a lot of nutso terrorists who blow themselves up in order to kill as many others as possible.

but your point was that Clinton had sent out more troops then Bush ever did. My question was how many came back under Clinton and how many under Bush...

btw would you qualify Japanese kamikaze pilots as terrorists?

cmcpokey

01-14-2007, 02:26 PM

btw would you qualify Japanese kamikaze pilots as terrorists?
they are state sponsored military, therefore they are not terrorists

henk4

01-14-2007, 02:30 PM

they are state sponsored military, therefore they are not terrorists

so if they are religiously "sponsored" they are terrorists...?

Fleet 500

01-14-2007, 03:27 PM

but your point was that Clinton had sent out more troops then Bush ever did. My question was how many came back under Clinton and how many under Bush...

You don't judge a war's success on how many troops are killed. Also, where Clinton sent troops to (Bosnia, Kosovo) wasn't very successful.

btw would you qualify Japanese kamikaze pilots as terrorists?

No, because they were not crashing into citizens, but into military targets, usually ships.

Fleet 500

01-14-2007, 03:31 PM

I forgot that the Previous administration is somehow responsible for the current situation in Iraq, how foolish of me.:rolleyes:
Saddam was responsible... he could have prevented the resumption of military action (invasion of Iraq) if he had cooperated with the resolutions and the U.N.

Also, the invasion of Iraq was approved by Congress (unlike the previoius administration, who sent U.S. troops into foreign countries without Congressional approval).

Matra et Alpine

01-14-2007, 03:55 PM

Fleet, you were proven WRONG before and yet you keep repeating it.

He WAS "co-operating" just not as quickly as GWB wanted and the UN *DID* want to wait.

The_Canuck

01-14-2007, 04:15 PM

so if they are religiously "sponsored" they are terrorists...?
Unless its government sanctioned, yes.

Fleet 500

01-14-2007, 05:32 PM

Fleet, you were proven WRONG before and yet you keep repeating it.

He WAS "co-operating" just not as quickly as GWB wanted and the UN *DID* want to wait.
Right. He was "cooperating" while he was breaking all 17 resolutions and when Bush gave him 48 hours as a last chance to cooperate!
And wait for what? Another 12 years of delaying, denying, not allowing inspectors into certain areas, etc?

henk4

01-15-2007, 01:43 AM

Also, where Clinton sent troops to (Bosnia, Kosovo) wasn't very successful.

how would you know anything about Bosnia and Kosovo. Ever been there?

henk4

01-15-2007, 01:45 AM

You don't judge a war's success on how many troops are killed.

the amercian voters obviously just did....

henk4

01-15-2007, 01:47 AM

Right. He was "cooperating" while he was breaking all 17 resolutions and when Bush gave him 48 hours as a last chance to cooperate!
And wait for what? Another 12 years of delaying, denying, not allowing inspectors into certain areas, etc?

Maybe Saddam wanted to delay the inspections until he finally had his WOMD ready, so the inspectors would have finally been able to find something.....

henk4

01-15-2007, 01:48 AM

No, because they were not crashing into citizens, but into military targets, usually ships.

ah, so attacking the pentagon with a plane was not an act of terrorism....

Pando

01-15-2007, 03:06 AM

And I would personally (as an American) be more interested in knowing that because of the troops being deployed (and the result of killing many al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists), the chance of a terrorist attack inside the U.S. is much less.Do you really believe that Bush's "war on terror" reduces the hate against the US and the hence the number of people desiring to attack? The line of new recruits for al-Qaeda and other anti-western movements is longer than ever because of it.

henk4

01-15-2007, 03:34 AM

Do you really believe that Bush's "war on terror" reduces the hate against the US and the hence the number of people desiring to attack? The line of new recruits for al-Qaeda and other anti-western movements is longer than ever because of it.

that is the gist of the Harry Harrison book I mentioned earlier....fighting opposition movements of whatever nature with indiscriminate force will only generate more opposition...

IBrake4Rainbows

01-15-2007, 04:51 AM

Saddam was responsible... he could have prevented the resumption of military action (invasion of Iraq) if he had cooperated with the resolutions and the U.N.

Also, the invasion of Iraq was approved by Congress (unlike the previoius administration, who sent U.S. troops into foreign countries without Congressional approval).

Interesting - you mention he was not cooperative with the UN, but the UN were willing to give him more time. What was wrong with the US waiting a little longer?

And your troops left the area. there was no residual forces. Hence it's leaving the zone. Hence the End of hostilities, hence the end of the war. Even the most biased historians agree the war ended.

The main reason Congress approved this war? they were controlled by the same party as the White house. always a dangerous combo.

Kosovo is a completely different Kettle of fish - a Humanitarian nightmare and genocide - recognised by all world authorities, and help was asked for. Iraq was, and is, a nightmare. you've offered no solutions as to how to solve the crisis.

Fleet 500

01-15-2007, 01:26 PM

how would you know anything about Bosnia and Kosovo. Ever been there?
Obviously, you didn't put much thought into that question. ;)

So I have to have been somewhere to know anything about it?

henk4

01-15-2007, 01:51 PM

Obviously, you didn't put much thought into that question. ;)

So I have to have been somewhere to know anything about it?

I did put some thought in there, because these are now safe places to visit. I'll be there next month. I was just wondering why you imply that Clinton went wrong there.....

henk4

01-15-2007, 01:54 PM

So I have to have been somewhere to know anything about it?

it does help to broaden your views....if you are interested.

crisis

01-15-2007, 04:08 PM

No, because they were not crashing into citizens, but into military targets, usually ships.
Hi guys!
Hi Fleet!
Do you then suggest that the bombing of Japanese civilians in WW2 (not to mention the dropping of two W.M.Ds on them) was a terrorist act on the part of the U.S. as they were not military targets? Or do you have some other convoluted qualifier to justify that?

Matra et Alpine

01-15-2007, 04:21 PM

Or do you have some other convoluted qualifier to justify that?
I'm sure I read somewhere that CLinton had something to do with that ........

Fleet 500

01-15-2007, 07:16 PM

Hi guys!
Hi Fleet!
Do you then suggest that the bombing of Japanese civilians in WW2 (not to mention the dropping of two W.M.Ds on them) was a terrorist act on the part of the U.S. as they were not military targets? Or do you have some other convoluted qualifier to justify that?
Come on, haven't you read up on that? Hiroshima was a military target because war material was being built in that city.

clutch-monkey

01-15-2007, 07:17 PM

Come on, haven't you read up on that? Hiroshima was a military target because war material was being built in that city.
no, hiroshima was a target because it had clear weather on that day so the US could better observe the effects of nuclear weapons on a population centre

cmcpokey

01-15-2007, 07:27 PM

and dropping those 2 bombs prevented the war from continuing many more years and costing significantly more causalties on all sides

clutch-monkey

01-15-2007, 07:33 PM

that too

cmcpokey

01-15-2007, 07:35 PM

that was the debate truman went through... kill a couple thousand, or kill hundreds of thousands

Cyco

01-15-2007, 08:03 PM

If the kamakazi attack on a warship is a legitimate military target why do you describe the attacks on the USS Cole as terrorist?

clutch-monkey

01-15-2007, 08:03 PM

that was the debate truman went through... kill a couple thousand, or kill hundreds of thousands
he just wanted to try his new toys :D

Fleet 500

01-15-2007, 10:23 PM

If the kamakazi attack on a warship is a legitimate military target why do you describe the attacks on the USS Cole as terrorist?
Because the U.S. was not at war with the attackers at the time.

Fleet 500

01-15-2007, 10:36 PM

no, hiroshima was a target because it had clear weather on that day so the US could better observe the effects of nuclear weapons on a population centre
True, the first intended target had cloudy weather, so Hiroshima became the target.
However, Hiroshima contained the 2nd army headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. There was also a communications center, a storage point and an assembly area for troops.

crisis

01-15-2007, 10:41 PM

True, the first intended target had cloudy weather, so Hiroshima became the target.
However, Hiroshima contained the 2nd army headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. There was also a communications center, a storage point and an assembly area for troops.
Clearly a conventional firebombing would have not dealt with that!:rolleyes:

crisis

01-15-2007, 10:43 PM

and dropping those 2 bombs prevented the war from continuing many more years and costing significantly more causalties on all sides
The history according to U.S. propaganda.Fine, I suppose the Japanese never taught their children of their atrocities in WW2 either.

Fleet 500

01-15-2007, 10:43 PM

Interesting - you mention he was not cooperative with the UN, but the UN were willing to give him more time. What was wrong with the US waiting a little longer?

Because after 12 years of Saddam ignoring the U.N., waiting "a little longer" would not have made any difference. Remember, we're talking about Saddam here- since when did he actually obey any rules?

And your troops left the area. there was no residual forces. Hence it's leaving the zone. Hence the End of hostilities, hence the end of the war. Even the most biased historians agree the war ended.

But Saddam broke the resolutions, such as firing at U.S. planes in the no-fly zone (which broke the cease-fire agreement) and not accounting for his WMD.

The main reason Congress approved this war? they were controlled by the same party as the White house. always a dangerous combo.

Irrelevant because many Democrats voted to invade Iraq, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

Kosovo is a completely different Kettle of fish - a Humanitarian nightmare and genocide - recognised by all world authorities, and help was asked for. Iraq was, and is, a nightmare. you've offered no solutions as to how to solve the crisis.

I thought I have offered a "solution?" It's what the Bush administration is doing currently... stay in Iraq until the Iraqi government can govern their own country without outside help.

Fleet 500

01-15-2007, 10:44 PM

Clearly a conventional firebombing would have not dealt with that!:rolleyes:
Yeah, and another 4 or 5 years of war, and hundreds of thousands more dead.

Fleet 500

01-15-2007, 10:47 PM

The history according to U.S. propaganda.

No, that's your opinion. MANY would disagree with you.

Fine, I suppose the Japanese never taught their children of their atrocities in WW2 either

I'm sure they were taught that their country made a huge mistake, but they don't blame the U.S., unlike some others I can think of. ;)

clutch-monkey

01-15-2007, 10:48 PM

True, the first intended target had cloudy weather, so Hiroshima became the target.
However, Hiroshima contained the 2nd army headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. There was also a communications center, a storage point and an assembly area for troops.
probably, but after the tokyo bombings, surely just your average carpet bombing would have dealt with that without all the hassle of the complete destruction of a heavily populated urban centre

Fleet 500

01-15-2007, 10:52 PM

probably

No, not "probably," but fact.

but after the tokyo bombings, surely just your average carpet bombing would have dealt with that without all the hassle of the complete destruction of a heavily populated urban centre

And prolong the war even longer.

crisis

01-15-2007, 10:56 PM

No, that's your opinion. MANY would disagree with you.

The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that he felt that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) ; Major General Curtis LeMay ; and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet .

Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexR/temp

crisis

01-15-2007, 11:12 PM

And prolong the war even longer.

* In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:
The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .

* The commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a NEW YORK TIMES reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said:
The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.
In his 1949 memoirs Arnold observed that "it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

* Arnold's deputy, Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, summed up his understanding this way in an internal military history interview:
Arnold's view was that it was unnecessary. He said that he knew the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it.
Eaker reported that Arnold told him:
When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is that the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively if the Commander in Chief decides to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion.

* On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in THE NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE):
said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb.

* On the 40th Anniversary of the bombing former President Richard M. Nixon reported that:
[General Douglas] MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants.

* Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings stated:
The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . . [THE DECISION, p. 329; see additionally THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 6, 1945.]

* Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:
The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before

http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

Fleet 500

01-15-2007, 11:29 PM

crisis

01-15-2007, 11:34 PM

Crisis,
yes I know that there were high-ranking U.S. officials opposed to using the A-bomb, but the ultimate decision was up to President Harry S Truman. And you can bet that the U.S. troops who were to invade Japan in Nov., 1945 had the A-bomb not been used were in favor of using it.

So you take this back then?

No, that's your opinion. MANY would disagree with you.

That Truman acted despite the more informed opposition seems to me to be no justification. If military leaders said it was unnecessary who the f@#$ advised him it was? And those same people did not believe that Japan needed to be invaded if you read my post.

Fleet 500

01-15-2007, 11:40 PM

So you take this back then?

No, because there were also high-ranking officials who favored using the A-bomb.

That Truman acted despite the more informed opposition seems to me to be no justification. If military leaders said it was unnecessary who the f@#$ advised him it was? And those same people did not believe that Japan needed to be invaded if you read my post.

It doesn't matter. Truman still had to make the ultimate decision. Just because those you listed were against it doesn't mean they were right. After all, Japan did not surrender after the 1st A-bomb was dropped.

nota

01-15-2007, 11:41 PM

Remember, we're talking about Saddam here- since when did he actually obey any rules?
Yeah gotta love those noble US rules :mad:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=108

But Saddam broke the resolutions, such as ... not accounting for his WMD.
Nor could GWB :rolleyes:

Fleet 500

01-15-2007, 11:51 PM

Yeah gotta love those noble US rules :mad:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=108
"fair.org?" Lol. You've got to be kidding. That site is anything BUT fair!

Nor could GWB :rolleyes:

:confused:

henk4

01-16-2007, 02:28 AM

But Saddam broke the resolutions, such as firing at U.S. planes in the no-fly zone (which broke the cease-fire agreement)

so he wanted to make sure that the no-fly zone remained a no-fly zone....

IBrake4Rainbows

01-16-2007, 03:34 AM

Because after 12 years of Saddam ignoring the U.N., waiting "a little longer" would not have made any difference. Remember, we're talking about Saddam here- since when did he actually obey any rules?

Since when did the US care? the US should have gotten rid of him first time around? what stopped them?

But Saddam broke the resolutions, such as firing at U.S. planes in the no-fly zone (which broke the cease-fire agreement) and not accounting for his WMD.

No Fly Zones only work when they are No Fly Zones. In that case the US broke a resolution as well.

Irrelevant because many Democrats voted to invade Iraq, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

Two Senators. Totally a worthy point.

Sorry, but the argument still stands.

I thought I have offered a "solution?" It's what the Bush administration is doing currently... stay in Iraq until the Iraqi government can govern their own country without outside help.

What the Bush administration has done is thought long and hard, come up with many study groups.....and decided to send good troops after bad, basically boosting numbers to their same level as they were last year.

Decisive action indeed.

It's not a solution by any stretch of the imagination. It's showing a lack of real vision by the Bush Administration - Maybe they truly did believe their own press that this would be a short and clean war - and as such did not have the long term future in mind. this war has gone on too long, and, despite "mission accomplished" banners and $20 Million victory parties, it's far from through.

Kudos to Ms. Rice for getting the Israeli's and Palestinians talking again, for how long is an unknown quantity.

henk4

01-16-2007, 03:37 AM

Kudos to Ms. Rice for getting the Israeli's and Palestinians talking again, for how long is an unknown quantity.

only partly deserved though, since Hamas won the elections in Palestina, mr Abbas (of the former "terrorist" Fatah movement) has become acceptable. So talking with him and the Israelis will not solve the problem if they will ignore the Hamas Government. It is one of the democratic realities that is hard to swallow by some...

IBrake4Rainbows

01-16-2007, 03:52 AM

It must be a strange predicament - a terrorist organisation winning by the same means that GWB did - does that somehow legitimise what HAMAS has done in the past? does this mean they have to change their definition of a "terrorist" group?

Political minefield much?

I guess talking is only a good thing if they're not just creating hot air.

Cyco

01-16-2007, 04:16 AM

Because the U.S. was not at war with the attackers at the time.

So the Japanese attack on Peal Harbour is being re-written as a act of state sponsored terrorism as the US was not at war with them at the time?

Pando

01-16-2007, 07:46 AM

Because the U.S. was not at war with the attackers at the time.
So since Bush declared "war on terror" all attacks on US troops and citizens are not acts of terror but acts of war? Btw, what is your prediction of the chances of signing a peace treaty in the war?

ruim20

01-16-2007, 09:49 AM

Yeah, and another 4 or 5 years of war, and hundreds of thousands more dead.

Another hundred thousands of YOUR dead... instead you killed hundreds of thousands of them, that was much nicer and by your view, the right thing to do!

Fleet 500

01-16-2007, 01:38 PM

so he wanted to make sure that the no-fly zone remained a no-fly zone....
Stop making excuses for Saddam. It doesn't matter if he wanted to "make sure," he still broke the cease-fire agreement.
Do you guys here finally understand? Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement!

Fleet 500

01-16-2007, 01:40 PM

Another hundred thousands of YOUR dead... instead you killed hundreds of thousands of them, that was much nicer and by your view, the right thing to do!
No, the conventional bombing of Japanese cities would have continued, therefore, it would also have been their dead, too.
And an actual invasion of Japan, which as I set was set for Nov., 1945 (and my dad would have been one of many to invade) would have caused many additional deaths on both sides.

drakkie

01-16-2007, 01:47 PM

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1351wmv&ak=null

Interesting video of the Iraqy MP. The links opens in winamp or Windows Media Player.

Enjoy.

Fleet 500

01-16-2007, 01:49 PM

Since when did the US care? the US should have gotten rid of him first time around? what stopped them?

The U.N. Unfortunately, Bush the elder went by the U.N.'s advice to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, but not to invade Iraq. This does, though, remove the stupid myth that Bush the elder was a "warmonger."

No Fly Zones only work when they are No Fly Zones. In that case the US broke a resolution as well.

Don't try to make excuses like henk has. For Iraq to fire at U.S. planes in the no-fly zone was a clear violation of the cease-fire agreement.

Two Senators. Totally a worthy point

Sorry, but the argument still stands.

It was a lot more than two. And what is the argument?

What the Bush administration has done is thought long and hard, come up with many study groups.....and decided to send good troops after bad, basically boosting numbers to their same level as they were last year.

Decisive action indeed.

It's not a solution by any stretch of the imagination. It's showing a lack of real vision by the Bush Administration - Maybe they truly did believe their own press that this would be a short and clean war - and as such did not have the long term future in mind. this war has gone on too long, and, despite "mission accomplished" banners and $20 Million victory parties, it's far from through.

The Bush administration, after analyzing data and reports, decided that it was too dangerous to let Saddam remain in power. There is evidence that Saddam planned to resume building WMD and possibly nuclear weapons once the "heat was off." Then there was the fact that there were terrorist training camps (Salman Pac, for one) in Iraq and known terrorists (for example,Abdul Rahmin Yasin, the man who mixed the chemicals to make the bomb used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) were receiving safe haven in that country.

henk4

01-16-2007, 02:21 PM

Stop making excuses for Saddam. It doesn't matter if he wanted to "make sure," he still broke the cease-fire agreement.
Do you guys here finally understand? Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement!

so when the americans fly in a no-fly zone and Saddam helps to keep it a no fly zone, he is breaching the cease-fire agreement? Isn't this called provocation? We had the Tonkin incident which you surely remember....

crisis

01-16-2007, 04:15 PM

No, because there were also high-ranking officials who favored using the A-bomb.
As I said, who?

It doesn't matter. Truman still had to make the ultimate decision.
It matters that one person made a decision to kill thousands of civilians and destroy two cities despite the advice of his military. What was the motivation when so many high ranking military leaders believed it would have no effect on tending the war. If you could put aside your sickening blind patriotism for a second you would see that the excuse that it “saved thousands more lives” is clearly written by the U.S. to try to justify this inexcusable act.

Just because those you listed were against it doesn't mean they were right. After all, Japan did not surrender after the 1st A-bomb was dropped.
Considering there were mearly 4 days between bombings it didn’t give them a lot of time. And as stated in the quotes I have posted many believed surrender negotiations were already underway.

crisis

01-16-2007, 04:24 PM

No, the conventional bombing of Japanese cities would have continued, therefore, it would also have been their dead, too.
And an actual invasion of Japan, which as I set was set for Nov., 1945 (and my dad would have been one of many to invade) would have caused many additional deaths on both sides.

Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff
“The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .”

Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces “atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker
“.. it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion.”

Major General Curtis E. LeMay
the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb.

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet,
“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . .

Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet
“..the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before”

Dad would have been just fine!:D

Fleet 500

01-16-2007, 05:02 PM

so when the americans fly in a no-fly zone and Saddam helps to keep it a no fly zone, he is breaching the cease-fire agreement? Isn't this called provocation? We had the Tonkin incident which you surely remember....
It was a no-fly zone for Iraq, not the U.S.
And Saddam didn't "help keep it a no fly zone," just the opposite. He ordered his troops to fire at American planes. Which, again, broke the cease-fire agreement.

Fleet 500

01-16-2007, 05:28 PM

As I said, who?

I'll get back to you on that.

It matters that one person made a decision to kill thousands of civilians and destroy two cities despite the advice of his military. What was the motivation when so many high ranking military leaders believed it would have no effect on tending the war. If you could put aside your sickening blind patriotism for a second you would see that the excuse that it “saved thousands more lives” is clearly written by the U.S. to try to justify this inexcusable act.

Don't try to bring in "sickening blind patriotism" into it (whatever that means). The two A-bombs did end WWII with Japan.
Pres. Truman figured that the lives lost in the two A-bombs were preferable to the many thousands more lost if the war went on even longer.

Considering there were mearly 4 days between bombings it didn’t give them a lot of time. And as stated in the quotes I have posted many believed surrender negotiations were already underway.

Many may have "believed" the Japanese were ready to surrender, but a few notable high-ranking officials were not.
http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

Japan had received what would seem to have been overwhelming shocks. Yet, after two atomic bombings, massive conventional bombings and the Soviet invasion, the Japanese government still refused to surrender.

The Postdam Proclamation had called for "Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers" (U.S. Dept. of State, Postdam 2, pg 1475). On the 13th, the Supreme Council For the Direction of the War (known as the "Big 6") met to address the Postdam Proclamation's call for surrender. Three members of the Big 6 favored immediate surrender; but the other three- War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu, and Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda- adamantly refused. The meeting adjourned in a deadlock, with no decision to surrender (Butow, pg. 200-202).

Later that day, the Japanese Cabinet met. It was only this body- not the Big 6, not even the Emperor- that could rule as to whether Japan could surrender. And a unamimous decision was required (Butow, pg. 176-177, 208). But again War Minister Anami led the opponents of surrender, resulting in a vote of 12 in favor of surrender, 3 against, and 1 undecided. The key concern for the Japanese military was loss of honor, not Japan's destruction. Having failed to reach a decision to surrender, the Cabinet adjourned (Sigal, pg. 265-267).

IBrake4Rainbows

01-16-2007, 08:19 PM

The U.N. Unfortunately, Bush the elder went by the U.N.'s advice to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, but not to invade Iraq. This does, though, remove the stupid myth that Bush the elder was a "warmonger."

Honestly. Following the UN's advice, something the Americans might want to do more often considering they invented the organisation and use it as a scapegoat when things do not go their way, is not such a bad thing.

Don't try to make excuses like henk has. For Iraq to fire at U.S. planes in the no-fly zone was a clear violation of the cease-fire agreement.

To fly in a No-Fly Zone is a violation of the No-Fly Zone. Which is worse?

It was a lot more than two. And what is the argument?

That congress agreeing to this war was due, mostly, to the Republicans holding the balance of power.

And that point still stands.

The Bush administration, after analyzing data and reports, decided that it was too dangerous to let Saddam remain in power. There is evidence that Saddam planned to resume building WMD and possibly nuclear weapons once the "heat was off." Then there was the fact that there were terrorist training camps (Salman Pac, for one) in Iraq and known terrorists (for example,Abdul Rahmin Yasin, the man who mixed the chemicals to make the bomb used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) were receiving safe haven in that country.

Planning to resume is the same as "we thought he looked like he was about to do something naughty". Anything preemptive is just moronic and not the way to run your country, or a war.

And there was no statement of intent regarding terrorist camps - it was about WMD's, something which the US believed him to have.

And we all know how that turned out.

crisis

01-16-2007, 08:54 PM

Don't try to bring in "sickening blind patriotism" into it
You stop first.

(whatever that means).
That’s funny/ironic.

The two A-bombs did end WWII with Japan.

Major General Curtis E. LeMay
the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb.

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet,
“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. .

Please explain why you know better than these people.

Pres. Truman figured that the lives lost in the two A-bombs were preferable to the many thousands more lost if the war went on even longer.
You know this how?

http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm
From your source.

the Japanese government had been pursuing Soviet mediation to end the war in response to the Emperor's request of June 22, 1945, a fact often overlooked today.

Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall thought that even after using A-bombs on Japan the invasion would still be necessary, anyway, as opposed to the belief that using atomic bombs on Japan would make the mainland invasion unnecessary

So based on this, saving further casualties played no part in the decision.

In a June 18, 1945 meeting with Truman and his military advisors, Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy argued that Japan should be permitted to retain the Emperor and should be given a warning of the atomic bomb in order to bring an earlier and less deadly surrender

Sounds simple and far less brutal. Especially for a country so interested in saving lives.

A point made by then Assistant Sec. of War John McCloy and seconded by the then Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence, Captain Ellis Zacharias is of particular importance. Regarding the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan, McCloy later wrote, "everyone was so intent on winning the war by military means that the introduction of political considerations was almost accidental"

There is nothing in your post to support this comment. “Many may have "believed" the Japanese were ready to surrender, but a few notable high-ranking officials were not.”

Who are these notable high-ranking officials ?

the Japanese government still refused to surrender.
Due to the request for unconditional surrender and the perceived threat to the Emperor which Truman understood.
“The U.S. government was not ignorant of the importance of the Emperor to Japanese surrender. Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew had explained this to President Truman in person on May 28, 1945.”

The Postdam Proclamation had called for "Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers" (U.S. Dept. of State, Postdam 2, pg 1475).
No. At least try to read from your sources.
It demanded "the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces".

In addition, the proclamation made statements that, to the Japanese, could appear threatening to the Emperor: "There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest" and "stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals"

On the 13th, the Supreme Council For the Direction of the War (known as the "Big 6") met to address the Postdam Proclamation's call for surrender. Three members of the Big 6 favored immediate surrender; but the other three- War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu, and Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda- adamantly refused. The meeting adjourned in a deadlock, with no decision to surrender (Butow, pg. 200-202).

Later that day, the Japanese Cabinet met. It was only this body- not the Big 6, not even the Emperor- that could rule as to whether Japan could surrender. And a unamimous decision was required (Butow, pg. 176-177, 208). But again War Minister Anami led the opponents of surrender, resulting in a vote of 12 in favor of surrender, 3 against, and 1 undecided. The key concern for the Japanese military was loss of honor, not Japan's destruction. Having failed to reach a decision to surrender, the Cabinet adjourned (Sigal, pg. 265-267).
What does this mean to you?

Fleet 500

01-16-2007, 10:05 PM

You stop first.

I never started.

You know this how?

Obviously, he gave the go-ahead to use the A-bombs.

From your source.

the Japanese government had been pursuing Soviet mediation to end the war in response to the Emperor's request of June 22, 1945, a fact often overlooked today.

Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall thought that even after using A-bombs on Japan the invasion would still be necessary, anyway, as opposed to the belief that using atomic bombs on Japan would make the mainland invasion unnecessary

So based on this, saving further casualties played no part in the decision.

But dropping the A-bomb did prevent further casualties because the Japanese (finally) surrendered.

In a June 18, 1945 meeting with Truman and his military advisors, Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy argued that Japan should be permitted to retain the Emperor and should be given a warning of the atomic bomb in order to bring an earlier and less deadly surrender

Sounds simple and far less brutal. Especially for a country so interested in saving lives.

But McCloy had no way of knowing if it would have worked. I doubt it would have- the Japanese thought of surrendering as an ultimate disgrace.

A point made by then Assistant Sec. of War John McCloy and seconded by the then Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence, Captain Ellis Zacharias is of particular importance. Regarding the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan, McCloy later wrote, "everyone was so intent on winning the war by military means that the introduction of political considerations was almost accidental"

I would agree with that. Everyone was war-weary (wouldn't you have been?).
It's fine to sit back 60 years later and analyze everything, but back then it wasn't possible to take 10 years to make decisions.

There is nothing in your post to support this comment. “Many may have "believed" the Japanese were ready to surrender, but a few notable high-ranking officials were not.”

Who are these notable high-ranking officials ?

Who? The ones mentioned in the parts I posted... the War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu and the Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda. All of whom refused to agree to a surrender.

“The U.S. government was not ignorant of the importance of the Emperor to Japanese surrender. Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew had explained this to President Truman in person on May 28, 1945.”

No. At least try to read from your sources.
It demanded "the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces".

I already know it was an unconditional surrender. I knew it 25 years ago. I didn't say anything to the opposite.

In addition, the proclamation made statements that, to the Japanese, could appear threatening to the Emperor: "There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest" and "stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals"

What does this mean to you?

I think, considering all of the agony, brutal treatment of prisoners (remember the Bataan Death March?) and all of the suffering the Japanese caused, they were lucky that the U.S. requested only an unconditional surrender and didn't turn Japan into one giant crater.

Fleet 500

01-16-2007, 10:18 PM

To fly in a No-Fly Zone is a violation of the No-Fly Zone. Which is worse?

Gee... do I have to spell it out for you? I guess I do.
After the cease-fire agreement was signed in '91, there were two no-fly zones. One in northern Iraq and one in southern Iraq. Iraqi planes were not allowed to fly in those zones. To do so would be a violation of the cease-fire agreement.

IBrake4Rainbows

01-16-2007, 11:23 PM

henk4

01-17-2007, 01:43 AM

Gee... do I have to spell it out for you? I guess I do.
After the cease-fire agreement was signed in '91, there were two no-fly zones. One in northern Iraq and one in southern Iraq. Iraqi planes were not allowed to fly in those zones. To do so would be a violation of the cease-fire agreement.

I have enjoyed to get you going on this. If you had only vaguely understood the "tongue in cheek" concept, you would had understood my first post a little better.:)

Matra et Alpine

01-17-2007, 01:49 AM

I think, considering all of the agony, brutal treatment of prisoners (remember the Bataan Death March?) and all of the suffering the Japanese caused, they were lucky that the U.S. requested only an unconditional surrender and didn't turn Japan into one giant crater.and how are you going to defend a future attack on the US on the basis of the brutal treatment in Guantanamo and US-backed torture in other areas along with the death of many "civilians" ?

BTW, you need to read less biased rewrites of history. Japan has NO natural resources. There never was a need to "invade" a simple blockade would bring about surrender. The role of the emperor is liek GWB :) Many will hang on his every word and believe it true BUT as HE was willing to discuss surrender via Russia then the Japanese woudl have fallen into line 100% if he said to surrender !!!

re "no fly zones" remember that resolution 688 did not actually request such methods. It was a UK/US "decision". Iraq were NOT legally required by ANY international law to not fly. Only by bullying tactics from US/UK/France. WHen you wre bullied did you not occasionally stand up against the person ??

ruim20

01-17-2007, 09:10 AM

I bet the US will never hatch a "fight" agaisnt China.

Impressive how the US's last conflicts where sure "wins" wich naturaly became what we all know, massacres of civilians, none of them american of course wich makes it alright for the US public.

And now, after reading all of Fleets "ideias" i return to my first statement in the thread, guided by hate thuwords the US goverment and all of thoose who support their politics, i believe it's the right thing to feel, a goverment wich has brought nothing more to the world than war and death. Vicious and money hungry people, without any morale, capable of doing anything to get what they want.

Past and Present have show me that when they do one "good" thing is to cover up 10 "bad" ones. You where never the world police, you where and still are bullys.

Sorry for all the mispelling.

cmcpokey

01-17-2007, 10:09 AM

And now, after reading all of Fleets "ideias" i return to my first statement in the thread, guided by hate thuwords the US goverment and all of thoose who support their politics, i believe it's the right thing to feel, a goverment wich has brought nothing more to the world than war and death. Vicious and money hungry people, without any morale, capable of doing anything to get what they want.
if that was not the MOST generalized, biased, and incorrect statement i have read on this forum would be..

satements like that make you no better. how much interaction have you had with americans, other than on here, of course? I bet none, and the way I can tell that is by those gross generalizations. Money, power hungry, with no morals? ...i cant even begin to explain how upset that makes me.

EDIT: oh yeah, notcie that most of the places the US is fighting today, are the places that Europe Fuked up years ago, and we are still trying to clean up thise messes.

henk4

01-17-2007, 10:51 AM

if that was not the MOST generalized, biased, and incorrect statement i have read on this forum would be..

it would not be if Fleet was representative of the majority of Americans....

ruim20

01-17-2007, 11:17 AM

if that was not the MOST generalized, biased, and incorrect statement i have read on this forum would be..

satements like that make you no better. how much interaction have you had with americans, other than on here, of course? I bet none, and the way I can tell that is by those gross generalizations. Money, power hungry, with no morals? ...i cant even begin to explain how upset that makes me.

EDIT: oh yeah, notcie that most of the places the US is fighting today, are the places that Europe Fuked up years ago, and we are still trying to clean up thise messes.

Read my post again, i'm talking about the US government and thoose who support it, if the hood fits fine by me.

And you'r doing what??? let me guess you'r making a better world for us all, jeee... thanks, thanks for bombing civilians, thanks for lying to the world in order to invade another country, thanks for being the country with the biggest debt to FMI, thanks for still making land mines, etc.

And you really think your government is fighting thoose wars to free someone or for some freedom ideal? Their fighting becouse it fills their pockets! MONEY!

Fleet 500

01-17-2007, 01:48 PM

What were US planes doing in a No-Fly Zone?

and - let's be blunt here - what Iraqi Air force? they're planes had propellers - other than the ones the US gave them in the 1980 - 1988 war, then promptly bombed in 1991.

EDIT: There is one incident where the Iraqi's, on this list, violated the No-Fly Zone. there are 3 US violations. thanks for the map ;)
For the THIRD time now, it was a no-fly zone for IRAQI planes, not U.S. Did you understand now, or do I have to keep saying it over and over again?

The Iraqis were firing at U.S. planes in the no-fly zone; a clear violation of the cease-fire agreement.

Fleet 500

01-17-2007, 01:49 PM

Pando

01-17-2007, 04:54 PM

ruim, please do not judge the American people by Fleet's words, he is in a small minority with his opinions.

Fleet 500

01-17-2007, 06:02 PM

ruim, please do not judge the American people by Fleet's words, he is in a small minority with his opinions.
On the contrary, a great many people in the U.S. agree with what I've been basically saying.

Rockefella

01-17-2007, 06:04 PM

On the contrary, a great many people in the U.S. agree with what I've been basically saying.
About 50% of Americans, so yes.

Fleet 500

01-17-2007, 06:13 PM

and how are you going to defend a future attack on the US on the basis of the brutal treatment in Guantanamo and US-backed torture in other areas along with the death of many "civilians" ???

Those who participated of mistreatment in Guantanamo were put on trial and/or convicted. Except for very rare, isolated incidents such as that, the prisoners are being treated well (certainly better than any prisoners the terrorists would have)... air conditioned cells and glazed turkey on Thanksgiving, for instance. There have been about 20 soldiers accused of wrongdoings out of well over 100,000 who have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is no worse than any other country's record.

BTW, you need to read less biased rewrites of history. Japan has NO natural resources. There never was a need to "invade" a simple blockade would bring about surrender. The role of the emperor is liek GWB :) Many will hang on his every word and believe it true BUT as HE was willing to discuss surrender via Russia then the Japanese woudl have fallen into line 100% if he said to surrender !!!

That was actual history from the link I posted, not "biased, rewrites" of history. It listed exactly the Japanese officials who voted no to surrender. The Japanese would have kept on fighting and killing U.S. troops during a "simple blockade." Remember, their motto was, "Millions die with honor."

re "no fly zones" remember that resolution 688 did not actually request such methods. It was a UK/US "decision". Iraq were NOT legally required by ANY international law to not fly. Only by bullying tactics from US/UK/France. WHen you wre bullied did you not occasionally stand up against the person ??

Yeah, "poor Iraq." They were bullied with the no fly zone... even though they started the whole thing when they invaded Kuwait. Just like the Japanese started everything when they started their hostilities. I am still amazed how some people try to place blame on those who didn't even start hostilities! Absolutely amazing!

Fleet 500

01-17-2007, 06:14 PM

About 50% of Americans, so yes.
Thanks for agreeing. Perhaps Pando has learned something?

crisis

01-17-2007, 06:14 PM

I never started.
The constant apologies and excuses you make for your countries worst acts are examples of sickening blind patriotism.

Obviously, he gave the go-ahead to use the A-bombs.
See above.

But dropping the A-bomb did prevent further casualties because the Japanese (finally) surrendered.
Which they would have done without dropping them according to the military people who knew the facts as opposed to the propaganda the American people were taught for years after so they could sleep at night.

But McCloy had no way of knowing if it would have worked.
Don’t take that in isolation. The Japanese were defeated according to the military experts of the day. The just needed to surrender.

I doubt it would have- the Japanese thought of surrendering as an ultimate disgrace.
Read the link you expect me to read and you will see that there were Japanese who were prepared to.

I would agree with that. Everyone was war-weary (wouldn't you have been?).
It's fine to sit back 60 years later and analyze everything, but back then it wasn't possible to take 10 years to make decisions.
Nor was it desirable to make rash decisions killing thousands of innocent people.

Who? The ones mentioned in the parts I posted... the War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu and the Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda. All of whom refused to agree to a surrender.

You said Many may have "believed" the Japanese were ready to surrender, but a few notable high-ranking officials were not.” In response to my question about which US military people believed surrender negotiations were already underway.

War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu and the Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda are JAPANESE. As far as I can ascertain they did not vote to drop the bomb!

I already know it was an unconditional surrender. I knew it 25 years ago. I didn't say anything to the opposite.
But The Potsdam Proclamation didn’t call for this as you claimed.

"Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers"

Try to answer my comments relevant to the point at hand.

I think, considering all of the agony, brutal treatment of prisoners (remember the Bataan Death March?) and all of the suffering the Japanese caused, they were lucky that the U.S. requested only an unconditional surrender and didn't turn Japan into one giant crater.
So you think that in the end it would have been fair to hold the entire civilian population, who were not involved in any of these acts, responsible by death for the actions of a portion of the Japanese military?
Likewise the brutal war crimes committed by allied forces should justify all of our fiery deaths as well.

Rockefella

01-17-2007, 06:16 PM

Thanks for agreeing. Perhaps Pando has learned something?
Well, I agree with the truth. It's when you start throwing in Republican bias that I tend to sway the other way. ;)

Esperante

01-17-2007, 06:20 PM

oh yeah, notcie that most of the places the US is fighting today, are the places that Europe Fuked up years ago, and we are still trying to clean up thise messes.
I don't like this kind of apologist attitude at all. The 'oh, we're just doing it to cover Europe's mess-ups' is rather silly. Most notably because:
A) Europe is doing a better job cleaning up after themselves in a humane, diplomatic manner than the US, and

B)The US should be more concerned with mass genocide and famine if it really wants to be the 'world police' and clean up after irresponsible regimes and administrations

It's an excuse, really, we go invade someplace for our own benefit, **** up ourselves, then pass it off as trying to undo someone else's mess (the Bush administration likes to pin it on Clinton).

crisis

01-17-2007, 06:25 PM

Those who participated of mistreatment in Guantanamo were put on trial and/or convicted. Except for very rare, isolated incidents such as that, the prisoners are being treated well (certainly better than any prisoners the terrorists would have)... air conditioned cells and glazed turkey on Thanksgiving,
Gee, I bet the Muslims and non Americans really relish the chance to celebrate and American custom such as this.
Hang on,,,, you think the whole world celebrates thanksgiving don’t you?
Blind patriotism alert!

for instance. There have been about 20 soldiers accused of wrongdoings out of well over 100,000 who have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is no worse than any other country's record.
In our discussion about the US bombing of Hiroshima you suggested that due to the "brutal treatment of prisoners and all of the suffering the Japanese (soldiers) caused, they were lucky that the U.S. requested only an unconditional surrender and didn't turn Japan into one giant crater."Looks like the terrorists have the same philosophy as you.

That was actual history from the link I posted, not "biased, rewrites" of history. It listed exactly the Japanese officials who voted no to surrender. The Japanese would have kept on fighting and killing U.S. troops during a "simple blockade." Remember, their motto was, "Millions die with honor."
Naughty naughty. All of my evidence points elsewhere and you have not been able to refute it with anything to support you version of history.

Yeah, "poor Iraq." They were bullied with the no fly zone... even though they started the whole thing when they invaded Kuwait. Just like the Japanese started everything when they started their hostilities. I am still amazed how some people try to place blame on those who didn't even start hostilities! Absolutely amazing!
I am amazed by those who expect so much of everyone else yet can ignore any transgressions on their own countries part out of blind patriotism.