-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500]Don't forget the 1 million+ Vietnamese who were slaughtered [I]after[/I] the U.S. left. They should have cooperated with the U.S.- they would have been [I]much[/I] better off.[/QUOTE]
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 [i]much[/i] better off
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500]You call that "logic?" Trying to equate car accidents with terrorism?[/QUOTE]
If that's the level of debate you wish to engage in, I'm not going to bother.
Imbecile.
-
[QUOTE=nota]Isn't it about time the US started cooperating with others?- the world would be [i]much[/i] better off[/QUOTE]
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?
-
The circle turns ..
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6244425.stm[/url]
-
[quote=Fleet 500]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.
[/quote]
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.
[URL="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/"]http://www.iraqbodycount.org/[/URL]
Indirectly the US caused most. They fueled the fire of the extremists and they responded,bloody.
And dont forget about Afghanistan and Somalia either.
[U]CdocZ you hit the nail on the head there !!![/U]
-
[QUOTE=Coventrysucks]If that's the level of debate you wish to engage in, I'm not going to bother.
Imbecile.[/QUOTE]
Lol. Look who's talking!
I would elaborate further, but I don't think you are capable of understanding. ;)
-
[QUOTE=drakkie]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.[/QUOTE]
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 [I]always[/I] 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.
[QUOTE]Let's say the terrorists did 5000 US victims worldwide in the last decade. Estimated.
Now visit this website and be shocked.
[URL="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/"]http://www.iraqbodycount.org/[/URL]
Indirectly the US caused most. They fueled the fire of the extremists and they responded,bloody.
And dont forget about Afghanistan and Somalia either. [/QUOTE]
Much deaths are caused by the terrorists/homocide bombers.
-
[QUOTE=nota]
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[/QUOTE]
The U.S. left Vietnam due to political reasons, [I]not[/I] 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!
[QUOTE]Isn't it about time the US started cooperating with others?- the world would be [i]much[/i] better off
[/QUOTE]
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.
-
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.
-
[QUOTE=Matt]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.[/QUOTE]
Thanks Matt, the above applies for me too.
-
[QUOTE=Matt]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.[/QUOTE]
I wonder what the 0.1% you agree with me is. ;)
-
[quote=Fleet 500]I wonder what the 0.1% you agree with me is. ;)[/quote]
That our country isn't AS villainous and AS bad as some people like to make it out to be.
-
[QUOTE=Matt]That our country isn't AS villainous and AS bad as some people like to make it out to be.[/QUOTE]
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 [I]remotely[/I] 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.
-
Matt, that is probably the most ingenious idea I have heard in awhile. I'm serious, heh.
EDIT:
[QUOTE=The_Canuck]I'm sick of the ignorant people who don't even [I]remotely[/I] 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.[/QUOTE]
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.
-
[QUOTE=The_Canuck]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.[/QUOTE]
You're right; they are idiots! :D
[QUOTE] C'mon people he not THAT retarded.(though some of his polices are...disliked) [/QUOTE]
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 [I]every[/I] president has had policies which were disliked.