Suicide Bomber kills 22 in Iraq

[CrimsonWhite]

AS an administrator...should you not possess even the smallest bit of knowledge about WW2 or EU/US relations?

The US became involved in WW2... primarily to prevent a unified Nazi Europe... not to save John Smith of Manchester....ok? Once again...the US like most nations ..do not act altruistically in foreign affairs... the US is by far the least generous. If we want to look at altruistic nations..it would be more scandanavian and Uk and even Japanease.

The central focus of US Foreign Policy over the past 100 years...has been to divide and disrupt a single Europe.

Initially they feared a unified Nazi Europe...subsequently the focus has been to prevent a unified Europe.... European Union... they failed on the crucial economic front...where the EU now pisses on the US... .however they have been much more successful in disrupting a united EU foreign policy and defence policy.....shown by the Uk's split from the rest of Europe over Iraq.

I have written several articles and papers on NATO and the US fear of a politically unified Europe.

I cannot believe that i am actually engaging with people of your academic level.... initially it was just to put my toe into the morass of american ignorance ....just to experience something that we dont really have in Europe (utter ignorance)... but didnt realise just how deep the pool of jesus freak retards was.

To conclude... the US only ever acts out of self interest.... recently it is not even the interest of the US people...but the interests of a small group of powerful people who profit from a JOKE US defence budget.... only the US people would be stupid enough to pay it.

Why? because they are drenched in fear and hatred... and think they need to spend 100x more than every other western nation! LMAO

Actually, If you had ever read a fuckin' book, you would know that the US entered the war militaristically due to an attack in Hawaii by a Nazi ally. The US had in de facto been invovled in the European front for some time with our lend/lease program(your welcome, you ungrateful bastard). You are correct about not wanting save John Smith of Manchester though. There was a large contigent in the US that did not want to enter the European front. Many Americans, Joseph Kennedy included, did not mind the Nazis so much. Had it not been for the close peronal friendship of Churchill and Roosevelt, You would probably be typing in german right now.

 

[MichaelCollins]

Actually, If you had ever read a fuckin' book, you would know that the US entered the war militaristically due to an attack in Hawaii by a Nazi ally. The US had in de facto been invovled in the European front for some time with our lend/lease program(your welcome, you ungrateful bastard). You are correct about not wanting save John Smith of Manchester though. There was a large contigent in the US that did not want to enter the European front. Many Americans, Joseph Kennedy included, did not mind the Nazis so much. Had it not been for the close peronal friendship of Churchill and Roosevelt, You would probably be typing in german right now.

Without doubt the most naieve post that i have ever read.

Read my previous post and gain a semblance of an education.

Regards and pity,

Michael

 

[jla1178]

Let me just make something clear to the retards who try to fool themselves that the US is a force for good in the world.

The US NEVER invades or bombs a country for the good of those people....

The Saddam was evil argument...and the US went in..to save the Iraqi people is so laughable...that i find it hard to read those who propagate this bile and not cringe.

The US were the main supporters of Saddam when he committed most of his attrocities... and it was certainly not in the millions.


Now then... Rwanda, the Congo, Sudan, Camobodia etc etc etc etc...These were in the millions. Millions of civilians being massacred....Where was this "fighter for freedom and democracy" USofA then? It was safely at home and tucked up in bed...because it was not in their interest to get involved.



I know that the hatefilled supporters of the US terrorism in Iraq know the truth...deep inside they know the truth.

US military action is only ever committed in self interest..... NEVER to help others.

 

[editec]

AS an administrator...should you not possess even the smallest bit of knowledge about WW2 or EU/US relations?

As an administrator? No. As an American, probably.

And, as far as I can tell he does have a fairly good handle on that history, too.

Do you? Thus far you haven't proven it to me.

The US became involved in WW2... primarily to prevent a unified Nazi Europe... not to save John Smith of Manchester....ok? Once again...the US like most nations ..do not act altruistically in foreign affairs...

Nor should it.

Every national government should put their nation's interests ahead of international moral considerations. That is their job, after all.

the US is by far the least generous.

We have been generous in the past. Denying that obviously and easily proven fact is at least one of the reasons that most of us think you're mission here is merely to emflame the passions of the less inteligent and less informed American patriots on this board.

If we want to look at altruistic nations..it would be more scandanavian and Uk and even Japanease.

Yes, those nation have often come to the aid of nations, too. Good for them.

It was nice when the rest of the world started acting generously to help out the less fortaunate like America had been acting since WWII... when we financed the rebuilding of EUROPE.

Of course, those nations didn't spend trillions of dollars defending themselves from he communist menace for fourty years like we selfish Americans did for EUROPE AND JAPAN, either.

They can afford it to give a little back, just as we'd been doing for that whole damned time for much of the world.

The central focus of US Foreign Policy over the past 100 years...has been to divide and disrupt a single Europe.

Oh what sheer blather. The EUROS didn't need our help to stay divided.

Now, if you'd made the case that America economy benefitted tremendously from the EUROS inability to keep the peace between its xenophobic and racist nations, you'd be absolutely correct.

America got rich supplying you EUROS with the arms to kill each other, that's for damned sure.

Initially they feared a unified Nazi Europe...subsequently the focus has been to prevent a unified Europe.... European Union... they failed on the crucial economic front...where the EU now pisses on the US... .however they have been much more successful in disrupting a united EU foreign policy and defence policy.....shown by the Uk's split from the rest of Europe over Iraq.

Hmmm...an interesting and I think completely absurd premise.

I suspect WHO unified Europe was at least as important to us (and most Europeans, too) as its unification, generally.

I have written several articles and papers on NATO and the US fear of a politically unified Europe.

I've love to read them. I am certain they must be smarter and better informed than your posts here.

I cannot believe that i am actually engaging with people of your academic level.... initially it was just to put my toe into the morass of american ignorance ....just to experience something that we dont really have in Europe (utter ignorance)... but didnt realise just how deep the pool of jesus freak retards was.

When you seek out a swamp, you really shouldn't whine that your feet got wet. Particularly since you have chosen to jump in the muck whenever you find it.

To conclude... the US only ever acts out of self interest....

One would hope that was true.

recently it is not even the interest of the US people...but the interests of a small group of powerful people who profit from a JOKE US defence budget....

That has been my complaint with US foreign policies for decades, now.

only the US people would be stupid enough to pay it.

You mean like the English people were stupid enough to pay for the Hessians?

The American people are hardly unique in that respect. Leaders lead, people pay, the world over, sport.

Why? because they are drenched in fear and hatred... and think they need to spend 100x more than every other western nation! LMAO

If you are half as smart as you think you are, you know how thoroughly dishonest your conclusions about the American people really are.

If you a tenth as smart as you claim to be, you know perfectly well the American people no more control their government's foreign policies then most people in the world control theirs.

If you were even remotely interesting in engaging in real discussions about America or American foreign policy, you could have engaged people on this board who could have joined you in serious discussions about that subject.

Instead you choose to post inflammatory bullshit designed to bring out the chauvinism of some of this boards dumbest posters.

So, quit whining troll.

You're a faker, and we all know it.

 

[Jeepers]

The central focus of US Foreign Policy over the past 100 years...has been to divide and disrupt a single Europe.

Entertaining hypothesis but, europe doesnt need any help from us to remain in disarray.. When is the UK going to adopt the euro?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Without doubt the most naieve post that i have ever read.

Read my previous post and gain a semblance of an education.

Regards and pity,

Michael

Could someone just ban this fucker and get it over. He has now quit responding to posts. He is just taking up space and that makes him a waste of space. Here that Collins? You are a load that should have been swallowed.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

This may come as a shock to you--you being as dutifuly steeped in your masters' propaganda--but T-72's, MiG's, ZSU's, AK-47's, RPG's et al are not manufactured by the US.

Who's my master?

According to Said Aburish, Saddam made a visit to Amman in the year 1979, before the Iran-Iraq war, where he met three senior CIA agents. He discussed with them his plans to invade Iran.[5]

In 1980, Iraq started the war with a blitzkrieg attack, the tide had turned by 1982 in favor of much larger Iran, and the Ronald Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might lose. Reagan chose Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Saddam, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.[2]

After the visit, the Reagan administration offered Hussein financial credits that eventually made Iraq the third-largest recipient of US assistance. The CIA and DIA relation with Saddam intensified. The CIA regularly sent a team to Saddam to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft, Iraq used this information to target Iranian troops with chemical weapons.[1][2]

Under President George H.W. Bush, the U.S. doubled its financial credits for Iraq. Dick Cheney, who was secretary of defense and a statutory member of the National Security Council that reviewed Iraq policy, supported the administration's appeasement policy.[2]

Saddam Hussein - United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WebCite query result

But the agency quickly moved into action. Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions.

And just to remind you about the little incident of the 1991 Intifadas against Saddam, which might have been successfull in finally overthrowing the murderers. George the First even made a great magnanimous call to action on February 15th of that year to force out the tyrant. What happened? Despite the fact that the US was totally capable of enforcing the no-fly zone in order to severely cripple Saddam's response to the uprising, it simply allowed him to go right over and absolutely crush the rebellion. Yay for the great magnanimity of talk and no action when it is most reasonable and necessary.

The Administration did sternly warn Iraqi authorities on March 7 against the use of chemical weapons during the unrest, but equivocated about Iraq's use of helicopter gunships against civilians. President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker stated in mid-March that helicopter gunships should not be used, but other Administration officials gave conflicting signals. The question of helicopters was ignored in the March 3 cease-fire agreement, which clearly prohibited Iraq's use of fixed-wing aircraft. In the end, the aircraft were employed with impunity to attack rebels and civilians alike, and proved instrumental in quelling the insurrection.

1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bootneck]

I have written several articles and papers on NATO and the US fear of a politically unified Europe.

Ah! So it was your paper about which a senior NATO official made this comment:

"I am sitting on the can with a paper by Michael Collins before me. Soon it will be behind me."

 

[MichaelCollins]

Could someone just ban this fucker and get it over. He has now quit responding to posts. He is just taking up space and that makes him a waste of space. Here that Collins? You are a load that should have been swallowed.

Is that English?

Or is it hillbilly fear and hatredism?

regards,

Michael.

 

[user_name_guest]

Why did the suicide bomber blew herself up? Should we be outraged at her? Why did she have to kill 22 others? Are those 22 others innocent? Should we mourn their losses? Should we use it for political commentary? 35 people died in the hands of terrorists? Or died because US are in Iraq? I didn't know Iraqis fought similarly to terrorist groups since i thought there weren't terrorists in that country. Why are they even in Iraq?

 

[editec]

Could someone just ban this fucker and get it over. He has now quit responding to posts. He is just taking up space and that makes him a waste of space. Here that Collins? You are a load that should have been swallowed.

It is a truly bad idea to ban the comments of people with ideas that we find objectionable.

It leads to group-think and group-think, while very comforting, is basically intellectual stagnation.

Show me a nation on its way down, and I'll show you a nation which has eliminated from power all those who won't sign onto the mind-set of those in power.

If we ban people like Michael we might as well all don brownshirts and start burning books, too.