Europe's Long-Standing Dislike of America

[Hagbard Celine]

I dont recall reading anywhere in Kagan's article where it says unilateralism is "right" or "good" or that the weak are evil...that is your spin and not necessarily a correct one either...care to re-read the article?

Unilateralism is a dangerous precedent to set, especially in a world that is as globalized as ours is currently. I've heard many people refer to the Bush doctrine of unilateral, presumptive attacks as the military equivalent to opening Pandora's box.

 

[Annie]

Unilateralism is a dangerous precedent to set, especially in a world that is as globalized as ours is currently. I've heard many people refer to the Bush doctrine of unilateral, presumptive attacks as the military equivalent to opening Pandora's box.

And those many people are from 'where'? The 'loyal opposition' ala Carter? Our Euroweenie enemies? (think 'axis of weasels', not others).

 

[sitarro]

Unilateralism is a dangerous precedent to set, especially in a world that is as globalized as ours is currently. I've heard many people refer to the Bush doctrine of unilateral, presumptive attacks as the military equivalent to opening Pandora's box.

I wonder what the British, the Polish, Turks, Australians, Spanish, etc. think of being nonexistent in the eyes of the dufuss left. Everyone including the Russians had a problem with Saddam including the U.N., that is until he bought the French,Germans, Russians and the dimwitted U.N..
I don't think you understand the definition of unilateral kid. We were also asked to aid Iraqis take back their country from an evil jerk who performed acts so cruel that the idea that the Getmo and Abu Grabe pretend torture. My guiess is that friends of yours are participating in the same acts and calling it hazing for a frat membership.

 

[Harmageddon]

First of all, my apologies to Sitarro.
I was browsing the forum and while I checked the pictures page, I suddenly felt disarmed by the faces behind the statements, including yours.
You seem like a nice guy, and although we seem to disagree roughly a hundred percent about your government's policies, I just want to say - dude, take it easy. And I will do my best to do the same.

However, as to the remarks (biting my tongue here):

Originally posted by Hagbard Celine:
Unilateralism is a dangerous precedent to set, especially in a world that is as globalized as ours is currently. I've heard many people refer to the Bush doctrine of unilateral, presumptive attacks as the military equivalent to opening Pandora's box.
Originally posted by Kathianne:
And those many people are from 'where'? The 'loyal opposition' ala Carter? Our Euroweenie enemies? (think 'axis of weasels', not others).

I agree with Hagbard fully on this. As for Kathianne's remark: they are from everywhere. You might not know, but there were over 100 million people in 800 cities across the globe protesting the Iraq war. Not once, but dozens of times already. The antiwar protests about Iraq have been noted by the Guinness book of records as the biggest of all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_protests_against_war_on_Iraq

Whereas there were a handful of treehugging hippies protesting the war in Afghanistan. Take it as a hint.

As to your weenies remark: whatever. I've had it shredding you people's ego's to smithereens over sheer ignorance alone. If you really are such a masochist that you beg for pain, be more creative, maybe I'll bite.

Originally posted by Sitarro:
I wonder what the British, the Polish, Turks, Australians, Spanish, etc. think of being nonexistent in the eyes of the dufuss left. Everyone including the Russians had a problem with Saddam including the U.N., that is until he bought the French,Germans, Russians and the dimwitted U.N..

Nonexistent? Whatever.
Most nations had a problem with Saddam, until your government decided he would be a swell guy to oppose the theocratic regime in Iran. Being a dictator and all, he was not particularly interested in sharing power in Iraq, not with religious leaders either. You had your man. You sold him WMD. Multiple times.
The US of A bought Saddam, and Saddam sold himself with your money to Russia, France, the Germans and whomever would buy him.
I'm saying neither the French, nor the Americans have clean hands here. You are ignorant if you believe otherwise. ALL governments are comprised of lying people, including mine, and yours. Sorry to pop your bubble.
Yes, the French and the Russians had longtime cheap oil deals with Saddam, thus a reason for them to oppose the war in Iraq. Which is hypocritical at best. But this has gone far beyond fingerpointing to who was a hypocrit - just accept that everyone was. Going from hypocritical to downright slaughter is still a step down on the ladder of morally acceptable behaviour.

Originally posted by Sitarro:
I don't think you understand the definition of unilateral kid. We were also asked to aid Iraqis take back their country from an evil jerk who performed acts so cruel that the idea that the Getmo and Abu Grabe pretend torture. My guiess is that friends of yours are participating in the same acts and calling it hazing for a frat membership.

I can't seem to recall any Iraqi's or any other nation but Israel begging on CNN if the Americans would please invade Iraq. If you have a link, I would be grateful.

If you refer to the "coalition of the willing" as opposed to unilateral, there was not much of a case there. Sure, the British were in. So were the Afghans, whose government at the time was. . . . a yes, Karzai, installed by the US to keep an eye on things untill free elections. Small wonder he didn't raise a finger. The Mussolini's, I mean Italians were in, so was most of Eastern Europe - who were all hoping to increase their status in the west by supporting a war that was opposed by their former leaders in Moscow. Makes sense, no?
The Netherlands were in, although it took them a full two weeks to say so. . .f*cking hypocrits. The Dutch government stated something like this: "Well, now that the major fighting seems to be over, with the Americans in the capital, we would like to say we oppose the military action so far, but for things not to get out of hand we need a more multilateral force, so we're in." What they didn't say was that American companies had invested 500 million dollars in the Dutch economy but had expected a payback for such a generous gift. This was it. We're still in Afghanistan for it. Nor did they speak of that U.N. weapons inspector who had shown up in the weeks before the war and told my government there was nothing there.

As for the torture under Saddam, it was probably the same as the torture under US occupation. Brutal, sadistic and human. The reasons for being tortured are different of course, in the days under Saddam you were being tortured to death merely for looking like a kurd and saying you thought Saddam wasn't doing a good job running the country. Now, under US occupation, you get tortured to death because you look like an arab, and have stated you do not think the US is doing a good job running the country. Plus now, you may be accused of having links to Al'Quaida, which makes it all legitimate.

To the guy being tortured, this doesn't look like an improvement.
I believe it was Rush Limbaugh or some nazi pig, that made the statement that Abu Graib torture was just really fraternity pranks by some young guys in a desert without much else to do. No big deal.

I mean, they are only "sandniggers" after all. Not humans.

 

[CSM]

Unilateralism is a dangerous precedent to set, especially in a world that is as globalized as ours is currently. I've heard many people refer to the Bush doctrine of unilateral, presumptive attacks as the military equivalent to opening Pandora's box.

Dangerous precedent does not necessarily equate to good or evil...

I know many folks view it that way. I also know that many people at one time thought Galileo and Capernicos (sp?) where evil men and that the world was flat. Popular (or not) opinion doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.

Again...read the original article and try to do so objectively. Those countries that are weaker militarily, economically, etc tend to favor other means than the exercise of power (even the US engaged in this at one time and still does in some areas); those countries powerful in an area use that power...sometimes unilaterally. The US does that as well...as does every other country. They use what power they have to their best intersts....

For those of you who equate Abu Graib to the tortured under Saddam Hussein, you need to put down the pot and get real for a few minutes.... they are NOT equal and just saying it does not make it true. It is perhaps viewed as worse for the US to engage in such a thing as occured in Abu Graib because the US has long been held to a different standard (much of that view is self inflicted). That being said, I dont believe you are going to find any mass graves in the US....and we have found MANY of them in Iraq.

 

[sitarro]

Well Harmageddon,
No need to apologize, but your right, I am a nice guy . . . most of the time. I tend to get not nice when kids that barely have achieved pubic hair growth denigrate my country and my President. You see kid, the world is a very complex place, every action has a reaction and NOTHING is as simple as a couple of extended high school(college)children want to pretend it is.

Yes the United States partnered with Saddam before you were born, now we are correcting that mistake. I have had relationships with women who one day claimed they would love me forever and the next day wanted to kill me, why should relationships with cooperating governments be stronger than the ties between 2 people?

I realize that your "professors" are telling you that it is possible for the world to be a Utopian fantasy but reality will someday set in for you and you will realize that those so called learned people were just tenured jerks that couldn't make it in the real world competing for an actual job among adults. In my 5 years of studying Architecture, I can honestly say that I only had 1 instructor that had a clue about anything outside his little campus life. Most were bitter, useless twats that had to be around kids in order to be the most adult in the room.

My question is how you could possibly equate getting underwear put on your head to Saddams rape rooms where husbands were forced to watch their wives and daughters and, knowing the middle east, their sons raped in front of them. How about the difference between being threatened with a dog or dropped in a plastic shredder feet first so you could see your body being ripped apart before you die? I'll take being threatened by a dog 's bark any day.

In my opinion, I would rather see an asswipe towel head embarrassed into revealing some information that might save one American soldier's life but then again if I was in charge, Falluja would be history, I would have let the population leave and then level it just for drill. That is how a war is fought.

I wasn't sure how I felt about doing something about that asswipe Saddam that spit on the cease fire agreement he signed with us and the UN. What really made it sink in was a very powerful photograph of a very old Iraqi man who had gone to an excavation of one of the mass burial sites. He was kneeling on the desert floor bent over kissing the skull of his son whose remains had been identified. For decades this father suspected the worst for his son and here it was varified to him that yes his son had been murdered by Saddam's men. I am sure he would have rathered indured the embarrassment of seeing pictures of his son with underwear on his head then what actually happened.

As for President Bush, he makes more decisions that have global concequences each day than you guys have made in your short charmed life(what brand of beer doesn't qualify as consequential decision), he has handled being under a microscope 24 hours a day for 5 years, he is so much more intelligent then you imagine that it makes you look like the idiot being where you are in life. Transfer to Yale and graduate in History, go to Harvard Business school and get your Masters and then learn to fly and laqnd complex jets and live to tell about it . . . then your opinions about the intelligence of our President might be a little more meaningful.I myself couldn't give a crap what some school boy thinks but I find it hard to believe that 100,000,000 people got together on anything. Everyone knows that those antiwar demonstrations are just an excuse to party for a bunch of pimpley kids hoping to get laid.

 

[Harmageddon]

Well Sitarro,

Althoug you are an older individual I'm not calling you senile, so if you cut on the 'kid' we're even. If you checked my profile it states I'm 26 years old, and for your information I'm one year short of my masters degree in neurobiology.

I agree with your notion the world is not an utopian fantasy, and it will never be. However, I do believe that most people are somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum (although in the US that's nigh impossible with two parties).

I'm not equating naked Iraqi's wearing pointy hats and wires with the sustained torture of Iraqi's by Saddams regime. I am saying the pointy hat pictures are the top of the iceberg and I am worried about the size of it underwater. It's not just Abu Graib, or Gitmo, it's all of it combined with someone at the top bearing responsibility for what is going on there. Gitmo has been described by amnesty international as a "black hole" of human rights, where people are detained without charges for years. Whatever is going on there, the total picture will not be pleasant.

As to your disdain for over 100 million people worldwide that came out protesting this war of agression, what can I say: I find it offensive. Maybe Vietnam rings a bell, I believe mass protests were at the order of the day during the end of the war, when it became all the clearer that it had been a mistake from the beginning. Roughly 58,000 Americans died there, along with 3-4 million Vietnamese. For what? Because Pol Pot was evil?

The same is going on in Iraq. Yes, I am glad Saddam is a gonner, he deserves nothing less than a public execution in my view. But a foreign army bombing the crap out of the capital to get him has resulted, obviously, in hundreds or thousands of civilian casualties. And instead of going on stage in Bagdad, claiming "You are free now!! hold elections, and we'll be on our way" the U.S. masterminds decided to build bases near the oil reserves instead.
Like I stated somewhere else, the Iraqi's have been screwed before, by the British, before Saddam was put into power by the US. They know it's not for democracy and freedom. They've seen it before.

To all the people that are so distressed about the U.N. sanctions on Iraq between the Gulf War and this war, they were put in place mainly under pressure from the U.S. And in the 10 years up to this war, the US and Britain continued to bomb the crap out of everything they deemed suspicious.
Small wonder the Iraqi's don't like to have the American army on the ground.

I think it is a good thing that the internet (hurray America) succeeds wonderfully in spreading information, it has speeded up the process to reach the public of the world enormously. Thus people get out and protest unjust decisions a lot faster as well.

As for the intelligence of Bush, well I don't know the guy personally, but when I see him holding speeches that have rapidly declined over the past years to incoherent babble, I'm beginning to question his intellect. He did not fly the plane when "mission accomplished" was trumpeted to the world, he was in the co-pilot seat. He is sending other people's kids to war and has dodged the Vietnam war your country was involved in while he should have served instead. And just because he is your president doesn't make him smart.

The world is indeed a complex place, so NOTHING is as simple as "you're either with us, or against us". With such statements, the US may well have overplayed it's hand.

Originally posted by CSM:
Again...read the original article and try to do so objectively. Those countries that are weaker militarily, economically, etc tend to favor other means than the exercise of power (even the US engaged in this at one time and still does in some areas); those countries powerful in an area use that power...sometimes unilaterally. The US does that as well...as does every other country. They use what power they have to their best intersts...

Exactly. I stated before the US throws around it's military power, suggesting it seeks Empire. Either you fully admit that and thrust it upon the world and see what happens, or refrain from it and be a strong advocate of western multilateral progress. Personally, I think the second option has better chances of survival. For if you are to become an empire, you will have an increase in power beyond your wildest dreams. Emperors have a tendency to view themselves as gods, but they are human and are unable to handle the power bestowed on them.
For power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And it's not just because I'm from a tiny country, but because all unilateral Empires have fallen into rubble through internal strife and corruption, which paved the way for the barbarian invasion of Rome, and the Allied assault on the Third Reich.

I'll leave you with a quote:
"We may say that we shall not abuse this astonishing and hitherto unheard of power," Burke wrote of the British empire in the 1770's. "But every other nation will think we shall abuse it. It is impossible but that, sooner or later, this state of things must produce a combination against us which may end in our ruin."

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Dangerous precedent does not necessarily equate to good or evil...

I know many folks view it that way. I also know that many people at one time thought Galileo and Capernicos (sp?) where evil men and that the world was flat. Popular (or not) opinion doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.

Again...read the original article and try to do so objectively. Those countries that are weaker militarily, economically, etc tend to favor other means than the exercise of power (even the US engaged in this at one time and still does in some areas); those countries powerful in an area use that power...sometimes unilaterally. The US does that as well...as does every other country. They use what power they have to their best intersts....

For those of you who equate Abu Graib to the tortured under Saddam Hussein, you need to put down the pot and get real for a few minutes.... they are NOT equal and just saying it does not make it true. It is perhaps viewed as worse for the US to engage in such a thing as occured in Abu Graib because the US has long been held to a different standard (much of that view is self inflicted). That being said, I dont believe you are going to find any mass graves in the US....and we have found MANY of them in Iraq.

From all the remarks here, I have come to the conclusion that you don't think America should stand for anything. Unilateral, unprovoked military action against a sovereign nation is a blatent misuse of power. The Abu Graib torture scandal was a great misuse of power.

The US is supposed to stand for freedom and civil and human rights, the so-called Christian ideals that you guys preach as being so important to you when it has to do with posting the 10 commandments in a public building or when it comes to denying rights to gays, but when US soldiers torture people, you brush it off like its excusable just because of who is being tortured. You guys are hypocrits.

And making preemptive unilateral military attacks is an extremely dangerous precedent to set, no matter how you look at it. What if another country attacked the US because it saw us as a threat. The whole country would be up in arms about it and the attacking country would be obliterated. But you guys can't fathom why Sunni insurgents in Iraq are fighting back at our "liberation force."

Using political advantages to one-up competing nations does not equal launching military attacks and taking-out an entire government infrastructure. If you really don't see the difference between playing politics and attacking with bombs, you need a CAT scan.

You can't honestly tell me that you are comparing the Bush Administration to Galileo or Copernicus. Galileo and Copernicus advanced the course of human knowledge and culture by centuries at a time when the darkness of theocratic rule had all but stopped human progress in Europe. The damn Arabs were more advanced than the Europeans were then! And even though the war in Iraq is illegal, was never justified, the administration lied to the public, American soldiers are dying, we're looking at another 10 years of fighting, and real terrorists are killing people all over the world while our military keeps getting buried deeper and deeper in the hole our administration is digging in Iraq, you guys support the war with unwavering tenacity.

And if you want to search for mass graves in the US, go look for them on the trail of tears. You guys kid yourselves with this "the US can do no wrong" philosophy. It's going to come back to haunt us, but even then you'll probably still blame it all on someone else.

Popular (or not) opinion doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.

Well, popular opinion is saying that Bush gets an "F" (30 percent approval rating) and that faith in the war effort is severely diminishing. It's just a shame it took the majority of the population to come to their senses so late. A little common sense might have done us all some good around October, 2001.

 

[CSM]

From all the remarks here, I have come to the conclusion that you don't think America should stand for anything. Unilateral, unprovoked military action against a sovereign nation is a blatent misuse of power. The Abu Graib torture scandal was a great misuse of power.

I presume the term "you" is in the royal sense; that is, all encompassing. I toally agree with your statement that unilateral unprovoked attacks on a soveriegn nation are not only an abuse of power, but an act of war...The Muslims (and Europeans who support them) should have thought of that BEFORE they attacked the United States. Now we are at war...unilaterally of course because some folks would have us believe that the United States was unprovoked. We are not at war with a soveriegn nation in particular...we are at war with and ideology and those nations that support that ideology.

The US is supposed to stand for freedom and civil and human rights, the so-called Christian ideals that you guys preach as being so important to you when it has to do with posting the 10 commandments in a public building or when it comes to denying rights to gays, but when US soldiers torture people, you brush it off like its excusable just because of who is being tortured. You guys are hypocrits.

I presume the poster is against the aforementioned Ideals since the poster did not include themselves in the royal "you".

And making preemptive unilateral military attacks is an extremely dangerous precedent to set, no matter how you look at it. What if another country attacked the US because it saw us as a threat. The whole country would be up in arms about it and the attacking country would be obliterated. But you guys can't fathom why Sunni insurgents in Iraq are fighting back at our "liberation force."

"What if another country attacked the US because it saw us as a threat"???? I suppose 9/11, the USS Cole, et al were propagated against this nation because the Muslims thought we would surrender immediately??? Is the poster truly this innocent in the ways of the world? The Muslim world cannot understand why the US is acting militarily against those nations that harbor, aid and abett terrorists??? The poster is obviously biased against the United States and displays their own hypocricy in applying his own standards. It is perfectly fine for the terroists to attack the United States in a premptive strike; it is perfectly fine for the terrorists perpatrate acts of violence in reaction to events, but not the US....

Using political advantages to one-up competing nations does not equal launching military attacks and taking-out an entire government infrastructure. If you really don't see the difference between playing politics and attacking with bombs, you need a CAT scan.

In my opinion, politics is not "playing" especially when politics (local or otherwise) can have global impact. As to the necessity for a CAT scan, I presume that is exageration applied to the royal "you",

You can't honestly tell me that you are comparing the Bush Administration to Galileo or Copernicus.

I dont recall even mentioning the Bush administration in my posts.

Galileo and Copernicus advanced the course of human knowledge and culture by centuries at a time when the darkness of theocratic rule had all but stopped human progress in Europe.


Exactly my point

The damn Arabs were more advanced than the Europeans were then!

Oh, the poster means the Arabs that pre-emptively invaded soveriegn nations in trying to expand the Ottoman Empire, the same Arabs that tortured and killed Christians, levelled cities and did their damndest to make all things Muslim...those "advanced Arabs. How is it that such people and their actions are deemed "advanced" and yet the US (accussed of the exact same actions) is deemd "evil"

And even though the war in Iraq is illegal, was never justified, the administration lied to the public,

(posters opinion only)

American soldiers are dying, (factoid one)

we're looking at another 10 years of fighting, (speculation from a non expert in world/military affairs...better known as conjecture)


and real terrorists are killing people all over the world (factoid two)

while our military keeps getting buried deeper and deeper in the hole our administration is digging in Iraq, (more conjecture by the non expert)

you guys support the war with unwavering tenacity. (the royal "you"?)





And if you want to search for mass graves in the US, go look for them on the trail of tears.

Sorry...no mass graves there though plenty died in that event

You guys kid yourselves with this "the US can do no wrong" philosophy.

And some fool themselves into believing the US can do no right.... it is open to debate which is the more dangerous belief.

It's going to come back to haunt us, but even then you'll probably still blame it all on someone else.

(Non expert opinion again...but said with conviction at least)

Well, popular opinion is saying that Bush gets an "F" (30 percent approval rating) and that faith in the war effort is severely diminishing.

Perhaps the poster should research FDR's approval rating ... a sitting President during war time... and it is true that SOME people's faith in the war effort is diminishing....those same people haven't the stamina, guts or discipline to complete anything of worth (just my opinion of course). Again, popular opinion does not mean much....

It's just a shame it took the majority of the population to come to their senses so late. A little common sense might have done us all some good around October, 2001.

Common sense would have served us better at an earlier date than that even. Previous administrations should have been aware the appeasement doesn't work and strong active global action does...Reagan proved that in his actions as president in dealing with a Cold War that had gone on way too long. If the various administrations had dealt with N, Korea, Islamic extremeists, Saddam Hussein and others in like fashion instead of listening to the UN, Europeanists and "popular opinion" ,the US would not have been attacked in such a treacherous and heinous manner.

Hagbard....may life never treat you as you see it now....

 

[Hagbard Celine]

The Muslims (and Europeans who support them) should have thought of that BEFORE they attacked the United States. Now we are at war...unilaterally of course because some folks would have us believe that the United States was unprovoked. We are not at war with a soveriegn nation in particular...we are at war with and ideology and those nations that support that ideology.

Since when did fighting an ideology shared by a few equate to invading and occupying a country occupied by a many? We are at war with Iraq, which was a sovereign nation in particular.

I presume the poster is against the aforementioned Ideals since the poster did not include themselves in the royal "you".

No way, I constantly post about these ideals including tolerance, love for your neighbor (the golden rule), freedom of religious expression, the practice of non-violence, etc. It is the royal "you" who claim to be Christian in your mindset but are anything but in your actions. You support war, bigotry, intolerance, theocratic policy, etc. WWJD?

"What if another country attacked the US because it saw us as a threat"???? I suppose 9/11, the USS Cole, et al were propagated against this nation because the Muslims thought we would surrender immediately??? Is the poster truly this innocent in the ways of the world? The Muslim world cannot understand why the US is acting militarily against those nations that harbor, aid and abett terrorists??? The poster is obviously biased against the United States and displays their own hypocricy in applying his own standards. It is perfectly fine for the terroists to attack the United States in a premptive strike; it is perfectly fine for the terrorists perpatrate acts of violence in reaction to events, but not the US....

No, it's not fine for terrorists to attack the US at all. But we're not fighting the terrorists that attacked us, we're fighting Iraqi Sunnis. Saddam was a secular dictator. There wasn't any connection between Saddam and 9/11. I'm not biased against the US, I just want to see us get the terrorists who attacked us instead of seeing us occupy a country for no reason.

In my opinion, politics is not "playing" especially when politics (local or otherwise) can have global impact. As to the necessity for a CAT scan, I presume that is exageration applied to the royal "you",

Politics is a high stakes game whether you like it or not. You really don't see a difference between launching the military and cutting a diplomatic deal? Sheesh.

I dont recall even mentioning the Bush administration in my posts.

Dangerous precedent does not necessarily equate to good or evil...

I know many folks view it that way. I also know that many people at one time thought Galileo and Capernicos (sp?) where evil men and that the world was flat. Popular (or not) opinion doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.

When you support the Bush Administration's policy of preemptive, unilateral attack (a.k.a. The Bush Doctrine), your support for the Bush Administration is implicitly implied. Here you compared "The Bush Doctrine" to Copernicus' theory of the spherical earth and Galileo's theory of heliocentricity. WTF?

Oh, the poster means the Arabs that pre-emptively invaded soveriegn nations in trying to expand the Ottoman Empire, the same Arabs that tortured and killed Christians, levelled cities and did their damndest to make all things Muslim...those "advanced Arabs. How is it that such people and their actions are deemed "advanced" and yet the US (accussed of the exact same actions) is deemd "evil"

The Arabs were more technologically, scientifically and culturally advanced than Europeans were during the Dark Ages. Hence the name, "The Dark Ages." If you are implying that we should apply the same standards to modern politics as we do to ancient barbarism, you really need to get with the program. It's 2005, not 1101.

(posters opinion only)

With Bush At UN: Iraq War Illegal?

Third Anniversary of the Downing Street Memo

(speculation from a non expert in world/military affairs...better known as conjecture)

"Last Throes" my ass.

NPR: Iraqi Insurgency

Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last 5 to 12 Years

Fewer Iraqi Troops Fit For Doody

Sorry...no mass graves there though plenty died in that event

The history of European domination of the Americas is a shameful travesty built on a policy of genocide.

Again, popular opinion does not mean much....

In a democracy it means an awful lot.

 

[sitarro]

Celine,
I know you were only 8 years old during the Desert Storm operation but being a journalism major and seeing how much you want to deal in the very distant past when speaking about our history I would have thought that you would have known that we were still at war with Saddam. He signed a cease fire pledge to remain breathing in his "soveriegn" country of Iraq. The UN put sanctions on him but later allowed him to sell a specified amount of oil and called it their "Oil for Food" program. France, Germany, and Russia continued to defy the UN and sold Saddam many weapons systems. You enjoy bringing up the cooperation with Saddam under Reagan's administration and yet I have never heard reorts of U.S. weapon systems being used against the Heroes of the coalition fighting the dregs of humanity that have flocked to Iraq to fight our soldiers and kill innocent Iraqis to keep a Democracy from forming.

Saddam continued to not hold up to his end of the cease fire agreement for another 12 years. He fired on coalition aircraft flying missions over the "no-fly-zone". He attempted to assassinate a former Pressident of the United States. He took the money from the oil sales and rather than use it to buy food and medicines for his people , he built over 35 palace campuses for himself. Before leaving Kuwait he set 700 oilwells on fire causing the biggest man made environmental disaster ever! He also drained the marshes in Southern Iraq to punish the Marsh Arabs who had depended on them for centuries. He and his sons performed real torture on 100s of thousands of people and over 300,000 bodies(men, women and CHILDREN) have been found in large mass graves. This didn't happen centuries ago like the examples you showed , it happened less than 3 decades ago. He told the world that he was actively working on the development of weapons of mass destruction, and everyone including Bill and Hil, Algore, Kerry, and even Jacques Chirac said that he was going to need to be delt with sooner than later, none had the balls to fight this asshole, President Bush did and does. If Saddam didn't have the weapons the President said he had, why were there hundreds of thousands of chemical suits found throughout Iraq, 1 eighteen wheeler full of anthrax could easily be used to wipe out Israel.

So far I would have to say you would receive an F on your jounalism homework if any of your professors had any sense at all. Another thing a jounalist should always do is look at things from both sides, you fail miserably at that, another F. On the other hand, you could probably get a job today writing for the New York Times. :coffee3:

 

[Annie]

Celine,
I know you were only 8 years old during the Desert Storm operation but being a journalism major and seeing how much you want to deal in the very distant past when speaking about our history I would have thought that you would have known that we were still at war with Saddam. He signed a cease fire pledge to remain breathing in his "soveriegn" country of Iraq. The UN put sanctions on him but later allowed him to sell a specified amount of oil and called it their "Oil for Food" program. France, Germany, and Russia continued to defy the UN and sold Saddam many weapons systems. You enjoy bringing up the cooperation with Saddam under Reagan's administration and yet I have never heard reorts of U.S. weapon systems being used against the Heroes of the coalition fighting the dregs of humanity that have flocked to Iraq to fight our soldiers and kill innocent Iraqis to keep a Democracy from forming.

Saddam continued to not hold up to his end of the cease fire agreement for another 12 years. He fired on coalition aircraft flying missions over the "no-fly-zone". He attempted to assassinate a former Pressident of the United States. He took the money from the oil sales and rather than use it to buy food and medicines for his people , he built over 35 palace campuses for himself. Before leaving Kuwait he set 700 oilwells on fire causing the biggest man made environmental disaster ever! He also drained the marshes in Southern Iraq to punish the Marsh Arabs who had depended on them for centuries. He and his sons performed real torture on 100s of thousands of people and over 300,000 bodies(men, women and CHILDREN) have been found in large mass graves. This didn't happen centuries ago like the examples you showed , it happened less than 3 decades ago. He told the world that he was actively working on the development of weapons of mass destruction, and everyone including Bill and Hil, Algore, Kerry, and even Jacques Chirac said that he was going to need to be delt with sooner than later, none had the balls to fight this asshole, President Bush did and does. If Saddam didn't have the weapons the President said he had, why were there hundreds of thousands of chemical suits found throughout Iraq, 1 eighteen wheeler full of anthrax could easily be used to wipe out Israel.

So far I would have to say you would receive an F on your jounalism homework if any of your professors had any sense at all. Another thing a jounalist should always do is look at things from both sides, you fail miserably at that, another F. On the other hand, you could probably get a job today writing for the New York Times. :coffee3:

Sigh, this is getting old tried to rep you but 'must spread it around.'

 

[nosarcasm]

Sigh, this is getting old tried to rep you but 'must spread it around.'

I cant give you anything but I handed it to Sitaro instead. Atleast the
meager forces I could commit. But Wenk is getting me out of this mess.

 

[Annie]

I cant give you anything but I handed it to Sitaro instead. Atleast the
meager forces I could commit. But Wenk is getting me out of this mess.

Who the hell is Wenk? I could use the help. Just tried to rep you for helping me out, and damn, seems you too cause the 'spread' message.

 

[Said1]

Who the hell is Wenk? I could use the help. Just tried to rep you for helping me out, and damn, seems you too cause the 'spread' message.

I think that's code for "Wank". You know that guy with the white pants and yellow shirt.

 

[nosarcasm]

General Wenk and the 12th army. Hitler was convinced they would
break through to Berlin and the miracle victory would happen.
They made it to Potsdam.

 

[Annie]

General Wenk and the 12th army. Hitler was convinced they would
break through to Berlin and the miracle victory would happen.
They made it to Potsdam.

Thanks. Time for me to google and then get to bed.

 

[Annie]

General Wenk and the 12th army. Hitler was convinced they would
break through to Berlin and the miracle victory would happen.
They made it to Potsdam.

dang! Still getting the 'spread message.'

 

[CSM]

In a democracy it means an awful lot.

Awesome! then you admit that Bush, who was elected through "popular opinion" is the best choice! Glad to see you are coming around! The big problem is that popular opinion changes on a whim.

As for all the other stuff I posted; either you are deliberately ignoring the point or truly a product of the mediocrity being fostered in our schools.

Your objectivity in journalism needs much work....

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Awesome! then you admit that Bush, who was elected through "popular opinion" is the best choice! Glad to see you are coming around! The big problem is that popular opinion changes on a whim.

Actually you're wrong. The electoral college elected Bush president. He won the popular vote the second time. The first time, the winner of the popular vote was unconfirmed and Bush was proclaimed president by judicial fiat.

And I didn't say that anything the public decides is the best choice. I said finally public opinion has gotten some common sense. There's a big difference, so don't put words into my mouth. You're right about popular opinion changing on a whim.

Your objectivity in journalism needs much work....

Hey buddy, I call 'em like I see 'em.