Americans good!

[XyZspineZyX]

ok I'm hurt, all over the net I see anti-american trash talk, what is it exactly that the americans have done to anyone else?

if youve got a flame ready for the above, re-read it.

I mean really what has average john yanky doe done to anyone.

life in america is strange, but it happens "IN" america. as in american children.....they go to school and learn positive things about everyone (aside from the nazis).
american teens...they go to school, do community service, hang out with friends, listen to music, and do generally stupid things(drugs, running over squirrels with shopping carts, watching the tom green show). american adults(not affiliated with the gov't) go to work(if they accidentally happen to be employed), take care of their children and/or anything they like. american elderly....get old , drunk, and anything else they can.

why does everyone on the net thats not american spit at "AMERICANS", and call us "YANKS".

first of all the only thing us americans have to do with the politics of america is voting.

second of all the majority of america may be white or from the south, but the other part of that equation is made up of people from all over the world, immagrants, black, latin, indian, indians from india /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif , and every other ethnicity I left out. so I dont think that "YANKS" is the correct description of us.

3rd(of all?) the population had little or nothing to do with our geopolitical look. Do they really believe that bush won the election with 100% of votes from the nation, do they believe that bush is a common household name that we love to talk about and just say the best things we can about. do they really think that bush went door to door asking whether or not we should go to war. do they really think that every american has sworn to be the enemy of every french person on this planet, because they would not side with us in a war that the american public had no say in.

furthermore what is it they want us to do to change their outlook of us, when we the american people have done nothing but live in the society that was inherited apon birth. we just live our lives, if your lookin for a fight mail congress, or better yet bush.

I would love to have a decent discussion about the above, keep it civil so this doesnt get locked. If you are here at the end of this post just pullin text to burn with, flame me, bash me, not america or americans, as that will be a nation bash and well get locked.

[XyZspineZyX]

ok I'm hurt, all over the net I see anti-american trash talk, what is it exactly that the americans have done to anyone else?

if youve got a flame ready for the above, re-read it.

I mean really what has average john yanky doe done to anyone.

life in america is strange, but it happens "IN" america. as in american children.....they go to school and learn positive things about everyone (aside from the nazis).
american teens...they go to school, do community service, hang out with friends, listen to music, and do generally stupid things(drugs, running over squirrels with shopping carts, watching the tom green show). american adults(not affiliated with the gov't) go to work(if they accidentally happen to be employed), take care of their children and/or anything they like. american elderly....get old , drunk, and anything else they can.

why does everyone on the net thats not american spit at "AMERICANS", and call us "YANKS".

first of all the only thing us americans have to do with the politics of america is voting.

second of all the majority of america may be white or from the south, but the other part of that equation is made up of people from all over the world, immagrants, black, latin, indian, indians from india /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif , and every other ethnicity I left out. so I dont think that "YANKS" is the correct description of us.

3rd(of all?) the population had little or nothing to do with our geopolitical look. Do they really believe that bush won the election with 100% of votes from the nation, do they believe that bush is a common household name that we love to talk about and just say the best things we can about. do they really think that bush went door to door asking whether or not we should go to war. do they really think that every american has sworn to be the enemy of every french person on this planet, because they would not side with us in a war that the american public had no say in.

furthermore what is it they want us to do to change their outlook of us, when we the american people have done nothing but live in the society that was inherited apon birth. we just live our lives, if your lookin for a fight mail congress, or better yet bush.

I would love to have a decent discussion about the above, keep it civil so this doesnt get locked. If you are here at the end of this post just pullin text to burn with, flame me, bash me, not america or americans, as that will be a nation bash and well get locked.

[XyZspineZyX]

and to loosen the tension I just created, give your fav team of bf1942 and class

british engineer, no4 rulz

[XyZspineZyX]

enceenoman,

some people like to research selective History and draw their conclusions from that.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

[XyZspineZyX]

please elaborate, theres no way that hurtful people could be ignorant enough to blame modern day humans for their ancestors mistakes.


Message Edited on 09/26/0310:07AM by enceenoman

[XyZspineZyX]

pretty self explanitory...

people read certain things, perhaps pick and choose... or, could be what they were taught as kids from uninformed parents, or only have a particular type of media access... and they form their judgement on the smaller picture (that they have seen). It's like me seeing one of my family members killed by American forces in a heated battle... even though it could have totally been an accident, one would feel like they are totally incompetant, and that they kill people mistakenly all the time.

As opposed to actually diligintly looking for an answer by looking at records of battles, fog of war, situations, number of kills, number of accidental kills, number of soldiers involved etc...

basically, he means bias, and ignorance.

<font color="white"><table style="filter:glow[color=blue, strength=4)"><font size=1>"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf"
- George Orwell</table><font color="white">
<font color="red">[/b]</u>[/i]</font size>
<marquee bgcolor="#000000"><font color="yellow"><font size=4>Now in the news................................Ubisoft loses sales due to poor customer service and falsly advertised "technical support".....................In a gathering of top Bush administration officials, word leaked out that America wants to stop N. Korea from building Nuclear Reactors just because N. Korea is full Ubisoft supporters.....................Ubisoft enemies grow %3.25 today.....................Newest patch for Raven Shield include a whopping 14 extra computer crashing bugs, with a bonus extra level that makes your computer explode and kill you.....................New patch available for download for Ubisoft's Raven Shield (patch 1.99999999b).....................Culprit in massive power outage in the N.E. of United States found; A computer gamer was playing Raven Shield, and the FPS' dropped so low, that it drained the electricity of the N.E......................New investigation concludes that Liberia broke into civil war because their president defended Ubisoft, and the citizens did not.....................Author Tom Clancy gets arrested today as he enters game company Ubisoft offices, and strikes a developer several times in the face before escorted out of the building by a SWAT team.....................Man wanted for murder takes hostages in Montana home; police say that the demands are that Ubisoft stops screwing customers over. The police abruptly stopped negotiating when they found out his demands, and sent in the SWAT team in fear that the demands were impossible.....................Ex-Police Chief Charles Moose tells reporters of why he didn't write about his lousy experiences with game company Ubisoft. Moose says he will have to write another book just about that................................Man in L.A. jumps off 7 storey building today. Suicide note tells of a sad story - the man was trying to get Raven Shield to work on his computers for 3 weeks straight with no technical support</marquee><font color="white">[/b]</u>[/i]</font size>

[XyZspineZyX]

Well no country is perfect and that includes the US other administrations have made some bad decisions, others have made decisions to help other countries, help feed people, Liberate european countries that were invaded by other european countries etc,. but the "selective" Historians seem to only focus on the bad decisions and therefore make the US look a lot worse then it really is.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

[XyZspineZyX]

Heyyo, eman, where've you been?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

_________________________________________
----====LungTung and Friends====----

http://www3.telus.net\robert\yanyan2.jpg

[XyZspineZyX]

i think many people dislike what they percieve as US hypocracy, but at the same time most of the world's powerful nations practice hypocracy. personally i love USA.

_______________________________________

"Generals dont run; during peace this prompts laughter, during war this prompts panic."

[XyZspineZyX]

I agree We are all Hypocrites in one way or another and by all I mean the entire world and yes including France.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

[XyZspineZyX]

is it just me or is there seem to be a slight change in the average's persons outlook on america?

I think 9/11 really helped people from the world empathize with americans.

We don't go around targeting civilians, but what makes me angry is arab media always tends to imply that we do./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
It's absolutly terrible that those things have to happen and it upsets me as much as the next guy but when you turn around turn an accident into a bloody murder it's just wrong.

Then they say it's ok to kill a few thousands americans civlians in an afternoon.

If we wanted to kill all the arabs we could just drop a few H-bombs on them. But we don't. And I wonder what they would do with one of those bombs since they tried something like 9/11./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

________________________________________

http://www.unfetteredmind.com/images/starve.jpg


"It is your fault, you have forced me to say what I think." - Plato/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[XyZspineZyX]

I too am tired of unrealistic back lashing and have certain feelings about the other communities in the rest of the world. (don't even get me started)

They are no better than us, and in many cases way
WAY worse and no says anything about it. (UN = paid off
dignataries).

Look. Bush is a idiot and is in the pocket of the
corporations, but I firmly believe what we
are doing is the right thing.(not econmics) and
to hear nearly a whole world, that the US nearly carried
on it's back to help, get this attitude as thanks is just
plain pathetic.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves and should give
us some latitude.

If I had my way, on 9/12, I would have dropped a nuke
on tehran, baghdad, damascus and ridyah. I wouldn't have
blinked a eye. Each of the governments are corrupt, neopotistic, and terrorism sponsors, and they have their
general public believing thier propoganda...

I think I'll stop right here before someone shoots me
for being a "infedal" read as "opposing point of view"





Brett

" Everyone has the right to be stupid...it's just some people abuse the privilege!! "

[XyZspineZyX]

This selective history thing is ludicrous. People haven't forgotten what American (and Canadian, British, Australian, Russian) soldiers did in WW2. If you're suggesting this because they haven't supported certain wars as of quite recently, you're daft. Just because Americans liberated the French in WW2, doesn't mean they have become America's houseboy/lackey.

[XyZspineZyX]

it sounds to me that the way we(usaicans lol) are publicly seen is shaped by how our soldiers are seen.

BUT if I'm sitting in front of a little metal box, how could I possibly be a soldier.

to all the (usaicans lol) that have posted here, are you on a battle field right now?, do you have any say in what bush or the gov't is going to do next, have you done anything today thats been seen outside of america (aside from typing on the metal thing).

on to the french, I wasnt exactly around for WWII, so the only things french that I have seen are: french fries, french language(which I was forced to learn in school), and the part on the mask where he goes dancing. I know that frances' decision to turn down the opportunity to help our administration in the war had nothing to do with me, so I actually dont have any issue with them.

I refuse to believe none of you play bf1942

[XyZspineZyX]

I play BF... well the DC mod.

I used to be an engineer all the time though.

[XyZspineZyX]

"BUT if I'm sitting in front of a little metal box, how could I possibly be a soldier."

no, but you pay your taxes.

Not really like you have a choice in the matter, because everwhere you go it's the same crap. Go with the flow follow the rules or we punish you, it's catch 22.

But I don't have a problem. If someone kills me then o well. I did something for socity and what I thought was right so as far as I'am concerned that's all that matters.



________________________________________

http://www.unfetteredmind.com/images/starve.jpg


"It is your fault, you have forced me to say what I think." - Plato/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[XyZspineZyX]

Cowanchicken wrote:

- This selective history thing is ludicrous. People
- haven't forgotten what American (and Canadian,
- British, Australian, Russian) soldiers did in WW2.
- If you're suggesting this because they haven't
- supported certain wars as of quite recently, you're
- daft. Just because Americans liberated the French
- in WW2, doesn't mean they have become America's
- houseboy/lackey.

No it most certainly does not mean they are America's Lackey's, but they do owe their freedom to the Canadians British, Autstralians and Russians and most certainly to the Americans and lets face facts the war was won after the US joined. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that the US did what those other countries couldn't if given enough time they would have been successful, but by the US joining the Allies where able to give Hell to the Germans alot easier thus winning the war and Liberating the French.
Now 50 years later we are asking them to help get rid of a Hitler like nut job out because if given the chance he would cause major damage to us. Besides that we all know as well as the French how Saddam treated his own people. Lets forget whether Saddam had and WMD or not...just the fact of the way he treats his own people and his actions against neighboring countries should have given them a clue as to why they should help. But it would have been a lot more Honorable if they just said. We dont want to get involved and step out of the way instead of practicaly fighting against us on the side of Saddam and probably have given him enough time to clean house.

So save your Liberal BS for someone who cares.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

[XyZspineZyX]

humm I wouldn't say the americans did the most to win world war 2.

That honor goes to the russians as much as I hate their government during that time. They killed millions of germans on the eastern front. While americans, british, Canadians where having a hard time breaking through at Normandy against something like 14 german divisions the russians where smashing through 46 german divisions on the eastern front. They took berlin, defeated the nazis at kursk and stalingrad. The sacrifices for their country makes me have great respect for the russians. But at the same time I'am a bit disgusted when I hear about what they did to their own people. It's almost ironic that if stalin had not killed 20 million Ukraines during his 2 five year plans in the 30s to industrialization the soviet union. That world war 2 might have turned out differently/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Don't get me wrong in that I don't believe the russians did everything in world war 2. That war was so close that if one country like Britain, or america didn't join in the fight it would have been lost. But the russians did the most to kill the germans, and had the hardest fights. Just look at kursk and you can't help but be aww struck at the numbers of men involved in a single clash.

________________________________________

http://www.unfetteredmind.com/images/starve.jpg


"It is your fault, you have forced me to say what I think." - Plato/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[XyZspineZyX]

Oh, what a huge surprise, cow is going against a post that's not even supporting the war, but at the same time isn't bashing america. It's ok to talk crap about America, but the second someone supports the USA or says something not completely nice about france, then uh oh, watch out, it's captain cow to the rescue. Haha.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

enceenoman wrote:
- ok I'm hurt, all over the net I see anti-american
- trash talk, what is it exactly that the americans
- have done ....


might this be explanation enuf for ya?
US is minding other ppls business to much, without haveing any clue what is going on, beside haveing a total idiot as a leader... so far more then* enuf to gossip.

http://www.3dsupply.de/assets/big/usworlddomination-poster.jpg




*
edit missing word

Message Edited on 09/29/0302:15PM by AMC_Pace

[XyZspineZyX]

Pace why dont those countries stop buying American or deal with America if they dont like our budding in their business?

and its funny how the counties on the right column suport terrorists, and countries on both columns mistreat their people.

You have an issue with reality don't ya?

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

[XyZspineZyX]

LOL hornet u tool
ur postings are hilarious as usual...

if the US would mind to do something against countries that do support the terror and Al Quida then they would do something against Saudi Arabia, which is the first in the row. Since they dont, everbody knows this all is just a lame lie, ur just not clever enuf to get the things.
Nor is this Bush idiot, he is a Tool either, so go on and cheer this tool, you guys suit.


http://520060901987-0001.bei.t-online.de/pics/msn-sig-pace.jpg

<hr>
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
The F-word is appreciated (http://www.thegamingunion.co.uk/users/amcclan/Random/f-word.html)

[XyZspineZyX]

ah pace,

There is so much proof of Saddam's guilt on many fronts but so many are saying we are lying.

Saudi Arabia is not a direct threat and don't think that we are not paying attention. Right now they are needed to gather intelligence in the Middle east to fight the war on terrorism, and if you cant understand that I can't help you.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Rodadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

AMC_Pace wrote:
- enceenoman wrote:
-- ok I'm hurt, all over the net I see anti-american
-- trash talk, what is it exactly that the americans
-- have done ....
-
-
- might this be explanation enuf for ya?
- US is minding other ppls business to much, without
- haveing any clue what is going on, beside haveing a
- total idiot as a leader... so far more then* enuf to
- gossip.

like i said the first time re-read it.
why am I the one that gets to hear the anti american trash talk, what have I myself a civilian that sleeps eats and works a 9-5 done to anyone.

IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BUSH OR THE US GOV'T
SEND IT TO BUSH OR THE FVCKING GOV'T AND STOP SPAMMING THE NET WITH YOUR WASTED BLUBBERING. oh yea u can re read that too /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

[XyZspineZyX]

Hornet57 wrote:
- Now 50 years later we are asking them to help get
- rid of a Hitler like nut job out because if given
- the chance he would cause major damage to us.
- Besides that we all know as well as the French how
- Saddam treated his own people. Lets forget whether
- Saddam had and WMD or not...just the fact of the way
- he treats his own people and his actions against
- neighboring countries should have given them a clue
- as to why they should help. But it would have been a
- lot more Honorable if they just said. We dont want
- to get involved and step out of the way instead of
- practicaly fighting against us on the side of Saddam
- and probably have given him enough time to clean
- house.

The French didn't 'get in the way' of the war. They simply vetoed UN support, which obviously didn't stop the war from happening. They have every right not to participate in the war in Iraq, and they were simply excercising it. Isn't that why the US liberated the France, so they could have the freedom to choose?

[XyZspineZyX]

Cowanchicken wrote:
-
- The French didn't 'get in the way' of the war. They
- simply vetoed UN support, which obviously didn't
- stop the war from happening.

telling fellow smaller european leaders to shut up when they agreed to join with the US, Flying to Africa to get support against the US etc,I would call "getting in the way"

They have every right not to participate in the war in Iraq, and they were simply excercising it. Isn't that why the US liberated the France, so they could have the freedom
to choose?

Yes so they can have the freedom to choose. Frankly I am disapointed that they chose not to Liberate a country that badly needed help........just like they did 60 years ago


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Rodadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

-Hornet57 wrote:
- Yes so they can have the freedom to choose. Frankly
- I am disapointed that they chose not to Liberate a
- country that badly needed help........just like they
- did 60 years ago

Well maybe the rest of the world would buy that "liberating" Iraq crap if it wasn't Rumsfeld who was proclaiming it. Remember when he went to his buddy Saddam in the early eighties on behalf of Reagans government to support the moustage. helping out with techonolgy and weapons?

The genocide was already going on back then. Kurds were already on the receiving end and everybody knew Saddam was a monster, a dictator and a massmurderer.







<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

[XyZspineZyX]

buccaneer wrote:
-
- Well maybe the rest of the world would buy that
- "liberating" Iraq crap if it wasn't Rumsfeld who was
- proclaiming it. Remember when he went to his buddy
- Saddam in the early eighties on behalf of Reagans
- government to support the moustage. helping out with
- techonolgy and weapons?

- The genocide was already going on back then. Kurds
- were already on the receiving end and everybody knew
- Saddam was a monster, a dictator and a massmurderer.
-
-
-So what happened now Saddam Insane got rehabilitated since that time and there is no need to overthrow him?
Maybe we made a mistake then and didnt know how bad Saddam was, now we know and we are taking care of it.


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Rodadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

<h1>Oh no HERESY! Someone isn't bashing America!!</h1>
<h2>Quick, someone lock this thread!</h2>
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

Demon, stop sniffin glue.



<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

[XyZspineZyX]

Oh, I'm a broken man buc, you hurt me bad! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

Your sig is all wrong buc it should be

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">
<center><marquee> *War before Peace**Freedom from Slavery* *Ignorance from blindness* <marquee><center>



Message Edited on 09/29/0311:18PM by Hornet57

[XyZspineZyX]

Merica not be such bad if someone give all fatboys some fat-off pill!~!~! akkakaa~!~!~!~

"YOU AMERICA BOY ARE LIKE BASHATAR KANLO BUTONAKI~~ AKAK" - Hukalop

[XyZspineZyX]

Hukatobungta wrote:
- Merica not be such bad if someone give all fatboys
- some fat-off pill!~!~! akkakaa~!~!~!~
-
- "YOU AMERICA BOY ARE LIKE BASHATAR KANLO BUTONAKI~~
- AKAK" - Hukalop

We also need to give Hukatobungta an enema and a wedgie, along with 16 tabs of LSD. Then have 9 ***** Spanish transvestites chase him along the streets of Barcelona as he halucinates that it is really a pack of 97 Chihuahuas, bent on urinating in his ears, until he drowns from the inside of his head. Then, 26 weeks later, when the marriages have been dissolved, and his broken heart is on the mend, we can ship him to San Fransisco where he will fit in with everyone else, and make lots of new friends.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

To win any confrontation, you need three things. You need the proper equipment, the proper training, and an edge over your opponent. Most of the time, your training is that edge.

[XyZspineZyX]

I like it.

http://www.global-vision.org/interview/intergifs/scream.gif


"Our greatest blessings come to us by way of madness, provided the madness is given us by divine gift.."- Plato

[XyZspineZyX]

Seriously, America should not be so surprised as to why, a prosperous country isolated by two oceans, is attacked by terror coming from abroad, the way it is.
You, or rather your governments, have embroiled themselfs in other people`s business in a way that the people you "helped" now want to harm you!

People, far away from your home, in a place and situation most Americans know little about, have strong resentment against the regime of the USA and they have that for a reason.
You- might not be aware of how your tax money and political backing, over the years have contributed to the hardship indured by many arabs, to name one group of people.


I believe its called patriotism when Americans wholeheartedly believe that US is not to blame at all for anti US feelings, coming out of the middle east. Its patriotism to state that US is totally innocent in the accusations that follows the anti US terror. Accusations the common arab are all to well aware of and happy to repeat to anyone willing to listen.

Its patriotism to some, and ignorance to others.
So, be carefull in pointing your finger, it might be so crooked, it bends right back and point at you.
Stop the hysteria, look at yourself, listen to how other people percives you.

The terrorist attacks against America comprise a horrible tragedy each time. Especially the 9/11 attack, showed the meaningless and tragic loss of life, where the innocent as so often before have to suffer for the sins of the guilty.
But you shouldn't be surprised nor do I think Americans were. Only the magnitude of terror and the showcase of just how vulnerable the US is, was surprising, not only to Americans.

US foreign policy has been insane and selffish for decades. It was a matter of time. You may not believe that yourself, but there are (many) people who will commit suicide to correct the "mistakes" made against them. So go on crying about how unjust it is for them to come here and blow your house up when you at the same time go to their homes and blow them up, and have done so for quite some time now.
Off course, you can ignore facts and general consensus in the arab world in regards to the people of the US, and think it serves a valuable purpose ignoring them.

Terrorists believe that anything goes as long as its for their cause. Im saying the fight against terror must not buy into that logic. That human rights principles must not be compromised in the name of any cause. Resorting to the same tactics as terrorists, and sacrificing human rights is not the way to address terrorism.

If your interested in solving the problem and not mearly interested in beeing right, you will listen to your enemy/ terrorist, to his claims. That is the only way a compromise will see the light of day. If your not willing to compromise, your not willing to listen. Hopefully, your not refusing to compromise just because of ignorance of US misconduct in the middle east. That will give you hardship. The arab etxremists will not surrender as of now. Infact it looks like they are coming back in Afghanistan- and maybe even in Iraq.

I dont think there can be anything wrong in questioning your government. If anything, it serves as a mean to achive diversity, which is pretty darn important.
Believing blindly whatever your beeing told is wrong. Truth is the first casualty of war and the Bush administration is clearly more than capable of spins and loud propaganda. You may not agree on this, you may believe all they say is the truth. So be it.

Why cant one openly question the US foreing policy`s but at the same time have a profound love and understanding for the Americans? Not all of you run around and kill little Palestinians all the time or pull the skin of puppies still alive. Im pretty much convinced of this.
However, some of you have acted as terrorists and bombed buildings and people but where was the "controlled respons" from the US Airforce? Why wasent Idaho or Montana carpet bombed back to the stoneage?

When will you learn that you can't allow yourself, through your politicians, to bully the world without someone bullying back eventually. The people who lost their families and friends and property as a consequent of US made desicions and/ or US support, will not love America for what happened. Not ever. Would you?

Dont you know what, who, where, when and how the US backed some highly dubious people into power, all over the globe, not to long ago?
So, When will the lesson be learned, that violence always begets violence!
The war on terror, with the war in Iraq, is misguided in its efforts. Furthermore, invading and occupying with strong military force à la Rambo, in order to "teach someone a lesson" never teaches anything but resentment. It only inspires the recipient to greater acts of defiance. Its common human nature.

Terrorist acts are not "cowardly acts". They are acts of oppression, panick, hopelessness, sorrow and wish for vengeance. They are also misguided and despicable but people, like you and me, give their lifes for what they believe. Why? What brought them to this point? What made them attack the US, what reasons have they given us? Should we ignore the claims for ever and ever? (till there is no more oil)

Perception is not only about connecting the dots, its how you connect them.
Understanding is smart, and is not the same as making excuses. Know what motivates your enemy and you know what you are up against.
Refuse to get smarter, and you will loose the battle for sure- the enemy wil not hesitate to be very creative indeed. He will not stop till you also stop...so you yourself is fueling the fire if you carry on the "misconduct".
Its a matter of who pushed who first and that is the kind of discussion that leads to violence. Besides, who really remembers who pushed who first anymore. Peace comes only when the enemy is annihilated or when a compromise is made up.

"Cowardly acts" is when you forsake truth and reason, in the heat of battle. Its a surefire way of losing the battle and it will teach you the lesson that it makes no sense to give up your freedom- in the name of freedom.
The US should put the same amount of efforts into gaining the hearts and minds of the arabs as they do to fight this war on terror. The first option will reduce your budgets for security, the other will forever demand an increase in budgets for security.


For those of you who think im mearly attacking Bush and his policies- well, I look at it this way: the 9/11 was planned during the terms of two different presidencies, Clinton and Bush. The terrorists do not see the president of the USA as a person but as an institution that must be brought down at all costs. The hatred against the US is nothing new, it only grew stronger over the years and will continue to do so. For now.



The answer to peace my friend, is blowing in the wind.....or is it right there, under our noses...

[XyZspineZyX]

The last couple of posts are good and level headed. Please keep the inflamitory comments down and this thread should do well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raven Shield/Lock On Forums Moderator
"It takes a big man to admit he is wrong, I'm not a big man." Chevy Chase, Fletch Lives
Raven Shield FAQ (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_ravenshield_ts&id=zzfuu)
LOMAC FAQ (http://www.lo-mac.com/faq.php)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[XyZspineZyX]

Black or white seems to be all some people can see.


As for not liking the average American. the same reason people hate the Average muslim. Ignorance. What has the average Muslim done to the American hate mongerers, some of whome are in this thread? Those who also work 9-5, feed their kids and dream of a nice day at the beach with a dry martini and a club sandwich.

Ignorance breeds hatred. i sure hope some of you who talk about nuking the middle east can see that, because that is the same exact thinking that inspired a bunch of middle class well to do muslims to fly a few planes into a couple of towers.

Muslims kill americans. Some Americans think all muslims are bad.

Americans kill muslims. Some muslims think all Americans are bad.




http://webhome.idirect.com/~nkirv/ASHcom%205%20alone3%20copy.jpg

Shut up when you talk to me.

Message Edited on 10/13/0303:36PM by ASHcom

[XyZspineZyX]

I guess the term "terrorism" is all up to the idividual. Ask the person in the states what terrorism means and you will get the answer "9/11".


Ask somebody who has been on the recieving end of an American bomb dropped on their village, and the answer may be totally different from the Americans. We (westerners)like to think that we are very innocent beings living on this planet, but the truth be told, there have been many cases of "acts of terrorism" committed by westerners against "smaller" countries. I am not attacking the United States here, all I am saying, is that what counts as terrorism here, may be a way of life for others.





<Center>
http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif

[XyZspineZyX]

You can give me many reasons why many countries in the world hate the US and what it stands for. But one thing is certain....that if the US pulls all its interest from those countries their economies would collapse faster then the WTC towers on 9/11.

Every sensible person knows what terrorism is.

What the US does is not terrorism it is investing and growing which is what most governments/people are trying to do.
The US opens many opportunities to many countries but its what those countries government do with those opportunities is what makes the difference to their people.

It's not about oil Dr.Nick if we wanted the oil so bad we just take it. We are loaded with Nukes and there is no country out there that can take our massive Power. If we were an "Evil Regime", and striked with everything we got.
We can send any country so far back there would be dinassaurs' roaming their streets.

But Fact is we do care about peoples rights and freedom and we defend them.

Always did Always will.





<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

Message Edited on 10/14/03â 11:08AM by Hornet57

Message Edited on 10/14/03â 02:11PM by Hornet57

Message Edited on 10/14/03â 02:13PM by Hornet57

Message Edited on 10/14/03â 02:14PM by Hornet57

Message Edited on 10/14/0302:15PM by Hornet57

[XyZspineZyX]

'Always' have? What about the native North Americans? Didn't protect their freedom much.


...


Just because they didn't nuke the whole area doesn't mean it's not about oil. Our standard of living runs on oil. Saddam didn't have WMD, he barely had any weapons at all! The first gulf war destroyed them all. he had a third rate army where most weapons didn't even work. Most were clogged with sand or were simply too run down to be effective. So what threat did he pose the US? besides, they didn't kill Saddam after the first war because they didn't want to go into Iraq and breach their mandate to liberate Kuwait. They figured that Saddam had lost the war so his government would ditch him. I guess they were wrong. Iraq has 10% of the world's oil and Kuwait another 10%. Iraq owning 20% of the world's oil was not something Western powers, all of them, would accept. S11 gave America an excuse to go in and finish the job after 8 years of non intervention with Clinton. France and Germany had it sweet already with oil deals and did not want to take part.

On being asked why Blair and Bush were going into Iraq a second time but not Zimbabwe or Korea or other nations in strife, Blair simply said, 'Because we can.'

No iraqi has been linked to S11, yet many from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc have. Yemen has far more hatred and capability to harm the US, but, sadly, has not much oil.

North Korea only says it has nukes so nobody threatens to strike them. Its fashinable to say you have nukes and look powerful. Perhaps they have one, maybe two, but hardly an effective arms cache.

Saddam only said he had WMD so he could look like a big regional player. He had the capacity once, but Isreali strikes in the 80's and Gulf War 1 got rid of them. He only kept up that he had the weapons because he could not say he didn't. How would that make him look, to both his people and enemy states surrounding him? Besides, how would he use them on America of all places, and more importantly, WHY?

As for the Kurds, yes Saddam killed many. America stopped it and wants Turkey to take control of the Area, so the Turkish can kill them instead. Woo hoo, that helps.

The region has been in western control for over 100 years, and even though they allowed states to declair themselves independant, I doubt in this Neo-Imperial world that they will so quickly let go of uch valuable resources. other Middle east states are already in the palms of Western Imperialism.


Just some information to give some thought. This is not a line of arguement.

This information has been collated through military defence studies, by people who have supported and fought in the second gulf war.



http://webhome.idirect.com/~nkirv/ASHcom%205%20alone3%20copy.jpg

Shut up when you talk to me.

[XyZspineZyX]

ASHcom wrote:
- Just because they didn't nuke the whole area doesn't
- mean it's not about oil. Our standard of living runs
- on oil.

As does every other industrialized nation. And this is indeed a rather silly argument to keep talking about the oil. It's important. Period. However, there were otehr softer and more easily accesible targets.

- Saddam didn't have WMD, he barely had any
- weapons at all! The first gulf war destroyed them
- all. he had a third rate army where most weapons
- didn't even work. Most were clogged with sand or
- were simply too run down to be effective.

Whether or not he had WMD remains to be seen. However, the rest of what you said was simply incorrect. He had a very large army, and their weaponry was not "clogged with sand." That's what happened to us in 1991. Ever try to clog an AK with anything? It's not so easy. The desert is very hard on equipment, no question about it. But he still had weapons and they still worked quite well.

- So what
- threat did he pose the US? besides, they didn't kill
- Saddam after the first war because they didn't want
- to go into Iraq and breach their mandate to liberate
- Kuwait.

It was also an issue of our Saudi "allies" demanding that we not do so.

- They figured that Saddam had lost the war so
- his government would ditch him. I guess they were
- wrong.

Some may have figured that, but I'm not sure who you're thinking of. There was interest in fomenting revolt, but again our "allies" in the region were very opposed to that. Not entirely baselessly either.

- Iraq has 10% of the world's oil and Kuwait
- another 10%. Iraq owning 20% of the world's oil was
- not something Western powers, all of them, would
- accept.

It was also not something that the other OPEC nations would accept. The Saudis (by this I mean the ruling family) in particular were terrified of losing their control of oil and their creature commforts. Heaven forfend that they should ever use any of their wealth to improve the situation of their citizens.

- S11 gave America an excuse to go in and
- finish the job after 8 years of non intervention
- with Clinton. France and Germany had it sweet
- already with oil deals and did not want to take
- part.

"Non intervention?" How do you figure? Bombing and maintaining the no-fly zones was hardly "non-intervention."

- On being asked why Blair and Bush were going into
- Iraq a second time but not Zimbabwe or Korea or
- other nations in strife, Blair simply said, 'Because
- we can.'

When was this? I don't recall hearing or reading that.

- No iraqi has been linked to S11, yet many from
- Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc have. Yemen has far
- more hatred and capability to harm the US, but,
- sadly, has not much oil.

The government of Yemen is actually friendly towards the US and being rather helpful. They also have relatively little ability to harm the US. Do you mean another naion in the area?

- North Korea only says it has nukes so nobody
- threatens to strike them. Its fashinable to say you
- have nukes and look powerful. Perhaps they have one,
- maybe two, but hardly an effective arms cache.

Even one or two is enough to do a great deal of harm. They can also reduce Seoul to embers in fairly short order. Why do you think that such a big deal was made about Iraqi nuclear programmes and Iran's nuclear programme is causing so much concern? They're simply horrible weapons, and no one knows that better than the Japanese and Americans - the two nations who are directly threatend by North Korea (South Korea being an obvious aside). The DPRK fired ("tested") a missile OVER Japan, and has said that they have the ability to hit Los Angeles. They really are doomsday weapons.

- Saddam only said he had WMD so he could look like a
- big regional player. He had the capacity once, but
- Isreali strikes in the 80's and Gulf War 1 got rid
- of them. He only kept up that he had the weapons
- because he could not say he didn't. How would that
- make him look, to both his people and enemy states
- surrounding him? Besides, how would he use them on
- America of all places, and more importantly, WHY?

Not exactly. That may have been a reason, and he didn't exactly have the capability. Israel's strike at the Osirak reactor prevented him from being able to refine his own fissile material. However, we learned in 1991 that he had everything but the fissile material to have a nuclear arsenal - a very sobering thought.

- As for the Kurds, yes Saddam killed many. America
- stopped it and wants Turkey to take control of the
- Area, so the Turkish can kill them instead. Woo hoo,
- that helps.

And the main reason the Turks want to control the area is because they don't want to lose part of Turkey to a new nation of Kurdistan. However, that is unlikely to happen so it is something of a non-issue. The Turks aren't getting any part of Iraq and the Kurds aren't getting any part of Turkey. Not everyone is happy about it, but it should keep the body count down. How Turkey deals with insurrectionist groups within Turkey is a wholly separate matter.

- The region has been in western control for over 100
- years, and even though they allowed states to
- declair themselves independant, I doubt in this
- Neo-Imperial world that they will so quickly let go
- of uch valuable resources. other Middle east states
- are already in the palms of Western Imperialism.

What are you basing this conclusion on? Explain to me how the OPEC oil embargo of 1978 benefitted the West, much less how continuing OPEC price controls is controlled by "the West."

"The submergence of self in the pursuit of an ideal, the readiness to spend oneself without measure, prodigally, almost ecstatically, for something intuitively apprehended as great and noble, spend oneself, one knows not why, - some of us like to believe that this is what religion means. "

[XyZspineZyX]

MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- ASHcom wrote:

- As does every other industrialized nation. And this
- is indeed a rather silly argument to keep talking
- about the oil. It's important. Period. However,
- there were otehr softer and more easily accesible
- targets.

I said We, being the west. I am Aussie.


- Whether or not he had WMD remains to be seen.
- However, the rest of what you said was simply
- incorrect. He had a very large army, and their
- weaponry was not "clogged with sand." That's what
- happened to us in 1991. Ever try to clog an AK with
- anything? It's not so easy. The desert is very
- hard on equipment, no question about it. But he
- still had weapons and they still worked quite well.

Um, that was a first hand account from an SAS captain working here, where I live, who I talk to, who served in the last war. Their unit found heaps of AKs poorly maintained that were dumped by surrendering or fleeing Iraqi troops. If you believe it or not I don't really mind. But I trust the ccount of an SAS officer over 'logical' evaluation.

- It was also an issue of our Saudi "allies" demanding
- that we not do so.

"Allies" indeed. Perhaps something should be done about them.

-
- It was also not something that the other OPEC
- nations would accept. The Saudis (by this I mean
- the ruling family) in particular were terrified of
- losing their control of oil and their creature
- commforts. Heaven forfend that they should ever use
- any of their wealth to improve the situation of
- their citizens.

Hmmm, indeed. I think perhaps better intervention would be to do their budgets for them. But then agin, Some western nations also do not use budget to make civilian lives better. Often these 'Socialist' ideals are looked down upon by Capitalist nations.

- "Non intervention?" How do you figure? Bombing and
- maintaining the no-fly zones was hardly
- "non-intervention."

Active, as in, roll in the tanks and blow stuff up. NFZ was there to protect the kurds from the Iraqis, so the Turls could kill them instead.

- Even one or two is enough to do a great deal of
- harm. They can also reduce Seoul to embers in
- fairly short order. Why do you think that such a
- big deal was made about Iraqi nuclear programmes and
- Iran's nuclear programme is causing so much concern?
- They're simply horrible weapons, and no one knows
- that better than the Japanese and Americans - the
- two nations who are directly threatend by North
- Korea (South Korea being an obvious aside). The
- DPRK fired ("tested") a missile OVER Japan, and has
- said that they have the ability to hit Los Angeles.
- They really are doomsday weapons.

But these nations know using them will bring their own end. They are threat weapons, intended to threaten, not to be used. They are to avoid conflict.

- Not exactly. That may have been a reason, and he
- didn't exactly have the capability. Israel's strike
- at the Osirak reactor prevented him from being able
- to refine his own fissile material. However, we
- learned in 1991 that he had everything but the
- fissile material to have a nuclear arsenal - a very
- sobering thought.

Indeed, especially from the Soviet breakup.



http://webhome.idirect.com/~nkirv/ASHcom%205%20alone3%20copy.jpg

Shut up when you talk to me.

[XyZspineZyX]

ASHcom wrote:
-
- Just because they didn't nuke the whole area doesn't
- mean it's not about oil. Our standard of living runs
- on oil.

And we have plenty of it right here at home and if we need more all we have to do is uncap the oil fields and Middle East can bathe in their oil then. All we have to do is convince the tree huggers to step out of the way

Saddam didn't have WMD, he barely had any
- weapons at all!

Well then he sure didnt act like someone that is inocent.

The first gulf war destroyed them
- all. he had a third rate army where most weapons
- didn't even work. Most were clogged with sand or
- were simply too run down to be effective. So what
- threat did he pose the US?

His constant lieing and deseptive tactics, attempting to kill a US president, not confirming with UN resolutions. With all the money he was stealing what you think he was trying to do or doing somewhere bellow the sand?


besides, they didn't kill
- Saddam after the first war because they didn't want
- to go into Iraq and breach their mandate to liberate
- Kuwait. They figured that Saddam had lost the war so
- his government would ditch him. I guess they were
- wrong.

That is why the whole regime had to go.

Iraq has 10% of the world's oil and Kuwait
- another 10%. Iraq owning 20% of the world's oil was
- not something Western powers, all of them, would
- accept. S11 gave America an excuse to go in and
- finish the job after 8 years of non intervention
- with Clinton. France and Germany had it sweet
- already with oil deals and did not want to take
- part.

9/11 opened our eyes as to who our enemies are, and its not just the terrorists.
-
- On being asked why Blair and Bush were going into
- Iraq a second time but not Zimbabwe or Korea or
- other nations in strife, Blair simply said, 'Because
- we can.'

Good Answer /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- North Korea only says it has nukes so nobody
- threatens to strike them. Its fashinable to say you
- have nukes and look powerful. Perhaps they have one,
- maybe two, but hardly an effective arms cache.

Ok then we should let them equal our power before we go in?
-
- Saddam only said he had WMD so he could look like a
- big regional player.


Saddam maybe a good poker player but he bluffed the wrong country.


He had the capacity once, but
- Isreali strikes in the 80's and Gulf War 1 got rid
- of them. He only kept up that he had the weapons
- because he could not say he didn't. How would that
- make him look, to both his people and enemy states
- surrounding him? Besides, how would he use them on
- America of all places, and more importantly, WHY?

Why not? If he went into war with us when he "didn't" have any
weapons what makes you think he wouldnt attack the US if he had Nukes

What ever Saddam has it is well hidden and in the event that the UN would be able to stop the US and its allies breathing down on him he could restart and continue his programs at a later time, when things cool down a bit.

The reason he didnt hit us with any chemicals is that we didnt give him a chance and besides he knew full well that we where prepared for it.
-
-
-

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

ASHcom wrote:
- I said We, being the west. I am Aussie.

I understand that. I do include Australia among the "industrialized nations" part. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- Um, that was a first hand account from an SAS
- captain working here, where I live, who I talk to,
- who served in the last war. Their unit found heaps
- of AKs poorly maintained that were dumped by
- surrendering or fleeing Iraqi troops. If you believe
- it or not I don't really mind. But I trust the
- ccount of an SAS officer over 'logical' evaluation.

I'm not quesitoning your honesty. I find it a surprising statement since it goes directly contrary to what i have heard from people there. They have told me about warehouses full of Ak-47's and Ak-74's in perfect condition. Some of them are still sealed with grease from the factory.

- "Allies" indeed. Perhaps something should be done
- about them.

Quite a few things, not the least of which is having a very frank discussion with them over their support for our enemies.

- Hmmm, indeed. I think perhaps better intervention
- would be to do their budgets for them. But then
- agin, Some western nations also do not use budget to
- make civilian lives better. Often these 'Socialist'
- ideals are looked down upon by Capitalist nations.

Quite true. However, there is a large difference between having a very poor healthcare policy for example (as we do in the US) and robbing your country blind. They have no interest in improving the lives of their countrymen. If they do so, it would suddently show their people that their government has had the power to do so all along, and they will no longer be able to blame otehrs for all of their problems.

- Active, as in, roll in the tanks and blow stuff up.
- NFZ was there to protect the kurds from the Iraqis,
- so the Turls could kill them instead.

There were two no-fly zones, and the more active one was in the South protecting the Shi'a. The Turks could not kill the Kurds in Iraq, only the ones in Turkey.

- But these nations know using them will bring their
- own end. They are threat weapons, intended to
- threaten, not to be used. They are to avoid
- conflict.

From a sane and Western standpoint that is the case. Not so for all others. Iran and the former government of Iraq have publicly stated multiple times that their puruit of nuclear weapons was to use them in a first strike scenario.

- Indeed, especially from the Soviet breakup.

That's surprisingly less of a concern that most people realize. Despite the chaos in theat time, their strategic rocket people kept fairly good track of everything. Granted, many of their ICBM's weren't in a condition to fly anyway, but their warheads are accounted for and safe. Putin's recent statements about their SS-19 force are somewhat surprising though.

A greater threat would be a rogue state like North Jorea providing material and aid to a nation like Iran.

"The submergence of self in the pursuit of an ideal, the readiness to spend oneself without measure, prodigally, almost ecstatically, for something intuitively apprehended as great and noble, spend oneself, one knows not why, - some of us like to believe that this is what religion means. "

[XyZspineZyX]

It's not that America is "completely" innocent. Many people, me included, has stated that one of the main reasons why we believe Saddam has WMD is because we're the idiots that gave it to him. And this problem is the same with the Afghani's and now we're helping the Northern Alliance, and I wouldn't be too shocked if they later become corrupt and use the training and weapons we provided to attack us and their neighbors. But like right now, helping them defeat the Taliban is what seems to be the right thing to do for now, we can't really tell the long term effects of it. Of course giving an idiot like Saddam Hussein chemical weapons and the means of delivering it was a stupid idea no matter what, but either way, it is still THEIR fault for using what we helped them have the wrong way.

Just because someone does something bad to me, or give me the means of commiting a crime, that it's excusable for me to go ahead and do it. If a guy comes to my house and clocks me and knocks me out and breaks my jaw and nose, yah, that's bad, but there's no justification for me to go back over there and blow his house up.

You accuse us of seeing things in black and white, when it seems you are ignoring the fact that we've stated out involvement many times, it's only the fact that it's basically irrelevant, what they have done after-the-fact is wrong, period. It seems you're the ones simply trying to put the blame for everything on the Americans.

If we're trying to kill terrorists and they use innocent civilians as shields, and some of them ultimately die, sure that's tragic, but we were targetting the terrorists, meaning if they hadn't used the innocents as cover, we wouldn't kill them, then turn around and start killing the innocents. On the other hand, terrorists specifically target the civilians. They will go as far as avoiding the military force in order to get to the innocent civilians. Big difference there, the death of the civilians IS their objective, ours isn't, it can be a bi-product, but it's not our intention at all.

Also, I don't think anyone in here thinks "all muslims are bad." Of course there are idiots that think that Muslim = terrorists, ignoring the domestic terrorists, the IRA, and the many other non-Muslim terrorists. But mentioning that is useless, there are idiots that think that everywhere, who cares, it's a fact that doesn't affect our discussions here since none of us believes that. It just seems like a further attempt to single out America as being the enemy or the "bad guy."

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

Hornet57 wrote:
-- And we have plenty of it right here at home and if
- we need more all we have to do is uncap the oil
- fields and Middle East can bathe in their oil then.
- All we have to do is convince the tree huggers to
- step out of the way
-

true. the US tactic of holding onto its own reserves is smart. Like a savings plan.

-
- Well then he sure didnt act like someone that is
- inocent.

No he didn't. He acted like the big kid at school bragging he has a gun in his bag....But doesn't.

-
- His constant lieing and deseptive tactics,
- attempting to kill a US president, not confirming
- with UN resolutions. With all the money he was
- stealing what you think he was trying to do or doing
- somewhere bellow the sand?

His interests were local despotism. he knew he was no match for industrialised nations.

--
- That is why the whole regime had to go.
-

Indeed.

-
- 9/11 opened our eyes as to who our enemies are, and
- its not just the terrorists.

Indeed again. It opened the eyes of the whole world that our borders are no longer fully safe from non state based forces. Traditonal means of defence are clearly not effective against internally focused violence from organisations that do not have a state, rather an ideology.


-
- Ok then we should let them equal our power before we
- go in?

with their economy that is impossible. They can barely afford alarm clocks.

-
- Saddam maybe a good poker player but he bluffed the
- wrong country.

Too True. The US didn't want to take the risk that he wasn't bluffing. But it is clear now he was.

-
- Why not? If he went into war with us when he
- "didn't" have any
- weapons what makes you think he wouldnt attack the
- US if he had Nukes

He didn't attack America at any point. He attacked local interests. The US attacked Iraq both times.

-
- What ever Saddam has it is well hidden and in the
- event that the UN would be able to stop the US and
- its allies breathing down on him he could restart
- and continue his programs at a later time, when
- things cool down a bit.
-
- The reason he didnt hit us with any chemicals is
- that we didnt give him a chance and besides he
- knew full well that we where prepared for it.

Yup.



Hey look, I agree. Wow! Why, because my points were not based on one side. they clearly support both sides of the arguement, some either way. these were just some interesting points of note from Military Intelligence INCLUDING US sources. (It's cleared)



http://webhome.idirect.com/~nkirv/ASHcom%205%20alone3%20copy.jpg

Shut up when you talk to me.

[XyZspineZyX]

MDS_Geist wrote:
- I understand that. I do include Australia among the
- "industrialized nations" part.

Only barely. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

-
- I'm not quesitoning your honesty. I find it a
- surprising statement since it goes directly contrary
- to what i have heard from people there. They have
- told me about warehouses full of Ak-47's and Ak-74's
- in perfect condition. Some of them are still sealed
- with grease from the factory.

differing accounts makes it difficult to formulate an accurate picture of the truth. I guess it depends on where and what they were doing. The Aussies held the western Quarter, so perhaps conditions of both weather and weapons were different.

-
- Quite a few things, not the least of which is having
- a very frank discussion with them over their support
- for our enemies.

VERY frank. Especially the Saudis.



Those nations have people in power being blinded by greed and power. its an old problem in history that we still cannot solve properly. Those nations will evolve over time. They are, after all, young 'nations' in an ancient culture. Afghanistan used to be a great place until the taliban took over. Perhaps it will be once again. regime change is, indeed, the only answer. because it is the regime that is blamed if lives suddenly improve.

The problem with the regimes is they need to look good, hence the blaming of the west. ironically it is western culture they are trying to emulate and has driven them into the poverty they know. They are bitter because they cannot have the luxuries of the west, and blame the west. yet it is their own regimes who fail to provide.

-
- There were two no-fly zones, and the more active one
- was in the South protecting the Shi'a. The Turks
- could not kill the Kurds in Iraq, only the ones in
- Turkey.

But they want to.


- From a sane and Western standpoint that is the case.
- Not so for all others. Iran and the former
- government of Iraq have publicly stated multiple
- times that their puruit of nuclear weapons was to
- use them in a first strike scenario.

I personally believe that is a threat in itself. Stating an intention of nuclear first strike will strike fear in enemy forces and they will do as you want, for fear of that initial strike. I could be wrong, this is just theory.



http://webhome.idirect.com/~nkirv/ASHcom%205%20alone3%20copy.jpg

Shut up when you talk to me.

[XyZspineZyX]

ASHcom wrote:
-
- MDS_Geist wrote:
-- I understand that. I do include Australia among the
-- "industrialized nations" part.
-
- Only barely.

You mean that "sheep farming" isn't an industry? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- differing accounts makes it difficult to formulate
- an accurate picture of the truth. I guess it depends
- on where and what they were doing. The Aussies held
- the western Quarter, so perhaps conditions of both
- weather and weapons were different.

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence. It accumulates very rapidly and is difficult to reconcile all parts of it together.

- Those nations have people in power being blinded by
- greed and power. its an old problem in history that
- we still cannot solve properly. Those nations will
- evolve over time. They are, after all, young
- 'nations' in an ancient culture. Afghanistan used to
- be a great place until the taliban took over.

Those nations are quite unlikely to "evolve." Their leadership has learned a number of lessons from history, and paid particularly close attention to the Nazis, especially their "big lie" technique. They have founded their nations on this principle and may no longer even be able to see truth when it is dangled in front of them. They have corupted and discarded the vestigaes of their ancient cultures in favor of a new culture of murder and death.

- Perhaps it will be once again. regime change is,
- indeed, the only answer. because it is the regime
- that is blamed if lives suddenly improve.

Then you also have to overcome the problem of decades of indoctrination and instituionalized falsehood. The majority of Egyptians are convinced that they won the 1973 war.

- The problem with the regimes is they need to look
- good, hence the blaming of the west. ironically it
- is western culture they are trying to emulate and
- has driven them into the poverty they know. They are
- bitter because they cannot have the luxuries of the
- west, and blame the west. yet it is their own
- regimes who fail to provide.

It isn't really Western culture that they are trying to emulate. Taking on Western vices does not equate to taking on Western culture. Their leadership has all of the luxuries that they want and deny them to their people.

- But they want to.

Maybe, maybe not. They're getting on fairly well for the most part.

- I personally believe that is a threat in itself.
- Stating an intention of nuclear first strike will
- strike fear in enemy forces and they will do as you
- want, for fear of that initial strike. I could be
- wrong, this is just theory.

It is a threat, and it is also meant sincerely. While it might very well be in the world's best interests for Israel to once again be forced to defend itself by attacking a hostile country's nuclear facilities, it would still be very messy. Iran would be quite happy to have the region embroiled in another massive war.

"The submergence of self in the pursuit of an ideal, the readiness to spend oneself without measure, prodigally, almost ecstatically, for something intuitively apprehended as great and noble, spend oneself, one knows not why, - some of us like to believe that this is what religion means. "