View Full Version : USA - General discussion (Part 1)
US Marines prepare for Falluja assault (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/06/iraq.main/index.html); likely biggest since Vietnam
According to the US army, there are about 50,000 civilians in Falluja and about 3,000 insurgents among them. The assault could happen any day now and it's going to be a massacre. Falluja has been heavily bombed everyday by the US army for the past months and over half of the city's buildings have been destroyed, hundreds of civilians have been killed.
China will veto UN resolutions on Iran (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/06/china.iran/index.html)
For the past months, the US has been trying to get Iran's case transferred to the UN Security Council to get a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iran, well, like for Iraq, this plan has failed, China just officially announced that it will veto the transfer of Iran's case to the Security Council, so no resolution.
Like for Iraq, if the US wants to go forward and use force against Iran, it will have to do it alone and without UN approval.
US Marines prepare for Falluja assault
They said that they warned the civilians to leave the area. What I really don't get is how they expect all people to leave the territory and only armed "enemies" to stay there? :bum:
As a result, more civilians will be killed again. I really think that US has to be taken to the court in Haag. Juridically, the war in Iraq is a criminal action from the very beginning.
coolasfcuk
07-11-2004, 00:45
I know!! Am I wierd or what? I guess I wasn't against it so much, but after studying NZ bioconservation in University this semester, I just looked at NZ in a whole different light -- a fragile ecosystem that is being slowly and painfully killed by increasing human population. You know, not every one buys recycled paper and donats money to bioconservation programs like my family does... and NZ is one of those last green corners in the world...
:laugh: :lol: :laugh: That's great Kate - hmm you must be the only one if the world that buys recycled paper!!!! :lol: I, like Nath, cannot stop laughing at your posts, and honey, it looks like we arent the only ones ;) Why dont you do your reseach on how many and how americans might be being environment cautios ...
N.Z. would've been/could've been much more greener if the Euro people didnt settle there years ago ;) but its done deal - immigration and migration of people is part of that evolution process ... oh wait, isnt that what you were interested about??? hmm how would evolution occur without chnages? oh wait - we will do all the changes ourselves with genetics, ah?interesting ... interesting thinking
freds, the conservatism might be coming from the christ ... or the church :lol: ... or the two combined!
By someone's thinking - in a town called 'christchurch' only conservatives and christ/church maniacs must live there :laugh:
China will veto UN resolutions on Iran (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/06/china.iran/index.html)
.
...like this part in this article:
"The Chinese foreign minister's statement is a boost to Iran's position. Tehran is engaged in talks with Britain, France and Germany over the international community's demand that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities.
Iran is hoping China will use its veto power at the Security Council.
Iran is eager to step up trade with China. It signed a preliminary agreement for the export of gas to China for 25 years. It also has offered China a concession to develop oil and gas fields in the Persian Gulf" :D .
coolasfcuk, what can I say? I'm glad that I can entertain you. You obviously lack laughter in your life. :D And if you make conslusions about people who live in Christchurch based on the name of the town (which was given over 100 years ago) you are obviously missing something in the head. :rolleyes: It's kinda funny how you laugh at other people's posts when you yourself write senseless gibberish like that. :laugh: Obviously you can only laugh at others but you yourself don't have single constructive thing to say about any issue -- and it has been a reccuring pattern for your time here on the forum.
coolasfcuk
07-11-2004, 01:38
Last thing I'm going to say in regarts to you, Kate.
[...] And if you make conslusions about people who live in Christchurch based on the name of the town (which was given over 100 years ago) you are obviously missing something in the head.
Think good what you are saying, Kate. You obviously still haven't gotten the point of all my post dedicated to you - think of exactly why i said that, honey. Could it be because someone makes certain conclusions about all Americans based on the recent elections? ;)
It's kinda funny how you laugh at other people's posts when you yourself write senseless gibberish like that. :laugh: Obviously you can only laugh at others but you yourself don't have single constructive thing to say about any issue -- and it has been a reccuring pattern for your time here on the forum.
Sure, Kate. I'm going to repeat - think of why I said all those things and why I laugh. ;) Because it was in fact all very well thought of and constructed. But obviously you cannot see that, Kate, so all I can say is that it was done with good intentions towards you, and I still do hope you got at least something out of it ... if not, oh well :coctail:
That's it, Kate.
coolasfcuk, I don't care why you said all those things you said. You're a grown woman, and I sure did expect more from you. *shakes head* Like I said, if you want to engage in these childish arguements I'm not gonna endorse them. When you actually have something constructive to say, let me know. ;)
Anybody wanna buy a T-Shirt (http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=375)?
thegurgi
07-11-2004, 04:37
NZ doesn't need people who don't care about the environment
just felt like saying, I recycle! <--- american
that's all
:: i'd use the offtop tag thing, but i don't know what it is ::
actually, i've been thinking. This whole electoral vote thing is crap, cause in all honesty my views and that of the blue states were so totally misrepresented. There have to be more people in one county of New York (esp, NYC) than Montana, and yet... well , New York gets more electoral votes than montana, but i wonder just whats going on. The states that actually border fresh water and the west coast voted for Kerry. Like the western coast and the north east... quite odd. Maybe the north east should become it's own country. that'd rule, now that i think about it. Separate the US into regions and have elections for own presidents, and just have a council instead of 1 man calling the shots to the congress. Of course, the congress is, well never the less. We need more than one party.... sorry i'm rambling, and a bit drunk (no buzzed), so i'll go away
thegurgi, a lot of people recycle, but even more people don't. And not just Americans, NZers, too. That's why it's a concern. I can't help but feel helpless at how humans are ruining the world, the very place we live in, and even little green corners like NZ are rapidly disappearing off the face of the world. :cry:
thegurgi
07-11-2004, 04:58
kat, you don't seem to understand me it seems. i just felt like saying that i recycle and wished you didn't reply to me in away that seemed like i was clueless no nothing. it's like, can you tell me something i don't know one day about human behavior that isn't based off the logics of just being human. It's silly to point things out that people are selfish, it's the whole basis of the Buddhist teachings. loo loo. i believe i answered to you in a slight way that you answered to me. but my mind is in a different way. cause the whole time i typed this, there was a part of me just wanting to yell the word "monkey" ... maybe i will
volkotina
07-11-2004, 05:53
Just wanted to add something to the pot:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm
Very, very interesting...
Oh, and while I do live in a "red" state (of course I live in the lone "blue" county smack dab in the capitol of Texas), I am far from a moron. lol But you know, people always love to generalize; it seems to make things that much more simple for them to process. Not trying to strike at you freddie, I don't believe you feel that way.
thegurgi, I probably misunderstood what you were saying... sorry... What does the word "monkey" have anything to do with anything in this topic? :dknow:
thegurgi
07-11-2004, 06:16
What does the word "monkey" have anything to do with anything in this topic?
absolutely nothing, kate, absolutely nothing....
volkotina, you live in texas? how interesting
thegurgi, oooooooooooookkk... :hmmm: Wierd.
Oh, and while I do live in a "red" state (of course I live in the lone "blue" county smack dab in the capitol of Texas), I am far from a moron. lol But you know, people always love to generalize; it seems to make things that much more simple for them to process. Not trying to strike at you freddie, I don't believe you feel that way.
LOL. You are right. I don't ;)
They said that they warned the civilians to leave the area. What I really don't get is how they expect all people to leave the territory and only armed "enemies" to stay there? :bum:
Here's a crazy idea. Set up checkpoints on all roads leading from Faluja and check people leaving for weapons. :bum:
I know it sounds crazy but it just might work.
:newyear:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htmWell, this goes with the theory that the US has been taken over by a military/industrial lobby, a neo-conservative group that wants to build an American empire. According to this theory, Bush's first election was rigged (Bush being only a puppet, the real masters remaining in the shadows), the 9/11 attacks were organized by this military/industrial lobby and Ben Laden works for them. The goal of the attacks was to create a deep shock in the population and a feeling of fear which would lead people to exchange their freedom for security, and also to give a new clear enemy to the nation, after the initial shock the feeling of fear will have to be maintained permanently so that the internal control can be tightened more and more. With new security laws inside and a new enemy outside, the building of the American empire can start.
Of course, with this theory, it was obvious that the military/industrial lobby would not let Bush lose his reelection.
Here's a crazy idea. Set up checkpoints on all roads leading from Faluja and check people leaving for weapons. I doubt it would work with the 50,000 remaining people. Before the war the city of Falluja had a population of 250,000, so 200,000 have already fled the city (on a side note, those are people who have lost everything, desperate people, it will be easy for fundamentalists to recruit new fighters among teenagers who have no future in sight), if those remaining 50,000 wanted to leave, they probably already would have.
The remaining 50,000 are people who want to stay, for various reasons, because they want to protect their properties, because they don't want the enemy to take their city, because they don't want the holly places of the city to be violated by the enemy, and also because of family links with the insurgents, those families remaining in Falluja have fathers, brothers, cousins among the insurgents and they don't want to leave them to die alone.
This battle is going to be like the battles of Stalingrad and Leningrad, sometimes civilians would rather die than leave their city to the enemy, but contrary to Stalingrad and Leningrad, this time it's the attacker who's going to win. The death toll is going to be heavy though, especially on the civilian side.
Well, this goes with the theory that the US has been taken over by a military/industrial lobby, a neo-conservative group that wants to build an American empire. According to this theory, Bush's first election was rigged (Bush being only a puppet, the real masters remaining in the shadows), the 9/11 attacks were organized by this military/industrial lobby and Ben Laden works for them. The goal of the attacks was to create a deep shock in the population and a feeling of fear which would lead people to exchange their freedom for security, and also to give a new clear enemy to the nation, after the initial shock the feeling of fear will have to be maintained permanently so that the internal control can be tightened more and more. With new security laws inside and a new enemy outside, the building of the American empire can start.
Of course, with this theory, it was obvious that the military/industrial lobby would not let Bush lose his reelection.
.
It reminds some delirious/serious rumours in the 30' which said that it was : The Americans, the German Capitalists and the Jewishs who had payed Hitler and gave the power to him in the only goal to" not be kind" with the Communists and the poor Staline....but after the ones who put Hitler at the head of Germany had lost control on him.....
It was a very serious rumour at this time.... :rolleyes: :p
Edit: and don't ask me my internet links; it isn't provided by Google but by my knowledge...so if you don't believe me , you are free to search by yourself if what I say is true.
I doubt it would work with the 50,000 remaining people. Before the war the city of Falluja had a population of 250,000, so 200,000 have already fled the city (on a side note, those are people who have lost everything, desperate people, it will be easy for fundamentalists to recruit new fighters among teenagers who have no future in sight), if those remaining 50,000 wanted to leave, they probably already would have.
It would suceed in separating isurgents fromcivilians leaving.
This battle is going to be like the battles of Stalingrad and Leningrad, sometimes civilians would rather die than leave their city to the enemy, but contrary to Stalingrad and Leningrad, this time it's the attacker who's going to win. The death toll is going to be heavy though, especially on the civilian side.
Funny, same was said about Basra and Bagdad in 03. And look how that one turned out.
Same was said about Najaf in 04. And look how that one turned out.
:newyear:
All we can do is to wait and see. Despite of all the theories, there's a fact that Bush is a president and the war in Iraq still goes on.
Then Americans have no reasons to flee to NZ or another safe corners of the world. If some of them will really be forced to leave the country, there's always Canada, which is culturally and geographically a lot closer than Australia or NZ.
Does anybody know when Bush will announce the composition of his new government ? Just to get an idea about the direction he decides to adopt about foreign policy..
Does anybody know when Bush will announce the composition of his new government ? Just to get an idea about the direction he decides to adopt about foreign policy..
Probably in January when he is sworn in.
:newyear:
Then Americans have no reasons to flee to NZ or another safe corners of the world. If some of them will really be forced to leave the country, there's always Canada, which is culturally and geographically a lot closer than Australia or NZ. Yeah, but according to the news, NZ is on top of their list of countries they can flee to. :bum:
katbeidar, It takes a lot before a person leaves own country especially if it's the best country in the world. (American propaganda says so, I mean).
forre, if a person really wants to move out of his country, he'll move.
katbeidar, yep and the person will surely choose NZ! :p
People tend to panic without any clear reasons to do so. So what do you base your worries on? 10 000 hits on NZ Embassy site or phone calls? It sounds a little bit pathetic.
I think we'll spare NZ for a while now from invading as we may need this quiet green corner in the case of global nuclear disaster or similar force-majour.
forre, I'm not saying that Americans are flooding into the country, but I'm just saying that it's a fact that a lot of people are eager to move out of America as a result of Bush's re-election, and that I'm worried since NZ is on top of the list. That's all.
thegurgi
07-11-2004, 21:37
and i think those people are being silly and paranoid, and just cause we're a bit upset about this, it's only 4 years and no reason to leave your job, house, and friends by moving anywhere. Well, unless you have no job, house or friends, then feel free to go anywhere... hehehe, but they can come and stay in my dorm room. hehehehe
Don't worry Katie, may be they've finally found another place to finish their days:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/11/07/ground.zero.suicide.ap/index.html
...there is enough place there now... ;)
forre, I'm not saying that Americans are flooding into the country, but I'm just saying that it's a fact that a lot of people are eager to move out of America as a result of Bush's re-election, and that I'm worried since NZ is on top of the list. That's all.
Where did you get the information that NZ is on the top of the list? According to CNN, Canada was on the top of the list. People are panicking. The majority of the Americans has never even left their own country for a bigger trip, not even speaking about moving out. They'll need to look only at NZ's salaries and their optimism would be somewhat calmed down.
thegurgi
07-11-2004, 21:54
you know how easy it would be for my family to escape the states to canada in the case that Bush went mad, but Kate, now i might try and convince them to come to New Zealand, that would rule! (but ummm, neither of them are ever going to happen, so...)
and i think those people are being silly and paranoid, and just cause we're a bit upset about this, it's only 4 years and no reason to leave your job, house, and friends by moving anywhere.From what i've seen on some other Tatu forums where there are much more Americans than here and some have really decided to leave the US, it's the ban of same-sex marriage that has pushed them over the edge. 11 states have banned it, including Oregon, and with control of the Senate and the House, Bush is going to be able to add the ban of same-sex marriage to the US constitution in the next 4 years. For those people, it means that they'll never be able to marry the person they love, so they are looking for alternative countries where they can move and live freely.
forre, a few pages back I posted an article that gave me that idea... Maybe I was wrong. Never mind. Lol. :p
From what i've seen on some other Tatu forums where there are much more Americans than here and some have really decided to leave the US, it's the ban of same-sex marriage that has pushed them over the edge. 11 states have banned it, including Oregon, and with control of the Senate and the House, Bush is going to be able to add the ban of same-sex marriage to the US constitution in the next 4 years. For those people, it means that they'll never be able to marry the person they love, so they are looking for alternative countries where they can move and live freely.
And at the end of the day, they'll come back to their beautiful American homes and say: "No, we are going to stay in our homeland and fight for our rights and to make it a better place. God bless America!".
thegurgi
07-11-2004, 22:23
they'll come back to their beautiful American homes and say: "No, we are going to stay in our homeland and fight for our rights and to make it a better place. God bless America!".
yeah, leaving kind of goes against american principle, fighting for what they believe in, this should just make them fight harder for their rights, africans did it, women did it, now it's their turn and i have complete faith in a social change of our "heart land"... we just need to educate people in homosexuality, make people see that it's not a choice, like a national tv campaign, and other things, maybe for once our gay celebrities can make a change to how our conservatives see homosexuality, maybe by showing a religious side, they need to find a relate to all people and i'm sure the tide would change. At least that's how i got my conservative grandfather to see why abortion shouldn't be made completely illegal, it's really easy to get conservatives to change their minds, cause they usually believe anything you tell them if it has a biblical reference in mind. hehehe
And at the end of the day, they'll come back to their beautiful American homes and say: "No, we are going to stay in our homeland and fight for our rights and to make it a better place. God bless America!".I'm not so sure about that, "gay activists" like they call them in the US are pretty depressed, the fact that Oregon, a state that was allowing same-sex marriages a few months ago, has now banned them, has been a huge blow... I mean, it's one thing to live in a place where same-sex marriage is illegal and fight for it to become legal, and another to live in a place where same-sex marriage *was* legal and see it banned all of sudden by a huge majority vote. People are feeling that they are going backward and not forward, and it's difficult to bear, several states have even banned civil unions for same-sex people, in those states gay people have nothing left legally.
Like i said, Bush controls the Senate and the House, and he's going to appoint new ultra conservative judges to the Supreme Court, it's a lost battle for gay support groups, same-sex marriage (and even civil unions probably) is going to get banned in the constitution itself.
I totally agree with haku. America is going backwards in everything, for that matter. From relationshiops with other countries, to gay marriage, to school subjects. And religion is to blame.
I mean, it's one thing to live in a place where same-sex marriage is illegal and fight for it to become legal, and another to live in a place where same-sex marriage *was* legal and see it banned all of sudden by a huge majority vote.
Why? You don't have problems with majority being "for" it so why do you have troubles with majority being "against" it? Isn't that the whole point of democracy, establishing rules that are approved by majority of people?
:newyear:
Isn't that the whole point of democracy, establishing rules that are approved by majority of people? Yeah, but in this case it was almost 50/50, wasn't it? I don't get it, how are straight people effected by gay marriage anyways? Let gays marry, what's the big deal? Gay marriage should be non of straight people's business! If they are trying to protect gays from buring in hell after they die... well, shouldn't God (if he even exists) be the one to judge?
thegurgi
07-11-2004, 22:44
I don't get it, how are straight people effected by gay marriage anyways? Let gays marry, what's the big deal? Gay marriage should be non of straight people's business! If they are trying to protect gays from buring in hell after they die... well, shouldn't God (if he even exists) be the one to judge?
that's the problem, people shouldn't have the right to MAKE these decisions, and i really don't think they do. Who the hell do these people think they are making such rash decisions that don't really affect them. The sanctity of marriage? that was gone years ago when a majority of our marriages end in divorce. i honestly don't see the big deal. And if that proposition had been in Pennsylvania i would have voted against it and hope that my state would be progressive enough to agree.
oh, but i do think that marriage should be redefined, because i think people are abusing the option and it's causing more bad than good now-a-days. :: WARNING: RADICAL IDEA AHEAD :: Marriage should simply be an institution to give a legal and financial bond to a couple whom intend to raise a family and only for that and a married couple has to have/or adopt a child within 5 years of getting married. I know it seems extreme, but i've seen too many people's lives ruined for getting married for the wrong reasons, and i think this would give rights to gay people who do raise children, and i think any couple that raises children and love each other to get married, because you can't get rid of the "love" part of marriage.
Yeah, but in this case it was almost 50/50, wasn't it? I don't get it, how are straight people effected by gay marriage anyways? Let gays marry, what's the big deal? Gay marriage should be non of straight people's business! If they are trying to protect gays from buring in hell after they die... well, shouldn't God (if he even exists) be the one to judge?
Almost, but majority won. If it would be other way around would you say "Well, it was almost 50/50" so this isn't good and let's not allowed it, just to be on the safe side?
:newyear:
luxxi, no, I just think that majority should be over 60%... otherwise the issue should be left "undecided". But I guess if 50.00000000000001% counts as "majority" there's nothing I or anyone else can do.
Why? You don't have problems with majority being "for" it so why do you have troubles with majority being "against" it? Isn't that the whole point of democracy, establishing rules that are approved by majority of people?I don't believe in referendums regarding social issues, nothing will ever progress if you use referendums.
When women didn't have the right to vote (in Europe), if you had made a referendum asking men if women should vote, the answer would have been "no".
When there was slavery of black people (in the US), if you had made a referendum asking white people if slavery should be abolished, the answer would have been "no".
When there was death penalty (in Europe), if you had made a referendum asking people if death penalty should be abolished, the answer would have been "no".
No progress ever...
Sometimes indirect democracy is better, especially to make social progress.
About gay marriage, personaly i believe that *all* citizens should have the same rights, so any couple of citizens should be allowed to marry if they wish, regardless of genders, that's just basic equality.
Therefore, people shouldn't have the right to vote for a law that makes some citizens "less equal" than others.
luxxi, no, I just think that majority should be over 60%... otherwise the issue should be left "undecided". But I guess if 50.00000000000001% counts as "majority" there's nothing I or anyone else can do.
And what was majority when it was passed? Or did anybody even ask people what they want?
:newyear:
I don't believe in referendums regarding social issues, nothing will ever progress if you use referendums.
When women didn't have the right to vote (in Europe), if you had made a referendum asking men if women should vote, the answer would have been "no".
When there was slavery of black people (in the US), if you had made a referendum asking white people if slavery should be abolished, the answer would have been "no".
When there was death penalty (in Europe), if you had made a referendum asking people if death penalty should be abolished, the answer would have been "no".
No progress ever...
While I agree in first two cases not on the third one. and now you have peopel whose "rights" are debated having every oportunity to vote.
Sometimes indirect democracy is better, especially to make social progress.
Yes, specially when majority of people are against it. :rolleyes:
About gay marriage, personaly i believe that *all* citizens should have the same rights, so any couple of citizens should be allowed to marry if they wish, regardless of genders, that's just basic equality.
Therefore, people shouldn't have the right to vote for a law that makes some citizens "less equal" than others.
The question is is this right? You don't have a "right" to marry your brother/sister but nobody is complaining about that. Isn't that violating your right to marry somebody you love?
:newyear:
The question is is this right? You don't have a "right" to marry your brother/sister but nobody is complaining about that. Isn't that violating your right to marry somebody you love?
:newyear:
Different case. A brother and a sister have a HIGH risk of having geneticaly defective children. With Gay people this is not even an issue. Same sex and same family has nothing to do with each other.
I don't get it, how are straight people effected by gay marriage anyways? Let gays marry, what's the big deal? Gay marriage should be non of straight people's business! If they are trying to protect gays from buring in hell after they die... well, shouldn't God (if he even exists) be the one to judge?
Did you see which states voted for Bush?
The conservatives have control of the government, which has strong support especially in the South. Like you said, religion (and morals and tradition) are to blame.
Different case. A brother and a sister have a HIGH risk of having geneticaly defective children. With Gay people this is not even an issue. Same sex and same family has nothing to do with each other.
Then they can use condoms when having sex. Do you have to run tests with your partner to see if you run a risk of gentically defective children?
:newyear:
luxxi, still, sex between siblings is waaaaaay to gross. :dead: I hope it'll never-ever become legal.
luxxi, still, sex between siblings is waaaaaay to gross. :dead: I hope it'll never-ever become legal.
And some people think same thing about gay sex. Obviously majority in 11 US states.....
:newyear:
luxxi, I dunno... this discussion is taking a wierd turn... In a way your arguement is right, but somehow, I guess, I've learned to accept homosexuals, but incest is just a little too early, a little too much. :hmmm:
luxxi, I dunno... this discussion is taking a wierd turn... In a way your arguement is right, but somehow, I guess, I've learned to accept homosexuals, but incest is just a little too early, a little too much. :hmmm:
And this is how people think about gays.
IMO forcing an issue is worst way to achieve your goal. You are more likely to get backlash if you try to revolutionise things than let evolution take it's course.
:newyear:
luxxi, I think you're right! :) It makes sense, what you said.
Here's a little thing for everyone to have a giggle at! :D ...
http://www.yuliavolkova.co.uk/2004election_by_iq.png
Then they can use condoms when having sex. Do you have to run tests with your partner to see if you run a risk of gentically defective children?
:newyear:
No. You can't CONTROL the population like that. The fact is that a percentage of THOSE people would have children ANYWAY. And you don'thave to run tests because there is no way of telling whether you and your childern would have geneticaly defective children (in case you're not related). The only thing that is certain is that children between siblings would have a much higher risk of being defective. Up to teh point where it's a risk not worth taking.
Nice one Real Lesbian. Nice to know that I was in one of the more clever states last month. :p
coolasfcuk
08-11-2004, 16:47
but that's not a surprise, that chart. Think of any Eruopean country for example - the areas with the capital + the large cities Will have the population with the higher IQ on average ;) ... and the other, rural, areas will have lower - that is basically what happened in USA.
Look at the bottom of the graph: Utah, Idaho. Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana .... look how many people live there, and how big is the largest city in any of those states, then compare it with Mass, New Jersey, New York ... and how many people live there and what the largest city is. Think of the differences in living in those area - you think living in NYC can be compared to living in Boise, Idaho??? That's like comparing living in Paris to living in some little ass village in south of France where you will be taking care of goats more likely that going to your business office :gigi:
There is no big surprise - I am sure in any of your Euro countries, whenever there are elections you dont go comparing your rural areas with the largest cities .... and I am almost 100% sure that if you do: the rural areas ones are always more conservative in their votes ;)
sex between siblings is waaaaaay to gross. I hope it'll never-ever become legal.Actually, sexual intercourse between siblings is not illegal, at least not in Europe... adultary, incest between siblings, that kind of acts are no longer punishable by law, not since late 19th or early 20th century, it's still "frowned upon", lol, but it's not at all illegal, people can cheat on their spouses, siblings can have sex, that's their private business.
This is the perfect opportunity for me to show you all a local story from my native city... The tragic love story of Marguerite and Julien de Ravalet which took place in a castle just in the outskirts of my native city. They are our local Romeo and Juliet and their tragic story is known by all...
The story of Marguerite and Julien de Ravalet (http://www.ville-cherbourg.fr/uk/tourism_discovery/history/marguerite_and_julien_de/marguerite_and_julien_de/default.asp)
L'histoire de Marguerite et Julien de Ravalet (http://www.ville-cherbourg.fr/fr/tourisme_decouverte/histoire_de_la_ville/personnalites/marguerite_et_julien_de_r/default.asp) (Same thing in French for sunwalk if she prefers, there are different pictures so other people can look too.)
Pictures of the castle and its park where Marguerite and Julien loved each other (http://www.ville-cherbourg.fr/fr/tourisme_decouverte/architecture_parc_et_jard/patrimoine_architectural/le_chateau_des_ravalet/le_chateau_des_ravalet_en.asp) (Don't be confused to see palm trees and other exotic plants in the park, the area of my native city has a micro-climate, tropical plants can grow there without any problem.)
No. You can't CONTROL the population like that. The fact is that a percentage of THOSE people would have children ANYWAY. And you don'thave to run tests because there is no way of telling whether you and your childern would have geneticaly defective children (in case you're not related). The only thing that is certain is that children between siblings would have a much higher risk of being defective. Up to teh point where it's a risk not worth taking.
And sex between men increases risk of colon cancer. MAybe we should ban that one as well to protect general health of population?
Sibling sex is cultural taboo. Societies don't accept it. some societies don't accept homosexulity as well.
:newyear:
http://www.yuliavolkova.co.uk/2004election_by_iq.png This is really interesting... But here's a quote from Karl Rover, Bush's long-time political guru and White House advisor: "As people do better, they start voting like Republicans... unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing." :lol:
The Falluja assault has begun...
US attacks Falluja (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3992263.stm)
US seizes Falluja's hospital (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/08/iraq.falluja.hospital/index.html)
Taking the hospital was the first action of the US army, even though it was not used as a military installation, but that's a logical first step in an attack. Since the hospital is now controled by the US army, the insurgents can no longer bring their wounded to the hospital, which means more death on their side, as for the civilians who are going to be killed and wounded during the attack, they'll be brought to this hospital and the US army will be able to hide the real numbers of casualties among the civilians. Good tactic.
US attacks Falluja Of course, after the election Bush can do anything he wants. Especially now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election for the next term. Here's an article on what some critics call will be an interesting second term of President Dubya:
Bush May Come Up With 2nd-Term Surprises (http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=Bush_Administration)
spyretto
08-11-2004, 23:48
Fallujah attack was prepared long before Bush's election.
Fallujah attack was prepared long before Bush's election.Of course, but the fact that it's been launched today is no coincidence, it's going to be a butchery, there was no way this attack would have been launched a week before the election for example.
And sex between men increases risk of colon cancer. MAybe we should ban that one as well to protect general health of population?
Sibling sex is cultural taboo. Societies don't accept it. some societies don't accept homosexulity as well.
:newyear:
It's different when you are at high (knowing) risk of bringing defective children to this world. It's a social tabu for a reason. Unlike homosexuality. Royal families in Europe are a good example of what happens with inbreeding. The consequences of actual SIBLINGS having children is much worse then that even.
Different thing when consenting sexual partners do harm to eachother knowingly, but it's quite a different thing to expose an unborn child to a huge risk of being defective, don't you think?
I've just heard something which makes me smile...US Foreign Policy could be connected with the Israelo-Palestinian Conflict (just pray for someday , they'd finish to decide to make peace), isn't it ?....
So...the "known" personnal money of Yasser Arafat is 300 000 000 dollars... ...not so bad... :p
May be he could have built one more hospital for his people instead of offering to his wife clothes from the BEST and more expensive Designers (Haute Couture)....His wife is living in Paris , so she has the choice about the shops....
I'm absolutely not surprised by this information...that's why, sometimes, I react like I did on this thread...The Bad and the Good,for me is a too simplistic notion....There is corruption everywhere..our world is built like that ...and it's in the Human nature to try to take the most it can for itself instead of giving it to its neighboor..
EDIT: Mistake, indeed it is 900 000 000$(according french tv: "Mots croisés" and the french newspaper: "Liberation"
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=252915
Here a CNN report(video), just above the weather: http://edition.cnn.com/ (november, 10th)
It's different when you are at high (knowing) risk of bringing defective children to this world. It's a social tabu for a reason. Unlike homosexuality. Royal families in Europe are a good example of what happens with inbreeding. The consequences of actual SIBLINGS having children is much worse then that even.
Different thing when consenting sexual partners do harm to eachother knowingly, but it's quite a different thing to expose an unborn child to a huge risk of being defective, don't you think?
Exactlly, it's a social taboo. Same as homosexuality.
And taboos were always wrapped in "medical" or "scintific" package so they don't look like prjudices.
:newyear:
Exactlly, it's a social taboo. Same as homosexuality.
And taboos were always wrapped in "medical" or "scintific" package so they don't look like prjudices.
:newyear:
That goes for homosexuality, yes. It's strickly a social taboo. But as I said there is quite a good rationale against inbreeding. So that is NOT just a social taboo.
That goes for homosexuality, yes. It's strickly a social taboo. But as I said there is quite a good rationale against inbreeding. So that is NOT just a social taboo.
And any other taboo has good rationale behind it as well. If you believe it.
For instance, why are muslims prohibited from eating pork & drinking alcohol?
:newyear:
spyretto
09-11-2004, 21:50
that whole "gay marriage" thingy, seriously impeded John Kerry's chances of election...
You're aware of that don't you? :rolleyes:
that whole "gay marriage" thingy, seriously impeded John Kerry's chances of election...
You're aware of that don't you? :rolleyes:
Yes. Goes to show what happens when you run on a platform most of population disagrees with.
:newyear:
ypsidan04
09-11-2004, 23:46
that whole "gay marriage" thingy, seriously impeded John Kerry's chances of election...
You're aware of that don't you? :rolleyes:
Well, yes and no. It's no question that those propositions drew strong Christians to the polls. But, remember that "strong Christians" is a very diverse group. Blacks and Whites. Blacks, who voted for Gore by a 80-90% margin in 2000 (and Bush did nothing to try to persuade them to change their minds this time), and Christian Whites who, in general, vote for Bush. So both sides got some help. It's anyone's guess who got more though.
A good article I just came across:
Evidence Mounts that the Vote Was Hacked
By Thom Hartmann
CommonDreams.org
Saturday 06 November 2004
When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat.
"It was practice for a national effort," Fisher told me.
And some believe evidence is accumulating that the national effort happened on November 2, 2004.
The State of Florida, for example, publishes a county-by-county record of votes cast and people registered to vote by party affiliation. Net denizen Kathy Dopp compiled the official state information into a table, available at http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm, and noticed something startling.
While the heavily scrutinized touch-screen voting machines seemed to produce results in which the registered Democrat/Republican ratios largely matched the Kerry/Bush vote, in Florida's counties using results from optically scanned paper ballots - fed into a central tabulator PC and thus vulnerable to hacking - the results seem to contain substantial anomalies.
In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.
In Dixie County, with 4,988 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush.
The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the counties where optical scanners were used. Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush.
Yet in the touch-screen counties, where investigators may have been more vigorously looking for such anomalies, high percentages of registered Democrats generally equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry. (I had earlier reported that county size was a variable - this turns out not to be the case. Just the use of touch-screens versus optical scanners.)
Note the trend line - the only variable that determines a swing toward Bush was the use of optical scan machines.
One possible explanation for this is the "Dixiecrat" theory, that in Florida white voters (particularly the rural ones) have been registered as Democrats for years, but voting Republican since Reagan. Looking at the 2000 statistics, also available on Dopp's site, there are similar anomalies, although the trends are not as strong as in 2004. But some suggest the 2000 election may have been questionable in Florida, too.
One of the people involved in Dopp's analysis noted that it may be possible to determine the validity of the "rural Democrat" theory by comparing Florida's white rural counties to those of Pennsylvania, another swing state but one that went for Kerry, as the exit polls there predicted. Interestingly, the Pennsylvania analysis, available at http://ustogether.org/election04/PA_vote_patt.htm, doesn't show the same kind of swings as does Florida, lending credence to the possibility of problems in Florida.
Even more significantly, Dopp had first run the analysis while filtering out smaller (rural) counties, and still found that the only variable that accounted for a swing toward Republican voting was the use of optical-scan machines, whereas counties with touch-screen machines generally didn't swing - regardless of size.
Others offer similar insights, based on other data. A professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, noted that in Florida the vote to raise the minimum wage was approved by 72%, although Kerry got 48%. "The correlation between voting for the minimum wage increase and voting for Kerry isn't likely to be perfect," he noted, "but one would normally expect that the gap - of 1.5 million votes - to be far smaller than it was."
Election night, I'd been doing live election coverage for WDEV, one of the radio stations that carries my syndicated show, and, just after midnight, during the 12:20 a.m. Associated Press Radio News feed, I was startled to hear the reporter detail how Karen Hughes had earlier sat George W. Bush down to inform him that he'd lost the election. The exit polls were clear: Kerry was winning in a landslide. "Bush took the news stoically," noted the AP report.
But then the computers reported something different. In several pivotal states.
Conservatives see a conspiracy here: They think the exit polls were rigged.
Dick Morris, the infamous political consultant to the first Clinton campaign who became a Republican consultant and Fox News regular, wrote an article for The Hill, the publication read by every political junkie in Washington, DC, in which he made a couple of brilliant points.
"Exit Polls are almost never wrong," Morris wrote. "They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state."
He added: "So, according to ABC-TVs exit polls, for example, Kerry was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing state the network had going to Bush was West Virginia, which the president won by 10 points."
Yet a few hours after the exit polls were showing a clear Kerry sweep, as the computerized vote numbers began to come in from the various states the election was called for Bush.
How could this happen?
On the CNBC TV show "Topic A With Tina Brown," several months ago, Howard Dean had filled in for Tina Brown as guest host. His guest was Bev Harris, the Seattle grandmother who started www.blackboxvoting.org from her living room. Bev pointed out that regardless of how votes were tabulated (other than hand counts, only done in odd places like small towns in Vermont), the real "counting" is done by computers. Be they Diebold Opti-Scan machines, which read paper ballots filled in by pencil or ink in the voter's hand, or the scanners that read punch cards, or the machines that simply record a touch of the screen, in all cases the final tally is sent to a "central tabulator" machine.
That central tabulator computer is a Windows-based PC.
"In a voting system," Harris explained to Dean on national television, "you have all the different voting machines at all the different polling places, sometimes, as in a county like mine, there's a thousand polling places in a single county. All those machines feed into the one machine so it can add up all the votes. So, of course, if you were going to do something you shouldn't to a voting machine, would it be more convenient to do it to each of the 4000 machines, or just come in here and deal with all of them at once?"
Dean nodded in rhetorical agreement, and Harris continued. "What surprises people is that the central tabulator is just a PC, like what you and I use. It's just a regular computer."
"So," Dean said, "anybody who can hack into a PC can hack into a central tabulator?"
Harris nodded affirmation, and pointed out how Diebold uses a program called GEMS, which fills the screen of the PC and effectively turns it into the central tabulator system. "This is the official program that the County Supervisor sees," she said, pointing to a PC that was sitting between them loaded with Diebold's software.
Bev then had Dean open the GEMS program to see the results of a test election. They went to the screen titled "Election Summary Report" and waited a moment while the PC "adds up all the votes from all the various precincts," and then saw that in this faux election Howard Dean had 1000 votes, Lex Luthor had 500, and Tiger Woods had none. Dean was winning.
"Of course, you can't tamper with this software," Harris noted. Diebold wrote a pretty good program.
But, it's running on a Windows PC.
So Harris had Dean close the Diebold GEMS software, go back to the normal Windows PC desktop, click on the "My Computer" icon, choose "Local Disk C:," open the folder titled GEMS, and open the sub-folder "LocalDB" which, Harris noted, "stands for local database, that's where they keep the votes." Harris then had Dean double-click on a file in that folder titled "Central Tabulator Votes," which caused the PC to open the vote count in a database program like Excel.
In the "Sum of the Candidates" row of numbers, she found that in one precinct Dean had received 800 votes and Lex Luthor had gotten 400.
"Let's just flip those," Harris said, as Dean cut and pasted the numbers from one cell into the other. "And," she added magnanimously, "let's give 100 votes to Tiger."
They closed the database, went back into the official GEMS software "the legitimate way, you're the county supervisor and you're checking on the progress of your election."
As the screen displayed the official voter tabulation, Harris said, "And you can see now that Howard Dean has only 500 votes, Lex Luthor has 900, and Tiger Woods has 100." Dean, the winner, was now the loser.
Harris sat up a bit straighter, smiled, and said, "We just edited an election, and it took us 90 seconds."
On live national television. (You can see the clip on www.votergate.tv.) And they had left no tracks whatsoever, Harris said, noting that it would be nearly impossible for the election software - or a County election official - to know that the vote database had been altered.
Which brings us back to Morris and those pesky exit polls that had Karen Hughes telling George W. Bush that he'd lost the election in a landslide.
Morris's conspiracy theory is that the exit polls "were sabotage" to cause people in the western states to not bother voting for Bush, since the networks would call the election based on the exit polls for Kerry. But the networks didn't do that, and had never intended to.
According to congressional candidate Fisher, it makes far more sense that the exit polls were right - they weren't done on Diebold PCs - and that the vote itself was hacked.
And not only for the presidential candidate - Jeff Fisher thinks this hit him and pretty much every other Democratic candidate for national office in the most-hacked swing states.
So far, the only national "mainstream" media to come close to this story was Keith Olbermann on his show Friday night, November 5th, when he noted that it was curious that all the voting machine irregularities so far uncovered seem to favor Bush. In the meantime, the Washington Post and other media are now going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how the exit polls had failed.
But I agree with Fox's Dick Morris on this one, at least in large part. Wrapping up his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his final paragraph, "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play."
Well, yes and no. It's no question that those propositions drew strong Christians to the polls. But, remember that "strong Christians" is a very diverse group. Blacks and Whites. Blacks, who voted for Gore by a 80-90% margin in 2000 (and Bush did nothing to try to persuade them to change their minds this time), and Christian Whites who, in general, vote for Bush. So both sides got some help. It's anyone's guess who got more though.
Interesting article....
Chapter and verse for anti-gay voters (http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=303003&category=OPINION&newsdate=11/9/2004)
:newyear:
spyretto
10-11-2004, 00:33
For me the possibility that the exit polls were rigged - not to sway voters but for other reasons - is greater than the election itself being rigged. I know it was heartbreaking for the Democrats but it's bygone now...they lost, fairly and squarely...
And any other taboo has good rationale behind it as well. If you believe it.
For instance, why are muslims prohibited from eating pork & drinking alcohol?
:newyear:
It's nothing to BELIVE. It's a fact that inbreeding is not a very wise thing to do. Abotu the pork eating thngies. It HAD a point. Like 2 thousand years ago. Now it's obsolete.
that whole "gay marriage" thingy, seriously impeded John Kerry's chances of election...
You're aware of that don't you?
So. This means that you can't become a president of the USA without being a narrow-minded conservative christian? Or at least pretend to be one? :p
spyretto
10-11-2004, 07:15
So. This means that you can't become a president of the USA without being a narrow-minded conservative christian? Or at least pretend to be one? :p
Well, he almost made it, didn't he? He came so close. But in the back of some of the voters minds must have been that if Kerry came to power the country's well-preserved Christian ethics would go down the toilet (and gay marriage is seen as a clear manifestation of that.) So I guess there are more narrow-minded Christians in America than there are homosexuals. :p
We don't want those godless liberals run the country, do we? :lol:
It's nothing to BELIVE. It's a fact that inbreeding is not a very wise thing to do.
And it's fact that gay sex increases chances of colon cancer.
:newyear:
And it's fact that gay sex increases chances of colon cancer.
:newyear:
For THEM. Consenting adults. And you're saying like Anal sex is only precticed by homosexual men. That's a stereotype by itself. ;)
Well, he almost made it, didn't he? He came so close. But in the back of some of the voters minds must have been that if Kerry came to power the country's well-preserved Christian ethics would go down the toilet (and gay marriage is seen as a clear manifestation of that.) So I guess there are more narrow-minded Christians in America than there are homosexuals.
We don't want those godless liberals run the country, do we?
Yeah, those well-preserved christian values in a country, that has the largest porn industry on the planet, where more people kill eachother on the streets then everywhere in the world, where they still retain death penalty (isn't it christian to forgive? :p), a country that had huge problems with racism... they should start preserving those christian values by looking at THOSE things, not homosexuals. Homosexuals are the LEAST of their worries. :p
For THEM. Consenting adults.
So it should be banned on health grounds as well, right?
And you're saying like Anal sex is only precticed by homosexual men. That's a stereotype by itself. ;)
No, I'm not. But women practising anal sex run lesser risk of colon cancer than men in similar position.
Yeah, those well-preserved christian values in a country, that has the largest porn industry on the planet, where more people kill eachother on the streets then everywhere in the world, where they still retain death penalty (isn't it christian to forgive? :p), a country that had huge problems with racism... they should start preserving those christian values by looking at THOSE things, not homosexuals. Homosexuals are the LEAST of their worries. :p
At least qoute the person who actually said that. :rolleyes:
:newyear:
So it should be banned on health grounds as well, right?
No. Then smoking and drinking should be banned as well. Before even, since you're causing harm to other people with smoking.
No, I'm not. But women practising anal sex run lesser risk of colon cancer than men in similar position.
Umm.. do they? Well I dunno, but I'm sure it's not as big of a problem as STDs are. I mean, what do we hear about more every day? People dying from AIDS or colon cancer? And both genders have the same chances of that. And this is besides the point. The point is that you can do what you want as long as it doesn't involve someone who has no say in it. And legislature should have nothing to do with consentual sex. Except in that one case.
At least qoute the person who actually said that. :rolleyes:
:newyear:
Hm? :ithink:
I was reading this article (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_ID=5579) about a poll in France, the article is not really interesting, lol, but the readers' comments posted after the article are, especially those from American readers who go on a bashing rage of French people even though the article is not about the US at all. Americans, such nice people.
No. Then smoking and drinking should be banned as well. Before even, since you're causing harm to other people with smoking.
Fien by me.
Umm.. do they? Well I dunno, but I'm sure it's not as big of a problem as STDs are. I mean, what do we hear about more every day? People dying from AIDS or colon cancer?
AIDS. Because it's more profiled.
And both genders have the same chances of that. And this is besides the point. The point is that you can do what you want as long as it doesn't involve someone who has no say in it. And legislature should have nothing to do with consentual sex. Except in that one case.
That is your opinion. It's people also have opinions about gays. Which may not be sme as yours.
Hm? :ithink:
Ah, I see you edited your post
:newyear:
I was reading this article (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_ID=5579) about a poll in France, the article is not really interesting, lol, but the readers' comments posted after the article are, especially those from American readers who go on a bashing rage of French people even though the article is not about the US at all. Americans, such nice people.
Only 227% of French think Arafat is terrorist. :lol:
Any poll that doesn't state sample or error margin should be treated with extreme scepticism. :spy:
:newyear:
Only 227% of French think Arafat is terrorist.LOL, yeah, typo... It was probably 22% or 27%, most people have a good opinion of Arafat here.
thegurgi
10-11-2004, 18:39
hehehe, the people are really confused about the Arafat coverage. I've heard people go "who is he?" and the reply is "the leader of some people in the middle east" and then they ask "so what do we want? him to die or live?" and the reply is "i'm not sure, i can't remember if he's a bad guy or a good guy".... at which point i laughed, it sounded like a comic book. How do i overhear such insane conversations....
How is Arafat doing lately? and what do you think will happen to the Palestinians if he does die... it's something i've been pondering.
How is Arafat doing lately?Officially he's not dead, but in reality he is, he's only maintained by machines until several diplomatic problems are settled, the place of his burial, the place of the funerals, etc. Apparently those problems have been settled, funeral in Egypt, and burial in Ramallah, so Arafat shoud be "unplugged" and annouced dead any time now.
what do you think will happen to the Palestinians if he does die.It's going to get even worse for the Palestinians (if that's possible), they will no longer have an undisputed leader, there going to be chaos.
It's good news for Israel, that's for sure, Sharon was almost laughing yesterday when he was talking of Arafat's burial, the guy was delighted. Arafat gone, Israel will be able to annex the West Bank in the near future and complete the creation of the Grand Israel, Palestinians will be pushed out to Jordania, or deported to the Gaza strip.
coolasfcuk
10-11-2004, 19:06
I was reading this article (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_ID=5579) about a poll in France, the article is not really interesting, lol, but the readers' comments posted after the article are, especially those from American readers who go on a bashing rage of French people even though the article is not about the US at all. Americans, such nice people.
:kuli:
...haku, I see in you, as someone once said, such a TRUE French ;) :gigi:
Questioning whether the the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was a hero of the Palestinian resistance or a terrorist, 43% voted for the former, while only 227% chose the latter.
hihi...why OR?...you can be both....this afternoon , one of my best friend was at home, she is Arab. And she told me All Palestininans and all Arab people know that Arafat is very very rich and that he took the money which was for Palestine...but in the same time they respect him cause he was a "hero"...
Greg, it seems that after Arafat's death his first minister will be at the head of the "country" during 60 days , and after new elections will come...if all is calm...
All the french press and media are for Palestinians and hate Sharon...I think the hate for him is equal to the hate for Bush, here...
It's going to get even worse for the Palestinians (if that's possible), they will no longer have an undisputed leader, there going to be chaos.
2 weeks ago, we saw with Oga on the swedish television, a very interesting and funny interview of Madeleine Albright, the Clinton's foreign minister...
And she said something that made me smile : she said that when they could be so close to the peace , in Camp David, the main problem was always Arafat cause he didn't act as a President should act for the best of his country but he always behave as a chief of resistance, a leader...It was that i've always thought....did you notice that each time a proposition of Israel for negociations was announced...systematicaly , the day after , a bomb was exploding in a bus or in a market?
Was Arafat really so "weak" to stop the terrosists ?
It could seem not so far from the theory about Bush: to let the terror, the fear, the conflicts, the war beeing, longing...to keep the power... :)
It's good news for Israel, that's for sure, Sharon was almost laughing yesterday when he was talking of Arafat's burial, the guy was delighted. Arafat gone, Israel will be able to annex the West Bank in the near future and complete the creation of the Grand Israel, Palestinians will be pushed out to Jordania, or deported to the Gaza strip.
Didn't Sharon separate from his Right and Extreme Right(which were against this idea) to decide to give back some territories to Palestinians, last week ?
Ps: I don't like Sharon, I really don't like him...but I'm not sure neither that Arafat was really the best guy for wanting and establishing some "peace"...
haku, I see in you, as someone once said, such a TRUE FrenchWell, i don't know what true French means for you, but i know what it means for Americans, lol, for my work i have to visit daily dozens of american websites and i know perfectly well what they think of us. Since the debate at the UN about the invasion of Iraq where France blocked the US resolution, Americans absolutely hate us, american media are constantly insulting us, just because we dared to disagree with them we are trashed like the worst scum and ridiculed in every possible way. During the recent US presidential campaign, in republican political meetings, republican candidates asked crowds to boo French people because we are ungrateful cowards, and crowds did it enthusiastically.
After over two years of French bashing in the US, there is now a serious rift between the two countries, so serious that a reconciliation is no longer possible, there is too much resentment.
2 weeks ago, we saw with Oga on the swedish television, a very interesting and funny interview of Madeleine Albright, the Clinton's foreign minister...
And she said something that made me smile : she said that when they could be so close to the peace , in Camp David, the main problem was always Arafat cause he didn't act as a President should act for the best of his country but he always behave as a chief of resistance, a leader...It was that i've always thought....did you notice that each time a proposition of Israel for negociations was announced...systematicaly , the day after , a bomb was exploding in a bus or in a market?
Was Arafat really so "weak" to stop the terrosists ?
It could seem not so far from the theory about Bush: to let the terror, the fear, the conflicts, the war beeing, longing...to keep the power...I'm not surprised that a US foreign minister said that everything was Arafat's fault and Israel was totally innocent. The US has always had a totally biased appoached to this conflict, Israel is good, Palestinians are evil, Israel want peace, Palestinians want war.
Israel has the right to defend itself, but Palestinians don't have that right apparently, they are supposed to let Israelis take their land and push them out of the territories without fighting.
Didn't Sharon separate from his Right and Extreme Right(which were against this idea) to decide to give back some territories to Palestinians, last week ?Sharon is making a strategic move, withdraw fom Gaza Strip which is a very small and uninteresting territory to leave it to the Palestinians, but Sharon has no intention of doing the same thing with the West Bank, Sharon wants to annex Est Jerusalem and the whole West Bank to Israel and push Palestinians out of this territory. And it will be done soon, now that Arafat is (almost) dead.
coolasfcuk
10-11-2004, 21:14
Well, i don't know what true French means for you, but i know what it means for Americans, lol, for my work i have to visit daily dozens of american websites and i know perfectly well what they think of us.
:kuli:
There is no surprise why i am using this smiley :gigi:
Look at all your posts in this thread haku ... how do you speak of Americans? they are always 'bad.. bad.. bad' :gigi:
The difference is NONE
... Since the debate at the UN about the invasion of Iraq where France blocked the US resolution, Americans absolutely hate us, american media are constantly insulting us, just because we dared to disagree with them we are trashed like the worst scum and ridiculed in every possible way. During the recent US presidential campaign, in republican political meetings, republican candidates asked crowds to boo French people because we are ungrateful cowards, and crowds did it enthusiastically.
After over two years of French bashing in the US, there is now a serious rift between the two countries, so serious that a reconciliation is no longer possible, there is too much resentment.
Of course, it's just in ONE direction: "Americans press ans Americans hate US and insultes us" !!!.....
Were and ARE , even now, the french press and all the french media very tender about Americans and their President???!!!!!!.....I really don't think so....If a lot of french could physically spit to the faces of Americans, they'll do...So i'm french, too...but by my side, I think the treatment is equal in both sides.
I'm not surprised that a US foreign minister said that everything was Arafat's fault and Israel was totally innocent. The US has always had a totally biased appoached to this conflict, Israel is good, Palestinians are evil, Israel want peace, Palestinians want war.
Sometimes, I have the feeling to read a propaganda/political manuel...or "L'humanité"....
It reminds me some of our so GREAT intellectuals /philosophs....as Sartre and so on.....who claimed HOW Wonderful and Great was U.R.S.S (U.S.S.R?)!!! The unic model to follow! All the ones who didn't believe a such thing , weren't "in the move", in the political fashion!!!!....
Even when it was clear that the Staline's government was a pure and criminal dictature...how many years did they stay without admitting it?....
Madleine Albright seems an enough direct person...for exemple, she was the minister of Clinton but didn't use very tender words towards her ex-president when she spoke about his lies about Levinsky's story...in the same way, she told that she will vote for Kerry because she belongs to his party but she was full of shame about the Campaign and the "arguments" which were used by Kerry and Bush...
And she was not more to tender while speaking about the representative israëlian; her humour was very funny, she said they were both of a execrable mood and that if they had been women it would have been said that they were in period of pre-menopause..
She was obliged to tell to them they have to behave as adults cause she wasn't the Camp David Mother
But you might be right: she is just an American, so just one way to think! (her parents were from Czechoslovakia...)
Just , if you listen a French radio as "France-Info", you could notice that all the specialists of Middle-Est have the same statement: or it's a CHAOS if the "hard" Palestinians catch the power or there is a possible beginning of peace (or negociations), now that ARAFAT isn't in place anymore.....and they aren't american specialists....but may be they are jewish...I haven't checked !
PS: Haku.......my goal isn't to hurt you, I have nothing against you as a person....just the fact to see systematically the states as just a Bad thing seems dangerous to me. That's just because of that that I express my opinion...not because I believe The States are perfect.
thegurgi
10-11-2004, 22:47
sorry to say Haku, but it's true, and you have to admit the attitude we give each other is slightly mutual... despite the strong ties between us at the beginning things have gotten worse. But know when even willing American's who love the french from learning about France in our schools and go there often come back with contempt because they were willing to give france a try but we're instead treated like crap. But i know that some of us can be exactly the same (since my french canadian brother in law gets insulted by Americans, so...)... i think we need to call a truce and try and be friends again (the people that is)
Bitty2002
10-11-2004, 23:54
Please go to this website: http://72.3.131.10/
and, you will also notice that most of these people are younger because younger people tend to be the people online, so it doesn't even include the tons of older adults that are also sorry.
And, for women, sex increases the chance for cervical cancer. Maybe we should all stop having sex...except for maybe lesbians who only use one finger. But I am sure down the road it will be proven that that causes rabies, so maybe they shouldn't either... Yeah I think we should just stop having sex all together.
Fien by me.
But not fine by democracy.
AIDS. Because it's more profiled.
And not more deadly? Are there 10s of milions people dying of collen cancer everyday?
That is your opinion. It's people also have opinions about gays. Which may not be sme as yours.
Yeah. It's called homophobia and it's largely looked down upon as something hypocritical and naive. Outlawing sibling marriages is not though. You figure it out.
Ah, I see you edited your post
Oh, that. :p
Americans absolutely hate us, american media are constantly insulting us, just because we dared to disagree with them we are trashed like the worst scum and ridiculed in every possible way. During the recent US presidential campaign, in republican political meetings, republican candidates asked crowds to boo French people because we are ungrateful cowards, and crowds did it enthusiastically.
They seem to forget one thing though. There wouldn't BE a United States of America today weren't it for France interfering when they fought their war for independance.
The battle in Falluja continues. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4003549.stm)
Accounts from residents in Falluja. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4003877.stm)
Report from a BBC correspondent in Falluja. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3999899.stm)
According to several organizations, the humanitarian situation in Falluja is catastrophic, residents are out of food and water (water and electricity were cut by the US army before the assault), wounded can't be brought to hospitals (all hospitals inside Falluja have been bombed), and a lot of bodies are rotting in the streets and destroyed buildings which could cause an epidemic.
Another report from BBC correspondent inside Falluja. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4004873.stm)
The US army has announced that once the battle is over, *all* men between 15 and 55 still alive in the city of Falluja will be considered terrorists and arrested.
How much longer do the Iraqis have to suffer the American presence? It doesn't matter when Americans will leave, now or in ten years -- Iraq will always return to being the way it was before the Americans, it's the way they used to live and maybe it's the way they should live, it's their business.
Falluja assault is almost over (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4014259.stm)
The US Army has killed about 1,200 insurgents and made about 1,000 prisoners while only losing less than 40 US soldiers, great job.
The number of civilian casualties is of course "undisclosed".
The city of Fallujah is virtually distroyed.
The humanitarian situation inside the city is catastrophic, humanitarian organizations tried to enter the city yesterday to help civilians but the US Army refused.
Interesting report from a BBC corresponent with the Marines inside Falluja (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4012677.stm)
"The consequence of this, for the ordinary people of Falluja, is that for four days now there have been bodies lying in the streets.
It is starting to become a serious health risk.
I spoke to an officer who had been a little way out from the base and he said that cats and dogs are now starting to eat these bodies."
Pictures from inside Falluja (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4010467.stm)
US soldier finished off a wounded insurgent with a bullet in the head (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4014901.stm)
spyretto
16-11-2004, 18:47
The battle is now intensified in Mosul.
US soldier finished off a wounded insurgent with a bullet in the headWow, i just saw the video on TV, that was rather graphic. The Iraqi was lying unconscious on the floor and the US soldier literally blew his brains out, he shot him from about half a meter with an assault gun (don't know the name of those guns). :dead: "He's not dead." *bang* "He is now." Yeah, that's for sure, his brain is on the wall.
spyretto
21-11-2004, 15:52
Good news, the valiant US forces are now cracking those world-hating psychos...sorry I meant to say the "resistance" down.
I just can't imagine they'll get ALL of them anytime soon. I think these region will be dangerous for the next 20 years at least.
Good news, the valiant US forces are now cracking those world-hating psychos...sorry I meant to say the "resistance" down.
Like they did in Vietnam? Winning and winning up to withdrawal, eh? :p
:newyear:
Khartoun2004
19-01-2005, 21:36
just a question, but is anyone else in the US pissed off about Condolizza Rice (sp?) being nominated as secretary of state? What the fcuk are they thinking?
just a question, but is anyone else in the US pissed off about Condolizza Rice (sp?) being nominated as secretary of state? What the fcuk are they thinking?
It was to be expected. She was a faithful servant to her master. She was the one who ALWAYS defended Bush and uncompromisingly belived in his ideas. She's a yes-man... a yes-woman rather... and that's EXACTLY what the new-old administration needs in the turbulent times to come. I love her "we did nothing wrong" stance. It's hillarious. And she's almost convincing, if there wasn't a world of consequences out there that just SCREAMS about how wrong they really were. About everything.
spyretto
20-01-2005, 06:46
Weapons and money help America, not God. God has nothing to it. But in about 10-15 years from now you'll hear China and pee in your pants. :p
I'll see you in 15 years when we're saving your ass from some dictator.
spyretto
20-01-2005, 06:53
where, in the UK? muaha! Dude you're a lot more uncivilised and vicious than we are, that's the problem. Not to mention you live in your cocooned little world and don't even bother to see what's going on around you, who's been playing you. But that's ok, as long as you don't meddle in our business who gives a shit?
thegurgi
20-01-2005, 07:00
TheGurgi would like to state that Bpro50's statements do not reflect that of the entire americanl population.
The best way to stay on topic is to quit putting down America as being solely focused on "money and weapons". It is fine to put down America but not okay to defend it? Stay on topic and leave politics to people who understand history and political science.
spyretto
20-01-2005, 07:31
sorry, I forgot to mention junkfood and crappy movies. But that's on the "money" category. What is it then? Tell me one good thing America gave to the world and should be proud for...
You can defend it alright, it wasn't me who said you shouldn't. Go back and read what I wrote again. I wasn't referring to you at all
ok, you gave us modern technology...that's something...now lets go back to the subject
I would be really curious how people remember WW II. Does anybody remember the US sending troops to finally put an end to Hitler's movement or does Euorpean history read differently? As far as what America has done for the world I really can't believe it. America has opened the door for people to have the most freedom possible and to live a life to enjoy the most fruit from our hard work. Would you rather live in totalinarianism or something? The US has spent the last 100 years trying hard to preserve freedom. What kind of world would it be if Germany would have won WWII. Do you think that Russia would be better off? Or, Eastern Europe, etc. I really thought we all were on the same side of the cause of freedom but maybe others would like to see things under the control of Ceauşescu and others of his ilk. What if the end of Iraq's Hussein regime brings about democracy and the people of Iraq prosper. Is that a bad thing?
spyretto
20-01-2005, 07:49
You opened the door to freedom? How exactly did you do that? I suppose by "defeating communism?" :spy: As for the rest I leave luxxi or haku to answer if they want, it's such a long discussion anyway and it's not part of the topic. You've done some good things but you've totally lost your way now and you even refuse to admit it. Now that the world's scene has changed your can't get away with it without being exposed.So what do you want me to say? The "Iraqui freedom" was the latest of those blunders. Bush served it with a fair amount of propaganda and now you've even become advocates of it? How lame is that?
By the way, I think that France and Greece have given more to democracy and freedom than the US ever will...its their ideals they tried to emulate and failed so miserably...The US way is the way of money and that wouldn't change. "Chosen by God to spread freedom to Mankind" or not, Bush's inauguration show is costing 50 million dollars. "Freedom has a price, and the price is blood, to chase the mofo right down in the mud" to borrow a lyric from Clawfinger ;)
thegurgi
20-01-2005, 08:04
God damnit i'm getting so sick of this, Arogant Americans arguing with the rest of the almost equally as arogant rest of the world. America is no greater than any country on the Earth and no other country is greater is better than it either... because it's all conjecture. So stop these pointless arguments... they've happened several times and lead absolutely no where, so what's the point? please tell me? You guys can't obviously talk sense into the other side because everyone is so stuck in their opinions... so just stop it
spyretto
20-01-2005, 08:15
It's the Americans who come out as arrogant, not the rest of the world. Even in the way they helped the devastated people, they had to do it in an arrogant way. They don't want to be equal part of the "global village" but leaders of it. Their arrogance is not justified by reality itself and it's not gonna help them in the long run. Thank God the world is not run by "dictators" so that Americans would come and "liberate" us all.
The backclash has already started.
spyretto
20-01-2005, 08:32
I'm not British so I shouldn't be speaking for the British people. But although Britain is "supporter" of the war, that doesn't reflect the public's opinion...it's a political decision, it's wrong and it serves their own interests. No surprise there. That's why people don't come out as arrogant here about the war - they understand it is stupid and the majority are against it. As for the US government not feeling the people's sentiment, this is one way to see it. Half of your compatriots don't think that way and they were the ones who brought Bush back to power, despite the fact that the war was a top issue of the campaign. So that's only half an argument.
Sure the UK used to be arrogant, and so was France, Germany, Italy, Japan for that matter. It took a big catastrophy to put them to their senses...I just hope you won't have to learn the hard way as well. We're not talking about 50-100 or 200 years. We're talking about now
ypsidan04
20-01-2005, 20:14
just a question, but is anyone else in the US pissed off about Condolizza Rice (sp?) being nominated as secretary of state? What the fcuk are they thinking?
It's the whole "hiring from within" idea. You hire people who you know will help you out because they already like you. Like the new Attorney General, something Gonzales, he used to work with Bush when he was Governor of Texas.
Moved:
for people to have the most freedom possible and to live a life to enjoy the most fruit from our hard work.
As an American in 2005, under the Bush administration, I can tell you that we do not have "the most freedom possible". People in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Britain I would say all have more freedom than most Americans. We don't have true 100% separation of church and state, we have to live under the Dept of Homeland Security, we have to live under the USAPATRIOT Act - for now anyway, we have to live under the Federal Communications Commission, we have a President who thinks God speaks thru him. We are not as free as some people like to think.
What if the end of Iraq's Hussein regime brings about democracy and the people of Iraq prosper. Is that a bad thing?
Just because there are good ends doesn't mean we should forget about the bad means. And as of today, they are far from "prospering".
Khartoun2004
20-01-2005, 20:27
Just because there are good ends doesn't mean we should forget about the bad means. And as of today, they are far from "prospering".
This is true. However, I would go one step further and say the Iraqis are worse off now than under the old regime. At least people weren't being blown up while on their way to wrok, school or the market.
The whole war was ill concieved and horribly planned. It's almost worse than vietnam...
spyretto
20-01-2005, 20:29
Didn't Condoleezza - or however she spells her name - say she's going to retire shortly after Bush was re-elected? :confused:
Freedom is one thing "democracy" is another. I can't remember people in Russia being as unhappy as they're now - under "democracy". We have also established democracy is another way to fascism " All systems lead to fascism" ( Theodore W Adorno )
Freedom to declare pre-emptive wars wherever they wish, freedom to meddle around the internal business of other countries for their own benefit, freedom to defy International Law and ocassionaly disrespect human rights while they scream about the others - ie double standards - freedom to f**k around with the environment is not freedom, it is immunity.
Khartoun2004
20-01-2005, 20:38
Didn't Condoleezza - or however she spells her name - say she's going to retire shortly after Bush was re-elected? :confused:
Yeah she did... That's why I'm so surprised she's been nominated to sec. of state... I'm of the opinion that she was nominated just to keep her on the cabinet. As Freddie said she was one of Bush's fiercest supporters no matter how absured the action.
Khartoun2004
20-01-2005, 20:43
TheGurgi would like to state that Bpro50's statements do not reflect that of the entire americanl population and wonders if it'd be ok to maybe go back onto the topic
Khartoun2004 would like to second that motion to go back on topic and that not everyone in the US thinks like the texans...
Khartoun2004
20-01-2005, 20:47
The best way to stay on topic is to quit putting down America as being solely focused on "money and weapons". It is fine to put down America but not okay to defend it? Stay on topic and leave politics to people who understand history and political science.
if you truly understand "history" than you would know that the United States of America was founded by Unitarian Universalists and on the principles of that religion. Not Christians as most of this country thinks. Therefore the idea that "God" is protecting America was added after world war II by effing Eisenhower... who I might add is a conservative prick. So shut up already about the rest of the world bitching about the US because the rest of the world is right and we "Americans" are wrong!
I think it was Aristotel (might have been Plato, not sure), who said: "democracy is chaos"... that was back in the days when Athens started to emerge as the pillar of (limited) democracy. And in the case of the US elections... it actually turned out that democracy sometimes IS chaos. You can easily manipulate large masses, by focusing on some of their most basic instincts: fear and teritorialism (patriotism in this case).
spyretto
20-01-2005, 22:55
It was Plato, I think ( through the voice of Socrates ). That's why Socrates was tried and put to drink the hemlock: not because he was "corrupting the youth" but because he was challenging the establishment.
Aristotle criticised it as well, calling it as "one of the evil forms of government" - axis of evil? :D "
ypsidan04
20-01-2005, 23:45
You can easily manipulate large masses, by focusing on some of their most basic instincts: fear and teritorialism (patriotism in this case).
:yes:
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth" - Vladimir Lenin
One thing Bush kept saying was that Saddam Hussein needs to be taken out because he contributed to 9-11. But that has yet to be proven. He just said that to get Congress, and some of the American people to go along with him. But he probably didn't have to do much to win Congress over, because they are almost exclusively, like the President, completely unattached to the whole thing - Out of 535 Congress members, *only one* has a child in the Armed Forces. A poll was taken that showed that in the leadup to going to war, about 60% of Americans believed that some of the 9-11 hijackers held Iraqi citizenship. Not a single one was from Iraq.
Also, numerous polls were taken that showed that the mainstream media was being biased towards the war. It was shown that an average viewer was 8, 9, 10 times more likely to see a pro-war opinion than an anti-war opinion.
American soldiers are out there dying and giving their lives so that you can make statements like you do. There are places in the world where your life would be endangered by what you said. I believe that is one of the freedoms that we have that makes our country great. But, I wish you knew the courage that it takes on the front line defending something you truly believe. That would help you with a better sense of history and something worth dying for. Enjoy your freedom to condemn our country.
spyretto
21-01-2005, 03:08
They didn't make it clear they thought Saddam was behind 9/11. They went to war to relieve Saddam from his weapons of mass destruction and overthrow his government; install democracy (i.e. Iraqui freedom ) - might now proceed to install democracy elsewhere, to a country of their choosing - judging by Bush's inaugural speech.
But the resistance they met in Iraq was not what they expected and now Bush will probably be taking the country down with him if and when he attempts to venture into another war against tyranny - when the last one has not been decided yet.
The most likely will be that at the end of his term the USA will have been crippled financially and that will probably signal the end of America's economic domination. Something that Bin Laden has vowed to make it happen.
thegurgi
21-01-2005, 04:20
Today in US History 262 we discussed his speech... and i think European's would like to know that 90% of our students disagree with Bush's foriegn policy and with the main premise of his "end of tyranny around the world" .
The sentiment of the 60 student class was this "We don't have the right to impose our form of government on other nations." and i agree.
It was an interesting discussion and well moderated by our teacher, this debate was better than any i had in Philosophy... haha
ypsidan04
21-01-2005, 04:23
Today in US History 262 we discussed his speech... and i think European's would like to know that 90% of our students disagree with Bush's foriegn policy and with the main premise of his "end of tyranny around the world" .
The sentiment of the 60 student class was this "We don't have the right to impose our form of government on other nations." and i agree.
It was an interesting discussion and well moderated by our teacher, this debate was better than any i had in Philosophy... haha
I agree as well. I had a US Government class like that back in the fall, and I really liked it. :) A lot of the time we just discussed whatever social issue we felt like.
Sorry about my input. I've lost friends in Iraq so I am still sensative to people who put down America. I live close to a military base and know the sacrifice that these guys make.
Tatu has recorded in LA before, I have seen a video. Don't remember the exact song. Does someone know?
Dubya's speech was so beautiful *wipes a tear*, soon the whole world is going to be free and americanized. The part about the Iraqi people now enjoying their freedom was particularly moving, oh no... wait, he didn't say anything about Iraq. :lol: I guess in his mind Iraq is now a free country and it's time to move on to freedomize the next one.
At some point i was almost expecting him to say he was going to build an American Empire that will last a thousand years. :rolleyes: Heil Dubya.
Can't remember who was the figure of the French Enlightenment who said that free are the ones who can control their passions...wise words.
May be a Descartes or someone like that ....
His "freedomization" is gonna be catastrophic. US of America is exactly the same as every other "free" country, if not worse, yet they behave as if they're bionic. If they were really a "free" country, then a soldier should be in a position to decide on his own free will if he wants to be part of Bush's war or not. Yet he can't. The sense of duty overrules the sense of "freedom".
.
...hihi....it's the rules of all the armies of the world in all times since the beginning...personnaly I don't know one exception....
Spy...Wouldn't you be yourself a secret "Passionated Boy"....in believing in an utopic Government which exists nowhere ....and which wouldn't even get the insurance to work for a long time if it was built...just because of the reality of the word....a kind of "Dreamer" ?...... ;)
spyretto
21-01-2005, 18:23
...hihi....it's the rules of all the armies of the world in all times since the beginning...personnaly I don't know one exception....
Spy...Wouldn't you be yourself a secret "Passionated Boy"....in believing in an utopic Government which exists nowhere ....and which wouldn't even get the insurance to work for a long time if it was built...just because of the reality of the word....a kind of "Dreamer" ?...... ;)
But my point is not for a new "Utopian Government", I think you misaunderstood me. My point is that people should wake up and demand more honesty from their leaders. They should do away with all the romantic BS about "freedomization" and tell it like it is, for example "we invaded Iraq for that and that reason..".
This is a crude way to put it but politicians are playing this game for centuries, and that's what the politicians are about. In turn it's the people who should stop being total jerks. For example if our modern world is advocating a thing called meritocracy, then how come Bush is leader of the free world huh?
Khartoun2004
21-01-2005, 18:26
They didn't make it clear they thought Saddam was behind 9/11. They went to war to relieve Saddam from his weapons of mass destruction and overthrow his government; install democracy (i.e. Iraqui freedom ) - might now proceed to install democracy elsewhere, to a country of their choosing - judging by Bush's inaugural speech.
But the resistance they met in Iraq was not what they expected and now Bush will probably be taking the country down with him if and when he attempts to venture into another war against tyranny - when the last one has not been decided yet.
The most likely will be that at the end of his term the USA will have been crippled financially and that will probably signal the end of America's economic domination. Something that Bin Laden has vowed to make it happen.
spy, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I find it a little disturbing that people in the US, mainly the President, have failed to see that this might actually have been bin Laden's plan all along. Osama knew that bombing a US building, like the WTC, would cause this kind of reaction. And with a republican in office it is also easily predictable that they would spend like crazy and give huge tax cuts to the richest two percent.
Damn, I stillcan't believe that dumbass got re-elected. Arnold would be a better president than Bush(to bad he's not eligible. That would have been a spectacle to watch). Hell even Nader would be better.
thegurgi
21-01-2005, 18:30
I can't forsee the American People to take much more of this, and actually, if Bush does begin a war specifically on another nation the protests will sky rocket. We're just as sick of this as you are.
Yeah... i think that Bush in power is like having a 5 year old teach a class of seniors. No glimmer of intelligence in him and such a low ammount of respect. I think i'll have to travel to the midwest just to get an idea of how his supporters are but for now we just have to live with it.
Lately, and don't think i'm weird about this, i've been having dreams about him being assassinated, each time someone rushing into one of my classes and there being this strange uproar... and i'm really thinking that i'm messed up
Khartoun2004
21-01-2005, 18:35
I can't forsee the American People to take much more of this, and actually, if Bush does begin a war specifically on another nation the protests will sky rocket. We're just as sick of this as you are.
It's not like the protests will make a difference. Do you remember way back at the end of 02 beginning of 03, when Bush said specificly that he would not listen to any protests? We can protest all we want by it will fall on deaf ears and we'll all land in jail for "treason". I swear he's a fucking fascist.
I want a bumber sticker that says, "Bush is a Fascist!" or maybe' "Bush is a nazi!" one of the two would do.
Northern Korea has nuclear power. Their leader admitted it multiple times, so if to follow this latest logic of invading all hostile nations with nukes, the next one should be Korea. Invasion of Iraq WAS critisized by the entire world. It was a simple invasion and nothing else. Politicians may wrap it into nicer words as no one wants to oppose USA publically. Japan declared that they support USA's policy as the security of the country lies in USA's hands and its economic prosperity too. USA is a democratic country, no doubt about it and it's a super power too. This fact causes most of the controversy.
Khartoun2004
21-01-2005, 18:48
Does anyone else get the feeling that Bush is trying to start WWIII?
thegurgi
21-01-2005, 18:52
Maybe... i just hope it wont' happen.
I'm sure that the American's can protest so much to disrupt how things are going. Just like what happened during the Civil Rights movement. But i really don't know what we could do that would do that.
Khartoun2004
21-01-2005, 19:01
I'm sure that the American's can protest so much to disrupt how things are going. Just like what happened during the Civil Rights movement. But i really don't know what we could do that would do that.
Impeach the president maybe. I'm stil not totally convinced that the President had no idea about Abu Ghrah(sp?). I've been reading a book about the SS-Einstazgruppe and the arguments used bythe nazi to justify the mass murder of jews, gypsies, gays, ect. sounds a hell of a lot like the reasons Bush has been using to conduct his "War on Terror". I wouldn't be surprised if it came to light that the alleged order came striaght from Bush or one of his subordinates.
thegurgi
21-01-2005, 19:44
It sucks, there was once a time when our government stated "representation for all", but quite obviously there isn't any one in office who represents about 80% of the people i know (and i'm sure that you can state the same) ... and it's getting ridiculous. For an American, it's tough to even predict how things are going to go, and i'm even sick of being one (just cause i'm sick of being hated for things that are completely out of my control). I'd much rather just be a Pennsylvanian.
PowerPuff Grrl
21-01-2005, 19:51
spy, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I find it a little disturbing that people in the US, mainly the President, have failed to see that this might actually have been bin Laden's plan all along. Osama knew that bombing a US building, like the WTC, would cause this kind of reaction. And with a republican in office it is also easily predictable that they would spend like crazy and give huge tax cuts to the richest two percent.
I see it differently. The general aim of the Republican Party is to establish the "small" government. The 9/11 attacks in my opinion were practically a blessing disguise for them, Giving them reason to go after Iraq which would help fulfill one of their aims. One of course being to rely less on the Saudi Arabian Royal family for oil and two, to bleed the US dry of monetary funds.
Bush entered his first term presidency sitting on top of a $200 billion surplus, left behind by Clinton, and now the country is in a $400+ billion defecit all thanks to the war. This gives him the leverage to propose tax cuts to boost the economy, which of course it doesn't and when it doesn't he will recommend cutting down on government funded instututions that lower income earners depend on; e.g. the privatization of Social Security. This reduces government and that is the aim of the Republican party. Americans can expect further cuts and privatizations of social programs in the near future.
It is funny though, had Bush planned to attack Saudi Arabia and/or Iran I would've been all for it. And though Bush is a crazy fundamentalist and asshole to boot, I bame all this, ALL OF THIS on the Democratic Party.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to cry myself to sleep.
thegurgi
21-01-2005, 19:57
And though Bush is a crazy fundamentalist and asshole to boot, I bame all this, ALL OF THIS on the Democratic Party.
If my dad were to hear you say this, he would give you a huge hug and 10 dollars. hehehe. You've got his basic opinion right there and he's sick of people not understanding it.
Khartoun2004
21-01-2005, 20:02
Actually it was a $5 trillion dollar surplus which was supposed to be used to fix social security. The deficit is now somewhere between $1 trillion and 800 billion, depends on the source.
And PowerPuff Grrl,why do you blame all of this on the democrats? Clinton got the country out of a deficit caused by two republican presidents (Bush, Sr. and Regan)... please explain your logic
spyretto
21-01-2005, 20:21
spy, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I find it a little disturbing that people in the US, mainly the President, have failed to see that this might actually have been bin Laden's plan all along. Osama knew that bombing a US building, like the WTC, would cause this kind of reaction. And with a republican in office it is also easily predictable that they would spend like crazy and give huge tax cuts to the richest two percent.
Damn, I stillcan't believe that dumbass got re-elected. Arnold would be a better president than Bush(to bad he's not eligible. That would have been a spectacle to watch). Hell even Nader would be better.
It was the World Trade Center, and the action was symbolic. If it was really about jihad or whatever they'd have bombed a church or a religious symbol of that magnitude. :none:
PowerPuff Grrl I don't think it was a blessing, they would have gone after Iraq in any case. As far as I understand, Americans are divided between a rural and urban mentality - well, my words, anyway - and the former have a kind of fixed perspective as far life is concerned. Part of that perspective is that they're republicans,( ie conservative ) no matter what, and therefore the act of voting for them is a formality.
So Bush would have been elected anyway - unless he did something really stupid that violated their interests, which is highly unlikely in a country with fixed and immovable institutions such as the US of A.
ypsidan04
22-01-2005, 00:51
freedomize the next one.
"Freedomize" :laugh:
spyretto
22-01-2005, 00:57
Northern Korea has nuclear power. Their leader admitted it multiple times, so if to follow this latest logic of invading all hostile nations with nukes, the next one should be Korea. Invasion of Iraq WAS critisized by the entire world. It was a simple invasion and nothing else. Politicians may wrap it into nicer words as no one wants to oppose USA publically. Japan declared that they support USA's policy as the security of the country lies in USA's hands and its economic prosperity too. USA is a democratic country, no doubt about it and it's a super power too. This fact causes most of the controversy.
My opinion is that it's NOT gonna be N. Korea. The status quo in N. Korea has not changed in recent years while Bush's targets are the ones who have natural resources; N. Korea has nothing, hence it's not of real interest to Bush. If you think it's gonna be Korea then you're really seeing Bush as a messenger of peace and freedom as he proclaims he is...he's anything but though; he's Evil :p
The next target will be from the Arab world again, or a muslim nation. Unless there's no real next target and his speech is a puff of smoke. Time will tell.
ypsidan04
22-01-2005, 01:00
Hell even Nader would be better.
I'd almost go one step further and say that Nader would have been better than Kerry. But despite what Nader says, what his supporters say, or what the media says, the election of 2004 was about one thing: George Walker Bush. Either you're too scared of Kerry or too scared of Bush. And in either case, voting for Nader won't help your cause. He's a good man, really. But until he gets off his high horse and realizes that one man isn't going to change things, he's never going to be President. If he would stuff his pride and run as a Democrat in 2008 or 2012, I'd say he has a good chance at winning. He wouldn't be the first person who lost an election before he won one. Richard Nixon lost to John Kennedy in 1960, and then was obviously elected later on anyway.
spyretto
22-01-2005, 01:10
Nader? Even Ross Perot would be better :lol:
ypsidan04
22-01-2005, 01:13
It's not like the protests will make a difference. Do you remember way back at the end of 02 beginning of 03, when Bush said specificly that he would not listen to any protests? We can protest all we want by it will fall on deaf ears and we'll all land in jail for "treason". I swear he's a fucking fascist.
I want a bumber sticker that says, "Bush is a Fascist!" or maybe' "Bush is a nazi!" one of the two would do.
Bush already has broken the record for being the one person in recorded history that has drawn the largest amount of protestors against him on a single day. I don't have the details handy, but trust me. I personally have protested against him or his ideals twice in the last 6 months.
spyretto
22-01-2005, 01:20
He's re-elected ( spinners even had their way in prematurely proclaiming Kerry a winner, so it's twice a defeat for him ) and has immunity to do whatever he wants for the next 4 years. Lets go back on topic which is the US foreign policy :)
I'm curious, do all of you think that sanctions and diplomacy will stop Iran or N Korea from developing nuclear weapons? Notwithstanding that it would be better that nuclear arms did not exist, would the best foreign policy for the US be to leave Iran alone and let them develop nuclear weapons? How about N Korea? I suppose that China, S Korea, Japan and Russia would probably have more concern with N Korea than the US so would it be better for Bush to stay out of the way of these potential threats? Are you prepared for Iran to have nuclear weapons like Pakistan and India?
bpro50, That's what we are talking about - an American propaganda. N. Korea already has nukes, so many other dangerous countries. Who knows, Iran maybe have nukes. If you have enough money, you can buy anything - hmmm ... I'd go shopping to Russia. Speak of a more corrupted country! American propaganda trying to convince people that if America invades a country, the nuclear threat is automatically off. Dream on! :bum:
American invasion to Iraq was ILLEGAL! Anyone would remind me, why did America go with a war to Iraq? To free Iraqi people from tyranny? :rolleyes: I think they placed another juridical grounds. So what were they?
ypsidan04
22-01-2005, 03:32
I'm curious, do all of you think that sanctions and diplomacy will stop Iran or N Korea from developing nuclear weapons?
Correction: Continuing to develop. :rolleyes: (not rolling my eyes at you ;) )
I suppose that China, S Korea, Japan and Russia would probably have more concern with N Korea than the US
One might think so, but NK has the capability to hit Alaska if they felt like it. :(
Are you prepared for Iran to have nuclear weapons like Pakistan and India?Well, if Pakistan can have nukes, why would Iran be forbidden to?
Iran is a sovereign country, there is no international law that can justify attacking them because they are supposedly developping nuclear weapons. Plus, Iran is not an expansionist country, they've never attacked a neighboring country to expand their territory, they just want to be left alone.
Granted, Iran is going through a dark age, but attacking them is not going to help in any way. There are liberal forces that are gradually making progress in Iranian society, they are the ones that will make this country become more democratic, not some external invaders.
Iran (formerly Persia) is a 5,000 years old civilization! It's one of the oldest cultures on the planet and they've had periods of great enlightment. They are perfecty able to solve their own problems and get out of their current dark age.
Despite of all respect I have for America and consider it to be a trully democratic and free country, I can't agree on their ways of spreading the democracy. For me - it's a crime against humanity. I mean, Vietnam and now Iraq. I tully think Bush should find himself in the court of Haag for that business. I only hope that this will happen sooner or later. That's not the way, certainly not. Fascists were spreading purity of the race and spirit back in 1930's too. Now even wearing the symbols of Nazis are prohibited. But then, to be able to bring a country to Haag, it should be defeated first or its actions should be legally condemned. Global political games of the present days are not that simple as we may think.
A little off top with the black humour to lighten up the athmosphere here. So the antiquity ... :p
Messiah was leading israelians through the desert for 10 years and after he said:
- Here's the promised land, do you like it?
- No, it stinks, answered israelians.
Massiah wanderred futher with israelians. After another 10 years he stopped and said:
- And here's the promised land, do you like it?
- No, it stinks, answered israelians.
Messiah took them further and after 20 years he stopped again and asked:
- Here's another promised land, do you like it?
- Yes!, answered israelians.
Now israelians have a non-stinking land and the arabs have oil.
Some of you speak of Bush as a fascist or nazi but these are terms that belong to European history and not to the US. I've met George Bush and I have followed his career since he was an owner with the Texas Rangers baseball organization. He is nothing like you portray him. Bush is much like Reagan in his political philosophy and history will not record Reagan as an extremist. I wish you all weren't so visceral in your attacks on the US. Sadaam was not a good man, he was a murderer and his sons were violent and wicked men.
The middle east is a time bomb and the political philosophy that portends to just leave them alone won't work. I know it is complex and the US does not have all of the answers but sooner or later one of the Arab countries is going to attempt an act of aggression on Israel and all hell will break loose. You speak of the nuclear dance as if it is a game that we all play but you cannot imagine the damage that Israel can rain down on the Arab world if we don't find a solution. The US has been allies with democratic countries in Europe in times of great need such as WWI and WWII. We weren't in total agreement with the positions of countries like France and Great Britain but we stood beside you. European countries have always had an allie with the US during difficult times but it appears that we have no allie now that acts of terrorism have been initiated against the US. It is sad to see how quickly Europe has turned against the US but I am sure that there will be a time in the future when actions such as those between the Serbs and Croatia will occur and there will be another call for our help. In the future, I don't know that the US will come to the aid of countries that have turned against us. It is hard to support countries that refer to you as fascist pigs and our president as a modern day Hitler. Some Allie.
bpro50, I wasn't drawing parallels between Hitler's and Bush's personalities. I was looking back at the history and drew some parallels there. I mean his actions are criminal. I'm sure he's a great guy to share a pint of beer with, otherwise.
America is not the only country which is trying to bring peace and trying to find solutions. When there's a dialog between Israel and Palestina, all major political alliances are involved. Meanwhile, as USA practically built the entire Israel, I guess it tries to protects its investments. Of course political games is a complicated thing but USA has always had support from EU and Asian alliance. Nevertheless, the popularity of the country is very low in the world at the moment. Albright pointed it out and she thought it's Bush's task to bring it back. It's his job for the next 4 years.
forre, I wasn't referring to your comments. There was one post above where someone wanted to have a bumper sticker designed that said, Bush is a Fascist. That bothers me and it is not true. BTW - I just met him, I didn't get to have a pint. I just was amazed at how genuine he really was. I agree that Bush does have an obligation to work with world leaders over the next four years and there needs to be a reciprocal move from other leaders. It's a two way communication.
bpro50, Sometimes people are kidding and using some hyperbolic phrases. It's useful to see right through them. As with the pint. I didn't mean literrarily that he's a great guy to party with but used this comment to say that in person Bush can produce a very positive impression. The guy has some charisma. However, what he's saying and what he does sometimes is broadcased all over the world and we can look at the situation a little bit from the outside. We are less influenced by famous American propaganda. We are not patriots of the United States here, so we don't have this subjective part.
spyretto
22-01-2005, 05:36
...but Reagan should have been tried for war crimes, not to mention his pathetic foreign policy. His literally armed people like Hussein and Bin Laden...but anyhow... :rolleyes:
Spyretto, who is your model for foreign policy? Tell me who he or she is and I will make the same statement you just made. Talk about propaganda.
spyretto
22-01-2005, 06:18
Propaganda? Unfortunately the records show quite the contrary. The US government closed their eyes when Saddam was committing his crimes, simply because he was a war ally. Reagan's foreign policy was moving back and forth. Everything was justified as necessary evil for the war against Communism. Plus, Bush senior was encouraging the selling of weapons to Iraq even on the day he invaded Kuwait. No matter how much I hope for the contrary the evidence is undeniable.
My model for foreign policy is Switzerland. :p
PowerPuff Grrl
22-01-2005, 07:39
And PowerPuff Grrl,why do you blame all of this on the democrats? Clinton got the country out of a deficit caused by two republican presidents (Bush, Sr. and Regan)... please explain your logic
Maybe thegurgi's Dad can explain this better than me, but the decline of the Democratic Party started before Clinton, but he unitentionally contributed a lot though.
I think this had a lot to do with Lyndon Johnson and his move to grant civil liberties to African Americans. Yes, it pissed the shit out of the whites in the South and he may have lost the election to Nixon because of it but the South got over it eventually, afterall they did vote Democrat later. Rather the backlash from Johnson's term paralyzed the Democratic party forever from ever making a progressive stance on anything. From then on the Democratic Party took a centrist position on all policies.
The Reagan years further reinforced this because the 80's, if any of us even existed then, was all about capitalism. Before then the US had a cultural vacuum which was up for grabs between the Dems and the Reps, unfortunately the Reps won and filled the void up with messages saying the greed was good, and liberalism was bad, and yada, yada, yada. It wouldn't have been that damaging had the Demcrats fought back, which they didn't. Even today, no Democrat would claim to be liberal. The word liberal is like the political equivalent to skankmeister.
Clinton could have reversed all of that, but he was a centrist. All of his economic policies were very conversative. Cutting down on health care, cuts on welfare security, and most importantly deregulation of accounting practices which amounted to the whole Enron and Worldcom scandals. Even Republicans couldn't find anything to pin him on, his policies were like their's. The only thing they could do was catch him getting head.
Even his social policies weren't that progressive, they practically didn't do anything at all.
Gay rights?
How about the "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy, what the hell did that do?
Clinton inadvertently shifted the political spectrum further to the right because he too was a polarizing president. Repblicans hated his guts and if Clinton could convince the non-decided voters of US to vote Democrat, then the Republicans can win back those voters with the good ol'American Family Values. What Clinton and other centrists like Kerry and Lieberman did was abadoned the core Democratic Party, the members who are known to be "true blue" liberal Democrats. They gave up the progressivism part of the Democratic Party, the part that made the US the beacon of freedom and liberty accross the world for the past sixty years. They did it when Al Gore decided to give up fighting for the presidency that was then, rightfully his. They did it when, on the brink of the Iraqi war, Americans were seeking a voice of dissent, a voice of freaking reason as to why going to war against Iraq was wrong, and the Democrats; the centrists buckled under Republican might, etc, etc.
[You can say the same for the Republicans; neglecting the socially liberal, fiscally conservative members, but that didn't damage the Party overall].
I honestly thought Howard Dean, a true blue Democrat, would have done well but apparently he is too crazy, angry, or passionate to be president. I mean, yeah sure, he is incapable of smiling and he screamed in the middle of his rally, but was it that threatening? I just though it was chuckle-worthy. Goddamn! I'd take that any day than Kerry's monotoned, barritoned, deadpan voice anyday.
PowerPuff Grrl I don't think it was a blessing, they would have gone after Iraq in any case. As far as I understand, Americans are divided between a rural and urban mentality - well, my words, anyway - and the former have a kind of fixed perspective as far life is concerned. Part of that perspective is that they're republicans,( ie conservative ) no matter what, and therefore the act of voting for them is a formality.
So Bush would have been elected anyway - unless he did something really stupid that violated their interests, which is highly unlikely in a country with fixed and immovable institutions such as the US of A.
I know they would've gone to Iraq anyhow, but had 9/11 never happen they wouldn't be able to convince everyone so easily.
As for the American mentality, it is actually a lot more fluid than you think. The South was historically always Democratic, whereas the North was (I think) always Republican. Even though the Democrats were the ones that enforced civil liberties for African Americans, they were the ones that fought for the Confederation during the Civil War for the right to own slaves and the Republicans, led by Abraham Lincoln, fought to end it.
Hell, just ten years ago, before Bush was governor of Texas, the State of Texas was considered a blue state, they elected (I think, again) for more than one term a female democratic governor, Ann Richards.
I believe the pendulum will swing towards the democratics one day, it is really just a matter of whether the Democratic will have enough backbone to actually win.
spyretto
22-01-2005, 07:40
the last post was the satanic 666th post on this topic :p
Granted, Iran is going through a dark age, but attacking them is not going to help in any way. There are liberal forces that are gradually making progress in Iranian society, they are the ones that will make this country become more democratic, not some external invaders.
Iran (formerly Persia) is a 5,000 years old civilization! It's one of the oldest cultures on the planet and they've had periods of great enlightment. They are perfecty able to solve their own problems and get out of their current dark age.
I just hope they could go out from "THAT" one day and the quickest as possible....sorry to be so direct or hard for someones.....
Thanks to FRANCE.......for those who don't know...France with its ETERNEL COMPLEXE of FREEDOM....is a specialist of DICTATORS.....PREVIOUS & FUTURE!!!
So if you are a FUTURE DICTATOR......ask exil to France ...as Khomeini did!!!!.... :rolleyes: The guy came back to Iran with a French plane payed by the french Government....
If you were a PREVIOUS DICTATOR who comitted the worse attrocities, no problem either....you can come to finish your days peacefully on "The Côte d'Azur" (near Nice), with the best services and all the confort......!!! :p
The Shah d'Iran wasn't may be tender all days and was living in the luxury of a monarchy (but which difference with the luxury of our dear Queen of England!) but......I absolutely remember this country when I was young....I absolutely remember Khomeini at the french informations when he was our GUEST in France in exil, and after i saw the "EVOLUTION" of this country when Khomeini came back......:done:
Sorry but for me it's simply a SHAME!....to see a country regressing like that....
This country returned to the Middle Age about all the notions of Freedom!...
okay I run to work and after i don't have to forget to buy my future book to read before to sleep: "The Memories of Empress Farah Dibah"......
I have a lot of more RESPECT for this Lady than to all your Ayatolahs United!!
And I agree with you on this point : USA were absolutely stupid to not hold the hand of the SHAH and to let him without help (excepted the one of exil)....one of its biggest mistake!
For you , Madame Farah Dibah.....for all that you tried to do for the Women of your country...for trying to give to them education and send them to school...
You are a Great Lady! :rose: :rose: :rose:
PS: For those ones who are younger and just know Iran assocciated to Ayatolahs, just check and try to find some movies( you feel more the contrast with documentaries, movies) about life in Iran in the beginning of the 70' ...you will be surprised.....
He was such a good guy....and life was so pleasant under his regime......I'm so nostalgic suddenly ;) http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hrdossier.pdf
spyretto
22-01-2005, 10:07
Hell, just ten years ago, before Bush was governor of Texas, the State of Texas was considered a blue state, they elected (I think, again) for more than one term a female democratic governor, Ann Richards.
.
This is true but in the last 30 years the Democrats won the electorate vote only once.
Some of you speak of Bush as a fascist or nazi but these are terms that belong to European history and not to the US.Bush has created the Guantanamo detention camp which is similar to a Nazi concentration camp or a Soviet gulag, and it's no secret that Bush and Ramsfeld have authorized the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" on the prisoners in Guantanamo (and in Iraq's prisons) which is just a fancy word for torture.
Neither American laws or international laws are applied in Guantanamo, the Geneva convention is not applied either because the prisoners are denied the status of POW.
The US government can imprison in Guantanamo whoever they want for an indefinite period of time with no trial or defense. The intelligence officers who run the camp have "carte blanche", they can treat the prisoners as they wish and torture them at will. There is no limit to what can be done to prisoners in Guantanamo.
Bush is not only fully aware of what is going on in Guantanamo, but he ordered it himself.
Bush has created the Guantanamo detention camp which is similar to a Nazi concentration camp or a Soviet gulag
That statement is totally outrageous. The Nazis and Soviets sent millions of people to their deaths in concentration camps and gulags. Guantanamo is very unpleasant, but it's not a means of mass murder. Try to keep a sense of proportion!
Simon, according to Forre we have a hyperbole here and we just have to see through all of this. Haku has been to a Nazi death camp so he is just kidding when he makes the comparison between a death camp exterminating and burning human flesh and Guantanamo where the Red Cross stated recently that American guards were not allowing enough social interaction. Poor Iraqi murderers need a little more play time. That is what all of this is about: you see Sadaam is a cult hero to these guys, they love him.
ypsidan04
22-01-2005, 21:43
Sadaam was not a good man, he was a murderer and his sons were violent and wicked men.
We don't need you to state the obvious. That alone is not a reason to invade another sovereign country.
but you cannot imagine the damage that Israel can rain down on the Arab world if we don't find a solution.
And rightly so. They have just as much right to be there as the Arabs, and have the right to defend themselves. And if that means nuclear weapons, then so be it. Israel never has and I cant imagine ever will attack anyone unprovoked. Only in self defense.
European countries have always had an allie with the US during difficult times but it appears that we have no allie now that acts of terrorism have been initiated against the US. It is sad to see how quickly Europe has turned against the US
Oh, don't even start with that line of reasoning. We had plenty of allies when we attacked Afghanistan. That was clearly justified because Afghanistan clearly had a role in the 9-11 attacks. Attacking Afghanistan was retaliation for 9-11. End of story. They had the Taliban, they had Osama, they were involved in 9-11. Iraq was not, depsite what Bush was saying. He lied about this, he lied that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, he lied that Saddam and Osama had contact and were conspiring against the US (when Osama actually hates Saddam perhaps as much as any American), he white-lied that we had a large and powerful coalition backing us up, he's best friends with some of the worst human rights abusers in the world (Saudis), and thats just off the top of my head. A number of Iraqis have said they were better off when Saddam was in power.
Europe should not be blamed at all for not helping us in Iraq. Sure we helped them in the first half of the 20th century, but guess what? They were actively being attacked by Germany! They weren't just worried that Germany might attack them or were just scared of the arsenal that they believed Germany had, they were actually being attacked! Totally different story. And this is one of your fellow Americans talking: what you're saying is wrong.
I just was amazed at how genuine he really was.
If we were voting on who you'd rather have a beer with on your back porch, who you'd rather go fishing or hunting with, Bush would win in a landslide. But that's not the issue.
Gay rights?
How about the "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy, what the hell did that do?
That ain't saying much. Unless I'm mistaken, very few Democrats, let alone Republicans, spoke out against that. One of those that did was John Kerry. :) The truth is that Democrats in this country, in general, are not as left wing as they could be. I mean in 2000 when there were claims that Afrircan Americans in Florida, mostly Democrats, were stopped from voting or didnt have their votes counted, a number of Black Representatives tried to stop the vote from being certified. They went in front of the Senate, and all that was needed to keep Bush from being declared the winner was a signature of one Senator. Keep in mind that four years ago, there was not a single Black Senator (there is one now, as well as one Hispanic senator). But no one spoke up. Some liberal people those Democratic Senators are, not standing up in the face of accusations of discrimination. :rolleyes: They may have been scared to do that, but if they had any strong convictions, they would have done something.
he screamed in the middle of his rally
Please dont go there. It was a media conspiracy. He had to friggin yell so the people in the back could hear him while everyone was cheering. They never spoke on TV about how the crowd noise just might have necessitated that. And when an athlete acts that way, he's complimented. But when Howard Dean acts that way, called for or not, he's lambasted. :rolleyes:
spyretto
23-01-2005, 00:27
Simon, according to Forre we have a hyperbole here and we just have to see through all of this. Haku has been to a Nazi death camp so he is just kidding when he makes the comparison between a death camp exterminating and burning human flesh and Guantanamo where the Red Cross stated recently that American guards were not allowing enough social interaction. Poor Iraqi murderers need a little more play time. That is what all of this is about: you see Sadaam is a cult hero to these guys, they love him.
although I do not agree with haku's latest argument I find your comments too extremelly biased; impossible to have an intelligent conversation when you fail to see a single liability with regards to your country's foreign policies.
So I guess everything's cool...you also failed to comment on my model of foreign policy :p
As for Saddam, he may have done more for the Iraquis than Bush has done for the Iraquis
Tatysite is wonderful!.......not kidding at all.... :p I mean, You , guys are so such experts in all subjecs than to follow you, sometimes my poor little brain isn't suffisant and I need to go to check a little the GOD GOOGLE.....
And i've just discoverd something which "kills me absolutely of laugh"(sorry for english translation).....one of the 27/23 lawers/advocate of Saddam Hussein is........one of the men that i HATE the most in the french politic: a previous Foreign Affair Minister of President François Mitterrand: the Dear Mister Roland Dumas....
This guy had some famous trials in France for corruption... :) ...but it's good cause he might know very well the "Dossier saddam Hussein" cause he was a part of french government , in the 80' , when France was the first weapons provider of Iraq and when "Institut Pasteur"( the main french institute for research of virus and medicine against virus..) sold to Irak the biological "germes/seeds" to create its chimical gaz against Kurdes and so on...and when a french factory made the equipment of an gaz factory in Samarra..."
"Une fuite gouvernementale a permis à M. Gary Milhollin, expert américain en marchés d’armement, de récupérer les pages enlevées. Nous avons pu les consulter : elles révèlent que le Laboratoire Pasteur a vendu à l’Irak des germes biologiques, que l’entreprise alsacienne Protec a équipé une usine de gaz de combat à Samarra, ou encore que la firme américaine Bechtel, qui finance les campagnes électorales de la famille Bush, a fourni à l’Irak une usine chimique. "
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2004/11/DESPRATX/11647
Mister Roland Dumas, (minister in this time/advocate of Saddam now) said himself about the gaz crimes against Kurdes: "It's true that Occident has closed a little its eyes because Iak was a country that we judged necessary for the balance of the area (-the countries around/the region)"
« C’est vrai que l’Occident fermait un petit peu les yeux, parce que l’Irak était un pays que nous jugions nécessaire à l’équilibre des lieux. » http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2004/11/DESPRATX/11647
You see Haku...80' are not so far....We did/made/said that.....USA aren't an exception....WE (I mean I include France) are all the same Sh*t !
although I do not agree with haku's latest argument I find your comments too extremelly biased; impossible to have an intelligent conversation when you fail to see a single liability with regards to your country's foreign policies.
So I guess everything's cool...you also failed to comment on my model of foreign policy :p
As for Saddam, he may have done more for the Iraquis than Bush has done for the Iraquis
Switzerland: model foreign policy . . . neutrality. Not that there is a good correllation but you have a country about the size and population of Atlanta, Georgia. So, number 1, if the US models itself after Switzerland, you would be speaking German right now and living under a dictatorship. I like your theory though. I wish the US could be neutral and isolationist. There is a good percentage of people that want that kind of a foreign policy and it would suit me well. BTW - what would the policy be in Switzerland if terrorist blew up the rail system, beheaded innocent people in the middle of the city square and blew up half of their most treasured historical buildings? If they were provoked because they supported democracy or failed to support Islamic law, do you think they would stay neutral? Your model is not realist.
As far as intelligent conversation, I am not convinced that Iraq was a good choice for invasion. I just think the decision to invade was based on much more than lies from one man. It goes back to the universal threat of Islamic extremism. As long as countries in the middle and far east under muslim heads of state see the US as the "great Satan" and our people as "infidels", and that when we step foot on their land we are desecrating "holy" sites as if we were less than human, I see them as enemies. Extremist views of a world jihad does not equate to a concept of "just leave us alone".
I appreciate the comments that have been made but I still support the political strategy of a democratic muslim state in Iraq. As Iraq prospers, other middle eastern states may see the benefits and migrate to democracy as a better form of government. I know that attempts to democratize Iraq have failed in the past under British strategy but we have had success such as Japan and S Korea. I know it is a messy business but what existed prior to US intervention was not good. The focus at that point was on Israel. Now the focus is on the US. Maybe that is best for the middle east.
Khartoun2004
23-01-2005, 03:20
I'm curious, do all of you think that sanctions and diplomacy will stop Iran or N Korea from developing nuclear weapons? Notwithstanding that it would be better that nuclear arms did not exist, would the best foreign policy for the US be to leave Iran alone and let them develop nuclear weapons? How about N Korea? I suppose that China, S Korea, Japan and Russia would probably have more concern with N Korea than the US so would it be better for Bush to stay out of the way of these potential threats? Are you prepared for Iran to have nuclear weapons like Pakistan and India?
That's what I've been trying to say. It would have been a better use of US military power had we gone after the other members of the "Axis of Evil" and not effing Iraq. At least we would have had more of an argument for going to war with them concidering we know for a fact they have the capability at the present to make nuclear weapons. I think at the very least we would have had world support.
That's what I've been trying to say. It would have been a better use of US military power had we gone after the other members of the "Axis of Evil" and not effing Iraq. At least we would have had more of an argument for going to war with them concidering we know for a fact they have the capability at the present to make nuclear weapons. I think at the very least we would have had world support.
I personally agree with you as far Iran. To me, Iran would have been a better choice. I was basing my question on an assumption that many forumers would simply just leave the middle east alone and let it develop on its own. My theory is that leaving the middle east alone and letting nuclear weapons fully develop is asking for an eventual disaster beyond imagination. Israel will not allow Iran or any other country become a nuclear power against them. It won't happen. And to just sit back and let that happen is not a good strategy in my opinion.
My theory is that leaving the middle east alone and letting nuclear weapons fully develop is asking for an eventual disaster beyond imagination.
Where did you get this idea from? :confused:
Tatysite is wonderful!.......not kidding at all.... :p I mean, You , guys are so such experts in all subjecs than to follow you, sometimes my poor little brain isn't suffisant and I need to go to check a little the GOD GOOGLE.....
And i've just discoverd something which "kills me absolutely of laugh"(sorry for english translation).....one of the 27/23 lawers/advocate of Saddam Hussein is........one of the men that i HATE the most in the french politic: a previous Foreign Affair Minister of President François Mitterrand: the Dear Mister Roland Dumas....
This guy had some famous trials in France for corruption... :) ...but it's good cause he might know very well the "Dossier saddam Hussein" cause he was a part of french government , in the 80' , when France was the first weapons provider of Iraq and when "Institut Pasteur"( the main french institute for research of virus and medicine against virus..) sold to Irak the biological "germes/seeds" to create its chimical gaz against Kurdes and so on...and when a french factory made the equipment of an gaz factory in Samarra..."
"Une fuite gouvernementale a permis à M. Gary Milhollin, expert américain en marchés d’armement, de récupérer les pages enlevées. Nous avons pu les consulter : elles révèlent que le Laboratoire Pasteur a vendu à l’Irak des germes biologiques, que l’entreprise alsacienne Protec a équipé une usine de gaz de combat à Samarra, ou encore que la firme américaine Bechtel, qui finance les campagnes électorales de la famille Bush, a fourni à l’Irak une usine chimique. "
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2004/11/DESPRATX/11647
Mister Roland Dumas, (minister in this time/advocate of Saddam now) said himself about the gaz crimes against Kurdes: "It's true that Occident has closed a little its eyes because Iak was a country that we judged necessary for the balance of the area (-the countries around/the region)"
« C’est vrai que l’Occident fermait un petit peu les yeux, parce que l’Irak était un pays que nous jugions nécessaire à l’équilibre des lieux. » http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2004/11/DESPRATX/11647
You see Haku...80' are not so far....We did/made/said that.....USA aren't an exception....WE (I mean I include France) are all the same Sh*t !
Thanks for your candid comments about France. When Governments of the world accept "war" as a fact of political life, it makes for strange decisions when we look at it from the outside. It makes perfect sense to me that France would support Iraq if the idea was to simply "balance the equation". One country sends weapons to Iraq another to the Kurdes, another to Iran and the US supports Kuwait when they were unable to take back their own land. It is a matter of balance until someone starts throwing out the Nuclear solution. Then there is absolutely no balance whether it is Pakistan and India or Israel and Iran or whatever. The day that nuclear bombs are launched by anyone is the day that all begins to crumble worldwide.
Where did you get this idea from? :confused:
I am not sure what you are asking but I am saying that several Islamic countries in the middle east have as a charter that Israel has no right to exist. If any one of those Arab states develop nuclear capabilities, Israel will attempt to end the threat before it develops. That would include both tactical and nuclear weapons if necessary. Is that what you are asking? The use of nuclear weapons by any country in the middle east will open of a whole new and disastrous page in history for the whole world.
Khartoun2004
23-01-2005, 04:11
I'd like to state for the record that I was the one that Stated that Bush was a fascist and to remind people that I am a US citizen. I just don't think it's fair to blame the Europeans for a connection or statement they did not make
I wish the US could be neutral and isolationist
That's what Washington wanted. He specifically said in his fairwell address that we should stay out of the affairs of Europe.
I am not convinced that Iraq was a good choice for invasion. I just think the decision to invade was based on much more than lies from one man. It goes back to the universal threat of Islamic extremism.
This sounds like the Bush corollary to the truman doctrine... Stop the spread of Islam...
That statement is totally outrageous. The Nazis and Soviets sent millions of people to their deaths in concentration camps and gulags. Guantanamo is very unpleasant, but it's not a means of mass murder. Try to keep a sense of proportion!
Haku did not compare Guantanamo to the Nazi Death Camps like Auschwitz. Years before the final solution was even concieved the nazis had concentration camps set up all of germany where they held political prisoners and tortured them, but did not kill them. Haku can corrected me if I'm wrong, but I think he was refering to these concentraion camps which is an accurate analogy.
sooner or later one of the Arab countries is going to attempt an act of aggression on Israel and all hell will break loose.
What do you mean by sooner or later? What do you think has been going on for the last 50 years? What do you consider the current Palistinian Infitada to be?
PowerPuff Grrl, oh ok I understand what you're saying now. Thanks for explaining it to me. :done:
Spyretto, it is hard to tell what your own persuasion is because you only make personal attacks on other people's opinions that differ from your own. I am defending my beliefs and you are attacking. Is that modern thinking? Intellectual? I am just as much a part of the modern freethinking world as you are. I just have a different world view than you do. Don't take things personal as if I was your enemy or something. What belief are you defending and what is your solution to the world that you woke up in today? In looking at previous entries you and others are nothing more than critics. The world is what it is and you seem to be taking two steps back and saying that the occupation of Iraq should never have taken place. The fact is that it did. Now what should be the strategy from this point forward? We all know that you disagree with the US occupation of Iraq but that has already occured. What do we all do now? Just condemn. BTW - your comments on previous efforts of the US to help confirm to me that when you help some people or even countries, they will hate and despise you for it in the end. This also confirms my own beliefs that we should just leave Europe alone and let is slide wherever it goes. I read the other day that the people of Indonesia have been so indoctrinated with hatred toward the US that even though they are taking aid in terms of billions of dollars and thousands of troops, the best that the Government could do is tell the US to get out by March 31. My military friends tell me that the hatred is such that the people take the aid and then curse the troops as they leave. It is hard to bridge any communication gaps to let the world know that people in the US cares for human needs when there is so much hatred. My thought is ... if you hate us much, tell us to stay away in the first place. Don't take the generosity and spit on the infidels as they leave. Crap, crap, crap, now we are even. :p
ypsidan04
23-01-2005, 06:42
I am not sure what you are asking but I am saying that several Islamic countries in the middle east have as a charter that Israel has no right to exist.
The only one I know for sure that has recognized Israel is Egypt. Funny that Israel was once ready to blow them to pieces. Perhaps Jordan as well. But certainly not Syria or Lebanon.
I wish the US could be neutral and isolationist
Yeah but that got us into a whole lot of trouble before and after WWII. The fact that we waited until December 7, 1941 to combat Germany (and most likely only then because they were allied with Japan) has not and will not be looked upon positively by history.
What do you think has been going on for the last 50 years?
Good question. Israel has been attacked a handful of times, and even when they were attacked on their most holy holiday, and the troops weren't completely ready, they not only won, but won decisively.
your buddy
In his/her defense, I think that's going a bit far.
( the only country which has used that kind of weapon of mass destruction in the history of mankind.)
I think history has found that to be a necessary evil that also saved thousands of lives.
Spare me the crap about speaking me German if it wasn't for you
That's faulty logic anyway, Spyretto. If it always happened like that, then all of Canada would be speaking one language. If it always happened like that, then you would be speaking French because of the Battle of Hastings. It doesn't necessarily work that way.
let alone compel anybody to follow your corrupt model of governement
While "corrupt" is a bit much, we are far from perfect. As the last two elections have shown. And as John Kerry recently said, it's a shame that we are spending millions of dollars to help Iraqis have a freedom that some people who deserve it have it denied or impeded on in this country.
I haven't seen a theocratic regime like Iran's having expansionist tendencies, yet we've all seen how Saddam Hussein contacted his business.
Good point. And Saddam was anything but a theocratic person. He did not surpress any religion in favor of Islam. One of the reasons he killed so many of his own people was because he perceived them as a threat to his secular rule.
the best that the Government could do is tell the US to get out by March 31.
This is true. There were reports of Indonesians dancing in the streets in the wake of 9-11. And the country has the worlds largest population of Muslims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpro50
sooner or later one of the Arab countries is going to attempt an act of aggression on Israel and all hell will break loose.
What do you mean by sooner or later? What do you think has been going on for the last 50 years? What do you consider the current Palistinian Infitada to be?
************************************************** **********************
Just to answer your question, it has been an on-going concern. In 1973, Israel was prepared to drop a nuclear bomb on Egypt. The US intervened and called upon the then Soviet leadership to assist in efforts to bring the aggresion under control. Israel agreed to dismantle the weapon or Egypt would have been a parking lot. Today, Palistnian resistance and agression is met with equal force and no more. Israel has an answer for every country that threatens its soverignty up to and including the US.
Khartoun2004
23-01-2005, 07:14
Good question. Israel has been attacked a handful of times, and even when they were attacked on their most holy holiday, and the troops weren't completely ready, they not only won, but won decisively.
The Israelis have won every battle they have ever fought since the creation of the state in '48. I think it's a little arrogant that the US Government seems to think Israel will implode without our help. The Israelis were winning battles long before we showed up with "aid".
And besides being attacked on Yom Kippur, do you any of you remember the 1972 Munich games when the entire Israeli team was murdered by Islamic militants? The point of my last post is that Israel was under attack even before it was officially a state... so to say all hell will break loose if Israel is attacked is an ill informed statement to make. The Arab countries have always attacked them and hell has yet to break loose.
Infact the US's illegal occupation of Iraq is most likely only making the situation worse for Israel. I doubt any arab country would attack the US directly, however they can hit one of our allies and Israel is the perfect target. I'm sure in their minds it would be like killing two birds with one stone; retailiation against the US and good-bye Jews.
spyretto
23-01-2005, 08:21
Spyretto, it is hard to tell what your own persuasion is because you only make personal attacks on other people's opinions that differ from your own. I am defending my beliefs and you are attacking. Is that modern thinking? Intellectual? I am just as much a part of the modern freethinking world as you are. I just have a different world view than you do. Don't take things personal as if I was your enemy or something. What belief are you defending and what is your solution to the world that you woke up in today? In looking at previous entries you and others are nothing more than critics. The world is what it is and you seem to be taking two steps back and saying that the occupation of Iraq should never have taken place. The fact is that it did. Now what should be the strategy from this point forward? We all know that you disagree with the US occupation of Iraq but that has already occured. What do we all do now? Just condemn. BTW - your comments on previous efforts of the US to help confirm to me that when you help some people or even countries, they will hate and despise you for it in the end. This also confirms my own beliefs that we should just leave Europe alone and let is slide wherever it goes. I read the other day that the people of Indonesia have been so indoctrinated with hatred toward the US that even though they are taking aid in terms of billions of dollars and thousands of troops, the best that the Government could do is tell the US to get out by March 31. My military friends tell me that the hatred is such that the people take the aid and then curse the troops as they leave. It is hard to bridge any communication gaps to let the world know that people in the US cares for human needs when there is so much hatred. My thought is ... if you hate us much, tell us to stay away in the first place. Don't take the generosity and spit on the infidels as they leave. Crap, crap, crap, now we are even. :p
You engender that hatred by being the way you are. You should also take two steps back and see why it is that the whole world hates you. They must be really mad cause like Bush said you're so good. How can the rest of the world fail to see that?
But in any case you don't seem to be able to answer that question effectivelly yet. In fact you haven't told me anything new, your rhetoric is the typical pro American conservatist rhetoric we've heard countless times before - by Bush and others. He really is your hero, isn't he?
And as to what you should do in Iraq, first you should seek to work with the international community to put an end to the crisis.. something that it is unikely you're going to do...until then your question remains purely rhetorical. If the question is supposed to offer a justification of what you're been doing in Iraq, I'm afraid that it's not very convincing.
And of course nothing is personal. You mention you've met George Bush didn't you? You embarce his ideas don't you? The word "buddy" was tongue-in-cheek in any case. What's the problem with that, wouldn't you rather be his buddy?
So you haven't made me see your position at all. You mentioned a lot about your heroic deeds in WWII -with an air of superiority and arrogance - stressing how important it was for you to liberate us...then we should all be kissing your ass I suppose, up to this day. Then your country is at some higher state of consciousness that we should all be taking lessons from you on how to live and how to think. We should all follow your model of government or else you're gonna impose it on us. yadda yadda yadda
I find this comment in particular as the lamest of the lame:
This also confirms my own beliefs that we should just leave Europe alone and let is slide wherever it goes
My view is that everyone who is European, citizen of the European Union and rate their country's and their Union's values as high should really express their disgust at that comment.
Khartoun2004
23-01-2005, 09:14
So you haven't made me see your position at all. You mentioned a lot about your heroic deeds in WWII -with an air of superiority and arrogance - stressing how important it was for you to liberate us...then we should all be kissing your ass I suppose, up to this day.
I have to agree with Spy. bpro50, have you forgotten that without France's help during the Revolutionary War we would not be The United States of America? We would be like Canada, Australia, ect. and have to pledge or alligence to the Queen of England. So actually the US should be "kissing" France's ass...
Also, what do you care what people say about Bush? As Americans, we don't pledge our alligence to the President. We pledge it to the flag and the country. The only people that swear their alligence to Bush are the secret service... other wise Bush is our servant. He was elected by the people and the people give him power. He owes his alligence to the citizens of this once great "FREE" country.
Thanks for your candid comments about France. When Governments of the world accept "war" as a fact of political life, it makes for strange decisions when we look at it from the outside. It makes perfect sense to me that France would support Iraq if the idea was to simply "balance the equation".
bpro50, I don't think I'm so "candid"...indeed I was absolutely smiling when I wrote this post...(cause it makes me always smile to see, with the time, confirmations of my deep thoughts and ideas...which are often against the "Fashionnated Political Sate of Mind"...
For exemple for a lot of YEARS , I think that Arafat was the main problem in the resolution of the conflict Israelo-Palestinian....so we'll see, in the future , if the things will go better or worse now that Arafat isn't here anymore...)...
Just because I'm French...and I know perfectly from who I'm speaking...I'm not so dupe and something which always made me laugh, and for a long time, is the "Double Langage" of French Politic...
Roland Dumas belongs to the Socialist Party which is the First to "give Moral Lessons" to America or to the French Right Party...but they acted as them! :)
What is really funny is that two of the persons who created associations to support the Kurdes agaisnt oppression of Iraq are Danièle Mitterrand : the wife of ex- president François Mitterand and Bernard Kouchner, a previous Health Minister from the same François Mitterrand.... :blabla:
http://www.institutkurde.org/Conf/info/monde1.htm
So this is a perfect exemple, typically french: Both have wonderfull "Peaceful & Humanitary Words!!"....excepted that one knows that her husband helped Iraqi Gouvernement to create Chimical Weapons to kill the ones she defends (she could do the same in condamning the previous actions of her Husband. She didn't. Of course her husband was "the best"...)
...and the other, as a Health Minister, before president of "Médecins sans Frontières" (usually in a such position , you are perfectly informed about the situation..), knows that a lot of French people give Money for the Health Research and that an important part of this money goes to "Institut Pasteur" ( research for lutting for Cancer and AIDS...Institut Pasteur was the FIRST to find the AIDS virus by its research , even if it was recognized after by States) and that the same Medical Institute sold virus/seeds to create Chimical Gaz to kill....
The only positive point that I see here is that I hope that that sold brought benefices for the research for Aids ... .... :coctail: ......but to tell truth , i doubt a lot about that.... ;)
Iran is a sovereign country, there is no international law that can justify attacking them because they are supposedly developping nuclear weapons. Plus, Iran is not an expansionist country, they've never attacked a neighboring country to expand their territory, they just want to be left alone.
May be....but may be it's just my imagination..or Iranian Government and all Imams and "muslim priests" didn't or don't push the population and devotees in the mosquees to KILL AMERICA, each friday in their religious sermons ?
Some wars have begun for less than that.
spyretto
23-01-2005, 10:34
I have to agree with Spy. bpro50, have you forgotten that without France's help during the Revolutionary War we would not be The United States of America? We would be like Canada, Australia, ect. and have to pledge or alligence to the Queen of England. So actually the US should be "kissing" France's ass...
That doesn't necessarily make those countries more or less democratic, however. That's what I thought the argument is about
Not to mention that the United States of America was built upon the principles of the Athenian democracy and the spirit of the French Revolution, Its constitution is permeated by the ideals of "liberty, equality, fraternity" as well as the Enlightenment's. However it seems that nowadays those ideals are pushed back in favour of the ones formulated by those you fought against in the first place.
The fact that you have come up with a very effective model of government and that you have avoided some of the mistakes of the past does not necessarily make you perfect.You've had your civil wars and your conflicts with other nations, and the fact that the US has always been a beacon of conservatism with strong institutions that did not allow the rise of nationalism, communism and the like as a dominant force in politics is understandable and not such a big deal. So was the case in many other countries. The fact of the matter is that Europe is not an amagalm of people of different ethnicities organised into smaller communities, and run by local governments, they are district nations with a long term history and often conflicting interests. Only recently have they come under a centralised political umbrella. If you wanna look at a more relevant paradigm for a comparison, why not look at Switzerland? They're organised in autonomous cantons and have existed in peace for more than twice as long as the USA's history .
edit: But it's no secret that France in the 80s have been the long-term ally of Saddam Hussein. :p
edit: But it's no secret that France in the 80s have been the long-term ally of Saddam Hussein. :p
..as it's not a secret that Greece is, by tradition "Anti-American" ,and it was renforced by the "Colonels Regime"(it's understandable..).. ;) ;)
Spy..it's not nasty at all...when I was 10 years old I was yet a fan of Mélina Mercouri as as a singer as a political militant....I was in greece when she died and I sincerly cried cause i really loved and admired her...I'm 40 years old now and never my respect for her and her political action failed...:rose:
"Mélina, Mélinaki
Arwww...si tu étais un homme
J'aurais pu faire de Toi...
Le prince d'un royaume
Le plus aimé des rois..."
Haku did not compare Guantanamo to the Nazi Death Camps like Auschwitz. Years before the final solution was even concieved the nazis had concentration camps set up all of germany where they held political prisoners and tortured them, but did not kill them. Haku can corrected me if I'm wrong, but I think he was refering to these concentraion camps which is an accurate analogy.
Haku said that Guantanamo was the same as Nazi concentration camps or Soviet gulags. He didn't make this distinction. To compare even the milder Nazi concentration camps to Guantanamo is wild exaggeration. If Haku was making this distinction, why didn't he mention it and why did he also mention the Soviet gulag? From its inception at Soveletsky under Lenin, the gulag worked prisoners to death. Comparing Guantanamo to the gulag is also absurd and offensive hyperbole.
The person who modelled himself on Hitler and Stalin and has a body count to show for it is your buddy Saddam Hussein.
Haku said that Guantanamo was the same as Nazi concentration camps or Soviet gulags. He didn't make this distinction. To compare even the milder Nazi concentration camps to Guantanamo is wild exaggeration. If Haku was making this distinction, why didn't he mention it and why did he also mention the Soviet gulag? From its inception at Soveletsky under Lenin, the gulag worked prisoners to death. Comparing Guantanamo to the gulag is also absurd and offensive hyperbole.And i stand by it, it's only a matter of degree, but Guantanamo is a concentration camp (just as the camps where US citizens of Japanese descent were imprisoned during WWII were also concentration camps, not just "unpleasant").
The US has created a new status for people they arrest: "enemy combatant". Are they considered criminals and therefore fall under criminal law? No. Are they considered prisoners of war and therefore fall under international law and the Geneva convention? No. So under what law do "enemy combatants" fall? None. This status is not legally defined and people who are declared "enemy combatants" simply cease to exist legally and have no rights whatsoever.
The US government can declare anyone to be an "enemy combatant" and arrest them immediately, even a US citizen on US soil (there are several cases), it's not a court decision and this decision can't be appealed in any court, it's totally arbitrary.
"enemy combatants" can be arrested without being charged of anything, there is no limit to the length of their detention, there is no trial, counseling is not allowed, they can't talk to anyone. "enemy combatants" are held in solitary confinement and total sensorial deprivation, they do not know if it's day or night, what time it is, what day it is, or even what year it is, they do not know for how long they've been detained and how long they're going to be detained.
Guantanamo is filled with hundreds of "enemy combatants" who sometimes have been there for years. They haven't been charged with anything, and they will never be tried, and of course they are regularly submitted to the infamous "enhanced interrogation techniques" which is just a fancy expression for torture.
Is that American ideals? I must have missed something in their constitution.
And i stand by it, it's only a matter of degree, but Guantanamo is a concentration camp (just as the camps where US citizens of Japanese descent were imprisoned during WWII were also concentration camps, not just "unpleasant").
If you stand by your comparison between German death camps and Cuba, you've lost me. Those camps were not for holding prisoners and interrogation, they were camps for killing men, women and children wiping out an entire race of people and those too weak to fend for themselves such as mentally ill, elderly, gays, jehovah's witness and gypsies. If you want to compare concentration camps such as the detainment of the Japanese during WW II, that might make more sense. Why don't you just address G-bay for what it is? I agree that the US should abide by Geneva convention in detaining prisoners. Prisoners in Cuba have long since been "interrogated" and the Red Cross found no violation of human rights in their last visits except "lack of socialization" and some prisoners were refusing to eat. Having said that, war is not pretty and if "advanced techniques of interrogation" will save American lives and help us to locate enemy strongholds and intelligence, then this is war not the Beverly Hills Hilton. I don't think you have to humiliate prisoners in the way US soldiers did in Baghdad and those soldiers and officers should be punished but I have no problem with sleep deprivation and fear tactics to get information. I am sure that Haku is just using "hyberboles" and I am trying to see through them to get the point. It is just comparisons between the madness of Hitler and the US aren't that funny and make no valid point. Remember, Nazis, Communism, socialistic philosophy and facsism are European concepts not born in the US. That is your area of expertise.
BTW - even though I am in a minority here and feel like everyone is ganging up on me sometimes, I really enjoy your thoughts and comments. It really helps me to understand much more and appreciate different points of views. Thanks so much.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'concentation camp':
a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45
The term 'concentration camp' was originally used to describe a place for the concentration of civilians. The Nazis used the term for what were really death camps.
Wikipedia says:
Since the nature of Nazi Germany's so-called "concentration camps" became known (see below), the term is often used propagandistically by opponents, with greater or lesser justification, to imply that a camp is designed to exterminate, rather than merely to concentrate, its inmates.
The term is not generally considered appropriate for Prisoner of war camps such as Andersonville during the American Civil War. Although large numbers of prisoners were concentrated there in horrific conditions from 1863 to 1865, and perhaps a quarter of them died, the prisoners were combatants and the camp is generally classified as a POW camp.
Guantanamo is by no stretch of the imagination a death camp. It is a detention camp. Most of the people held there were captured fighting on the battlefield in Afghanistan for either Al Qaeda or the Taliban. They aren't civilians - they are paramilitary fighters, so Guantanamo is certainly not a concentration camp. You explicitly stated that it was like Nazi concentration camps. Now you are trying to change the subject.
The US government can declare anyone to be an "enemy combatant" and arrest them immediately, even a US citizen on US soil (there are several cases), it's not a court decision and this decision can't be appealed in any court, it's totally arbitrary.
"enemy combatants" can be arrested without being charged of anything, there is no limit to the length of their detention, there is no trial, counseling is not allowed, they can't talk to anyone.
Guantanamo prisoners have had access to lawyers. The US Supreme Court ruled last year that Guantanamo prisoners can appeal in court.
I don't agree with what has happened at Guantanamo, but are you suggesting that Al Qaeda members captured in Afghanistan should have been treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, which would mean that they could not be questioned? Or do you think they should have been arrested and charged with an offence? But in many cases there is no evidence against them of any crime, they were simply captured fighting in Afghanistan. Do you think they should therefore be released on legalistic grounds even though logic tells us that most if not all are Al Qaeda operatives?
I certainly don't approve of the abuses that have taken place at Guantanamo and I don't approve of the way that US residents and people passing through US airports have been sent to Guantanamo on only the vaguest of suspicions, but there is a real problem here with hundreds of Arabs caught fighting in Afghanistan. We all know that despite their implausible claims to have been tourists or 'unofficial' aid workers, the truth is that most of them are Al Qaeda terrorists. Should they really be freed, as fashionable opinion demands? Isn't there a fair risk that they will commit atrocities like the bombings in Bali and Madrid? Should we just accept that?
spyretto
23-01-2005, 19:14
If you stand by your comparison between German death camps and Cuba, you've lost me. Those camps were not for holding prisoners and interrogation, they were camps for killing men, women and children wiping out an entire race of people and those too weak to fend for themselves such as mentally ill, elderly, gays, jehovah's witness and gypsies. If you want to compare concentration camps such as the detainment of the Japanese during WW II, that might make more sense. Why don't you just address G-bay for what it is? I agree that the US should abide by Geneva convention in detaining prisoners. Prisoners in Cuba have long since been "interrogated" and the Red Cross found no violation of human rights in their last visits except "lack of socialization" and some prisoners were refusing to eat. Having said that, war is not pretty and if "advanced techniques of interrogation" will save American lives and help us to locate enemy strongholds and intelligence, then this is war not the Beverly Hills Hilton. I don't think you have to humiliate prisoners in the way US soldiers did in Baghdad and those soldiers and officers should be punished but I have no problem with sleep deprivation and fear tactics to get information. I am sure that Haku is just using "hyberboles" and I am trying to see through them to get the point. It is just comparisons between the madness of Hitler and the US aren't that funny and make no valid point. Remember, Nazis, Communism, socialistic philosophy and facsism are European concepts not born in the US. That is your area of expertise.
It's an interesting analogy but it doesn't get us anywhere because you keep on referring to things that happened 60 years ago to support your argument that everything the US does are "necessary evils". So I could take you back 40 years ago and start talking about the Vietnam war and the "advanced techniques" you used back then but it won't get us anywhere either. The fact of the matter remains that you don't have a very good reputation when it comes to human rights and you can't keep those critics at bay who say that you're using double standards. But it's an interesting discussion and at least gives us an insight into the way warmongers think.
I don't agree with what has happened at Guantanamo, but are you suggesting that Al Qaeda members captured in Afghanistan should have been treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, which would mean that they could not be questioned? Or do you think they should have been arrested and charged with an offence? But in many cases there is no evidence against them of any crime, they were simply captured fighting in Afghanistan. Do you think they should therefore be released on legalistic grounds even though logic tells us that most if not all are Al Qaeda operatives?
Absolutely, if they were captured fighting in Afghanistan and no other charge can be brought against them, what are they then? They should be kept and treated under the Geneva Convention and released once the war is over. This is how it is on a conventional war.
Of course, under Bush's war, things might be quite different.
If you stand by your comparison between German death camps and Cuba, you've lost me.There is a difference between concentration camps and extermination camps (http://www.holocaust-education.dk/lejre/koncudd.asp).
The first Nazi concentration camp (http://www.holocaust-education.dk/tidslinjer.asp) was created in Dachau in 1933. At first Dachau started like Guantanamo, it was just a way to gather all sorts of "unwanted" people that couldn't be arrested for valid reasons, so they were just sent to Dachau.
The process of forced labor and extermination will only begin several years later.
Americans seem to think that totalitarianism *can not* happen in the US, that it's impossible, that they are above that, it's a "European specialty" like you said yourself (But aren't most Americans descendants of Europeans? And haven't those first Americans massacred the original inhabitants?). So only Europeans can generate totalitarianism? It can't ever happen in the US?
And yet Bush has reduced the civil liberties of Americans, and most Americans have agreed to it, Bush has created the detention camp of Guantanamo where people can be sent without being charged of any crime, and most Americans have agreed to it.
Americans have accepted to have their liberties reduced, to give more power to their leader, and to see some of their principles violated because of "exceptional circumstances"... Ooh, we've heard that excuse so many times in history! America is on a dangerous slope, and if a lot of Europeans are reacting so strongly, it may be because it has happened to us before in our own history, we are the "experts" after all, like you said, aren't we?
Cesar himself started as an democratically elected leader, haha, he was appointed "Dictator of the Roman Republic" by the Senate because of "exceptional circumstances", some "external threats to the Republic", but at the end of his mandate he decided that he didn't want to leave.
Bush is not Cesar though, Cesar was a brilliant tactician and a man of great culture.
George Bush isn't Adolf Hitler. Dachau was set up in 1933 to imprison politicians and activists of opposition political parties (mainly the Social Democrats). Members of the Democratic Party like John Kerry haven't been sent to Guantanamo. Your comparisons are hysterical.
Haku, you are so funny! I am not one that believes that US is not vulnerable to totalitarianism and I do agree that Europeans have a lot of wisdom to share with regard to the dangers of the loss of civil liberties. The recent Patriot Act has alarmed many of us as an exchange of liberty for security. We have the technology available to be much more effective in the fight against terrorism. However, the price is loss of personal freedom. I am concerned. But, as usual, you make a valid point and then you swallow a tree. Bush is as cultered as any US president of this century. You could go so far as to say that the Bush family has dominated politics and American cultural values in a way not seen since John Kennedy. He just doesn't happen to have the same cultural values as you. BTW - Most heads of state visiting the White House have been very honored to share a moment with the president. Have you been to the US? Caesar might be a little intimated by the cultural sophistication of the first family, if he wasn't so busy being stabbed in the back by his so-called friends.
ypsidan04
23-01-2005, 20:45
I have to agree with Spy. bpro50, have you forgotten that without France's help during the Revolutionary War we would not be The United States of America? We would be like Canada, Australia, ect. and have to pledge or alligence to the Queen of England. So actually the US should be "kissing" France's ass...
Yeah, that's very true. A comedian I was watching the other day was saying how when he went to Britain, that when people found out he was American, they kinda gave him a funny look. He said they must still be pissed about the Revolutionary War. "Because there were like...3 of us, and they still lost!" :p But seriously, the French jumped at the chance to help the colonists because they wouldn't turn down a chance at humiliating the British. :p
To compare even the milder Nazi concentration camps to Guantanamo is wild exaggeration.
One wonders how you can make this statement, not knowing a thing about what is really going on at Guantanamo.
Is that American ideals? I must have missed something in their constitution.
That would be the USAPATRIOT Act. :rolleyes: :mad:
Guantanamo prisoners have had access to lawyers. The US Supreme Court ruled last year that Guantanamo prisoners can appeal in court
It shouldn't have taken them 2 or 3 years to do that, though.
Americans have accepted to have their liberties reduced, to give more power to their leader, and to see some of their principles violated because of "exceptional circumstances"...
"Those who would give up liberties for the perception of temporary security deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin. Way ahead of his time.
Cesar himself started as an democratically elected leader, haha, he was appointed "Dictator of the Roman Republic" by the Senate because of "exceptional circumstances", some "external threats to the Republic", but at the end of his mandate he decided that he didn't want to leave.
Bush is not Cesar though, Cesar was a brilliant tactician and a man of great culture
I like that. :D
George Bush isn't Adolf Hitler. Dachau was set up in 1933 to imprison politicians and activists of opposition political parties (mainly the Social Democrats). Members of the Democratic Party like John Kerry haven't been sent to Guantanamo. Your comparisons are hysterical.
POINT IS that "Concentration camps" and "Extermination or Death Camps" are often used interchangably, but the fact is that they are not the same thing. Not even close. Clearly what we have in SE Cuba is a Concentration Camp. The original statement was:
Bush has created the Guantanamo detention camp which is similar to a Nazi concentration camp
But then someone misunderstands, or wrongly assumes those two terms are in fact interchangable:
That statement is totally outrageous. The Nazis and Soviets sent millions of people to their deaths in concentration camps and gulags. Guantanamo is very unpleasant, but it's not a means of mass murder. Try to keep a sense of proportion!
Haku made no mistake.
Spy (Quote)
"It's an interesting analogy but it doesn't get us anywhere because you keep on referring to things that happened 60 years ago to support your argument that everything the US does are "necessary evils". So I could take you back 40 years ago and start talking about the Vietnam war and the "advanced techniques" you used back then but it won't get us anywhere either. The fact of the matter remains that you don't have a very good reputation when it comes to human rights and you can't keep those critics at bay who say that you're using double standards. But it's an interesting discussion and at least gives us an insight into the way warmongers think."
************************************************** ************************
You need to find someone else to find out the "way warmongers think". I am no more a warmonger than you would be classified as a pacifist coward. And you are not a coward are you? I did not feel strongly that we should attack Iraq. I knew that Sadaam was a threat and that we had crippled him significantly during the Persian Gulf war. I also felt that if he had WMDs or the potential to develop them, he would. Further, I saw him and his sons as a long term threat to Israel. I wish that we would have held out longer and continued to work the process through the UN. However, once we committed troops to Iraq and removed Sadaam from power, I knew that we had to finish the job. Our soldiers need US support to finish the transformation process and turn the control back to the Iraqis. I don't want one more US soldier to lose his life, especially with the climate being what it is right now. We are there, we need to finish business and go home. To not finish the transition is the worst of all possible worlds and would most likely lead to a civil war between Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions. The worst thing I can do for the troops that are committed to their task is to withdraw support. So, Spy, I'm talking about today and not 60 years ago. What do we do at this point in Iraq? Have any tenable ideas? And, btw, since you want to label everyone, all I see from your post is standard liberal rhetoric that you can get on CNN any day of the week. No value. Just liberal rhetoric I've heard all my life.
spyretto
23-01-2005, 21:56
I consider myself as a pacifist coward indeed. I don't think I have a problem with being labelled as such. So are you a warmonger by your own analogy?
Yes, I do not disagree that my rhetoric is liberal crap while your rhetoric is warmongering crap. Let the world decide which one is preferable. I don't watch CNN though.
The troops follow orders, taken by the military leaders based on strategies taken by the political leaders. I don't think they have anything to do with decisions taken in Iraq.
So you invaded Afghanistan as a response to 9/11. You then invaded Iraq not because Saddam was a more serious threat than others but because his regime was isolated. Being deprived of friends Saddam was an easy target. Your propaganda that it was really the Saddam regime that you were targetting is falling through though. You have failed to convince the Iraqi people of your pure intentions and you're failing to convince the world, especially the Arab world who now see you as a potential threat for the whole region. If "finishing the job" entails the installation of a puppet government and the control of the natural recources of Iraq, then I guess the job has not finished yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khartoun2004
I have to agree with Spy. bpro50, have you forgotten that without France's help during the Revolutionary War we would not be The United States of America? We would be like Canada, Australia, ect. and have to pledge or alligence to the Queen of England. So actually the US should be "kissing" France's ass...
************************************************** ***************************
Agree, with you Khartoun2004, our history books teach that France was a major allie during the Revolutionary War and I for one am very appreciative. Thanks France.
I have a problem though, I have never heard anyone from France acknowledge our help. Do they teach anything in French history about the US helping France?
Khartoun2004
23-01-2005, 22:02
Liberal Rhetoric? We wouldn't be in the position we're in if it wasn't for conservative warmongering rhetoric like Spy said. True, control needs to be given back to the Iraqis... but how can that happen when the military is saying that 4 provinces are not stable enough to allow safe voting to occur and yet Bush is still pushing for elections by the end of the month. I'm sorry but contrary to Bush's opinion I think that an illigitamet election is worse than no election at all. And how can the US think that we can run fair elections in Iraq when we couldn't get it right 4 fucking years ago? The fact of the matter is that the US is quickly losing its political, and economic domination of the world. The dollar has lost 1/3 of its valueand the Euro is now the most stable currency in the world. This so called War on Terror is going to destroy our super power status and we will most likely follow in the Soviet Unions foot steps. Welcome to the 21 century where a unified Europe is in control.
I consider myself as a pacifist coward indeed. I don't think I have a problem with being labelled as such. So are you a warmonger by your own analogy?
The troops follow orders, taken by the military leaders based on strategies taken by the political leaders. I don't think they have anything to do with decisions taken in Iraq.
So you invaded Afghanistan as a response to 9/11. You then invaded Iraq not because Saddam was a more serious threat than others but because his regime was isolated. Being deprived of friends Saddam was an easy target. Your propaganda that it was really the Saddam regime that you were targetting is falling through though. You have failed to convince the Iraqui people of your pure intentions and you're failing to convince the world, especially the Arab world who now see you as a potential threat for the whole region. If "finishing the job" entails the installation of a puppet government and the control of the natural recources of Iraq, then I guess the job has not finished yet.
No, that what I was trying to tell you. I am not a warmonger. I wasn't using an analogy. I was saying that I would not call you a coward and I don't think you are. I just think you like to play word games. You aren't answering my question though. I know where you stand on why the US made a mistake being in Iraq but you can't get past that. I ask you what should be done now. What is your solution?
Khartoun2004
23-01-2005, 22:11
Agree, with you Khartoun2004, our history books teach that France was a major allie during the Revolutionary War and I for one am very appreciative. Thanks France.
I have a problem though, I have never heard anyone from France acknowledge our help. Do they teach anything in French history about the US helping France?
The French have helped us in the past. During the Cold War the french allowed us to put nukes in the country which were pointed at Eastern Germany and several other block countries. The French helped us during 1998 when we were bombing Yugoslavia. So where do you get off saying the French haven't helped us? They have helped us when our actions were legal and justified. I don't blame them for not helping us with Iraq, the war is illegal.
Liberal Rhetoric? We wouldn't be in the position we're in if it wasn't for conservative warmongering rhetoric like Spy said. True, control needs to be given back to the Iraqis... but how can that happen when the military is saying that 4 provinces are not stable enough to allow safe voting to occur and yet Bush is still pushing for elections by the end of the month. I'm sorry but contrary to Bush's opinion I think that an illigitamet election is worse than no election at all. And how can the US think that we can run fair elections in Iraq when we couldn't get it right 4 fucking years ago? The fact of the matter is that the US is quickly losing its political, and economic domination of the world. The dollar has lost 1/3 of its valueand the Euro is now the most stable currency in the world. This so called War on Terror is going to destroy our super power status and we will most likely follow in the Soviet Unions foot steps. Welcome to the 21 century where a unified Europe is in control.
I sure hope the Europeans can get control. I would prefer just to use US tax dollars here at home. And, as US dollars lose value to the Euros, we trade less, improve trade balance and Americans stay at home. Go Europe! They prosper, we prosper.
I don't see the US going the way of the Soviet Union. The Soviets went broke and did not have the wealth nor the infrastructure to endure and arms race. We did and we do.
The French have helped us in the past. During the Cold War the french allowed us to put nukes in the country which were pointed at Eastern Germany and several other block countries. The French helped us during 1998 when we were bombing Yugoslavia. So where do you get off saying the French haven't helped us? They have helped us when our actions were legal and justified. I don't blame them for not helping us with Iraq, the war is illegal.
We are not communicating, I am saying that we have acknowledged French support and I'll include the comments you just submitted. I am just wondering if the French ever acknowledge US support in its history?
They - and we- have acknowledged your contribution to winning the war countless of times before. Every time there are D-Day celebrations you're being mentioned and called for.That war was a collective defensive effort to get rid the world from fascism, against an expansionist force. Your war seems to be against isolated regimes. - unless we ackowledge the possibility that your war is against Islam. So you haven't made it quite clear what your war is about. Are you intending to go against the other countries that form the "axis of evil" once the situation in Iraq is controllable? We don't know, all we get from Bush is freedom propaganda.
My solution is to go back to the United Nations and seek a pact with the rest of the Arab countries. But you said already that diplomacy doesn't work and force is the way forward.
I rest my case...
I am not quite sure what you mean. What kind of a pact are you referring to with the rest of the Arab world? An agreement to end hostilities? I am afraid that we may be on the verge of Arab world-wide conflict. And I wonder, what will happen in Iran after or during our stay in Iraq. I think that the mindset is that we have extended ourselves far enough but lately Iran has been in the news quite a lot. I am for diplomacy if there is some "pact" that will solve all of the problems that are facing us. What do you mean?
I am just wondering if the French ever acknowledge US support in its history?Of course we do, the decisive role of the US in WWII is taught in every school to every children.
I live in Normandy, D-Day is celebrated every year, and every 10 year there are even bigger celebrations. There are countless monuments everywhere in remembrance of the event and the dead, including Americans of course. There are countless streets that have been named after D-Day and Americans. There are American flags everywhere, even more than French flags in some parts i'm sure, lol (we are not big on national flags here, you only find them on a few public buildings). Normandy beaches are still even named after the names the American gave them "Juno Beach, Omaha Beach, Utah Beach, etc..." And of course there are dozens of Military cemetaries with thousands of American graves.
The largest museum on D-Day (http://www.memorial-caen.fr/portail/decouverte/im_galerie/A05_big.jpg), in Caen.
This museum even has a part on 9/11 (http://www.memorial-caen.fr/portail/decouverte/im_galerie/A10_big.jpg), with a relic of the WTC.
More pics. (http://www.memorial-caen.fr/portail/decouverte/galerie.asp)
View of American graves (http://www.memorial-caen.fr/portail/decouverte/im_galerie/D10_big.jpg) somewhere in Normandy.
As you can see, we take good care of it.
Is that enough for you?
Is that enough for you?
I was just wondering. In America, we learn of the French resistance in WWII whenever Germany occupied Paris and the leadership of Charles De Gaulle from England. There are stories of his arrogance and resentment of the US military command. In short, I have always heard of the underlying negative sentiment that the French have toward the US and wondered if France even acknowledged that the US ever did anything for them. Additionally, there is a suspicion that I have that hatred toward America runs deeper in history than just the Bush administration.
Thanks for your feedback.
PowerPuff Grrl
24-01-2005, 01:58
You aren't answering my question though. I know where you stand on why the US made a mistake being in Iraq but you can't get past that. I ask you what should be done now. What is your solution?
I know this wasn't directed to me but I am going to answer it anyhow.
Colin Powell, as we all know, was the only member in the administration who disapproved (though not publically) to the invasion of Iraq because he said that there was no exit strategy. He said the same thing to Bush Sr. during the Gulf War.
Now I know this isn't a very popular opinion, but dagnabit I'm going to say it; the world was safer with Saddam Hussein still in power. Yes he supported terrorism, but not any from his country. Like any dictator, he would never support anything that would rival his power. Kind of like Assad of Syria who slaughter 20,000 Sunni Muslims because they were starting to revolt against his government. The international community could count on the fact the Syria and Iraq would never produce any terrorists. Not so much with Iraq now. In any case, the thing about Saddam is that he treated everybody indiscriminately like shit. His name was once Saddam Tikriti Hussien, "Tikriti" being a prominent Sunni family name. He dropped that later in his life so that he would not tied or obligated to anything. And Kurds were only slaughtered after he knew that they fought with the States and Iran. He is psychotic, but not crazy. His sons on the other hand; shudder.
I am stretching it a bit here when I say this but Iraq was better off with Saddam in power. We all know Saddam was not a humanitarian, but he provided stability which is more important than anything else. Fortunately, I have never been in an unstable nation but I have heard sooo many terrifying stories from my parents, relatives, friends' parents and so on about countries going through revolutions, there is always a period, a power vacuum that produces a completely absence of authority, law and, of course, stability. Of all the memories that have benn recounted to me always one thing pops up, people prefer to live in an authoritative country than anarchy. I am not going to go into the details of why this is, none of us have or, hopefully, will ever experience it, so to describe it would be impossible. It is no coincidence that people Aghanis thought before Allied troops landed there, the Taliban was the best government they had in centuries and this is only because of the stability they provided.
The second the last American soldier leaves Iraqi soil, Iraq will be in utter chaos. So, bpro50, here is my suggestion (not like it matters) of what the US military can do; stay as long as possible. Colin Powell is still right, there is no exit strategy.
The reason why the British are known as being great nation builders (though I think otherwise) is because they have patience. India would not be the world's largest democracy had the British not stayed for generations.
Even the States have contributed so much because of their preserverance. Had the US military not have been stationed in Berlin for over 50 years, the Soviet Union would've swallowed all of Europe. Had the US military not have stayed in South Korea, North Korea would've overtaken it. And had the US military stayed in Iran, surely Iran would not be country we now know it to be.
Stay in Iraq, forget this bullshit election you know it isn't going to work, just install a Pinochet-like Iraqi and rule with an iron fist. All of those Iraqi soldiers that worked under Saddam that the US laid off, yeah, enlist them, form a new military under the guidance of the US military. Yes I know they are now the insurgents attacking your troops but nobody can resist a paycheck from a formidable government. And the former Iraqi beaurocracy that used to be run by the Baath party, hire them back. They know better than anybody how to run the country. Same with the doctors, nurses, police officers, sanitation workers, etc. Practically get all of the people that the US cut off, thinking contractors can replace them. As you can see, they obviously can't.
Of course this will all be temporary (and by temporary, I mean twenty years minimum), this will only bring back the stability Iraq once had. Once Iraq achieves this stability, then you can talk elections and democracy.
PS: When I say Iraq/world is better with Saddam in power, I'm only comparing it relatively to how Iraq is like now. It can get better.
I was just wondering. In America, we learn of the French resistance in WWII whenever Germany occupied Paris and the leadership of Charles De Gaulle from England. There are stories of his arrogance and resentment of the US military command. In short, I have always heard of the underlying negative sentiment that the French have toward the US and wondered if France even acknowledged that the US ever did anything for them. Additionally, there is a suspicion that I have that hatred toward America runs deeper in history than just the Bush administration.Well, you're right, it's rooted in WWII and the distrust between De Gaulle and Eisenhower.
De Gaulle and Churchill were best buds, but it was not the same thing with Eisenhower. Eisenhower didn't trust De Gaulle, he thought that De Gaulle was like Franco in Spain and would create a military dictatorship in France if he gained power. At first Eisenhower didn't want anything to do with De Gaulle and didn't recognize him as the leader of the Free French Forces, Eisenhower even tried to put another French general in De gaulle's place. To make a long story short, it didn't work because Churchill and the French Resistance both supported De Gaulle, not that other General.
From that point, the relations between De Gaulle and Eisenhower became sour, and they only worked together because they had to, for a time.
De Gaulle and Eisenhower had different plans for after the liberation of France. Eisenhower planned to install a provisional American administration in France until new elections could be organized (again to prevent De Gaulle from taking power because he still thought that De Gaulle would become a dictator), this provisional American administration was prepared way before D-Day and their staff were supposed to start administering French cities right after Allied forces would liberate them.
Eisenhower hadn't said anything about this to De Gaulle, but De Gaulle learned of this plan from the British who conveniently "leaked" the information.
De Gaulle made a counter plan with the French Resistance, his plan was simple, the French Resistance simply had to go faster than the Americans and cease the administrative centers before the Americans could arrive.
It was sort of a race, and in the end De Gaulle won, and Eisenhower was unable to install his provisional administration.
Needless to say, at that point the relations between De Gaulle and Eisenhower were far from "cordiale".
After that, De Gaulle and Eisenhower who totally distrust each other became presidents of their respective countries, and their mutual disdain is largely responsible for the gap that appeared between the two countries, a gap that did not exist before WWII.
De Gaulle ended up trusting the Germans much more than the Americans, which is probably the most ironic consequence of all this, but also the foundation for the European Union, but that's another story.
Great story Haku. History takes another dance. Well, I am sorry that Ike was so distrustful. Wonder why Ike distrusted De Gaulle so much? Could have been that long nose. De Gaulle liked Kennedy though so I guess that time heals some wounds.
P.S. Your story intriqued me so I did a little research and it looks like they made up after de Gaulle took office. I found a CIA log of a meeting between the US, USSR, GB and France, and it states more than once that there was mutual affection between Ike and de Gaulle:
"Khrushchev jumped to his feet and said that unless Eisenhower apologized he would not come. De Gaulle looked at him as one would look at a naughty child and announced that the conference would meet on the following day. Khrushchev, accompanied by his whole delegation, strode out of the room and down the stairs. The other delegations looked at one another. De Gaulle said that he would stay in touch with the Russians. All then rose and started out of the room. De Gaulle came over to Eisenhower and took him by the arm. He took me also by the elbow and, taking us a little apart, he said to Eisenhower, "I do not know what Khrushchev is going to do, nor what is going to happen, but whatever he does, I want you to know that I am with you to the end." I was astounded at this statement, and Eisenhower was clearly moved by his unexpected expression of unconditional support. Only the three of us heard it, but it remains vivid in my mind to this day 15 years later. Eisenhower thanked de Gaulle, who walked down the stairs with him to his car. As we entered the car, Eisenhower, still upset by the whole episode, looked at me and said of de Gaulle, "He's quite a guy." We drove the short distance to the U.S. Embassy Residence, then on Avenue d'Ina, where the U.S. delegation went into a meeting to decide what to do next. "
And, this next quotation sheds additional light at least for me:
"At the time of the fall of France in 1940, Dwight Eisenhower was a lieutenant colonel in command of a regiment. In June 1942, by now promoted to General, he was appointed commander of US forces in Great Britain. General de Gaulle met him for the first time on 22 July 1942. Eisenhower, tasked with preparing the Anglo-American landings in North Africa, had been told to keep de Gaulle and the Free French out of the picture.
De Gaulle encountered Eisenhower again as commander on chief on his arrival in Algeria in May 1943. Eisenhower was constrained in his relations with de Gaulle by the orders he had received from President Roosevelt, who was very hostile to the General, but a mutual understanding and esteem sprang up between the two soldiers, each carrying heavy political responsibilities. For de Gaulle, Eisenhower was "a man of a generous heart who felt that mysterious sympathy which, for almost two centuries, has bound his country close to mine" (War Memoirs). Eisenhower, for his part, was struck by de Gaulle's "powerful personality" alongside which "others seemed like cowards". "
Interesting! Looks like Roosevelt might have been a root cause is this exchange between the US and France. Cool stuff.
Wonder why Ike distrusted De Gaulle so much?Well, Eisenhower was not the only one, the French socialists and communists also thought that De Gaulle wanted to create a military dictatorship, haha, i guess there was something about him.
When De Gaulle wrote the new constitution that founded the French 5th Republic in 1958 which gave much more power to the president, the socialists and communists were hysterical and almost ready to launch a second revolution, they were convinced that this was the beginning of De Gaulle's dictatorship.
De Gaulle escaped several assassination attempts and defeated at least one coup d'etat, lots of people didn't like him.
Anyway, history has shown that De Gaulle was not a dictator, he was far from a liberal, but not a dictator.
PS: I read your PS and made some research myself, and it seems that the distrust for De Gaulle actually came from Rossevelt, and that Eisenhower during the war was merely reflecting Rossevelt's opinion (wich makes sense since Eisenhower was after all under Rossevelt's orders.
If you type "Rossevelt De Gaulle distrust" in Google you get over a 1000 replies, haha.
So yeah, once Rossevelt was dead, i guess De Gaulle and Eisenhower made up. That being said, i've always heard in documentaries that De Gaulle always bore a grudge against the US administration for not trusting him during WWII and that it is what caused the gap between the two countries.
I do remember that De Gaulle was not invited to the Yalta Conference in 1945 between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. Roosevelt didn't want De Gaulle there and it's a well known fact in French history that De Gaulle was furious about that, he never forgave that he was kept away from those crucial discussions.
I aslo remember for example that at first the US were opposed to France having a permanent seat at the UN security council, and again it's the British who convinced the Americans that France should have a permanent seat (something Bush and Blair must have regreted 2 years ago, lol), another thing that quite annoyed De Gaulle.
Well, there is even more data that confuses me. It appears that Churchill turned his back on de Gaulle and Ike and de Gaulle remained extremely close:
De Gaulle, on whom Churchill had now turned his back, confirmed to Eisenhower his total rejection of the AMGOT (Allied Military Government for Occupied Territories) proposal : "Fighting France cannot associate itself with any occupation of the national soil". The American understood the deep-rooted feelings which motivated the General and treated them with consideration, even occasionally running counter to his instructions from Washington as a result. Instances included the participation of French forces in the Italy campaign, the use of the 2nd Armoured Division in the Normandy landings and its deployment in the liberation of Paris and also in the defence of Strasbourg when the Germans counterattacked in the Ardennes. In such circumstances, Eisenhower was capable of making allowances for the national imperatives behind de Gaulle's position. On 28 May 1945, only a few days after the victory, General de Gaulle marked his gratitude by decorating General Eisenhower with the medal of the Croix de la Libération (Cross of the Liberation).
In the light of that history, when General de Gaulle welcomed Eisenhower to France in September 1959 as the recently-elected President of the USA, he set aside the serious differences created by the divergent interests of the two countries, especially on the issue of NATO, to show his particular regard for his guest and speak warm words of welcome. De Gaulle never failed in later days to keep his US counterpart fully informed of France's plans regarding the Algerian situation, and its intention to develop nuclear weapons.
The relationship between the two men never lost the warm tones of an exchange between two old companions in arms. During de Gaulle's visit to the USA in April 1960, Eisenhower invited him to his Gettysburg farm. In the course of the evening, Eisenhower thanked de Gaulle for having helped him to avoid a defeat by convincing him not to evacuate Alsace during the winter of 1944-1945. "You asked me not to take that decision. A few months later, the Allies would have arrived at Yalta with a defeat behind them… Thank you once again, General !"
The close links between the two men were expressed in a letter from Eisenhower to de Gaulle, dated May 1960, after the failure of the Paris Summit engineered by Khrushchev. "I take away with me from Paris the warmth and strength of your friendship, which I appreciate now more than ever… and I have for you yourself a respect and an admiration that I feel for few other men." De Gaulle made a point of attending the funeral of President Eisenhower on 30 March 1969, only a few days prior to his departure from the Elysée Palace.
spyretto
24-01-2005, 14:31
I am not quite sure what you mean. What kind of a pact are you referring to with the rest of the Arab world? An agreement to end hostilities? I am afraid that we may be on the verge of Arab world-wide conflict. And I wonder, what will happen in Iran after or during our stay in Iraq. I think that the mindset is that we have extended ourselves far enough but lately Iran has been in the news quite a lot. I am for diplomacy if there is some "pact" that will solve all of the problems that are facing us. What do you mean?
Well, there doesn't seem to be an easy way out of Iraq - unless the hostilities miraculously end once a new government is installed, but I don't think it's going to happen. In the meantime it all points out to a major attack during the elections. How do you carry out elections while the country is in disarray and people's security is threatened every day, and how fair will these elections be? By the way, I can't say I harbour hatred towards America, just a general antipathy because you always want to have it your way, which is accentuated by the current political climate. I have no personal interest in hating America and all that could change of course. It's a blessing that the democratic process will not allow the same person to serve more than two terms in office. Imagine what would happen if George Bush and his cabinet were in a position to serve for another term, and maybe another after that. It's also embarassing for the Democrats to not be able to sway the American public under the present circumstances.
Nothing against Bush, I guess he's a swell guy as you described, it's just his politics that I don't really like.
Will you seek the UN's approval if and when you decide to democratise Iran? ;)
Will you seek the UN's approval if and when you decide to democratise Iran? ;)
I was thinking that the European community and Russia were laying the groundwork for diplomacy in Iran and a peaceful solution. I know that the US will seek to join in with its "allies" but I honestly don't know if the current effort is being orchastrated within or outside of the UN. On the other point of "democratizing" I think old arguments mandating military effort get really old really fast. In the case of Iran, I think it will be directlry related to the nuclear capability and not so subtle threats to use them. Same with N Korea. As inflamatory remarks escalate, the US gets nervous quickly. Especially with the use of nuclear weapons. There seems to be a consensus amongst the current nuclear community to keep other countries from developing their first or additional weapons of mass destruction, however unfair that may seem. But, that is not just a US policy, right?
ypsidan04
24-01-2005, 22:25
He is psychotic, but not crazy.
Please explain the difference, because I see none.
And had the US military stayed in Iran, surely Iran would not be country we now know it to be.
Huh? I assume you're talking about the Iraq-Iran War. And we we're on Iraq's side because that was not long after the Iranians took our embassy workers hostage.
spyretto
24-01-2005, 23:12
Huh? I assume you're talking about the Iraq-Iran War. And we we're on Iraq's side because that was not long after the Iranians took our embassy workers hostage.
But wasn't the official position of the White House the one of nutrality?
I'm not sure but I think you were initially on Iran's side and changed sides along the way?
That's why it took them so long to codemn Iraq's daily use of chemical weapons while they had full knowledge of what was happening.
By the way, looking at Iran entry on wikipedia.com I stumbled across this bit:
During the 19th century Persia came under pressure from both Russia and the United Kingdom and a process of modernisation began that continued into the 20th century. Iranians longed for change and this resulted in the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905/1911. In 1953, Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who had been elected to parliament in 1923 and again in 1944, and who had been prime minister since 1951, was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies ("Operation Ajax"). Many scholars suspect that this ouster was motivated by British-US opposition to Mossadeq's attempt to nationalize Iran's oil. Following Mossadeq's fall, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) grew increasingly dictatorial. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernised Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule, including systematic torture and other human rights violations, led to the Iranian revolution and overthrow of his regime in 1979. After over a year of struggle between a variety of different political groups, an Islamic republic was established under the Ayatollah Khomeini.
I mean, I'm so ignorant when it comes to world politics, and surely not knowleadgable as to how many democratic regimes the US & Brits have crushed around the world in the course of history. :bum: :gigi:
ypsidan04
24-01-2005, 23:33
I mean, I'm so ignorant when it comes to world politics, and surely not knowleadgable as to how many democratic regimes the US & Brits have crushed around the world in the course of history. :bum: :gigi:
I can give you a short review of the "interventions" the US has made in the last hundred years. This is some of my own input on another forum and some info from the most recent Michael Moore book, which I have a copy of:
Bush just loves Saudi Arabia, because he is best buddies with their Royal family, and they have the largest oil reserves in the world. We're willing to overlook their oppressive regime which is one of the worst Human Rights abusers on the face of the Earth, as long as they keep giving us oil and money. We've even replaced
democratically-elected presidents with leaders more to our liking who turned out to be authoritarian. Here's more examples:
Cambodia: After the Vietnam War, the United States decided to support Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge just because he was he was different from the communists in Vietnam, who had just almost defeated the US. Then he killed millions of his own people.
The Congo (formerly Zaire): We supported Mobutu Sese-Seko from the get go. The Government didn't like the previous leader, so they helped Mobutu get to power, let the previous leader be knowingly assassinated, and then they put down subsequent
uprisings. With the approval of many Presidents in a row, he outlawed political parties, and killed his own people.
Brazil: Democratically-elected president Goulart did not make the US happy. Regardless of the fact that he supported the US
in the Cuban missile crisis, the United States supported a revolution, and the aftermath brought torture and killing.
Indonesia: The US has always been friendly to the country with the largest amount of Muslims in the world. In 1965, another
elected president was overthrown with US help, and another militant dictator was put in: General Suharto. He had absolute
rule for 30 years, with our support. And the US didn't have a problem with the takeover of East Timor either (now independent
again). 200,000 people died in East Timor alone.
Plus: Guatemala, Iran, Chile, and CHINA. China is the current #1 on the charts. Their government limits the media, the Internet, workers rights, religious freedom, and independent thinking. They also have a corrupt judicial system which ignores rule of law. Just a great place to do business. There are 400 McDonalds in China, and twice as many KFCs (and this is now out of date, I recently read how the Chinese demand for KFC's is booming, so they are opening many more establishments :rolleyes: ). The trade imbalance between the US and China is the largest ever. We get from China 6 times the amount that China gets from us. WalMart alone is a bigger Chinese trading partner than the whole of Russia and the whole of Great Britain. Both Governments make a mint from the trade relationship. But the US is willing to overlook the fact that the Chinese government lynches people in so called Mobile Killing Vans (I didnt believe it either, but the source is Amnesty Int'l). No, they dont lynch people. Lynching is when a suspected criminal is killed without trial. They just kill your average citizens. I guess you'd call that government-sponsored murder.
spyretto
25-01-2005, 00:43
I'd like to add another one. Unsurprisingly I'd add:
Greece
In 1967 the military seized power in a coup d'etat, overthrew the social-democrat government of George Papandreou, senior and established what became known as the Regime of the Colonels, supported by the U.S.A. In 1973 the regime abolished the Greek monarchy. In 1974, dictator Papadopoulos denied help to the USA and as a result the (US/Kissinger) "appointed" a new dictator named Ioannides. Many hold Ioannides responsible for the coup against President Makarios of Cyprus -- the coup seen as the pretext for the first wave of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974.
I'd like to add that the torture of communists was commonplace during Papadopoulos' reign. The island of Makronysos about 5 miles from Athens was the Quantanamo Bay of his regime. In 17th of November 1973 Papadopoulos sent the tanks against the students who had been stationed in the Athens Polytechnic and were broadcasting radio programmes against the regime. 26 students were killed.
However Ioannidis was more ruthless. And he did nothing without the US approval.
So basically the Americans are indirectly responsible for the Turkish invasion on Cyprus as well. They were aware that it'd happen but did nothing to prevent it. But they've apologised since :rolleyes:
And of course their interests on Turkey prevented them from working towards a solution in the last 30 years
Everday I say my prayers and hope that someday the US will be more like Switzerland! Switzerland is my role model now. It is the only way to keep from appearing that we support every thug in the world. The way you correlate Wlamart with China it is only reasonable that it is the US that is lynching the Chinese. Our motives are clearly murder, money and power. No wonder we are considered the Great Satan. We are! If only we could be more like Switzerland, the world would stop all of its cruelty. It took a while to see it but you guys are brilliant.
No wonder we are considered the Great Satan. We are! If only we could be more like Switzerland, the world would stop all of its cruelty.
...just one word to say : "My GOD!" :rolleyes: ....(and this is the first time that I use this smiley for anybody else than me.....shame on me ! :p )
Okay ....I still resist ....The States are Great ...and powerfull and omnipresent okay ...but...for exemple in Greece, even if it helped the Generals to take the power..i don't think it created themselves with their ambition and they goals....
So States gives "help" to some countries , as Urss did , as a lot of other countries did....just for their own interests.....
So to prive The Generals or other regimes which acted not very well from their own crualty or horrible things...would be just a way to "proove agan that , you , the States you are always the Best !!"...hahaha.....you don't have the copyright of cruaulty on this planet guy!.... :D Little pretencious.!!...-kidding ...
PS: just check the foreign policies of Russia , England, France....or even underdevelopped countries and you'll see it's the same...absolutely the same....
ypsidan04
25-01-2005, 23:37
Everday I say my prayers and hope that someday the US will be more like Switzerland! Switzerland is my role model now. It is the only way to keep from appearing that we support every thug in the world. The way you correlate Wlamart with China it is only reasonable that it is the US that is lynching the Chinese. Our motives are clearly murder, money and power. No wonder we are considered the Great Satan. We are! If only we could be more like Switzerland, the world would stop all of its cruelty. It took a while to see it but you guys are brilliant.
Speaking of Walmart, I read quite a bit of bad news about them today:
Walmart is the world's biggest corporation, raking in $220 billion a year (more than the GDP of Israel and Ireland combined0. Of the 10 richest people in the world, 5 of them are Waltons - the family that owns Walmart. Their average employee - and they employ more people than any other company on the Earth - makes $15,000 a year (my edit: that might not mean much to you, but trust me that's not very much money), and most have zero health benefits. The company has been hit with literally thousands of violations of workers' compensation, sex discrimination, and child-labor laws. Their response: "Unions have no place in Wal-Mart". Except in China, where they bow to the government run union.
And oh yeah, they have recently tried at least to build on a Native American burial ground in Hawai'i, and right next to an ancient Aztec ruin in Mexico.
But WalMart is kinda off topic.
noki_the_cat
26-01-2005, 18:07
http://context.themoscowtimes.com/print.php?aid=139228 :(
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/011105.html
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/hambidge/hambidge2.html
spyretto
26-01-2005, 21:11
Everday I say my prayers and hope that someday the US will be more like Switzerland! Switzerland is my role model now. It is the only way to keep from appearing that we support every thug in the world. The way you correlate Wlamart with China it is only reasonable that it is the US that is lynching the Chinese. Our motives are clearly murder, money and power. No wonder we are considered the Great Satan. We are! If only we could be more like Switzerland, the world would stop all of its cruelty. It took a while to see it but you guys are brilliant.
No need to exaggerate. The point was that democracy and autocracy were - and it seems they continue to be - two sides of the same coin of the US foreign policy over the years..nothing more nothing less.
ypsidan04
27-01-2005, 01:24
In their ignorance and arrogance, the Bushists will almost certainly strike at Iran -- despite the fact that even Iranian dissidents support the effort to make their nation a nuclear power and would join the mullahs in retaliation. The result will be a conflict far surpassing the horror and magnitude of the Iraq disaster.
A simple look at the facts can tell you that. Iran is a huge country, slightly larger than Alaska, and over 3 times the size of Iraq. 70 million people live there, while 25 million live in Iraq. Much of its land is comprised of rugged mountains and hills, where as Iraq is mostly river valleys and deserts. And as stated, unlike Iraq, a vast majority of the people have no problem with the current administration.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
Bush also has started prepping his younger brother Jeb as a possible successor in 2008,
Oh don't remind me! :mad:
The magazine also noted that a number of Bush administration officials were leading figures in the Central American operations of the 1980s, such as John Negroponte, who was then U.S. Ambassador to Honduras and is now U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.
Other current officials who played key roles in Central America include Elliott Abrams, who oversaw Central American policies at the State Department and who is now a Middle East adviser on Bush’s National Security Council staff, and Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a powerful defender of the Central American policies while a member of the House of Representatives.
The insurgencies in El Salvador and Guatemala were crushed through the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians. In Guatemala, about 200,000 people perished, including what a truth commission later termed a genocide against Mayan Indians in the Guatemalan highlands. In El Salvador, about 70,000 died including massacres of whole villages, such as the slaughter carried out by a U.S.-trained battalion against hundreds of men, women and children in and around the town of El Mozote in 1981
:(
spyretto
27-01-2005, 01:53
Bush also has started prepping his younger brother Jeb as a possible successor in 2008
muahaha, that's how you beat the system..multinational corporations permitted, Jeb Bush will win the people's vote and be the next president of the free world.
I think I have an idea who's his Secretary of Defense gonna be: good ol' Ramsy :p
Originally Posted by moscowtimes
In their ignorance and arrogance, the Bushists will almost certainly strike at Iran -- despite the fact that even Iranian dissidents support the effort to make their nation a nuclear power and would join the mullahs in retaliation. The result will be a conflict far surpassing the horror and magnitude of the Iraq disaster.
************************************************** ***************************
I don't agree. There would be a different strategy in Iran. I believe Iran is okay as long as it is not validated that the nuclear weapons really do exist. If it is determined that Iran is developing those weapons, the US and probably Israel will do what is necessary to take out the facilities involved. I don't see a full scale occupation which would result in "surpassing the horror", etc, etc. blah, blah, blah. Empty words.
the US and probably Israel will do what is necessary to take out the facilities involved.Which will be an unprovoked act of war on a sovereign country.
spyretto
27-01-2005, 02:51
Is Jeb as cultivated as George bpro50?
I think Iran should be attacked. If we're to safeguard the world from wmd, we can't rely on half measures. Only make sure they're developing these weapons first, to not embarassed yourselves again.
Is Jeb a cultivated as George bpro50?
I think Iran should be attacked. If we're to safeguard the world from wmd, we can't rely on half measures. Only make sure they're developing these weapons first, to not embarassed yourselves again.
I am not a big fan for escalating effort beyond Iraq. I hope Iran ceases development of weapons and does so through diplomacy. And, like you said, "no more embarrassment".
As far as cultural development. Besides the comedic lines that use gwaffs by Bush, what is it that makes people believe that Bush is culturally inept or that he isn't intelligent. He was an above average student from Yale and he really didn't apply himself. I don't really get it. Although Yale is an Ivy league school and people gain entry by connections, its reputation for education is excellent among all schools. I really don't understand. I think it is kind of like Clinton and his reputation for being "slick willy". I believe Mr. Clinton was sincere but it seemed early on that everyone questioned his sincerety when he seemed to be very sincere and passionate to me. It got to where everything he said was questioned by his opponents.
What is lacking in Bush's cultural development? I honestly don't know. BTW - although you have all heard the lines before, Jeb Bush has been clear that he has no intent to run for President and really believe him.
spyretto
27-01-2005, 03:21
His intelligence and language skills are being judged as of a president's, and among presidents not among the common folk. Though it has to be acknowledged that he's made progress lately; and I think it has something to do with memorising the speeches written for him; while before it was obvious he was making it up as he went along...
ypsidan04
27-01-2005, 03:23
As far as cultural development. Besides the comedic lines that use gwaffs by Bush, what is it that makes people believe that Bush is culturally inept or that he isn't intelligent. He was an above average student from Yale and he really didn't apply himself. I don't really get it. Although Yale is an Ivy league school and people gain entry by connections, its reputation for education is excellent among all schools. I really don't understand. I think it is kind of like Clinton and his reputation for being "slick willy". I believe Mr. Clinton was sincere but it seemed early on that everyone questioned his sincerety when he seemed to be very sincere and passionate to me. It got to where everything he said was questioned by his opponents.
What is lacking in Bush's cultural development? I honestly don't know. BTW - although you have all heard the lines before, Jeb Bush has been clear that he has no intent to run for President and really believe him.
Bush, George. "Glad-handing sack of shit." Prissy and sanctimonious hypocrite. Had long-time affair while married to Barbara Bush; hired his mistress as State Dept spokeswoman. Also reported to have enjoyed the favors of "party girls."
Bush, George W. Recovering drunkard (and probably a dry drunk) and cokehead. Not the brightest bulb in the lamp, and in fact couldn’t spell cat if you gave him the “c” and the “a.” The best argument against participatory democracy I know. Hypocritical moralist; Bill Clinton without the brains. Funded a girlfriend's abortion. At odds with his wife over how to treat his daughters' alcoholism. Believes (according to his own words) that only "believers in Jesus" will go to Heaven. Given his performance since being elected, it's now clear that the man is either a pathological liar or holds the American public in such contempt that he doesn't even bother to make his lies credible.
Clinton, Bill. Corrupt gladhanding weasel. (Likable in person.) Horn-dog; reportedly nailed Sharon Stone on election evening. Rumored to have slept with Markie Post and Babs Streisand (while Hillary was visiting her ailing father, no less!). Merkin for Hillary Clinton. Underendowed. Rapist. Reportedly very good at oral sex. Also linked with Elizabeth Gracen, Elizabeth Hurley, Chaka Khan (!), Heidi Klum, and Demi Moore
You be the judge. :D But he got into Yale because his Dad was a Senator. End of story. I've seen a documentary on PBS that showed how while John Kerry was risking his life and winning Purple Hearts, Bush was dodging the draft (I dont blame him, but that's just a glaring disparity between the two), not always showing up for his Alabama National Guard duty, drinking, probably smoking pot, and was an average student, who was a party-hopper. :rolleyes:
About Jeb: "Though Jeb Bush has insisted that he won’t run for president in 2008, the Bush family might find strong reason to encourage Jeb to change his mind, especially if the Iraq War is lingering and George W. has too many file cabinets filled with damaging secrets."
You be the judge. :D But he got into Yale because his Dad was a Senator. End of story. I've seen a documentary on PBS that showed how while John Kerry was risking his life and winning Purple Hearts, Bush was dodging the draft (I dont blame him, but that's just a glaring disparity between the two), not always showing up for his Alabama National Guard duty, drinking, probably smoking pot, and was an average student, who was a party-hopper. :rolleyes:
About Jeb: "Though Jeb Bush has insisted that he won’t run for president in 2008, the Bush family might find strong reason to encourage Jeb to change his mind, especially if the Iraq War is lingering and George W. has too many file cabinets filled with damaging secrets."
All of your "quotes" are so empty and ludicrous they don't even deserve a rebuttal. In fact, your quote on spelling means nothing at all. It is the kind of exaggerated nonsense that really says nothing about Bush's intelligence or anything else. He was a college student that probably did everything that you do. He grew up and he doesn't do that anymore. That is called growing up. I don't judge a man's intelligence or his cultural values by what he did when he was a college student, especially when it comes to alcohol or drugs. We all make those choices during our college years and most of our choices are best put behind us. His beliefs are well known and he is a deeply committed Christian as opposed to some leadership that are agnostic at best and at worst, they are a make themselves to be the ultimate ruler of all. His girls partied in school and had fake id's. That is pretty typical. They both have grown since then and are on their way to being cool people. Why make hateful claims about people just because it is the Euro thing to do. Be different. Try to see things a little different instead of following the herd.
His intelligence and language skills are being judged as of a president's, and among presidents not among the common folk. Though it has to be acknowledged that he's made progress lately; and I think it has something to do with memorising the speeches written for him; while before it was obvious he was making it up as he went along...
Spy, I agree. But those that have worked closely with him generally give him very high marks for intelligence, command of the facts, ability to make complex decisions, and communication. He is not the greatest communicator and he wasn't strong in the debates but that is not all there is to evaluating a man's intellectual capacity. He's obviously not intimated by intellectuals because he surrounds himself with very intelligent people. I think it is all hype from people that just enjoy hating him. It reminds me a lot of when Clinton was president. Republicans were accusing him and Hillary of unbelievable conspiracies and having people killed. It was all unfounded hatred just meant to attack the man. And it was all lies. That is propaganda to me. Just a constant repetition of baseless claims given in the hope that people will believe it if you just keep repeating trash. It ashame, because people sooner or later begin to believe half-truths and lies about others.
Which will be an unprovoked act of war on a sovereign country.
Building nuclear weapons is a violation if UN agreements as well as previous treaties signed and committed to by Iran. The provocation is building nuclear weapons that have only one purpose. Iran will not be given free reign to build nuclear weapons.
spyretto
27-01-2005, 05:31
bpro50, are you for real. You're beginning to remind me when I was defending Bush et al. You can go back and read my debate with luxxi and I hope that makes you feel better.
(this is not a personal attack, just a little observation ;) )
ypsidan04
27-01-2005, 05:33
All of your "quotes" are so empty and ludicrous they don't even deserve a rebuttal. In fact, your quote on spelling means nothing at all. It is the kind of exaggerated nonsense that really says nothing about Bush's intelligence or anything else.
You must have missed the intonation in this:
You be the judge. :D
It's not meant to be dead serious. So why don't you calm down. :rose:
Why make hateful claims about people
Because he makes Richard Nixon look innocent.
just because it is the Euro thing to do.
The "Euro thing to do"? I'm not even going to touch that can of worms.
Again, you be the judge:
"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."
"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."
"Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?"
"Now when we're talking about war, we're really talking about peace"
"WAR IS PEACE" - One of the mottos of The Party in 1984
And more where that came from that you can actually hear! (http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/dishonestdubya/)
And (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/bushmail.html#)
And (http://www.adorablebunnies.com/LOADER/dicksofhazzard.swf)
I'm just full of "propaganda" aren't I? :p pssst...theres more than that too!
And he uses the same words over and over again. His three favorite cliches are "Freedom", "Liberty", and "Justice". In the 2nd inaugural address, he used the words "Freedom" and "Liberty" over a dozen times each! His speech writer needs to have some sense knocked into him.
It ashame, because people sooner or later begin to believe half-truths and lies about others.
I know! Like when people start to believe lies that so and so is an immediate threat to them. When people start to believe that so and so has weapons of mass destruction. When people start to believe that so and so helped to kill 2000 of your own people 3 years ago. We can't have that now can we?
You must have missed the intonation in this:
It's not meant to be dead serious. So why don't you calm down. :rose:
Because I am tired of everyone pushing a bunch of lies about the president. They are not true and not meant to be funny. They are full of hatred and venom.
bpro50, are you for real. You're beginning to remind me when I was defending Bush et al. You can go back and read my debate with luxxi and I hope that makes you feel better.
(this is not a personal attack, just a little observation ;) )
I am more real than all of you that can't think of anything but negative things to say about Bush. I just happen to believe Bush is misunderstood and people are reading him wrong. I will go back and read your debate. Might change my mind about you. BTW - I saw your picture as a kid and thought, "what a cute kid, wonder what happened to him! Why did he grow up to just follow the crowd!" ;)
ypsidan04
27-01-2005, 06:07
I am more real than all of you that can't think of anything but negative things to say about Bush.
- He supports Israel
- He knows how to convince people
- I'm sure envious of his friends
- Most people who acted like he did in college don't get a real job, let alone own a baseball team, an oil company, or become Governor or President.
But other than Israel, I'm really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
ypsidan04, I got to go to bed and get my beauty sleep but like I have said before, every majoir intelligence source in the world believed that Sadaam had WMD. You acknowledge that don't you or do you need proof that GB, France, Israel and Russia had intelligence that supported the belief that Iraq had chemical weapons and were developing a comprehensive nuclear weapons program. Now, if this is the intelligence provided by the "world", then it is not a "lie" for people such as Colin Powell to stand before the UN and state these beliefs as a basis for pre-emptive advancements against Iraq. Do you understand? The position from the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and the National Security Adviser was based on CIA intelligence in concert with other intelligence throughout the world. That, by definition, is not a half-truth. What you are proposing is what I would define as a half-truth. Were there no WMD's? None found to date. Did we base our decision on a lie? No. You got about 1/2 of it. Get it?
As far as the Presidents speech, you are kidding aren't you. Every president creates a general theme and used repetitive lanquage as emphasis of that theme. You know that, don't you? Look at previous inagural speeches and see what you find. As far as your selection of mistakes that the president makes it reminds me of the Quale jokes. Before it was all over, Quale was given credit for every stupid statement ever made in the history of human language. It is all a scheme to undermine the president and it makes me want to barf when I see people just following the herd. That is the biggest joke of all. The herd leaders.
ypsidan04
27-01-2005, 06:32
ypsidan04, I got to go to bed and get my beauty sleep but
Same here. :)
Now, if this is the intelligence provided by the "world", then it is not a "lie" for people such as Colin Powell to stand before the UN and state these beliefs as a basis for pre-emptive advancements against Iraq.
I may throw around the word "lie" to be brief, but in fact that doesn't convey my true feelings. I don't like to use "lie" too often or too seriously. Because I dont believe he knew what the facts were and deliberately said something different just because he had a score to settle with Saddam. I don't believe that. I believe that the facts were as you laid them out. He just disseminated information that he believed to be true, but wasn't in truth. But the problem is that someone in some position of authority in any one of those countries should have been able to figure out that something was wrong. Or should have thought that there wasn't enough certainty to take drastic measures. Or should have thought that it isn't right to invade a sovereign country which has never attacked yourself or your allies. Until someone proves to me that they know how to see the future for sure, and until that person is hired into the Bush Administration, I don't want to hear this "Preemptive Strike" stuff, unless you have some concrete intelligence, and then I'll think about supporting you.
And the fact that country upon country upon country said "No" to him should be a big tip off. If there was really a strong Coalition of the Willing, that might be a sign that at least if he was wrong, that he wasn't the only one who made a mistake, and I might be more forgiving. But what do we have? Britain (there are 9 or 10 Americans for every British soldier). And Australia (who was bribed and went against the population's wishes). Spain (who originally went against the population's wishes, and later withdrew). And.....Morocco....Afghanistan....I think they donated some monkeys to test for land mines...And Poland who sent I think 200 troops. Thanks! :rolleyes: We've had 7 times that amount in just deaths.
Before it was all over, Quale was given credit for every stupid statement ever made in the history of human language.
You can't prove that.
"It's not pollution that's harming our environment, it's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." - Dan Quayle, no lie. But I can be even handed:
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." --Bill Clinton
Why did he grow up to just follow the crowd!" ;)
And dont ever call me one who follows the crowd. Most importantly, if Bush has been elected twice, then how is it even possible for me to be "following the crowd"? Yes, if the global community could vote he wouldn't be in office, but they can't vote, so that doesn't count.
Secondly in a number of ways in life, I don't do the common thing, and I'm not ashamed of being different. Most people who aren't gay don't give a damn one way or the other if this nation becomes truly equal or not. Well, I do give a damn. Most people who aren't female don't give a damn if the government outlaws abortion. Well, I do care. I'm not ashamed of my music collection and preferences, despite the fact that a number of people, including my best friend, thinks a lot of it is pretty ordinary at best. But it doesn't matter what others think, as long as you like it, and you don't shove it in their face.
So don't throw around lemming and sheep accusations so loosely.
ypsidan04, appreciate your thoughts and your explanation. Sleep tight and keep being unique no matter what people may say. I'll try to be more careful about loose accusations. Be sure and say your prayers . . . God Bless Mr. Bush! Good night, alfee!
spyretto
27-01-2005, 06:47
yo, he called me as one who follows the crowd not you :p
Bush is re-elected so it's you who follow the crowd, bro ;)
God bless America! :coctail:
Building nuclear weapons is a violation if UN agreements as well as previous treaties signed and committed to by Iran. The provocation is building nuclear weapons that have only one purpose. Iran will not be given free reign to build nuclear weapons.Since when does the US care about UN regulations? The UN has officially stated that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal, but the US did it anyway.
You can't have it both ways, either UN regulations apply to every country (and that means also the US!) or they apply to noone.
The US has shown to the world that it doesn't care about UN regulations and is ready to violate them anytime it pleases, so there is no reason for other countries to respect them either.
I have however no doubt that the US will attack Iran (i said "will" in my post, not "would"), and i also have no doubt that this US administration has no idea of the consequences of attacking Iran.
GB, France, Israel and Russia had intelligence that supported the belief that Iraq had chemical weapons and were developing a comprehensive nuclear weapons program.That is simply not true. France and Russia both said to the US that Iraq no longer had any weapons of mass destruction, all those weapons had been destroyed over a decade ago, Iraq didn't even have much conventional weapons left!
Even the UK, which suported Bush's lies before the attack of Iraq, has since admitted that its reports of "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and risk of imminent threat" were fake and totally fabricated for the occasion and that the UK knew all along that there was no such weapons in Iraq.
ypsidan04
28-01-2005, 05:29
Since when does the US care about UN regulations? The UN has officially stated that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal, but the US did it anyway.
You can't have it both ways, either UN regulations apply to every country (and that means also the US!) or they apply to noone.
Funny how the UN Headquarters is in Manhattan. :rolleyes:
that the UK knew all along that there was no such weapons in Iraq
Playing devils advocate for a second, that's real easy for them to say now, so as to not look so bad, and it can't be proven true or false. The only thing keeping Bush from saying that is his ego, and the fact that he probably knows if he does admit to it, that impeachment proceedings might not be far off.
What's worse? Screwing an intern, or screwing the country? I have a refrigerator magnet that says that. :cool:
haku, you condemn the US for not following UN regulations and then you use the fact that the US does not follow regulations to justify other countries violating UN regulations. You see anything wrong with your reasoning? If, violating UN regulations and international law is wrong, it is wrong for everyone not just the US.
Here is one of several links providing WMD evidence in connection with nuclear, bio and chemical weapons in Iraq. It includes input form Iraqi dissidents, citizens, escapes,, US and British Intelligence, Russian feedback. I will provide more. Of course this is US propanda and everything Haku provides in objective, unbiased truth. Hard to compete.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.