USA - General discussion (Part 1) [Archive] - Page 4

haku

28-01-2005, 18:37

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.It is just absurd to see the US threatening countries because they don't respect "UN regulations" whereas the US is currently illegally occupying a country and illegally imprisoning people in Guantanamo.

What UN regulations are you talking about anyway? The NPT? Yes, Iran has signed the NPT, but there is no proof whatsoever that Iran has violated the NPT. The NPT only forbids the trade of nuclear weapons, a country that has signed the NPT can not buy or sell military nuclear technology, BUT a country that has signed the NPT still can develop nuclear weapons on its own (otherwise all five permanent members of the UN Security Council would be violating the NPT right now!).
There is no proof whatsoever that Iran has bought or sold military nuclear technology, Iran has bought civil nuclear technology, but this is legal. It is possible that Iran is developing a military nuclear program, but if Iran is doing it on its own, it's not a violation of the NPT.

And even IF Iran is violating the NPT, that does not justify in any way the use of force, the NPT does not provide for the use of force in case of violation of the treaty, only negotiation.
(And let's remind here that Iran is still a fully sovereign country, the NPT is not signed "forever", any country can withdraw from the NPT at any time and start developing nuclear weapons free from any regulations, that's what India, Pakistan, and Israel have done, three countries that have never signed the NPT.)

So even IF Iran is violating the NPT, that does not give the right to the US to attack Iran. For that to happen, the US should request that Iran's case be transfered from the AIEA to the UN Security Council (the only part of the UN that can allow the use of force) where a motion allowing the use of force should be voted.
This is not going to happen because China has officially announced a few months ago that it will use its veto and block any attempt to transfer Iran's case to the UN Security Council.

So again, when the US attacks Iran, it will be an illegal war (the fact that Iran may or may not be violating the NPT does not change anything to that fact, violation of the NPT is not a legal base for the use of force).

bpro50

28-01-2005, 18:43

Lets suppose your reasoning holds water bpro50, and that Iran's regime's really engaging in nuclear programs for offensive purposes... having learned your lesson in Iraq - you defeated the regime in a few days but you're now stuck there with no easy escape strategy - do you reckon it's for your country's best interest - and for the interest of the world and for peace your president so boastfully declares is about - that you engange in another pre-emptive war in the area against a country almost 3 times as populous as Iraq?
Is your biased mind failing to see that you're gonna be driving yourselves to the ground financially and cause further pain and misery in the world, not to mention destabilise the area completely without a justifiable cause?? Is the oil and the Jews really worth that much? The US is not any country and they can't be equated with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan or North Korea. But you did violate UN regulations by attacking Iraq all the same. Are you telling me you're willing to do it again?

I think I said earlier that my opinion is that a different strategy would apply to Iran especially if their infrastructure is stable and their government is truly supported by the people. Of course, the US has a history with Iran but I don't think we have a major issue with them except the build up of nuclear capability. I know that China and Russia have quit supporting the build of nuclear power plant but there is still development in process. I believe that the US or Israel will make a strategic strike against nuclear facilitie sometime soon. If Iran retaliates, escalation will be reciprocal and Iran can't win in a situation like that. I am not worried about US finances right now. Indicators look good for the economy and deficits are debts that we have dealt with successfully before. The simple solution is for Iran to continue diplomacy and slow down a little. IMO, oil won't be a driver in relations with Iran but Israel will. Nothing affects the US policy in the Middle East more than our relationship with Israel. They are drinking buddies :D

bpro50

28-01-2005, 18:59

freddie

28-01-2005, 23:11

Haku, you have a nice way of side-stepping the issue and your own logic. You just ignore the question and move on. Ditto to everything you said except that you want the US to follow UN leadership as if we weren't a soverign country and expect us to honor all "legal" direction of the UN. In the US we don't yield our soverignty to the UN on issues of national security and we don't believe that the UN is the only vehicle for taking action. We will never yield the will of our people to a world government or sacrifice American security to the popular opinion of other countries. Like you said somewhere else, the burden of being a superpower is enormous and different than all of the other countries of the world. That makes our decisions unpopular at times, we know that. First of all, it would be impossible to align all of our decisions with UN direction, and secondly, if we did, we would be a bunch of "girly-men".

UN is actually a pretty universal organization, with basic rules of conduct that ALL countries should follow. Even super-powers. US had it's influence on the UN. It still has it. But it can't go BEYOND it. The international Rule Of Law clearly states that international organizations should have legal power that streches beyond the influence of a single country or it's constitution. If directions of the UN are not followed then we have nothing more then anarchy all over the world. What's to stop every larger and economically important country "to protect it's people" and go against UN and the whole international community?! It's not the direct causes USA's dismissals of UNs politics that's the major problem here. It's the indirect implications it might bring with it. In time. UNs sovereignity and integrity has been shaken.

ypsidan04

28-01-2005, 23:17

It is just absurd to see the US threatening countries because they don't respect "UN regulations" whereas the US is currently illegally occupying a country and illegally imprisoning people in Guantanamo.

He speaks the truth B. UN Regs apply to everyone except us! :rolleyes:
It is possible that Iran is developing a military nuclear program

I'm sure it's also not beyond the realm of possiblity that all they want to do with this technology is build some nuclear power plants! :p Can you prove me wrong? No. We all know very little about what they are really doing.

freddie

29-01-2005, 02:06

I think not respecting the Geneva Convetion is as big of an offence as not respecting UN regulatons. Gross breaches of people's basic rights and dignity can never be justified by a nations right to defend itself.

bpro50

29-01-2005, 02:32

spyretto

29-01-2005, 04:23

Is taking out a butcher knife and cutting someone's throat while they are in captivity a violation of the Geneva convention? Is cutting someone's juglar and letting them bleed to death ifn front of friends and family a breach of people's basic human rights? You think an American begging for his life on camera might be an offense to their dignity? Last time I looked soldiers were being punished and court martialed for violating the rights of Iraqi prisoners.

As far as the UN, it has it's own set of problems with an Oil for Food scandal that they are working through. I don't have a lot of respect for the UN's ability to solve significant conflicts in the world.

Interestingly enough, your last comment is very much in line with Bush's argument just before he landed his occupation on Iraq - that the UN's role has become irrelevant for resolving crises around the world and that the US has the right to defend its sovereignty pre-emptively and wherever it deems necessary. It's such an irony and a contradiction in terms that instead of working through the shortcomings of the UN your're gonna blast our own campaign about getting rid the world of tyranny and apparently doing it with the use of force - as I understand. Bush's administration are not very good negotiators, I suppose :rolleyes:
As for your first argument I don't see how it holds much water because you're comparing common thugs and ruthless terrorists - do you expect them to abide by the Geneva convention then? - with your military leaders and your soldiers. You also give ample room for criticism not only because you are the aggressor in this case but also on account of employing methods used by totalitarian regimes to get your way through ( torture, humiliation, propaganda etc. ) So your methods don't differ that much, only your intentions do ( we're led to believe ).

IMO, oil won't be a driver in relations with Iran but Israel will. Nothing affects the US policy in the Middle East more than our relationship with Israel. They are drinking buddies.

As you can very well see I toned down my liberal rhetoric and I'm now trying to see things in the pragmatic way that you profess you do. The problem is that you're making the same mistakes that you accuse haku and the rest of us of making - getting into "loopholes" - while your rhetoric doesn't differ much to George W Bush' rhetoric. Do you acknowledge that attacking Iraq was a mistake or do you not? If you do, that is fair enough, but why do you seem to endorse the current administration in that case? If you do not acknowledge Iraq's occupation as a mistake and you reckon it was the right way forward, please give your rationale behind it. Disabling Saddam Hussein and democratising Iraq will simply not do, because a) weapons were not found and it was an obvious pretence for going to war - you didn't give the inspectors enough time either b) there is another dozen of autocratic regimes around the globe - to say the least - including your beloved Saudi Arabia - but you haven't gone against them with force. Hell, you don't even seem to care about what's going on in Africa.
Then explain to me how the policy in Iraq, Iran etc. is relevant to your relationship with Israel because it's another part of your argument that I don't understand. Are you going to install puppet, US-friendly governments around the Arab world in hopes of averting people's hatred towards Israel? But the reasons for the hatred are so much deeper than that.
So I don't see a point in defending George Bush's foreign policies if you don't have a strong grip of the administration's real goals and motives and deem them fair and necessary. I fail to see the logic behind it. Is it about securing energy depots for the next generations? Or something else? Because, you see, people's immediate response is that peace is always preferable to war. War is hell... However, you don't read as if you have the slightest clue about those policies. We keep on going in circles; you, about the necessity of certain action in Iraq and elsewhere for humanitarian reasons, or occassionally, as you mentioned Iran, for defensive purposes; you can't use that for Iraq any more, although you're still saying that you believe Saddam had those weapons and programs :rolleyes: the rest of us about the double standards used by the US administration, as well as the humanitarian dangers lurking and lack of ethics invloved when you seek to establish yourselves as regime enforcers to a much changed world order; when such double standards apply, and when your preferred method of doing it is war. So, imo we have a new world order but the same ol' United States of America. You've worn your double-fast jacket the other way. Please make your position firm.

ypsidan04

29-01-2005, 05:12

you want the US to follow UN leadership as if we weren't a soverign country

Well we should have thought about that before we not just joined the UN, but took a leading role in it. When you join an international group like that, you consequently forfeit some of your sovereignty. Loss of 100% sovereignty is a large reason, if not the only reason why Norway and Switzerland have not joined the E.U.
on issues of national security

Just because George Bush says something is a threat to national security doesn't make it so.
In the US we don't yield our soverignty to the UN on issues of national security and we don't believe that the UN is the only vehicle for taking action. We will never yield the will of our people to a world government or sacrifice American security to the popular opinion of other countries.

(You sound just like the man.)

You think we don't know that? We do know that. And that's the problem.
we would be a bunch of "girly-men".

We would be a bunch of girly-men if we had failed to help keep the peace in Kosovo, Haiti, and Liberia. We would be a bunch of girly-men if we had failed to attack Afghanistan in 2002. Attacking Iraq without provocation was not manly, on the contrary, it was childish. It doesn't take a real man to send other people off to die for questionable reasons at best.
Gross breaches of people's basic rights and dignity can never be justified by a nations right to defend itself.

You got it. And who was the guy that told Bush that these prisoners in Guantanamo don't deserve to have Geneva Convention rights? Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General to be. As with Condoleeza Rice, he has been or is going to be confirmed, but not without a handful of votes against him. The numbers with her was 86-13, and I think his will be closer, but should still easily get in. I just heard on CSPAN earlier that some international human rights group, can't remember the exact name, has officially disapproved of Gonzales, and that's the first time they've ever not supported an Attorney General nomination.
Last time I looked soldiers were being punished and court martialed for violating the rights of Iraqi prisoners.

Yeah. In Iraq. But you never hear about those in Cuba being charged with anything.
there is another dozen of autocratic regimes around the globe - to say the least - including your beloved Saudi Arabia - but you haven't gone against them with force. Hell, you don't even seem to care about what's going on in Africa.

Here, here. :flag:

spyretto

29-01-2005, 11:01

Frankly bpro50, why are we discussing these issues with you? Who are you anyway? You're almost alone with your views here and frankly you're not going to convince anybody about a single thing with such weak arguments. The others may think that it's funny but I've had it. Let Americans only debate this stuff cause it's their own problem. We know where we stand.

Better find yourself a Republican or a Bush-worshiping forum where you can find people who think the same way. Since you're so much better anyway and you think cooperating with the world about security issues means yielding your sovereignty to the UN, then why are you even here to discuss? Go the path you've chosen. Most people here are non-Americans and frankly I don't understand why we even respond to you. My silence will be my reply from now on, it's evident that you just don't get it.

I also think that the non-Americans who continue the discussion must get a kick out of debating nonsensically about these things, because they've finally found someone suitable to do it. We've already seen that when you're pushed around the corner you either bring the direction where it suits you - or if you can't do it, you ignore it altogether. We got that one sorted. You've stopped responding to my posts because I pushed you around the corner and you can't get out. You just take a single thing and ignore everything else cause you don't know what to say. You're stuck. So I win :p

I'm therefore shutting up as well, the others may continue the (constructive? :rolleyes: ) discussion and continue to go around in circles with you. Keep on responding as well, your responses are entertaining and give an insight as to how some people think. I hope they're the minority. But I suggest that rather than doing that, go make a change: enrol in the U.S. army and train to become part of the U.S. forces. Ask to be sent to Iraq. Then you might make a difference. Right now you're just fanning an extinguished flame and soon enough nobody will take you seriously anymore.

Salutes

..as it's not a secret that Greece is, by tradition "Anti-American" ,and it was renforced by the "Colonels Regime"(it's understandable..).. ;) ;)

Sorry I didn't see that one earlier nath. Well, that is only partly true. Greece as a U.S. ally and a partial member of NATO is not perceived as anti-American by any means. Of course, the Colonels regime did make an impact back then but it's not where I base my beliefs on. The younger generations are people who have not lived through those events. They lived through more recent events, like the Gulf War, Bosnia, Yugolavia and now Iraq. Not to mention that the communists were the ones who were hurt the most by the regime, but it is true that 90% or so of Greeks never embraced the communist ideology.
Why don't you just accept that it might simply be the arrogance and single-mindedness America portray themselves around the world? We're talking about a different mentality here, because they portray themselves as a violent and unforgiving society. That is the impression they give to me. Let me give you an example: ok, Europe and most of the world has abolished the death penalty for decades now, whereas the USA continue to practise it and with the same zeal. But you see that this unforgiving attitude permeates the people themselves. There were polls in America that show the majority is for the death penalty, while the rest of the world is against. It's the only country in the world who have that mentality. They invite the family of the victim to watch the execution - "al la" the Dark Ages :bum: - to get their revenge and let their "heart rest". For a European, incarceration for life without previledges could be seen as punishment enough but not for an American. They're only satisfied if they see them killed. "Why is he not executed yet, who are we gonna execute if not him?"
I don't think that portrays a very nice picture of America. To me America is a step below Europe as a more uncivilised and conservative society that has not reached the levels of maturity Europe has - albeit through catastrophy. They're also turning towards the wrong way becoming even more ignorant and single-minded than opening themselves to the world.
For me America is a dangerous place to go, now, not as dangerous as the third world or the Middle East but definitely a distinct level below Europe. So I would avoid visiting, I don't want anything bad to happen to me...

Who knows, maybe one day Americans could start wising up but I don't think it's going to happen when this mentality is passed from generation to generation as part of the American way.

noki_the_cat

29-01-2005, 16:46

bpro50

29-01-2005, 19:44

spyretto

29-01-2005, 19:59

I capture the enemy. I put him in prison. He captures Americans and puts them in captivity. I lose whatever sympathy I have for his prisoners when he murders Americans with butcher knives. That doesn't play well on American TV and the internet. After I saw that, I lost all sympathy for enemy prisoners. At that point, I felt rage. If you want to defend them because they are "thugs" then have at it. They are murderers.

Absolutely, I agrree with you. Why am I responding again? I've nothing better to do.. they do deserve to rot slowly in the bowels of hell those terrorists, they really do. But we're taling about the USA's role though. This is a USA foreign policy thread. And please do not equate the terrorists with the rest of the muslims. You're not the only one who shares these views, I've lost friends over this. And they all do think the same way. If you're pushed around the corner you might say the same? I hope not.

Spy, I stated my position on Iraq. I wasn't a 100 per cent behind invasion but once the decision was made, my position was and is to get the job done, set up an interim government, let the people have control of their own destiny and then leave. As far as the rationale for invasion, based on Sadaam rhetoric, his long-term ambitions to overthrow the "great Satan", his call for a worldwide jihad and his intent on building weapons of mass destruction, I believe we were within our rights to put an end to him. Unlike most of the forumers in this group, most people are glad he is gone.

What you do is one thing, what you can do is another. I'm sure Saddam wanted to do all these things, history proved he was too weakened to do anything.

As far as pre-emptive war, I am totally in favor of it. If a country that "hates" the US and yearns for our destruction begins the process of building weapons that can cause irrepairable harm to the US, I am definitely in favor of eliminating their capability before it exists. We would be foolish to wait until the threat was actualized. That does not mean the US wants to occupy the territory of every country, it means taking out enemy capability whereever it exists. You can bet that we have our eyes on any country that proclaims the US or Israel to be its enemy with an aim of destroying us. BTW - you guys keep speaking of Bush as if he was the only man establishing US policy. And, I think you believe that. That's not the way our government works.

This is wrong. You obviously must be referring to Israel or another of your allies around the globe - well, it's basically Israel, cause I don't know any other country the USA would go to such lengths for defending them. The rest are ephemeral friends, friends who could be today but could be enemies tomorrow; Israel is a permanent friend. The weapons that a hostile country may build can't reach you. Then where does the threat exist? another 9/11? Why didn't you go after the terrorists instead of Saddam Hussein? Please answer me this. You blew it with Iraq the first time. The second time it happens you will have lost all credibility.
I'm still not satisfied by your answers, I see your point, but if you're on a mission to convince the rest of us about certain things you have to do it better. Some issues are indeed up for discussion...

bpro50

29-01-2005, 21:59

Spy, you need to surround yourself with lots of people that agree with you and enjoy your insults and don't question your arguments. You need all of the protection and reinforcement you can get. You "push" me no where, as long as you use personal insults as a basis of your arguments. If you "don't have anything better to do", then why sit around tell others what to think. As long as no one question your opinions, you can sit around and spew out insults against America and somehow stroke your own ego. Should it matter that most disagree with my opinions? I am not trying to persuade you of anything. I am stating my opinions. Why be so hateful toward me? You are entitled to your opinions, but guess what, so am I. Why don't you just keep your personal insults to yourself and let people speak their own mind. Fact is you are not in a position to know and understand US policy as well as I do. Your advantage may be that you can be more objective in your opinion but you are at a distinct disadvange over someone who is a US citizen. I would not be so arrogant as to claim greater knowledge about the politics of Wales. You might want to understand the position of someone who knows the system a little better than you do. Second thought, probably not, you just need someone to agree with you.

ypsidan04

29-01-2005, 22:02

Sorry I didn't see that one earlier nath. Well, that is only partly true. Greece as a U.S. ally and a partial member of NATO is not perceived as anti-American by any means.

It doesnt help though that _right before the 2004 Olympics_ the U.S. officially recognized the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia. :none:
There were polls in America that show the majority is for the death penalty, while the rest of the world is against.

Speaking of that, there was an article I read recently that some high-ranking Austrian official was calling for Arnold Schwarzenegger to have his citizenship taken away because he allowed someone to be executed recently in California. Something about he's "the most well known Austrian in the world, and he just did something that is completely against what most Austrians stand for".
For me America is a dangerous place to go, now, not as dangerous as the third world or the Middle East but definitely a distinct level below Europe. So I would avoid visiting, I don't want anything bad to happen to me...

What ever makes you say that? :(
They are murderers.

Yeah, screw "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"! :bum:
Unlike most of the forumers in this group, most people are glad he is gone

NO ONE is unhappy that he is gone. Some people just would prefer it if he was in power. Those are two very different things.

bpro50

29-01-2005, 22:21

In observation of many Americans adopting the perception of the media.
Society may accept a carefully orchestrated strategy devised to manipulate the psychological intellection of a nation.
Psychological Operations is a very affective tool and weapon to induce or reinforce an intended group to a carefully devised objective.
Ultimately altering the behavior of intended population.

Can you explain your point a little further, I am a little confused by what you are saying. The US has a variety of news media promoting various political positions such as CBS being driven by liberal undertones and Fox having more conservative views. I would think that state controlled networks would be the most suspect on manipulating the social pschology of a nation.

noki_the_cat

29-01-2005, 23:45

A victim of perception-management and deception of reality and facts by consolidation and implementation of orchestrated psychological situational awareness will concur.

forre

30-01-2005, 01:15

A victim of perception-management and deception of reality and facts by consolidation and implementation of orchestrated psychological situational awareness will concur.
Let me give you some help to answer the question.
Can you explain your point a little further, I am a little confused by what you are saying. The US has a variety of news media promoting various political positions such as CBS being driven by liberal undertones and Fox having more conservative views. I would think that state controlled networks would be the most suspect on manipulating the social pschology of a nation.

“Perception management” – also known as “public diplomacy” – is a propaganda strategy for controlling how a target population views political events. Refined by intelligence services as they tried to manipulate foreign populations, the practice eventually seeped into domestic U.S. politics as a way to manipulate post-Vietnam-War-era public opinion.

In the early 1980s, the Reagan-Bush administration saw the “Vietnam Syndrome” – a reluctance to commit military forces abroad – as a strategic threat to robust Cold War policies. So the administration launched an extraordinary effort to influence how the American people perceived overseas events, essentially by exaggerating threats from abroad and demonizing selected foreign leaders.

The strategy is applicable to wide population too and aims towards forming of a subjective view, which is served as a pure objective.

noki_the_cat likes CIA stories. ;)

Source of the quotes above: Bush's 'Perception Management' Plan (http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2004/111804.html)

spyretto

30-01-2005, 02:13

It doesnt help though that _right before the 2004 Olympics_ the U.S. officially recognized the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia. :none:

That is more recent, about 2-3 months old. It was a blow to Greek foreign policy. You mean they recognised them as Macedonia not as F.Y.R.O.M., their official name. I won't get into the technicalities of that move now but it's pretty bad. ( disrespectful to the huge Greek community of the US as well ).
The only good I remember the US is credited for is diffusing a crisis between Greece and Turkey in the mid 90's - that might have resulted in war. But it wasn't them who helped make the Greek-Turkish relations more tolerable, it was nature ( the earthquakes ;) )
And it seems that the solution of the Cypriot problem now lies with the E.U. ( since the Turks want to be part of it )
By the way, you know the U.S. admin position with regards to that, right? Unconditional entry of their ally into the Union: never mind Cyprus, the democratisation process, respect for human rights. They'll work on it once they're in. They deem Turkey as a very important ally and a link of the East with the West...a passage for their troops into the Middle East and a safe haven.
I don't know how long that will continue, since the public opinion in Turkey are against the war in Iraq, and the Turkish government has refused to take any part in it. So we'll see, cause Bush's friends are getting fewer and fewer by the hour.

What ever makes you say that?

Look at what happened to Cat Stevens man...I mean that was a disgrace. So now that the Americans have become insanely obsessed with security - as if they're going to deter another 9/11 if it is to happen - I might find myself in the wrong side of the fence, without even knowing. Though I'd like to experience the air of freedom first hand ;)

nath

30-01-2005, 11:46

Frankly bpro50, why are we discussing these issues with you? Who are you anyway? You're almost alone with your views here and frankly you're not going to convince anybody about a single thing with such weak arguments. .
:) NO ! I think as bpro50, and I think he/she is very intelligent in the way he argues, with calm and in a very decent way !
Congratulations Guy! :done:

So as I'm in a good mood today , i will give you a present : all the reasons to think that I'm more stupid that you thought i was before... :D
1/ I think one of the biggest mistake/ faults of Bush was his unknowledge of the Middle-East mentality....but in reading your posts ( I speak here in general...Spy , Haku, Ypsidan04..) I'm not sure you caught it better....
I mean , you see Iraq, Iran, Afganisthan, Palestine....JUST with the angle "Countries oppressed by USA"....."small countries face to the Bad Powerful USA".....but I'm not sure you "feel" the mentality better than Bush....
Sorry to tell you that , but I think we are all "equal" of course , all "humans"....bla bla bla....BUT indeed, I think we are all Different: I mean Jewish, Asian or Muslim peoples have absolutely different ways to act and to THINK....
There are too, very big differences between the "diplomatic langage" that people use when they speak to TV for their own marketting , and the way they speak deeply inside....

The cultural behaviour is very different...because of the past and history of each part..

2/ About the chimical weapons: the official papers say that they don't exist...for my part, i have a "personnal conviction"( no google links sorry ...just my own conviction) that Iraq wasn't so CLEAR as you pretend...I don't speak about "finished weapons" but about parts and researches about chimical weapons....
I think these "parts" of chimical weapons have existed ..and that they were moved to Syria or other places or distroyed.....or may be Amercans haven't searched enough well....

3/ About Terrorism: I don't think Iraq was just living its own little life without relations with Terrorism organisations....It's known by everyone that the son of Saddam Hussein himself killed by his own hands some wives, which were suspected to be unfaithful to their husbands or things like that , in the night In the Main market place of Baghdad, to GIVE public exemples and to follow the "Charia's rules"...
My personnal conviction is that Iraq of Hussein had relations with Terrorism.....as IRAN HAS.... If you tell me that Iran doesn't support some Palestinian parties in giving them money and Weapons to create "attentats....don't know english names : when it makes BOOM...explosions.." against Israël ....I would answer to you ..try to be more informed.... ;)

So it's good to see always the parts of the small poor little states oppressed by the States....but please , don't underestimate the dangerous sides that these "small poor little states oppressed by the States" could have for the rest of the planet too...
May be Bush is making a "Holly War" for you ....but for me a lot of these countries have begun a "Holly WAR" too...and it's building each days or each friday in the mosques, or in the internet sites....and don't forget , in such case , that the mentalities are different...the price of life isn't really the same...

These are just my convictions.

To conclude: if Asian or Jewish peoples try to conquer the world by their business politics, I don't care....it's just money....even the oil of Middle East i don't care....
if muslim people try to conquer the world by the politic of an "underground expansionist Holy War" I care...I really do....because in such case, my conceptions of freedom and simply life are agressed....and this is the only cause for which I would be a resistant .

And if you want to compare , compare the right things which go together: you speak about death penalty....did the Sates attacked Europe?....so don't compare american society and european societies but american societies with iraqii, afghan, iranian societies...it would be more logical.

haku

30-01-2005, 15:02

The root of Arab terrorism is Palestine and the Arab/Israeli conflict. The artificial creation of Israel right at the heart of the Arab world was a political and historical mistake that has caused half a century of terrorism.

Hundred thousands of Palestinians have been expelled from their land by Israel. Those people have become refugees in the occupied territories and all neighboring countries, they have lost everything. The new generations of Palestinians that have been born in this hell expect nothing from life except death, they are all ready to die for the cause.

As long as the case of those Palestinian refugees is not dealt with, Arab terrorism will never stop. If you're pro-Arab that means allowing Palestinian refugees to come back to their land, and if you're pro-Israeli that means "annihilate" Palestinian refugees (one way or another).

The US being totally pro-Israeli, they are obviously following the second course of action. Basically, the US "plan" is to simply remove all Arab/Muslim governments that are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause so that Palestinians won't have any external support left. The US and Israel think that once Palestinians don't have any support left, it will be easy to make them "disappear" and terrorism with them.

The US plan is to ultimately control the whole region from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, so there are many more wars to come.

nath

30-01-2005, 15:14

. If you're pro-Arab that means allowing Palestinian refugees to come back to their land, and if you're pro-Israeli that means "annihilate" Palestinian refugees (one way or another).
Pat ...this is the pure exemple of an extremist point of view...there are other possible options...
or if you want to stay only on these 2 positions...be fair and write in a such case:
"If you're pro-Arab that means "annihilate" Israelians people (one way or another), and if you're pro-Israeli that means "annihilate" Palestinian refugees (one way or another)"... ;)

Ps: I like you very much Pat,...I discuss but there is nothing agaisnt you as "Pat"...kisss

spyretto

30-01-2005, 17:59

nath, I appreciate your comments...

I mean , you see Iraq, Iran, Afganisthan, Palestine....JUST with the angle "Countries oppressed by USA"....."small countries face to the Bad Powerful USA".....but I'm not sure you "feel" the mentality better than Bush....

You didn't get that from me. The point I was making was that USA has to respect the sovereignty of other countries, when they do not pose a direct threat to their security; not use tactics "under the belt" as they frequently did during the Cold War to disrupt the political situation to their liking. I understand the logic behind it. I still think it's unethical.

I didn't get into the specifics of how I perceive Afghanistan, Palestine, Iran, Iraq. There's a a lot of hatred generated towards the West and it's subject to a systematic religious propaganda than to their different mentality and way of thinking which I don't deny. When the children of Iran in mosques and in schools are systematically imbued with ideas that America is evil, that they want to destroy them and their religion, what do the Americans do on their part? They invade Iraq and Afghanistan, to give the propagandists even more ground for spreading their ideas. All the more so, they seem to cultivate their own parallel propaganda. If you ask an American what they think of these people, chances are that the response you're gonna get is that they're "evil". This is Bush's perception of the world, in black and white terms. We are the good guys, they're the bad guys, cops and robbers. It seems that many people in America take the president's ideas as a given...and there you have a vicious circle of hatred.

2/ About the chimical weapons: the official papers say that they don't exist...for my part, i have a "personnal conviction"( no google links sorry ...just my own conviction) that Iraq wasn't so CLEAR as you pretend...I don't speak about "finished weapons" but about parts and researches about chimical weapons....
I think these "parts" of chimical weapons have existed ..and that they were moved to Syria or other places or distroyed.....or may be Amercans haven't searched enough well....

Maybe Iraq was not clean. Maybe they indeed had something, programs, parts, researches, whatever you can call it. Does it still necessitate the invasion? I don't think so. Did they go by Bush's ideas that Saddam Hussein has to be removed? Why did an invasion masterminded on the premise of the existence of weapons and in the name of the US security become "Iraqui freedom" along the way? That gives an indication that the evidence the U.S. intelligence had was not strong and they sought to divert the focus of attention to something else, democracy and freedom. That was for public consumption. So I don't think that what America had in their hands at that time was enough to justify the invasion. I believe it was rushed by George W Bush because it was part of his agenda prior to his election. We know that because we heard him say it.

3/ About Terrorism: I don't think Iraq was just living its own little life without relations with Terrorism organisations....It's known by everyone that the son of Saddam Hussein himself killed by his own hands some wives, which were suspected to be unfaithful to their husbands or things like that , in the night In the Main market place of Baghdad, to GIVE public exemples and to follow the "Charia's rules"...
My personnal conviction is that Iraq of Hussein had relations with Terrorism.....as IRAN HAS.... If you tell me that Iran doesn't support some Palestinian parties in giving them money and Weapons to create "attentats....don't know english names : when it makes BOOM...explosions.." against Israël ....I would answer to you ..try to be more informed....

There's no denying of the brutality of Saddam's regime, it's all well documented. Yeah his sons were rapists and murderers. The links with al Qaeda have not been established however. If they were, something would have come in light about it up to now. We're still waiting.

To conclude: if Asian or Jewish peoples try to conquer the world by their business politics, I don't care....it's just money....even the oil of Middle East i don't care....
if muslim people try to conquer the world by the politic of an "underground expansionist Holy War" I care...I really do....because in such case, my conceptions of freedom and simply life are agressed....and this is the only cause for which I would be a resistant.

Yeah, the sentiment must exist, the propaganda exists but they have neither the power nor the recources. On the contrary, the only expansionist wars were conducted by political forces based on the Western model of leadership like Saddam Hussein's. Saddam Hussein modernised and somehow westernised Iraq. He then turned into a secular leader and tried to expand his country to help his ailing economy.
I do not therefore subscribe to such scaremongering. Even if the grains of such masterplan are there, our response should be different. Even if invisible webs are preparing some kind of underground holy war to take over the world :none: force wil make things easier for them, and increase the hatred and indignation. That's why I'm proposing that the U.S. is equipped with more imagination and less narrow-mindedness. The Europeans should also stop sitting on their asses too. Yours rationale reads as a counterpoise to the muslim perception that George Bush is carrying out a Crusade to Christianise all muslims. No matter how much I like conspiracy theories, I cannot subscribe to either one. To conclude nath I think that maybe it's a good idea to start caring about what you just described because it's here and it's tangible: it's called globalisation and it may, just may, turn out to be the new imperialism. It is also one way to see the Iraqi war.

I also agree with haku that the Palestinians have suffered more than anybody else and are suffering every day, so I wouldn't equate them with the rest. The aggressor is very much Israel in this case. They fight with tanks and technology, whereas the Palestinians fight with suicidal bombers. It's not the same...

bpro50

30-01-2005, 19:38

:) NO ! I think as bpro50, and I think he/she is very intelligent in the way he argues, with calm and in a very decent way !
Congratulations Guy! :done:

Thanks for your kind statement. I am a guy and nothing special. Just someone that thinks there is room enough on this forum for a "moderate conservative". I believe that dialogue is really important and I enjoy learning from all of your differences. Thanks again. I was feeling pretty low.

ypsidan04

30-01-2005, 20:41

The only good I remember the US is credited for is diffusing a crisis between Greece and Turkey in the mid 90's - that might have resulted in war.

I dont know, part of me thinks that conflict is mostly Greece's fault. They feel they have a right to islands that are a couple miles from mainland Turkey and a hundred miles from mainland Greece (I dont know the exact numbers, but you get my point). If they settled and drew a new border right down the middle of the Aegean Sea, that might help things. Plus Cyprus is another problem. If they could settle on one or the other having control of it - again I think Turkey is more deserving since it's closer to Turkish mainland - then that would be another problem solved. I know it's a complete independent nation, but I also think that the government is just a puppet for Athens and/or Ankara. And I know it's easier said than done, but if you look at it from a geographic standpoint, Greece has overstepped its bounds. But then there's the ethnicity problem. I'll bet that those islands off the coast of Turkey have ethnic Greeks living there, and they wouldn't want to have to live in Turkey all of a sudden or be forced to move.
The artificial creation of Israel right at the heart of the Arab world was a political and historical mistake that has caused half a century of terrorism.

The reason for terrorism is not because Israel exists, it's because of the refusal of the Arab world to recognize that Israel has a right to exist and also a right to exist where it has always been - right next to them. Secondly, it seems to me that you imply two ludicrous ideas: 1) Israel never should have been created in the first place, and 2) There was some place better for it. I mean the Jews, my ancestors, were on this Earth for a very long time without a place to call their own. And then the Holocaust was the last straw. World opinion took pity in them, and the British gave up their colony Palestine and Israel was created. Never should have been created? On the contrary, it should have been done before 1947. There were and are just too many Jewish people on this Earth for them not to have a homeland. And dont even start with the Kurds, or the Basques, or the Chechens, because those are such small populations, and especially the latter two have no business being granted independence if they can't be peaceful. And you said "right at the heart of the Arab world", implying it should have been put someplace else. What do you propose then? Someplace better suited than were they have lived since Biblical times? Someplace better suited than where their holiest sites are? No, there's just no better answer than where it is. Read: Spyretto too.
The new generations of Palestinians that have been born in this hell expect nothing from life except death, they are all ready to die for the cause.

That's no excuse. African Americans and women in this country didn't go around killing white men to get equal rights.
We are the good guys, they're the bad guys

Literally. He actually says "bad guys". :rolleyes:
The links with al Qaeda have not been established however

Of course they have! (http://img162.exs.cx/img162/5308/image235cm.jpg)

noki_the_cat

31-01-2005, 00:41

I believe that dialogue is really important and I enjoy learning from all of your differences. Thanks again.

The possessor of wisdom and knowledge bares a responsibility of verisimilitude and accuracy with out being contumelious to be honorable to humanity.
Ones own belief, based on ones experience may be insufficient to precisely comprehend and convey chronicles.
In depth examination of archives, forensic investigation of topography and interviewing observers is deemed necessary to concur authenticity.

forre

31-01-2005, 00:56

The possessor of wisdom and knowledge bares a responsibility of verisimilitude and accuracy with out being contumelious to be honorable to humanity.
Ones own belief, based on ones experience may be insufficient to precisely comprehend and convey chronicles.
In depth examination of archives, forensic investigation of topography and interviewing observers is deemed necessary to concur authenticity.

As well as the more we know the more we understand that we know nothing and finally everything is relative in this world.

noki_the_cat

31-01-2005, 01:18

As well as the more we know the more we understand that we know nothing and finally everything is relative in this world.
Creatures of earth are as mere educatees of life.

forre

31-01-2005, 01:21

noki_the_cat, we are both off topic, hi-hi. :D

The rest, go on with sharing your knowledge, opinions and views. Don't listen to us. ;)

bpro50

31-01-2005, 03:13

Almost 60 per cent of the people in Iraq cast votes today.

"This is democracy," said Karfia Abbasi, holding up a thumb stained with purple ink to prove she had voted.

It is a rare thing when we have 60 per cent of our people vote in an election here in the US and yet the Iraqis voted even though their lives are in danger. I salute the Iraqis and look forward to the assembly of a new Government. Building a democracy is a difficult and messy process. But what a great day for democracy and for Iraq.

haku

31-01-2005, 07:49

nath

31-01-2005, 08:06

This is the 1rst pluri-parties election since.....1953... :)
If the Suniis didn't vote , it's their problem!...It's sure that to call to boycott elections is the best way to make improve a situation...(we had the proof during the last President election in France... ;) )
It's just a beginning of democracy....but it's a beginning .And people seem really happy to vote.

spyretto

31-01-2005, 08:38

I dont know, part of me thinks that conflict is mostly Greece's fault. They feel they have a right to islands that are a couple miles from mainland Turkey and a hundred miles from mainland Greece (I dont know the exact numbers, but you get my point). If they settled and drew a new border right down the middle of the Aegean Sea, that might help things. Plus Cyprus is another problem. If they could settle on one or the other having control of it - again I think Turkey is more deserving since it's closer to Turkish mainland - then that would be another problem solved. I know it's a complete independent nation, but I also think that the government is just a puppet for Athens and/or Ankara. And I know it's easier said than done, but if you look at it from a geographic standpoint, Greece has overstepped its bounds. But then there's the ethnicity problem. I'll bet that those islands off the coast of Turkey have ethnic Greeks living there, and they wouldn't want to have to live in Turkey all of a sudden or be forced to move.

You cannot be serious when you say these things. Why don't you hand over Alaska to Canada then, it's isolated from the U.S. and it's closer to them, I feel it's "fair" it should be part of their territory. :rolleyes: Where did you read we feel we have the right to small islands that are a couple of miles away from Turkey? Is this propaganda coming from the U.S media? ok, some local idiots planted a Greek flag in one of the islands, then the Turks brought military forces to "occupy" them and put their own flag, LOL It was all macho BS.
But those barren islands belong in the grey zone -hence they're neutral- and it is Turkey who wanted to stake their claim on them; and frankly we're not gonna let them because we know that if we do let them, the next step will be to stake their claim in half of the Aegean sea. Violations of our airspace from Turkish airfighters are commonplace and this is how they're supposed to put pressure. You may think this is right too, hand over a few islands to the Turks; hell, hand over half of the Aegean that is closer to Turkey :bum: hand over territories which have been Greek from the dawn of time, and for which we spilled blood to get back and are recognised as Greek territories by international laws; hand them over to them cause it feels fair.

Plus Cyprus is another problem. If they could settle on one or the other having control of it - again I think Turkey is more deserving since it's closer to Turkish mainland - then that would be another problem solved.

You need to read a bit more on the subject. Cyprus has never been part of the Greek sovereignty in all history, except from the time where it belonged to the Byzantine empire but that was a continuation of the Roman rule. Yes, the indigenous population are Greeks but they settled there from time immemorial, they never occupied the island as the result of conflict. Then there were periods where the island came under foreign rule -namely the Romans, Ottomans and Brits - and periods that it was independent.There were talks about a possible unification with Greece during the 50s and 60s - there were those voices inside Cyprus who were saying that the island should be part of Greece since it's so culturally close but the influence was never as strong as mainland Turkey exerted on the Turkish-Cypriots; the plan never materialised. Instead the island became independent. The Turkish Cypriots were not happy about some of their previledges and the Turks took advantage of the political situation in Greece to invade the island. The Greek junda was planning to occupy the island and annex it to Greece, by force. The Turksish military regime reacted first and invaded the island, they were pushed back but managed to maintain more than one third. The Greek population was pushed to the south, and the Turks claimed all of their possessions. They established a military rule which became more moderate under Rauf Denktash permanent leadership - as he's getting older and fatter :laugh: he was planted there by the Turks and only answers to the Turks - there's no democracy, how could it be anyway - and they established a green zone. The only country in the world that recognises the occupied part is Turkey.
At the present time there's no desire for Greece to "claim" Cyprus, an independent country, (I don't know where you got this idea from ) No desire from the Cypriot part to become part of Greece; the Cypriots don't answer to the Greek government or Greece. I cannot say the same about the Turkish Cypriots though, the island's been occupied. However polls show that the Turkish Cypriots themselves have become weary of the situation and the international embargo and would welcome the resolve of the crisis and the insuing unification of the island. The vast majority - I believe about 86% of them - voted in favour of the UN resolution; the vast majority of the Cypriot Greeks voted against it, despite the fact that the Greek government were pushing Cyprus to accept it Why? they simply have to bring on a better plan. The Greek part asks for compensation for the stricken population and the mutual withdrawal of Greek and Turkish forces present in the island. The plan does not offer that yet: it offers some compensation, not fair enough, and the troops go nowhere.. Annan is pushed by the Turks who think if troops are removed the Greek Cypriots will exert their influence on the island. That's inevitable. The Greek Cypriots are the vast majority of the population, even after the Turks brought people from the Turkish mainland to the occupied part of the island. It doesn't mean that absolute equality will not apply by law. But, anyway, I think that eventually the Turkish side will see what's the best for them and will seek independence from Turkey and reunification.
So nobody 's claiming the island ypsidan. At least I know that from our part. Greece does not lay claims on sovereign countries, we never did in the course of history and we're not going to do it now. They're Greeks like us and we feel for them, of course they're allies, and we seek a solution to their problem. what do you expect? To be enemies?

If you feel that the non-occupied, independent island of Cyprus should be handed over to Turkey because they got 1/3 of the island by force and because it's closer to them than it is to Greece, then let anybody wage a war against counties who feel they belong to them by "geographical right" - whatever that means :bum:
The Cypriot government a puppet government from Athens? :eek: Since when? How? :p Is the UK a puppet government of the U.S.? Is the Austrian government a puppet government of Germany? If you say yes, then I'll accept it.

bpro50

31-01-2005, 17:57

Democracy? Elections held under foreign occupation are not free elections. Those "elections" are rigged anyway, the results have been decided beforehand in Washington by the Bush administration. Now a pro-US puppet government is going to be installed and the US will continue to pull the strings, regardless of what the "Iraqi people" want.

And it's not 60% of the "Iraqi people" who has voted, it's 60% of the Shiites and the Kurds, but the Suniis didn't vote. The Shiites and the Kurds used to be oppressed by the Suniis and see that as a chance to take revenge.
Violence won't stop, the situation is now just reversed, the Shiites are going to have the absolute power and oppress the Sunniis who will fight back of course.
And the Kurds will also tighten their control in the north, working toward independence (and probably oppressing the Turkmen minority in the process) which will anger Turkey and may cause a military intervention.

Nothing is solved.

Iraqis risked their lives to vote. You are wrong about "rigged", that is propaganda from your camp. The US won't pull the strings anymore that any other country will influence Iraq when the process is complete. The soldiers were there to protect Iraqi citizens during the election from insurgents. You know all this but somehow your political leanings won't let you admit that this is a great step toward freedom. In a democracy, if you don't show up, you only hurt your own chances for representation. So, if the Sunnis want to stay at home, that is to their own detriment. This is typical of all of your comments, Haku, you criticise and condemn but you have no ideas, just condemnation. What do you suggest the next step should be now that the elections have been held? How would you ensure that the US is not "rigging" the election. You really sound like you have joined the other side to me.

spyretto

31-01-2005, 18:06

Iraqis risked their lives to vote. You are wrong about "rigged", that is propaganda from your camp. The US won't pull the strings anymore that any other country will influence Iraq when the process is complete. The soldiers were there to protect Iraqi citizens during the election from insurgents. You know all this but somehow your political leanings won't let you admit that this is a great step toward freedom. In a democracy, if you don't show up, you only hurt your own chances for representation. So, if the Sunnis want to stay at home, that is to their own detriment. This is typical of all of your comments, Haku, you criticise and condemn but you have no ideas, just condemnation. What do you suggest the next step should be now that the elections have been held? How would you ensure that the US is not "rigging" the election. You really sound like you have joined the other side to me.

You said you were gonna tone it down bpro50. Aren't you gonna keep your promise? I'm keeping mine ;) Anyway, lots of celebrations on the American/British camps and I have to admit there was an air of optimism I felt as well, despite my misgivings. Nothing terrible happened so far...lets wait to see what happens from now on. The whole world is watching America now and is anxious about how you're gonna handle the situation. Lets hope for the best.

bpro50

31-01-2005, 22:20

British comments from Tony Blair:

In a brief statement at 10 Downing Street, Mr Blair said: "Democracy in Iraq is not just good for Iraq itself. It is also a blow right to the heart of the global terrorism that threatens destruction not just in Iraq but in Britain and virtually every major country around the world."

American Comments from George Bush:

Speaking at the White House within hours of polling stations closing, Mr Bush said: "The world is hearing the voice of freedom from the centre of the Middle East.

"In great numbers and in great risk, Iraqis have shown their commitment to democracy."

Iraqi comments from Iyad Allawi:

The whole world is watching us. As we worked together yesterday to finish dictatorship, let us work together toward a bright future -- Sunnis and Shi'ites, Muslims and Christians, Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen."

Terrorist comments:

Al Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq slammed the election, which was hailed around the world as a success, denouncing it as an American game.

"We in the al Qaeda Organization for Holy War in Iraq will continue the jihad until the banner of Islam flutters over Iraq," said the statement posted on an Islamist Web site.

Haku Comments:

Democracy? Elections held under foreign occupation are not free elections. Those "elections" are rigged anyway, the results have been decided beforehand in Washington by the Bush administration. Nothing is solved.

Terrorist Brave Actions:

Terrorists used a disabled child as a suicide bomber on election day, Iraqi interior minister Falah al-Naqib said today.

I humbly suggest once again that this was a huge step forward for the Iraqi people who risked their lives to vote. And, as a special treat, I won't speak my whole mind on the subject. I will tone it down. There, I did it.

ypsidan04

31-01-2005, 23:36

Why don't you hand over Alaska

Alaska was legally bought and paid for, but I really made an argument without knowing the facts, so nevermind.

the right to small islands that are a couple of miles away from Turkey?

Will you look at the map?

Greece controls everything in yellow (http://www.atlapedia.com/online/maps/political/Greece_etc.htm)
hand over a few islands to the Turks; hell, hand over half of the Aegean that is closer to Turkey hand over territories which have been Greek from the dawn of time, and for which we spilled blood to get back and are recognised as Greek territories by international laws; hand them over to them cause it feels fair

What's this "We" about? Are you a Greek descendent lving in Wales? :confused: And I agree with your statement there:
But then there's the ethnicity problem. I'll bet that those islands off the coast of Turkey have ethnic Greeks living there, and they wouldn't want to have to live in Turkey all of a sudden or be forced to move.

It's definitely a sticky issue, I don't deny that. And thanks for the history. :)
The Cypriot government a puppet government from Athens?

Sorry for making claims with litte knowledge of the situation. :(
Iraqis risked their lives to vote.

And a number of people did perish because of a number of attacks. But it's thankfully a small amount compared to the amount that voted.
You really sound like you have joined the other side to me.

And he still hasn't replied to my comments about his comments about Israel. :confused:
until the banner of Islam flutters over Iraq

What do they mean? It doesn't today? Of course it does. Or do they mean that Islam and Democracy are mutally exclusive? :rolleyes:

spyretto

01-02-2005, 00:41

ypsidan04, read a bit of history before you express opinions on subjects you know nothing about. All those parts were Greek parts founded by Greeks and were taken away by the Turks were they descended God knows were from.
Byzantium (now Istanbul, previously Constantinople ) was founded in the 6th century BC and remained Greek until 1453 where it was occupied. Same with the coastal parts of Asia Minor. We hand over our islands we fought for back to the Turks? Never...we should be claiming Istanbul instead, because that was the centre of the Eastern Enlightenment and of Orthodox Christianity. I'm actually surprised that we don't have Istanbul. You have no idea how Greek and how magnificent Istanbul was. How about capital of the Byzantine empire? Ever heard of Ayia Sofia? The Ottoman Turks claimed something that was not theirs, the greatest Christian church in the whole of Eastern Europe ( Ayia Sofia ) and they turned into a mosque. They made their symbol out of a Greek symbol. Do you know that although they changed the name of the city, even this name they use is from the Greek? Is-tan-bul derives from Is-tin-poli meaning "on the Polis" ( Polis is from Constantinoupolis, Constantinople , of course. So the Turks couldn't even find a decent Turkish name for the city they occupy :p :rolleyes:
So add the European part of Turkey and you'll see how the map changes. The picture is complete If you add the coastal parts of Asia Minor and then you have a perfect vertical virtual line and the map makes a lot more sense. Do it, and tell me how it looks. Well, that was the old Greece, if you'd like to know.

P.S.I'm not a descendant, you fool. :p I'm a 100% Greek who lives in Wales for the last 4 years. I thought you knew that. My English is not that great ;)

bpro50

01-02-2005, 00:48

1) And a number of people did perish because of a number of attacks. But it's thankfully a small amount compared to the amount that voted.

2) And he still hasn't replied to my comments about his comments about Israel. :confused:

3) What do they mean? It doesn't today? Of course it does. Or do they mean that Islam and Democracy are mutally exclusive? :rolleyes:

1) You are absolutely right. I can't imagine the courage that the Iraqi citizens had to be able to vote knowing that their lives were in danger. I thought the voter turnout would be low because of the pending threat. That is why I am amazed. It may be a game in some people's mind but not in the mind of those that risked their lives.

2) That is because his remarks were really uncalled for. Israel has been an unbelievable country to watch throughout history and especially in the past 60 years. I am proud to be their friend and brother. If that chaps the rest of the world then so be it, they are our friend. I don't think the some appreciate the fact that Israel will never allow their people to be persecuted or to suffer again like they have been historically. Those days are gone, thank God.

3) I think the big question for many is . . . will democracy work in Iraq. Honestly, I can only say that I hope that it does. And, like I said before, developing a democratic society is a slow and messy process, so there will always be naysayers no matter what progress is being made. And then there is another camp that just hates America and believe there is a hidden agenda in everthing that we do. And then you have the muslim extremist that believe we have evil all over us and we are descrating the holiness of their soil. Those will be hard to please also. The big benefit to having the US overseeing the rebuilding of the government is that no one else is going to mess with them except insurgents and ultimately I think they will be reduced to desert thugs unwanted everywhere with no country and few followers. They will be free to develop an economic infrastrure that might rival all of the other countries of the middle east i.e. Japan or South Korea or West Germany.

bpro50

01-02-2005, 00:50

My English is not that great ;)

Neither is your Greek! ;)

spyretto

01-02-2005, 00:52

Neither is your Greek! ;)

Bpro, if you don't stop it now, I'm gonna post all the private messages you sent to me and expose you as the fraud that you are :cool: I think we're a bit of a split personality, aren't we?
Tell me, who is filling your brain with all this crap, is it the mama or maybe the papa? Oh, it's the mama...tell her to open an account with tatysite and speak her own mind. Using her child as a vehicle to do it is not decent. :mad:

forre

01-02-2005, 03:03

spyretto, bpro50, You, guys, are offending each other.
Spy, you know that we don't like people publishing Private messages here. It's a serious violation of the user's privacy.
bpro50, Keep your comments on spyretto's knowledge of Greek for yourself, please. It's not relevant at all and it sounds offensive.

bpro50

01-02-2005, 04:37

Bpro, if you don't stop it now, I'm gonna post all the private messages you sent to me and expose you as the fraud that you are :cool: I think we're a bit of a split personality, aren't we?
Tell me, who is filling your brain with all this crap, is it the mama or maybe the papa? Oh, it's the mama...tell her to open an account with tatysite and speak her own mind. Using her child as a vehicle to do it is not decent. :mad:

Thought I'd save you the time. These are my messages so I suppose I am within the rules of the forum. These are the Private Messages sent to Spy:

I wish you would quit making personal attacks toward me. And quit speaking on behalf of everyone else. You say, "I don't know why "we" keep responding . . . Try speaking for yourself and not for others. Do you think you can do that? I am tired of it. If you want to ignore my statements that suits me fine just don't try to convince everyone else to follow you. That is just not right and it is mean-spirited.
************************************************** ***********************

Well, thanks, and don't shut me out! We may have different opinions and be worlds apart but I enjoy your comments and I learn from you. I am amazed at how people around the world are so angry with the US and I really hope that it changes. I certainly don't think in any way that we are better than others but it hurts to hear Europeans berate the US. My family is from Scotland and Ireland so I feel a kinship with Islands and with Europe. I just hope that our policies and our differences doesn't affect our friendship in the short and long term.

************************************************** ************************

Thanks for your note and I will try to tone it down. You know you mentioned finding a forum where people agree with everything you say . . . well, that is possible, but I learn more and I am challenged more in my beliefs by trying to comprehend other people's points of view especially those all over Europe and other places. I hate it that there are so many stereotypes of the US and so much hatred pointed at us right now. And, if people are willing, I hope that we can get beyond Iraq. It's idealistic but I hope that Iraq can somehow get on its feet and we can get most of our troops out of there. The more I learn about politics and the history of political decisions, the harder it gets to see a "bright" future out there. For one thing, no one seems to look up to any of our political leaders any more. One of my favorites is Colin Powell but I am not too sure that anyone else likes him.

So whatever you all see of my mommy and daddy out there, have fun. You know , some have a sense of humor and some may not but this thread is suppose to be about US policy and not whether I have a split personality or not. Lighten up, please. Let's debate ideas and not personalities. Get it?

BTW - my comment about Greece was really just light-hearted humor. You guys put on a great show at the Olympics but that is a little off topic now isn't it?

nath

01-02-2005, 06:45

bpro50, coooolllll...... :) don't worry...it's like that on tatysite......passionnated.... :p
Really ...so sometimes you have to go out and breath a lot of air or go for shopping or seeing friends...if not ...you break your computer!....truth!
Tatysite is a good school about life and teaches you a lot ...for exemple : how to controle yourself!

It's a kind post...just to tell you that everyone here has passed by this way...to be upset by some other posts....but after with time it's okay...(i tell you that but sometimes i have big problems to control myself too...hihi...but not in this thread...)...
So don't worry...and just be honest with yourself...and stay as you're : polite and trying to argue in an intelligent way...
And don't think that it's because people say nothing that they don't read you and that they don't agree with you nor appreciate your thoughts....

People here have a good heart...really ...sometimes tired or passionnated but they are good guys...so...really , don't be sick about this situation (i tell you that cause i was physically sick myself by some situations....and i'm still there... ;) )

You'll see ... you'll enjoy tatysite...courage...and just stay yourself...if discussion brings another sight to you...admit it without shame....if not...just stay with your convictions...in a such case the NUMBER isn't important...it's just what you really feel which is important...cause they are some fashions which are as the WIND and could push people to say a thing and after its absolutely opposite....hihi...you'll see it's funny to observe...
EXCEPT HERE .... ;) ...I mean Spy and Haku aren't "fashionable persons"...they just have too their deep convictions...Their convictions could be different from yours or mine , but they are really good guys...
So smile bpro50, okay ?....and don't forget to be patient....just TIME says in history and in life if you've thought right or wrong..! Tenderness :rose:

bpro50

01-02-2005, 07:16

spyretto

01-02-2005, 11:05

forre

01-02-2005, 11:38

Of course USA's international strategy will make the country unpopular! Since when starting the wars made a country popular?

Here, in the little, quiet Sweden we just had a very interesting case. Last summer, Swedish UN ambassador Pierre Schori left his post and returned home. On his return he left a report to the Sweden's Minister of international affairs. Guess what? The report has been classified. Now, the journalists managed to get this report which contains hard criticism towards USA's international politics. It says that USA's undermines the actual work of the UN's security council and uses it to achieve its own goals. It says that the was in Iraq developed into a political, economical and humanitarian disaster.

The criticism towards USA's international policy seems to come from not only media but international organisations too. At least we know now what UN ambassadors think.

ypsidan04

01-02-2005, 16:43

Do it, and tell me how it looks. Well, that was the old Greece, if you'd like to know.

P.S.I'm not a descendant, you fool. :p I'm a 100% Greek who lives in Wales for the last 4 years. I thought you knew that. My English is not that great ;)

That makes a lot of sense now, yes.

Well, excuuuuse me! :o :)
I am proud to be their friend and brother. If that chaps the rest of the world then so be it, they are our friend.

Yes, of course me too. I might be the only one here who has actually traveled to Israel. I was there in 1999.
You guys put on a great show at the Olympics but that is a little off topic now isn't it?

Money Greece spent on 2004 Olympics: 9 billion dollars US

Money China plans to spend on 2008 Olympics: 37 billion dollars US

And why can they afford that? Because the US trading with them is making them rich! The Bush (and Clinton and Bush Sr and Reagan yada yada) Adminstration doesn't seem to mind givng a ton of money to a country that limits free speech, freedom of religion, strictly censors the media and the Internet, disregards rule of law by killing people with little or no charges against them, and continues to occupy Tibet. We have ceased trading with Cuba for lesser offenses. :rolleyes:
Israel already has nukes ( but that's ok I guess )

Of course it is. Why do you think they are one of only a few countries in the world that has mandatory year of two of military service for men and women? Because they justifiably feel threatened. And if we can have them, and India and Pakistan can have them with little or no hassle from us, then Israel should be able to have them too.

spyretto

01-02-2005, 17:51

That makes a lot of sense now, yes.

Well, excuuuuse me! :o :)

You're forgiven :D

Yes, of course me too. I might be the only one here who has actually traveled to Israel. I was there in 1999.

And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face,
that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look
to the end of that which is abolished:
But their minds were blinded:
for until this day remaineth the same vail
untaken away in the reading of the old testament;
which vail is done away in Christ.
But even unto this day, when Moses is read,
the vail is upon their heart.

2 Corinthians 3 (13-15)

Money Greece spent on 2004 Olympics: 9 billion dollars US

Money China plans to spend on 2008 Olympics: 37 billion dollars US

And why can they afford that? Because the US trading with them is making them rich! The Bush (and Clinton and Bush Sr and Reagan yada yada) Adminstration doesn't seem to mind givng a ton of money to a country that limits free speech, freedom of religion, strictly censors the media and the Internet, disregards rule of law by killing people with little or no charges against them, and continues to occupy Tibet. We have ceased trading with Cuba for lesser offenses. :rolleyes:

The USA is doing their best to subvert China and it's not going to be a difficult cause - no matter how much I admire their civilization - they're one of the weakest empires. The Chinese have a bad trait in their personality, they're extremely greedy and selfish and the Americans know how to take advantage of that.

Of course it is. Why do you think they are one of only a few countries in the world that has mandatory year of two of military service for men and women? Because they justifiably feel threatened. And if we can have them, and India and Pakistan can have them with little or no hassle from us, then Israel should be able to have them too.

That's what happens when you plant a country by force in an Islamic dominated region. Oh, I should have known Americans love the Jews so much...well, fair enough. Bush loves them too, he'd rather go into a global war than see them perish :eek:
Justifiably or not, if Bush is ready to go to war with whoever threatens to develop nuclear weapons - or is it only whoever threatens to develop nuclear weapons who are muslims and in close vicinity to Israel :confused: - I don't see how it's ok for Israel to have anything more than conventional weapons, even if they're armed to the teeth as they are.

I don't know about India but Pakistan as your great ally in Asia is of course entitled of having them. Interesting...I guess the good guys can handle the nukes while the bad guys can't..."you're either with us or against us", the ones who are with us get their nukes too ;)
(-But Pakistan are muslims too! and they've military regime, aren't we gonna liberate them too?
- oh never mind that, they're our friends...friends go for free :laugh: )

ypsidan04

01-02-2005, 17:53

"you're either with us or against us", the ones who are with us get their nukes too ;)

Right about that.

http://www.funnytimes.com/store/images/enemy.jpg - front and back of a t-shirt

I plan to purchase this in the not too distant future (http://www.funnytimes.com/store/images/landfree.jpg) :cool:

And I dont understand your scripture.

bpro50

01-02-2005, 18:01

To sum up:
1) The US worked with the UN for years to build a consensus that included military action against Sadaam Hussein. Afer years of violating one resolution after another, the US initated an overthrow of Sadaam and his regime. It was not a popular decision with many of the core members of the UN council, namely France, Germany and Russia.
2) Several comments made in this thread accused the US of being Fascist, and using tactics of Hitler. I simply reminded these people that their accusations were unfounded, not logical and that extreme "isms" of the twentieth century came out of Europe not the US.
3) The US has strong ties with Israel and will support Israel. In terms of military strength, Israel needs no support from anyone.
4) War is hell. I will be glad when this war is over and I am thankful that the people of Iraq want to take control of their country. I am really amazed at the turnout whatever the motive for doing so. It indicates a desire to take control of their country.
5) I never stated that the US created democracy. That didn't come from me.
6) I believe in pre-emptive war if necessary. And, only after all other solutions have been exhausted. I have said before that I wasn't totally in agreement with the pre-emptive strike against Iraq but once done, it was necessary to follow through and complete the work of rebuilding Iraq. We have invested 200 billion dollars in that effort.
7) Even has recent as yesterday, Iran has made statements of a desire to move into dialogue with the US. That is a good sign.

I am not laughing at anyone just stating my opinion.

spyretto

01-02-2005, 18:18

1) Not true
2) You don't need fascism. You have mass propaganda and mind manipulation 24/7 and the results are more desireable. The Orwelian notions will mutate and gain new meaning in the "land of the free". We're more free than you, by the way, only we don't slam it on your face 24/7 as you do..
3) Don't go to a World War over it.
4) yadda yadda yadda...we'll see about that in practice when your troops leave Iraq for good...make it quick.
5) But since you liberated us all you brought democracy back. Hey, Pakistan has military rule and nukes...aren't you gonna liberate them too? no? why not?
6) Keep on believing in it, you're doing a great job at it.
7) yeah cause if they don't you're gonna fcuk them, excuse my expession.

oh ok, glad you made it clear now.

bpro50

01-02-2005, 20:21

forre

02-02-2005, 00:44

nath

02-02-2005, 01:16

I just hope bpro50 is laughing his ass off with our reactions here and he's not for real. Because if he is, and that's the dominant political sentiment in the U.S. right now, we're all doomed. Better start saying our prayers now.

To sum up:

1) America brought democracy to the world
2) The Israeilis are America's blood brothers and the USA should protect them at any cost.
3) It is not condemnable for the Israelis to attack an Arab country with nuclear weapons if an Arab country is developing nuclear programs that could be potentially used against them.
4) Israel already has nukes ( but that's ok I guess )
5) Bush is so sophisticated even Ceasar would be envious of him.
6) The more America helps around the world the more it is hated for it.
7) Iran would be a "better" choice for attack than Iraq.
8) Mild torture techniques are ok to be used on muslim people under U.S. captivity :bum:
9) Europe's area of expertise is Nazism, fascism, communism and
10) Socialist ideology, which is equated to the above :rolleyes:
11) France has not thanked the US enough for WWII.
12) Everybody knew Saddam had weapons of mass destruction but America was the only one who had the courage to do something about it ( so where are the weapons nath? "I believe" they had weapons don't say a thing to me )
13) Iran's violation of the UN resolution is the reason to be attacked. America cooperating with the UN equals handing over sovereignty to them ( talking about contradicting yourself there :mad: )
14) Pre-emptive wars are totally OK
15) To hate is the "Euro" thing to do.

Then you hail democracy in Iraq, just like Hitler hailed "peace in our time". Those are not opinions man, it's the new face of fascism you seem so opposed about. 24/7 US media propaganda is working wonders on the American youth. I suspected that Americans are losing their mind, now I'm convinced. :bum:
This forum is gettng nuts. :D
Bush has managed to divide the world and we're now moving towards a dangerous path. My friend who works in China was telling me that the communist regime over there speaks less about how great their country is that the Americans do... :rolleyes:
Spy...why do you write like that ?... :confused:
I mean you use rethoric to disturn from its original meaning what we could think....and you know it...
I don't understand the purpose of a such post...we are discussing here...and we have different points of view...so why do you want to "show" us as extremists...we aren't ...and you are enough intelligent to know it...
So you exagarate everything...don't think it's the best way to discuss than to chose to deform what we say and we think...it is ?

12) Everybody knew Saddam had weapons of mass destruction but America was the only one who had the courage to do something about it ( so where are the weapons nath? "I believe" they had weapons don't say a thing to me )

You have your convictions, I have mine...am I allowed ?...my brain isn't a "google adict"....I'm 40 years old and I began to observe things , to think long before I ever knew what is google...so sometimes I have other things to do than to spend hours on the net to find references on google...
But if you are an expert about web , may be you could find a video which was on Al -Jazeera, yesterday night near...23h00...23h40...french hour...it was about uranium....I didn't have the reflex to record it on a tape to make it translate by my muslim/arabic friends...yes I have even if it could surprise you.....
On this report , Bin Laden "said"...in was written in english " We have Nukes".....so why did he play this game if he hadn't?....If it was strategic way for intimidation...may be it wasn't the best card to play...

I think , just before the war there were big movements which were repered by satellite in direction of Syria...if my memory is good , some members of al quaïda were arrested around Bagdhad....
I saw several FRENCH reports on FRENCH tv "Envoyé spécial" ...Haku knows...just before the war....where they showed how the visits for control of nuclear,chimical weapons were made by official organisations...and how there were a lot of suspect things....places which weren't visited because it wasn't programmed for the visit or rooms which seemed JUST CLEANTto be honest ...guys , iraqi scientific who spoke in an anonymous face and who were working about this stuff.......long time after all the illegal stuff has been officially distroyed...
We aren't stupid...if somebody tells me : " okay ....i'll come to visit your house in 2 months to see if nothing is suspect here"....I have TIME to CLEAN my House!!! :rolleyes:

So...i have enough deception about your posts...that i find a little agressive...not sure it's the best way to drive a debate....
I think We didn't say with Bro ..".it's a goood thing, the best thing...that USA has attacked Iraq..."... We've said and thought (tell me if I didn't catch very well your thoughts Bro..) ..it would be better that diplomatic way succeded but as the things went in another way...now we are face to a situation...

In this new stuation (invasion of iraq) ...people treats USA as a shit!.....USA is treated to be WORSE than Saddam Hussein....WORSE than Talibans....so at the beginning , we read these kind of posts....and at a moment , it became unbearable!...why?....just because this unic direction was becoming worse and worse....and i know even pure ANTI BUSH who were a little irritated by them because they became TOO extremist.....
THAT's WHY WE REACTED.....

Now about occupation of Iraq by USA.....they are there...okay it's a fact...so the new "sentence "is ...WHEN they leave?
Me I don't want they leave now.....why? because it would be really criminal!!!...to let them with a civil war !!!!......you know very that in a such case, all the extremist muslim parties from ALLL the countries will sent all their monay , people to desabilize what is trying to be built....and to return to an extremist muslim power....
You know perfectly it !...

If regimes as Talibans , Hussein, or Iran and C° are your cup of tea....i could understand your point of view....if not ...let me believe that mine isn't so stupid....

USA occuped Germany after the War II.....or I'm wrong...or they left....

And your OIL!!........is really the Iraqi People who get benefts from it!!...for its all days life....I mean with all the big guns with a big part of massive gold which were the collection of dear saddam....a lot f Iraqis could have eaten for long months....

It's always SAD when people die....War is sad...I absolutely agree....but your determination, fury in wanting to show USA as equal as the worse dictatures....I disagree...

I hope the tone will change cause to agress people like that just because they don't have the same ideas than you , to try to intimidate them as you did...doesn't seem the best demonstration of an democratic exchange.

nath

02-02-2005, 02:18

PS: "Democracy separates God from Life and it's forbidden..."...declaration of one of the Sunnis Leader on Al-Jeezera today, the same guy who asked to Sunnis to boycott elections..... :) :done:

bpro50

02-02-2005, 02:41

Spy...why do you write like that ?... :confused:
I mean you use rethoric to disturn from its original meaning what we could think....and you know it...
I don't understand the purpose of a such post...we are discussing here...and we have different points of view...so why do you want to "show" us as extremists...we aren't ...and you are enough intelligent to know it...
So you exagarate everything...don't think it's the best way to discuss than to chose to deform what we say and we think...it is ?

Thanks for your comments. I really do think there is a big misunderstanding about American policy for foreign affairs. I heard it said by a foreigner that the US has a lot of patience with its enemies but there is a limit. I think that Sadaam took one step too many in trying that patience. There is a lot of hatred for the US going on in the world right now. The relationship with muslim nations is under close scrutiny in the US. If muslim extremist continue to label the US as the "great Satan" and raise up a generation of children willing to commit suicide to kill American "infidels" then there is a limit to how much of that religious rhetoric that will be tolerated. There is an end to our patience with a people that continue to harbor so much hatred. That is the reason why we eventually root out so-called leadership that instills false beliefs in the muslim community and we will never trust countries that allow those kinds of people to threaten US security to build weapons of destruction. As long as the US is powerful enough and wealthy enough to enforce its will on those in opposition, I think you can count on it.

As far as those that differ with my points of view, I propose that you talk about ideas and not make personal attacks. Please.

forre

02-02-2005, 03:05

As far as those that differ with my points of view, I propose that you talk about ideas and not make personal attacks. Please.
bpro50, This rule applies to you too. So no need to tell spy that he visits terrorist forums.
US may be under the threat of arabic countries but there's no need to go against a country with a war. Are we defending ourselves or spreading the democracy? I'll tell you why EU reacts as it does. First we had weapons of mass destruction and now no one seems to speak about that. Now we are spreading democracy. There's no wonder that USA receives criticism.

bpro50

02-02-2005, 03:40

bpro50, This rule applies to you too. So no need to tell spy that he visits terrorist forums.
US may be under the threat of arabic countries but there's no need to go against a country with a war. Are we defending ourselves or spreading the democracy? I'll tell you why EU reacts as it does. First we had weapons of mass destruction and now no one seems to speak about that. Now we are spreading democracy. There's no wonder that USA receives criticism.

Well I think we beat that subject to death didn't we. There was reason to believe that there were WMDs (see Colin Powell's speech at the UN). Whether we found the weapons or not, this step in rebuilding Iraq would have been a part of a strategic plan. As far as spreading democracy, it does appear to me that the US President has made it clear that his hope and aspiration is to see the end of an era that allows tyrannist to rule in the world as dictators. That may not sit well in the European community and I understand the criticism but I think that is the vision that the current administration has.

As far as the rules, I "proposed" a solution that simply reiterated your own statement and my willingness to follow the rules. If someone makes a personal attack on me, I will try to ignore it but I am human.

ypsidan04

02-02-2005, 04:39

and that extreme "isms" of the twentieth century came out of Europe not the US.

"One shouldn't believe in '-ism's'. He should believe in himself" - Ferris Bueller :coctail:

bpro50

02-02-2005, 05:12

"One shouldn't believe in '-ism's'. He should believe in himself" - Ferris Bueller :coctail:

You got me there. Ferris is a great American statesman! ;)

spyretto

02-02-2005, 08:30

Shake it up ppl! Aren't we getting a way too aggressive here? Less offence please. Discuss political issues and NOT each other personally.
Spy, try to make a better choice of your words. Really, sometimes it's just over the edge.

What is over the edge? All I did was to look through his extreme nationalist views and make a list of them. He has a tendency to go back into his shell and retract his dangerous positions and then appear as if he's saying something constructive. He was trying to befriend me by saying that he doesn't really mean all these things he says but then he's off again, like a well-oiled propaganda machine, an Edward Hyde of sorts.
You didn't reprimand him for calling me a godless terrorist and frankly, it's not me who is insulting only but all of you who live in Europe. His assumptions are also totally unfounded cause the guy obviously has no idea what he's talking about when he refers to European culture. He's already expressed opinions that are anything but democratic then goes back to say what a great thing democracy will be for Iraq. I try not to express opinions for things I don't know, but he does it all the time and pisses off people in the process.
The stuff that he writes here are passed from me around and discussed elsewhere - well, they're part of a public discussion and this is a public forum isn't it? - just to show what kind of sentiments exist in America right now - and people have laughed, marvelled, angered and despaired at the absurdity and extremism of his comments.
But it's good to know that people with such extreme views exist and let this be a lesson to everybody who think that America is a free country, and we're done away with the dangers of the past; let alone when such views come from young people. You decide if the young lad's views are the result of his free thinking or of a systematic brain-washing about the grandeur of America and the insignificancy of everybody else. He was born in the USA after all. TEXAS. Go figure.
Anyway, forre you disappointed me, but hey, no hard feelings. But if you guys respect equality, true democracy, human rights, and you're in for peace, you should be able to see through this guy.. Democracy and peace will come in the way of tolerance, not by the perpetuation of nationalist extremist views, like his.

If you people thought that GW Bush might pose a serious threat to world peace - I'm surely not alone in this - this guy is the evidence. He's an admirer of the intellectuality and sophistication of Bush after all, let alone his policies :rolleyes:

bpro50

02-02-2005, 17:24

I wouldn't go to Europe and pretend to be an expert on your history, philosophy, politics, culture, etc. I spent about six years in Europe when I was younger but that doesn't qualify me to know much about your culture. On the other hand, the reason that I responded to comments that were so anti-American in the first place was because a lot of the opinions were not based on how Americans view themselves. Even the most liberal camps of American scholars would not be close to some of the posts on this forum. I considered them extreme and so I voiced a different opinion. I honestly don't think anyone on this forum is qualified to judge Mr. Bush's intellctualisim or his sophistication certainly not me. It is useless to evaluate how intelligent you think George Bush is. The thing I admire most about George Bush is his decisiveness. He has made some very difficult decisions in world affairs and I believe the result will be a more democratic and free world. Great leaders throughout history have always been unpopular to the naysayers in their time. George Bush could have a greater impact on world than any world leader since Churchill.

When I see the personal insults against Texas, democracy, my own patriotism, I marvel too that others don't really believe in anything except condeming those that do. I appeal to everyone to keep focused on the ideas of this discussion and leave the personal insults behind.

There is a movement in the world right now that is alarming. Islamism has a mission to destroy westerm democracy specifically the US as being the most "corrupt". They are fearful that our way of life is in direct opposition to the teachings of Islam. The fact that these people are living in mideval modes of tyranny must be dealt with. The US will not wait for the Jihad to materialize. We just won't. I admire this admistration for saying enough is enough.

bpro50

02-02-2005, 17:32

Freedom:

Some of you have made statement about Europeans being more free than the US. I am curious, what does that mean? How do you define freedom? One definition I like is the ability to understand the other man's point of view, know your own and have the ability to live out your life day to day according to the beliefs that you have. Other thoughts?

coolasfcuk

02-02-2005, 18:30

:rolleyes: I have read most, but not all ... it is getting out of hand here ... spy, you judge bpro on not knowing Europe(ans) well enough to make conclusions ... well, you do NOT know America(ns) well enough to make your conclusions either.

Seems like both of you are taking extreme views and like bulls constantly hitting horns, but none of you even makes an effort to intake the other point of view .. (though bpro, tries to show like he does for a while)

Of course WB is a complete ... BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP, but I completely disagree with US being worse than Talibans and Hussein :confused:

US might have taken a 'rough' course the last few years, and it's making it go downhill right now, but lets face it ... Europe(and here i am reffering to EU) is NOT some utopian thing.

.. and please think again about America - such a young country with short history, and yet the World Power. The concept of people from all over the world (and mailny) Europe, immigrating here and starting/building this so fast is not to be underestimated .... and just think of the # of world 'brains' that come to US per year ;) ....

... I just hope for the best, and that it can pick itself up .... and knowing its capabilities (US) i know it is possible

spyretto

02-02-2005, 19:53

There is a movement in the world right now that is alarming. Islamism has a mission to destroy westerm democracy specifically the US as being the most "corrupt". They are fearful that our way of life is in direct opposition to the teachings of Islam. The fact that these people are living in mideval modes of tyranny must be dealt with. The US will not wait for the Jihad to materialize. We just won't. I admire this admistration for saying enough is enough.

This is what I call extremism. Extremism, narrow-mindedness and gross generalization as a result of complete and utter ignorance. There is a counter movement in this world that is alarming too. America wants to take over the world. They're gonna do it by either subverting everybody or destroying those who refuse to be submissive. They started from Iraq and they're going to spread it out to the whole of the Arab world, then take on the rest of the world. The key word is "democracy". The motive is wealth. America will exploit the riches of the countries it subverts for their own benefit, bleed them dry and leave the crumbs for the rest.

Did you like that? No, I don't believe in that - at least not yet. This was an example of a counter idea to the one you're proposing. Islam wants to destroy you and you destroy it first right? Have you read the Qu'ran and this is how you make your assumptions? or is it part of the propaganda you're receiving and spreading 24/7? The bottom line is you should leave those countries alone to solve their own problems. If you cannot but mess into other people's business don't be surprised if the resistance intensifies...It might not be in Iraq it'll be wherever you strike next.
History post-WWII has shown that whenever you intervened you made things worse than make it better. How would you feel if somebody came to your country, subverted your government because, say, Bush is now considered one of the main threats of peace, and they put their own government instead? This is what you're doing over and over. The problem is not Saddam Hussein, he was a ruthless dictator who was not removed when he was commiting his crimes and when he should have been removed but "at the time of your choosing" - with your president lying to the whole world to have his way, and 12 years after when he was potentially harmlful. ( You're getting into "loopholes when you talk about Saddam don't you? People only need to take one look at your views to see how many inconsistencies are there. )
The problem is not Islam either, Islam has existed parallel to Christianity and it's a relatively peaceful philosophy, and how about the crimes commited in the name of Christianity? The problem is you. As the Arab world is in a different stage of development, maybe where the Christian world was 300 years ago, what do you do in return? You show them the way by the use of your might and your weapons and you breed more hatred and more intolerance. When you understand you're part of the problem you'll also understand you're part the solution. Until then, keep on preaching your nationalist ideas, but as I told you before, if you're so patriotic do something for a change: enrol in the US army and volunteer to go and fight Islam. Don't just write in this forum, hoping that by preaching your great American patriotic ideas you can convince the rest of the world.
By the way, I also don't believe that you've been in Europe, not for 6 years not even for 6 hours. You don't read as you have. As for democracy, democracy is to be tested, should be under scrutiny and constant re-evaluation to strengthen its foundations against totalitarianism as the ancient Greeks did. As a descentant of the people who founded democracy, I can tell you that your democracy sucks. You put a person up for president without having the popular vote. Your democracy is not democracy for democracy's sake but democracy for capitalism's sake.
Peace ( or war if you prefer )

Where are you people to defend our beliefs? you've left me alone to carry the heavy burden :p

bpro50

02-02-2005, 19:59

Distinguishing between Islam and Islamism
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Daniel Pipe

This is what I mean by extremism. Argue with the scholars, joy boy!

Islamism is an ideology that demands man's complete adherence to the sacred law of Islam and rejects as much as possible outside influence, with some exceptions (such as access to military and medical technology). It is imbued with a deep antagonism towards non-Muslims and has a particular hostility towards the West. It amounts to an effort to turn Islam, a religion and civilization, into an ideology.

The Islamists' success in Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan, show that were they to come to power elsewhere, they would create enormous problems for the people they rule, for the neighborhood, and for the United States. Their reaching power would lead to economic contraction, to the oppression of women, to terrible human rights abuses, to the proliferation of arms, to terrorism, and to the spread of a viciously anti-American ideology. These are, in short, rogue states, dangerous first tho their own people and then to the outside world.

coolasfcuk

02-02-2005, 20:08

:rolleyes:

and this continues .... well, there is nothing we can do .... people at the - and people at the + but no one wants to think of the 0.

I agree and disagree with different parts of your arguments, both spy and bpro .. simply because one is on the - and one is on the + ... you are both extremists (if not in your actual believes, in the way you present yourselves on here) ...zhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiihaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa, you're perfect example of what is going on in the world right now .... if you want things to chance, look at your two selves and start by chaning yourselves - BOTH at the same time, and not one wanting the other to chance :coctail:

piece from here as well :cool:

spyretto

02-02-2005, 20:11

Is that a scholar? He reads like a bigot :p

oh yeah, appointed by George bush, nice paradigm, cool :laugh:

"Daniel Pipes is a neo-conservative, orientalist, extreme right-wing Zionist, and often expresses islamophobic statements. He is director of the Middle East Forum, and a columnist for right-wing newspapers. His father is Richard Pipes.

In 2004 Pipes was temporarily appointed by president Bush to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace, but on January 17, 2005, "President Bush has failed to take any action to renominate…". The "nomination of Pipes, who has made a career out of identifying and denouncing what he sees as radical Muslim penetration of American institutions, was opposed by senators Edward Kennedy, Tom Harkin and Christopher Dodd, all Democrats; Arab and Muslim groups, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; and Middle East analysts Judith Kipper of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and William Quandt of the University of Virginia." [1] (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/528405.html)"

bpro50

02-02-2005, 21:15

nath

02-02-2005, 21:28

:epopcorn:
:nunu: :hooligan: Ping-Pong... :p

bpro50

02-02-2005, 21:32

This is written by a concerned Muslim. He must be a Bush supporter too joy-boy!

Where is Islam heading?
Islam's Future

Submitted by Abdul Salam Wadi, September 10, 2004 at 21:03

It is hard to say and believe what is going on in the world. With so many religions and beliefs, Islam tends to take the lead in violence in this era. However, there is a fact that is hard to comprehend about Islam.

Though a I am a Muslim by origin, I am not proud of the way Islam is leading the current violence of the world. Muslims are so violent that we are being feared in the west by so many who see us as a threat to their cultures and beliefs.

I really don't know where Islam is heading but I know one thing for sure: militant Islam wants to conquer the west somehow. The next world battle that may arise on earth will have something to do between my Arab Islamic brothers and the West to be specific. With all the different religions on earth, only Islam is proclaiming peace and being peaceful but our actions cannot be justify by what we preach.

bpro50

02-02-2005, 21:33

:epopcorn:
:nunu: :hooligan: Ping-Pong... :p

Well be careful, the water is hot right now! Joy-boy is on the rampage! :)

coolasfcuk

02-02-2005, 21:33

:epopcorn:
:nunu: :hooligan: Ping-Pong...

:nunu: ... :hooligan: .... :kuli: ..... :epopcorn: ... :p

bpro50

02-02-2005, 21:38

I thought joy-boy would enjoy this one:

Here is a host of nonsensical assessments of the United States going way back, some amusingly absurd, others vicious.

Comte de Buffon, renowned French scientist (1749): The American "heart is frozen, their society cold, their empire cruel."

Talleyrand, French politician (1790s): It is a country of "32 religions and only one dish … and even that [is] inedible."

Alexis de Tocqueville, French social philosopher (1835): "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion."

Sigmund Freud, Austrian psychiatrist (1930s): "America is a mistake, a gigantic mistake."

George Bernard Shaw, Irish playwright (1933): "An asylum for the sane would be empty in America."

Henry Miller, American novelist (1945): America is "a fruit which rotted before it had a chance to ripen."

Harold Pinter, British playwright (2001): The United States is "the most dangerous power the world has ever known."

There, how's that for freedom of the press!

spyretto

02-02-2005, 21:38

Have you read the Qu'ran at all sir? Are you aware of the fact that it comes from the same source as the Bible? That many of the stories and the persons are the same? Many of the teachings are the same? No, I don't think you have.
You also need to find out what liberalism and centrism are, sir. There, in America, you abuse the terms without even knowing what they truly mean. "Liberalism" that you despise so much has even been embraced by right-wing institutions...but you wouldn't know that either, would you?
Thank God not all Americans think the way you do, I KNOW THAT. I salute and pay my respects to the half of free America who didn't succumb to the inane propaganda. It's four years, they're going to pass - hopefully without a huge loss - and we're going to be back.
As for you, sir, please join the Marine Corps, ok? George Bush needs you.

you found me a Jewish bigot who hates Islam...now find me a real scholar..

hey, it's not funny guys...this person is DANGEROUS :D

spyretto

02-02-2005, 21:44

bpro50 You're seriously losing the plot now. You're like a sponge who gets the knowledge , then filter it to suit your extremist right-wing perspective.

So yeah, lets do some more :help: :10x: :nunu: :rev:]

down with Bush, bpro50, down with Bush....I hope he gets cancer, muahahaha

coolasfcuk

02-02-2005, 22:06

you guys are loosing it completely, wait til forre comes to kick your butts :flag:
down with Bush, bpro50, down with Bush....I hope he gets cancer, muahahaha
and this was a horrible thing to say spy ... have you known someone that has/had cancer? :( NOT something you want to wish uppon ANYONE, even Bush

spyretto

02-02-2005, 22:19

oh common cool, you're saying that to appear neutral, when we know you don't like the course America is going either... it's going to save the world from more calamity as well :laugh:

The guy appointed a Islam-hating bigot as head of the U.S Institute of Peace... that speaks for itself. I'm learning something new every day :laugh:

coolasfcuk

02-02-2005, 22:29

oh common cool, you're saying that to appear neutral, when we know you don't like the course America is going either... it's going to save the world from more calamity as well :laugh:
Of course I dont agree with the course US is taking right now, but not to the polar view .... besides i live here, and know/see exactly who and how Americans view the situation ;)
.... but that is not the point - cancer is something not funny to me :(

spyretto

02-02-2005, 22:39

well, that was a bit of a joke, actually...yeah how else are we gonna do away with Dubya? :rolleyes:

spyretto

03-02-2005, 00:11

I wouldn't be half surprised:

http://www.funnytimes.com/store/images/sheep.jpg

...and i was so hopeful when he wrote to me that he doesn't consider the US better than anybody else and he'd rather kiss and makeup...too late now :p

Have you noticed how the bigots turn away from you when they can see you can't fall for the sheep technique? It happens to me all the time and i feel sooo neglected :cry: :laugh:

ypsidan04

03-02-2005, 00:17

or of a systematic brain-washing about the grandeur of America and the insignificancy of everybody else. He was born in the USA after all. TEXAS. Go figure.

I wouldn't be half surprised:

http://www.funnytimes.com/store/images/sheep.jpg
Europeans being more free than the US. I am curious, what does that mean? How do you define freedom? One definition I like is the ability to understand the other man's point of view, know your own and have the ability to live out your life day to day according to the beliefs that you have. Other thoughts?

Well lets see...Europeans can drink alcohol at an earlier age. There are a number of things I can't do because I'm not 21 yet, not just be disallowed from purchasing/consuming alcohol in public. I can't go to some clubs because they can't be bothered with putting a black X on your hand, as if that's a big hassle, so they just ban everyone under 21. Or even more crazy, they allow girls between 18 and 21, but guys have to be 21, and of course this helps them line their pockets, but it's not fair to guys. Many hotel chains won't give a room to people under 21, and many rental car companies won't give insurance to under 21's.

Homosexuals in Europe are treated much better. It's still legal in most places in this country to refuse to employ, to terminate employment, or refuse to rent to someone just because they're openly gay. And they can't have a real ceremony like everyone else, and they miss out on tons of benefits, at least in 49 states and all but 2 of Canada's provinces.

There's no such thing as the USAPATRIOT Act in Europe. European leaders can't label anyone they judge to be a threat an "enemy combatant", and in the process, strip them of all their rights, even if they are citizens of that country.

ypsidan04

03-02-2005, 00:25

Ted Kennedy is about the worst name in politics that you could ever reference as being opposed to any concept. Kennedy is an ancient icon of liberalism and very few people use him as a character reference.

Hmmm...sounds like Texas speak to me! :p

forre

03-02-2005, 00:46

I told ya, this guy is like an open book...I can smell the bigots 50 miles away, even if he tried to cover his marks and brought the proverbial gifts that befell Troy..no use :
spyretto, We spoke about that, okay? Avoid dissing another people. That's not nice and your cancer wishes for WBush are even worse. Maybe I dissapoint you again but you should definitely reconsider using such an offensive way.

bpro50

03-02-2005, 00:48

well, that was a bit of a joke, actually...yeah how else are we gonna do away with Dubya? :rolleyes:

Do you ever do anything but call other people names? Have you noticed that you have to tell people on the forum that they believe the same you do. Why don't you let people speak for themselves? Most have questioned your rhetoric and asked you to back off. I am not your friend, your personal bigot, your extremist but I would be proud to be a US Marine or any other branch of the military. I have family that gave their lives for principles that you mock. I am proud of our history and our heritage. I believe in the ideals of freedom and democracy and I believe that some things are worth dying for. Most of my heroes from history were soldiers, not rock musicians. There still are values that are worth giving your life to protect. I am so glad to be an American and there are no apologies. You will find out that I am not a follower of others either. If anyone is brainwashed, it would have to be someone that hates other people and your dialogue really indicates that you do. I pity you for that.

forre

03-02-2005, 00:54

spyretto, bpro50, you can't manage to have a debate, can you? Really, you should receive a big warning for that. If you go on, we'll either close the thread or arrange a temporary vacation from tatysite to cool down.

spyretto

03-02-2005, 00:58

spyretto, We spoke about that, okay? Avoid dissing another people. That's not nice and your cancer wishes for WBush are even worse. Maybe I dissapoint you again but you should definitely reconsider using such an offensive way.

I erased it already, didn't you see that? Did you fail to read the stuff he wrote about me or didn't you? I suggest you take a look, please :)
This is important, we're defending democracy here! ;)

I stand by my Bush wishes...doesn't mean he's gonna get it though...the evil live forever. Are you going to ban me for wishing bad for Bush?

well, bpro50 your latest comment made me spill a tear...but I can't recall faving rock musicians for heroes, I'm more proud about my history that gave the lights of wisdom to you though you're abusing now and I don't hate you at all, I just despise your ideology and what you stand for. I don't think people are interesting enough to be hated but they can be dangerous enough to be loved. So please keep your distance and we're gonna be just fine ;)

forre

03-02-2005, 01:10

I erased it already, didn't you see that? Did you fail to read the stuff he wrote about me or didn't you? I suggest you take a look, please :)
This is important, we're defending democracy here! ;)

When I read the post it wasn't erased, so I replied. Both you and bpro were insulting each other. We are defending democracy here without getting over into a personal level. It looks like that you have some difficulties to realise that your posts are offensive.

spyretto

03-02-2005, 01:18

My posts are a little bit on the risque side but is that really the point when I'm trying to defend the values we all stand for ? Cause if you're for peace, respect freedom of religion and think people are born equal you wouldn't be trying to treat him and me the same. He's for pre-emptive wars, Islam should be subverted cause they're trying to destroy them and Americans are superior beings to everybody else. If you didn't get that from his posts then I don't know what to say.

It doesn't matter anyway, as long as I know that people do not espouse his views I'm fine. Let it be known that nobody will fall for this cheap scaremongering.

bpro50

03-02-2005, 03:00

Hmmm...sounds like Texas speak to me! :p

As far as Ted Kennedy goes he lacked the vision, the courage and the charisma of his more well known brothers. John and Bobby Kennedy were great visionaries that transformed right before our eyes in a very turbulent time. Ted, on the other hand, showed character deficiencies that began with cheating on college exams, his Chappaquidek (sp) incident which should have resulted in a manslaughter indictment and then he followed all of that with a life long struggle with alcohol, drugs and womanizing. He has welcomed the banner of representing the far left on every issue simply to hype his views. He's not my favorite but he serves a purpose.

spyretto

03-02-2005, 03:11

I wouldn't be half surprised:

http://www.funnytimes.com/store/images/sheep.jpg

Well lets see...Europeans can drink alcohol at an earlier age. There are a number of things I can't do because I'm not 21 yet, not just be disallowed from purchasing/consuming alcohol in public. I can't go to some clubs because they can't be bothered with putting a black X on your hand, as if that's a big hassle, so they just ban everyone under 21. Or even more crazy, they allow girls between 18 and 21, but guys have to be 21, and of course this helps them line their pockets, but it's not fair to guys. Many hotel chains won't give a room to people under 21, and many rental car companies won't give insurance to under 21's.

Homosexuals in Europe are treated much better. It's still legal in most places in this country to refuse to employ, to terminate employment, or refuse to rent to someone just because they're openly gay. And they can't have a real ceremony like everyone else, and they miss out on tons of benefits, at least in 49 states and all but 2 of Canada's provinces.

There's no such thing as the USAPATRIOT Act in Europe. European leaders can't label anyone they judge to be a threat an "enemy combatant", and in the process, strip them of all their rights, even if they are citizens of that country.

some more facts

-America puts more of its people in prison than any other country in the world, apart from Rwanda.
-The so-called War On Drugs, has systematically contravened the Universal Declaration On Human Rights and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments to the American Constitution in its drive to ensure that one third of all black American men will spend some of their life in prison. And a lot of Hispanics.
-In a quarter of American states nobody with a felony conviction is ever allowed to vote again.

bpro50

03-02-2005, 04:26

Well lets see...Europeans can drink alcohol at an earlier age. There are a number of things I can't do because I'm not 21 yet, not just be disallowed from purchasing/consuming alcohol in public. I can't go to some clubs because they can't be bothered with putting a black X on your hand, as if that's a big hassle, so they just ban everyone under 21. Or even more crazy, they allow girls between 18 and 21, but guys have to be 21, and of course this helps them line their pockets, but it's not fair to guys. Many hotel chains won't give a room to people under 21, and many rental car companies won't give insurance to under 21's.

Homosexuals in Europe are treated much better. It's still legal in most places in this country to refuse to employ, to terminate employment, or refuse to rent to someone just because they're openly gay. And they can't have a real ceremony like everyone else, and they miss out on tons of benefits, at least in 49 states and all but 2 of Canada's provinces.

There's no such thing as the USAPATRIOT Act in Europe. European leaders can't label anyone they judge to be a threat an "enemy combatant", and in the process, strip them of all their rights, even if they are citizens of that country.

Thanks for your response. Since you are under 21, I think you experience a lack of freedom first hand. My question was sincere and I am no longer under 21 so I don't have that burden any more. I can remember being 18 and not really worrying about getting access to alcohol. Any time I wanted it, it was there. I guess that is called breakiing the law. But, I felt free when I did it. I think the US lags behind Europe in social freedoms for the young,especially in areas that allow a kid to do what kids are going to do anyway. It was the same way with abortion. Lots of young ladies had their babies rather than abort because there was no other choice accept quack doctors or travel to New York or California. Strong fundemental forces in the US have also impacted perception of social rights for gay people. Local and state courts that legislate marriage rights and benefits are primarily a mirror of the regions that they represent. In the last major election there were statutes in 29 states (as I remember) that had referendums for the local and state constituents to vote upon. As I remember, all 29 states voted no to recognition of gay marriages. That has resulted in a loss of freedom as you stated but it appears to reflect the current state of mind. I am not gay and it does not represent a loss of freedom to me. However, I can understand the feelings of anyone who feels like he/she has lost benefits simply because they are gay.

ypsidan04

04-02-2005, 00:40

I am not gay and it does not represent a loss of freedom to me.

I'm not gay either. But that's no reason to marginalize the outcome. Don't think for a second that you and I shouldn't care.

There was very little that went right for the gay community on Nov 2nd. We should all know that 11 states passed laws banning same sex marriage or civil unions. Including my own. But myself and everyone I know voted against it. The only two counties in Michigan that voted against it by majority are my own, and the county Lansing is in. Those two counties contain the two largest universities in the state - Michigan State if not the University of Michigan as well, are in the top 10 in the country by student population. Goes to show you that the young are much more friendly to homosexuality than older people.

bpro50

04-02-2005, 04:42

I'm not gay either. But that's no reason to marginalize the outcome. Don't think for a second that you and I shouldn't care.

There was very little that went right for the gay community on Nov 2nd. We should all know that 11 states passed laws banning same sex marriage or civil unions. Including my own. But myself and everyone I know voted against it. The only two counties in Michigan that voted against it by majority are my own, and the county Lansing is in. Those two counties contain the two largest universities in the state - Michigan State if not the University of Michigan as well, are in the top 10 in the country by student population. Goes to show you that the young are much more friendly to homosexuality than older people.

You are probably right about young people being more sensative to social issues than older people. As we grow older, a lot of people take the world as it is and try to make it work. When you are young, you believe that you can change the world and make it a better place. What is your position on health care?

ypsidan04

04-02-2005, 20:23

What is your position on health care?

That affordable health care is not a privilege. That if I was out in the work force (which I'm not :rolleyes: wish I was though), I wouldn't mind parting with a higher pecentage of my pay in exchange for free health care. Thats how it works in Australia, a lot of Europe, and I think Canada as well. I would not complain about an increase in taxes if the government paid my medical bills (and same goes for college tuition).

spyretto

04-02-2005, 21:02

:rolleyes: I have read most, but not all ... it is getting out of hand here ... spy, you judge bpro on not knowing Europe(ans) well enough to make conclusions ... well, you do NOT know America(ns) well enough to make your conclusions either.

I do not take the extreme view, but when you're faced with an extreme view yourself it's inevitable to react by grativating to the other extreme, because that is what the extreme view understands.

This is the other extreme view and it comes from Americans - and therefore the other extreme exists, here there and everywhere. ;)

http://www.cafepress.com/bettybowers/346081

I do not subscribe to all of that, it makes me feel uncomfortable. But I'd rather have that 10-times over than the other extreme.
Personally I do not agree with gay marriage for principle reasons - not to mention that we're gonna have the church going ballistic about it - but I do agree that gay people should have most if not the same legal rights as married couples do ( something like what I think was passed on as legislation in Holland recently ). You don't have to call it marriage, you can call it something else and keep everybody happy.

coolasfcuk

04-02-2005, 21:06

It is not exactly on topic, but still. .... I just found out that MR> PRESIDENT himself, slept about 2 mins walk from ME :laugh: .. at the Hilton downtown Omaha .... no wonder I had nightmares and tossed in my bed ALL night long! :gigi:

He supposedly just gave a speech here about Social Security, and how he will fix it! ummmm hummmm .... I found all this out, because the person i am working with in my office ATTENDED the speech :eek: nice, ah?! ha

spyretto

04-02-2005, 21:23

no wonder I had nightmares and tossed in my bed ALL night long! :gigi:

what is that supposed to mean? :eek: :laugh:

bpro50

04-02-2005, 22:40

That affordable health care is not a privilege. That if I was out in the work force (which I'm not :rolleyes: wish I was though), I wouldn't mind parting with a higher pecentage of my pay in exchange for free health care. Thats how it works in Australia, a lot of Europe, and I think Canada as well. I would not complain about an increase in taxes if the government paid my medical bills (and same goes for college tuition).

Well get ready for it cause here it comes . . . I am in total agreement. Once you are in the work force with conditions that develop over time, if you want to go into business for yourself, you can no longer buy group insurance. Therefore, any policy that you get at that point will be an individual policy with no coverage for pre-existing conditions. My wife has diabetes and can not get coverage unless I keep a job with a corporate company. I am locked in for the rest of my life. That is unfair to me. I believe that every person should be given coverage as a part of a national health program. That would give me and millions of others the freedom to choose work for ourselves. And, it is ashame to me that we don't have it when so many other countries do.

ypsidan04

05-02-2005, 01:35

http://www.cafepress.com/bettybowers/346081

A more general collection:

http://www.cafepress.com/thewhitehouse

You don't have to call it marriage, you can call it something else and keep everybody happy.

Lets not open that can of worms, okay?

spyretto

05-02-2005, 01:47

Lets not open that can of worms, okay?

why not? you and I know -yeah I'm a patronising creep - that you're never gonna get what you want, why not get what you want without -supposedly- getting what you want. Then we're all happy :p

forre

05-02-2005, 01:50

spyretto

05-02-2005, 02:02

Being "best country in the world" is so subjective. I've lived in Britain and Greece and for me some things that exist in Britain are "better" than in Greece and some things that exist in Greece are better than Britain. Saying that a country is the "best in the world", reveals a sense of bias if anything else. No country is perfect...That's my opinion. :)

bpro50

05-02-2005, 03:59

bpro50, You see, no country is completely free. You'll find lacking structures in any country. So to speak as I'm an American and I'm proud of it doesn't make any much sense. Proud of what? I understand if you achieved something personally and can be proud of it but then being born in the States instead of Zimbabwe is a purely circumstantial case. It's just as if I'd be saying that I'm proud of having curly hair. All right, you see my point I think.

Then, it's true that USA lost its popularity because something went really wrong. Instead of stopping and thinking what it could be and how we can bring the country its status of a peace-keeper, people seem to prefer pushing the limits on the international scene. There's nothing do defend any more. By the latest war, USA got more enemies in the world than it has ever had. No wonder, Miss Rice called upon a new national security organisation.

I remember one conversation with a friend of mine who lives in the States and always says that USA is the best country in the world. Sometimes she complains about this and that and tells me that her mom needs a surgery. Being a Wall Street top manager she can't even afford this surgery. What a joke! USA is a democratic country which has a good economy but it's certainly not the best country in the world.

Good thoughts. I would never go so far as to say that America is the best country in the world . . . that is such a relative thing to evaluate. I can't think of any other country I would rather live in, but even that is relative. I would think that you would say the same think about Sweden. Actually, health coverage is my biggest criticism of the so-called republican platform. There are many, many things that need to get better in the US. So many that I can't name them all. Nevertheless, for me and my family, there are very few things that I have desired that I have not been able to obtain: standard of living, ability enough income to pursue those standard ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of who knows what. At the same time I realize that discrimation and prejudice has been slow to change in the US and I can just guess that it has been the same in the rest of the world. Also, with considerable wealth, the US has had to deal with the problems that come with excess: drugs, abuse, greed, corporate embezzlement, etc. Democracy, American style, is not easy and certainly not perfect. But, I still haven't seen an alternative system that seems to be better. All the "isms" that have been experimented with in the past 100 years have proven to be failures for the most part. And, government based on dictatorships have for the most part proven to be brutal at best. I am still listening and learning . . .

forre

05-02-2005, 04:22

Democracy, American style, is not easy and certainly not perfect. But, I still haven't seen an alternative system that seems to be better. All the "isms" that have been experimented with in the past 100 years have proven to be failures for the most part. And, government based on dictatorships have for the most part proven to be brutal at best. I am still listening and learning . . .
Then, there's no need to "spread" any democracy by bombing another countries. We have very many spots in the world that require much investment and changes but it doesn't mean we (the powerful countries) have the right to rush with our crusades there. Even if there're weapons of mass destruction and a threat, another war won't resolve this threat. USA's foreign policy is so brutal and so pathetic. Poor soldiers that die in such wars. Poor families of such soldiers. Such wars are so demoralising. It's more or less obvious now and it will be even more obvious in a few years. Iraq is another Vietnam.

bpro50

05-02-2005, 05:18

Then, there's no need to "spread" any democracy by bombing another countries. We have very many spots in the world that require much investment and changes but it doesn't mean we (the powerful countries) have the right to rush with our crusades there. Even if there're weapons of mass destruction and a threat, another war won't resolve this threat. USA's foreign policy is so brutal and so pathetic. Poor soldiers that die in such wars. Poor families of such soldiers. Such wars are so demoralising. It's more or less obvious now and it will be even more obvious in a few years. Iraq is another Vietnam.

Remains to be seen. Don't agree. Soldiers die for noble causes and this isn't Vietnam, not yet. If you could understand the rationale behind Iraq as I do, you could see that Iraq could be the beginning of the end of terrorist regimes in the Middle East. It was simply impossible to leave the Middle East to its own resolution. The families of American soldiers (with very few exceptions) think of their sons as heros, their cause as noble and their reward as great.

forre

05-02-2005, 05:35

Remains to be seen. Don't agree. Soldiers die for noble causes and this isn't Vietnam, not yet. If you could understand the rationale behind Iraq as I do, you could see that Iraq could be the beginning of the end of terrorist regimes in the Middle East. It was simply impossible to leave the Middle East to its own resolution. The families of American soldiers (with very few exceptions) think of their sons as heros, their cause as noble and their reward as great.
Of course the families of the soldiers would think their sons are heroes! Otherwise human psychology will break. The public opinion got to support this idea too, in order to justify the mission. People need to believe in the good of what they are doing. It's normal.

We'll see about Iraq. Terrorists are invisible enemies. They are mobile and they have bases all over the world. The anger against USA is hyper now. They'll probably mobilise with the time. It will just be easier for the terrorists to recruit new members to their organisations as they'll use Iraqi invasion as an actual example of USA's "evil" side.

spyretto

05-02-2005, 08:54

If you see the full picture, inasfar as the USA's scope of interest encompasses the whole world, American soldiers dying in wars overseas are dying defending American interests....so they are protecting America - in a way.

forre

05-02-2005, 15:08

bpro50

05-02-2005, 17:01

We'll see about Iraq. Terrorists are invisible enemies. They are mobile and they have bases all over the world. The anger against USA is hyper now. They'll probably mobilise with the time. It will just be easier for the terrorists to recruit new members to their organisations as they'll use Iraqi invasion as an actual example of USA's "evil" side.

You know the terrorist anger is hyper right now but wasn't that the case before the invasion of Iraq. 9/11 wasn't an attack because of a USA invasion, it was based on hyper anger against the US already perpetrated by terrorist. I remember reading that the prevailing position on terrorism in the US prior to 9/11 was one of containment. In the US, the idea that terrorist would use a commercial airline as a missile was just not in our consciousness. The event changed our whole perception of the enemy and the extent of the network. My point is that even though terrorist are hot-angry right now, haven't they always hated us. In a sense, aren't we just taking the battle to them now? It seems like many terrorist have found a focal point in Iraq and that is kind of where the battle ground has shifted for them. At the same time, Iraq has also become the focal point for the current US policy answer to terrorism.

forre

05-02-2005, 18:55

You know the terrorist anger is hyper right now but wasn't that the case before the invasion of Iraq. 9/11 wasn't an attack because of a USA invasion, it was based on hyper anger against the US already perpetrated by terrorist. I remember reading that the prevailing position on terrorism in the US prior to 9/11 was one of containment. In the US, the idea that terrorist would use a commercial airline as a missile was just not in our consciousness. The event changed our whole perception of the enemy and the extent of the network. My point is that even though terrorist are hot-angry right now, haven't they always hated us. In a sense, aren't we just taking the battle to them now? It seems like many terrorist have found a focal point in Iraq and that is kind of where the battle ground has shifted for them. At the same time, Iraq has also become the focal point for the current US policy answer to terrorism.
No, no battle against terrorists right now. They'd relocated long before US attacked Iraq. Terrorists don't need an ultra-right religious fundamentalistic regime to breed themselves and operate successfully. This hate against USA is taking global forms. That's the main point.

bpro50

05-02-2005, 19:34

No, no battle against terrorists right now. They'd relocated long before US attacked Iraq. Terrorists don't need an ultra-right religious fundamentalistic regime to breed themselves and operate successfully. This hate against USA is taking global forms. That's the main point.

I understand that there are other terrorist cells in other countries that are organizing, planning, etc. So, what should be the US and world strategy to limit their acts of terror. Tell me should be done, not what is being done. What is a short and long-term strategy that will stop the terrorist from continuing acts of horrible violence.

forre

05-02-2005, 19:50

A similar international network should be established with the resources from intelligence and special forces. Similar organisation as terrorists - invisible, anonymous, unpredictable.

bpro50

05-02-2005, 21:55

A similar international network should be established with the resources from intelligence and special forces. Similar organisation as terrorists - invisible, anonymous, unpredictable.

Good idea! A new organization or a better network of everything that already exists?

bpro50

07-02-2005, 03:16

On his Birthday:

Reagan Deserves Giant Status
Dick Morris

Ronald Reagan understood that the key to winning the Cold War was economic attrition, just as Woodrow Wilson realized that victory in World War I would go to the side that could replace its manpower losses.
By adding America’s population to the combined totals of Britain and France, the U.S. entrance into World War I doomed Germany to defeat. It just didn’t have enough men.

Similarly, when Ronald Reagan upped the U.S. defense budget from 4 percent to 7 percent of our gross domestic product, he doomed the Soviet Union.

To match the American defense buildup, the Soviets had to devote between a quarter and a third of their economy to the arms race, an economic impossibility.

When Reagan added the threat of Star Wars to the mix, the Russians were lost.

But, in a deeper sense, this architecture of victory was based on the philosophical principle that free people could and would produce more than slaves.

By understanding the absence of incentive in a communist society and the virulent catalytic impact of the profit motive in a free one, Reagan realized that freedom would triumph.

He grasped that once the domestic constraints of regulation and high taxation were removed and the limits of arms control circumvented, capitalism would leave a planned economy in the dustbin of history, as Trotsky put it.

Where should Reagan rank among presidents?

If FDR deserves top rank for winning World War II and Lincoln gets it for the Civil War and Washington for the Revolution, why should Reagan’s Cold War victory gain him less?

ypsidan04

08-02-2005, 19:37

If FDR deserves top rank for winning World War II and Lincoln gets it for the Civil War and Washington for the Revolution, why should Reagan’s Cold War victory gain him less?

The USSR was in a shambles already by 1980. It's really a feat that they lasted until 1991. Reagan just put them out of their misery, he didn't break them. Besides, his domestic policy put more people out of work than anyone else until now. Including my grandfather. He was layed off from GM almost certainly because of Reagan, and because of that, my mother didn't vote for Reagan in 1984. The one and only time she's voted for a Republican was her first vote, Reagan in 1980. And then there was his shady tactics in Central America (he should have been impeached for that).

bpro50

09-02-2005, 00:18

The USSR was in a shambles already by 1980. It's really a feat that they lasted until 1991. Reagan just put them out of their misery, he didn't break them. Besides, his domestic policy put more people out of work than anyone else until now. Including my grandfather. He was layed off from GM almost certainly because of Reagan, and because of that, my mother didn't vote for Reagan in 1984. The one and only time she's voted for a Republican was her first vote, Reagan in 1980. And then there was his shady tactics in Central America (he should have been impeached for that).

Presidents are like football coaches, they get too much credit for successes and too much blame for failures. And, whereas your family suffered, my family flurished. It is all a matter of prospective I suppose but he certainly is an icon of the Republican party and the democrats dare not touch him for fear of the impact on themselves. All in all, I thought he was fortunate that many of his domestic and foreign policies turned out as well as they did. History will love thim though.

bpro50

09-02-2005, 03:37

This article echos some of the statements that have been made in this forum about "what to do as we go forward from here". It may also bring some comfort that Dr. Rice is perfectly qualified to address the intellectual elite across Europe and offer some common ground as we go forward.

USA Today Article
By Michel Euler, AP

PARIS — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reached out to estranged European allies Tuesday and asked them to "turn away from our disagreements" to help spread democracy throughout the world, especially the Middle East. (Video: Rice in Paris)

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with French President Jacques Chirac as part of a peacemaking tour through Europe.

In a speech to France's political and intellectual elite, Rice said the United States "had everything to gain from having a stronger Europe as a partner in building a safer and better world."

Her comments appeared to contrast with past remarks by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the continent is divided between an "Old Europe" — led by France and Germany — that rejects U.S. policies and a "New Europe" — led by Britain and some former Warsaw Pact nations — that supports them.

Rice's speech echoed President Bush's inauguration address, which focused on freedom and democracy and sought to move beyond the focus on the war on terrorism. "Americans and Europeans have enjoyed our greatest successes for ourselves and for others, when we refused to accept an unacceptable status quo, but instead put our values to work for the cause of freedom," she said.

The secretary appealed to the shared history and values of France and the United States, noting that both countries are the product of people who sought freedom and democracy.

She drew analogies between the effort to rebuild the trans-Atlantic relationship and the post-World War II era when alliances such as NATO and the European Union were launched. Now, she said, "Our charge is clear: We on the right side of freedom's divide have an obligation to help those unlucky enough to have been born on the wrong side of that divide."

In a gesture that sought to dispel the view that America cares little for European allies' opinions, she said, "Let each of us bring to the table our ideas, our experience and our resources. And let us discuss and decide — together — how best to employ them for democratic change."

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, at a joint news conference later Tuesday, welcomed what he called "a new spirit that prevails between" the United States and France. Addressing the secretary as "Condi," Barnier said, "The time has come to get off to a new start."

Rice's address was billed as her first major speech since she was confirmed as secretary of State. It came toward the end of an eight-day trip through nine countries and the West Bank aimed at mending a relationship frayed by the Iraq war and a hands-off U.S. approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during Bush's first term.

By visiting Israel and the West Bank in her inaugural trip as secretary of State, Rice signaled a new, if cautious, U.S. involvement in trying to end the 4-year-old uprising. Tuesday, a day after Rice's visit to the region, the Israelis and Palestiniansannounced a cease-fire aimedat re-establishing peace talks.

Rice's decision to make the pivotal speech in France was significant.

"I think she showed guts in going to Paris, the belly of the beast, to remind recalcitrant allies of what unites us, not what divides us," said John Hulsman, a Europe specialist at the Heritage Foundation, a think tank in Washington.

Rice addressed an audience of 500 at Sciences Politique, a political science school where debate over the United States' role as the sole superpower has been intense. The reception was polite but restrained. Rice's listeners never interrupted her speech with applause.

Asked during a question-and-answer session why she chose France, Rice conceded, "It is no secret that the United States and France have sometimes disagreed in the past about how to proceed on a common agenda." She added, to laughter, that "U.S.-French relations are far better in practice than they are in theory."

Rice goes to Brussels and Luxembourg Wednesday to meet with NATO and European Union officials.

bpro50

22-02-2005, 05:07

Bush has extended an offer to our European allies to work together. I wonder what the results of the meetings in Europe will be?

Shakrin

24-02-2005, 06:53

well, maybe I'm wrong so be ready to shoot me down.

I saw on the news yesterday night, Geroge Bush meeting with Putin, (the Russia's president I guess), Bush trying to explain that he was trying to "befriend" with Putin and isolate Russia to strengthen democracy.

Ok I lost myself.

But leaving aside the complicated things... does Bush have the right to just prance along to random leaders and presidents for his only benefit? (Some say it's for his benefit. On his point of view, he's only trying to spread the democracy goodness filled with chewy nugget filling out of the goodness of his heart... ;) )

I'm really curious. hmm..

Merged with 'US foreign policy' thread.

bpro50

28-02-2005, 04:20

But leaving aside the complicated things... does Bush have the right to just prance along to random leaders and presidents for his only benefit? (Some say it's for his benefit. On his point of view, he's only trying to spread the democracy goodness filled with chewy nugget filling out of the goodness of his heart... ;) )

I'm really curious. hmm..

I think Bush's intent on his tour of Europe was to 1) mend some fences where European leaders had been previously offended by US policies, 2) ask for support of current US efforts in Iraq and 3) spread his vision of democracy for the world. Historically, Putin and Bush have enjoyed a great relationship. Current shifts in Russian policies have strained that relationship. Bush knows he needs the other leaders of the world to support his vision for a world-wide end to tyranny and dictatorship as well as control of nuclear weapons. Mr. Bush sees this moment as a key historical opportunity and he reallizes that the US cannot go it alone. We are all looking for the chewy nugget before it is too late.

Shakrin

01-03-2005, 02:08

support of current US efforts in Iraq? efforts into what? What is Mr Bush trying to achieve in there anyhow?

bpro50

06-03-2005, 05:19

support of current US efforts in Iraq? efforts into what? What is Mr Bush trying to achieve in there anyhow?

A home base to neutralize extreme Islamic teaching either by anchoring a democratic government or by force if necessary. Kind of like the occupation of Germany after WWII or S Korea after the Korean War.

Shakrin

06-03-2005, 06:56

"neutralize extreme Islamic teachings"?

its their religion! jeez you don't see Iraqis sending troops to America settin off bombs and killin innocent men and women and as well as children because they preach "extreme christian". correct me if I'm wrong tho.

bpro50

06-03-2005, 21:12

Not my doctrine, I was just answering your question. But, I don't like the idea of any extreme teaching that labels other people as infidels that need to be destoyed for desecrating the ground that they walk on, I don't care whether it is so-called Christianity or any other religion.

Shakrin

06-03-2005, 21:59

they could label as much as they like but you dont see em ordering bombs on em. just saying.

bpro50

07-03-2005, 04:14

Looks like Bush doctirne could be the beginning of democracy for the middle east?

Time Magazine: :)

How can you tell when history turns a corner? An assassination in 1914, a sneak attack in 1941, a wall falling in 1989--each came with a bang that was impossible to mistake once it happened, even if no one saw it coming. Across the Middle East last week, a tide of good news suggested that another corner might be near. Amid the flush of springlike exuberance, though, it was hard to know which events history would immortalize. Was it President Hosni Mubarak's startling announcement that Egypt would hold its first-ever secret ballot, multiparty presidential elections? Was it the popular demonstrations in Beirut two days later that finally forced the resignation of the Syrian-backed Prime Minister and his Cabinet? Or did the start of something momentous come on Thursday, when Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah welcomed Syria's President Bashar Assad to Riyadh and not only told Assad to get Syria's 14,000 troops out of Lebanon but also announced to the world that he had said so?

It was less the scope of each event than their accumulation and potential for transforming the region that is so heartening.

ypsidan04

09-03-2005, 00:55

I think Bush's intent on his tour of Europe was to 1) mend some fences where European leaders had been previously offended by US policies, 2) ask for support of current US efforts in Iraq and 3).

"The equivalent of the old Pottery Barn saying 'We break it, you bought it!' " - Jon Stewart. :D

ypsidan04

27-03-2005, 18:11

I was just emailed this, and I thought you should see it:

Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and
tried to light it?

Did you know his trial is over?
Did you know he was sentenced?
Did you see/hear any of the judge's comments on TV/Radio?
Didn't think so.
Everyone should hear what the judge had to say.
Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything
to say.

His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record,
Reid also admitted his "allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to
the religion of Allah," defiantly stated "I think I ought not apologize
for my actions," and told the court "I am at war with your country."

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below, a stinging
condemnation of Reid in particular and terrorists in general:

January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid. Judge Young: Mr. Richard C.
Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you. On counts
1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of
the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court
sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each
count to run consecutive with the other.

That's 80 years. On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30
years consecutive to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon
&n bsp; you each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 for the aggregate fine
of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with
respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17
to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines. The Court imposes
upon you the $800 special assessment.

The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because
the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I
need go no further. This is the sentence that is provided for by our
statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.
Let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your
terrorist coconspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been
through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here and I say
that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, where we
deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as
individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a
soldier in any war You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to
call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the
officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that
happens to be your view, you are a terrorist...And we do not negotiate
with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign
documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them
to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But
&nbs p; you are not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a
terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.
In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first
were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the
press and where the TV crews were and he said you're no big deal.

You're no big deal.

What your counsel, what your able counsel and what the equally able
United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly
as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so
horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?

I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to
search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led
you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing. And I
have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this
entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that is most precious. You hate
our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as
we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we
individually choose. Here, in this society, the very winds carry
freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because
we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful
courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is
administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's
sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and
have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before
other judges.

We are about it. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr.
Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is
yet true that we will bare any burden; pay any price, to preserve our
freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well The world is not
going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow, it
will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure. Here in this
courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will
gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war,
individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the
United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and
lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of
citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to
mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr Reid? That's the flag of the United States of
America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That
flag stands for freedom. You know it always will.

Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down.

So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets? We
need more judges like Judge Young, but that's another subject. Pass this
around. Everyone should and needs to hear what this fine judge had to
say. Powerful words that strike home.

Pass it on..............................everyone should read this!

bpro50

02-04-2005, 03:36

ypsidan04: Just a comment . . . I thought your story about the judge's comments was really good. It was a true expression of what justice means to those who still believe in justice and those who needed to know the difference between patriotism and terrorism. I sent the quote to several of my friends and they were all inspired by its truth. Thanks for posting it. Bob

haku

01-10-2006, 05:12

For several years now, airline companies have been violating EU privacy rules by giving away private informations about their passengers to US authorities, the EU Court of Justice has recently declared this practice illegal as it is a breach of EU citizens privacy rights. The EU-US talks to resolve the matter have fortunately collapsed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5395928.stm), and i can only hope that the EU is going to remain firm on the issue and not allow this breach of our privacy to resume.

This goes along with another scandal (http://euobserver.com/9/22532) where a banking company has also violated EU privacy rules by transferring millions of private data concerning EU citizens to US authorities.

It's about time that the EU is putting an end to all this, as it stands now, the FBI/CIA/HS knows more about EU citizens, from political opinions to ethnic background to how much money you have in the bank, than EU member states themselves.

But with its usual sense of European solidarity, the UK is siding with the US (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5396018.stm) on this and will continue to provide US authorities with private data on European passengers… Charming. :rolleyes:

freddie

01-10-2006, 11:41

The problem is though that a plane who refuses to give the passenger information list to US authorities before landing on US soil might be refused the permission to land. It'd be funny if all planes full of EU citizens got diverted to Canada.

Don't forget that's not the only aero-feud going on atm. There's the trade-war between Airbus and Boeing. A clash of capitalist titans. USA's accusing EU of illegally funding Airbus, and EU striking back, accusing USA of illegally funding Boeing. Fun times ahead. :p

Interesting conflicts developing between the EU and the US in what clearly is the war for a dominant position in the western world - on all fronts: economic, social as well as political. EU institutions finally seem to work as a collective front these days. They don't practice the traditional appeasement policy like they did in the past. No backing down on crucial issues anymore - I especially liked the fact we didn't lift the post-Tiananmen massacre arms embargo on China even after tremendous pressure.

marina

03-10-2006, 14:18

They could search me as much as they like ....the only thing that matters to me is my safety during the flight.

As for Tiananmen , I read a lot about this and come to realize that people on the square who had lead all that should be put to the wall.

haku

08-10-2006, 21:38

i can only hope that the EU is going to remain firm on the issue and not allow this breach of our privacy to resume.
Hope didn't last long, the EU has capitulated (http://euobserver.com/9/22590) to US demands, the US will continue to freely invade our privacy. I am utterly disgusted.
Totalitarianism has already won.

Khartoun2004

09-10-2006, 07:37

Hope didn't last long, the EU has capitulated (http://euobserver.com/9/22590) to US demands, the US will continue to freely invade our privacy. I am utterly disgusted.
Totalitarianism has already won.

Ok I'm completely offended by your use of the term totaliarian in conjunction with my country. We are not a "totalitarian" government, I still have my fucking rights as laid out by the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. Totalitarianism is a government in which a single dictator has control over government and state. However, in the US, as much as you may think so, George W. Bush does not have sole power over government and state. Have you not heard of the United States Senate, House of Representative, and Supreme Court? If Bush had it his way there would be NO checks from the Legislative and Judicial branches of government. Example, Bush wanted the right Habeas Corpus to be denied to Terrorist Prisoners, however the Senate and House refused to pass a law to legalize his assertion. Secondly, Bush wanted to pass an amendment to the Constitution which would outlaw same-sex marriage and define it as only between a Man and a Woman, the Senate and House in a vote shot it down. Therefore, by the very definition of TOTALITARIANISM, the United States is not a totalitarian government. You may not like the way we do things, but learn the fucking definitions of words before you start using them incorrectly and pissing people off!

If a plane from a foreign country is going to land on US soil then as soon as it crosses into US airspace it is under US jurisdiction and the same goes for a US plane entering any other countries' airspace.

I wonder how the French government or any European government would react if thousands of its citizens were murdered because of a plane hijacking on your soil.

Rachel

09-10-2006, 12:16

I know Americans find this hard to comprehend but 9/11 wasn't the first plane hijacking :rolleyes: Do we see other so called democratic countries demanding info about everyonre?

freddie

09-10-2006, 13:44

Actually I think passengers on airplanes and ships are not automatically under US jurisdiction after they enter US soil. From what I remember people on a ship are being sanctioned according to the law of the country under which's flag the ship is sailing, while the passengers on an airplane are being sanctioned according to the law of the country where the plane is registered. Of course all this later depends on how bilateral/multilateral agreements are laid out. But in any case it's a very delicate legal subject. Ancient Romans used to claim every person caries their law with themselves - as in, a Roman Citizen has to be tried under his own law no matter where he's situated - (subjective theories), while some more modern theories support the theory under which you're subject to the local rules of the territory you're in (objective theories). My opinion? Subjective when dealing with criminal law, objective when dealing with civilian law.

More on topic: okay I get why they'd demand basic data like name, permanent address, phone numbers and such, but it baffles me why they'd want credit card numbers. Terrorists these days are smart enough to create untracable offshore accounts in remote areas of the world. They could easily tap into European company accounts with that measure, since a lot of CEOs travel overseas on company expenses. It leaves a bit of a bitter aftertaste I guess. :spy:

haku

09-10-2006, 16:05

Ok I'm completely offended by your use of the term totaliarian in conjunction with my country.And i am offended by your country violating European rights, please allow me that right.

I was actually talking of both sides anyway, giving away private informations is as bad as asking for it, i am disgusted by both attitudes and it's totalitarianism on both sides.

In a democracy, citizens do not have a police record until they break the law, they have to actually commit a crime for the police to be allowed to invade their privacy. It's a basic democratic principle, citizens are considered innocent by default and as long as they abide by the law, the police have no private data about them.

In a totalitarian regime, every citizen has a police record, all citizens are considered suspect by default and the police have private data on everybody even if they have never broken the law.

In the case of those airline passengers, every single one of them ends up with a police record containing all their private informations freely available to all US law enforcement and security agencies, it doesn't matter if they have never committed a crime, they are all considered suspect by default and filed. That's totalitarianism.

So as a US citizen you still have your fucking rights as you put it (indeed, the US could not treat a US citizen as they treat non-US ones), but from the people who are illegally detained in Guantanamo to regular European passengers having their privacy invaded for the simple crime of taking a plane, the US is violating non-US people's rights on a daily basis.

And i know very well the definition of totalitarianism, thank you very much. A country does not need to be a full blown dictatorship to employ totalitarian methods, even democracies have been known to slip into totalitarianism in certain areas, 'state security' being the most common area where people's rights are violated in the name of the 'greater good'.

Guantanamo is a perfect example of that, a camp outside common law where non-US people can be detained for years without being charged of anything, and eventually tried before a 'special military tribunal' for crimes committed outside the US (which is absolutely illegal since the US has no jurisdiction to try non-US people for crimes committed on non-US soil).
And let's not forget the 'interrogation' methods used in Guantanamo, recently senator John McCain said that "sleep deprivation, forced hypothermia and waterboarding" might be banned from the methods of 'questioning' used over there, which obviously means that those methods have been used there for years. For people who don't know, 'sleep deprivation' is obtained by submitting someone to loud noise and lights for weeks until they basically go insane; 'forced hypothermia' is simply obtained by putting someone naked in a freezer; and as for 'waterboarding' which is quite popular among 'interrogators' because you are up close with the prisoner, you tie someone up on some kind of rocking board and dip their head under water repeatedly until they nearly drown each time. Those methods are of course considered torture by all human rights groups, but they are allowed in Guantanamo and the infamous 'secret' CIA prisons.
All of that shows that the US have indeed slipped into totalitarianism.

Rachel

09-10-2006, 16:11

Haku totally agree :done:

On this subject you always say what I'm thinking but you're much better putting it into words :heart:

freddie

09-10-2006, 19:47

In a democracy, citizens do not have a police record until they break the law, they have to actually commit a crime for the police to be allowed to invade their privacy. It's a basic democratic principle, citizens are considered innocent by default and as long as they abide by the law, the police have no private data about them.

In a totalitarian regime, every citizen has a police record, all citizens are considered suspect by default and the police have private data on everybody even if they have never broken the law.

In the case of those airline passengers, every single one of them ends up with a police record containing all their private informations freely available to all US law enforcement and security agencies, it doesn't matter if they have never committed a crime, they are all considered suspect by default and filed. That's totalitarianism.

Yeah, but technically this is still just data gathering, rather than keeping police records, since the essence of a police record is actually marking crimes a certain individual has commited. No one is prosecuted by default, yet everyone's a suspect. To a certain extent I can almost understand their paranoia since terrorists aren't exactly easy targets to pinpoint. Furthermore: they could easily play the old isolationism card (one of the main reasons why they came back from WW1 almost without a scratch) and say that no one FORCES European citizens to go to the States. They go there willingly and when they do they're expected to accept rules of the country or not go there at all. Simple as that. It's not like American goverment agents are knocking on people's doors before they even leave their homes.

Argos

09-10-2006, 20:12

To a certain extent I can almost understand their paranoia
What really makes me worry is, that US government continues to stir up the fear of the people, to use it to gain more and more control. This constant aura of threat works totally in favour of those who are in power and there seems not to be much counter-movement. Sad, but US loses it's spirit of freedom in favour of only seeming security.

Khartoun2004

09-10-2006, 21:48

What really makes me worry is, that US government continues to stir up the fear of the people, to use it to gain more and more control. This constant aura of threat works totally in favour of those who are in power and there seems not to be much counter-movement. Sad, but US loses it's spirit of freedom in favour of only seeming security.

Are any of you even follow the current elections? With a Republican House Rep, from Florida I might add, wrapped up in a sex scandel involving House Pages getting more heated... All the polls are showing an increase in Democrat support across the board. People here are sick of Bush's war-mongering and fear tactics. People aren't listening to the conservative rhetoric anymore. Once Democrats have control of either the House of Reps. or the Senate, Bush won't be able to push legislation through, inquires will start the process of impeachment and the Patriot Act of 2001 will be repealed because it's totally unconstitutional.

freddie

10-10-2006, 21:11

I also think some ville stuff will be releaved about this administration after it leaves the premises, or even when legislative branch political majority changes. But all in all time makes everythign irrelevant. Hardly anyone remembers today how Ronald Raegan admited to lying. What's important though is not to associate the whole country with one single branch of goverment. Something tells me relations between the EU and US will melt significantly after 2008.

I have a dark premonition though. GW Bush is a dream come true to the terrorists. He inadvertantly made them more powerful than they've ever been. They need him as much as he needs them. I'm afraid another horrid terrorist attack is on the drawing board for late 07, early 08... one which will inflict yet more fear to the western world and also one which would guarantee Bush a successor worthy of his name - in all it's badness.

Khartoun2004

11-10-2006, 01:42

I have a dark premonition though. GW Bush is a dream come true to the terrorists. He inadvertantly made them more powerful than they've ever been. They need him as much as he needs them. I'm afraid another horrid terrorist attack is on the drawing board for late 07, early 08... one which will inflict yet more fear to the western world and also one which would guarantee Bush a successor worthy of his name - in all it's badness.

That's enough to give me nightmares until after the 2008 presidential elections :bum: :eek:

haku

17-10-2006, 02:37

While political journalists get murdered in Russia, civil rights lawyers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6057200.stm) get jailed in the US… Signs of the time.

freddie

17-10-2006, 06:53

While political journalists get murdered in Russia, civil rights lawyers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6057200.stm) get jailed in the US… Signs of the time.
The question arises though... what was she doing conveying messages to radical disciples in Egypt ANYWAY? :p

Khartoun2004

17-10-2006, 17:14

The question arises though... what was she doing conveying messages to radical disciples in Egypt ANYWAY? :p

Exactly what I was going to say. If she's innocent she can use her right of habeas corpus, if she was actually aiding a terrorist cell in Egypt then she belongs in jail and she's lucky to have not been charged with treason, capitol punishment for treason is a hell of a lot worse than 28 years in jail.

haku

17-10-2006, 17:37

The question arises though... what was she doing conveying messages to radical disciples in Egypt ANYWAY?I'm guessing that what she did wasn't illegal before the Patriot Act, she was making a point.
To me the current situation is pretty similar to the witch-hunt against American communists or socialists in the 1960s who could be accused of treason simply for having Capital by Karl Marx on their bookshelf.

Continuing with the Patriot Act,

The US recently managed to convince our pathetic European leaders to give away our private informations to US authorities, well… The US are not yet satisfied and want even more (http://euobserver.com/9/22662), they want to keep the data for 40 years and be able to distribute those private informations to basically anyone who wants them.
I'm still waiting for European politicians to wake up and realize how wrong that is, the EU parliament may be able to block the process for some time but i don't have much hope.

haku

18-10-2006, 15:11

US officialize Special Military Tribunals (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6058970.stm)

This is a pivotal step fo the US.

First of all because the US have now given themselves the right to put on trial non-US citizens for (alleged) crimes committed on non-US soil, and since at the same time the US do not recognize the International Criminal Court and refuse that US citizens could be tried there (the US have gone as far as to threaten to invade The Hague, Netherlands if a US citizen was ever detained there), the US have de facto put themselves above the UN and international law and effectively extended their judicial sovereignty over the entire world (superseding the International Criminal Court).

Second because those tribunals will be allowed to use evidence obtained through coercion (torture) against the detainees, which of course pretty much annihilate the US credibility as a human rights advocate worldwide, how will the US be able to condemn a country for using torture in its jails (and look credible) when they allow that very same thing at home?

And third because it creates two categories of detainees, those with rights, and those with less rights (you can keep quiet if talking could incriminate you if you're in the first category, you will be tortured to make you talk if you're in the second category; you have the right to a fair and speedy trial in the first, you can be detained for years without charges in the second; you have the right to see the evidence against you in the first, you can only see what they allow you to see in the second, etc, etc, etc). It's easy to see how law enforcement can use this as leverage when they arrest people.

freddie

18-10-2006, 20:41

That article says torture or any acts that would constitute as war crimes are prohibited...

haku

18-10-2006, 21:48

That article says torture or any acts that would constitute as war crimes are prohibited...You must not have read a lot about that law. What the US have done is redefine the definition of torture and add a new concept of 'coercive questioning' (just like they created that new concept of 'enemy combatant' which allowed them to send people to Guantanamo outside US and international law).
And what is the difference between torture and coercive questioning? Well, we don't really know, the US president can decide alone which questioning methods are torture and which are coercive questioning.
We do know that coercive questioning involves violence on prisoners. So let's see, is the NYPD for example allowed to use coercive questioning on a murder suspect? No. Why? Because it's torture.
So the same questioning methods that are illegal on US citizens because they violate their rights are allowed on non-US citizens detained in Guantanamo. Why? Because non-US citizens are not human?

No other democracies in the world would allow the questioning methods used in Guantanamo (and certainly not the British which are their closest allies, not even when they had to figth the IRA, not even when they had to fight the nazis), they all consider those methods as torture, the US have crossed a line here.

And i'm really worried when people consider that violent interrogation techniques like sleep deprivation, forced hypothermia or waterboarding are not torture, seriously.

Other frightening news today: the US have adopted a new space policy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6063926.stm) which is paving the way for them to take military control of space.

"The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests."

Obviously once the US have military control of space and can deny access to space to other nations, we will be all screwed and they will have won.

freddie

18-10-2006, 23:52

But there IS a clear definition out there of what torture and war crimes are (we've had those ever since the the end of WW2) and it strictly says that coercive questioning involves all things which are not by definition torute or war crimes. Coercive questioning can mean a lot of things, but one thing it cannot mean is torture. No one can redefine international standards for what torture is.

spyretto

19-10-2006, 00:36

Sorry, freddie it's common knowledge that the U.S. uses similar interrogation and propaganda techniques as their enemies do.
That's why they don't have many free-thinking sympathisers around the world, people are really fed up with that "holier-than-thou" attitude of theirs.

haku

19-10-2006, 03:32

Coercive questioning can mean a lot of things, but one thing it cannot mean is torture.Coercive questioning is torture, all human rights organizations agree on that, but even if you don't agree that coercive questioning is torture, it is a violation of human rights anyway.

The police is not allowed to use coercive questioning on suspects because it violates their rights, the army is not allowed to use coercive questioning on prisoners of war because it violates their rights, so surely, if neither the police nor the army are allowed to use those methods, it means they clearly violate human rights. So why are those same methods considered acceptable when used on 'enemy combatants'? (A status which is not recognized by the international community) Why are those people entitled to less rights (if any rights at all) than other people? There is no justification.

You know better than i do (you've studied law right?) that any confession or evidence obtained under coercion or duress will be declared null in a court of law, any judge will throw it away. Also, a defendant has the right to remain silent if what they say could incriminate themself. Those are basic principles of the western judiciary system, and those principles are violated everyday in Guantanamo. Guantanamo detainees will be convicted using confessions and evidence obtained by force from them, those evidence would never hold in an American tribunal, and that's why the US need to create those special military ones to secure guaranteed convictions no matter what.

There's a fundamental reason why the police is not allowed to use coercive questioning on suspects (besides it being inhumane), it's because people are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and western democracies concider that using violent techniques on someone who may be innocent is not acceptable, that's another of our basic principles. And that principle is also violated everyday in Guantanamo, and here we're touching the root of the problem, Guantanamo detainees have already been declared guilty even though they've never been charged of anything, they were declared guilty the day they were sent to Guantanamo, and from there, anything done to them became acceptable, the US have managed to convince themselves that violating the human rights of a guilty person is not nearly as bad as violating the human rights of an innocent one.
Those special military tribunals won't judge, they will simply sentence pre-guilty people to death.

freddie

19-10-2006, 16:28

This is the direct quote from that article:

The bill forbids treatment of detainees that would constitute war crimes - such as torture, rape and biological experiments - but gives the president the authority to decide which other techniques interrogators can use.

OTHER techiques. Implying torture is de facto excluded from president's choice of desired interrogation techniques. If coercive questioning would also mean torture this bill would be opposing itself which is ridiculous.

I'm not saying there aren't any legal issues with it. Far from it. Anytime a country starts using sui generis law which to an extent opposes international practices there are tons of legal problems. But international law isn't like the law of a country. It's not followed or forced upon in such a represive manner since we're dealing with different legal subjects here (countries as opposed to people). It's often a matter of diplomacy and adaptation rather than strict following of guidelines (as we know through it's young history UN had a bucketful of resolutions and declarations breached, with no real consequences, but rather settling matters through appeasement policies from all sides). International law tends to be problematic by default since you can't force a soverign country into doing something it doesn't want to (North Korea and Iran are nice examples of this). I think the biggest problem US is facing regarding bills like this one is the fact these detainees have deficient court rights.

haku

19-10-2006, 17:59

Well, i've received a lot of work and i don't have much time, but before i leave i just wanted to post this text from Amnesty International detailing exactly how the Military Commissions Act is a grave violation of human rights.
Among other things, the Act:

Strips the US courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider habeas corpus appeals challenging the lawfulness or conditions of detention of anyone held in US custody as an "enemy combatant". Judicial review of cases are severely limited. The law applies retroactively, and thus may result in more than 200 pending appeals filed on behalf of Guantanamo detainees being thrown out of court.

Permits the executive to convene military commissions to try "alien unlawful enemy combatants", as determined by the executive under a dangerously broad definition, in trials that will provide foreign nationals so labeled with a lower standard of justice than US citizens accused of the same crimes. This violates the prohibition on the discriminatory application of fair trial rights.

Permit the use in military commission trials of evidence extracted under cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Gives the military commissions the power to hand down death sentences after trials that did not meet international standards.

Permits the executive to determine who is an "enemy combatant" under any "competent tribunal" established by the executive, and endorses the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), the wholly inadequate administrative procedure that has been employed in Guantanamo to review individual detentions.

Prohibits any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols as a source of rights in any action in any US court.

Narrows the scope of the War Crimes Act by not expressly criminalizing acts that constitute "outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment" banned under international law. Amnesty International believes that the USA has routinely failed to respect the human dignity of detainees in the "war on terror".

Endorses the administration’s "war paradigm" – under which the USA has selectively applied the laws of war and rejected international human rights law. The legislation backdates the "war on terror" to before the 11 September 2001 in order to be able to try individuals in front of military commissions for "war crimes" committed before that date.I know that pro-Americans don't like Amnesty International and dismiss anything it says, but personally i think this organization is doing a great job at denouncing human rights violation everywhere in the world.

This is the page on the Military Commissions Act (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-061017-features-eng) and how it violates human rights.
And this is the portal on human rights violations in the Guantanamo camp and the so-called "war against terror" (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-index-eng), a real eye opener.

nath

19-10-2006, 18:19

I know that pro-Americans don't like Amnesty International and dismiss anything it says,
Ne serait-ce pas une idée préconçue bien facile? ;)

freddie

19-10-2006, 20:15

Exactly. I like Amnesty International myself. They're a credible organization, even for pro Americans. And I never denied everything the US does is in full compliance with international law. But not being in compliance with international law regarding the status of foreign detainees is different from accusing someone of systematic goverment lead and condoned torture when the bill clearly states it is infact not admissable. I'm sure there have been torture techniques implemented on prisoners at some point, but those were isolated incidents which weren't goverment condoned and were AGAINST the law... and people were put on trial for it.

haku

01-11-2006, 23:35

Truck and SUV sales on the rise (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6108242.stm) again in the US thanks to cheaper fuel. At least the true objectives of the war in Iraq are giving positive results for the car industry. :p

prospector

02-11-2006, 17:45

freddie

02-11-2006, 18:11

At least Toyota Prius is still popular. :p

spyretto

07-11-2006, 13:38

George W Bush told the American people to vote Republicans for congress because "the country is at war" and only the Republicans know how to handle war. How can one deny such a crudely put yet so undeniable fact? Only if one is in denial.
It worked for him before and it should work again ;)

freddie

07-11-2006, 19:16

spyretto

07-11-2006, 19:46

What else is he going to say? War against terror is his leit motif. it's what kept him in the office for the second term. He needs that "war" as much as islamic extremists need him. It's a grotesque symbiosis.

I'm just pointing out that his naive and overly simplistic argument still works for the American people, that's all. It's in the same vain with the "you're with us or against us" rhetoric.
All that remains to be seen is for how long this will keep the Republicans in office. Ending the war is not in their best interest, that is to say.

Khartoun2004

08-11-2006, 11:12

I would just like to point out that the recent elections prove that Americans are sick of Bush and we want him out. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6127216.stm) Nancy Pelosi (who is sure to be the first female speaker of the house) has outlined a first 100hours agenda for the house in 2007. Including an overhaul of the entire Iraq policy.

I'm just waiting for the stupid media to declare Virginia and Montana Democratic before I start celebrating a democratic sweep of the Senate also. But they're just delaying the inevitable. So :bebebe: don't under-estimate Americans. We're not all nascar watching, beer drinking morons... only the ones in the south.

coolasfcuk

08-11-2006, 19:12

I'm just pointing out that his naive and overly simplistic argument still works for the American people, that's all.

:lol: i love how the people that dont even live here or havent even been here once are trying to predict such results..... maybe you spoke a bit too early there, spy... or is that what you were hoping for? :gigi:

All that remains to be seen is for how long this will keep the Republicans in office. Ending the war is not in their best interest, that is to say.
KKhartoun2004, i guess we are still waiting on the Montana and Virginia votes, but as of right now with 99% counted in Montana the D is leading by fewer than 2000 votes and in Virginia the D is also leading after 99% count ... keep your fingers crossed ;)
see spy, there is pretty big chance that Republicans will take a huge double loss ... wow, you didnt want that either, eh?

dradeel

08-11-2006, 19:23

I would just like to point out that the recent elections prove that Americans are sick of Bush and we want him out.
Aaah... this is looking very good before the next president election. I'm happy to see these results. Let's just hope the Democrats will win the last two spots in the Senate. :)

Khartoun2004

08-11-2006, 19:47

KKhartoun2004, i guess we are still waiting on the Montana and Virginia votes, but as of right now with 99% counted in Montana the D is leading by fewer than 2000 votes and in Virginia the D is also leading after 99% count ... keep your fingers crossed ;)
see spy, there is pretty big chance that Republicans will take a huge double loss ... wow, you didnt want that either, eh?

OMG! I know and now fucking Virginia is holding a recount. Oy Vey, I guess the days of knowing the outcome of an election the next day are over (:bebebe: fucking Bush). I have renewed faith in my fellow Americans though and I'm proud to call myself an American again. I stayed up until about 6:30am and then I totally crashed. I hope they call the elections soon... I'm dying to know the outcome. :coctail:

coolasfcuk

08-11-2006, 20:10

dude, they are both gonna do a recount, are you kidding, the difference is less than 1% ;)

well, i dont even vote, but it is also sad to see that the domestic policy is not the one driving the results.... the same people that re-elected bush 2 years ago are changing their minds now... wow

Khartoun2004

08-11-2006, 20:19

I would just like to a second to point out that :hah: Republican Asshole Rick Santorum got his ass handed to him on a silver platter last night :lol: ... Which I am very excited about.

For those of you that don't know who I'm talking about... Rick Santorum was one the top ranking Republicans in the senate and also one of the most conservative.

coolasfcuk

08-11-2006, 20:28

speaking of... Rumsfeld JUST resigned

freddie

08-11-2006, 21:39

It almost seems like the dark empire is crumbling and the age of enlightenment is once again upon us. :p

Khartoun2004

08-11-2006, 21:45

speaking of... Rumsfeld JUST resigned

Hell Yeah! Rumsfeld's not stupid, he knows that with the Democrats in control in the house, the ethics commitee is going to be after him and he'd be impeached anyway and thrown in jail. ;) next on the chopping block Karl Rove...

Khartoun2004

09-11-2006, 06:19

Democrats take Senate!!! We know control both Houses of Congress. Finally we have our checks and balances back and Bush and Cheney are going to have watch very carfully what they say and do now. :coctail: :flag:

coolasfcuk

10-11-2006, 20:32

I just saw this so i thought id comment...
I know Americans find this hard to comprehend but 9/11 wasn't the first plane hijacking :rolleyes: Do we see other so called democratic countries demanding info about everyonre?
it's funny how your america haterage has made you roll your eyes at such event... sorry, but no one is denying there have been hijackings before or after.... the difference is - none of them with such magnitude or impact

in fact, some of o the dicussins here are so disturbing, it isnt even funny ... thank god there are nath and freddie to try to put some sort of objective reasoning.. otherwise its like the blind making fun of the blind :lol:

spyretto

11-11-2006, 04:46

:lol: i love how the people that dont even live here or havent even been here once are trying to predict such results..... maybe you spoke a bit too early there, spy... or is that what you were hoping for? :gigi:

Yeah but I didn't predict any results. I just said that Bush's war mongering techniques still work wth the American people. My point was that if Bush uses that argument as his main argument, it means it still works, otherwise he wouldn't use it. And I still stand by that. America still loves Bush, if there was a third term Bush would probably be re-elected...now that there is not, I'm not sure. And last but not least, this cover (http://media.livedigital.com/pictures/ce/bc/cebc0c8298fde013e1e4862d67cf04a8_rs.jpg) says it all:

And why do I have to live in America to understand America? We have your culture at our doorstep ;)

coolasfcuk

11-11-2006, 19:22

=And why do I have to live in America to understand America? We have your culture at our doorstep ;)
its for a reason.... :heh: and its gonna stay there for a lot longer... so please stop shitting on your doormat :lol: .. the shit gets spread all over your home

Khartoun2004

12-11-2006, 03:43

My point was that if Bush uses that argument as his main argument, it means it still works, otherwise he wouldn't use it. And I still stand by that. America still loves Bush, if there was a third term Bush would probably be re-elected...now that there is not, I'm not sure.

What planet are you living on? Bush has an approval rating of 22%. It's the lowest of any US President. All I hear from people is how much they hate fucking Bush and his agenda. Which is evident in the fact that the republicans got their asses handed to them in the last election. But go ahead and think that you know everything about "Americans" and our government when you don't even read our newspapers.

Believe it or not, our press is still free to say whatever they want. If they weren't it would be nothing but Bush's bullshit that things are going well in Iraq blah, blah, blah. But it's not, all I see everyday are stories about US soldiers getting blown up along with other Iraqis by suicide bombers. The economy is going to shit and we need to get Bush out of office.

And why do I have to live in America to understand America? We have your culture at our doorstep ;)

I think my points above are enough to refute this statement. It is quite obvious to me that you do not understand American culture or polictics. Our culture and polictics weren't created 6 years ago. Sorry, we've been a country for 230 years now, not 6.

I also think it's funny that save for a few, you Europeans are constantly bashing Americans, America and our government, when all of your constitutions were based off of ours... Especially the French. At least we didn't murder the entire British royal family to achieve our independence... Now who's more violent. We don't have race riots lasting for weeks on end here, and cars getting blown up by our immigrant population.

If America is such a horrible place to live I wonder why people are still trying to immigrate here legally or illegally? They must be insane :rolleyes:

Khartoun2004

29-11-2006, 17:37

Senate Democrats Revive Demand for Classified Data (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/washington/24documents.html)

And so the inquiries begin. I wonder what Bush is going to pull out of his ass this time? Stay Tuned for the comedy hour hosted by the Republican Party :laugh:

On a side note, newly elected Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is on the Judiciary Committee and until recently was the Attorney General here.

freddie

30-11-2006, 01:23

Senate Democrats Revive Demand for Classified Data (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/washington/24documents.html)

And so the inquiries begin. I wonder what Bush is going to pull out of his ass this time? Stay Tuned for the comedy hour hosted by the Republican Party :laugh:

War against terror! Deus ex machina for every occassion.

Talyubittu

02-12-2006, 09:24

I love America. But not the America Bush is controling.

Khartoun2004

09-12-2006, 23:45

Anyway... More bad news for the G.O.P (Grand Old Party indeed :rolleyes: ) This article was published on 365gay.com Ethics Committee: GOP Turned Blind Eye To Foley (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/12/120806foley.htm).

You all might remember the scandel about Rep. Mark Foley (R-Florida) sending explicit emails to House Pages that broke in early October and aided in the Democratic take over of the House... I expect several GOP leadership heads to role soon. :lol: *cough*Hastert*cough*

spyretto

19-12-2006, 12:21

What planet are you living on? Bush has an approval rating of 22%. It's the lowest of any US President. All I hear from people is how much they hate fucking Bush and his agenda. Which is evident in the fact that the republicans got their asses handed to them in the last election. But go ahead and think that you know everything about "Americans" and our government when you don't even read our newspapers.

Believe it or not, our press is still free to say whatever they want. If they weren't it would be nothing but Bush's bullshit that things are going well in Iraq blah, blah, blah. But it's not, all I see everyday are stories about US soldiers getting blown up along with other Iraqis by suicide bombers. The economy is going to shit and we need to get Bush out of office.

I think my points above are enough to refute this statement. It is quite obvious to me that you do not understand American culture or polictics. Our culture and polictics weren't created 6 years ago. Sorry, we've been a country for 230 years now, not 6.

I also think it's funny that save for a few, you Europeans are constantly bashing Americans, America and our government, when all of your constitutions were based off of ours... Especially the French. At least we didn't murder the entire British royal family to achieve our independence... Now who's more violent. We don't have race riots lasting for weeks on end here, and cars getting blown up by our immigrant population.

If America is such a horrible place to live I wonder why people are still trying to immigrate here legally or illegally? They must be insane :rolleyes:

You people attacking me for what exactly? Because I'm criticising your precious president Bush or perhaps I'm criticising your culture?? In a truly democratic country Bush should have been impeached a long time ago for his role in Iraq and even if his popularity goes down to minus 20% you can't convince anybody. You say people hate Bush now, where were those people three years ago when he was re-elected with an even larger approval than in the first election? You think we're gonna forget what you did in Iraq and how you've screwed up the world because now you say it was a mistake and that you hate Bush? And about Bush's popularity? Bush popularity means absolutely nothing, we know very well that his popularity had reached record lows before, that didn't stop him from being re-elected.
About your culture, if you can explain what your unified culture is in your vast, dichotomous, uneven country and how it is defined to encompass all of your people in equal terms -then yeah, I will admit I don't understand your cutlure. Do you understand my culture? You don't even know where I'm coming from, how would you ever understand. you will have to understand 55 different cultures dear, to start getting a grasp of even remotely understanding my culture. But I know you would not be bothered to try, after all your culture is the best, correct?
Last but not least, no matter how big your influence is in our lives - no matter how much "shit" we get in our homes, the shit will eventally come back to you. :p
I suggest you climb off your high horses and try to see what's going on around you. About the violence and stuff, you must be kidding. You're the most violent country in the history of civilizaton. Have you ever heard of the bloodless revolution?
We based our constitution in your constitution? The French? You must be dreaming surely, are you sure it wasn't the other way round? LOL
You don't even have your own language, you don't even have your indigenous peoples - cause you slaughtered them all. You got EVERYTHING and I mean every single thing from our own cultures and you're saying what? The Chinese and the Africans have every right to criticise our culture. YOU DON'T. You have nothing of your own, you took everything from us.
and please somebody tell me how I can be wrong on this.

Yes, the war against Iraq just prior to the invasion had an approval rating among American people of 76 per cent. So I somehow don't believe that either of you were in the minority of the 14%, Khartoon and cool. So don't shed your crocodile tears now.You weren't expecting to be dragged into this mess for at least the next 20 years? Well, you should have known better.

It almost seems like the dark empire is crumbling and the age of enlightenment is once again upon us. :p

I say it's all bullshit, it's a vicious circle. Now the empire is crumpling, now that they've done all the damage? The evil Republicans? Let me say bullshit again, the fair Democrats are very capable of waging their own stupid wars in some foreign country overseas; it's a necessity for this superpower to survive. I predict that will happen early in their first term after they get back to power.

And the bullshit story continues.

freddie

19-12-2006, 21:12

You sound bitter Dr Dark. :p

The way I see it... each country - or should I say establishment - is innately manipulative, selfish, coruptive and just plain bad. Of course not ALL people within the establishment, but general tendencies always point that way. I think it stems from the essence of what we really are -individuals competing to survive in an unforgivably competitive world. A country is just a greater manifestation of that basic principle. The reason why everybody's fingers are pointed towards the States these days is the fact it's the only remaining super-power and can hence take advantage of certain international situations more so than other countries can (not that other countries WOULDN'T... it's just that given their political power and military/economic/social power they CAN'T.)

Look at Russia - they're not even a superpower. Their only ace is endless resources of energy supply, yet they take as much advantage of it as tehy possibly can. Imo somewhere around 2050 we'll look back with nostalgia on those golden years when USA were the only superpower in the world. I'm almost certain China will be much more blatant in abusing it's might when it becomes a full blown superpower.

I'm not claiming America is perfect. I'm just annoyed when people see it as the one source of all evil on this world while all others are just standing by in a rightous pose waiting to save the world of injustice. THAT is bullshit.Think about it.

spyretto

19-12-2006, 21:25

I'm not claiming America is perfect. I'm just annoyed when people see it as the one source of all evil on this world while all others are just standing by in a rightous pose waiting to save the world of injustice. THAT is bullshit.Think about it.

Yeah but nobody does say that ( except perhaps some mad muslim fundamentalists ) In turn Americans still see themselves as the one source of virtue in this world while all others should stand in a righteous pose waiting to be saved by them.
Think of it that way, freddie.

And tell me, judging by G.W Bush leadership how this cannot be so. That mentality is reverberating everywhere there are Americans.
And surely they're not the only superpower. Europe and China are potential superpowers in their own right. If you want somebody to challenge them all the time and be in the brink of war with them - like the Soviets did - then yeah, you might not find that kind of superpower. But the Chinese government are not what I'd call friendly with them, and with regards to Europe, Britain their biggest ally has realised now that they have failed to influence the U.S in changing their policy in Iraq - Iraq is acknowledged now as the biggest mistake of Tony Blair's government ( read the bbc article, it's on bbc.co.uk ). Despite his big mistake Tony Blair was subsequently trying to influence Bush in many issues, Iraq, the environment and others. Tony Blair is a good politician but he couldn't influence Bush.
I'd say that USA are finding themselves more and more isolated in their superpowerful glory, while losing allies with their inconsiderate and selfish policies around the globe.

freddie

21-12-2006, 02:21

My point is any country would do the same were it in that position. France will take care of it's own interests. UK of it's own. So will Germany. That is so terribly evident within the ultra-liberal and humanist European Union. USA is doing the same but on a global scale. Most of the bitching other countries are doing is usually not of this-is-not-right type but rather hey-why-cant-i-do-that type.

I am absolutely convinced China -were it in the same position - would annihilate it's enemies in a much more decisive and represive way than USA does today.There would be no diplomatic discussions. There'd be no meetings within the UN. There'd be no ground infiltrations or ongoing sectarian violence. I'd be replaced with a short-sharp-(nuclear)-shock, that'd take care of all problems. I'm sure Russia would be like that as well.

We'll talk in 2050. ;)

spyretto

21-12-2006, 11:24

Yeah they'd do the same...but they're not in the same position as the U.S.A. is now , cause they blew it.
And yeah, lets talk about it again in 2050. I don't want to pass as some kind of America hater ( because I'm not ).
I was just commenting on Bush's political arguments for Congress and several people here started yaking about how we don't understand their culture etc etc.. You don't need to know one's culture to know how the behaviour of a herd works. We saw it very well in the last U.S. elections. They're not different than anybody else.

I have a few doubts about Russia though. They didn't declare war against the whole muslim world after the Beslan tragedy.

Khartoun2004

21-12-2006, 17:00

I was just commenting on Bush's political arguments for Congress and several people here started yaking about how we don't understand their culture etc etc.. You don't need to know one's culture to know how the behaviour of a herd works. We saw it very well in the last U.S. elections. They're not different than anybody else.

I'd like to point out that since you are soooo convinced Bush won because people here are in favor of the Iraq war, that is not the reason he won. Bush won the 2004 election because my (until recently) state of Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004 and sent the entire right wing fundamentalist christians into panic mode and Bush used their fear of the "Gay Agenda" to turn an election that should have been about his atrocious handling of Iraq, Afganistan, the national economy, ect... into an election based solely on Christian morals. If you don't believe me go check some US sources about the 2004 election.

So actually Dr. Dark you do not understand US politics very well at all. 2004 saw the beginning of the voters, who until then stayed out of government, start to show an interest and vote only on moral issues not things that actually matter. That is the reason Bush won, his opposition to gay marriage, not Iraq. The most recent election was not about moral issues (thanks to several republican scandels), but about Iraq and you'll notice that the republicans LOST... Bush has been changing his tune ever since because the Democrats are planning to start pulling out US troops at the latest by January 2008. And also because they have more than enough evidence to Impeach him... which I expect them to do shortly after February.

spyretto

21-12-2006, 18:28

I hear you, Khartoun2004. By the same analogy a better choice for the white wing funadamentalist Christians etc. would be to vote for the KKK. I'm sure their policies regarding gay marriage and gays in general are at least as hardcore as Bush's not to mention the blacks, the Jews, the immigrants etc.
No, I'm sorry I really can't believe that and if that makes me ignorant about the US politics so be it. Not to mention that you're painting the majority of the electorate who can sway the elections in your country as bigots ( or maybe half-baked bigots since they went for Bush and not the KKK ).
I don't think it will be easy to impeach Bush...or start removing the troops as early as 2008...or even closing Quantanamo. I'd say number one won't happen, number two won't happen in this decade, number three might never happen. Just a mere prediction on my part - who knows, I might be wrong. That is if the Democrats win. If the Republicans win add to that another 10 to 15 years.

Khartoun2004

21-12-2006, 20:41

That is if the Democrats win. If the Republicans win add to that another 10 to 15 years.

What do you mean IF the Democrats win??? They have won... they won on November 7. Bush no longer can count on the legislature to do his bidding. Congress declares war and congress un-declares it as well. If they say we're loosing, pull out... that's what happens. It's not in Bush's power, to decide where the troops go and when the troops come home, it's congress and the senate. It'll happen with in the first hundred hours of the 110th congress. Speaker Pelosi has already said that is her main goal for this session of congress. Then they'll impeach Bush and Cheney on "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", vote on it (which will pass, I'm fairly confident) and go to the Senate where Bush and Cheney will be put on trial and removed from office. If the House doesn't impeach him the states will. I know of three states that are waiting for January to issue their calls for Bush's impeachment.

I assure you he will be gone it's only a matter of time now.

spyretto

22-12-2006, 02:02

What would be the basis for impeaching Bush? Iraq? This cannot be as the Democrats - not to mention the American public - were in favor of the war too. Going to war was not something Bush did against the will of his people. Other than that, you can't touch the guy, he's impeccable. No lies, no cheat, just dangerous politics.
That's not enough for impeachment.
About the troops, I don't know. If the forces be removed from Iraq sooner than later, then there's a 99.99% chance Iraq would lapse into some kind of totalitarian regime again, with a huge possibility of lapsing into a regime FAR WORSE than Saddam's. Saddam was pro-west, imagine if Iraq lapsed into a muslim fundamentalist state and then you have one more REAL enemy to worry about. And then what would the Americans have achieved by invading? Absolutely nothing - not to count the losses.
So withdrawing from Iraq is not an easy proposition even if one comes with the best intentions - like you say the Democrats have.

Khartoun2004

22-12-2006, 12:45

What would be the basis for impeaching Bush? Iraq? This cannot be as the Democrats - not to mention the American public - were in favor of the war too. Going to war was not something Bush did against the will of his people. Other than that, you can't touch the guy, he's impeccable. No lies, no cheat, just dangerous politics.
That's not enough for impeachment.

I've said it before... Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction by falsifying intelligence information. Which is why the Senate Judiciary committee demanded classified documents from Bush's administration which the Republicans let him off the hook. As for Americans being for Iraq, it was based on the aforementioned falsified intelligence info, not actual fact. People are against the war now because we now the Bush Administration lied. Warrant-less wiretaping is another issue, if it was enough to try and Impeach Nixon (who resigned before he was actually officially impeached), it's good enough to Impeach Bush on as well. Is that enough reasons for you or shall I give you more??

freddie

22-12-2006, 13:57

There's a debate on whether Bush actually lied consciously or was simply given false information by agents on the field (either deliberate or as a result of professional incompetence). From what I remember prominent figures like Colin Powell (and for what it's worth I consider Colin a lot more thrustworthy than Bush), testified in the UN that they have PROOF of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The guy effectively ruined his international credibility with that testamony alone. I doubt he'd be wiling to go that far unless he was absolutely certain that things he's saying are valid.

Khartoun2004

22-12-2006, 15:02

spyretto

22-12-2006, 17:05

That aside, Bush can still be Impeached for illegal wiretapping because Congress did not make it legal when they pushed through the atrocious torture bill before they recessed.

Sorry I don't understand that, can you explain it please.

I don't think you can touch Bush. If somebody else lied about the weapons it surely wasn't Bush. Bush can easily blame the intelligence of the time and the intelligence can attribute that to misinformation or wrong judgement. Nobody can be blamed for distorting facts. Same with Tony Blair. He was apparenlty convinced that the Saddam administration had weapons and the British intelligence had similar "evidence".
They detained Cat Stevens as a terrorist, so I wouldn't expect much better from them.

freddie

23-12-2006, 20:38

That aside, Bush can still be Impeached for illegal wiretapping because Congress did not make it legal when they pushed through the atrocious torture bill before they recessed.

He might defend himself with his usual rhetoric about the country being "at war" so special measuremenets had to be taken to insure people's safety. I'm sure the guy is convinced everything's fair in love and war. :D

They detained Cat Stevens as a terrorist, so I wouldn't expect much better from them.

You mean Yusuf Islam, the guy who publically condoned the fatwah calling for the death of Salman Rushdie. :p

Khartoun2004

24-12-2006, 01:56

He might defend himself with his usual rhetoric about the country being "at war" so special measuremenets had to be taken to insure people's safety. I'm sure the guy is convinced everything's fair in love and war. :D

Oh I'm sure he will true to use the usual excuses. However, the precedent is not in his favor. He's doing the exact same thing Nixon did during Vietnam and they tried to Impeach him. So I really don't think the whole "we're at war" justification works.

In regard to the WMD and Intelligence, the House has to implament several inquires inorder to start the Impeachment process anyway. Bush can say all he wants that it's someone else's fault, but if the House and Senate find evidence that he was negligent they can impeach him.

The Senate has already started the process. I mention it in a pervious post. The Judiciary is demanding Bush turn over certain classified documents about the intelligence he used to throw the country into this ridiculous war. Whatever the outcome, the process has started, it's only a matter of time now.

spyretto

24-12-2006, 09:41

You mean Yusuf Islam, the guy who publically condoned the fatwah calling for the death of Salman Rushdie. :p

And? What is your point? Would you detain a person for having an opinion? Would you like to be prosecuted for your views?
Besides, that happened 15 years ago. He retracted that statement several times since then and said it was in the heat of the moment ( not to mention condemning the 9/11 attacks )

spyretto

09-01-2007, 10:37

Last Updated: Tuesday, 9 January 2007, 08:47 GMT

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

US launches air strike in Somalia

The heavily-armed AC-130 gunship can work under cover of darkness
The US has carried out an air strike against members of a suspected al-Qaeda cell in a village in southern Somalia.
The targets were reported to have been tracked by aerial reconnaissance and then attacked by a US gunship launched from a US military base in Djibouti.

The US believes al-Qaeda operatives held responsible for the 1998 bombings of US embassies in East Africa have been hiding in Somalia.

The Somali transitional government says many people were killed in the raid.

The air strikes took place a few days after the Union of Islamic Courts, which had taken control of much of central and southern Somalia during the past six months, was routed by soldiers from Ethiopia and Somalia's transitional government.

The US accused the Islamists of having links to al-Qaeda - charges they denied.

There has been no official confirmation from the Pentagon that the air strike took place, but correspondents say a statement is expected within hours.

Location of militias and US Navy patrols
Somalia's interim President Abdullahi Yusuf backed the US action.

"The US has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania," he said in Mogadishu, a day after entering the city for the first time since the Islamists withdrew.

The bombing is the first overt military action by the US in Somalia since the 1990s and the botched intervention - known as Black Hawk Down - in which 18 servicemen died.

'Opportunistic attempt'

The attack was carried out by an Air Force AC-130, a heavily-armed gunship that has highly effective detection equipment and can work under the cover of darkness.

The US has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania

Somali interim president
Abdullahi Yusuf

Fact file: AC-130 gunship

One report says the US attack took place on Monday afternoon on Badmadow island, in an area known as Ras Kamboni on the southern tip of the country close to Kenya's border.

After fierce fighting, Ethiopian and Somali forces said on Monday that they were on the verge of capturing Ras Kamboni, one of the Islamist's last strongholds, where many fighters are now said to be cornered.

Many other Islamist fighters are in hiding.

The BBC's Adam Mynott in Nairobi says the attack seemed to be an opportunistic attempt by the US to destroy an al-Qaeda cell that they had been tracking for some time.

The cell is believed to be behind the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, and Dar Es Salaam, in Tanzania.

More than 250 people died in the two attacks.

The US also holds the same group responsible for attacks on an Israeli aircraft and Israeli-owned hotel in Kenya in 2002, in which 15 people died.

Meanwhile, the US military said on Tuesday it had sent an aircraft carrier to join three other US warships conducting anti-terror operations off the country's coast

haku

09-01-2007, 19:37

US launches air strike in SomaliaAh, remote massive air strikes, America's all-time favorite… You don't know or see who you're killing, but you're sure you're killing a lot, while being confident *they* (whoever they are) can't hit you back from your high position. Those are comfortable and satisfying operations for a frustrated US army.

marina

10-01-2007, 11:51

I appreciate your hatred , haku . Lol

Khartoun2004

10-01-2007, 13:23

I appreciate your hatred , haku . Lol

yeah it's always soo refreshing to be hated for a regime you never voted for :rolleyes:

Rachel

10-01-2007, 22:59

yeah it's always soo refreshing to be hated for a regime you never voted for :rolleyes:I'm wondering whether the democrats are even better. It's still the same mentality.

Khartoun2004

10-01-2007, 23:30

I'm wondering whether the democrats are even better. It's still the same mentality.

It's not the same mentality. The Democrats are known for their integrity in office, yes they have done some questionable things in the past, but that's true of all governments. What sets the Democrats apart is the fact that they don't blatantly lie about everything, even after they've been shown they were wrong. Things are going to change, it just takes time, the 110th session of congress just started the middle of last week.

My brother works for a senator so he tells me all the inside information the news doesn't report. In the Iraq thread a couple months ago people were talking about splitting Iraq into three separate countries, Senator Joe Biden is the head of the Senate Arms Committee and that is his plan. He's been an advocate of that plan since 2003 when this whole mess started. He's also already blocked Bush's call for 30,000 more troops.

On the House side of things, Speaker Pelosi has already said she will not put more funding toward the war in Iraq, also they are talking about starting troop withdrawals soon, with a time table to have most if not all US troops out by the beginning of 2008.

I understand that the US isn't the most popular country at the moment, but I think it's ridiculous to assume that Americans are happy with Bush when the evidence overwhelmingly shows we're not (22% approval rating and dropping) . The last election was the American public slapping Bush in the face in my opinion. The republicans did not gain a single seat in either house, they lost a bunch of them, actually the majority of seats up for re-election to be exact. Just be patient, even Rome wasn't built in a night or a week. Bush's lack of diplomacy skills has seriously hurt the country and it's citizens, rebuilding our alliances and friendships in the rest of the world is also a top priority in this session of congress.

coolasfcuk

11-01-2007, 03:06

I'm wondering whether the democrats are even better. It's still the same mentality.
dude, this comment is so fucking ridiculous it is actually FUNNY :lol:

this thread must be the most hypocritical thread around here - you guys WANT to hate america and anything american SO bad, it's like a fucking cult ..... comperable to islamic fundamentalists for example :heh:

haku

11-01-2007, 15:36

US air strikes in Somalia failed to kill any of the three targeted al-Qaeda suspects (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6251077.stm) :lol:

But those bombings were not for nothing, not only was there a good number of human collateral damage, but many terrorist cattle (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6248669.stm) have been killed… That's good strategy, you never know when a suicide camel may attack.

Rachel

11-01-2007, 18:32

caf, lets just wait until the democrats get into power (which I'm guessing they may do in the next election) and see how much of a difference they make ;)

BTW, I love how you have so melted in with America ;)

coolasfcuk

11-01-2007, 20:47

caf, lets just wait until the democrats get into power (which I'm guessing they may do in the next election) and see how much of a difference they make
WOW
this is why this thread is so ridiculous - you still dont know what is happening, but you are continuing to shit all over america. the elections were in november of 2006, rachel, and the democrats got a lot of power. here is a BBC report for you (not to make you read anything american, god forbit): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6230735.stm
and if you expect the change to happen in a day... HA! its been what - 10 days :lol:

BTW, I love how you have so melted in with America
you dont know that much about me ... yeah, go ahead and blindly hate me now, because ive 'melted with america' :laugh: i live here now - i and millions others from all over the world wouldnt come and make this their new home if it was as evil and horrible as you see it in your head.
and please, no place is perfect, the EU has its nastiness - i am also speaking from the perspective of someone whose country has just joined the EU

all i am asking for is some openmindedness, thats it, but hey...whatever. ignorance is a bliss - lots of americans are ignorant, but so are people all over the world ;)

Rachel

11-01-2007, 22:22

WOW
this is why this thread is so ridiculous - you still dont know what is happening, but you are continuing to shit all over america. the elections were in november of 2006, rachel, and the democrats got a lot of power. here is a BBC report for you (not to make you read anything american, god forbit): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6230735.stm
and if you expect the change to happen in a day... HA! its been what - 10 days :lol:You know which elections I'm talking about.

freddie

12-01-2007, 01:08

I totally agree this blatant hatred of America has become a trend during the last decade. I guess people will always find someone to hate and with a lack of Soviet Union type evil empire they have to find a good replacement. Goodness knows this administration is making it easy to hate them, but sometimes people lose all sense of perspective. Up to a point where they'd almost favour a totalitarian Islamic regime over supposed American imperialism (which in my opinion is no more than economic imperialism).

It's not like the EU is perfect either. Infact at the moment is seems a rather fragile entity with the consitition being lost for the near future and constant bickering of influencial members for supremacy. I'm sure just about every regime out there would be prepared to sell their soul to the devil if their national interests were at stake We've seen that many times during this brief history of the EU and we'll see it many times more now that the new poorly developed eastern countries are joining. I still don't understand why countries like Austria, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Dennmark, Lichenstein or Norway don't allow free passage of foreign EU labour, eventhough it's one of the four basic liberties under which the EU was founded. Does the Union make any sense when every country is still looking after it's own political gain first and only after that for the good of all?

Okay this is slightly off-topic but I just wanted to point out how goverments will always be selfish as far as their national interests are concerned and I think I've mentioned this before in the thread. US is just a convenient trendy scape goat in these day and age because it's the most exposed of them all. Given their status as the only superpower of our time I think they could have actually do much, much worse then they did till now. I doubt it very much we'd be living in a better society today if things turned out differently and The Soviet Union was the world's sole superpower. On your daily commute to The People's Tractor & Ploughing Equipment Factory #9 you'd be longing for some of those capitalist pleasures which you all take for granted now.

coolasfcuk

12-01-2007, 01:29

god, freds, i love you :D

its basically what i was thinking, more or less, i just didnt even feel like trying to explain it so well ... fingers too tired to type, but it is certainly nice to read

dont worry, it wont change much, but intelligence is always...always pleasant! :rose:

p.s. of course people will always find someone to hate, the one with the most power .... people most complaining have never really lived under the 'great' soviet union regime :heh: ...like you and me have had the pleasure to (even briefly)
france doesnt allow slovene to work there either? :lol:

oh and rachel, bush cannot run for president again, so dont worry, you're SAFE! LoL

haku

12-01-2007, 02:52

I still don't understand why countries like Austria, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Dennmark, Lichenstein or Norway don't allow free passage of foreign EU labour, eventhough it's one of the four basic liberties under which the EU was founded.It's part of EU regulations, EU member states are allowed to set a transitional period of 3, 5 or 7 years before granting the right to work to the citizens of a new EU member state. That transitional period only affects the right to work, the citizens of a new EU member state can freely travel and live wherever they want from day 1, the limitation applies solely on work. EU member states must decide once and for all on the duration of that transitional period the day before (at the latest) the accession of a new EU member state (meaning that if they choose 3 years, it can not be extended to 5 or 7 later).
Any new EU member state knows and accepts that specific regulation when it signs the accession treaty, in the worst case scenario its citizens will be able to work freely anywhere in the EU after 7 years anyway since this is the longest transitional period possible.
It is to be noted that some of the recent EU member states which joined in 2004 have applied that transitional period to the 2 newest EU member states.

As for Liechtenstein and Norway, they are not EU member states, only EU associates within the EEA agreement, they probably have to respect that same regulation (7 years max) but i'm not sure (they may be allowed to a longer max transitional period).

Does the Union make any sense when every country is still looking after it's own political gain first and only after that for the good of all?The EU is still a loose confederation, it will need to become a full federation to subdue national rivalry.

spyretto

12-01-2007, 06:36

Khartoun2004

12-01-2007, 08:09

They've managed to retain their solidarity over the years - something that the EU is lacking at the moment.

All I can say to this, and I really do mean no disrepsect... I'm more than slightly intoxicated at the moment... but have you read our constitution lately or ever? Of course we've managed to retain our solidarity over the years, that's why we're the "United States of America" not the American Union of a bunch of tiny ass countries. If Europe had gotten over their giant family fued in the late 1700's you'd be just as powerful if not more so than America because you wouldn't have had to rebulid your economies, ect after two world wars. We started out united, with one currency, blah, blah, blah and for years that made us stronger than any European country on it's own, although I'm really starting to question how wise it was to add Texas to the union :rolleyes:

Sorry that just really struck me as stateing the obvious. :coctail:

freddie

12-01-2007, 11:28

It's part of EU regulations, EU member states are allowed to set a transitional period of 3, 5 or 7 years before granting the right to work to the citizens of a new EU member state. That transitional period only affects the right to work, the citizens of a new EU member state can freely travel and live wherever they want from day 1, the limitation applies solely on work. EU member states must decide once and for all on the duration of that transitional period the day before (at the latest) the accession of a new EU member state (meaning that if they choose 3 years, it can not be extended to 5 or 7 later).
Any new EU member state knows and accepts that specific regulation when it signs the accession treaty, in the worst case scenario its citizens will be able to work freely anywhere in the EU after 7 years anyway since this is the longest transitional period possible.
It is to be noted that some of the recent EU member states which joined in 2004 have applied that transitional period to the 2 newest EU member states.

As for Liechtenstein and Norway, they are not EU member states, only EU associates within the EEA agreement, they probably have to respect that same regulation (7 years max) but i'm not sure (they may be allowed to a longer max transitional period).

I'm well aware of allowed time-spans in the transitional period, but that's not the point. The point is... national states will always protect their interests no matter what. French farmers, british construction workers and german steel industry will always have it's powerful lobbies which will pressure their respective goverments into favouring their agendas.

I don't think it will ever become a true federation the way things are going. There are just too many interests that need to be mashed together in order for this to work.It would mean taking sacrifices for the good of the continental union of seperate nationalist states. I don't see it happening frankly. If not anything else the prominent countries themselves are a huge roadblock towards that goal.

No way I'd favour a totalitarian Islamic regime over America. America is the sole superpower in history built and functioning on the foundations of democracy. None other superpower has been modelled in such a way, be it the Soviet union, the past British empire, Rome or even Greece - where the notion of democracy first sprung from.
They've managed to retain their solidarity over the years - something that the EU is lacking at the moment.

The EU is structured as a role-model of democracy. Do you honestly think it'd be any different today if Europe was the only superpower around? EU is stuck together from a wide variety of old-school colonial superpowers (Spain, Portugal, England, France to name a few) which showed throughout history that when opportunity knocks they'll damn well answer it. The only reason why we're not taking care of our own continental interests as diligently is because we can't achieve any sort of consent over anything within the Union.

spyretto

12-01-2007, 12:00

All I can say to this, and I really do mean no disrepsect... I'm more than slightly intoxicated at the moment... but have you read our constitution lately or ever? Of course we've managed to retain our solidarity over the years, that's why we're the "United States of America" not the American Union of a bunch of tiny ass countries. If Europe had gotten over their giant family fued in the late 1700's you'd be just as powerful if not more so than America because you wouldn't have had to rebulid your economies, ect after two world wars. We started out united, with one currency, blah, blah, blah and for years that made us stronger than any European country on it's own, although I'm really starting to question how wise it was to add Texas to the union :rolleyes:

Sorry that just really struck me as stateing the obvious. :coctail:

I've nothing but praise for you in that regard. While America was built on solid ground and the notion of the collective good prevailing over the individual, Europe was tormented for centuries by catastrophic wars, incited by petty self-interests and family feuds - as you very well put it.
The EU is the first serious venture to build something around the notion of America, and perhaps avoid a lot of the mistakes that the Americans have done in the way they're projecting themselves. But the way they're rushing it forward casts a shadow over the eventual success of this venture.
The other thing is that America has always managed to strike a balance between the more conservative section - the backbone of America if you like, the frontier America- with the more liberal section - the people responsible for projecting America around the world. Neither side is favoured over the other. That creates a balance of government. balance in government is one of the fundamentals of democracy. It ensures that everybody is eventually happy.
That's why I'm positive that America will find its way again, after this rocking period.

I'm still totally against the fashion that America conducts its foreign policy. But I understand that your mentality and our mentality is somewhat different. Yeah we might stand for all the right things but that didn't help us much in the long run.

Talyubittu

12-01-2007, 13:20

What many people have to remember is that the American people are not the American government. There are famalies I go to school with who don't vacation in Europe anymore becasue of the extreme disrespect they recieve from European's becuase they are Americans.

coolasfcuk

13-01-2007, 01:31

Soiux falls, SD isnt exactly .... well you know, what all america is about anyways, but it is a great midwest representative :heh:

Talyubittu

13-01-2007, 05:11

People living there are still Americans, whats your point?

haku

22-01-2007, 19:57

QueenOfLesbania

22-01-2007, 20:07

The US is planning to deploy new missiles in eastern EU
hmm, why not finish bombing one place before setting up bombs somewhere else? even if they're only there for show it's still a threat i'm surprised any government is allowing. it can only make me wonder how much the us is paying them for the use of their territory :spy:

Talyubittu

23-01-2007, 02:27

The US is planning to deploy new missiles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6286289.stm) in eastern EU, Russia warns that this deployment will be considered as a threat to its national security… It's like the good old days of the cold war are back. :p

Seriously though, this is another step toward the next intercontinental conflict. Officially those missiles would only be used in case of an attack against US soil (so why put them in Europe?) but of course that makes no sense.
No, those missiles are not meant to defend US soil (and certainly not European soil, lol), the goal of those new missiles is to attack Iran (or retaliate if it attacks Israel first), and since those missiles will be fired from Europe, Iran will retaliate with its own missiles on Europe (Iran has no missiles capable of reaching US soil anyway).
A perfect plan for the US, it's Europe that gets a few million dead while Americans are safe and sound on the other side of the Atlantic pushing flashy buttons in their hi-tech war game command center. :user:

You don't understand why?

Say Russia launches an attack on America. It'd be much easier to wipe out Russian bases using a missle already in Europe than it would be to deploy people and missles in the USA. It could also be a counter attack missile. In case of a deadly weapon being launched this weapon could follow the initial one and destory it before it reaches it's target.

And I can't help but notice a touch of snootiness in your comment. While America is safe Europe's being blown up? Whomever is making these decisions is doing their job. Protecting America and American people. If Europe dosen't realize whats going on, then they need to do somthing about it. It's not America's fault that they're trying to protect their country. And not to be rude but it's a little sad that your reaction came out that way. America does and has done TONS of things for Europe. People living in Europe would be under the control of dictators and live in EXTREME harshness had the USA not interfered on many many many occasions. So it's a bit rude for you to make it look like America's just saving it's ass not worrying about anyone else. I'm sure that if weapons were launched against another European country our's wouldn't stay where they are in Europe.

PowerPuff Grrl

23-01-2007, 03:54

So it's a bit rude for you to make it look like America's just saving it's ass not worrying about anyone else.
Sorry but in the past 50 years the US has done nearly everything in its own interest without any consideration to anybody else. Not that's there is anything distinctly evil about it or about anything. I can't come up with any superpower country past, present, near or not so near future that (has ever, is ever, or) will ever be truly altruistic in its foreign policy.
That being said, the United States is only responsible for its security and isn't obligated to anyone else's. If countries are stupid enough to offer up their own land for American missile deployment at the risk of becoming a target, that is their problem.

PS: The only way somebody will ever convincingly undermine the American prestige is to undermine the domestic policy which, if you ask me, is very self-indicting. All this talk of foreign policy is going nowhere.

haku

23-01-2007, 04:17

It'd be much easier to wipe out Russian bases using a missle already in Europe than it would be to deploy people and missles in the USA.Yeah, i think we all understand how easier it is for the US to put other countries at risk. It's easy to talk about wiping out Russia (or Iran for that matter) when you're in the American mid-west, far away from the potential conflict zone.
Deploying interceptor missiles near the Russian border (even though Russia is not the primary target) is an unecessary military escalation and a blatant provocation, the relations between nuclear powers is ruled by the 'balance of terror', 'you can destroy me, i can destroy you, so we do nothing', it has worked well for over 50 years.
Interceptor missiles jeopardize that balance, the nuclear power that has them can strike at will without any fear of retaliation. And of course the nuclear powers that do not have interceptor missiles become extremely nervous since they know they can be attacked without being able to strike back, their strategic arsenal is rendered useless.
In an unstable environment, this could corner a threatened military into the only viable option they have left… A preemptive strike to destroy the interceptor missiles before they are deployed.

If Europe dosen't realize whats going on, then they need to do somthing about it.Europeans realize what's going on, the difference is that we have to live with our neighbors, Arabs to the south and Russians to the east, and most people here don't think wiping them out is a reasonable option. We are also the ones in range for retaliation from whatever foolishness the US is preparing to commit in the middle-east, while indeed the US homeland will remain untouched, protected by oceans, distance, and interceptor missiles.

And i won't elaborate on the usual American view that Europe is just a bunch of vassals of the American empire that should just do whatever they're told. (I won't deny that we are effectively in a state of vassalage, but the whole point should be of breaking free from that dependency, not ending up even more tied up.)

Edit: Interesting poll (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm) on how people in the world view the US role as positive or negative.

Rachel

23-01-2007, 09:05

"Protecting America and American people"...blahblahblah...you guys are like a broken record :blabla: :blabla: :blabla: Anyone would think you were your own species by the way you disregard any life that isn't American :rolleyes: Oh we know by now you don't give a shit. :rolleyes:

QueenOfLesbania

23-01-2007, 09:37

"Protecting America and American people"...blahblahblah...you guys are like a broken record
couldn't agree more. i just hope that next time there's an election the us will have learnt their lesson.

Khartoun2004

23-01-2007, 16:19

Protecting America and American people. It's not America's fault that they're trying to protect their country.

Dude.... How old are you?? Those arguments are weak and complete bullshit, not to mention it brings to mind the Monkey in the Whitehouse. No one has directly attacked mainland America since September 11, 2001... How much violence and death is enough retribution?? Iraq and Suddam have never attacked us on US soil... So what gave us the right to invade, bomb and destroy their country and people? I don't buy the we're "only trying to protect Americans" propaganda. And I'm sorry, but way far away in some tiny ass city in South Dakota doesn't put you at high risk for terrorist attacks anyway. When you live in a large metropolis on the East or West coast then maybe your arguments might be slightly more valid.

And not to be rude but it's a little sad that your reaction came out that way. America does and has done TONS of things for Europe. People living in Europe would be under the control of dictators and live in EXTREME harshness had the USA not interfered on many many many occasions. So it's a bit rude for you to make it look like America's just saving it's ass not worrying about anyone else. I'm sure that if weapons were launched against another European country our's wouldn't stay where they are in Europe.

Again... How old are you? This is, in my opinion, one of the reasons our relations with European countries suck at the moment. Ok Yes, we helped bail England and France out of two world wars, however the second one at least was preventable and we didn't really enter into the war with an effective second from until 1944... some help we are :rolleyes: the Russians would have beaten Hitler on their own at that point.

Secondly, If you'll recall back to around 1780.... when the Red Coats were kicking our asses in the Revolutionary War, who was it that came and bailed our asses out? FRANCE!!! So why don't you show some fucking respect to the countries that made the United States of America possible in the first place. And I don't see how the administration is doing anything to "Save our asses"? North Korea has nuclear weapons and is quite volitle... which was preventable if Bush had concentrated on Diplomacy there instead of Bombing Iraq. I could go on and on, but I'm bored now.

Amy_Lee_Rocks

23-01-2007, 17:02

Why cant we all just live in peace and harmony, holding hands and singing kumbaya. < lol everyone just looked at me weird when i said that in class..:p

America, um well I like it, its not my home country but its ok, not bad. I disagree with what Bush is currently doing. Im living happily so i guess its all good. Sometimes i wonder what will be of the U.S in 50 years from now. For some reason i think its not gonna be a country anymore..:eek:

haku

23-01-2007, 18:27

If you'll recall back to around 1780.... when the Red Coats were kicking our asses in the Revolutionary War, who was it that came and bailed our asses out? FRANCE!!!That was probably a big mistake. :p (But we've done a lot of mistakes in our history, lol).

If the British had won that war, most of North America woud probably be part of Canada now, except probably the area from Texas to California that would be part of Mexico and Alaska that would still be a Russian territory, everybody would be happier (and same-sex marriage would be legal everywhere in that greater Canada :p ).

PowerPuff Grrl

23-01-2007, 23:47

If the British had won that war, most of North America woud probably be part of Canada now, except probably the area from Texas to California that would be part of Mexico and Alaska that would still be a Russian territory, everybody would be happier (and same-sex marriage would be legal everywhere in that greater Canada ).
Canada exists today as a result of the government's impressive and unique history balancing around a bunch or so feuding societies. Had the Americans joined our federation, more likely than not they would have dominated the Parliament, what with them having more land owners and all. I can only imagine there being a bunch of civil wars occuring between the government the Quebecois, the Metis and Newfoundland, so you can forget about Quebec being happy and you can forget about French ever being an official language. (I know that English isn't an official language in the US Constitution, but look how they freaked out over the national anthem being sung in Spanish).

On the other hand Canada has usually dealt with conflicts using compromises (or some would say appeasement). Had the Canadian government determined the outcome of the American civil war, I can honestly think they would have just let the South use slaves as long as they promised never to secede. Southern blacks would not be too happy with that.

I think we're better off just being friends.
But that is just my guess.

Talyubittu

24-01-2007, 00:30

Well first off. Nearly every European thinks that the world is better of without America. Thats not true. Reguardless of how things are now, America has done A LOT for the world and so have Americans that other countries could not have done on their own. The US has aided in war, and given money and many many many things. People need to stop basing everyone in America on America's leaders.

No other country in the entire world would care about the fact that the USA was next to Russia or Iran if it were so. And it's not our fault you guys are stuck over there with the arabs so don't drag into this "WOE IS ME FOR BEING EUROPEAN AND LIVING NEAR NUTCASES" shit. I find it amazing that our relations with Mexico and Canada seem to be just fine. It's just Europe who can't stand us. And I bet not one person can give any good reason as to why they don't like Americans. It's a fact that not even America likes their president. But at least he's doing his job putting those missiles there. His job is to protect the American people at whatever the cost. Don't blame us for a problem Iran has caused, and don't blame us for defending ourselves. If it were Germany and Canada at war I doub't any of you would care at if another country was putting missles in our soil. You can have your oppinions but remember to take fact into the matter please.

It's not a pissing contest. We all do the same damn thing we complain about our leaders doing. If everyone just got along and forgot all of this warfare it'd be much more simple. It's no longer to the point of military battles but Americans and Europeans in General don't even mix well anymore. For a continent that's emerging into such free forms of goverment and open mindedness the people of europe are doing a pretty shitty job.

And FYI - My state/city is in the top 6 ranking for disaster response in America. We also have the highest ranked military base int he midwest. So it's not like I'm off in Rainbow land dancing with unicorns and butterflies while the rest of the country is at risk.

haku

24-01-2007, 00:33

Had the Canadian government determined the outcome of the American civil war, I can honestly think they would have just let the South use slaves as long as they promised never to secede.Or maybe the south would have become another independant state? I can see the British creating a greater Canada down to let's say the 37th parallel, and south of that line, the western part (Texas to California) would have remained part of Mexico, and the eastern part (Texas to North Carolina) would have become a separate independant entity (the Jesus Confederation?) where they'd be free to be as conservative and retarded as they want. :p
As for Quebec, yeah, either it would have become independant or anglicized by force… Sending colonists over there in the first place was another of our mistakes anyway.

QueenBee

24-01-2007, 00:51

And it's not our fault you guys are stuck over there with the arabs so don't drag into this "WOE IS ME FOR BEING EUROPEAN AND LIVING NEAR NUTCASES" shit.
But not all arabs are nutcases... people should really stop basing every arab on their leaders ;)

haku

24-01-2007, 04:40

Well first off. Nearly every European […] And it's not our fault you guys are stuck over there with the arabs so don't drag into this "WOE IS ME FOR BEING EUROPEAN AND LIVING NEAR NUTCASES" shit. […] the country is at risk.I like that kind of posts because it proves my point much better than anything i could say. :p

Anyway, arabs are not nutcases, i see plenty of them everytime i go out, they're on TV as presenters, artists, actors, you name it (close to 10% of the french population is of arab origin), there's even an hallal butcher shop round the corner from where i live, lol, the crusades are over.

Let's cheer up by listening to some nice french-arab raï (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dBlzhBRimM) [that song was a major hit in France a couple of years ago, lol, girl sings in french and guy in arabic for people who can't make the difference :p ) and remind us that arabs are not the spawns of evil the US makes them to be and that inter-mediterranean relations were not that bad before the US started meddling with the middle-east.

Oh and to get back to the missiles, Iran is not threatening the US in any way, and Iran hasn't had any expansionist views on neighboring territories since the ancient days of the Persian Empire. Iran only has a problem with Israel and the annexed arab lands, which should be of no concern to the US, it's a regional conflict that would never expand beyond it's regional frame if the US weren't ready to give it a global scale.

Khartoun2004

24-01-2007, 07:00

Talyubittu, I have to say that your comments, from one American to another, are hurting the fragile at best image the rest of us Americans have on this forum. Want evidence, go read Haku's post above along with some other peoples.

I happen to know for a fact also that not all Arabs are nutcases. My best friend in high school, who still to this day is a very good, close friend, is Half Lebanese. She is not by any stretch of the word a nutcase.. unless being as horny as Rachel is cause to call a person such, which it of course isn't. My freshmen year of high school I was friends will a girl who immigrated to the US from Syria, and she was one of the nicest, smartest people I have ever met in my life. Her father owned the best bagel shop in the center of my town and he used to give our history class bagels periodically. They were not nutcases... In fact the Anti-arab hysteria in this country after 9/11 forced them to move to another town and sell their store.

If I, a staunch supporter of Israel and of Jewish decent can be friends with two arabs who's native countries are fierece enemies of Israel and it's Jewish population... then not all Arabs are anti-semetic nor are they nutcases.

In regards to Iran and US relations, I know several Iranians that have immigrated to this country and live in Boston... They are neither crazy fundamentalists nor are they terrorists. Also if I am not mistaken a member of this forum is from Iran, and she is not crazy.

So please do us all a favor, expand your mind and stop buying into our false President's (Bill Clinton is still my president) propaganda and retoric. It's embarrassing to the rest of the US population frequenting this forum. Perpetuating stereotypes that Americans are ignorant and arrogant is not the way to win over foreigners or arguments.

Talyubittu

24-01-2007, 21:37

LMAO. Are you kidding Khartoun. I hate Bush. Clinton was the best thing ever to happen.

And I don't think all arabs are nutcases. I was using a general term to show how American's feel when being judged by our President. I don't have anything agasint any racial ethnicity and don't think that all arabs are nuts and all americans are perfect. The point is the US is getting involved because we're all tired of haering about the middle east. Every world war has spanned out of conflict w/ Europe and now the middle east. And it's been going on for a long time, and I'm a bit tired of all of it. If it weren't for leaders like Iran's the world would be a much more peacefull and non-threatening place to live.

Rachel

24-01-2007, 23:45

The point is the US is getting involved because we're all tired of haering about the middle east.We only hear about the bloody middle east all the time because you started bombing the shit out of it.

If it weren't for leaders like Iran's the world would be a much more peacefull and non-threatening place to live.And Bush makes the world peaceful?! You say you don't like Bush but it seems to me you have fell for his bullshit propaganda as a lot of Americans have.

Talyubittu

24-01-2007, 23:56

Rachel

25-01-2007, 00:19

...We have been hearing about the middle east for CENTURIES. It's not like 9/11 happened and then suddenly they started their shit. They've been attacking places all over the world for years. Subway bombings, London Bus bombings it's all connected back to Arab countries and organizations. Oh shut up with your 9/11 strories. Yeah, it happened, get over it. I don't like people dying whatever country they are from and I feel sympathy towards those who were directly effected, but after a while it just gets a bit repetitive. To me it seems America only gives a shit about anything American. I remember a while back talking to Lux from this forum asking if they had anything on the news about a appeal for money for Niger as there were millions of people dying. It was all over the news here, yet nothing had been said in America. :rolleyes: Hello, there is a world out there other than Iraq that is your play-toy for bombing. And the London bus bombers were British. Sure, they had visited pakistan or whatever, but they are still British people, not those arabs you are raving about :rolleyes: I bet these "nutcases" have killed a lot less people than your fucked up war has.

And before you start to call me a bush supporter. Please remember who your prime minister is and how many times he's bent over to be royaly fucked by George W. Bush. Bush is not perfect by any means at all, but he is doing what he is supposed to by ensuring the safety of America and it's people.Oh for fuck sake, do you really believe that?! He's doing what he is because his only happiness in life is money & power. Oh and also the fact his only braincells married aka he has about two in there. And as far as Blair goes, he has about 5% support here, I think that shows the attitude of the British people in sending our soldiers into an illegal war. I have to wonder if Bush has something over Blair because there is no logical explanation as to why he is supporting America. Probably thinks if we don't we'll be threated by Bush or something :rolleyes: That's his usual style. I'm not even gonna try to justify Blair's actions because he is totally wrong and I will be extremely glad to see the back of him later in the year. You wonder why a lot of Europeans dislike Americans, but as an American it's not use for us to explain because you just don't get it because you are fed bullshit every day. You have TV networks that think Bush is the 2nd Jesus, you don't have that here in Europe, it's about the truth.

But at least he's protecting the American people.*Yawn* Broken record.

I bet you didn't even watch his State of the Union last night did you?LMFAOOOOO You are funny. :p No, I didn't watch it, you're right there, because believe it or not you are not the centre of the earth. I know, it's very hard to believe that America is not the only country in this world ;) And why watch anyway?!! I heard a snippet of something this morning at 7am on the way to work (I was half asleep) and all I heard was his usual southern drivel.

So before you accuse me of being a bullshit propoganda filled American Idiot. Please educate yourself. LMFAO. You live in a state with an average IQ of 90. Who's the dumb one, eh? ;)

Talyubittu

25-01-2007, 01:41

Rachel according to your statements, the USA is not allowed to care about anything that happens affecting it’s people. So why then should America care about anyone else if we are not allowed to care about our own? The commander in chief’s position - is to defend the United States of America against any threat that is known to be or is hostile. When 9/11 happened? Who went to the united states rescue? - The United States did. When the Holocaust happened, who went to the rescue? The Unites States did. Not to mention the United States is home to the largest museum of the Holocaust, and the largest number of holocaust memorial sites and information locations. So for an event that took place in Europe, by Europeans involving European people and yet the USA still seems to have enough respect to put up memorials and other various memorabilia of that time. It’s amazing how selfish we are isn’t it? I mean it’s not like we actually did anything to preserve your countries and your freedoms.

On March 11th, 1941 I believe the USA provided 37 countries with 50 Billion US Dollars to aid in your military functions because your country had gone bankrupt? Oh and 31.4 billion of that money went to the UK. Which is where I believe you live? So once again you can thank us for the way you currently live your life.

On April 14th 1940, your army was defeated and your royal family fled back to London to hide.

I do not believe that the UK helped the USA at all when we were attacked by the Japanese. So once again, you are wrong.

And not to mention the countless things you’ve stated about being an all knowing expert on the topic of America. For one, I bet you know exactly how the United States of America is elected don’t you. I‘m sure you know about the representatives based on population and a national census and the electoral college and the house voting in case of a tie? I mean why else would someone run their mouth about how corrupt and ill-governed my country is if they didn’t have some knowledge of the American government. I bet you can also inform me of why you didn’t watch the presidents State of the Union. Someone who dances around this topic like the American Encyclopedia butterfly as you do should be anxious to watch everything going on in America. Oh wait, no that would be the sensible thing to do. I forgot you just like to let your fingers fly across your keyboard without knowing Whats going on in a country you are criticizing. I doubt you even know anything about your own country. For instance, what is the Magna Carta? Hmm, you probably don’t know. Alright, how about the glorious revolution? Well - just saying. How about you learn all aspects of something before you form an opinion on it.

And also - for someone who seems to know so much about our TV networks. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with Nancy Grace, Glen Beck and Bill O’reiley. President Bush is heavily criticized on American television for his ways and things he does involving the war in Iraq and his presidency. I am not saying the George W. Bush is perfect, or that he is handling the war in Iraq correctly. But he is creating freedom for people over there by setting up a system of government and doing many things that are for a greater good. His job is to protect American people. If it’s such a travesty that America has started this war, then why do other European nations have soldiers deployed to Iraq?

OH and dear. Your information about my city having a 90 IQ, was an IQ survey based upon the 2004 election in America over the intentions of each candidate. It was not an overall IQ census. So now that you’ve managed to make yourself look stupid, I’ll continue to my final point.

So, in conclusion its just an observation but based upon a 9,000 post count, a join date of 2003, and six posts per day, constant uploading of t.A.T.u. material with an occasional visit to another topic. I’m going to bet that you have no clue about anything I mentioned above, and that you just breezed right over most of it. So please, shock me and prove to me that you have more brain cells than you seem to think Bush has and respond to me with an educated response without the terms “Fuck” and opinions. How about you throw some fact in, and use actual responses that require some brain activity.

So now who’s the dumb one?

Amy_Lee_Rocks

25-01-2007, 02:26

We only hear about the bloody middle east all the time because you started bombing the shit out of it.

I believe that, because before this whole "Lets send troops to Irak and bomb it" I didnt know Irak existed..lol Well i knew it was a country but its like..one of those countries u dont hear about much..

Talyubittu

25-01-2007, 02:29

I believe that, because before this whole "Lets send troops to Irak and bomb it" I didnt know Irak existed..lol Well i knew it was a country but its like..one of those countries u dont hear about much..

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

"Irak" OMFG.

You believe that? You can't even spell the countries name right, you had NO clue it extisted before the war. And it was DEFINATELY a country you heard about. Sadam Hussein has been in the news for years, weren't you alive for the gulf war? LOOOL. Irak. Thats hilarious.

OH and for both of your information. We have not "Bombed" anywhere in Iraq.

Amy_Lee_Rocks

25-01-2007, 02:43

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

"Irak" OMFG.

You believe that? You can't even spell the countries name right, you had NO clue it extisted before the war. And it was DEFINATELY a country you heard about. Sadam Hussein has been in the news for years, weren't you alive for the gulf war? LOOOL. Irak. Thats hilarious.

OH and for both of your information. We have not "Bombed" anywhere in Iraq.

Its the way, I spell it. I dont think Iraq looks as good as Irak..either way you pronounce it the same. Come on kiddo, im not that stupid, I've lived in the U.S all my life, and I took AP Gov first semester, im pretty sure I'd know how to spell it:rolleyes: I didnt hear about Sadam Hussein till the Bush decided to bomb it. I dont need to know ever bad person there is in the world. Therefore i find no reason why you are saying he was on the news. I dont even watch news..unless it has to do with science. So Mr. "Im a foreigner" < i think thats funnier than me spelling Iraq in a way that you think its "Hilarious", Go take your self-indulgenced ass back to the Freak Show

Oh and for your information im sure the American troops would of bombed Irak if they were under attack. Thats only because the American troops were there in the first place

Talyubittu

25-01-2007, 02:49

Its the way, I spell it. I dont think Iraq looks as good as Irak..either way you pronounce it the same. Come on kiddo, im not that stupid, I've lived in the U.S all my life, and I took AP Gov first semester, im pretty sure I'd know how to spell it:rolleyes: I didnt hear about Sadam Hussein till the Bush decided to bomb it. I dont need to know ever bad person there is in the world. Therefore i find no reason why you are saying he was on the news. I dont even watch news..unless it has to do with science. So Mr. "Im a foreigner" < i think thats funnier than me spelling Iraq in a way that you think its "Hilarious", Go take your self-indulgenced ass back to the Freak Show

Oh and for your information im sure the American troops would of bombed Irak if they were under attack. Thats only because the American troops were there in the first place

Wow. Your post just proved that you have the intelligence the range of a tea spoon. Reguardless, Iraq is spelled Iraq. I'd like supercalifraglisticexpalidocious to be spelled GurbleTwat but it isn't gonna happen. And it is not "The bush". The term "BUSH" refers to George W. Bush, not a type of shrubbery. And if you do not watch the news, then how do you know what is going on in the world of political science? And I've stated I live in America about 30 times in this topic, where are you coming up with me being a foreigner? And American Troops cannot "BOMB" anyone they want to. They have to have orders. Not to mention - if we were under attack it would be a different story. I'm sure we all know if we were under attack we would retaliate. Why don't you tell us that blue and yellow make green for that matter.

Amy_Lee_Rocks

25-01-2007, 03:33

Wow. Your post just proved that you have the intelligence the range of a tea spoon. Reguardless, Iraq is spelled Iraq. I'd like supercalifraglisticexpalidocious to be spelled GurbleTwat but it isn't gonna happen. And it is not "The bush". The term "BUSH" refers to George W. Bush, not a type of shrubbery. And if you do not watch the news, then how do you know what is going on in the world of political science? And I've stated I live in America about 30 times in this topic, where are you coming up with me being a foreigner? And American Troops cannot "BOMB" anyone they want to. They have to have orders. Not to mention - if we were under attack it would be a different story. I'm sure we all know if we were under attack we would retaliate. Why don't you tell us that blue and yellow make green for that matter.

I dont give a rat ass with your "reguadless" sh*t. I spell things the way I feel like it, like it or not!. "The bush".. I said it that way because in my opinion bush is unhuman, comparing him to a bush..The only reason i know of political science is because everyone is talking about it..teacher talk about it..You know, you are required to take Social Studies in High School and I had to write an essay for AP Gov about it. I only find out from the sources arround me.
The "Im a foreigner" part, you said it yourself so dont deny. You had that in you bio on tatu.fatal if only you would of seen how me and Natasha made fun of you cause of that, not to mention the others I've told.

Talyubittu

25-01-2007, 03:47

Amy_Lee_Rocks

25-01-2007, 03:56

You need to watch some programs on Grammar. I'm beginning to think your just making up excuses for your poor spelling/punctuation. And yes I am quite aware of High School requirements.

And dear. You are a weirdo who stalks people online with a forum whoring prostitute that posts porn. I do not fear you, nor your little twisted cyber games that you enjoy playing. I never said I was a foreigner, and everyone knew I was from SD. I posted it in the where are you from topic. You have no clue what you are talking about, you have no clue how the goverment works if you did you would know how to correctly refer to our President for one. Now please visit dictionary.com, download a spellcheck program, or leave the topic. Your irrantional theories about how you believe you took an AP goverment class when you can hardly spell your own name right seem a bit illogical and to be frank - you scare me.

Now get back to discussing America. I do not care for your oppinions on myself.

You're such a lunatic, those grammar and spelling mistakes are called typos. Think what you want, i couldnt care less.
And looks who's talking about the "forum whoring prostitute" u may have not posted porn, but you are online most of the time talk about not having a life..Dont deny what you said..You clearly had that in you Bio..You made yourself look like such an idiot. Like I said before i dont give a rat ass of what you think, I do what I want when I want. I did take AP Gov and AP Bio..passed AP Gov with an 89. Thats good enough for me. About the part "You scare me" child please take a look in the mirror, you'd regret saying what you just did. You poor innocent thing

Just so you know..maybe you need the spell check more than I do.

Talyubittu

25-01-2007, 04:25

You argue to pointlessly argue? This is not even on topic? All I said is to fix up your typos, and know what you are talking about before you go into a topic. I do not care if you have had 4 years of German and 1 year of Culinary arts. If you can debate politcs correctly, you deserve to be part of the debate. Sitting here and making extreme typos about basic terms in Government, makes it look like you have no clue what you are talking about. You openly admitted you had never heard of Iraq, you spelled Iraq wrong, and you didn't know who Saddam Hussein was, anyone who has taken any Government class would know what any of these terms are, who these people are, what these places are, and basic information if not extensive knowledge of them.. So please vacate the topic or learn what you are talking about. This is not a debate over who needs spell check. Either you want to debate politics, or you want to bicker. If you continue to bicker, I'll have the moderators in here to clean it out. I am not going through an argument as senseless as this. You can debate with me over MSN if you wish to do that. Until then, the current topic the the USA and Europe. So please stick to the topic.

OH and to prove a point about your oppinion in this discussion. When I asked you how a bill becomes law online you told me

Hurting inside, it kills me to have this pain that wont go away. !*I met Amy Lee!*! Vladik says (9:44 PM):
All i can tell you is that for a bill to become a law it has to go through some process
Mir. says (9:44 PM):
LMFAO
Hurting inside, it kills me to have this pain that wont go away. !*I met Amy Lee!*! Vladik says (9:44 PM):
yup, laugh about it

So now what we know you know nothing about the subject you are talking about. Please do not discuss it anymore.

Please settle down. Stay on topic. No personal offences. Same goes for Amy Lee Rocks, yet I'm posting a warning in your post since you're the one who started with this needless aggression. Let me just say you're not really doing your fellow countrymen any favours with your particular style of defence. Chill out, man.

I believe I was well in my topic to tell someone who has no idea what they are talking about in a debate of politics that they do indeed know nothing about the subject. He admitted that he was just trying to get a rise out of me, so I believe it was indeed he who was doing the provoking.