Sorry your browser is not supported!

Jimmy-I still love you.

Gil,
resign? no no, impeached. As in: kicked out.
Yes CSPAN exists, the news doesnt.

He doesnt have anything to be impeached over. Like i said, you might as well stop trying to find, and making up false reasons for his impeachement. (Im not targeting you directly, CS, Im targeting Bush haters )

CR, if you provide me with the women i can get bush's assasination arranged...

Ok, for all it's worth. Bush is kicked out.

Gone!

Outta there!

Now what? Dick Cheney takes over and sells America to his former company for $1.00? Sorry, I would rather have the mad dog of war on his leash.

@Teh Go0rfmeister:
I think you got your Presidents confused. Only Democrats and Black religious leaders have affairs.

Best of luck on your signing! I'm rooting for you!

Dear lord do you not understand logic?

If we have to keep paying them that's money out of our pockets. We've still got a while before we become even slightly less reliant on oil. Saddam would know that, and raise prices, if we can establish control and we push them in certain directions when they set up their government our influence can get us some pretty damn cheap oil. Hell, that's what I'd do in this situation if we've already invaded and we're farting around trying to get things in order. Make yourself a little oil out of the mess.

Of course it's about money. Money lets you do a lot of things. If we want to be the country with the best technology, or military, or education, or whatever, we need money. Money is also quite a concern considering the deficit. Cheap oil would help yoink us out of that.


I swear to God, every time I engage with a discussion with an ultra conservative they always pull bogus reasons from all different directions, constantly changing their foundations not unlike Kerry's campaign. I imagine ultra liberals are just as bad though. I don't argue with them as much though.



So what's the latest news on this memo?

About the doing it for oil thing...
Why would we invade a country if we could buy it for much, much, less than we could spend on the war? Look how much money were spending on the war, and then look at how much oil we could buy with that if we really wanted...

That's what I was saying, there IS NO logic in securing cheap oil. The only reason, I can see, that we really need foreign oil anymore is to prevent job loss, as someone stated earlier in the thread. Plus, we don't need reduced prices for oil. A fraction of the money that has been put into this war could have well covered any lack of oil we might have in the future. It's not about oil. We don't need oil badly enough to start or even sustain a war.

THAT'S illogical.

You're just another one looking for a scandalous reason for Bush to go to war, just to kick up some dust.

I'm sorry, maybe I was missing something but hasn't Oil been the highest it has ever been AFTER we invaded/liberated Iraq?



How nice, Jimmy read my post! Yeah Jimmy!

Wow Jimmy read your post???

You should be honoured. That's a sign that he acknowledges your existence!

I am just a simple sheep in His pasture...

@Teh Go0rfmeister:
I'm really trying to stay on topic, but with what you said earlier...



Then we should Thank Bush for "Lying" to us and making us a more powerful nation by going to War with other countries? I may have taken that wrong, if so, I apologize.

The almighty acknowledges all.

Does it really matter? Bush will only be around three more years. Even if you're completely batshit-hippie and think he's got an incredible hard on for war with every country in the world, it is outside of the realm of physical possibility to pull our troops out of Iraq, restock, rearm, reorganize, sort out another reason to go to war, invade and establish to the point the next President couldn't pull out in that span of time.

I'm not saying this shouldn't be looked into, but this whining about the danger of new wars being started and all that crap is just nonsense.

And as anyone who keeps an eye on US happenings knows, we're looking at more moderate Republican candidates for 2008 anyway. McCain moderate. Up against a fairly popular (if completely insane) Democrat, if the Clintons can lie their way into power again.

"we're"? Who is "we're"? the Libertarians?

They should get that women from the Ghostbusters movie, she was a good Librarian. I don't understand how she would run for President thou.

how have you become a more more powerful nation? you're economics sh*t, the world hates you...

yep, we have become more powerful-not to be contintist (like rascist), but I dont like any continent exept here. We may have our problems, but we have to worse positioned countries to make us feel better near us. lol. 3 counting russia at alaska.

Ok, by what ive seen and heard people have been saying that this war is so the U.S can get it's hands on oil. So let me tell you a story.

The other day i was headed to my tae kwan do class when i had a look at the gas prices. $2.73 for a gallon. So tell me how come the price is that high? Where is this surplus of oil that we went to iraq to obtain?
Intresting.

Last I checked intentionaly misunderstanding someone didn't accomplish anything .

But how about a little dose of facts... Republican presidential candadites is the third poll.

They were thinking ahead, which I think is smart. Remember we were planning to get things done in Iraq sooner? Make it quick and you lose less resources in the process and get a long term resource. It didn't go as planned--oh well, crap happens, that's why it might seem illogical at this point.




You'll notice we're still sorting things out in Iraq, and oil isn't just used for gasoline.




I don't think having a mind to get Saddam out (considering he's been a thorn in our side) when you get in office and taking advantage of a resource is scandalous.



@Mouse
Thanks for that data. I was wondering how McCain and Giuliani were doing, they're easily the best choices for 2008.

Most of the conservative pundits can't stand McCain, think he's too much of a maverick, but I think it's good to have someone who isn't afraid of differing with their party .

I'd be far more likely to consider a democrat if it didn't look so likely Hilary would be running

Heh heh, defintely not the choice for the first female president.

This is what i hate. We are the "big brother" nation to almost every country in the world, yet almost all of those countries hate us. Why? Because we send our humanitarian aid workers over there to help them survive? Or because we did things right and they didnt so now theyre living in poverty, while most of us live prosperous, free, wealthy(compared to them), and full lives? Or because we fight off invasions into their countries? Or because we buy things from them, and give them jobs to help them? Or because we're a democracy and have freedom, while many of them can't step outside without fear of the government? Or we have freedom of religion, while many Middle Eastern countries are ruled by Islamic extremeist, or ruled as an Islamic country? Are they jealous? And show it by hating us, even though we help them in so many ways? Its their problem that they are a third world country and the US is the most powerful country in the world. We help them...they hate us. Why? And this doesnt just apply to the Middle East. It applies to almost all countries excluding Western Europe (although they still hate us, they dont need aid) and Australia (I dont think they hate us ).

-Cough- Ann Coulter -Cough-

What?...

I'm comparing you to the worlds most "beloved" and "intelligent" ultra-conservative.

>How do you know if its going to stay how it is? Its getting better >look at the # of attacks 3 years ago and the # of attacks today.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

As you can see, the casualties every month are pretty much the same as they were at the beginning of the invasion.

The fact that there are less attacks doesn't mean much, except that the freedomfighters are killing more americans at a time and obviously getting better at it as well.

>Its hard yes, because kids at the age of 11 are forced into a
>terrorist group or into an insurgents group and given rocket
>launchers and an AK-47 and told to shoot at any Americans they can.

This sounds like something you just made up: I haven't seen any indication that this is practiced in Iraq. In fact, with the number of suicidebombers and various organizations having circulated videotapes of wannabe suicidebombers being inducted, there doesn't seem to be a need to force anyone, let alone a child, to attack americans. It seems that alot of people are quite willing to do that without duress.

>Then if they dont want to or dont do that, they are strapped into a
>car, the accelerating pedal stuck, and a bomb strapped to him.

This also sounds like something you just made up: The terrorists would have to fixate the stearingwheel to avoid the child just driving in circles, and what if the child doesn't want to press the 'explode button'? In order for that setup to work, the terrorists would need a remote detonator and as both the accelerator and the stearing wheel would be fixed, there really isn't any reason to have a child in the car at all. And fixating the stearing wheel, would mean that they would have to do it all right in front of the americans.

>I know its not the only dictator who's done so, but look at the
>past ones that did:
>Rudolph Hitler-killed himself after he realized we were going to
>whip his butt

No, Adolf Hitler killed himself after the USSR *HAD* whipped his behind!

>Afghanistan-whipped by the US.

Then why is Kharzai refered to as the Mayor of Kabul? Because his power only reaches to the outskirts of Kabul. The US removed the Taleban regime, but the Taleban still exists and are growing stronger. Al-Qaida was chased into a corner of Afghanistan, where they are now in control and growing.

>lol! Whered u get that from? It was a Islamic country that
>persecuted all other religions, Islamic extremist.

That is a fabrication. You really need to learn to do some research about a subject before you comment on it.

The BAATH party(headed by Saddam Hussein) was a socialist party with the goal of building a secular society. Iraq WAS a secular society, where state and religion was separated. Furthermore, as the Baath doctrine was ideological in nature, they considered religion to be a prime recruiting ground for counterrevolutionary movements. Thus, they allowed people to worship, but used every chance they got, to weaken the power of the religious establishment.

>What does the war have to do with America's economy? Do people
>think that George W. Bush has a lever that he can push up or down
>to control the economy? Why does he have anything to do with it?
>Its just the luck of the draw if you get a good economy, because
>you cant effect it as president.

I was going to write a small text on why you are completely wrong about that. However, I think you'll find this link more educational.
http://www.federalbudget.com/

>That was the reality before the war.

No. Iraq was not a theocracy. Apparently you misunderstood what I wrote in my first post, so I'll try to explain one more time.

Iraq under Baathist rule, was secular, meaning that religion was not a part of the state apparatus. After the revolution, baathist policy became one of taking away power from organized religions as well as spying on them and their followers. After the islamic revolution in Iran, it was believed that organized religion in Iraq could potentially become a counter-revolutionary vanguard as it had in Iran.

Women had equal rights and there were no laws that said that women had to wear hijab. family courts were still staffed by imams, but they had a secular legal education and could only rule based on secular law.

The various religious communities consisted of mosques spread over a certain area, with clerics with no legal education or training.

After the US invasion, the US fired all Baath party members, including most judges and lawyers and.

This meant that the only figures of any authority left was the islamic clerics in the religious communities. These clerics do not believe in a secular state, nor do they believe in a secular law. They only believe in Sharia(islamic law) and an islamic state. They quickly organized a rapid islamization of Iraq, introducing islamic law in much of Iraq.

When the US finally lifted the ban on former baath party members working for the state, it was too late. Since the islamic clerics now control the area with their private army, the secular court has no power and thus no credibility in the eyes of the public.

>Today they can leave their homes, still possibly to be killed by
>the remaining Islamic extremist. Also you say that a woman cant
>leave without her husband, isnt this part of Islamic law? Making it
>a religious exercise?

and.

>Women are now allowed to go to school but it used to be illegal.

No, women used to go to school, infact Iraq had more women(as a percentage) with a primary education than any other middleeastern country.

Today however, as the islamisation moves forward, they are losing their rights to exist outside their home, because of the legalsyatem they live under.

You have to differentiate between BEFORE and AFTER the US invasion.

>dont accuse me of deliberately lying.

But surely you have seen the news reports on TV and read the newspapers covering this. You can't have avoided it! If you truely didn't know what has happened in Iraq, then I apologize, but I don't consider that very likely.

>Yes it has been covered actually, who are you to make that >statement? Do you even live in the US?

No, but I do have access to US news and even though it's seriously compromised on the Iraq war issue, they are trying their best.

>I say that they can freely walk around because its not illegal
>anymore and its not legal to beat them to death.

But you are missing the point:

You have a saying in the US, which describes this very well. 'Possesion is nine tenths of the law'.

You can talk about all they can do according to secular law until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that the only legal system available to most of the iraqi people is sharia.

>It still happens because of insurgents and Islamic extremists.

ARGH!It doesn't *STILL* happen! It didn't happen before the US invaded and it only started happening when the US invaded Iraq and removed the secular legal system.

>We never supported a terrorist group. We may have supported what
>they were doing, because at the time it was not terrorism, but
>overthrowing a dictatorship.

Really, then I would like to know what your definition of terrorism is. And then I would like you to take a look at the UN and Amnesty's records of what happened in Afghanistan before, during and after the soviet occupation.

Again, you are talking without having the slightest understanding of the subject.

>No they arent. Your adding in the amount of civilian deaths by car
>bombs, insurgents, and Islamic extremists to the count. Iraqi's are
>very very rarely killed purposefully by US soldiers.

The US started this, they removed the system keeping the islamic extremists in check. As Colin Powell said to GWB, If you break it you buy it', meaning that when you invade a country, you must take responsibility for everything that happens, whether it's good or bad.

>I dont know what your talking about. Im talking about our giving
>them food, healthcare, water, and basic neccessities. Havent you
>ever seen videos of the people standing in the back of the army
>truck trying to hand out things to the tons of Iraqi's just trying
>to get some of it?

I am talking about food, healthcare, water, and basic necessities.

In stead of contracting Iraqi companies to do things, american companies were brought in at exhorbitant prices. This means that alot of business is going on in Iraq right now, except the Iraqis are not getting a piece of the pie, resulting in catastrophic unemployment rates.

>Actually yes there is. Havent you seen the training of Iraqi police
>by Americans? Havent you heard the reports from a casualty count
>include the title "Iraqi Policemen"? Havent you seen the police
>cars now? Havent you seen that the Iraqi Policemen are now taking
>over from the US soldiers?

Again. you don't get it: If the Iraqi police can't function in their role as police, then there is no lawenforcement in iraq.

In stead of looking at the realities, you focus on the theory way too much. Theoretically, people and thus women are more free now in Iraq, but in reality they are less free. Theoretically, because there are more policemen in streets of Baghdad, the legal system is working, but in reality law enforcement is almost nonexistent except for the local sharia court.

I'm not sure you understand what I mean.

Go out and buy 5 oranges. All fresh, organic and as cheap as you can get them. Put them in a plastic bag and leave it until they have gone bad. You still have 5 oranges, that's true, but is reality really adequately described by saying you have 5 oranges?

>Then why is he president?...Once again, the losers holding a grudge
>come up with excuses to rationalize.

He is president because his supporters are all of the layers of society needed to rig an election. They are in the state legislatures where they can block any investigation into election fraud. They are also in the private industry intimately involved in the mechanics of the election process. They are in the federal government handing out contracts. They are in the courts where they can ultimately decide who will be president and finally they are in the media 'telling their side' of the current affairs.

And let's not forget that in most societies, the majority of the people are leaning towards fascism. They like the idea of a strong resolute leader, that they can rally behind when they feel insecure.
Never forget that Hitler came to power through democratic means.

>1) How many times do i have to say it...an isolated incident doesnt
>substitute for the entire war.

But it shows a pattern!

>2) The local warlords are being tracked down and killed/captured.

No they are not, in fact the US is working with them, because they are the ones in actual control of an area.

>3) That was before the war, that doesnt happen anymore, legally at
>least.

Sharia was not practiced in Iraq before the US invasion, but it is now.

>The US is in control, because Iraqi's cant take control, they arent
>strong enough yet.

It's not about being strong, but about using Iraqis, members of the Mukhaburat, the state security service who killed most of people Saddam Hussein is accused of killing, to work for american interests.

>Same thing on economics.I dont know what your
>talking about with Paul Bremmer.

The US wants to turn Iraq into a thoroughly 'US republican' economy with minimal public spending and maximum private spending. Paul bremmer capped the tax rate at 15 percent, he also kept the ban on labour unions, fired masses of state employees and refused to contract local companies to any extent.

This lead to one of the worlds highest unemploymentrates. When the supply is high, and the demand is low, then wages would decrease rapidly if it wasn't for the labour unions. Except, Paul Bremmer the US administrator in Iraq retained the ban.

He also converted the state owned businesses from using profit sharing, to flat wages in preparation to selling them. Of course the UN would not let the US sell off Iraqi property, because that would be against international law and the geneva conventions.

>Where did u get that? We didnt help Iraq start a war. If we wanted
>a war, we would have let them invade Kuwait in the early 90's

The US provided samples of various WMD's to Iraq. That is a matter of public record.

During the Iran-Iraq war, the US provided weapons and computer equipment as well as satelite data for Iraqi use.


Andy

I'm not being horrible, but has there ever been a good US president? And whats with the 2 party system, hardly a democracy, you choose between 2 evil people, and not anyone can become a party member, how evil, in England the party that you see are chosen by elections of the people, apart from the media has brainwashed a lot if people to vote labour or they were fixed like the first Bush election. Why can't we, USA or UK have an honest government that works under a true democracy not Facism in Democracies' clothing and not uses the media to brainwash us with properganda and lies, heck I'm guessing doctrination is next, its Nazism all over again, but in a differant form. I believe a lot of us should form political parties (thats what I'm gonna do after I've finished full time education) and act out towards them, and use political methods conveniently taught by History, I think a lot of people should do the same.

Perhaps becauase America is such a big brother country. "Team USA World Police" (can't remember exact name) sort of sums it up.

I have no problem with American people. It's foreign policy and the government I don't like.



George Galloway: I met Saddam the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld has. The difference is I wasn't selling him weapons.

Classic.

We, the US, have supplied Iraq and Afghanistan with weapons in the past. How else do you think Iraq made it out from the Iran conflict?

And how else is Afghanistan not Southern Russia right now?

Cause we gave all them middle easterns weapons... and now we're regretting that.

Uh, last time I checked Kuwait was invaded by iraq in the early 90's, no? In fact we could have stopped it. Do you really think we didnt "see" saddams army massing and moving towards Kuwait? Of course we did, but we let it happen because it created a perfect opportunity to scare the crap out of the Saudis - the end result being Prince Sultan Airbase, Saudi Arabia.

Outside of America the US has a reputation for always looking after its own interests above everything else. Hence the Iraq war was seen as a plot to get oil, rather than an ultristic desire to free a people from a dictatorship.

When you look at the tabloid reports about Guantanamo bay (which are almost universally critical of it), you can understand why.

Yeah, the very first one. The only one who could turn down the power of a second term when it was offered to him on a silver platter.

Power corrupts...

no, i didnt. Im not saying all suicide bombers are unvoluntary, in fact few are. But yes children are drafted and kidnapped at an early age to be put in the "army", given a weapon, and told to go out and kill americans.


Youve got it mixed up. First off, the kids hands are taped, or somehow stuck to the steering wheel, so he has control of steering. Second, theres no explode button, when you ram a car into something with explosives, it explodes. Last, its not like they do this in the middle of a busy street, they do it where they can turn onto or get to there target.


I do get it, thats why were training them. You cant expect them to just be fully trained immediately.


No, i dont think so. Its not theory, its their decision what to do with their freedom.


The US is not responsible for the attacks. And whered u get they started it from?

OK, im tired of this subject, and i dont really want to write responses to all of Andy's responses(i know this sounds like i just cant answer them, but i can, and if you really, really want me to respond, i will, but id rather move on to the "Big Brother" issue.) I think that the reality of the war is somewhere in between Andy and I's points. I think its more towards my views, he towards his. We're both strong on our opinions, and they arent going to change. So what do you say...truce?

Now for the "Big Brother" issue:

Yes, i agree. But thats the point. Just cause we try to keep world peace and help their countries, they hate us? It seems to me that they are jealous, if those are their reasons.

One more response to the other issue:

No, we pushed them back.


I know, people think we're selfish snobs. I dont see why. Duh we do a lot of things for ourselves, its our own country! I dont see other countries giving near as much foreign aid to others, but they only care about themselves...the world is a hipocracy. I understand its because they have too many problems, but America has its own problems too. We give aid to almost every, if not every other nation on earth...yet the world hates us...

" Absolute power, corrupts absolutely"

Utter rubbish. Iraq invaded Kuwait.

There is a torched BA 747 to prove it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/2/newsid_2526000/2526937.stm

Honestly, if you're getting these "facts" from the same source Bush is getting his "facts" then I think we've found the root of the problem.

I think that we both have different views of the meaning of invade. You:
They entered the country with an army, started attacking, and people die defending.
Me:
They entered the country with an army, attack, and take over.
They did do your definition of invade, but US forces came in and drove them out. Yes they entered the country with intention of taking it. No they didnt actually take it. We pushed them out.


You dont have to get offensive and insulting about it ...

>No, i dont think so. Its not theory, its their decision what to do
>with their freedom.

You are so not getting it! In simple terms, the western cultures are individualistic, whereas the eastern cultures are collectivistic. In an individualistic culture, a persons values derives from a sense of justice. In a collectivistic culture a persons values derives from a sense of honour, usually the honour of the family. Basically individualists say 'me first' and collectivists say 'family first'.

You are imposing individualistic valuejudgements on a collectivistic culture. In a collectivistic culture it is not a persons own decission what to do with their 'freedom'. As it effects all familymembers, it is the decission of the family, usually taken by the elder male. If the woman defies the family, she will sully the honour of the family in the eyes of other families.

>The US is not responsible for the attacks. And whered u get they
>started it from?

Of course they are. The US invaded Iraq and so everything that happens is their responsibility.

>OK, im tired of this subject, and i dont really want to write
>responses to all of Andy's responses(i know this sounds like i just
>cant answer them, but i can

It's not about answering, but about understanding the question and the points involved. I see answers, that's all.

>and if you really, really want me to respond, i will, but id rather
>move on to the "Big Brother" issue.)

I don't want to force you in either direction.

>I think that the reality of the war is somewhere in between Andy
>and I's points. I think its more towards my views, he towards his.
>We're both strong on our opinions, and they arent going to change.
>So what do you say...truce?

My opinions are based on reality. You are simply rejecting reality and substituting your own based on some theoretical situation which doesn't exist.

>I think that we both have different views of the meaning of invade.

Invade simply means entering a country's teritory with force. If you have a different 'viev' of the term, then you are wrong.

>I know, people think we're selfish snobs. I dont see why. Duh we do
>a lot of things for ourselves, its our own country!

Nobody cares if you do things for yourself. The problem comes when a lot of poor people in countries most americans didn't know existed, have to die so that an already obscenely wealthy group of americans can have more money.

>I dont see other countries giving near as much foreign aid to
>others, but they only care about themselves...

Actually in terms of the percentage of GDP, the US is not even in the Top 20 on the list of countries which gives 'foreign aid'. The top countries are westerneuropean and nordic countries. The US also earmarks most of it's 'foreign aid' to product purchases in the US, so the US 'forign aid' is mostly state subsidies to US businesses. The top countries mostly do not require their foreign aid to be spent in their country.

>the world is a hipocracy. I understand its because they have too
>many problems, but America has its own problems too. We give aid to
>almost every, if not every other nation on earth...yet the world
>hates us...

The US has military stationed in more than half the worlds countries, have a history of deposing democratically elected governments and inserting dictators to serve US interests. Iraq, is just one such country, this kind of intervention also happened in Iraq, Chile, Greece, the philipines and a host of other countries.

As I wrote before, 'if you break it you buy it'. The US is universally disliked for it's foreign policy of intervention to serve US needs.

Andy

America has nothing to be proud of in terms of its recent record for giving aid to foreign countries.

American aid as a percentage of GDP is very low (0.15 percent - the target is 0.7% by 2015 I believe).

This article contests this measure, arguing that the US is the biggest donor of aid by far:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/wm630.cfm

Their argument is equivilent to saying that if you have two people, one earning £100,000 per year, and giving £20 a month to a charity, he is much more generous than someone earning £10,000 per year and giving £10 per month to a charity.

*Sigh* well then...i guess you dont agree with this? And dont want to stop arguing?



jeez, you can interpret it differently. I feel like im being attacked and insulted all over the place.


calm down. Im not gonna change my views, ur not gonna change urs.


I do try to get others to see my POV. I understand the points and have discussed them. Im not changing anyones view, and theyre not changing mine, so we might as well move on.


*sigh*, your opinions are based on what you think is reality. Im not rejecting reality, my opinions are based on my reality. I could say the same thing about you.


So its our fault that they cant make enough foods for themselves? Or buy it? Why? Or its our fault that they dont have the money? Do you think were just gonna start handing out money to other countries? Ohh...wait...we already do. Ill quote myself:


No, i think ur mixed up. The US has a history of disposing of communism and dictatorships, and establishing a democracy. To quote your own words.... What are you talking about? We put a PRESIDENT in Iraq, we OVERTHREW a DICTATOR.


To serve US needs? So we need to feed all those other poor countries because they dont know how to survive or develop? We need to fight off invasions into other countries lands? We need to overthrow a dicatorship to save lives, and for more people to be treated humanely and equally in another country? We need to do that stuff? I dont think the world sees the good things we do...its all overlooked and then the things that in their opinions are bad (invading Iraq, fighting terrorists, etc.) are emphasized. I wish the US would have no foreign policies but trade for a few years. Then theyd see that theyd need us. I wouldnt be surprised if quite a few countries just completely broke up and died. Or if dictatorships were suddenly in twice as many countries as before. Or ten times as many people before starved to death. The world needs us, and besides trade, we dont need the world...

@Andy: Can we PLEASE move off the invading Iraq topic? You seem to be getting a little too intense and serious towards me.

One way of putting it. Iraq did that.



That established their own government. How much more take overy can you get?!?

'Iraqi forces have established a provisional government' http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/2/newsid_2526000/2526937.stm

I'm sorry, but Iraq INVADED Kuwait. There's no way of twisting it to make it look like they didn't.

Iraq invaded 2 August 1990. The US pushed them back 16th Jan 1991. What do you think was going on inbetween? Exchanging pleasantries?

OK, i agree, they INVADED Kuwait. But the US stepped in 4 months later, and pushed them back.

Gil,
Right, but originally you said they didnt invade.

I admire your fervor for posting and such but you have to bring more than your theories and opinions, you need to bring facts. In a perfect world a lot of what you say might be true but in this world it simply isnt. You sound baseless in how you choose to put forth your point.

Thats not a slam or a flame, seriously. Seriously, you guys. Seriously.

>*Sigh* well then...i guess you dont agree with this? And dont want
>to stop arguing?

I don't see this as argueing. In an arguement, both sides present their view in a heated manner. I am pasionate, but I don't think this is getting heated.

>jeez, you can interpret it differently. I feel like im being
>attacked and insulted all over the place.

I'm not attacking you. I find you very interesting because you seem to think that there is no reality and that everything is simply an opinion.

>Quote: "You are so not getting it!"
>calm down. Im not gonna change my views, ur not gonna change urs.

But that's just it, they are not views. Much of what I have commented on is fact, and you should know that. It's not about some obscure event from 2000 years ago, but something that is happening right now.

>I do try to get others to see my POV. I understand the points and
>have discussed them.

No, you have dismissed them or rationalized some kind of reply.

>Im not changing anyones view, and theyre not
>changing mine, so we might as well move on.

It's not about views... It's about facts. You present views, I've presented facts. When you say that 'theyre not changing mine, so we might as well move on', you are effectively saying that no amount of facts can move you, because you simply choose not to believe them.

>your opinions are based on what you think is reality. Im not
>rejecting reality, my opinions are based on my reality. I could say
>the same thing about you.

You could, but you would be wrong.

>So its our fault that they cant make enough foods for themselves?
>Or buy it?

Partly yes. The EU and US has the worlds largest agricultural subsidies, which means that even fertile poor countries can't produce agricultural products because no matter how cheap they can make them, the EU and US will always sell at a lower price.

>Or its our fault that they dont have the money? Do you think were
>just gonna start handing out money to other countries?

The US already does this:
http://qesdb.cdie.org/gbk/home.html

>"Or because we did things right and they didnt so now theyre living
>in poverty, while most of us live prosperous, free, wealthy
>(compared to them), and full lives?

The US policy in the last 100 years has been that in order to remain rich and powerful, the poor countries must remain poor. It's not so much about making right or wrong decission, but about playing with countries as they were pawn in a chessgame.

>We give aid to almost every, if not every other nation on earth

But the US usually doesn't do anything just because it's the right thing to do. There always seems to be ulterior motives, usually money or power at the expense of the people of the foreign country.

>Are they jealous? And show it by hating us, even though we help
>them in so many ways? Its their problem that they are a third world
>country and the US is the most powerful country in the world. "

No it isn't. If you break it you buy it. Many people from the third world were oppressed by dictators imposed by the US, with weapons purchased from the US, and with tacid approval of the US government.
Saddam Hussein was just one, Manuel Noriga of Panama and Augusto Pinochet of Chile were others.

>No, i think ur mixed up. The US has a history of disposing of
>communism and dictatorships, and establishing a democracy.

You are wrong. The US has a history of supporting dictators and deposing democratically elected leaders. How did sponsering the Baath party in Iraq, Manuel Noriga in Panama and Augusto Pinochet in Chile, help democracy in any way.

>your own words...
>Quote: "I think your deliberately lying"

No, again I'm quoting facts. You on the other hand need to learn US history.

>What are you talking about? We put a PRESIDENT in Iraq, we
>OVERTHREW a DICTATOR.

The US deposed a dictator and put a man loyal to the US in power in stead. His government has no real power and both security and the economy are under foreign control.

That's not a rule by the people, but a puppet regime.

>to overthrow a dicatorship to save lives, and for more people to be
>treated humanely and equally in another country? We need to do that >stuff? I dont think the world sees the good things we do...its all
>overlooked and then the things that in their opinions are bad

Stop watching FOX news.

>(invading Iraq, fighting terrorists, etc.) are emphasized.

Invading Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or fighting terrorists. Al Quaida is bigger than ever and world security is worse than ever. A central part of nazi ideology was 'total war' or 'eternal war', the idea that a race will have to fight for survival as long as it exists. A kind of geopolitical darwinism. The US also subscribes to this view. Not for reacial reasons, but for business reasons. It's really very simple, war makes good business sense, and eternal war will yield record profits every year for a small wealthy elite of US citizens.

>I wish the US would have no foreign policies but trade for a few
>years. Then theyd see that theyd need us. I wouldnt be surprised if
>quite a few countries just completely broke up and died. Or if
>dictatorships were suddenly in twice as many countries as before.
>Or ten times as many people before starved to death. The world
>needs us, and besides trade, we dont need the world...

*Sigh*

>@Andy: Can we PLEASE move off the invading Iraq topic? You seem to
>be getting a little too intense and serious towards me.

Believe me I have no serious intentions towards you

Don't worry, I am no Don Quixote

Andy

Spoken like someone who truly gets it! Cheers.

492,953 signatures, and counting....

Does anyone know why were still over in Iraq? I personnaly would love to pull out. But becouse were America were not alowed to fight a war without providing relief to the people of that country. Yet any other country in the world could fight a war or pull a quik bombing without providing relief.


I presume that means you are empasizing fox news is right winged?, lol I dont think so.

Actually it is.

It's the only national news station that is.

>Does anyone know why were still over in Iraq? I personnaly would
>love to pull out. But becouse were America were not alowed to fight
>a war without providing relief to the people of that country. Yet
>any other country in the world could fight a war or pull a quik
>bombing without providing relief.

No they couldn't. It is a legal requirement for the party in control of an area to care for the civilian population, according to international law.

>I presume that means you are empasizing fox news is right winged?,
>lol I dont think so.

No, I was refering to FOX having lot's of opinion, but very little fact. And when they do present fact, they misrepresent it so that it will fit whatever story they are doing.

Andy

Fox news is extremely right winged. Just remember, they have Hannity (poor poor colmes, he is such a bitch). That and they have Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter on quite regularly.

Quite. Here in the UK we might be a super power, but sorry this country doesn't make a huge surplus like the United States.
Most people I know make a decent living but can barely afford to keep themselves out of the red all the time; So why should we feel bad that while we can only give a few quid here and there isn't the same to the larger number of americans giving less but overally being able to provide more?

We've got what 1:50th the population, yet somehow we're suppose to feel bad we can't put together the same kinda cash?

I mean forgive me, but last time I checked the British and German soliders were the ones who are UN Peacekeepers.. It's our troops and money that keep the world safer on a day-to-day basis, not just whenever a politian wants to make a point to the world.

We didn't have the resources to help fight some god forsaken war in Iraq, but the support was there anyways.

Why should more of my money go to countries who go out and buy sodding televisions rather than using the money to feed and cloth thier children? Why the hell should I be sending money to anyone else at all? I mean look at how many people are homeless on our own streets.

Oh but that's alright because they're not in a 3rd world country unable to make ends meat for themselves.. If scientists are believed the Africa has been around far longer than any other nation on the face of this planet. If they've survived almost the same level of technology for millennia, why the hell should we give them money to modernise a society that OBVIOUSLY doesn't want it?

Sorry but I just feel that America as a whole needs to be slapped in the face by the coffee bean of reality. They might've become the top dog of the world; but they didn't start off as some poor nation, they were fully funded colonies from the european counteries; that later became controlled by England... after all that funding, supplies, culture, technology; what did they do?

Turned around and bit the hand the fed them, because they could stand on thier own. They've not had to contest with wars.. with the economy of fueding nations; they've been remote propering from the rich bounty that comes from such a large country.

What you want a medal for being so big that no one dare start an inccident with?
I hope to hell that one day something will happen, and the United States will be finally put in it's place.

It's still a child nation, and they're currently given the power to dictact how the world should behave. It's like some Rich Spoilt Brat with a 12" Gauge who's waving it in everyones face.

Just because you have the most powerful gun doesn't mean you know how to damn well use it. The nation has had plenty of time to grow up, just wish our own PM actually had some balls; then perhaps he would've done the right thing and said no to the US.

If Britian has said no, then Australia would've backed down to. Without them the conflict would've ended up longer and perhaps forced the US to reconsider.

Look at the UN now.. it looks like a joke. What's the point in a United Nation if the major power doesn't respect it's decision? Terms of our nations are shattered there, and our credibility of siding against our European friends was also broken.

How is the United States more important than our home relations? A nation that has stabbed us in the back many times during history.. all of this self-righteous BS about terrorism, what did they forget that over a 30 year period they were giving financial aid to a terrorist organisation (IRA) bend on killing the English? Did they forget they gave financial aid to Iran who STARTED the Iraqi conflict back in the last 80s? Did they forget they funded several Middle-Eastern Terrorist Cells in order to serve thier own interests?

Someone pays them back for the 'help' they've given over the years, and suddenly it's an unthinkable act against the 'nicest' nation in the whole damn world.

Nothing will change until the United States is given a wake-up call.
Unfortunately this last one, was just the thing to do it.. if only this nation had stepped back and told them to deal with it themselves. Yeah like our government is intelligent enough to do the damn right thing.

Don't pull that bullshart Raven. We can get into as big an argument as you want about the integrity of the United States, but in the end nobody gives a rat's ass. I'll bet most of the American people you know their charity ratio will be much higher than 100,000:200. At least that's how it goes where I'm from. Wake up to reality, you can't judge an entire country based on what you observe over in your neck of the woods and on the news.