Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB88 on January 14, 2005, 08:14:01 AM
-
coming soon.
-
disclaimer.
all opinions expressed by the author are in no way meant to slander, disrespect or in anyway speak poorly about the american or coalition soldiers in the field or elsewhere.
they are the strength of this country, the defenders of our liberty and true patriots.
i am writing this, because there seems to be a natural tendancy for some to take opposition to be something aimed at them.
it is not.
in fact, i think that i can safely say that much of the opposition to the iraq war is on thier behalf. both those whom i know and love and those that i will never meet and on the behalf of what i believe is the greater duty of america to the basic concepts of liberty and justice.
to believe that the war is wrong is not the same as saying that what a soldier is doing under orders is wrong. to believe that a war should end is not the same as saying that those who have died have died in vain. rather, it is to say that there should be no more dying of any man for the spoils of others.
it is better to make a mistake and learn, than to make a mistake and continue.
(it should also be noted that said author is fully behind all operations in afghanistan and the hunt for and destruction of osama bin laden and other denationalised terrorist scum.)
further content to follow....
-
You are assuming that anyone would care about your opinions.
-
I can't wait!!!
-
waiting..
-
Inflammatory
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Inflammatory
Where?
-
Never in the course of O Club history has someone with so little to say, posted so much...........
-
As we wait for the Oracle of Knowledge to inform us, let's consider that America has a short memory. Please recall your feelings on 9-11.
War isn't fun. War isn't easy. That said, there is no army on earth that can last against the US military. Not even close.
Unfortunately, as we found out in Viet Nam, guerilla war is the worst. No uniforms, no front lines. It's messy, deadly, and painful.
I praise Bush for not running even in the face of 1300 American military deaths. We can't turn tail. The loses are horrible, but far below anything seen in the past. I am not mimizing the loss. The families don't care if there were only a single loss, it would be so sad as to seem too much to bear.
We must press on. Remember Khaddafy? Sadam who? We have work to do, and it will yield success.
Please don't get complacent just because time has salved your wounds from 9-11.
Hail the soldiers, and stay the course with the suppression of terrorism.
-
Originally posted by TalonX
As we wait for the Oracle of Knowledge to inform us, let's consider that America has a short memory. Please recall your feelings on 9-11.
War isn't fun. War isn't easy. That said, there is no army on earth that can last against the US military. Not even close.
Unfortunately, as we found out in Viet Nam, guerilla war is the worst. No uniforms, no front lines. It's messy, deadly, and painful.
I praise Bush for not running even in the face of 1300 American military deaths. We can't turn tail. The loses are horrible, but far below anything seen in the past. I am not mimizing the loss. The families don't care if there were only a single loss, it would be so sad as to seem too much to bear.
We must press on. Remember Khaddafy? Sadam who? We have work to do, and it will yield success.
Please don't get complacent just because time has salved your wounds from 9-11.
Hail the soldiers, and stay the course with the suppression of terrorism.
lol guy.. Some kinda programming they worked on you.. Perhaps you are too far advanced to be able to recover.. I dont know..
Short memory indeed! Iraqi did NOT attack us on 9/11.. holy ****ing **** dude.. HOW many times must this be reminded.. ???
-
Too bad there was no WMD or 9-11 attackers.
If US wanted to find terrorists, well, the tactic worked - however they really weren't there until US came.
btw. havent heard a thing about the search for Osama in a while.
-
I know who attacked us. Is everyone who disagrees with you suffering from reprogramming?
Iraq supported terrorism. The battles lines weren't drawn at the dead terrorists.....Once this effort was undertaken, and it was right to do so, we have to go all the way.
Who said, "When you see a snake poised to strike, you don't wait until he does, to kill it?" (forgive the paraphrase, I didn't have time to look it up for accuracy).
I think that's wise.
-
The only one reason, why US do not pull out from Iraq is fact, that if they do it now (or if they did it in the past) most of the people in the world will consider them to be "Loosers"
Because after 2 years its more that clear, that Us army cant and dont know how to secure Iraq. And in the end, the will just leave it in chaos, like they did in Afghanistan.... just my trough... we will see
Same problem like Russian had in Afghanistan.
-
INsolent
Karaya
-
"Losers"
But, we will be called losers, and worse, either way. I don't think we should manage by what name we will be called.
Securing a country with guerillas is damn hard. I am not a strategist, and don't have a clue.
-
Originally posted by TalonX
Who said, "When you see a snake poised to strike, you don't wait until he does, to kill it?" (forgive the paraphrase, I didn't have time to look it up for accuracy).
I think that's wise.
Kennedy said that on the morning of Bay of Pigs.
-
Originally posted by lada
The only one reason, why US do not pull out from Iraq is fact, that if they do it now (or if they did it in the past) most of the people in the world will consider them to be "Loosers"
Because after 2 years its more that clear, that Us army cant and dont know how to secure Iraq. And in the end, the will just leave it in chaos, like they did in Afghanistan.... just my trough... we will see
Same problem like Russian had in Afghanistan.
Hey genius, the UN had 11 years to do something. They chose the "humanitarian" way like useless "resolutions", the Oil for Food program, allowed France, Russia, etc to be allowed to profit for arms sales. Sent many INCOMPETENT "Weapons Inspectors". The UN is to blame. Bash the US all you want.
You have a large trough of bull$***. That's about it.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Sent many INCOMPETENT "Weapons Inspectors".
Then I guess CIA is totally unfit to their role, since they couldn't come up with anything else, but lots of talk about WMD.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
INsolent
Karaya
Again, Where?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Then I guess CIA is totally unfit to their role, since they couldn't come up with anything else, but lots of talk about WMD.
So now Hans Blix is CIA? You fell on your sword. Now bleed.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Then I guess CIA is totally unfit to their role, since they couldn't come up with anything else, but lots of talk about WMD.
When the man was proven to have WMD and continued to make it look like he had them even after they were removed then whose fault was it when he was taken out ?
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
When the man was proven to have WMD and continued to make it look like he had them even after they were removed then whose fault was it when he was taken out ?
AH, good man. You ACTUALLY READ MY Post. Thank you sir. THE UN HAD ELEVEN YEARS TO DO SOMETHING USEFUL, THEY FAILED, NOT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Karaya
-
I praise Bush for not running even in the face of 1300 American military deaths. We can't turn tail. The loses are horrible, but far below anything seen in the past. I am not mimizing the loss. The families don't care if there were only a single loss, it would be so sad as to seem too much to bear.
Absolutely. Winning an insurgency that is in Level III (guerilla war) is a very time consuming process.
It takes years and sometimes decades to do.
Unfortunately the American public just does not have the intestinal fortitude or the focus to do it. That is why every successful counter-insurgency the US has fought since Vietnam has been conducted covertly out of the public spotlight. It took almost 20 years to win El Salvador and almost 30 years to bring Abu Sayaf from a popular movement to a handful of dissidents.
What we see in Iraq is the remnants of Saddam's regime fighting the coalition. These are the guys who basically have no place in a free and democratic Iraq for a number of reasons. Mostly because they will have to answer eventually for crimes they committed against the population under Saddam. They are also the minority who believe that they will not get fair representation under a majority rule democracy.
There are so many good things going on in Iraq everyday. It is a shame the press paints such a lopsided picture. I encourage anyone to read the BBC's web log from average Iraqi's. Unfortunately you will have to search their site, as they no longer host it.
It was creating a 180 degree picture from the one mainstream liberal reporters want to show.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2004/iraq_log/default.stm
To even think of giving in to these terrorist is unthinkable. The problem will not go away and I for one would rather fight them in the Middle East than the streets of New York. It winnable without a doubt. Unfortunately it won't be quick or easy.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by TalonX
I know who attacked us. Is everyone who disagrees with you suffering from reprogramming?
Iraq supported terrorism. The battles lines weren't drawn at the dead terrorists.....Once this effort was undertaken, and it was right to do so, we have to go all the way.
Who said, "When you see a snake poised to strike, you don't wait until he does, to kill it?" (forgive the paraphrase, I didn't have time to look it up for accuracy).
I think that's wise.
I believe it wise as well.. But please educate me how Iraqi was poised to strke?
Also, Please educate me how Iraqi support terrorist that would attack the US.. If you intend to produce Palistine as an 'example'.. You must include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and prolly a few other counties in the Middle East.. Do you intend to 'cleanse' them all?
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Hey genius, the UN had 11 years to do something. They chose the "humanitarian" way like useless "resolutions", the Oil for Food program, allowed France, Russia, etc to be allowed to profit for arms sales. Sent many INCOMPETENT "Weapons Inspectors". The UN is to blame. Bash the US all you want.
You have a large trough of bull$***. That's about it.
Karaya
How were the weapon Inspectors 'incompetent'?? Where are the weapons they failed to find??
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
When the man was proven to have WMD and continued to make it look like he had them even after they were removed then whose fault was it when he was taken out ?
How did he continue to look like he had them? He said he didnt have them.. He allowed inspection.. What more could he have done?
Wake up guy.. we invaded on false reasons.. the end..
-
It took almost 20 years to win El Salvador
lol to win? perhaps.. America overthrew an elected government and then funded mercs that had the sole purpose of cleansing dissidents.. And why I must ask? O ya.. the domino theory..
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
I believe it wise as well.. But please educate me how Iraqi was poised to strke?
Also, Please educate me how Iraqi support terrorist that would attack the US.. If you intend to produce Palistine as an 'example'.. You must include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and prolly a few other counties in the Middle East.. Do you intend to 'cleanse' them all?
The "others are doing it too" argument is getting nowhere. Will we need to cleanse other countries? We might, if they don't voluntarily clean up their own backyards.
-
Dont worry guys, The USA will be out of there before end of march, this year.
funny how things can turn out. After the unlegal invasion, Iraq people didnt salute them as "liberators".
Instead: USA more of less forced them into resistance, supporting their president Saddam, who was not very popular.
Now with nearly 1500 dead and 12,000 wounded US-soldiers (Official figures, inofficial 6000+, 50,000+), over 100,000 dead civilians: a Country in total chaos. They are trying to take their last resort before leaving: To put their puppets in power, by a "legal election" where only 15-20% of the population can be asured security, while voting.
The war in Iraq cost 1,4 billion dollars per day, money that USA dont have and really would need to give educattion, healthcare their citizens.
USA lost the Iraq, just like they did in Vietnam, now the only thing left is to find a good escause to withdraw, before they start running like rats leaving the sinking ship, just like they did in Vietnam.
The true story about what happend in Fallujha will sooner or later be known to public. Then we will see how "Good" Saddam was in compare.
"RUN Forrrrrrest,...........RUN"
-
Originally posted by rshubert
The "others are doing it too" argument is getting nowhere. Will we need to cleanse other countries? We might, if they don't voluntarily clean up their own backyards.
Wow.. How can you handle the glory of yourself looking in the mirror with such righteousness that must halo you...???
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
How did he continue to look like he had them? He said he didnt have them.. He allowed inspection.. What more could he have done?
Wake up guy.. we invaded on false reasons.. the end..
ya know, i seem to remember as we were getting close to bagdad that SH had warned about "a line" that if crossed, would result in the dispersion of WMD.
Just because we did'nt find any does'nt mean that HE (SH) did'nt think he had some.His generals had been lying to him for years about the capability of his armed forces.
This leads me to believe that the intellegence gathered was wrong, not because "Bush Lied" or "The CIA Lied", but because the intellegence gathered was put out by a bunch of guys who lied because if they told the truth they would have 100 grams of c4 put in thier pocket and be attached to a car battery ( after watching the same happen to thier extended family).
"He allowed inspection" hehe you gotta be kidding me, he gave the inspectors the run around for years.
The only problem with the war in Iraq is the way the media reports it.
As for afghanistan, hey , the first elections in the HISTORY of that country, after only 3 years?
that ain't that bad
-
ol to win? perhaps.. America overthrew an elected government and then funded mercs that had the sole purpose of cleansing dissidents.. And why I must ask? O ya.. the domino theory..
You have a very warped sense of history. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the truth. I encourage you to get an education about US foreign policy. You will find it very insightful.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/elsalvador2/#BREAK
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/elsalvador2.htm
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by patrone
The true story about what happend in Fallujha will sooner or later be known to public. Then we will see how "Good" Saddam was in compare.
"RUN Forrrrrrest,...........RUN"
Well, it sounds like you were there, why don't you enlighten us? :aok
-
Originally posted by Flit
ya know, i seem to remember as we were getting close to bagdad that SH had warned about "a line" that if crossed, would result in the dispersion of WMD.
Just because we did'nt find any does'nt mean that HE (SH) did'nt think he had some.His generals had been lying to him for years about the capability of his armed forces.
This leads me to believe that the intellegence gathered was wrong, not because "Bush Lied" or "The CIA Lied", but because the intellegence gathered was put out by a bunch of guys who lied because if they told the truth they would have 100 grams of c4 put in thier pocket and be attached to a car battery ( after watching the same happen to thier extended family).
"He allowed inspection" hehe you gotta be kidding me, he gave the inspectors the run around for years.
The only problem with the war in Iraq is the way the media reports it.
As for afghanistan, hey , the first elections in the HISTORY of that country, after only 3 years?
that ain't that bad
Unless you can find me a quote from SH, I believe you are remembering it wrong.. The line you are referring to was a mystical line produced by our government. The line represented the area that 'could' be attacked by WMDs with SH's availible technology had he had any WMDs..
The key question was offered I believe in this thread already.. Was he saving the WMD for the next invasion? IF he had them, why not use them?
-
did i miss anything while i was gone?
lol.
ok. where was i...oh yes.
WHY IRAQ WAS, IS, AND SHALL CONTINUE TO BE A TOTAL MESS.
(content to follow)
-
Originally posted by Flit
Well, it sounds like you were there, why don't you enlighten us? :aok
No, but the fact that no journalist been allowed enter there for nearly 3 months.
And the stories of the use of gas, napalm and even neutron bombs, by USA.
It really makes you wonder whats going on/went on.
Something that was surely needed to be covered up and that took long time. Or maybe USA got their butts kicked, big time?
-
Circumventing language filter
-
Originally posted by JB88
did i miss anything while i was gone?
(content to follow)
you should make a bumper sticker of that and place it on your forhead. :lol
-
data.
in the latest fox news poll 56% of americans believe that GWB is mishandling the war as opposed to 42% who do not.
statistics from one year ago
approve 52%
disapprove 40%
did we make a mistake in sending troops?
yes. 50%
no. 48%
as opposed to one year ago
yes. 23%
no. 75%
-
Originally posted by NUKE
you should make a bumper sticker of that and place it on your forhead. :lol
its spelled forehead numbnuts.
:aok
-
Originally posted by patrone
No, but the fact that no journalist been allowed enter there for nearly 3 months.
And the stories of the use of gas, napalm and even neutron bombs, by USA.
It really makes you wonder whats going on/went on.
Something that was surely needed to be covered up and that took long time. Or maybe USA got their butts kicked, big time?
ROFL Neutron Bomb?
As for no journalist allowed in for 3 months,where do you think all the fajulla video in coming from ?
It really makes me wonder where you get your info
-
by these statistics, and by other similar polls, we can deduce that there is a growing distaste for the war in the general populous.
here is why...
-
america was founded upon a tradition of fairness and equality. though one can argue that we have not always lived by these standards, one can certainly say that we have been, historically, one of the better societies that has graced this marble with our presence.
we have invented, we have flown, we have gone to the moon and to mars. we have fought for our brothers across oceans and we have righted many wrongs of inequity.
so what happened?...
-
when the terrorists attacked the united states on september 11th. the whole world watched as two symbols of our ingenuity collapsed. symbols.
terrorists are symbolic. they have no desire for territory, but a desire for the mind.
.....
-
when it happened. the world was with us, united against a foe whose acts were so unconscionable and so foul that they literally ushered in a new age of warfare.
that is not to say that terrorism hadnt existed. we even had a major civil terrorist attack in oklahoma city...but this one set the bar.
the perfect storm....
-
now.
there are three things that i believe set americans and/or western democracies in general apart from 3rd world societies.
a. we do not believe in kings.
b. we believe in the universal right of law extended to all people. (if only in theory in some unfortunate cases)
c. free media and free speech.
by acting as the sole representative of al queda, as a spiritual leader and perceptual commander, osama bin laden essentially established himself as a king waging war on a foreign power.
........
-
there are also basic principles by which we all try to follow.
one cannot commit a crime without being judged by rule of law.
one has certain liberties, inalienable as we say because we assume that these liberties should be a given...that they cannot be taken away.
one who gets to hot in the pants and out of control is going to get an arsewhooping by a FREE media.
the al queda does not follow this methodology.
niether does a typical iraqi.
-------------------------------
-
are ya with me so far?
-
Stfu already.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Stfu already.
no thanks.
door is ^ that way.
-
would anyone disagree with any of my assertions thus far?
-
Originally posted by JB88
Circumventing language filter
what is a circumventing language filter skuzzy?
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Again, Where?
I've an answer but it's INdecent.
-
ok. no reply from skuzzy.
ok.
as i have mentioned before, i was all for the war against terror/ i.e. - osama bin laden and afghanistan. the world was too.
most of our european counterparts had experienced something within the range of terrorist activity and much of the world who was aligned even closely with us, i think, felt that we were well within our rights to do so.
we had an opportunity to focus the beam.
----------------
-
america has been exceptional in its ability to export itself and its ideals without the need for foriegn imperialism. we have been distributed, copied, settled and glorified.
our television shows span the globe, our culture reaches into every country in ways that would be barely detectable in our own melting pot.
our country has been the recognized leader for optimism and forward thinking since the end of ww2, unparrelled by any other.
(note. i am not trying to be pompous, i am just outlining the responsibility that most americans seem to embody within themselves.)
--------------
-
so i think that it is fair to say that as americans, we have had a responsibility as one country out of many on this globe
to put the good stuff to use. to seperate the truth from the lie. to continue the great experiment even through the dark times.
freedom.
liberty.
democracy.
-
and this is where we have and are failing.
-
Maybe one big post would be better.. unless of course you like talking to yourself.
-
we were attacked by militant muslims, none of which were from iraq. yet, the drums of war could not be satisfied.
saddam hussein represented little threat in comparison to other countries in the world. yet we chose to make the example of him.
we were wholly unable to build a coalition even remotely close to the one the GB1 did.
why?
almost everyone that i knew at the time thought that the WMD arguement was crap. and most of my friends are conservatives.
almost all of them were skeptical of the reasoning behind the war.
yet...we were AFRAID....
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Maybe one big post would be better.. unless of course you like talking to yourself.
you there. i am writing stream of conscience. its what is working best for me right now. you dont have to listen.
i wont be offended.
thanks. : )
-
After a good stream it is best to flush.
-
you know what my greatest fear was when i started to see what was happening? that i might actually become a dissident in my own country.
the land of the free, the home of the brave.
that country.
the one with baseball and apple pie.
i never really to 1984 all that seriously.
but i watched as the machine kicked in.
as osama fell to the side and the oil field came into sight.
--------------------
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
After a good stream it is best to flush.
noted. flush.
-
why is it that the united states of america...the land that i grew up in which fed me this stuff as if it were comfort food,
would have lost what was it 17 casualties in somalia and backed out?
werent we there to liberate those people from thier warlords?
and what of the sudan? genocide there. worse than saddam and usay and qusay could have even fantasized about.
the killing fields, the hutus and the tutsies.
slaughters.
no rights whatsoever. nothing.
---------------------------
-
we stood tall against the soviets and yet we cant stand tall enough to loudly protest a president who makes people sign loyalty oaths to attend his rallies.
are americans a people of fear? really?
----------------------------------
-
are we sheep?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Then I guess CIA is totally unfit to their role, since they couldn't come up with anything else, but lots of talk about WMD.
One thing learned by our war in Iraq.....Most of Europe is not our ally and never was....the UN is corrupt and without a spine and lastly, it shook out the spineless on this board as well.
Do you piss and moan on euro boards as well, or do you just save it all up for our edification?
Remember this.....as hard as you try, as important as you may feel your opinion to be and as superior as you may feel to the rest of us and the United States, you're still insignificant and your opinion means dit!
Ya see my little euro elitest....this country does what it feels is necessary to protect itself and it's interests, including saving most of europes bellybutton in the process. Always right....nope....always sensitive to others feelings....nope....willing to do what it takes to secure our safety and freedom from those who would compromise it....damn straight.
Sorry you cannot stomach that and sorry I don't give a crap either....if I were as well rounded of a world citizen as you and yours are, it might be different.
Me, I'm just a handsomehunk American....can't help it, so it's best you move along and learn to deal with it....hopefully with the ignore function of this BBS, because I will never take a pinch from a hateful little **** like yourself. If you had any character, you would have insisted that the UN help us help the Iraqi's, even if it were not by the design you would have chosen yourself.
Have a nice day pinhead!
-
Originally posted by JB88
are ya with me so far?
i disagree on one thing hold on
-
and if we buy into the iraqi war so much, why arent we sending our extras over there?
why arent we seeing people talking about these great social reforms that we are putting in place over there?
why arent we inviting them to our schools? exchanging cultures, building a great society.
we did it for japan.
we did it for germany.
is the american soul of compassion dead or have we simply resigned ourselves to saying...aw screw it.
make em like us.
break em like us.
-
Originally posted by lada
i disagree on one thing hold on
k. go ahead lada.
-
get back to me.
see the thing is. america isnt supposed to be about making other countries be like us.
america is about making other countries want to strive to be like us.
---------------------------
-
Originally posted by JB88
now.
there are three things that i believe set americans and/or western democracies in general apart from 3rd world societies.
a. we do not believe in kings.
b. we believe in the universal right of law extended to all people. (if only in theory in some unfortunate cases)
c. free media and free speech.
I do not agree on point A.
US had very good relation ships with ME`s kingdoms and they try to benefit from that as much as possible.
Why do i think ?
1. When Iranian republic colapsed, US didnt give a watermelon and supported new King.. later on king become US`s b|tch so revolution occured.
2. Saudi Arabia. This country is ruled by one family, w/o so long that i realy dont know who ruled before them.
SA is considered to by ally of US in the ME... however US never ever pushed for regime change in SA
3. Another "proamerican" country in ME is Pakistan. Pakistan is ruled by Dictator.
4. We beeter do not speak about former US friend SH (another dictatorship supported by US)
I do not think that US doesn belive in kingdoms, because US widely cooperate with them for several decades w/o any serious push for transforming them.
Or am i wrong ?
I do not agree on point B as well.
Us doesnt respect international court in Haag, US claimed that acts of their soldiers do not belong under haag`s court.
So basilacy no... US doesnt belive in one universal right for all people.
hawk :)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Maybe one big post would be better.. unless of course you like talking to yourself.
i like it this way.. its more confortable to respond.
-
Originally posted by lada
I do not agree on point A.
US had very good relation ships with ME`s kingdoms and they try to benefit from that as much as possible.
Why do i think ?
1. When Iranian republic colapsed, US didnt give a watermelon and supported new King.. later on king become US`s b|tch so revolution occured.
2. Saudi Arabia. This country is ruled by one family, w/o so long that i realy dont know who ruled before them.
SA is considered to by ally of US in the ME... however US never ever pushed for regime change in SA
3. Another "proamerican" country in ME is Pakistan. Pakistan is ruled by Dictator.
4. We beeter do not speak about former US friend SH (another dictatorship supported by US)
I do not think that US doesn belive in kingdoms, because US widely cooperate with them for several decades w/o any serious push for transforming them.
Or am i wrong ?
I do not agree on point B as well.
Us doesnt respect international court in Haag, US claimed that acts of their soldiers do not belong under haag`s court.
So basilacy no... US doesnt belive in one universal right for all people.
hawk :)
great point! but thats just it isnt it? we dont mind the fact that the saudis dont even have a vote. yet we claim that we are bringing the vote to the downtrodden iraqis.
i mean that americans dont believe in having a king. nor figurheads of that nature either. god help me if gw puts a wreath on his head and proclaims
himself emperor.
in essence, i am speaking of our own societal values. or at least the standard which we have set for ourselves.
-
Originally posted by JB88
we were attacked by militant muslims
IMO
You were attack by people who were claimed to be an muslim (im not sure if they claimed themself to be a muslim or somebody else did)
I do not think that religion is important. IMO their motivation and history is more important that fact how often they pray.
Denying political meaning of "terrorist attacks" and hiding them behind religion is just poor try to keep "attacked" in darkness and part of "we are poor vicims" way of thinking, whitch is good for pushing big political decisions.
viz. Goering
viz. IRA
-
so iraq.
we did it anyway.
and heres what we did.
we alienated a good portion of the worlds good will by doing a great impersonation of everything that we ever hated about the bloody soviets.
(you remember what happened to them in afghanistan dont you?)
we swaggered in there claiming that the time was up, when in reality, in my opinion, had we had better leadership we could have easilly formed a coalition worth its salt.
we got mired up in a culture and a cultures problems without the will of those people to act on thier own in tandem.
we showed the world that we wont be satisfied until we are the big dog on the block and everyone else had better get used to it.
we spread our forces dangerously thin,
something that means something when you have an all volunteer army and only 5% of the worlds population behind you.
we increased our national spending by exhorbitatant amounts and have placed a massive debtload on either our children or our middle class.
we have incurred casualties which are increasing by the month.
we have lost the respect of those who looked to us as champions of freedom and fairness by dismissing the geneva convention. does anyone remember torture being an issue in the first gulf war?
this certainly doesnt help the iraqis to feel good does it?
-------------
-
can I comment on Ladas post?
-
Originally posted by patrone
can I comment on Ladas post?
by all means. hope you dont mind if i keep ranting though.
actually, a pause.
brief lunch.
-
Originally posted by lada
Us doesnt respect international court in Haag
Thats BS Lada and you know it. Yesterday, USA thretned Bosnia Serbs to co-operated with it, on behalf of UN.
I say they respect it, but only as long as they do not have to follow it and have never actully signed any papers, suporting it.
Yet, they can force others to do so.
There is only one State only, in history that have been branded "terrorist-state" by International court of law....................
Have a free guess boys
A hint, it had something with Nicaragua to do
-
there are alot of americans, it seems, who have taken this attitude of defense.
the world is out to get us. screw em.
why? just because we got bombed by some wackos?
i just dont believe it. i think that the world wants more from us. wants us to be what we promised.
and i dont think that you can look at the situation without looking at the cause either. america has been mucking about in everyones foreign affairs for years, from secretly sponsoring coup d' etat to outright sanctioning it.
from claiming to be for the little guy, to outright ignoring him.
from extending a hand of friendship to extending a fist of design.
no. this is not the america that i know.
and it isnt the one we are giving the iraqi people.
we are better than this.
-------------------
-
so what am i saying?
well, ive ranted. and i suppose that most of it is true, and some of it is probably argueable.
but this is what i think isnt.
somewhere in our hearts we know that iraq was a bridge to far. the heart wasnt in it.
that it wasnt about freedom, it was about payback.
and some would say oil.
but thats not america.
and i think that this is so because my schoolbooks told me so. the same ones that all of my fellow americans read.
the ones that told us we were noble.
that we are mutts.
that we have struggled through a pioneering adventure with all of the dangers that accompany something new.
i suppose we could turn our backs on it.
we could say, well, that was yesterday.
we could forget it.
our rights our liberties our sense of duty.
we could be angry for the rest of our lives that one stupid set of bombers got through to the base or we can fight to maintain our composure.
we could don our frowns forever...paradise lost...
or....
---------------------------
-
we can look at it honestly.
assess it.
ask for help where its needed. offer some to those who will.
make it better.
not for profit.
but just freaking BECAUSE.
not through our president, but through us.
we are NOT the sum of his parts, any more than we were of clinton or carter.
but we are the sum of ours.
and if we cant be that.
if we cant smile again,
laugh again,
be free again.
then fuggit.
iraq is going to remain the most fluffied up mess ever was.
-
.
<--------------------------- fin (500)
-
Skuzzy lock this thread already please.
The whole thing in its entirety is nothing more then one long troll
-
Can I have those 15 mINutes of my life back?
-
my opinion? besides thinking you are wound too tight...
We have no friends in the middle east except for the jews. All those scumbag countries were and are breeding grounds for terrorists and they were finally exporting thier bizzare form of the terrorist religion to the U.S.
so... slap em down... that's all they understand... pick one, they are all bad. the sadman had his neck stuck way out there.... just begging us.... daring us... to whack it off.
He also was one of the smarter wealthier ones with a history of very sophisticated weapons programs and was really courting our so called "allies"..
so we picked him. We had a good excuse... He wouldn't comply with the "sanmctions" not that we knew he had WMD... he defied the world.
Good enough excuse to shut that madman down and show the rest of the middle east that if they stuck their neck out we would whack it off too.
and that is probly all there is to it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by patrone
Thats BS Lada and you know it. Yesterday, USA thretned Bosnia Serbs to co-operated with it, on behalf of UN.
I say they respect it, but only as long as they do not have to follow it and have never actully signed any papers, suporting it.
Yet, they can force others to do so.
There is only one State only, in history that have been branded "terrorist-state" by International court of law....................
Have a free guess boys
A hint, it had something with Nicaragua to do
yup i agree, you formulation is so far better that my.
Nicaragua ?? ... ummm .. it had to be China :D
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Skuzzy lock this thread already please.
The whole thing in its entirety is nothing more then one long troll
Father father.... please beat that ugly boy he has nicer t-shirt !!!!!
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaa
:lol
-
JB88 thx for sharing your troughs, i will try to make some more comments later.
personal question:
Do you travell a lot ?
-
Originally posted by lada
Nicaragua ?? ... ummm .. it had to be China :D
No, thats wrong, sorry Lada. It was a good guess, dont feel discuraged........
Anyone else wants to guess or shall I let Lada have another try?
-
Originally posted by lada
JB88 thx for sharing your troughs, i will try to make some more comments later.
personal question:
Do you travell a lot ?
you are welcome lada, thank you.
i would like to travel more. definate wanderlust. would like to make my way overseas for a couple of years to do some work and see the world. would be nice.
-
America should kill all the terrorist insurgent scum, win total victory in iraq, put a statue of George Washington in Bagdad then blame the whole thing on the british. Yeah!!!
-
On the War in Iraq.
http://www.dod.mil/news/Jan2005/n01142005_2005011402.html
But the insurgents do recruit, and they are finding a willing pool. This has nothing to do with philosophy, and everything to do with economics, officials said. Unemployment in the nation is high, and the insurgents will pay people to launch attacks on Iraqi security forces or the coalition. "If someone is supporting a family and there is no money coming in, then $200 a month from the insurgents starts looking pretty good," said an MNFI official.
Let's take a look at the otherside of the story. Some of the news that does not make it throught ot the liberal media because it does not sell papers.
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jan2005/a011405cm3.html
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jan2005/a011305la3.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2005/n01122005_2005011204.html
Here is the whole lot. Just check out the difference in the tone of the different networks. Good news does not sell like bad news, scandal, and doomsaying. All appeal to our baser human emotions and give into our fears.
http://iraqwarnews.net/
Now lets look at the War Protesters:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-mersereau011503.asp
--------------------------------------------------
The two main camps of the peace industry
· The Down With America camp - This is the smaller camp active in America. It denounces any and all things American for no other reason than that's what they do. To them America is bad, every place else is good, especially non-European places. (Europe is suspect, but is tolerated because it is no longer religious. One of America's chief faults is that Americans are still religious.) The oppressions and slaughters that people of color regularly wage upon one another is of no interest to this camp except as another thing to blame upon America. This is the sort that Mersereau describes, although, as I said, he erroneously credits them with actually wanting peace.
This was the kind of pacifists George Orwell described in his essay, Notes on Nationalism, May 1945:
The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …
· The Political Identity camp - The larger camp is equally uninterested in peace. Its motivation is pure, partisan politics. It is universally liberal to outright leftist, but not pacifist. Its members do not object to war per se, they mainly object to war being waged by the wrong people. This is the camp referred to by TR Fogey, who links to an article by Michael Totten with this nugget:
While it is unlikely that leftists [the DWA camp - DS] would have supported the war against the Taliban if Hillary Clinton waged it, it is almost certainly true that most mainstream liberals would support the war in Iraq if she were leading the charge against Saddam now. With only one exception, every anti-war liberal I have talked to admits this is true.
That defines the PI camp quite well: their support of or opposition to military force depends almost exclusively on whether their party is the one wielding it. Totten writes,
After weeks of arguing with one of my colleagues, I finally got him to concede that an American military intervention to depose Saddam Hussein is justified and appropriate. I convinced him by sending him reams of information about the brutal nature of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. He really didn’t know, and now he does, and he changed his mind. But with a catch. "This isn't the right American administration to carry out the invasion," he said.
Robert Kagan recently wrote "Yesterday's liberal interventionists, in Bosnia, Kosovo and Haiti, are today's liberal abstentionists. What changed? Just the man in the White House."
Together, these two camps comprise the "peace movement" in America today. It is not possible to grant to either camp the courtesy of good intentions. The DWA camp is virulently anti-American, and therefore pro-fascist, pro-tyranny and pro-oppression, all of which are states of war, not peace.The political identity camp sees peace and war through the lens of whether their own political faction holds power. If so, war may be good. If not, war is always bad.
There are no good intentions to be found anywhere among them.
There are a small number of true pacifists who do not fit into either camp, but their visibility and influence is near negligible. Quakers and Mennonites, for example, generally do not work to undermine America but neither do they support America's wars. However, my personal experience shows that almost all American religious protests against the Bush administration fall into the political identity camp. They almost without exception supported Clinton's war against the Bosnian Serbs and accepted his violent attacks upon Iraq, his cruise-missile campaigns against Afghanistan and Sudan (which killed innocent people) and his invasion of Haiti.
Update: TR Fogey excerpts "Confessions of an Ex-Pacifist" by Dr. David Lazerson, who "tells us how our current situation in our struggle against terrorism differs from the anti-war glory days of the 1960's":
You see, this notion of pacifism gets a bit sticky when one side believes in dialogue, reaching out a hand in friendship, and even compromising, while the other side hates your guts, wants your head displayed on a stick, and would like nothing better than to level your towns and plant their flags all over the joint. Peace only works when it´s a two-way street. If not, pacifism becomes suicide.
---------------------------------------------
Crumpp
-
UN Charta
The Purposes of the United Nations are: 1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 4 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 4
1. Membership in the United Nations is open to a other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
2. The admission of any such state to membership in the Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
IN FAITH WHEREOF the representatives of the Governments of the United Nations have signed the present Charter. DONE at the city of San Francisco the twenty-sixth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five.
Now, wich part in this Charta are you having a hard time to understand?
-
Now, wich part in this Charta are you having a hard time to understand?
Nice info but not really relevant.
Please point out where it says Member States cannot act unilaterally to defend themselves?
Oh yeah, it doesn't.....
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by JB88
you are welcome lada, thank you.
i would like to travel more. definate wanderlust. would like to make my way overseas for a couple of years to do some work and see the world. would be nice.
Cool let me know if you will pass Czech i can show a lot of things around .. if i will be still here, coz im thinking abou tmoving abroad as well... hopefuly in 6 months :D
-
i would like to travel more. definate wanderlust. would like to make my way overseas for a couple of years to do some work and see the world. would be nice.
Hey!
Why don't you make your way down to Baghdad and Kabul, see the real deal!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by patrone
No, thats wrong, sorry Lada. It was a good guess, dont feel discuraged........
Anyone else wants to guess or shall I let Lada have another try?
I know i know i know ... It were evil Mexican indians .. right ?
better dont respond if im wrong again or i will a shame :D
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
How did he continue to look like he had them? He said he didnt have them.. He allowed inspection.. What more could he have done?
Wake up guy.. we invaded on false reasons.. the end..
Only an ignorant fool would believe a single word that Saddam Hussein might have spoken. You have joined that club.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by JB88
so iraq.
we did it anyway.
and heres what we did.
we alienated a good portion of the worlds good will by doing a great impersonation of everything that we ever hated about the bloody soviets.
(you remember what happened to them in afghanistan dont you?)
we swaggered in there claiming that the time was up, when in reality, in my opinion, had we had better leadership we could have easilly formed a coalition worth its salt.
we got mired up in a culture and a cultures problems without the will of those people to act on thier own in tandem.
we showed the world that we wont be satisfied until we are the big dog on the block and everyone else had better get used to it.
we spread our forces dangerously thin,
something that means something when you have an all volunteer army and only 5% of the worlds population behind you.
we increased our national spending by exhorbitatant amounts and have placed a massive debtload on either our children or our middle class.
we have incurred casualties which are increasing by the month.
we have lost the respect of those who looked to us as champions of freedom and fairness by dismissing the geneva convention. does anyone remember torture being an issue in the first gulf war?
this certainly doesnt help the iraqis to feel good does it?
-------------
:aok If you hate it so bad, leave the United States.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by JB88
what is a circumventing language filter skuzzy?
LMAO. You need the have JB73 give you a tutorial on the BBS.
Wow, amazing.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Hey!
Why don't you make your way down to Baghdad and Kabul, see the real deal!
Crumpp
how hemmingway is that?
: )
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
LMAO. You need the have JB73 give you a tutorial on the BBS.
Wow, amazing.
Karaya
or, you could just answer the question jack.
-
how This Thread was, is, and shall continue to be a total mess
I'm pretty sure this is what JB88 meant... :)
-
oh that would make you feel all better now wouldnt it?
get a grip bud. i live here. was raised here. and i will continue to be critical of that which is stupid about my country.
it is my right.
what a stoopid thing to say.
really.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Please point out where it says Member States cannot act unilaterally to defend themselves?
Crumpp
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to a of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
Did Iraq declear war on USA, prior to the invasion? Selfdefence? I see, Iraqs Invasionfleet and bombers had attacked USA or had made threats to do so?
First thay have a hughe war with their neighbour, Iran, wich lasts to 1988, then theres the first Iraq war, then the sanctions after that.
To invade a country that cant possibly be expected to really make any resistance, is just like kicking a man that is already are laying on the ground. No matter what they say. Surely, your incompetent intellegence service did´nt know that.
Do you understand what a big *** Colin Powell made of himself, telling the UN, infront of the whole world lies, to justify this planed agression?
I dont give **** for liers. And that goverment is still in the rule of your country? They freaking lied to the whole world, do you think they would ever tell you the truth, the only ones that could remove them from power?
Oh, I forgot to to mention about 2/3 of the worlds oilreserve is within Iraq borders.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Only an ignorant fool would believe a single word that Saddam Hussein migh have spoken. You have joined that club.
Karaya
Lets not forget that DudeTheVant is also one of our most notable AH BBS whacky 911 internet conspiracy theory belivers and genera advocates. So I'm not surprised that he also belives in Saddam's word and his good intentions. What a neat character he ism arent you Kappa? :)
-
Originally posted by JB88
oh that would make you feel all better now wouldnt it?
get a grip bud. i live here. was raised here. and i will continue to be critical of that which is stupid about my country.
it is my right.
what a stoopid thing to say.
really.
Hmm, I agree.
However if that was in response my post b4 I dont see how it applies. I just noted that this thread is a mess.
May I suggest that in the future, you organize your thoughts in a more cohesive way...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
how This Thread was, is, and shall continue to be a total mess
I'm pretty sure this is what JB88 meant... :)
ah yes grun. i was wondering when youd come in and start popping your mouth. welcome aboard.
-
Originally posted by lada
I know i know i know ... It were evil Mexican indians .. right ?
better dont respond if im wrong again or i will a shame :D
I am so sorry, you where closer this time, but still wrong. I know how hard you tried. Please don´t be ashamed, cause the answer is so simple, that even GRUN would know it....
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Hmm, I agree.
However if that was in response my post b4 I dont see how it applies. I just noted that this thread is a mess.
May I suggest that in the future, you organize your thoughts in a more cohesive way...
you may suggest anything that youd like...but you might consider that you are missing its context. which you are.
it was really more of an event than a dissertation.
a performance peiece of sorts done real time.
funny. i see you refuting people alot with your little whistle, but i dont recall you starting a post or making your own stand on anything since ive been here.
might be wrong though...until you come into my world i usually ignore you,
-
So all this babbling of your is a performance art exhibit?
-
Originally posted by JB88
you may suggest anything that youd like...but you might consider that you are missing its context. which you are.
it was really more of an event than a dissertation.
a performance peiece of sorts done real time.
funny. i see you refuting people alot with your little whistle, but i dont recall you starting a post or making your own stand on anything since ive been here.
might be wrong though...until you come into my world i usually ignore you,
wow. i just noticed that you thought that was a response to your post previous. no. it wasnt. but you do seem to think that it is alot.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So all this babbling of your is a performance art exhibit?
what is yours?
-
JB88...dont fall for the ol´GRUN trick:To get this tread locked, because it has some inconveniant issues that he really cant comply with.
-
Originally posted by patrone
JB88...dont fall for the ol´GRUN trick:To get this tread locked, because it has some inconveniant issues that he really cant comply with.
:aok
-
Originally posted by patrone
JB88...dont fall for the ol´GRUN trick:To get this tread locked, because it has some inconveniant issues that he really cant comply with.
And we were getting along so well in that other thread... :(
Hey maybe you and JB can get together and fantasize about taking away my US citizenship, him "legally" through his shadowy connected cousin and you in spirit through your inane remarks...
What a bunch o tards...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And we were getting along so well in that other thread... :(
Hey maybe you and JB can get together and fantasize about taking away my US citizenship, him "legally" through his shadowy connected cousin and you in spirit through your inane remarks...
What a bunch o tards...
ya. that helps. keep up the good work bro.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And we were getting along so well in that other thread... :(
Hey maybe you and JB can get together and fantasize about taking away my US citizenship, him "legally" through his shadowy connected cousin and you in spirit through your inane remarks...
What a bunch o tards...
Never doubted that you where a US citizen. But you will never be a American, sorry.
Just as thoose poor guys, serving the US Army with "greencards" they are not even counted as casulties.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Never doubted that you where a US citizen. But you will never be a American, sorry.
Just as thoose poor guys, serving the US Army with "greencards" they are not even counted as casulties.
i disagree with that wholeheartedly.
as far as i am concerned that should never be the attitude taken towards those who want to be here.
grun. i was kidding about using my bro in law. i apologize for that statement.
it was out of line.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Never doubted that you where a US citizen. But you will never be a American, sorry.
This you should not take offensive, GRUN. Cause it is not ment to be offensive.
Even if I imigrated to another country, I would never cease to be Swedish, no matter what my passport would say.
-
Originally posted by patrone
This you should not take offensive, GRUN. Cause it is not ment to be offensive.
Even if I imigrated to another country, I would never cease to be Swedish, no matter what my passport would say.
that is what makes america better in that department.
a friend of mine originally from peru, when they ask him where he is from, he says, "south carolina"
i have no problem with that.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
allowed France, Russia, etc to be allowed to profit for arms sales.
Elaborate, please.
I want to know where to claim for my share of profit! :D
-
Originally posted by JB88
or, you could just answer the question jack.
Here: 1st find out the Definition of the English word "Circumvention" NOT "Circumcision".
then Use your Pea brain to realize what "Language FILTER" MIGHT possibly mean on a PRIVATELY OWNED BULLETIN BOARD FORUM, such as this one.
Sorry, I refuse to nursemaid.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by patrone
This you should not take offensive, GRUN. Cause it is not ment to be offensive.
Even if I imigrated to another country, I would never cease to be Swedish, no matter what my passport would say.
No offense taken carbofix, we have been through this allready in several forms, nothing you say about it has any real impact on me.
I genuinely believe that you dont fully grasp how america is different in this area from europe.
For example I am an American and everyone around me considers me so, both native born and other immigrants. All of my friends also know that I'm from Croatia too, and they think thats great as well.
America lets you be like that. Accepts you, assimilates you and still lets you be honest to your old culture if you are an immigrant. And while this process is obviusly not always worked perfectly at many times it is clear that in the long run Amarica is fully commited to it.
Thats what makes this country such a great place.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Elaborate, please.
I want to know where to claim for my share of profit! :D
I doubt that you would ever see a single Ruble of that money.
:)
Karaya
-
Originally posted by patrone
Just as thoose poor guys, serving the US Army with "greencards" they are not even counted as casulties.
Nonsense, where do you get this information?
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Here: 1st find out the Definition of the English word "Circumvention" NOT "Circumcision".
then Use your Pea brain to realize what "Language FILTER" MIGHT possibly mean on a PRIVATELY OWNED BULLETIN BOARD FORUM, such as this one.
Sorry, I refuse to nursemaid.
Karaya
okey doke jack.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No offense taken carbofix, we have been through this allready in several forms.
I genuinely believe that you dont fully grasp how america is different in this area from europe.
For example I am an American and everyone around me considers me so. All of my friends also know that I'm from Croatia too, and they think thats great as well.
America lets you be like that. Accepts you, assimilates you and still lets you be honest to your old culture if you are an immigrant.
And while this process is obviusly not always worked perfectly at many times it is clear that in the long run Amarica is fully commited to it.
Thats what makes this country such a great place.
GRUNHERZ, I never knew you were from Croatia. Thats cool. I know sometimes we have butted heads in here.
Without offending you, I am glad you have allowed America to embrace you. Most don't.
It really is the best place to live. Nothing is perfect however.
<>
Karaya
-
Originally posted by JB88
okey doke jack.
that would be Okee-Dokee.
You graduated from High School yet?
Karaya
-
Originally posted by patrone
Never doubted that you where a US citizen. But you will never be a American, sorry.
Just as thoose poor guys, serving the US Army with "greencards" they are not even counted as casulties.
Post some facts on this. I find this very hard to believe.
Karaya
-
I tell you a real big secret GRUN, I Was married and use to live in USA, I still have economic interests in USA and I know alittle more about US then the average EU-guy.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
that would be Okee-Dokee.
You graduated from High School yet?
Karaya
oh. now your going to tell me correct back woods slang? how honored am i?
-
and grun.
in case you didnt see it.
my apologies for the brother in law comment.
it was out of line.
-
Originally posted by JB88
oh. now your going to tell me correct back woods slang? how honored am i?
Honored? hardly. A dolt, you sure are.
Karaya
-
" JB88
01-15-2005 01:38 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]
JB88
01-15-2005 01:39 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here] "
THIS is being "Honored". "Now go home and get your shine box."
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Honored? hardly. A dolt, you sure are.
Karaya
coming from someone so obviously gifted as yourself in the fine art of discourse, i should be honored just to have you recognize me.
nice engish btw. i didnt know you could conjugate with such derring-do.
gold star for you.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
" JB88
01-15-2005 01:38 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]
JB88
01-15-2005 01:39 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here] "
THIS is being "Honored". "Now go home and get your shine box."
Karaya
phew. now where was i?
-
oh. now your going to tell me correct back woods slang? how honored am i?
You're
-
Originally posted by Steve
You're
noted. :aok
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I doubt that you would ever see a single Ruble of that money.
:)
Karaya
Russia refused from claining for $10 billion debt from Iraq, for some weapons and mostly oil drilling equipment, shipped in Soviet times. This desision was made by our "beloved party and government" that I hate more and more each day. I want my share of debt to be taken from occupant's puppets, I didn't agree to sponsor agressors. :mad:
You accused my country of selling weapons to Saddam after UN sanctions were applied. So I still want you to elaborate it.
-
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
Guess where any soveriegn states security lies under?
You accused my country of selling weapons to Saddam after UN sanctions were applied. So I still want you to elaborate it.
Christ Broda,
Go look up the arms of the Iraqi Army. They are NOT CHICOM AK's, BRDM's, BTR's, and SCUD's!!!
Most of them are much newer than 13 years old!
Can you say Ostrich? Pull your head out before you choke on the sand.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Guess what any soveriegn states security lies under?
Crumpp
Security, from what? Who attacked you?
-
Originally posted by patrone
Security, from what? Who attacked you?
You ever hear or "pre-emptive" action?
What other wars are you so upset with? Why does the Iraq war make you upset? Does it bother you more than other wars that you never mention here?
-
Just as thoose poor guys, serving the US Army with "greencards" they are not even counted as casulties.
Where do you find this drivel!!
Why don't you read how the United States treats it's fallen soldiers.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/uday-singh.htm
The INA allows for the awarding of posthumous citizenship to active-duty military personnel who die while serving in the armed forces. In addition, surviving family members seeking immigration benefits are given special consideration. To learn more, contact your military point-of-contact or the local district USCIS office.
http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/MilitaryBrochurev7.htm
So not only is the soldier elligiable for special benefits, the United States extends those benefits to his family.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by JB88
and grun.
in case you didnt see it.
my apologies for the brother in law comment.
it was out of line.
Thanks JB
I never took it seriusly, pretty much nobody can touch my citizenship. :)
-
Crump, these guys don't have a problem/never mention any other war, conflict, masacre or injustice on earth . They focus on Iraq because they love to hate America.
-
Originally posted by patrone
I tell you a real big secret GRUN, I Was married and use to live in USA, I still have economic interests in USA and I know alittle more about US then the average EU-guy.
If I may say so, it serves to illustrate how uninformed the "average EU-guy" must be about the wider world - contrary to popular sterotypes. :)
Carb you seem to be familiar with some(!) facts about this country, but the essence appears to elude you...
BTW would you want to share about your life here in the states? When, where how long?
-
They focus on Iraq because they love to hate America.
Exactly.
BTW I did not know you were naturalized Grun. Congrats on becoming an American!
Good to have you.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
BTW I did not know you were naturalized Grun. Congrats on becoming an American!
Good to have you.
Crumpp
Thanks, coming up on 10 years now. :)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Crump, these guys don't have a problem/never mention any other war, conflict, masacre or injustice on earth . They focus on Iraq because they love to hate America.
False, an american hater don't need to focus on Iraq to have munitions against USA.
Your judicial system give a tons of examples each year and if you want more go to some left wings sites.
Iraq it just the current screw up of the administration nothing more.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Russia refused from claining for $10 billion debt from Iraq, for some weapons and mostly oil drilling equipment, shipped in Soviet times. This desision was made by our "beloved party and government" that I hate more and more each day. I want my share of debt to be taken from occupant's puppets, I didn't agree to sponsor agressors. :mad:
You accused my country of selling weapons to Saddam after UN sanctions were applied. So I still want you to elaborate it.
I wonder what France's claims are for the "some drilling equipment"
fuggers will prolly say their mobile aa missiles were just to help blow holes in the sand... :rolleyes:
-
Nicely said '88! (Your post on the subject, not the pi**ing contest ;))
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I wonder what France's claims are for the "some drilling equipment"
fuggers will prolly say their mobile aa missiles were just to help blow holes in the sand... :rolleyes:
JFYI: most of the weapons were not sold by USSR, but by Warsaw Treaty countries (Poland and others) and China. All Iraqi T-72s were made in Poland.
Do you really mean that Russia sold weapons to Iraq after 1990?
Did you hear that Federal forces in Chechnya captured 20+ Stinger missiles?
It's good that our governments finally signed a treaty agaist spread of man-portable SAMs.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Did you hear that Federal forces in Chechnya captured 20+ Stinger missiles?
Please Boroda, we all know the stingers where "copied" and manufactured by OSBL and Zaqrawi in the Afgahnian Mountains.
No way USA would hand that stuff to Terrorists!
-
Originally posted by patrone
Please Boroda, we all know the stingers where "copied" and manufactured by OSBL and Zaqrawi in the Afgahnian Mountains.
No way USA would hand that stuff to Terrorists!
pfft, it's pretty much common knowledge now that the US gave stinger missiles to the Afghans who were fighting the Soviets.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
pfft, it's pretty much common knowledge now that the US gave stinger missiles to the Afghans who were fighting the Soviets.
What, you USA guys actully where supporting Osma and his gang? Handing out missiles to terrorists, thats seriuos stuff, really. Kinda backfired on ya, did´nt it?
Justice in the simpliest way............
-
Originally posted by patrone
Justice in the simpliest way............
amen
-
Originally posted by patrone
What, you USA guys actully where supporting Osma and his gang? Handing out missiles to terrorists, thats seriuos stuff, really. Kinda backfired on ya, did´nt it?
Justice in the simpliest way............
Kinda like the way we supported Stalin in the Great Patriotic War.
Seemed like a good idea at the time.
-
i think that the world wants more from us. wants us to be what we promised.
Dead on. At least I personally was a bit disappointed on all of this. I believed in the American values and righteousness.
That belief is, unfortunately, shattering slowly.
I've grown up with western, American, values of life. My country fought a bitter war against the communist giant, Soviet Union. USA represented and for the most part, still represents most of the things that are admireable and desireable in life. Nothing disappoints me more than to see the people whom I respected and looked up to, call my country trash in a vile generalisation.
I'm constantly reminding myself that this is a UBB and there'll always be narrow minded, rude and even mentally insane people posting. No-one of my American friends ever express the hate I see in the posts here.
What Americans should realize IMO is that we Europeans are your friends. We share a past history together, essentially we're same blood.
Now friends can disagree, even bicker and fight sometimes, but where is the hate coming from? My guess is that the loud minority is staining the reputation of the silent majority. It must be so, or my whole perception of your country and way of life has been utterly wrong. // Edit: Same goes the other way around, naturally.
-
How does one shatter something slowly?
-
Like when you step on thin ice kind of shatter? :p
You know, when you walk and you feel it getting soft on you and finally hear that hissing crack.. Just before you get your underwear wet with cold water and an embarrassing walk home.
Sometimes, if you walk really gently, you can still make it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Kinda like the way we supported Stalin in the Great Patriotic War.
Seemed like a good idea at the time.
aaaha a.. so you basicaly said that supporting Stalin was a good idea ?
-
Originally posted by lada
aaaha a.. so you basicaly said that supporting Stalin was a good idea ?
What... you want that we should have supported Hitler?
-
Historically you shouldn't have supported either one. Both were insane mass murderers of a global scale who make Saddam look like a choireboy.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
What... you want that we should have supported Hitler?
You supported someone who was probably worster.
Thats funny how americans still try to "hire"someone for dirty job. no matter what, his puppy always turn agains them.
Us supported Stalin... Later stalin showed them a hell.
Us supported SH.. later SH showed them finger.
US supported Taliban and Al quaida and so on...
But basicaly you still belive that there is nothing wrong about that and there is no blood on your hands....
oh well.
-
didn't the entire world of allies "support" stalin? Your choices were Hitler or stalin or be a bank for the world and make a fortune by not taking a stand and hoping the good guys won.... but not too soon.,,
lazs
-
I think on that day and age information didn't flow quite as freely as it does today.
Therefore most of the world was happily unaware of the attrocitioes committed by both parties as far as internal affairs were the case.
Today many people confuse what they read from the history books to what people actually knew those days. They were making history, living it, not examining the facts in one package.
For sure not even all Germans knew exactly what was going on behind the gates, even though separation was naturally obvious to anyone. However they didn't have internet, tv or quite often even a radioset for information. Secluded places were just that, secluded. Heck there are still villages in Russia with no electricity or running water. Many of them.
The alliances were based on political needs, no questions asked. Would the ally with Stalin had they known how he was? Surely. However I seriously doubt anyone knew, then.
-
You guys are all funny :)
If only I had an internet connection at my desk at work, the day would go by a lot quicker.
-
Iraq will no longer be called Iraq, but will be addressed by it's new name: Pandora's Box.
-
If only I had an internet connection at my desk at work, the day would go by a lot quicker.
Huh? No net?
What's your profession?
-
It’s all really simple.
There are civilized countries in the world. And there are uncivilized ones.
A civilized country is one that has the ability to wipe his enemies off the face of the earth and does not do so. He uses force in limited means and even in ways that can be quite expensive and painful to him in the short term, but that history will judge as limited and prudent. A civilized country tries to spare the civilians of an enemy from harm by not using indiscriminant bombing for example. They learn from their mistakes. Of course they can retaliate in kind if they have to, as a means of discouraging this tactic being used against them.
The USA is civilized. Russia is civilized and even China is. I think Russia and China would have been more uncivilized if they thought that the USA would allow it but they have evolved into good neighbors who may differ in opinion somewhat.
Israel is civilized. Each year they are subjected to heinious atrocities committed against their civilians in the form of bombings and rocket attacks that specifically target innocents. They have been invaded and attacked but they still desire peaceful relations with their neighbors. They do what they have to to survive but even though they have had the means to wipe out any one of their neighbors since the late 60's they have never attempted to, nor overthrow a hostile government. Despite the annual carnage of women, children and innocent males all killed by nail bombs and suicide bombings.
They live in peace with Egypt and have honored their peace treaties with that country.
Basically any country that supports the war against Israel is uncivilized. That includes most of the Middle East. It is easy to say this because their tactics are to kill any Jew regardless of whether they are a soldier or civilian. There is no room for Israelis in their world. There only solution in genocide. They praise the deeds of Hitler and even Osama Bin Laden (but carefully so as not to alienate their European friends).
The people who justify such atrocities are also uncivilized. Including the idiots who post here. There is no justification for the war against Israel. History gives no moral justification for such actions. The Arabs do not have moral right to the lands they lost in war and politics. For if they do then you can go farther and farther back into history and claim that all land is historically owned by those who came before, and the lands of Israel have been governed by a multitude of civilizations thoughout history. If the Arabs have a right to the west bank, then you can claim that all land won in war should be given back to the defeated, as those who won such land have no claim to it. And we know what that would do to the map of the world.
I feel good knowing that no mater how much bile the Euro trash weenies spew in this forum and their leaders spew in the world, they will never have a hope in hell of changing my opinion. Because civilized people recognize uncivilized louts a mile away. And we tend to avoid them. They have always existed and always will. There is nothing glamorous or proud or noble about them. They are uncouth and ignorant. Easily mislead and hard to reason with. And they are wrong.
The war in Iraq was simply a another move in the game to reform, contain or destroy the most uncivilized of the world's governments.
Salute to all my American friends. Keep up the good fight.
-
Ya know what... I think that was very well said habu.
the only friends we have in the middle east are the jews. The rest can't be civilized probly in our lifetime but they can be tamed because it has been probven that they understand force.. Iraq was a good starting point and it all had to be done sometime.
the euro trash anti semites want to throw the jews to the wolves and suck up to the petroleum money in weapons systems and such.... they have a vested interest in keeping the middle east as barbaric as possible.
lazs
-
You're just incredible lazs :lol
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Lets not forget that DudeTheVant is also one of our most notable AH BBS whacky 911 internet conspiracy theory belivers and genera advocates. So I'm not surprised that he also belives in Saddam's word and his good intentions. What a neat character he ism arent you Kappa? :)
Damn straight I am.. I believe in many possibilities.. But I didnt believe SH about anything but the weapons.. Cry as you guys might.. Yall were wrong.. Yall are wrong.. Yall will continue to be wrong as long as you believe he was a threat to the US or our allies in anyway what so ever.. But really nice attempt at a stab there naziboy.. I understand this is prolly your best work.. But I will still give you marginal credit.. lmao
-
Originally posted by straffo
You're just incredible lazs :lol
Of course the companions of uncivilized governments are the corrupt powers who court their favors for petro dollars.
How is Chriac these days? Still staying in power to avoid the corruption charges against him?
-
What charges ?
-
I am suprised tha such a well informed person such as you Straffo would not know about this. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1524775.stm)
-
Wow ,I'm impressed new informations having only 3 years :p
Plus it still don't change the fact that Chirac is not under any charge actually nor he was in the past.
And lastly now that Eric Halphen is "officialy" a socialist* it's pretty easy to see it was just a politcaly "coup" by Halphen.
* in fact it's worst than socialims he is "chevčnementiste"
-
This is probably the most Intelligent post ever vs all others here:
quote Eric Clapton: daddaaaaa daaddddaa dooodddyy doooo,,,,,, ugh_ugh_ugh_ lalalallalalall loooooo--------- dadda ddda dda dooo ugh_ugh_ugh loooooo
thats pretty much it :D
so if anyone come up with more intelligent answers that would fit my head good. :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Wow ,I'm impressed new informations having only 3 years :p
Plus it still don't change the fact that Chirac is not under any charge actually nor he was in the past.
And lastly now that Eric Halphen is "officialy" a socialist* it's pretty easy to see it was just a politcaly "coup" by Halphen.
* in fact it's worst than socialims he is "chevčnementiste"
Did he keep changing judges until he got one that thought he was innocent?
-
Iraq was a terrorist supporting state...
So "was" afgang..now they are not...
there are a few more out there..
Iran-Syria- blah blah..
You linguine spinned liberlas say..why not them ?...well..im sure you are not that dumb to think there isnt always pressure on them..
Funnee..what hap to Libya?..they just said..Ok..come on in..we are cool now?...Ya..Im sure IF we acted like the rest of the panty waist euros..they woudl give up there terror plans also..
The plan is in place..The USA will continue to put pressure on these countries...... We will not sit down and wait for another attck...
The democrats did it..we were attacked on a regular basis..with no response...a cruise missle or 2 doesnt cut it...
Shoudl we do searches on what all you little girls were crying about on the BBs about Afghn?....
-
Originally posted by airguard
so if anyone come up with more intelligent answers that would fit my head good. :)
I am sorry I could not come up with a square answer. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Habu
It’s all really simple.
There are civilized countries in the world. And there are uncivilized ones.
A civilized country is one that has the ability to wipe his enemies off the face of the earth and does not do so. He uses force in limited means and even in ways that can be quite expensive and painful to him in the short term, but that history will judge as limited and prudent. A civilized country tries to spare the civilians of an enemy from harm by not using indiscriminant bombing for example. They learn from their mistakes. Of course they can retaliate in kind if they have to, as a means of discouraging this tactic being used against them.
The USA is civilized. Russia is civilized and even China is. I think Russia and China would have been more uncivilized if they thought that the USA would allow it but they have evolved into good neighbors who may differ in opinion somewhat.
Israel is civilized. They absorb unheard of atrocities committed against their civilians in the form of bombings and rocket attacks specifically targeting innocents. They have been invaded and attacked but still desire peaceful relations with their neighbors. They do what they have to to survive but they have had the means to wipe out any one of their neighbors since the late 60's and have never attempted to overthrows a government. Despite the annual carnage of their women children and innocent males all killed by nail bombs and suicide bombings.
They live in peace with Egypt and have honored their peace treaties with that country.
Basically any country that supports the war against Israel is uncivilized. That includes most of the Middle East. It is easy to say this because their tactics are to kill any Jew regardless of whether they are a soldier or civilian. There is no room for Israelis in their world. There only solution in genocide. They praise the deeds of Hitler and even Osama Bin Laden (but carefully so as not to alienate their European friends).
The people who justify such atrocities are also uncivilized. Including the idiots who post here. There is no justification for the war against Israel. History gives no moral justification for such actions. The Arabs do not have moral right to the lands they lost in war and politics. For if they do then you can go farther and farther back into history and claim that all land is historically owned by those who came before, and the lands of Israel have been governed by a multitude of civilizations thoughout history. If the Arabs have a right to the west bank, then you can claim that all land won in war should be given back to the defeated, as those who won such land have no claim to it. And we know what that would do to the map of world.
And I feel good knowing that no mater how much bile the Euro trash weenies spew in this forum and their leaders spew in the world, they will never have a hope in hell of changing my opinion. Because civilized people recognize uncivilized louts a mile away. And we tend to avoid them. They have always existed and always will. There is nothing glamorous or proud or noble about them. They are uncouth and ignorant. Easily mislead and hard to reason with.
The war in Iraq was simply a another move in the game to reform, contain or destroy the most uncivilized of governments.
Salute to all my American friends. Keep up the good fight.
Civilised? Your country is the biggest warmonger this planet has ever seen since the days of Genghis Khan.
Do me a fu*kin favour.
-
i've figured it out...and i guess i'll share the secret...
NEVER EVER EVER argue about politics,religion,war,or abortion....
There is no end to the arguement it stops when everyone gets
sick of talking about it. If you wanna waste your time go ahead.
This thread will end up being 2,546 pages long...actually that
would be funny so go ahead...
THE megaSTUD :D
-
Originally posted by megadud
i've figured it out...and i guess i'll share the secret...
NEVER EVER EVER argue about politics,religion,war,or abortion....
There is no end to the arguement it stops when everyone gets
sick of talking about it. If you wanna waste your time go ahead.
This thread will end up being 2,546 pages long...actually that
would be funny so go ahead...
THE megaSTUD :D
Nope, you're wrong.
-
Great post Habu.
Crumpp
-
The USA is civilized. Russia is civilized and even China is. I think Russia and China would have been more uncivilized if they thought that the USA would allow it but they have evolved into good neighbors who may differ in opinion somewhat.
A true Gem.
"Thought that USA allowed it"
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Glas
Civilised? Your country is the biggest warmonger this planet has ever seen since the days of Genghis Khan.
Do me a fu*kin favour.
Care to explain how America is the biggest war monger since Ghengis Khan?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Care to explain how America is the biggest war monger since Ghengis Khan?
Can you think of a country that has been in more wars, invaded more countries, overthrown more governments than America in recent history? I'm being serious.. Lets name some .. Perhaps we could compare.. I'm sure I need the education.. Maybe we should define 'recent' and go from there..
-
Can you think of a country that has been in more wars, invaded more countries, overthrown more governments than America in recent history? I'm being serious..
==========
of course you are being serious. How else would you be?
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by patrone
A true Gem.
"Thought that USA allowed it"
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Ahhh another genius and his smilies..................;)
Hint always try to make your quotes accurate at least. :aok :aok
-
Ahhh another genius and his smilies............
Ask Patrone about his "terrorist beheadings being CIA snuff films" theory!
:lol
Crumpp
-
Hanoi Janes in full effect
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Great post Habu.
Crumpp
Much appreciated.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Lets not forget that DudeTheVant is also one of our most notable AH BBS whacky 911 internet conspiracy theory belivers and genera advocates. So I'm not surprised that he also belives in Saddam's word and his good intentions. What a neat character he ism arent you Kappa? :)
Do I undestand it right that according to the Book of GRUN there are two types of people at AH BBS:
"whacky 9-11 internet conspiracy theory belivers"
and whacky 9-11 internet conspiracy theory non-believers ?
:confused: :rofl
Painted black on white.
What about some green for Mr GRUN ? :D :p
-
Originally posted by rpm
Iraq will no longer be called Iraq, but will be addressed by it's new name: Pandora's Box.
A can of worms.
-
Originally posted by genozaur
A can of worms.
I think the daily show presents it's best title.. lol
-
Suppose I'll start it.. Would others post wars from their countries or what I missed?
A short timeline of wars America has been involved with since the War for Independence.. I do not believe this list to be complete though.
American Revolution
Franco-American Naval War
Barbary Wars
War of 1812
Creek War
War of Texas Independence
Mexican War
Civil War
Spanish-American War
World War I
World War II
Korean War
Vietnam War
Bay of Pigs Invasion
Grenada
IranContra
US Invasion of Panama
Persian Gulf War
Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Invasion of Iraq
What have I missed??
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
What have I missed??
Somalia ?
-
You missed a couple, but not really important, the list is long enogh allready. I think you got the point.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Justice in the simpliest way............
Care to elaborate on that Patrone?
-
Perspective is everything - lets look at Frances wars since 1066 thru 1812, that would be 750 odd years of history. Looks like to me they were a bunch of warmongers.
Anglo-French Wars-Wars between England (also known as Great Britain or the United Kingdom), and France.
Norman Invasion of England, (1066) -William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy and a vassal of the French king, conquered the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of England, and made himself King of England. Resulting from this, the English and French royal families would fight many bloody wars trying to settle who was supposed to rule what. William's family acquired lands throughout France and ruled them as Englishmen, which really upset the French kings. This is a pretty watered-down, basic description of this rivalry, but these two nations have fought many, many wars, and William's conquest of England was the starting point for many of the earlier ones.
Anglo-French War, (1109-1113)
Anglo-French War, (1116-1119)
Anglo-French War, (1123-1135)
Anglo-French War, (1159-1189)
Anglo-French War, (1202-1204)
Anglo-French War, (1213-1214)
Anglo-French War, (1242-1243)
Anglo-French War, (1294-1298)
Anglo-French War, (1300-1303)
The Hundred Years' War (1337-1453)-The Hundred Years' War was actually a series of wars between England and France which lasted 116 years. Most historians break this conflict into four distinct wars.
Anglo-French War, (1337-1360)
Anglo-French War, (1369-1373)
Anglo-French War, (1412-1420)
Anglo-French War, (1423-1453)
Anglo-French War, (1475)
Anglo-French War, (1488) -Also known as Henry VII's Invasion of Brittany (a region in NW France).
Anglo-French War, (1489-1492) -Also known as Henry VII's Second Invasion of Brittany.
Anglo-French War, (1510-1513)-Also known as the War of the Holy League, England joined with the Pope, several Italian states, Swiss cantons and Spain against France. King Henry VIII of England won a favorable peace from France after winning the Battle of the Spurs on August 16, 1513. The rest of the Holy League continued fighting France until the Pope Julius II's death, which helped cause the dissolution of the League.
Anglo-French War, (1521-1526)-Henry VIII joined the Hapsburg Empire in a war against France. The war proved unpopular in England and expensive financially, and the King had difficulty raising money from Parliament. After 1523, England did not participate much in the war.
Anglo-French War, (1542-1546)-Henry VIII again joined the Hapsburg Empire in a war against France. The English captured the port of Boulogne and the French had to accept that seizure when the peace treaty was signed. The war cost England two million English pounds.
Anglo-French War, (1549-1550)-French King Henry II declared war with the intention of retaking Boulogne, which fell to him in 1550. This war was preceded by years of border combat short of all-out war.
Anglo-French War, (1557-1560)-England's Queen Mary drew her country into war allied to Spain , whose king was her husband. A very unpopular war with the English people. England lost possession of Calais on the French mainland. When Queen Elizabeth later took the throne, religious and political differences would make England and Spain bitter enemies.
Anglo-French War, (1589-1593)-England was caught up in the great Protestant-Catholic wars sweeping Europe. England sided with Protestant Dutch rebels against Catholic Spain and with the Protestant (Huguenot) French against the Catholic French in the Wars of Religion, a series of French religious civil wars. In 1589, while still fighting Spain after defeating the famous Spanish Armada, Elizabeth sent troops to aid the French Protestants.
Anglo-French War, (1627-1628)-Also known in France as the Third Bearnese Revolt, England came to the aid of Huguenot rebels fighting the French government.
Anglo-French War, (1666-1667)
Anglo-French War, (1689-1697)-Known in Europe as the War of the League of Augsburg AND as the War of the Grand Alliance. In North America the colonial aspect of the conflict was known as King William's War.
Anglo-French War, (1702-1712)-Known in Europe as the War of the Spanish Succession, in North America as Queen Anne's War and in India as the First Carnatic War. This conflict also included the Second Abnaki War. The Abnaki Indian tribe allied itself with the French against the English colonists in North America.
Anglo-French War, (1744-1748)-Known in Europe as the War of the Austrian Succession and in North America as King George's War.
Anglo-French War, (1749-1754)-Known in India as the Second Carnatic War. The British East India Company and its Indian allies battled the French East India Company and its Indian allies.
Anglo-French War, (1755-1763)-Known in Europe as the Seven Years' War and in North America as the French and Indian War. France forever lost possession of Quebec/Canada. In many ways, England's victory set the stage for the American Revolution.
Anglo-French War, (1779-1783)-Also known as the American Revolution. Also involved Spain, the United States and the Netherlands against Britain. Can also be considered as an Anglo-French War, an Anglo-Spanish War and an Anglo-Dutch War.
Wars of the French Revolution, (1792-1802)-The Wars of the French Revolution spanned a decade of great political, social and military change throughout the European continent. After the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789, the conservative, monarchical powers of Europe attempted to extinguish the new French Republic and restore the Bourbon Royal Family. When several nations combined against France, the alliances were known as "Coalitions". Thus, this series of wars are known as the Wars of the Coalitions.
Austro-Prussian Invasion of France, (1792)-In support of the deposed, but still living French King Louis XVI, Austria and Prussia invaded France. French Revolutionary armies defeated the Allies at Valmy and Jemappes and conquered Austrian-ruled Belgium. France also defeated Austrian forces in northern Italy, seizing Savoy and Nice. Can also be considered as a Franco-Austrian War and a Franco-Prussian War.
War of the First Coalition, (1792-1798)-Britain, Austria, Prussia, Spain, Russia, Sardinia and Holland combined to fight Revolutionary France. Can also be considered as a Franco-Austrian War , a Franco-Prussian War, a Franco-Dutch War , a Franco-Russian War, Anglo-French War, and a Franco-Sardinian War. Russia left the Coalition in 1794 to deal with troubles in Poland. French victories forced Holland, also known then as the Batavian Republic, to leave the Coalition in 1795. Prussia and Spain made peace with France in 1795 and Austria signed the Treaty of Campo-Formio in 1798, surrendering the Austrian Netherlands (now Belgium) to France.
This war included the battles of Neerwinden, Mainz, Kaiserlautern (early Allied victories). Later, as the Revolutionary government organized the populace and fielded huge "citizen armies" commanded by brilliant young generals like Napoleon Bonaparte, the French won many battlefield victories.
War of the Second Coalition, (1798-1801)-Britain, Austria, Russia, Portugal, Naples and the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) combined to fight Revolutionary France. Spain later joined France against Portugal. Can also be considered as a Franco-Austrian War , a Franco-Russian War, a Anglo-French War, a Franco-Turkish War, a Franco-Neapolitian War , a Franco-Portuguese War and a Franco-Russian War. This alliance against France formed to counter French moves in Italy; formation of the Roman, Ligurian, Cisalpine and Helvetic Republics in Switzerland and Italy, and the deposition of Papal rule in Rome. Naples was conquered by the French in early 1799 and declared to be the new Parthenopean Republic.
After the Coalition war began, France intervened in an internal revolt in the Swiss Confederation. The Swiss Revolt of 1798, (1798) ended with the Swiss Confederation dissolved and the Helvetic Republic in its place. Throughout the rest of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, the Swiss were effectively under French rule with an army of occupation in place.
Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Turkish Egypt and won the Battle of the Pyramids, continuing his march into what is now Israel and Lebanon. British Admiral Horatio Nelson wiped out the French fleet at the Battle of the Nile in 1798. Due to French victories on land against both Turkish and British troops, the Ottoman Empire made peace with France at the Convention of El-Arish in 1800.
Part of this Coalition war is the so-called War of the Oranges (1801), in which France and Spain invaded Portugal. France sought to end Portugal's trade with Britain, and Spain sought Portuguese territory. In the Peace of Badajoz, Portugal promised to end trade with Britain, give land to Spain, and part of Brazil to France. This "Brazilian" land is the modern-day French Guiana.
This war included the battles of Cassano, Tribbia River and Novi (early Allied victories). Following Russian withdrawal from the war due to quarrels with Austria, the French under First Consul Bonaparte won the Battle of Marengo in 1800. The Coalition collapsed after Austria lost the Battle of Hohenlinden in December, 1800 and signed the Peace of Luneville in February, 1801.
French Revolutionary Wars TO BE COMPLETED AS TIME ALLOWS.
The Napoleonic Wars, (1802-1815) TO BE COMPLETED SOON.
-
looking at the numerous "Anglo-French War" it look like the past century was an error :D
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
What have I missed??
Too many to count ;)
When I have the time (will I ever? :( ) I will post them.
In the meantime, you could try having a look here (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm). 'Killing Hope' is a book by an ex-State Department guy, one of three he has written. Another book of his that is quite good is 'Rogue State'. Much better than that bull**** MM pours out.
Btw, as well as the chapters from 'Killing Hope' that are available to read on the website, have a look at his 'anti-Empire reports'.
And if anyone is planning on criticising him or his work, without looking at the site, please just stfu. His work is completely referenced to sources.
-
Originally posted by guttboy
Care to elaborate on that Patrone?
Ok
"Freedomfighter" gets Stinger from a big country to shoot down another countrys Aeroplanes.
Same "freedomfighter" suddenly shoot down the big countrys aeroplanes and becomes "terrorist"
Justice in the simpliest way............
-
Funny thing,
I can't find any credible news sources that are reviewing that book. In fact, the only site that is recognizable is Amazon selling it.
The rest of the sites are obvious fringe groups such as "Left books"!
http://www.leftbooks.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-bccmil95.html?E+scstore
Personally I think this guy is full of chit. He is trying to zero in on the cash cow liberal fears represent.
Facts are Facts, however the "truth" can easily be manipulated using those facts to present whatever story the teller wishes to come to light.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by patrone
Same "freedomfighter" suddenly shoot down the big countrys aeroplanes and becomes "terrorist"
If I could just correct you a little;
'Same "freedomfighter" becomes "terrorist", so shoot's down the big countrys aeroplanes'
;)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Facts are Facts, however the "truth" can easily be manipulated using those facts to present whatever story the teller wishes to come to light.
Yeah:
Please tell us the story about the Jews and the Finns again...........
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Can you think of a country that has been in more wars, invaded more countries, overthrown more governments than America in recent history? I'm being serious.. Lets name some .. Perhaps we could compare.. I'm sure I need the education.. Maybe we should define 'recent' and go from there..
You have to be a young person to be this stupid
-
Yeah:
Please tell us the story about the Jews and the Finns again...........
Sure. Finland was an Axis Nation that fully supported the Nazi's. Right down to having their own SS Units serving the German Army.
To keep their own hands from being bloody during the war they deported over 2000 jews to other countries to be killed in concentration camps or left to their fate. Either way they were kicked out of Finland and certainly not protected.
This way they could both appease their Nazi Masters and their conscience at the same time. I mean they were not actually gassing or shooting these people.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
To keep their own hands from being bloody during the war they deported over 2000 jews to other countries to be killed in concentration camps or left to their fate. Either way they were kicked out of Finland and certainly not protected.
Crumpp
And Simon Weisental Center gave these guys honourble mention?
Good that we have people like you to tell us the real truth,
c rumpp
-
Good that we have people like you to tell us the real truth,
Was thinking the same about you, Patrone.
And Simon Weisental Center gave these guys honourble mention?
Lets not twist what the center says. It simply states Finland deported it's Jews and refused to ENFORCE the anti jewish laws.
Now it does mention such countries as Denmark, who managed to save 80 percent of their jewish population.
There were 2,000 Jews in Finland between the two world wars. During World War II, the Finns fought the Russians, alongside the Germans. Despite strong German pressure, the Finns refused to enforce anti-Jewish legislation. Jewish refugees were deported from Finland.
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/pages/t021/t02179.html
Lets compare Finnish appeasement with a truly heroic country that deserves the accollades you wish Finland to steal.
DENMARK: Country in northwestern Europe. Jews first settled there in 1622. The Danish people and government protected the Jews during WWII. On October, 1943, 7,200 Jews were saved by being sent by boats to Sweden. About 120 perished because of Nazi persecution (less than 2). In 1968, there were 6-7,000 Jews there
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/pages/t017/t01759.html
The Danes bravely saved their Jewish population.
However race was a major issue to the Finns and they were intent on pleasing their Nazi Masters.
Race issues were sources of particular concern: the Finns were not viewed favorably by the Nazi race theorists. By active participation on Germany's side, Finnish leaders hoped for a more independent position in post-war Europe, through the removal of the Soviet threat and the incorporation of the akin Finnic peoples of neighbouring Soviet areas. This view gained increasing popularity in the Finnish leadership, and also in the press, during the spring 1941.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War#Diplomatic_Activities
The Finns were seeking territory to estabilish their own version of the Reich.
Specifically for the Continuation War, Finland aimed at reversing her territorial losses under the March 1940 Moscow Peace Treaty and by extending the territory further east, to guarantee the survival of the Finnic brethren in East-Karelia — thus in effect aiming at creating a Greater Finland, as advocated by vociferous right-wing groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War
Here is an informative link to the GERMAN Army's Finnish SS Service. These guys even managed to get personal accollades from Adolf Hitler himself.
http://www.feldgrau.com/finland.html
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
To keep their own hands from being bloody during the war they deported over 2000 jews to other countries to be killed in concentration camps or left to their fate. Either way they were kicked out of Finland and certainly not protected.
Source ?
-
Hi, YGSMILO,
Check again those "Allied" victories.
They were won under the command of Russian field marshal (future generalissimo) Suvorov who led the Russian and the Austrian Allied troops.
If you mention this campaign, it's a mistake not to give credit to the greatest military leader of all times.
Please do not imitate the recently published "Atlas of the World War II"(manufactured in GB, published in US) from which everybody can now learn that the battle of Berlin at the end of the WWII was won by the "Allies".
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Sure. Finland was an Axis Nation that fully supported the Nazi's. Right down to having their own SS Units serving the German Army.
To keep their own hands from being bloody during the war they deported over 2000 jews to other countries to be killed in concentration camps or left to their fate. Either way they were kicked out of Finland and certainly not protected.
This way they could both appease their Nazi Masters and their conscience at the same time. I mean they were not actually gassing or shooting these people.
Crumpp
How can someone be that blind... LOL :rofl
-
http://www.finemb.org.il/Historia.htm
-
Crump; how about a quote from the site of Jewish community of FInland ?
The Second World War and Finnish Jewry
During the Finnish-Russian War of 1939-40 (the Winter War), Finnish Jews fought alongside their non-Jewish fellow countrymen. During the Finnish-Russian War of 1941-44, in which Finnish Jews also took part, Finland and Nazi-Germany were co-belligerents. Despite strong German pressure, the Finnish Government refused to take action against Finnish nationals of Jewish origin who thus continued to enjoy full civil rights throughout the War. There are many interesting anecdotes from this period, concerning, among others, the presence of a Jewish prayer tent on the Russian front virtually under the Nazi's noses and the food help given to Russian-Jewish POWs by the Jewish communities of Finland.
The Postwar Era
After the end of the War, the integration of Jewish population of Finland into Finnish society was completed. The War of Independence for the State of Israel brought to the new State Finnish-Jewish volunteers as well as weapons donations by the State of Finland. These Finnish volunteers represented the highest per-capita participation of any Diaspora Jewish Community. The following years saw a fairly high rate of aliyah. Today, Finnish Jewry numbers some 1500, of whom about 1200 live in Helsinki, about 200 in Turku, and about 50 in Tampere. There are organised Jewish communities in Helsinki and Turku with their own synagogues, both Ashkenazi-Orthodox, built respectively in 1906 and 1912. The Jewish community of Tampere discontinued its activities in 1981. The communities are members of the Central Council of Jewish Communities in Finland, a consultative body dealing with matters of general interest concerning Jews in Finland. This body is in its turn a member of the European Council of Jewish Community Services and of the World Jewish Congress Connections with communities in the other Nordic (Scandinavian) countries are also maintained.
Today, most of the Finnish Jews are corporate employees or self-employed professionals. Some are civil servants. Among Jews who have occupied important positions, Max Jakobson, former Finnish Ambassador to the United Nations, should be mentioned. In the music-world, the late Dr. Simon Parmet definitely won his place as a composer and conductor. Worth mentioning also is the late painter Sam Vanni, a member of the Finnish Academy and of the European Academy of Science, Art and Literature. Rafael Wardi, another scion of the community, is also a very well-known painter. In 1979, Ben Zyskowicz became the first Finnish Jew to be elected member of Parliament, where he continues to serve today.
I hope you finally stop spreading lies; You're looking quite stupid right now.
-
Forgot link: http://www.jchelsinki.fi/
-
Gee Staga,
My Source is the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Your is a nice hometown college.
by Tapani Harviainen, Professor of Semitic Languages, University of Helsinki
Of course even your source admits:
Nevertheless, the State Police in Finland had agreed with the leaders of the Gestapo that Finland was allowed to deport the undesirable refugees to the areas occupied by the Germans.
And even list's an example of Finlands brave "deportation":
However, on the 6th of October 1942, the State Police had already had five Jewish men and three (or four?) members of their families deported to the Gestapo in occupied Estonia. Officially, the men were claimed to be guilty of espionage and other criminal activities; four of them had minor offences in police records. Nineteen other persons, most of them citizens of the Soviet Union, were deported on board the same boat. The Gestapo transported the Jews to Birkenau concentration camp. Only one of these people (Georg Kollman, a former citizen of Austria) survived; after the war he immigrated to Israel.
Finland was just appeasing their Nazi Masters is all.....
Or Finland was hoping to grab up some the territory surrounding them as benefits of being such a good Nazi in the Thousand Year Reich.
Crumpp
-
Ok you found an example with 9 jew being deported ,where are the other 1991 ?
The example you posted is the only one I'm aware off ... I can be uninformed but if it was 2000 people Information would be more easy to find I think.
-
No Straffo,
That is an example of ONE deportation. Only 9 jews were nabbed up in this ONE deportation. Finland conducted many deportations of Jews. It was their policy.
Unlike Denmark whose policy was to save the Jews.
Just look at the facts. Check out the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp; You are in your own class :)
-
btw Crumpp; may I suggest you check where that "hometown college" link leads (drop historia from the link like this: http://www.finemb.org.il ).
Then you should tell Israeli goverment what kind of propaganda is Finnish embassy spreading in Tel Aviv... :rofl
There's also phone number and address; be a good boy and call him and ask what happened to Finnish jews in WW2:
Dan Kantor / Executive Secretary
Jewish Community of Helsinki
Tel. +358-9-586 03121
Another link (I know Crumpp won't believe any of that but let's try...):
http://veritas3.holocaust-history.org/questions/finland.shtml
-
Staga,
Is anyone surprised that the Finnish Embassy in ISRAEL is painting a rosy picture of Finlands involvement in the Holocaust?
Of course the Finns are going to put the best possible spin on their servitude and desire to please the Nazi's!.
Crumpp
-
Well at least I'm surprised how fool can one be :)
-
Well at least I'm surprised how fool can one be
:confused: :confused:
When the story is about the United States, Euro's can use the facts and twist the story so it becomes a lie.
How come you don't like it when it's done to your country??
Crumpp
-
investigate the deportation to Nazi Germany during World War II of approximately 3,000 foreigners, among them numerous Soviet Jewish prisoners of war and political officers of the Red Army.
According to Wiesenthal, the deportation was of 3000 _foreigners_ who were most likely spies or war prisoners. Gee whizz a couple of them happened to be Jew.
It's pretty far from systematically destroying Jews from the country like you like to envision it.
On a related story, the wartime opponent of the time still denies the whole holocaust. If you want to point fingers about warcrimes and such, point here:
April 19, 2002
SWC CALLS ON KREMLIN TO ACT AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL
Pravda, in its 9 April (the international memorial day for victims of the Holocaust) edition, published an article entitled "The State of Israel Was Founded on the Holocaust Myth."
Its author, Sergei Stefanov, stated, "there was no killing of Jews in gas chambers of the Nazi camps, since there were no chambers there." He adds, "There were some 150,000 Jews who died in Auschwitz and no one was killed with gas there. The major reason for such a huge death rate was typhus epidemics."
In a letter to Kremlin Counsellor, Sergei Yastrezhemske, the Wiesenthal Centers Director for International Liaison, Dr. Shimon Samuels, protested that "this language not only calumnies Jews, but also offends the memory of 20 million Soviet victims of Nazism, the suffering of Russian prisoners-of-war and the testimony of Red Army liberators of Auschwitz."
Samuels noted that Stefanov's main purpose was to delegitimize the State of Israel, by arguing that "it appeared on the basis of the Holocaust myth." He added that "the contrary is true: Had there been a Jewish State to welcome the fugitives of Nazism while the world closed its doors to the Jews, there would have been no Holocaust."
The Center urged the Kremlin "to condemn Holocaust denial and to take the necessary legal and moral measures to end Pravda's endorsement of antisemitism."
-
Originally posted by Rude
You have to be a young person to be this stupid
Wow Rude.. How brave of you to take the time to write out such an idea like this.. I mean, this chain of words must represent what, 2 hours of contemplation on your part?? Did you need to reference any sorces? So bold of you guy. I'm certain your enlightenment leaves all in awe.
Why dont you attempt to say something rather than appear like a pansy..
How am I suppose to respond to this? O, I have it now..
You have to be a really old, decrepate, slow minded, sexless, pot bellied, lethargic simplton to produce such a statement.
Really rude.. I'm not making a list of wars to judge if they might be right or wrong. Its a simple list. Perhaps you should attempt your own. You might learn something new.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
This way they could both appease their Nazi Masters and their conscience at the same time. I mean they were not actually gassing or shooting these people.
Well, Finland set up concentration camps for non-Finnish/Saam population in occupied Karelia, and the death rate there was worse then in German concentration camps... Not gassing or shooting, simply starving them to death.
Each time I remind people about this some Finns tell me it's not true because they didn't learn it in school :(
Some of the Finnish occupational policies were almost nazist, like local Saam population wearing "Kindred nationality" strips on their sleeves, meaning that they do have some rights, unlike Russians/Ukrainians/Jews etc.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
On a related story, the wartime opponent of the time still denies the whole holocaust. If you want to point fingers about warcrimes and such, point here:
"Pravda" now is a marginal nationalistic leaflet, I don't know if they belong to Communist Party now, they were sold 3 or 4 times, belonged to some Greek millionaire, then there were two or three "Pravdas", maybe even now there is more then one.
Modern Communist Party of Russian Federation is far from "proletarian internationalism", but I doubt that they'll let their official newspaper print such crap. The official position of Russian Federation can be only what dr. Samuels advises. There are stupids in every country, and in this case you have nothing to accuse Russia of.
-
Boroda.
In the clash between Finns and Soviet, who again occupied territory from who?
-
Originally posted by patrone
Boroda.
In the clash between Finns and Soviet, who again occupied territory from who?
In 1939 USSR took back the land that was a present to Great Principate of Finland (inside Russian Empire) and then became a part of independant Finland. It was done to secure Leningrad, and proved to be vital in 1941. Before the war USSR made all possible efforts to make a bargain with Finland, offering it 4 times more land in Karelia, Finland refused and later occupied this (offered) lands in 1941.
In 1941 Finns invaded USSR, took back Karelian isthmus and stopped there, unable to break the defence line on the pre-1939 border. At the same time they invaded Karelia and occupied it's large part, including Petrozavodsk, and started genocide against non-Finnish/Saam population there.
You can use other words to describe this events, as I usually do, but now I feel like telling it this way.
No offences please. My deep respect to Finnish people. They showed real bravery and heroism fighting an irresistible force.
-
As you tell this story, or history/event, Soviet never invaded or tried to occupy parts of Finnish territory. Or you are just not mentioning it, because it is not revelant?
I see no difference by the way you look at history, then for ex. ccrump, cobra412. With other words: Totally brainwashed.
A pity, cause you actully seemed bright in some inputs.
-
As you tell this story, or history/event, Soviet never invaded or tried to occupy parts of Finnish territory. Or you are just not mentioning it, because it is not revelant?
Isnt that what his entire first paragraph is about?? Or am I not reading your question correctly??
-
Boroda just tries to justify the attack by saying 'We tried to be nice and offer you the chance to become another Soviet province by force'
And then: 'Took back land which used to be part of russia, and sweden, and russia and which was presented finally to finns by the tsar (before the communist overthrew him.)' Therefore there was apt justification for marching on the borders carrying full parade paraphinelia with drums, horns and banners ready to celebrate the victory.
I guess they really wanted to secure Leningrad, I mean, REALLY well by invading the whole country.
Little did they know what they faced up with.
-
well, its nice to see weve stayed on topic here...
funnelcakes anyone?
-
Originally posted by patrone
As you tell this story, or history/event, Soviet never invaded or tried to occupy parts of Finnish territory. Or you are just not mentioning it, because it is not revelant?
Did I say USSR didn't start an aggressive war against Finland? It did. I only tried to show you a view different from what you usually get in the West, and I tried to explain it ;)
Originally posted by patrone
I see no difference by the way you look at history, then for ex. ccrump, cobra412. With other words: Totally brainwashed.
A pity, cause you actully seemed bright in some inputs.
For last 15-20 years Soviet people are brainwashed in opposite direction. IIRC "western" POV is now even in school history textbooks.
We have all sorts of propaganda that is 100% anti-Soviet, and I don't like it at all. Victor Suvorov as a "well-known historian", with his hallucinations about Hitler making a pre-emptive strike on June 22nd 1941! The books by real historical scientists are printed in minimal quantities, and read only by thinking people, while majority buys a cheap Suvorov's paperbacks and says - "Look! We were so bloody stupid and evil!", and I hate it.
From two points of view - Soviet and Western - on one event I choose Soviet, if it doesn't contradict with common sence.
Apart from propaganda issues or "popular history - WWII in 12 pages" many Western historians with an unbiased view admit that Soviet pre-war policy was probably most pragmatic, honest and reasonable among all interested sides. We have all kinds of literature here, and I can read all kinds of books on WWII in Russian, and I really have a chance to compare. BTW, even in Soviet times we had tons of Western literature on WWII translated and printed here, and some of the books were almost anti-Soviet, or at least making you doubt, they usually had politically-correct prefaces and comments.
-
see... you euros can never get along. Probly have another war in a few years and we will end up getting involved.... probly have something to do with kings or who owns some tiny little nothing of a country..
lazs
-
.ahhh funny euros...
"There always there when they need us"
4 more years of spreading Freedom
-
Originally posted by lazs2
see... you euros can never get along. Probly have another war in a few years and we will end up getting involved.... probly have something to do with kings or who owns some tiny little nothing of a country..
lazs
BTW, Crimea was given by Khrushchev (the USSR leader with deep Ukrainian roots) to Ukraine as a present in commemoration of 300 years of Russo-Ukrainian commonwealth. This "present" was given without the proper legal procedure.
What would the opinion of the Finland-lovers be if Russia demands Crimea back ?
There is no doubt for me that, bearing in mind the recent success of the "democracy" in the Ukraine (pro-American\pro-Western presidential candidate grabbed the win in the rerun of the elections), the Finland-lovers have one choice.
:D :rolleyes: :D
-
Originally posted by genozaur
BTW, Crimea was given by Khrushchev (the USSR leader with deep Ukrainian roots) to Ukraine as a present in commemoration of 300 years of Russo-Ukrainian commonwealth. This "present" was given without the proper legal procedure.
What would the opinion of the Finland-lovers be if Russia demands Crimea back ?
There is no doubt for me that, bearing in mind the recent success of the "democracy" in the Ukraine (pro-American\pro-Western presidential candidate grabbed the win in the rerun of the elections), the Finland-lovers have one choice.
:D :rolleyes: :D
Why don´t you just grab the whole of Ukraine, while you are at it? It seems to me that most of its population would´nt mind.
But if I recall correctly, they still have some Nukes laying around.
Might be tricky, after all.
I tell you what: Why don´t send a couple of divisons in, to see what happends? But, make sure you are the first one crossing the border.......hahahahahahaha
-
Looks like Crumpp and Boroda are reading same history books.... :D
-
Originally posted by Staga
Looks like Crumpp and Boroda are reading same history books.... :D
As I told you before - my information about Finnish concentration camps in Karelia is from translated books written by Finnish authors. I only can't spell Finnish names i read in Cyrillic back in Latin :( so I made some attempts to give you author's names, but failed :(
In Soviet times I never ever heard about this things, as well as about Finnish occupation of Karelia. Our nations were freiends, and it was "improper" to tell bad things about friends like Finland or Poland.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Why don´t you just grab the whole of Ukraine, while you are at it? It seems to me that most of its population would´nt mind.
But if I recall correctly, they still have some Nukes laying around.
Might be tricky, after all.
I tell you what: Why don´t send a couple of divisons in, to see what happends? But, make sure you are the first one crossing the border.......hahahahahahaha
Half of Ukrainian population will welcome Russians back. Including Crimea.
I doubt that there will be any military conflict between Russia and Ukraine. It's absolutely impossible, just like between Canada and US.
As for me - Ukrainians do quite well now, they have a more "sane" country then we do.
About nukes: Ukraine refused from having nukes in 1992-93 and gave them back to Russia. In 1992 some looneys in Kremlin seriously discussed a nuclear hits exchange with Ukraine (!!!). Pure insanity...
-
Looks like Crumpp and Boroda are reading same history books....
Guess it's time to release the catch.
You completely missed my point Straga. The facts are plainly out there. All I did was lead you to the "truth". A different "truth" from what you believe and from what believe as well.
Nevertheless the facts support both versions.
My point is there are some on this board who freely manipulate the "facts" to support an erroneous truth about the United States on a regular basis. If you set the rules be ready to play by them.
Crumpp
-
Boroda; did you know that my family is from Carelian isthmut and basically if your claims would be true my ancestors would have been in those "concentration camps" you're talking about?
Fact is we have/had couple revisionists, just like Irving, in Finland too and because we're democracy where people have a right to express their thoughts, even if they're far from the truth, by writing a books... well what can you do. It's up to you if you want to believe that fiction.
Anyways none of my family died in concentration camps but were evacuated to the central Finland and got land to live from government.
-
btw Boroda; What happened in Katyn ?
-
Originally posted by Staga
Boroda; did you know that my family is from Carelian isthmut and basically if your claims would be true my ancestors would have been in those "concentration camps" you're talking about?
Do you understand the difference between Kareila and Karelian isthmus?
Only in Petrozavodsk there were 5 concentration camps, arranged by Finnish occupants, where almost all non-Finnish/Saam population was held, getting almost no food and forced to work. It's a fact. Facts are stubborn things.
This concetration camps were for Soviet citizens, not Finnish. I guess your family was from Finland, not USSR?
Originally posted by Staga
Fact is we have/had couple revisionists, just like Irving, in Finland too and because we're democracy where people have a right to express their thoughts, even if they're far from the truth, by writing a books... well what can you do. It's up to you if you want to believe that fiction.
If you want real revisionists - look here: http://www.prokarelia.net/en/
Funny that people pointing at your country's military crimes are called "revisionists". I hope that people responsible for this crimes were under court-martial and got appropriate punishment.
Originally posted by Staga
Anyways none of my family died in concentration camps but were evacuated to the central Finland and got land to live from government.
I'm glad to read this.
I respect Finnish people, I admire their heroism and devotion to their history, I was really impressed when I was on tour with Grendel, Camo and other Iebreakers last summer, how carefully they study all the details of the War. I had the honour to put flowers to the graves of Finnish warriors... But you guys were no angels, like all WWII participants.
-
Originally posted by Staga
btw Boroda; What happened in Katyn ?
Again the money for the fish. :rolleyes:
The difference between me and "ideal citizen of civilized country" is that he has Faith and I have doubts.
-
I can't stop wondering where did they brought those "Saams" to those concentration camps of yours... As you may know they are living in Lappland and I find it strange if they were brought from there to the Carelian... Maybe you could show us some proofs to back up your claims ?
Anyways I'd like to see some proofs about those concentration camps you're talking about; I'm sure if they did exist there was military courts after the war where the persons responsible for those camps were condemned.
After all our Presidents were jailed just like some army officers so I can't see any reason why officers responsible for camps couldn't to be convicted?
Boroda your stories have quite a many holes you have to fill...
Enjoy Your weekend, sladkix snov, Poka!
-
Originally posted by Staga
I can't stop wondering where did they brought those "Saams" to those concentration camps of yours... As you may know they are living in Lappland and I find it strange if they were brought from there to the Carelian... Maybe you could show us some proofs to back up your claims ?
I said - the camps for NON-Finnish/Saam population. Saams were considered a friendly/family nationality with similar language. Concentration camps were for Russians/Ukrainians/Jews/Tatars etc.
JFYI, in Karelia (Onego lake area) they have all railway stations names in Russian/Cyrillic and Saam/Latin.
Originally posted by Staga
Anyways I'd like to see some proofs about those concentration camps you're talking about; I'm sure if they did exist there was military courts after the war where the persons responsible for those camps were condemned.
After all our Presidents were jailed just like some army officers so I can't see any reason why officers responsible for camps couldn't to be convicted?
Boroda your stories have quite a many holes you have to fill...
Well, the book named "Finland as an occupant" by Finnish author. Then - you can visit museum of regional history in Petrozavodsk - you'll see enough proof. Again: in Petrozavodsk alone there were five camps. All Soviet population except ethnic Finns and Saams was held there.
Originally posted by Staga
Enjoy Your weekend, sladkix snov, Poka!
I am not going to sleep yet ;) Still have some things to do at work. You know, I am a person who doesn't have weekends :)
BTW, did you see the "Kukushka" film?
-
There are two different versions of history:
The one you will find in the russian museums and historybooks..
- And the one you'll find from the museums and history books of the remaining planet.
You do the math. Boroda still doesn't realize that.
-
FU.
I don't need any stinking "history" that doesn't count my compatriots starved by occupants. Everyone knows about Holocaust, and at the same time hundreeds of thousands of Soviet citizens starved by Finns are simply out of politically-correct version where USSR is an "evil empire".
Read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp#Finland) and STFU, moron.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
...and at the same time hundreeds of thousands of Soviet citizens starved by Finns...
Wow. Once again I did learn something new :)
-
the soviets under stalin had thier own private holocaust.
If one combines all these sources, then the figure that emerges of prisoners who were repressed for political reasons reaches approximately 4 million during the Stalin period. Those actually shot number between 700,000 and 800,000. Of course, these are staggering figures by any standards, and never in world history have such high numbers of people been repressed for political reasons. Of those figures more than half fall within a two year period: 1937-8. As far as those who were shot, the number executed during that two year period was six times greater than the victims of all the remaining years of Soviet history.
source (http://www.wsws.org/public_html/prioriss/iwb5-6/terror.htm)
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
There are two different versions of history:
The one you will find in the russian museums and historybooks..
- And the one you'll find from the museums and history books of the remaining planet.
You do the math. Boroda still doesn't realize that.
Sure, a bigger pile of crap is more visible. :D
-
just normal euro barbarian stuff.
lazs
-
At leat we haven't nuked any country or keeping people imprisoned for years without court hearing like some babana-republic USA.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
just normal euro barbarian stuff.
lazs
well, i suppose we were all sort of europeanish when we slaughtered the indians...and when we sold arms to iran.
yes, definately.
:aok
one little two little three little indians....
-
Originally posted by JB88
well, i suppose we were all sort of europeanish when we slaughtered the indians...and when we sold arms to iran.
yes, definately.
:aok
one little two little three little indians....
Who slaughtered the Indians?
-
Originally posted by JB88
:aok
one little two little three little indians....
four little five little six little vietnamese.....
-
Originally posted by patrone
four little five little six little vietnamese.....
four little, five little, six little Nazi bank accounts, sitting out the war making money.
-
americans did.
expansionst genocide.
and before you say, "well, i certainly didnt"
niether have most living europeans.
except for some baltic folks, but we have smart bombs for our barbarism then dont we.
one little two little three little arabs....
-
Originally posted by JB88
americans did.
expansionst genocide.
You are not correct. no genocide.
America legaly obtained our land from England, Spain, France and Mexico. We didn't steal anyone's land.
The Indians and Americans had a war, the Indians lost the war. Pretty much the story. We did not slaughter the Indians......anymore than the Indians slaughtered each other and Eurpeans before us.
JB88, how old are you?
-
we have smart bombs for our barbarism then dont we.
one little two little three little arabs....
Osama would be very proud of you. Your just what they are looking for, Ju88!
Lets check out these "insurgents" who just want to free Iraq from "occupying" coalition!
"We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it," the speaker says.
It attacked democracy as a springboard for "un-Islamic" practices, claiming that its emphasis on majority rule violated the principle that all laws must come from a divine source.
"Candidates in elections are seeking to become demi-gods, while those who vote for them are infidels," it said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4199363.stm
Crumpp
-
al-Zarqawi?
You mean that 1 leged ghost with like 25 million dollars on his head, the guy that actully took out 2 cruise missils with his bare hands?
Get real, he is stone dead since long time back. But still useful to the USA the same way as "Osma"......."UHHH, the boogeyman,,,,UHHHH, he will get ya....Uhhhh...his under your bed,,,uhhhhhh"
-
Originally posted by straffo
False, an american hater don't need to focus on Iraq to have munitions against USA.
Your judicial system give a tons of examples each year and if you want more go to some left wings sites.
Iraq it just the current screw up of the administration nothing more.
Ahhhh....Frenchy don't like our legal system...toooo bad.
Come to think of it the Brits have an election coming up...let's all make sure they vote for the right guy...they won't vote for a women after Thatcher (Balls where to Big) "don't go wobbly on me George". If they don't elect who we want We can accuse them of being a couple bricks short of a load.
-
Originally posted by patrone
al-Zarqawi?
Get real, he is stone dead since long time back. But still useful to the USA the same way as "Osma"......."UHHH, the boogeyman,,,,UHHHH, he will get ya....Uhhhh...his under your bed,,,uhhhhhh"
You claim to have knowledge that he is dead? Just because it fits what you believe to be a conspracy in your pin-head little brain? Give us the proof.
And what purpose does the US have in saying Zarqawi is alive when he may be dead?
I have heard that the Iraqis may have him in custody. Guess we will see, huh? Meanwhile, your country sits on it's hands and does nothing.
And what has your piss ant country ever done for anyone? You like to take shots at the US, you miserable, bitter POS.
This BB is the only place you can vent your BS towards America....isn't that sad for you.
I wish Suzzy would get rid or your sorry bellybutton for good.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You claim to have knowledge that he is dead? Just because it fits what you believe to be a conspracy in your pin-head little brain? Give us the proof.
And what purpose does the US have in saying Zarqawi is alive when he may be dead?
I have heard that the Iraqis may have him in custody. Guess we will see, huh? Meanwhile, your country sits on it's hands and does nothing.
And what has your piss ant country ever done for anyone? You like to take shots at the US, you miserable, bitter POS.
This BB is the only place you can vent your BS towards America....isn't that sad for you.
I wish Suzzy would get rid or your sorry bellybutton for good.
Translation: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!(http://www.nedva.ru/b/crybaby.jpg)
-
RPM, that's about the level of discussion one has come to expect from you.
-
Thank you Rmp, I put people on ignore that I dont want to read posts from, one of theese are NUKE, ..
I guess, if you did the same, NUKE, you would´nt have a problem.
And I am full aware of what kind of tactics that you use to get rid of people that does not agree with you totally on this BBS, NUKE, but, maybe one of theese days it might just backfire on you.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
RPM, that's about the level of discussion one has come to expect from you.
Back at ya! :)
-
Originally posted by patrone
Thank you Rmp, I put people on ignore that I dont want to read posts from, one of theese are NUKE, ..
I guess, if you did the same, NUKE, you would´nt have a problem.
And I am full aware of what kind of tactics that you use to get rid of people that does not agree with you totally on this BBS, NUKE, but, maybe one of theese days it might just backfire on you.
Yeah, hugs and kisses to RMP.
And again, Patrone tries to play the victim on the BBS. What a pea brain. RPM and patrone love afair.
I don't put anyone on ignore and never have. I guess I'm a bit more open minded than you.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I guess I'm a bit more open minded than you.
(http://gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/09042004/landofmakebelieve.jpg)
-
rpm, for awhile you seemed to be reasonable. Now you seem like a kid again.
rpm, people like patrone are looking up to you. Guess you've really been excepted now...by the people like patrone who love to hate.
And I find telling.
I go out of my way not to bash any other country. patrone and sa few others consistantly bash the US, and those are the poeple that you admire.
-
Aaaw c'mon Nuke. You are about as open-minded as this guy:
(http://www.repubblica.it/2003/a/sezioni/cronaca/pitbull/pordenone/ap_4058271_160834.jpg)
-
rpm , I'm just about through with you and your nonsense.
I am very open minded, I don't bash people or their countries.
People like you, who make personal jabs at people instead of debating anything are the ingnorant ones.
And you actually think you are being clever with your pics?
If you have something to say to me, why not just come out and say it? Argue a point relative to the thread. Anything but somethiong attacking and personal.
Is that so hard?
The only people I ever have a problem with are the people, like patrone, who constantly bash the US, my country. I do not do that to others , but I will defend my country when these buckets of chum come calling.
-
Originally posted by patrone
al-Zarqawi?
You mean that 1 leged ghost with like 25 million dollars on his head, the guy that actully took out 2 cruise missils with his bare hands?
Get real, he is stone dead since long time back. But still useful to the USA the same way as "Osma"......."UHHH, the boogeyman,,,,UHHHH, he will get ya....Uhhhh...his under your bed,,,uhhhhhh"
heh Al-Zarqawi just released another tape.....guess he must have done that from beyond the grave eh? ;)
-
Originally posted by Staga
I can't stop wondering where did they brought those "Saams" to those concentration camps of yours... As you may know they are living in Lappland and I find it strange if they were brought from there to the Carelian... Maybe you could show us some proofs to back up your claims ?
Anyways I'd like to see some proofs about those concentration camps you're talking about; I'm sure if they did exist there was military courts after the war where the persons responsible for those camps were condemned.
After all our Presidents were jailed just like some army officers so I can't see any reason why officers responsible for camps couldn't to be convicted?
Boroda your stories have quite a many holes you have to fill...
Enjoy Your weekend, sladkix snov, Poka!
I know some Russian people irl. I asked them about this very situation. They had absolutely no knowledge of FINNS operating concentration camps. They did however, have knowledge of the Nazis doing exactly as Boroda has described.
-
No, he is the Arabic version of Jesus, he would walk on the water to, if he only had 2 legs.
"This is US ARMY, You are surrounded, We bomb the whole town to small pieces, if you dont hand us Zarquawi NOW!!
"But he´s not here.........."
" Arrest that man !!!....I say, you got like 5 min to hand him over or we blast Fallujha to a pile of dirt!!!...."
"Sorry, but really, We never seen the guy...."
"OK, suit yourself......"
"Dang,,,he got away again,,,,,,,,,"
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I am very open minded, I don't bash people or their countries.
Originally posted by NUKE
And what has your piss ant country ever done for anyone? You like to take shots at the US, you miserable, bitter POS.
I wish Suzzy would get rid or your sorry bellybutton for good.
Yeah, yer a real Henry Kissinger.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Yeah, yer a regular Henry Kissinger.
That is so rare for me. Very rare.
On the other hand, patrone and others are here every day, every post, telling us how bad the US is.
rpm, you don't see a difference?
-
Not much.
-
Originally posted by patrone
No, he is the Arabic version of Jesus, he would walk on the water to, if he only had 2 legs.
"This is US ARMY, You are surrounded, We bomb the whole town to small pieces, if you dont hand us Zarquawi NOW!!
"But he´s not here.........."
" Arrest that man !!!....I say, you got like 5 min to hand him over or we blast Fallujha to a pile of dirt!!!...."
"Sorry, but really, We never seen the guy...."
"OK, suit yourself......"
"Dang,,,he got away again,,,,,,,,,"
You know...I really believe you are the biggest hugahunk on this BBS. Right up there with Gsholz and Lada..In fact you 3 are the 3 musketeers when it comes to Hating the U.S. on this BBS.
The fact that you even come up with this STUPID post is amazing.
You'll have dreams for years that make ya smile all night if and when America gets hammered again.
Why Skuzzy doesnt ban you and your 2 dweeb amerihater buds is frankly beyond me.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
You know...I really believe you are the biggest hugahunk on this BBS. Right up there with Gsholz and Lada..In fact you 3 are the 3 musketeers when it comes to Hating the U.S. on this BBS.
The fact that you even come up with this STUPID post is amazing.
You'll have dreams for years that make ya smile all night if and when America gets hammered again.
Why Skuzzy doesnt ban you and your 2 dweeb amerihater buds is frankly beyond me.
I'm sure rpm loves patrone though.
-
Originally posted by patrone
No, he is the Arabic version of Jesus, he would walk on the water to, if he only had 2 legs.
"This is US ARMY, You are surrounded, We bomb the whole town to small pieces, if you dont hand us Zarquawi NOW!!
"But he´s not here.........."
" Arrest that man !!!....I say, you got like 5 min to hand him over or we blast Fallujha to a pile of dirt!!!...."
"Sorry, but really, We never seen the guy...."
"OK, suit yourself......"
"Dang,,,he got away again,,,,,,,,,"
What is the color of the sky on your planet?
And this comes from your wealth of experience seeing the United States Military in action. Pffftt!!
Hey post some more of conspiracy theories, they are a riot.
Skuzzy, ban this idiot. Let him go play on his countries MMOL WWII Flightsim board....
Crumpp
-
Not particularly, but I'm not going to go into a foaming at the mouth blind rage over a BBS post either.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Not particularly, but I'm not going to go into a foaming at the mouth blind rage over a BBS post either.
of course you wont.
Instead you find pictures and make attacks against me. Patrone never gets you even that fired up. I suspect you love patrone and others who love to hate and bash your country.
I have not seen you try to counter any post that patrone has made, yet I have seen several posts where you try to ridicule me.....pictures and all.
Who's person in a blind rage?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Who's person in a blind rage?
Got a mirror handy?
-
Im not sure why Patrone and Gsholz and Lada don't just come out and say what they REALLY want to say.
Something maybe along the lines of....
"We all hope and dream about the U.S. being crumbled and beaten and put back into what WE think it's place in the world should be. A small U.N. sucking insignificant country that cant do anything other than what the world tells them to do. A Country that obeys the WORLD opinion instead of doing ANYTHING on there own." "We HATE the U.S. and all it stands for and we hope the Islamic extremists beat you and tear your country apart. We support their right to kill you americans and we laugh at you."
That would about sum up my impression of what they think of the U.S..
But they won't. They'll simply stay on the fringe of it. Making their little sly amerihating bashing comments. Baiting people into arguments. I can't recall ONE GOOD post about America from none of them. It's ashamed to.
Again I say...why are these guys even here other than to antagonize.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Got a mirror handy?
typical of you rpm. juvenile
You can't explain why you waste time picking out pictures to post in order to try to insult me. You offer no intelligent arguments for anything that I have seen.
You give patrone a pass, never question his rediculess posts, yet come after me for things you can't even verbalise......thus the need to pics and a smart bellybutton remark.
No substance in anything you say. You can't respond inteligently because you are not intelligent.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Skuzzy, ban this idiot.
Originally posted by NUKE
I wish Suzzy would get rid or your sorry bellybutton for good.
What kinda lame BS is that?. Are we in grade three?
-
Originally posted by Nash
What kinda lame BS is that?. Are we in grade three?
If you read patrons posts, you'd think he was in 3rd grade.
I wish Skuzzy would get rid of him. What's wrong with expressing that?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
typical of you rpm. juvenile
You can't explain why you waste time picking out pictures to post in order to try to insult me. You offer no intelligent arguments for anything that I have seen.
You give patrone a pass, never question his rediculess posts, yet come after me for things you can't even verbalise......thus the need to pics and a smart bellybutton remark.
No substance in anything you say. You can't respond inteligently because you are not intelligent.
Originally posted by NUKE
I am very open minded, I don't bash people.
Please, keep lobbing those slow pitches over the plate.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Crumpp
Skuzzy, ban this idiot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by NUKE
I wish Suzzy would get rid or your sorry bellybutton for good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really feel sorry for Skuzzy, who probebly are more or less mailbombed by these guys, beacuse of my posts.
For this I apologize, but I will not stop posting, sorry.
-
Originally posted by patrone
I really feel sorry for Skuzzy, who probebly are more or less mailbombed by these guys, beacuse of my posts.
I apologize, but I will not stop posting, sorry.
I have never emailed Skuzzy or HTC about any complaint. I have never even put anyone on ignore.
But if you stop posting, that would be great.
-
Originally posted by patrone
I really feel sorry for Skuzzy, who probebly are more or less mailbombed by these guys, beacuse of my posts.
For this I apologize, but I will not stop posting, sorry.
Bud...you keep right on posting, if you or Gshultz left I'd have to find a different BB. You don't really think we take anything you or shultz or Anus err I mean Angus have to say seriously. I hope not
It's not your fault you where born in insignificant Countrys. And that I was born in the Greatest Country on earth. I learn lots of things from guys like you...mostly humility.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I know some Russian people irl. I asked them about this very situation. They had absolutely no knowledge of FINNS operating concentration camps. They did however, have knowledge of the Nazis doing exactly as Boroda has described.
I have written above that in Soviet times I have never heard about it too, I just never wanted to find anything about it, and at school they didn't focus on Finish occupation of Karelia. I discovered this information when I travelled in Karelia, and then I found a link to that book by Finnish author: "Finland as an occupant, 1941-44".
In Soviet times many things were not mentioned and not brought to public, because it was inapropriate to tell bad things about freinds.
In general Soviet people are unaware of Finnish atrocities, except in Karelia and Leningrad. I was born in Leningrad, and I know a little more then others about what Finns did during WWII :(
At school they didn't even tell us that bull**** about "Finland attacking USSR". And I first heard about Mainila from Grendel on this BBS... I hope you see that I try to be honest.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Bud...you keep right on posting, if you or Gshultz left I'd have to find a different BB. You don't really think we take anything you or shultz or Anus err I mean Angus have to say seriously. I hope not
It's not your fault you where born in insignificant Countrys. And that I was born in the Greatest Country on earth. I learn lots of things from guys like you...mostly humility.
Thank you weaselsan that was a true declaration of love, good then it is mutual.
I find most of the posts interesting,even if some are stupid. How ever, the ones who only can end an argument with nothing else then the namecalling game, are put on ignore: one big exception is: Martlet.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Thank you weaselsan that was a true declaration of love, good then it is mutual.
I find most of the posts interesting,even if some are stupid. How ever, the ones who only can end an argument with nothing else then the namecalling game, are put on ignore: one big exception is: Martlet.
pot and kettle:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Boroda
At school they didn't even tell us that bull**** about "Finland attacking USSR". And I first heard about Mainila from Grendel on this BBS... I hope you see that I try to be honest.
Did you know that Leningrad's population should build a statue for C.G.E Mannerheim for his actions in WW2 ?
-
Originally posted by Staga
Did you know that Leningrad's population should build a statue for C.G.E Mannerheim for his actions in WW2 ?
Mannerheim was a great man, but it seems to me that it was a fortified line on the old border that kept you guys from taking Leningrad ;) You simply didn't have heavy artillery to break it. Using Occam's razor I find this explaination more reasonable.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You are not correct. no genocide.
America legaly obtained our land from England, Spain, France and Mexico. We didn't steal anyone's land.
The Indians and Americans had a war, the Indians lost the war. Pretty much the story. We did not slaughter the Indians......anymore than the Indians slaughtered each other and Eurpeans before us.
JB88, how old are you?
i am 35. i am educated and not some idiot off the street. (not to say that education makes me more aware, but it is a sign of one who seeks knowledge). how would you define blankets shipped to the indians infected with a life taking virus? would you consider that a parting gift as opposed to genoside.
legallity had little to do with morallity, and i would ask you sir to refrain from suchsilly commentaries as "how old are you" if you wish to be taken seriously.
thats personal. it just doesnt count.
lets stick to the facts nuke. everybody knows what it means when one resorts to such attacks.
period.
read "left my heart at wounded knee."
research treaties signed by the us government which were then ruled non binding the moment that prescious metals were found.
if there is one thing that i despise about this country, it is that our soul, however honorable it may want to be, lies to itself consistantly...as if it were and addict...as if it wanted to hide its flaws.
i challenge you to name one flaw in this country, aside from those who disagree with you.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Osama would be very proud of you. Your just what they are looking for, Ju88!
Lets check out these "insurgents" who just want to free Iraq from "occupying" coalition!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4199363.stm
Crumpp
crump. that is pure sillyness.
our country was founded on dissent, and i find it rather narrow that you would take such a view rather than focusing on the issues.
i have stated plainly and quite often that osama and the taliban are the targets that we should be focusing on.
you cant deny that. it has been said. over and over.
period.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You claim to have knowledge that he is dead? Just because it fits what you believe to be a conspracy in your pin-head little brain? Give us the proof.
And what purpose does the US have in saying Zarqawi is alive when he may be dead?
I have heard that the Iraqis may have him in custody. Guess we will see, huh? Meanwhile, your country sits on it's hands and does nothing.
And what has your piss ant country ever done for anyone? You like to take shots at the US, you miserable, bitter POS.
This BB is the only place you can vent your BS towards America....isn't that sad for you.
I wish Suzzy would get rid or your sorry bellybutton for good.
how does patrone have a pin little brain? i have read his posts and his arguements are rational.
i have yet to see him resort to name calling. ever.
-
Hi JB88
the fact that its said over and over doesnt make it so. its still just an opinion. Just a thought there:)
-
I wish Suzzy would get rid or your sorry bellybutton for good. - nuke.
wow.
that would help,
nothing like free speech is there nuke?
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Hi JB88
the fact that its said over and over doesnt make it so. its still just an opinion. Just a thought there:)
its all opinion redtop.
but that never makes it more or less valid.
personal is not political.
we are a free country. we are entitled by law and by history to our opinion. even nuke is. would you agree?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I have written above that in Soviet times I have never heard about it too, I just never wanted to find anything about it, and at school they didn't focus on Finish occupation of Karelia. I discovered this information when I travelled in Karelia, and then I found a link to that book by Finnish author: "Finland as an occupant, 1941-44".
In Soviet times many things were not mentioned and not brought to public, because it was inapropriate to tell bad things about freinds.
In general Soviet people are unaware of Finnish atrocities, except in Karelia and Leningrad. I was born in Leningrad, and I know a little more then others about what Finns did during WWII :(
At school they didn't even tell us that bull**** about "Finland attacking USSR". And I first heard about Mainila from Grendel on this BBS... I hope you see that I try to be honest.
Next time I talk to my Russian friends I'll have to ask them what part of Russia they are from.
Kinda wierd....all the conversations we have had.....including ones about their reasons for leaving Russia, that I never thought to ask what part of Russia they are from heh.....I'll have to rectify that ;)
-
Yep. I would agree.
I guess I'm getting older (my dad told me this would happen) and I find some people's voice just FLAT annoying. If you get my drift.
Not that they don't have a right to speak, but that I would rather knock their friggin teeth out than to listen to em.
Not real christian like on my part I admit.
-
if i had one wish red, it would be that all of us could speak, knowing that we are brothers in every sense; that we all have a mind and a reason.
if we could all agree upon that, then there would be no need for name calling, for we would see that we are all fallible, that our opinions do not amount to truth. but in the thing itself, the result, the thing so often unseen, the experience that we discuss and lay claim too....somewhere in there, there lies a truth. we may fight against it, we may rail against its power, but it consumes us by the very virtue of its honesty.
i want for it everyday.
it is my reason for being.
god, i like feeling small. and god there
is nothing like love.
(edited for spelling)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Mannerheim was a great man, but it seems to me that it was a fortified line on the old border that kept you guys from taking Leningrad ;) You simply didn't have heavy artillery to break it. Using Occam's razor I find this explaination more reasonable.
Wrong answer. Try to find better explanation from historybooks and when you've find it ask yourself does it make any sense with your sentence "hundreeds of thousands of Soviet citizens starved by Finns..
Also try to find out why were Finnish citizens also starving at 1941/1942.
You may learn something new.
-
LOL
Aftermath
According to interim peace terms majority of POWs were changed between 16.4 - 25.4.1940. 74 of them refused to return back to USSR.
Good reading for Boroda...
http://www.geocities.com/finnmilpge/fmp_pow_camps.html
-
Well JB88....your dream/idea is commendable. Would be a great thing if that were life.
Alas...life isnt like that. Nor do I think it will ever be or even come close to being.
There are way to many other failing of the human race to ever let the world get along. To be able to discuss opinions and to actually see the truth.
The "truth" is....that there is no truth most times...only opinions that become reality. Thus , becomeing what others think of as the truth. (did I just say that?) :eek:
-
our country was founded on dissent, and i find it rather narrow that you would take such a view rather than focusing on the issues.
It is far from plain silliness, Ju88. In this country you do have the right to dissent. You also have a responsibility to keep yourself informed on the issues in a democracy. Citizens also have the duty not to harm the society in which they belong.
From your opinions on the War in Iraq, it clear you are far from informed.
By voicing dissent on the GWOT without possession of the facts only aids and abets the enemy. It is exactly what AQ wants to hear and is counting on the fast food pop culture of America to do.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453389.0680555557.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006166
What you fail to understand is that both sides in any conflict present the facts about their enemy. These facts are arranged to present the truth they want you to hear. Their side is never bad.
Even though the United States has many problems, I would say you have never traveled outside of the US or Western Europe if you do not recognize we are head and shoulders above most of the countries on this planet when it comes to personal freedoms.
Now the question comes down to what you really believe. Is the United States on some venture to gain an evil empire? Or is the United States out to reform the Middle East so that it ceases to be a breeding ground for homicidal nut bags.
If these people gain a country they can be proud of, can determine their own destiny in, and have their own economy with some social mobility, then they will not want to take ours! So yes, this is about oil. It's about oil, rugs, brass, gems, and anything else that makes up a free market economy. Equitable trade is how lasting peace is made. A system in which differences can be worked out without violence in their OWN country is the end state in Iraq. It just makes sense, for our security and theirs.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
"... I would say you have never traveled outside of the US or Western Europe if you do not recognize we are head and shoulders above most of the countries on this planet when it comes to personal freedoms.
I kinda used to take this for granted. Not so sure anymore. Y'all can't even play a ball game it seems without there being some sort of outrage of one sort or another.
There are truckloads of countries where it's safe to say whatever ya want, unless the measuring stick yer using is Botswana or something.
Sounds great though... "Land of the free..." and all that. But... compared to what?
Head and shoulders above other countries wrt personal freedoms? Meh... I dunno 'bout that.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I kinda used to take this for granted. Not so sure anymore. Y'all can't even play a ball game it seems without there being some sort of outrage of one sort or another.
There are truckloads of countries where it's safe to say whatever ya want, unless the measuring stick yer using is Botswana or something.
Sounds great though... "Land of the free..." and all that. But... compared to what?
Head and shoulders above other countries wrt personal freedoms? Meh... I dunno 'bout that.
China, Iran, North Korea all come to mind instantly, Nash
-
Cuba, Saudi Arabia too.
-
Fer sure.
But that's like comparing my magical basketball playing abilities to a midget's.
-
Well, American is like Canada, UK, France, Germany, and lots of other western nations....only there is probably more oppertunity here in America than most other places.
But there are tons of nations that do not allow personal freedoms like we know them.
-
Nash, speaking of opportunity.....
I was listening to one of your songs last nite. You have a good voice.....destinctive. Be cool to hear some more from you.
-
Well sure. There are nutty countries out there.
But braggin' about freedoms that, hell, anyone who can hook up the internet already has seems kinda useless.
In other words..... If a country can see your freedom chest pounding on the internet, then they alreay have the same if not more freedoms.
-
Ah nah... I can't do that anymore. But that's real sweet.
I'm spending the next few years trying to become a combination master fly fisher/golfer.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It is far from plain silliness, Ju88. In this country you do have the right to dissent. You also have a responsibility to keep yourself informed on the issues in a democracy. Citizens also have the duty not to harm the society in which they belong.
From your opinions on the War in Iraq, it clear you are far from informed.
By voicing dissent on the GWOT without possession of the facts only aids and abets the enemy. It is exactly what AQ wants to hear and is counting on the fast food pop culture of America to do.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453389.0680555557.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006166
What you fail to understand is that both sides in any conflict present the facts about their enemy. These facts are arranged to present the truth they want you to hear. Their side is never bad.
Even though the United States has many problems, I would say you have never traveled outside of the US or Western Europe if you do not recognize we are head and shoulders above most of the countries on this planet when it comes to personal freedoms.
Now the question comes down to what you really believe. Is the United States on some venture to gain an evil empire? Or is the United States out to reform the Middle East so that it ceases to be a breeding ground for homicidal nut bags.
If these people gain a country they can be proud of, can determine their own destiny in, and have their own economy with some social mobility, then they will not want to take ours! So yes, this is about oil. It's about oil, rugs, brass, gems, and anything else that makes up a free market economy. Equitable trade is how lasting peace is made. A system in which differences can be worked out without violence in their OWN country is the end state in Iraq. It just makes sense, for our security and theirs.
Crumpp
that sir was, by far, the best response yet, aside from the accusation of aiding and abetting the enemy.
any good civilization had a conscience. history shows us that when that conscience is forsaken, then the society becomes its worst enemy.
can you deny this?
i am not postulating about whether america is a great country. again, i have said over and over that terrorism is wrong. period. no matter where it comes from.
i would disagree that we are the only free space in the world. it is interesting to hear americans say that. if i want to hear anyting else about the world, anything that is not immediatly involved in the american sphere of influence, i have to go elsewhere. the bbc is a prime example. thier global reporting is hands down far more informative about "global affairs" than the US media could ever hope to be.
fact is. america suffers from narcissism.
now, you may claim that such an observation makes me unpatriotic. if so, i disagree. i say that it makes my more so. i care enough to be critical. i appreciate its freedoms enough to use them,
i have not. nor will i ever. EVER. support the likes of OBL.
what you say about the mid east is at least honest and i can respect that. from the standpoint of a globalist, it makes perfect sense. not doubting that.
one important thing that i like to keep in mind is this. when battling an enemy, the worst result is that one may actually take on the identity of the enemy.
my concern in the post 9/11 world is that much like the soviets, we have begun to suspect our own people of dissent.
when we speak of squelching that dissent, we are merely pointing to the road of stalin, where all questions against the path are met with bullets.
that is not the america that i love.
nor is it fair to continue to cast the glow of nievity on those who oppose certain policies.
it may seem funny. but history shows that it isnt.
would you see me to a wall with a blindfold for my opinion my fellow american?
really?
-
Ever see many people posting from China? They have internet access, but are controled severly.
But I know what you are saying and I've never been one to brag about America being the home of the free.
I had an interesting talk with my best friend the other day. I hadn't seen or heard from him in 10 years. I came home and there was a not on the door....he was on town.
Turns out he's been living in Canada for the past 5 years in Kitchener, Ontario. He's a Reverend there and even has a radio show.
I asked him how he likes Canada. He said they will probaby bury him there. He did say that it was totally socialist....terrible even, though he still loves it.
He has some interesting insights on healthcare, taxes and the Canadian system. His parents live in Arizona, moved from Canada.....so kinda funny.
Anyway.... you remind me of him in a lot of ways.....I even told him about you, lol.
-
As this topic really is about "the total mess in Iraq".
Coming to soon be the "free" elections and soon to be a "proper" Goverment.
If asked to leave, by the Iraq elected Goverment: USA has to leave according to UN resulotion. The question I ask: Would they do it?
-
He did say that it was totally socialists....terrible even, though he still loves it.
A buncha years living in NYC then criss-crossing the States for a coupla years - every single state - the difference I witnessed between the US and Canada was basically zilch.
-
i play chess with people from china often.
iran too. we have great conversations.
lithuania, bosnia, bolivia, argentina, mexico, spain, portugal, greece, hungary,
japan, taiwan, turkey, england, france, netherlands, germany, denmark, italy, poland, czech republic, serbia, chile...the list goes on.
they have alot to say on the issues. they seem to have no problem saying it.
-
Originally posted by patrone
As this topic really is about "the total mess in Iraq".
Coming to soon be the "free" elections and soon to be a "proper" Goverment.
If asked to leave, by the Iraq elected Goverment: USA has to leave according to UN resulotion. The question I ask: Would they do it?
"Proper" "Free" in quotes...I sense you don't belive in em. Your fishing for an argument.
-
Originally posted by Nash
A buncha years living in NYC then criss-crossing the States for a coupla years - every single state - the difference I witnessed between the US and Canada was basically zilch.
well, he said that if you walk into an emergency room, you are going to be there for a few hours waiting.
He also whipped out all of his id cards and laughed......he had about 8 different Canadian ID cards, licence, fishing, hunting, and lot's I couldn't remember.
He said that taxes are incredible there. He noted the tax on gas, with stickers marked at the pump showing percentage of tax.
He said he takes adavantage of the system too. He has a 6th kid on the way, and gets paid $500.00 for having a kid.
He said basically it's hard to get ahead in Canada compaired to the US.
-
Originally posted by patrone
As this topic really is about "the total mess in Iraq".
Coming to soon be the "free" elections and soon to be a "proper" Goverment.
If asked to leave, by the Iraq elected Goverment: USA has to leave according to UN resulotion. The question I ask: Would they do it?
if we are honorable...we will.
but lets look at it strategically shall we?
(holds up map of mid east)
see you we have them flanked right there on the west and on the east, and then right up the center?
if we are honorable, we will.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Well JB88....your dream/idea is commendable. Would be a great thing if that were life.
Alas...life isnt like that. Nor do I think it will ever be or even come close to being.
There are way to many other failing of the human race to ever let the world get along. To be able to discuss opinions and to actually see the truth.
The "truth" is....that there is no truth most times...only opinions that become reality. Thus , becomeing what others think of as the truth. (did I just say that?) :eek:
i appreciate that redtop.
and i would essentially argue with that logic if it meant that it was the compromise at the end of the opinions that resulted in the best solution.
dissent matters. if only as a check to extremism.
so long as we can avoid extremism...
-
Originally posted by RedTop
"Proper" "Free" in quotes...I sense you don't belive in em. Your fishing for an argument.
Well as the Election has not been held yet and not been monitored, its outcome might be "weighted". But, that is still left to see. I actully hope for the best. But if only 20% are going to vote, because of security issues, I wouldnt call the outcome "Free" or "proper", sorry
I am only fishing for thoughts about the issue "USA is asked to leave Iraq by leagally elected Goverment", Again I ask, would USA complie with the UN resulotion?
-
id be interested to know how that was stated in regards to germany and japan.
how it has panned out.
-
Originally posted by patrone
I am only fishing for thoughts about the issue "USA is asked to leave Iraq by leagally elected Goverment", Again I ask, would USA complie with the UN resulotion?
Yes, we would leave. But I'll tell you that there is no way they would ask us to leave unless they knew they could handle the security of their country.
My guess is that we will be there for at least another 2 years.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
He said basically it's hard to get ahead in Canada compaired to the US.
That may be true. I've seen some complete nutjobs here post pictures of their houses and there's no possible way that they would ever in a million years be able to be in the same station here as there.
But then, I dunno.... In Canada we buy our houses. Seems more like in the US the Chinese or whoever is footing your bill.
Enjoy.
-
would disagree that we are the only free space in the world. i
Please point out were I say that we are the only free space. Do not put words in my mouth or twist my meaning please.
america suffers from narcissism.
Yes we do. I work overseas for most of the year. This is our biggest problem. We think everyone is an American waiting to come out. Always has been and always will be an American trait. Recognize it and avoid it when overseas. I fail to see your point on this other than to suggest America needs a humbling and should be defeated in Iraq??!?
my concern in the post 9/11 world is that much like the soviets, we have begun to suspect our own people of dissent.
False. I think you should educate yourself on the recent laws that have been passed. Most specifically the Patriot act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
You will see for the most part, worries about infringement on personal freedom are unwarranted. Nevertheless the US legal system is dealing with the new laws and amending them as needed to preserve that personal freedom.
Nash,
Most of the Western world has pretty much he same choices and freedoms today, more or less, Hence the Western Europe. Your perception of "chest pounding" is undeserved.
Even though the United States has many problems, I would say you have never traveled outside of the US or Western Europe if you do not recognize we are head and shoulders above most of the countries on this planet when it comes to personal freedoms.
Now if you are taking the fact I specifically did not mention Canada as a personal affront, my apologies.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by JB88
i appreciate that redtop.
and i would essentially argue with that logic if it meant that it was the compromise at the end of the opinions that resulted in the best solution.
dissent matters. if only as a check to extremism.
so long as we can avoid extremism...
agreed...to avoid extremism.
unfortunatley...extremism is reality someplaces. And I would think that that extremism was born of opinions of dissent that was compromised on.;)
-
Originally posted by patrone
Well as the Election has not been held yet and not been monitored, its outcome might be "weighted". But, that is still left to see. I actully hope for the best. But if only 20% are going to vote, because of security issues, I wouldnt call the outcome "Free" or "proper", sorry
I am only fishing for thoughts about the issue "USA is asked to leave Iraq by leagally elected Goverment", Again I ask, would USA complie with the UN resulotion?
If we were asked to leave by the elected Iraqi gov't, I have no doubts that we would.
You say only 20% of the population is going to be able to vote.....I thought that 14 out of 18 provinces could vote, not the other way around....did I misinterpret that?
-
Originally posted by Nash
That may be true. I've seen some complete nutjobs here post pictures of their houses and there's no possible way that they would ever in a million years be able to be in the same station here as there.
But then, I dunno.... In Canada we buy our houses. Seems more like in the US the Chinese or whoever is footing your bill.
Enjoy.
Lol, you don't mean that.
My friends parents, where he was staying, live in a huge million dollar house in a huge neighborhood of the same. Absolutley beautiful. He said you would never see a neiborhood like that in Canada......nor the architecture, that he's seen.
But America is a country were almost anyone can make that kind of living if they try.
I own two houses myself......I don't feel that the f**ing Chinese are bankrolling it.
The country is the way it is because we are not socialist. We do not tax business into the ground.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Nash,
Most of the Western world has pretty mutch he same choices and freedoms today, more or less, Hence the Western Europe. Your perception of "chest pounding" is undeserved.
Ya really think?
What is the ratio of the use of the word "freedom" by Americans as compared to all those other just-as-free countries?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
did I misinterpret that?
Yes you did, I said "If". The outcome or the actull voting figures has not been issued yet and we will just have to wait and see.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Ya really think?
What is the ratio of the use of the word "freedom" by Americans as compared to all those other just-as-free countries?
The few poeple, like patrone and a couple others who make it a point to rail against the US every chance they get are the reason for 90% of that reaction from Americans.
I have nothing against anyone here or there countries.....but when people try to make my country out as some menace to the world, hellbent on evil and destruction......I get upset....do not like that at all.
-
My second thought about this election and the resultion is: This would give USA a very good oppertunity to leave, without being considered as "losers".
My prediction since a while back is : Usa is out of Iraq before the end of March 2005.
Edit,: And UN to uphold security, to straight out the whole mess
-
Originally posted by NUKE
He said you would never see a neiborhood like that in Canada...
Come on Nuke, we got those zact same neighborhoods. In every city.
-
Originally posted by patrone
My second thought about this election and the resultion is: This would give USA a very good oppertunity to leave, without being considered as "losers".
My prediction since a while back is : Usa is out of Iraq before the end of March 2005.
well, you are wrong in your perception.
The US is not looking for an opportunity to leave just to save face. We are not leaving until Iraq is secure.
And I say we are there for at least 2 more years.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Please point out were I say that we are the only free space. Do not put words in my mouth or twist my meaning please.
Yes we do. I work overseas for most of the year. This is our biggest problem. We think everyone is an American waiting to come out. Always has been and always will be an american trait. Recognize it and avoid it when overseas. I fail to see your point on this other than to suggest America needs a humbling and should be defeated in Iraq??!?
False. I think you should educate yourself on the recent laws that have been passed. Most specifically the Patriot act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
You will see for the most part, worries about infringement on personal freedom are unwarranted. Nevertheless the US legal system is dealing with the new laws and amending them as needed to preserve that personal freedom.
Nash,
Most of the Western world has pretty mutch he same choices and freedoms today, more or less, Hence the Western Europe. Your perception of "chest pounding" is undeserved.
Now if you are taking the fact I specifically did not mention Canada as a personal affront, my apologies.
no. i do not think that we need a humbling in iraq. i would like to see a success. truly. and i think that we have alot at stake there both with our word and with our example. i do however think that it would, and most certainly will at some point behoove us to recognize our fallibilities before we destroy what we have...see our arrogance before it consumes us...and reach out to the world as equals. we are. in every sense. or, as kennedy would have said, "we all breath the same air". the basic truth being that we are human...or as nietchze said..."human, all too human."
as far as the patriot act. so far we have managed to quell the danger of its exploitation. but history shows us that it is often such movements that set off an era of totalitarian mindset.
fortunately, i think that the concept of freedom is well enough implanted that we have a chance of keeping it in check...but i do not think that it would continue to be that way if it were not opposed. power has a way of desiring more and more.
i think that i have stated here before that my one arguement that i hold for americans is that we do not believe in rule by kings. at least not here.
it is a fair assertion.
it is also fair to say that when one hears people calling a dissenting view "unpatriotic" that one should stand and take note, because there lies the seed of the fall. therein lies the death of freedom.
ill never. ever. stand for that.
im glad that i probably wont have to worry about that yet.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Come on Nuke, we got those zact same neighborhoods. In every city.
Is China bankrolling them? ;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I have nothing against anyone here or there countries.....but when people try to make my country out as some menace to the world, hellbent on evil and destruction......I get upset....do not like that at all.
I appreciate that.
Fact is that the USA is a great country. But I think it's really starting to screw up. That's maybe why everyone's talking about it. Something to watch, thas for sure.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Well as the Election has not been held yet and not been monitored, its outcome might be "weighted". But, that is still left to see. I actully hope for the best. But if only 20% are going to vote, because of security issues, I wouldnt call the outcome "Free" or "proper", sorry
I am only fishing for thoughts about the issue "USA is asked to leave Iraq by leagally elected Goverment", Again I ask, would USA complie with the UN resulotion?
Yes I think they would leave if asked. It has been discussed here already. Would it be an imediate pull out. Just pack it all up and go? I doubt it. I feel thet the Iraqi "elected" officials would want some type of force there to help with security issues until the feel they have a good handle on it.
If they felt after the elections they have a sufficient handle on things and want the americans out , then I say , as a supporter of the war , to bring the troops HOME right away. Let them deal with the insurgency on their own. And , I would add don't go back no matter how bad it got.
Once asked to go , we have no reason to go back their. Unless they became a threat that COULD BE PROVEN BEFORE HAND. Not speculation. Not bad info. Not any reason other than stone cold hard facts.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Yes I think they would leave if asked. It has been discussed here already. Would it be an imediate pull out. Just pack it all up and go? I doubt it. I feel thet the Iraqi "elected" officials would want some type of force there to help with security issues until the feel they have a good handle on it.
I think that UN could do that part, if it was needed and if The Iraq Goverment would ask.
-
Originally posted by patrone
I think that UN could do that part, if it was needed and if The Iraq Goverment would ask.
now you're just being funny.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I have nothing against anyone here or there countries.....but when people try to make my country out as some menace to the world, hellbent on evil and destruction......I get upset....do not like that at all. - nuke
i remember reading a post regarding world opinion about GWB being elected.
i felt a true pain in my gut when i read post after post basically saying..."so what...f'-em"
thats what i am talking about anyway.
we are all here together and we just cant afford, for the sanctity of our countries, our lands and our children to not appreciate that others might disagree and not at least try to see it from thier point of view.
to me, reading such posts was like listening to the old myth of "let them eat cake". ok. extreme. but certainly arrogant yes?
how can we say that we are standing for that which is noble when we cannot respect the right of all men to be noble?
how can we say that america represents the hopes of mankind if we cannot appreciate all that is the american dream...and further back, the worlds dream in others?
our lives are worth so much more than a football game. (be it tossed or kicked)
the look in our daughters eyes.
we may wish to defend it. but they have daughters too.
that is where i stand.
the common rationality.
-
Then, the matter of the coalition of the willing, attacking Iraq would be brought up to the International court of Law.
You think it would have legal grounds or be scraped just as Serbias complaint over the Nato bombing?
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Yes I think they would leave if asked. It has been discussed here already. Would it be an imediate pull out. Just pack it all up and go? I doubt it. I feel thet the Iraqi "elected" officials would want some type of force there to help with security issues until the feel they have a good handle on it.
If they felt after the elections they have a sufficient handle on things and want the americans out , then I say , as a supporter of the war , to bring the troops HOME right away. Let them deal with the insurgency on their own. And , I would add don't go back no matter how bad it got.
Once asked to go , we have no reason to go back their. Unless they became a threat that COULD BE PROVEN BEFORE HAND. Not speculation. Not bad info. Not any reason other than stone cold hard facts.
damn well stated sir.
-
Originally posted by JB88
how can we say that america represents the hopes of mankind if we cannot appreciate all that is the american dream...and further back, the worlds dream in others?
That's so like, 1970's or something.
You don't represent mankind's hopes... just one version of it.
Y'all need to get off your high horse.
-
I would like that very much. UN Peacekeeping. That means none of our troops are dieing in that country and having to listen to certain elements here do nothing but have contempt for them.
Let the UN be the security force there. Let the UN get a coalition of whoever they want to be Iraqi security forces.
We have done alot there. We may very well continue to do alot there. I am proud of the troopos and what they have done there. Unlike some , even on this BBS , I believe in our system. Its not beyond flaws. It isn't perfect. But it is IMO the best form of government going.
Have mistakes been made? you bet. But I feel in a way like Nuke. My country is my country. I dispise people telling me how bad it is. I dispise people from other countries , who haven't lived here. Those who haven't seen the good in this country.
I am a vet. I served proudly this country. I HAVE been other places in the world. Yes they may have freedoms. Not to the extent we do.
We may have been wrong in the reasons (WMD) in Iraq. But , we are spot on in offering a people a chance. Even if they never get to the point that this country is , they will at least have a better life , I believe , than they did before we got there.
Democracy for them will do a ton to hurting the terrorists. And that is worth the fight.
-
Well, lets hope for these election to be fair and that this whole thing is over with.
Even if I have my doubts, there is hopes.
The Aftermath of the whole thing...........who knows?
-
Originally posted by Nash
That's so like, 1970's or something.
You don't represent mankind's hopes... just one version of it.
Y'all need to get off your high horse.
point taken.
and i agree. but understand, i am speaking to americans. it is not meant to sound pompous.
it is meant to say exactly what you just said.
i think. or at least i hope.
it is standing in front of the berlin wall and saying...tear it down.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Then, the matter of the coalition of the willing, attacking Iraq would be brought up to the International court of Law.
You think it would have legal grounds or be scraped just as Serbias complaint over the Nato bombing?
That would be a comedy worth watching. Trying to hang someone or some country or countries out to dry. Mean while the Oil for food scandal is beyond reproach and Kofi I got rich Anan gets nothing.
Certain parts of the world may want to have a countries head on a paltter. I say to them , Dont throw rocks in a glass house.
-
redtop.
i appreciate your service. my arguement has never been with those who serve.
ever.
arguing against the action doesnt make it an arguement against the servicemen, nor against america. nor is dissent a personal affront.
it makes it an arguement for what america is perhaps...or an arguement about what the world may become.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Yes you did, I said "If". The outcome or the actull voting figures has not been issued yet and we will just have to wait and see.
no, no, no.....I meant.....did I misinterpret the number of provinces that will be able to vote. :) Is it.....14 of 18 provinces WILL be able to vote or 14 of 18 WONT?
-
Originally posted by RedTop
That would be a comedy worth watching. Trying to hang someone or some country or countries out to dry. Mean while the Oil for food scandal is beyond reproach and Kofi I got rich Anan gets nothing.
Certain parts of the world may want to have a countries head on a paltter. I say to them , Dont throw rocks in a glass house.
Well, if the Iraqs make a complaint about it, it has to be brought up, even if Kofi Annan was quilty as hell, (Kurt Waldheim was actully a NAZI, but UN still continued its work, If I recall correct).
SO, the whole issue would be considered nonvalid, because of the "Oil for Food" scandal?
Hm...I do not think it would work that way. And, if there was really any proofs about this scandal, why don´t USA bring it to the International court of Law? It could´nt be vetod by the SC.
To me, it seem to be just a smokescreen, really, to misscredit countries that was against the attack on Iraq and stoped it in SC.
-
Originally posted by JB88
but understand, i am speaking to americans. it is not meant to sound pompous.
Out of curiousity, have you ever considered what it sounds like to non-Americans when your President says, during the SOTU for example, stuff like "Greatest country in the World"... "God is on our side"... etc?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
no, no, no.....I meant.....did I misinterpret the number of provinces that will be able to vote. :) Is it.....14 of 18 provinces WILL be able to vote or 14 of 18 WONT?
Well, thats what is stated or was stated before. 14 out of 18. But the actual figures from when it happends, we have to wait for.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Out of curiousity, have you ever considered what it sounds like to non-Americans when your President says, during the SOTU for example, stuff like "Greatest country in the World"... "God is on our side"... etc?
ya.
to quote sherman potter from mash, i think that it sounds like a bunch of horse puckey.
but that is only because i prefer the quote
"sir, my concern is not whether god is on our side, but that we are on the side of god."
regardless of religious affiliation, at least that means that one is considering the higher force rather than speaking for it.
-
Originally posted by JB88
redtop.
i appreciate your service. my arguement has never been with those who serve.
ever.
arguing for the action doesnt make it an arguement against the servicemen, nor against america. nor is dissent a personal affront.
it makes it an arguement for what america is perhaps...or an arguement about what the world may become.
Dissent is one thing. I respect the arguments made against actions taken. When those arguments are put forth in a thoughtful way they lead to thoughtful respones. When you start trying to force your point on me , and you know I may not agree already , thats when the mud slinging and hatefulness starts.
President Bush made certain points in his inauguarl speech about bringing democrocy to the world. That is, IMO , a pipe dream. But it makes people who already have a chip on their shoulder about America , that much MORE hardened against the U.S..
I don't believe for a minute that this country should try to make a democratic world. People in other lands simply don't want it. They don't need it. They have no use for it. They will fight to be the way they are. That is a stone fact. However , if a country DOES want it. Why are there americans , who "Claim" to love this country ,yet not want others to enjoy the same as what we have. Even if it is on a smaller scale?
I wasn't thinking you were affronting the troops. Never thought that.
There are , on this BBS , many whom if they were HONEST with not only others , but them selves would admit that they did mean the troops when they were talking smack.
-
Originally posted by JB88
ya.
to quote sherman potter from mash, i think that it sounds like a bunch of horse puckey.
but that is only because i prefer the quote
"sir, my concern is not whether god is on our side, but that we are on the side of god."
regardless of religious affiliation, at least that means that one is considering the higher force rather than speaking for it.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Nash
Out of curiousity, have you ever considered what it sounds like to non-Americans when your President says, during the SOTU for example, stuff like "Greatest country in the World"... "God is on our side"... etc?
I wonder why anyone would care. If China or Russia or North Korea said that same thing, I'd laugh.
-
Comparing yourselves to midgets again. Whoopty-doo.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Well, if the Iraqs make a complaint about it, it has to be brought up, even if Kofi Annan was quilty as hell, (Kurt Waldheim was actully a NAZI, but UN still continued its work, If I recall correct).
SO, the whole issue would be considered nonvalid, because of the "Oil for Food" scandal?
Hm...I do not think it would work that way. And, if there was really any proofs about this scandal, why don´t USA bring it to the International court of Law? It could´nt be vetod by the SC.
To me, it seem to be just a smokescreen, really, to misscredit countries that was against the attack on Iraq and stoped it in SC.
No no...Don't mean that the scandal (which does exsist) is a smake screen and means anything. Or, that it would be a leverage tool.
My point is , when all is said and done , it wont hold water. Trying the coalition of the Willing from Iraq , IMO , wont happen. Iraq certanly won't bring it up. I don't think they think that anyway.
As far as the Oil for food thing being brought to "International Court" I don't think it can be. I wont try to make a case as I haven't really studied it alot. If memory serves tho there is some UN thing where they are exempt from all sorts of laws and stuff. Not sure how it works. So , would be best I don''t try to speak to that.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Comparing yourselves to midgets again. Whoopty-doo.
So, are we obligated to market ourselves and our STOU to a world audience? Maybe we are. Are we that important?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So, are we obligated to market ourselves and our STOU to a world audience?
[/b]
If not, why do you?
Originally posted by NUKE
Are we that important?
Now more than ever.
-
Hey NUKE...
I have a couple of sincere questions for you. No sarcasm or trap being set - just a couple of adults (You are an adult, right?) having a beer and shootin' the breeze. Can you handle that?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Hey NUKE...
I have a couple of sincere questions for you. No sarcasm or trap being set - just a couple of adults (You are an adult, right?) having a beer and shootin' the breeze. Can you handle that?
shoot.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Out of curiousity, have you ever considered what it sounds like to non-Americans when your President says, during the SOTU for example, stuff like "Greatest country in the World"... "God is on our side"... etc?
I'd like to try to answer this ...
Every country..or most anyway..should feel they are great or the greatest. If they don't then they may take it and be jealous , envious , or think Yeah Right. May even tick em off.
Having God on our side. Well as a believer in that I haven't a problem hearing that coming form my president. However it's not much different that hearing we fight for allah. Or allah is on our side. I happen to think allah is losing , but thats just me:lol
-
Thank for a good answer Redtop and I have to agree that it is someting we barely could speculate in, If the Iraq would make it a case, at this moment.
But, the case will not disapere with time, it can be brought up in about 10 or 20 years from now. It all depends what their Goverment are willing to do.
I do think they have a very strong case, if they decide to nail ya.
Maybe it was a little 2 fast to write their depts off.....You guys might be the one that would owe them money,, for decades forward. ;)
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Every country..or most anyway..should feel they are great or the greatest.
Yeah why?
-
Originally posted by patrone
Thank for a good answer Redtop and I have to agree that it is someting we barely could speculate in, If the Iraq would make it a case, at this moment.
But, the case will not disapere with time, it can be brought up in about 10 or 20 years from now. It all depends what their Goverment are willing to do.
I do think they have a very strong case, if they decide to nail ya.
Maybe it was a little 2 fast to write their depts off.....You guys might be the one that would owe them money,, for decades forward. ;)
Possible. Doubtful IMO but possible.
Heres the deal. If the Iraqi people and the goverment flourish , this will be the greatest thing to happen in many many years. IF however in say 2 or 3 years , a dictator rises to power and takes Iraq back , or the Iraqi people don't make it in a democracy , it will be one of the saddest chapters in American history. Time will tell and I am no fortune teller. Whatever the outcome from here on out , I won't change my mind as to my thoughts of we have done the right thing for a bad source of info. If that makes any sense.
-
Hey Nash, do you play AH anymore?
-
Originally posted by patrone
Well, thats what is stated or was stated before. 14 out of 18. But the actual figures from when it happends, we have to wait for.
Well 14 out of 18 provinces being able to vote isnt to bad considering there is an insurgency going on atm. Granted 18 of 18 would be far more desireable.
-
Not for a while. Nothin' wrong with the game... just I dunno.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Possible. Doubtful IMO but possible.
Heres the deal. If the Iraqi people and the goverment flourish , this will be the greatest thing to happen in many many years. IF however in say 2 or 3 years , a dictator rises to power and takes Iraq back , or the Iraqi people don't make it in a democracy , it will be one of the saddest chapters in American history. Time will tell and I am no fortune teller. Whatever the outcome from here on out , I won't change my mind as to my thoughts of we have done the right thing for a bad source of info. If that makes any sense.
So a democracy would´nt raise any complaints towards you? Cause you did the right thing?
What if the guy that sits up there lost his whole family doing some bombings? Would he be wrong trying to test the legalty in the Invasion? What makes you think that a Democratic goverment of Iraq, would be "Pro-USA"? Would it otherwise not be democratic, even if they where elected by the people of Iraq?
edit: Pure speculates again,, nothing I "Claim"
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yeah why?
Pride.
Patriotism.
If you don't feel that you are in the greatest country then why stay there?
Do you feel that Canada is a great country. Do you feel its the greatest? If not...why? Can you make it better? Is it great but not the greatest? Are you happy with the way it is?
Questions EVERYONE should ask themselves about there country.
I wouldnt be all that happy to hear my president , whom I would consider the possibly the biggest patriot of all , say to me , we're great but not the greatest.
Tell me we're the greatest and could be even greater.:)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Well 14 out of 18 provinces being able to vote isnt to bad considering there is an insurgency going on atm. Granted 18 of 18 would be far more desireable.
I think so to, as I said, we have to see what happends. maybe it calms down.
-
Well, gee, that's great.
-
The Iraqis are saying that they expect 70-80% voter turnout.
By contrast, the Palestinains had a 45% voter turnout......and everything was rosey by international standards.
So, if 70-80% of Iraqis vote, is that legitimate?
And that's about 70-80% more people that had a vote before.....not counting the 100% vote for Saddam, of course. What a travesty
-
Originally posted by patrone
So a democracy would´nt raise any complaints towards you? Cause you did the right thing?
What if the guy that sits up there lost his whole family doing some bombings? Would he be wrong trying to test the legalty in the Invasion? What makes you think that a Democratic goverment of Iraq, would be "Pro-USA"? Would it otherwise not be democratic, even if they where elected by the people of Iraq?
No , it could always be brought up. Whom ever wanted to bring it up I suppose would be in his right to do so. Whether it got to the fore front would be a different deal altogether.
Pro-USA? Hmm...now that is an interesting thought. I would think they would be at least partial to the USA. Quite possibly not a real buddy buddy to the USA , but they would probably go farther to help the USA than say others in the regeion in most cases. Just my opinion.
The guy losing his family would have a legit complaint. If he chose to pursue it. If he thought it was an illegal invasion.
Interesting questions you pose.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The Iraqis are saying that they expect 70-80% voter turnout.
By contrast, the Palestinains had a 45% voter turnbout......and everything was rosey by international standards.
So, if 70-80% of Iraqis vote, it that legitimate?
And that's about 70-80% more people that had a vote before.....not counting the 100% vote for Saddam, of course.
It's not the numbers of voters that turn out Nuke. It's whether or not people can make it to the voting booths alive and in one piece. It's also about whether or not there is corruption during the election, things like voter intimidation, stuffing ballot boxes etc.
As long as the Iraqis can make it to the voting booths, everything should go smoothly.
Btw...who is monitoring this election?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well, gee, that's great.
Sorry Nash if my answer wasnt what ya were looking for.:)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Btw...who is monitoring this election?
No one, really, as they are not allowed or do not dare to enter into the country. There are 700 guys monitoring it from Jordanian territory, or if it was 7000. I dont remember, UN I suppose.
To me, its the same as non monitored if monitored from another country.
Edit: Journalist are not allowed either.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Sorry Nash if my answer wasnt what ya were looking for.:)
I just don't know what the imperative is in having to think that your country is "the greatest".
Just not sure why that matters.
But I do know a lotta guys in prison who get their tulips kicked for just that brand of 'world vision', if you get my drift.
-
NUKE:
Even the adult question wasn't sarcastic. I just don't have an image of who you are and your life experiences, thats all.
I'm in my fifties and have lived in the D.C. area, Atlanta, Chicago, Florida and New Mexico. Been to all 50 states at least once. in case you may have thought otherwise, I am actually very conservative politically (some friends think I'm slightly right of Atilla the Hun), but I prefer to to call myself a 'practical capitalist' or a 'fundamentalist.'
I made those terms up because I feel many have stolen the good name of my 'conservatism' to try to make a silk purse out a radical's ear.
I describe my brand of conservativism (briefly) as this:
1. Support the ideals and defend the common sense principles of the U.S. Constitution - a pretty good document written by some pretty smart guys who knew that even they should not be trusted by the people to always act in their best interest.
2. I believe that freedom of the press isn't free - it comes with an obligation to tell and find out the truth, even if the truth isn't what we want to hear, isn't pretty or makes us cringe or embarrassed as a people.
3. I believe in free enterprise and free markets. I believe that as markets become more free in any nation, the less power any government holds over the people. I run a business and I will gladly pay the salary of 5 people to any man who can take a message to Garcia.
There's more, but that's enough. All else is the world is situational ethics to me.
I just wonder about your view that others in the world do not enjoy personal freedom comparable to those enjoyed in America.
I don't deny that Americans are free. I am not convinced that they are not losing their freedoms though. Freedom is not just what you can do, but what you are free from also. For example, the freedom to walk or drive anywhere at night, unmolested and free from fear, is just as important as the freedom to choose where I want to live.
Do you think that America is really so far above so many other nations in personal freedom?
Being a rational kind of guy, I was wondering how many other countries you have lived in? Not visited, but lived in.
I've visited maybe 18 countries, but I've lived in 3 countries for longer than 5 years each and I've never felt that I was deprived of any freedom in the countries I have lived in. Never even thought about it.
Do you have some specific example of personal freedoms you can list that perhaps other 1st world democracies do not offer?
I guess that's about it and I apologize for being long-winded. Thanks for your patience.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Thanks for your patience.
Hell no. A good read.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I run a business and I will gladly pay the salary of 5 people to any man who can take a message to Garcia.
Ok, give me his adress and the message.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Do you think that America is really so far above so many other nations in personal freedom?
Being a rational kind of guy, I was wondering how many other countries you have lived in? Not visited, but lived in.
I've visited maybe 18 countries, but I've lived in 3 countries for longer than 5 years each and I've never felt that I was deprived of any freedom in the countries I have lived in. Never even thought about it.
Do you have some specific example of personal freedoms you can list that perhaps other 1st world democracies do not offer?
1. I have NEVER stated or believed that America is above any other nation in personal freedom....although now that you mention it....we have more personal freedom than those in China.
2. I have never lived outside the United States.
3. As I have said....I have never said that the US has more personal freedoms than any other nation........
What else would you like to ask me?
Oh, I'm 40 years old.
-
So then, you don't know jack watermelon it turns out.
-
Originally posted by Nash
So then, you don't know jack watermelon it turns out.
What do you mean?
-
Eh... just wanted to say something controversial. Heh.
-
Nash, I really like and respect you....and I'm not just kidding.
I am what I am....I try to be honest with everyone.
-
You may be honest with us. I agree. But you are not honest with yourself.
-
Oh, but I am more than you know.
What do you mean? I'll answer any question.
-
I learned to be honest after I thought I was going to die when I had cancer.
-
You know what I'm talking about.
Aint no BBS gonna clean it up.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You know what I'm talking about.
Aint no BBS gonna clean it up.
lol , I really do not know what you are talking about. Ask me anything, I will asnwer you.
-
Nah.
-
Nash, I honestly do not know what you are talking about.
But ask me anything....I will answer you 100% truthfully
Come one, lets get it out.
-
wow, okay...
Uhm...
Where you are today, and where you will be tomorrow - has the internet affected that any?
Lets imagine it wasn't there... what would you instead be doing with all this time? All this time.
Would you drink as much? The things that 'matter'; would they?
-
Originally posted by Nash
wow, okay...
Uhm...
Where you are today, and where you will be tomorrow - has the internet affected that any?
Lets imagine it wasn't there... what would you instead be doing with all this time? All this time.
Would you drink as much? The things that 'matter'; would they?
the ineternet has not affected where I am today.
The internet is my entertainment now, I admit that .....before I used to read books and go to the library to get the info I craved. Now it's all there on the internet.
I would probably not be drinking as much without the internet. I used to be very active in sports and in very good shape. Now Im 40 years old, still in pretty good shape.....but drink beer every night.
I still have my same hobbies: photography, models and I love to debate.
Did I answer you Nash?
-
Yeah you did answer me Nuke, but it's the same chit.
You don't wanna own up to what you already realize.
-
I don't know what you mean Nash, really
Give me some tough love, I can take it.
-
What's your girlfriend's/wife's name?
-
Nash, if you want, I'll tell you my whole miserable life story.
-
Originally posted by Nash
What's your girlfriend's/wife's name?
no girlfriend or wife. Happy?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Happy?
Are you?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Are you?
Nash, I don't know why you feel hostile towards me.
I'm happy and feel secure in myself.
-
I aint being hostile.
Why do you say that? Do you feel like you're on the defensive or something?
I thought this was all about truths. You are comfortable with yours, aren't you?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I aint being hostile.
Why do you say that? Do you feel like you're on the defensive or something?
I thought this was all about truths. You are comfortable with yours, aren't you?
You fugger, what do you want to know about me? I'll answer ANYHING.
-
What is wrong with you, from your perspective?
-
Originally posted by Nash
What is wrong with you, from your perspective?
Now you're being an idiot.
-
No man, I'm being sincere (which, granted, doesn't preclude being an idiot).
There is something wrong with every one of us.
You're letting me ask you anything, and I'm asking this:
What is wrong with you?
That's fair 'nuff, right?
-
Originally posted by Nash
No man, I'm being sincere (which, granted, doesn't preclude being an idiot).
There is something wrong with every one of us.
You're letting me ask you anything, and I'm asking this:
What is wrong with you?
That's fair 'nuff, right?
okay, what's wrong with me?
I'm too nice.
-
cop out.
-
So, really NUKE, I was kinda right when I said that you where drunk, the other night?
-
Originally posted by Nash
cop out.
Nash, my biggest fault is that I am too nice....to a fault.
Anyone who knows me will say the same.
That's the truth...I am honest and nice to a fault.
-
Being the 'nice guy' is a defect.
Because ultimately, your acts of niceness aren't for somebody else - they are for you.
But that aint hardly your biggest prollem anyways.
"Nice" is a smokescreen.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Being the 'nice guy' is a defect.
Because ultimately, your acts of niceness aren't for somebody else - they are for you.
But that aint hardly your biggest prollem anyways.
Nash, thanks for sharing your views.
Now I know that you are an ass. I have lost any respect I may have had for you.
The internet is kinda funny, hey?
-
Sure is, Nuke.
-
We'll be back with previews of next weeks "N & N" show after this commercial message...
-
(http://beta.news8.net/images/geico200.gif)
-
Watch next week as N & N banter on and on about this and that.
-
Okay sorry Rolex, have yer wicked new thread back:
OMFG Iraq!
(carry on)
-
Iraq? Something happen in Iraq?
-
just word on the street s'all.
-
Go home Yanks, says PM in waiting
Hala Jaber, Baghdad
THE Shi’ite Muslim cleric tipped to become prime minister after next Sunday’s election in Iraq has said it will be the duty of the new government to demand the withdrawal of American forces “as soon as possible”.
“No people in the world accepts occupation and nor do we accept the continuation of American troops in Iraq,” said Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
“We regard these forces to have committed many mistakes in the handling of various issues, the first and foremost being that of security, which in turn has contributed to the massacres, crimes and calamities that have taken place in Iraq against the Iraqis.”
In comments certain to raise eyebrows in the United States, al-Hakim spoke of a role for Iran and Syria — both regarded in Washington as enemies in the war on terror — along with Iraq’s other neighbours, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait, in the security of the country.
“These countries have past experiences and good security forces and with good relations we can solve this problem together,” he said.
“Should the security problem continue, it will not end at the border of Iraq but extend to their countries.”
Al-Hakim, who heads a list of 228 candidates representing the United Iraqi Alliance — a coalition of the main Shi’ite factions — refused to be drawn into specifying a timetable for American withdrawal, saying that the details had to be worked out after the election.
However, speaking slowly and emphatically, he added: “Iraq can rely on itself and its people and it does not want foreign troops in its country.”
President George W Bush’s administration has said that an Iraqi request for the removal of the 173,000 American and other foreign troops in the country would be honoured but declined to give any indication of timing.
Britain does not want to keep troops in Iraq for “a moment longer than we need to”, the Foreign Office said yesterday. “It’s a matter of staying sufficiently long for the Iraqis to be sufficiently robust to achieve security.”
The powerful alliance headed by al-Hakim was formed on the initiative of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most revered spiritual leader. It is expected to win a majority of seats in the 275-member transitional national assembly, from which the prime minister will be chosen.
The election is being boycotted by most Sunni political parties, both secular and religious. Although outnumbered by the Shi’ite majority, the Sunnis dominated Iraq under Saddam Hussein but will emerge from the election with their influence sharply reduced.
Bush has heralded the election as the first test of his hopes for the spread of democracy to the Middle East but the administration appears increasingly concerned about the Shi’ite-dominated government that it is now expected to produce.
Further cause for pessimism has emerged with an American intelligence report warning that the elections will be followed by more violence, with an increased likelihood of clashes between Shi’ites and Sunnis that could lead to civil war.
It is all a far cry from Bush’s earlier vision of a secular Iraq that would become a crucial ally in the Middle East. likely iraqi pm says us should get out quickly (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1452397,00.html)
-
Al-Hakim
A very bad Egypt Gun in 7,92x57 cal. Copied from the very excellent 6,5x55 cal, Swedish Ljungman m/42 B.
Is considered to be one of the 7 worst guns ever constructed to be used by an army.
Dos´nt sound promissing JB88
-
oh, whats that word in movies...foreshadowing?
-
The whole situation somehow reminded me about the Russian "freedom-fighters" who assasinated the Emperor of Russia in XIX century.
Do you know who happened to become the head of the Russian state afterwards ?
You would not believe it, but it was another Emperor of Russia ! :rofl :rolleyes:
-
i was just thinking about how crappy it would be if we spent all time, energy and manpower/life to take the country only to be asked to leave without so much as a guarantee of a lucrative oil contract.
i wonder if jesus is wandering around in pilat land over there again....hmmm.
-
Originally posted by JB88
i was just thinking about how crappy it would be if we spent all time, energy and manpower/life to take the country only to be asked to leave without so much as a guarantee of a lucrative oil contract.
i wonder if jesus is wandering around in pilat land over there again....hmmm.
Well JB88, then we have to start to discuss the real reasons for invading again.
According to most peole here, the sacrifice was done, to give the poor Iraqs freedom and to remove Saddam.
Nothing to do with oil at all, just for to gaurantee peace in the middle east and to share the bigest of gifts USA have to offer: Democracy.
I really doubt that Americans think it was worth the death of atleast 1400 US soldiers and about 300 billion dollars of taxmoney, (and to rebuild the country for damages done, another 300 billion, making it 600 billion. No wonder they will need to cut back on SS)....but, hey, thats just me
-
colonialism just aint what it used to be eh?
-
the latest news. 80 billion more for iraq...
Bush to Seek About $80 Bln for Military Operations
Mon Jan 24, 2005 04:02 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration plans to announce as early as Tuesday that it will seek about $80 billion in new funding for military operations this year in Iraq and Afghanistan, administration and congressional sources said on Monday.
The new supplemental budget request would come on top of the $25 billion in emergency spending already approved for the current fiscal year, and will push total 2005 funding for military operations and equipment close to a record $105 billion, the sources said on Monday.
Up to $650 million is expected to be included in the package to fund humanitarian aid, reconstruction efforts and military operations in Asian countries devastated by last month's tsunami, congressional aides said.
- reuters
-
105 billion makes 650 million look cheap. I really wish bush would have pledged 1 billion when the tsunami first happened. I think it would have helped restore our image at least a little bit. I guess it costs more to kill people than help them.
-
guess you gotta spend money to waste it.
-
Originally posted by genozaur
The whole situation somehow reminded me about the Russian "freedom-fighters" who assasinated the Emperor of Russia in XIX century.
Do you know who happened to become the head of the Russian state afterwards ?
You would not believe it, but it was another Emperor of Russia ! :rofl :rolleyes:
Only this time genozaur.....the people will be voting in a new government. The people will only have themselves to blame if they vote in another dictator or anyone who oppresses them in any way.
The Iraqis have an opportunity here, we'll just have to wait and see how it all turns out :)
-
Originally posted by RedTop
I would like that very much. UN Peacekeeping. That means none of our troops are dieing in that country and having to listen to certain elements here do nothing but have contempt for them.
Let the UN be the security force there. Let the UN get a coalition of whoever they want to be Iraqi security forces.
You went in against UN's will and now when You're in deep watermelon youd like UN to come and pull you out? Are you stupid or something ?
-
Pretty sure most U.N. troops are from the U.S.
Not all But MOST
-
Boy you couldn't be more wrong...
Troops including civilian polices, military polices and troops Dec 2004:
Pakistan 8140
Bangladesh 8024
USA 429
Good guess anyways.
btw it took about 5mins to look out that data from http://www.un.org
-
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/un.gif)
-
learn something new every day. thanks:)
-
god i love statistics.
-
I was amazed too reading that top ten contributors (and then few more) are "Third World" countries.
Gotta give props to Bangladesh and Pakistan.
-
Yeah bangladesh was the one I was really surprised. I tried to find back data to see if it was after Kosovo that we took all our troops out or what.
-
so according to that...If you call the UN out to "help" you with your problems you will get the same people wearing uniforms as are answering the phone when you try to get your dell coimputer fixed?
Another stirring endorsment for the un.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so according to that...If you call the UN out to "help" you with your problems you will get the same people wearing uniforms as are answering the phone when you try to get your dell coimputer fixed?
Another stirring endorsment for the un.
lazs
lmao that was hilarious...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so according to that...If you call the UN out to "help" you with your problems you will get the same people wearing uniforms as are answering the phone when you try to get your dell coimputer fixed?
Another stirring endorsment for the un.
lazs
yep. good one laz.
:rofl
-
Staga. I think thoose figures are a little, "wrong", as I see your list shows only military and civilian POLICE?
Sweden has 720 Military personal and observers under the command of UN, divided into the following locations:
Afganistan 89
Bosnia 64
balkan 6
Georgia 3
India-Pakistan 6
Kongo 5
kosovo 300
liberia 234
libanon 7
seirra leone 1
sudan 3
east timor 2
And 2000 ready to be deployed anywhere in the world if called for.
Laz2, good one :lol
-
Originally posted by Staga
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/un.gif)
That looks like its just police contributions, whether military police or civilian police. Doesnt appear to include military combat units designated as peacekeepers.
-
Personnel
Personnel
Military personnel and civilian police serving in peacekeeping operations on 31 December 2004
64,701
Countries contributing military personnel and civilian police on 31 December 2004
102
International civilian personnel on 31 December 2004
4,085
Local civilian personnel on 31 December 2004
7,409
Total number of fatalities in peacekeeping operations since 1948 as of 31 December 2004
1,933
NOTE: The term “military personnel” refers to military observers and troops, as applicable. Fatality figures include military, civilian police and civilian international and local personnel in United Nations peacekeeping operations only.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2004/December2004_1.pdf
-
Check the links; it's all in there.
-
Originally posted by Staga
You went in against UN's will and now when You're in deep watermelon youd like UN to come and pull you out? Are you stupid or something ?
You probably ought to read everything in context before you spout off.
-
You've made your bed, now lie in it.
-
Originally posted by Staga
You've made your bed, now lie in it.
whatever staga:rolleyes:
-
Matters not 88
Staga I doubt read all I posted..he took one thing and used it to what he wanted it to be. a flame...He can say what ever he wishes. I'm tired of arguing with people like him. No matter what I said he will spin it to become what he wants me to have said. His right...no problem.
Im out
-
i think that it does. but hey, you know that i am an idealist.
in a perfect world, we would see that we are all morons.
-
According to official military sources, there are 720 swedes, civilian, military, serving UN peacekeeping missions, not 305 as claimed in the PDF you sent, Staga.
If you know swedish, check it out on http://www.mil.se
-
Patrone,
question....Although we disagree on most everything , Did my post about the UN sound anything like I was looking for the UN to "Bail" us out?
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Patrone,
question....Although we disagree on most everything , Did my post about the UN sound anything like I was looking for the UN to "Bail" us out?
First of all, I have to say that I disagree with you saying we do disagree on most everything.
I mostly ask questions, that mostly are attacked as bashing.
A part from that, No, you didnt sound like you wanted UN to bail you out.
But the fact that this will be needed, is a completly other story.
-
Hats off to that answer. Possibly I see your questions and stuff in the wrong light. That ole communication gap;)
Thanks for the answer.
Staga...read ALL my posts and what Patrone and I were discussing. Read HIS questions and my answers. than maybe youll understand what I meant and what you may have taken the wrong way. Than again maybe not. But there ya go
-
To make the discussion a little shorter and to put it all one post.
I asked a question if the US would leave if the Elected Iraq Goverment asked them to, as this is in a resulotion from UN SC.
Redtop said they would and he would be happy if they did.
And I claimed that it would be a good end, for the US, cause they would not considered to be loosers. And UN could keep up the security in Iraq until everything seattled down.
Redtop agreed with me, saying that it would be a good idea, that his countrymen didnt have to die, but be brought back home.
-
RedTop, I apollogise jumping to conclusions; There has been bit too many posts against UN and while it's not perfect organization it's still best we have.
Sorry.
-
I apologize too.
-
I don't... the un sucks. it is not only not perfect but it is full of criminal perverts and egomaniacs and euro trash. It has an army hired by Dell and people from countries that still eat each other pretending to be civilized... plus... they let the ice bears deficate in the lobby and none of the scum payu their parking tickets.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Staga
RedTop, I apollogise jumping to conclusions; There has been bit too many posts against UN and while it's not perfect organization it's still best we have.
Sorry.
No Problem:)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't... the un sucks. it is not only not perfect but it is full of criminal perverts and egomaniacs and euro trash. It has an army hired by Dell and people from countries that still eat each other pretending to be civilized... plus... they let the ice bears deficate in the lobby and none of the scum payu their parking tickets.
lazs
dear god,
thank you for finally giving me a reason to like laz.
who knew he was so funny.
-
Originally posted by JB88
who knew he was so funny.
Lotsa people.
-
Originally posted by patrone
First of all, I have to say that I disagree with you saying we do disagree on most everything.
I mostly ask questions, that mostly are attacked as bashing.
A part from that, No, you didnt sound like you wanted UN to bail you out.
But the fact that this will be needed, is a completly other story.
The UN couldn't bail out a piss bucket with a backhoe.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
The UN couldn't bail out a piss bucket with a backhoe.
Sorry, but thats your only chance.....not to be looking like you where running with the tail up your legs.
You guys lost this one, just like the Vietnam, now its all about getting your boys out, without having to admit it.
-
(http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW01-26-05.jpg)
-
Originally posted by patrone
Sorry, but thats your only chance.....not to be looking like you where running with the tail up your legs.
You guys lost this one, just like the Vietnam, now its all about getting your boys out, without having to admit it.
We don't loose anything patrone. Saddam is history, his once worlds fourth largest military has been totally dismantled. The only looser here would be Iraq if they fail to take the opportunity they have been given to build a Democracy. If they don't choose to take it, to bad. We didn't loose anything in Vietnam. It was a proxy war fought during the cold war. To prevent the spread of communism. Have you noticed that Communism has been reduced to N. Korea and Cuba. China is learning that Capitolism is far superior.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Yeah bangladesh was the one I was really surprised. I tried to find back data to see if it was after Kosovo that we took all our troops out or what.
I think it's pretty much been third world countries for a long time: troops cost money, and giving them to the UN means they pay for themselves and might even get a little profit. So the third World are much more willing. Most countries also feel the UN is terribly expensive, so usually third world countries are all the UN can afford.
The West feels UN duty is really too dangerous and too expensive to send more than token forces unless there's a serious prize at stake. They prefer to send in the initial troops to a troublespot that they're interested in then "blue rinse" the whole thing by dragging in the UN to replace their expensive troops with much cheaper troops that the UN try to beg from the third world, to do the more dangerous long term peacekeeping.
In the process of "blue rinsing", the country doing the rinse gains a veneer of legitimacy and a lovely "if it fails, it was the UNs fault" indemnity - a "get out of jail free" card, if you will - into the bargain. Unlike the initial troops, the UN troops have no real mandate to actually intervene, so they are more likely to fail.
Why don't the UN troops have a mandate to intervene? Well, no nation wants to submit to UN interference, so the member states forbid the UN peacekeepers to interfere in sovereign state's internal matters (such as civil wars, genocides, etc.).
Next time you proclaim that under no circumstance should the UN be allowed to impinge on your country's sovereignty, try to remember that is precisely the reason why the UN can't intervene in genocides such as Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia and so on.
It's why the UN is so ineffective at peacekeeping: The UNSC members call for peacekeeping operations and then refuse to provide the troops needed to do them. Then they sit back and blame the UN for not providing troops and spending so much money of their money on peacekeeping as if it were some sort of separate entity they had no control over.
In short we have got the UN peacekeeping we deserve: it's the UN peacekeeping we are prepared to abide by, man and pay for . If it's imperfect it's entirely our fault. If the UN is ignored and ineffectual it is because we have made it so. Because we are the UN: it's not a separate entity. This is even more so for the five permanent members of the UNSC: US, UK, China, Russia, France who are the real powerholders of the UN.
As the wise Mr Vonnegut puts it in his epitaph for the planet:
"The good Earth -- we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy."
-
Yes, I see, You are a true patriot Weaselsan
-
Originally posted by patrone
Yes, I see, You are a true patriot Weaselsan
There's another kind?
-
nice post dead.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
There's another kind?
Guess not, keep the "good" work up
-
Originally posted by -dead-
I think it's pretty much been third world countries for a long time: troops cost money, and giving them to the UN means they pay for themselves and might even get a little profit. So the third World are much more willing. Most countries also feel the UN is terribly expensive, so usually third world countries are all the UN can afford.
The West feels UN duty is really too dangerous and too expensive to send more than token forces unless there's a serious prize at stake. They prefer to send in the initial troops to a troublespot that they're interested in then "blue rinse" the whole thing by dragging in the UN to replace their expensive troops with much cheaper troops that the UN try to beg from the third world, to do the more dangerous long term peacekeeping.
In the process of "blue rinsing", the country doing the rinse gains a veneer of legitimacy and a lovely "if it fails, it was the UNs fault" indemnity - a "get out of jail free" card, if you will - into the bargain. Unlike the initial troops, the UN troops have no real mandate to actually intervene, so they are more likely to fail.
Why don't the UN troops have a mandate to intervene? Well, no nation wants to submit to UN interference, so the member states forbid the UN peacekeepers to interfere in sovereign state's internal matters (such as civil wars, genocides, etc.).
Next time you proclaim that under no circumstance should the UN be allowed to impinge on your country's sovereignty, try to remember that is precisely the reason why the UN can't intervene in genocides such as Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia and so on.
It's why the UN is so ineffective at peacekeeping: The UNSC members call for peacekeeping operations and then refuse to provide the troops needed to do them. Then they sit back and blame the UN for not providing troops and spending so much money of their money on peacekeeping as if it were some sort of separate entity they had no control over.
In short we have got the UN peacekeeping we deserve: it's the UN peacekeeping we are prepared to abide by, man and pay for . If it's imperfect it's entirely our fault. If the UN is ignored and ineffectual it is because we have made it so. Because we are the UN: it's not a separate entity. This is even more so for the five permanent members of the UNSC: US, UK, China, Russia, France who are the real powerholders of the UN.
As the wise Mr Vonnegut puts it in his epitaph for the planet:
The UN was a good Idea, as was the failed League of Nations. But not possible. The only time Nations will submit to the will of the UN is when it is in their own interests to do so. As a result we see genocide continue while we watch the Secretary General wring his hands behind a podium and decry how difficult it is to do anything about it.....Good points though.
-
the structure of the United Nations is what harms it the most IMHO.
it conflicts with the basic spirit of its charter and the reasons for its existance.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
The UN was a good Idea, as was the failed League of Nations. But not possible. The only time Nations will submit to the will of the UN is when it is in their own interests to do so. As a result we see genocide continue while we watch the Secretary General wring his hands behind a podium and decry how difficult it is to do anything about it.....Good points though.
And why did the League of Nations fail?
As far as I know, it is the Security Council that handles theese problems and the Secreatary of General has nothing to say, within this circle. He is not a Dictator that can run UN the way he wants to.
It is only difficult to do anything about it, if the security council are not willing to bring the issue up. As far as I know, USA is still a steady member of this SC and more responsible of the acts of UN then Kofi Annan ever will be in theese matters.
Oh, another question,, when the US camp was attacked by a suicidebomber Lebanon and left the mission, what Country did take your place, this dangerous spot?
-
Granted ...Iraq is a mess.
I have friends over there who I have talked to who want to come home..right now. They are stressed to the max and one advised me that he feels like its a matter of time before he "gets it".
So did the troops in Vietnam, Korea, WWII and I would think every other conflict known to man.'' But they all understood they had a mission to do. And the troops have, for the most part, already accomplished the original mission: To find, isolate or eliminate a believed threat, namely Sadam and his cronies. For right or wrong, it is done. But now, the in-fighting starts.
This soldier is also training Iraqies and has lost three of his five man Iraqie fire team. He believes that these Iraqies are fighting and dying for their freedom. While they have no love for him, they are fighting for what they believe in. It isn't for the American way of life. It is for simple human rights, that were denied to them and their families for years under S.H.
A "rebel" symathizer shot our president during the aftermath of our Civil War only five or six genreations ago. After shocks of this war still end in murder and mayhem to this date in parts of the USA. Do we really expect all Iraqies to immedately lay down and comply. Not going to happen. Bush told us this was going to be long and unpleasant, and it is.
Regardless of how history plays on the WMD debate....and I tell you that is far from over, the U.S. gave an oppressed population a chance to improve their situation.
The elections will take place, the training of the Iraqies continue and then we will undertake the exit. The believers will still blindly believe and the nay-sayers will still Monday morning quarterback.
Bush will lead for better or worse and History will make the judgement of rightousness.
-
nicely said colt. :)
we are in it. now its up to us to make it better.
i didnt agree with it. i dont agree with it.
but i do think that we all have a responsibility to make it right now.
-
This Pollyanna army
Bush will not admit that his troops are too exhausted to sustain his vengeful global missions
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday January 27, 2005
The Guardian
The most penetrating critique of the realism informing President Bush's second inaugural address, a trumpet call of imperial ambition, was made one month before it was delivered, by Lt Gen James Helmly, chief of the US Army Reserve.
In an internal memorandum, he described "the Army Reserve's inability under current policies, procedures and practices ... to meet mission requirements associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. The Army Reserve is additionally in grave danger of being unable to meet other operational requirements and is rapidly degenerating into a broken force".
These "dysfunctional" policies are producing a crisis "more acute and hurtful", as the Reserve's ability to mobilise troops is "eroding daily".
The US force in Iraq of about 150,000 troops is composed of a "volunteer" army that came into being with the end of military conscription during the Vietnam war. More than 40% are National Guard and Reserves, most having completed second tours of duty and being sent out again.
The force level has been maintained by the Pentagon only by "stop-loss" orders that coerce soldiers to remain in service after their contractual enlistment expires - a back-door draft.
Re-enlistment is collapsing, by 30% last year. The Pentagon justified this de facto conscription by telling Congress that it is merely a short-term solution that would not be necessary as Iraq quickly stabilises and an Iraqi security force fills the vacuum. But this week the Pentagon announced that the US force level would remain unchanged through 2006.
"I don't know where these troops are coming from. It's mystifying," Representative Ellen Tauscher, a ranking Democrat on the House armed services committee, told me. "There's no policy to deal with the fact we have a military in extremis."
Bush's speech calling for "ending tyranny in all the world" was of consistent abstraction uninflected by anything as specific as the actual condition of the military that would presumably be sent scurrying on various global missions.
But the speech was aflame with images of destruction and vengeance. The neoconservatives were ecstatic, perhaps as much by their influence in inserting their gnostic codewords into the speech as the dogmatism of the speech itself.
For them, Bush's rhetoric about "eternal hope that is meant to be fulfiled" was a sign of their triumph. The speech, crowed neocon William Kristol, who consulted on it, was indeed "informed by Strauss" - a reference to Leo Strauss, philosopher of obscurantist strands of absolutist thought, mentor and inspiration to some neocons who believe they fulfil his teaching by acting as tutors to politicians in need of their superior guidance.
'Informed" is hardly the precise word to account for the manipulation of Bush's impulses by cultish advisers with ulterior motives.
Even as the neocons revelled in their influence, Bush's glittering generalities, lofted on wings of hypocrisy, crashed to earth. Would we launch campaigns against tyrannical governments in Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or China?
Of course, the White House briefed reporters, Bush didn't mean his rhetoric to suggest any change in strategy.
Unfortunately for Condoleezza Rice, such levels of empty abstraction could not glide her through her Senate confirmation as secretary of state without abrasion.
With implacable rigidity, she stood by every administration decision. There was no disinformation on Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons of mass destruction; any suggestion that she had been misleading in the rush to war was an attack on her personal integrity. The light military force for the invasion was just right. And it was just right now.
Contrary to Senator Joseph Biden of the foreign relations committee, who stated that there are only 14,000 trained Iraqi security forces, she insisted there are 120,000. Why, secretary of defence Rumsfeld had told her so.
Then, implicitly acknowledging the failure to create a credible Iraqi army, the Pentagon announced that the US forces would remain at the same level for the next two years. Rice's Pollyanna testimony was suddenly inoperative.
The administration has no strategy for Iraq or for the coerced American army plodding endlessly across the desert.
Representative Tauscher wonders when the House armed services committee, along with the rest of the Congress, will learn anything from the Bush administration that might be considered factual: "They are never persuaded by the facts. Nobody can tell you what their plan is and they don't feel the need to have one."
On the eve of the Iraqi election, neither the president's soaring rhetoric nor the new secretary of state's fantasy numbers touch the brutal facts on the ground.
Sidney Blumethal is former senior adviser to President Clinton and author of The Clinton Wars
-
Too bad you never hear stories from iraq with headlines like.
Terrorists shot dead by iraqis cause they had enough
That would be cool.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
The UN was a good Idea, as was the failed League of Nations. But not possible. The only time Nations will submit to the will of the UN is when it is in their own interests to do so. As a result we see genocide continue while we watch the Secretary General wring his hands behind a podium and decry how difficult it is to do anything about it.....Good points though.
The Secretary General can only wring his hands because that's all we let him do. We control the UN, not Kofi Annan.
In the case of peacekeeping missions specifically it's down to just five countries to set the mandate, the rules of engagement and such: US, UK, France, Russia and China. If a UN peacekeeping mission is not allowed to intervene, not adequately staffed or funded, these 5 nations are primarily to blame, not Kofi Annan or the UN, but the US, the UK, France, Russia and China.
Annan is a civil servant (as his title suggests): he can only do what we tell him to do — his job in a peacekeeping mission is asking member countries to donate the troops, often on credit, to do the UNSC's will. He has no army of his own, and no say in policy. He also has no means of forcing countries to give troops, money or equipment.
Were anyone else to step into Annan's shoes they too would wring their hands: the UN has very little money, and no power. But he doesn't make it that way: we do. We don't pay the money we owe, we don't send enough troops, we don't let the peacekeepers do anything. We do nothing to stop genocide. We allow it to happen, because it's not in our interest to stop it.
So really, we are the ones idly wringing our hands: the Secretary General does what we tell him to. Because we wouldn't dream of letting him do anything else.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
The Secretary General can only wring his hands because that's all we let him do. We control the UN, not Kofi Annan.
In the case of peacekeeping missions specifically it's down to just five countries to set the mandate, the rules of engagement and such: US, UK, France, Russia and China. If a UN peacekeeping mission is not allowed to intervene, not adequately staffed or funded, these 5 nations are primarily to blame, not Kofi Annan or the UN, but the US, the UK, France, Russia and China.
Annan is a civil servant (as his title suggests): he can only do what we tell him to do — his job in a peacekeeping mission is asking member countries to donate the troops, often on credit, to do the UNSC's will. He has no army of his own, and no say in policy.
Were anyone else to step into Annan's shoes they too would wring their hands: the UN has very little money, and no power. But he doesn't make it that way: we do. We don't pay the money we owe, we don't send enough troops, we don't let the peacekeepers do anything. We do nothing to stop genocide. We allow it to happen, because it's not in our interest to stop it.
So really, we are the ones idly wringing our hands: the Secretary General does what we tell him to. Because we wouldn't dream of letting him do anything else.
dead, I pretty much agree.
I just wonder why Russia, China, and France never seem to do any "heavy lifting" in major UN security operations.
-
dead. you are my newfound temporary hero.
:)
-
Originally posted by JB88
dead. you are my newfound temporary hero.
:)
Basically, he's calling the UN useless.......you know that, right?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
dead, I pretty much agree.
I just wonder why Russia, China, and France never seem to do any "heavy lifting" in major UN security operations.
I ask you the same question as I asked Weaselsan, NUKE:
Who took US place after the horrible suicide bombing of the US camp in Lebanon, when US bailed out from this mission? Who took this dangerous mission, from what country?
-
and how many troops had US during the conflict in Bosnia?
-
But patrone, why was it that the US was there to begin with?
-
Originally posted by patrone
and how many troops had US during the conflict in Bosnia?
even one would be too many....it was a European issue...
Still we sent troops and a large air support.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Basically, he's calling the UN useless.......you know that, right?
i happen to appreciate his articulation. that and one of my greatest criticisms of the UN is how it is set up.
i think its pretty obvious that the UN has a hard time accomplishing an objective without having it first be a state sanctioned one.
yet, i would argue that the UN remains influential if only to offer a world view, give a global heads up or down and act as a place for debate and disbursion of supply and security.
as dead has pointed out, it was set up to benifit the permanent members rather than really establishing equality for the whole.
perhaps the next world war will usher in a better model.
id like to think that it wont have to come to that. but it probably wont.
so?
-
and patrone, the US had about 20,000 troops in Bosnia, one third of all troops
-
Originally posted by NUKE
But patrone, why was it that the US was there to begin with?
Well, they where not there before and the left after the bomb, no shadow over US, it was the right thing 234 dead in one blow, thats a little to much. But, who took your place?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
and patrone, the US had about 20,000 troops in Bosnia, one third of all troops
In Bosnia or Kosovo?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Basically, he's calling the UN useless.......you know that, right?
No. You still haven't quite got the idea yet: I'm calling the US, UK, France, Russia and China particularly useless, and to a lesser extent the other member states. Although a lot of the third world deserves a mention for at least donating troops.
The UN has lots of uses —_and the organization has saved millions and millions of lives over the years.
-
patrone, you are talking about lebanon yes?
-
Originally posted by -dead-
No. You still haven't quite got the idea yet: I'm calling the US, UK, France, Russia and China particularly useless, and to a lesser extent the other member states. Although a lot of the third world deserves a mention for at least donating troops.
The UN has lots of uses —_and the organization has saved millions and millions of lives over the years.
I got your point.
But, you have to concede that in fact, the UN is useless by your own definition. Sure, the host countries may be the cause, but the effect is that the UN is indeed useless.
I like it when someone helps me make my point with their own logic.
-
no. it is not.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I got your point.
But, you have to concede that in fact, the UN is useless by your own definition. Sure, the host countries may be the cause, but the effect is that the UN is indeed useless.
I like it when someone helps me make my point with their own logic.
The UN is as useless as the countries in SC wants it to be. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
dead, I pretty much agree.
I just wonder why Russia, China, and France never seem to do any "heavy lifting" in major UN security operations.
Not sure what you mean by "heavy lifting" — transportation? or something more obtuse.
-
Originally posted by patrone
The UN is as useless as the countries in SC wants it to be. Nothing more, nothing less.
true, but that does not discount the fact that the UN is useless.
True, the countries control what the UN can or cannot do.....but the end result is that the UN is useless.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Not sure what you mean by "heavy lifting" — transportation? or something more obtuse.
He means operations that has been sugested and heavy supported by USA in SC.
-
no. it isnt.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
true, but that does not discount the fact that the UN is useless.
True, the countries control what the UN can or cannot do.....but the end result is that the UN is useless.
Its not useless if everyone honour the Charta they one time signed.
-
its broken because there is no means to enforce it.
it becomes more of a diplomatic mission with a humanitarian angle.
though i was reading an article that clinton is gunning for secretary general.
i have a feeling that alot would change about it if he did.
-
Originally posted by JB88
its broken because there is no means to enforce it.
it becomes more of a diplomatic mission with a humanitarian angle.
though i was reading an article that clinton is gunning for secretary general.
i have a feeling that alot would change about it if he did.
Nothing will change because they change the Secretary General and I really doubt Clinton would fit
-
mmmm, i wouldnt be so sure.
regardless of what you think ofthe man, hes a pretty damn good politician. i think he could add some serious clout to the organization, while countering some of the less loved elements here at home.
just my 02.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I got your point.
But, you have to concede that in fact, the UN is useless by your own definition. Sure, the host countries may be the cause, but the effect is that the UN is indeed useless.
I like it when someone helps me make my point with their own logic.
No I'd say the UN has loads of uses — but we don't use it properly for peacekeeping. WHO, UNICEF, famine and disaster relief, a forum for discussion and diplomacy: the UN is extremely useful.
The UNSC has questionable value while there are 5 permanent members with a veto, no standing army or other method for levying troops and no mandate to intervene. But that's really a fixable kink: if we have the will to fix it. Whereas you seem to be off to throw away the baby with the bath water.
It's akin to saying capitalism is essentially useless because companies in an entirely free market produce unsafe products and an unsafe working environment. This is fixed when people have the will to, and capitalism grinds on.
-
Originally posted by JB88
mmmm, i wouldnt be so sure.
regardless of what you think ofthe man, hes a pretty damn good politician. i think he could add some serious clout to the organization, while countering some of the less loved elements here at home.
just my 02.
The guy is to marked by politics to make a good Secretary General.
-
thats precisely why you are wrong.
come on man, your progressive, try to see it for just a sec.
-
Originally posted by JB88
thats precisely why you are wrong.
come on man, your progressive, try to see it for just a sec.
Makes me wanna puke,,,,
-
lol.
bush too im sure.
lol.
-
Clinton as Secretary General and Hillary as President of USA?.... hm,,, yes I can see it,,, I CAN SEE THE........................*why did it get so dark all of a sudden?*
-
lol.
hillary. NO.
clinton as secretary general. i think hes the man for the job.
people dont listen to kofee.
right or wrong. they just dont.
i think he has the clout.
-
Hans Blix is running as welll...lol,,,I prefare him,,,
-
Originally posted by patrone
In Bosnia or Kosovo?
In Bosnia, 1995
-
is he?
hmmmm. now where is he from again?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
In Bosnia, 1995
the year it ended?
-
Originally posted by JB88
is he?
hmmmm. now where is he from again?
Cant really remember... From somewhere in europe,,,
-
clinton as secretary general. i think hes the man for the job.
Why, exactly?
-
he might be able to pull it off i suppose, but clinton already lives in new york.
actually, i cant remember where they said it was, but i think it was supposed to be an asian country that is up next...appearantly they have some sort of base system by which they rotate...and i think it was supposed to be asia...
the article that i read said something about there being debate as to skipping that formality to bring clinton in.
i still say it would be interesting, but i can see where it would be overkill.
-
JB88, it will be another swede,, thats for sure.....LOL
-
Originally posted by Steve
Why, exactly?
well, i think that he has a semi-populous viewpoint, that he has the ability to integrate differing opinions and seems to do well with absorbing different ideologies. the man is intelligent obviosly and has a way of rebounding when put down.
hes an optimist which helps, and i think that the world could some of that.
now, i hope that this isnt going to turn into a clinton bash, because we had eight years of that and ive had pretty much enough of it ya know?
i understand what his shortcomings were as president, though i do not share the whole "slick willy" view that many of the right wing elements did.
i think that clinton has the gravitas to lend credibility to the organization and get some things done.
he has had a pretty good perspective for a base from which to jump.
-
We Can Still Win
By David H. Hackworth
The invasion of Iraq was sledgehammer-simple: Slug in some “shock and awe” and kiss Saddam Hussein goodbye.
But while our troops and generals deserve a big “bravo” for their brilliance and bravery during the initial war-fighting phase, the occupation – which went wrong right from the get-go and has bled along for almost two more terrible years – is going down as one of the biggest snafus in U.S. military history.
If the generals had any kind of plan to stabilize Iraq, it had to have been drawn up and approved by serving officers seriously stoned on LSD. But as there’s zip evidence of any high-level pre-invasion planning effort, I suspect that Gen. Tommy Franks bought into all the Pentagon hype about how once the statue of Saddam fell it would be wine, roses and ecstatic dancing in the streets – and then the majority of our soldiers would leave 40,000 peacekeepers behind to assist the appropriately grateful Iraqis in building a booming, oil-rich democracy and return home to confetti and victory parades.
Our troops were truly magnificent in the early days of the fumbled occupation. Their skill, sacrifice and flexibility gave new meaning to “take charge and move out, field expediency and staying loose,” and prevented even worse disasters in the chaos that ensued after our forces took down Saddam.
There is no doubt both that our warriors won the battle and that our generals blew the occupation and have been playing catch-up – badly – ever since. And nearly two years later, too many of our senior military geniuses still don’t understand that we’re fighting insurgents and that they need to get the necessary additional combat power on the ground quicksmart.
Again, the three mistakes that have continued to haunt our forces in Iraq since April ‘03 are: (1) No initial occupation plan; (2) no acknowledgment at the top that we’re fighting an insurgency war; and (3) not enough combat troops to put down the insurgents, who daily become smarter, stronger and better-organized.
Our grunts have been letting me know since the early days of the invasion that there has never been enough people power on deck to do the job. “We’re stretched too thin” has been a constant complaint. “Battalions are doing the work of brigades and brigades divisions,” snorts an infantry skipper now in the Mosul area of operations.
So far, not one general has had the guts to stand tall and demand more troops from either Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers – who was selected for the job because he’s a technical whiz, not a warfighter – or his boss, SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. And late last year, when a reporter tore into Rummy on CNN about how our forces were knee-deep in an insurgency war that wasn’t going well, Rummy remained in undaunted denial, defending the one-note, high-tech 21st-century force he keeps pushing – in spite of the overwhelming evidence that this war is now all about insurgency.
Meanwhile, our brass hats appear to be suffering from the Shinseki disease they caught bearing witness to then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki’s being treated as a leper for standing up to Rummy over the number of troops needed for the occupation. The lesson learned from this telling example: Don’t cross Rummy. So even though Shinseki was dead-right, the brass went along – to get along – with a shamefully inadequate troop strength.
In my judgment, the war in Iraq against the insurgents is still winnable: if Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran are told to stop supporting the insurgents or else; if we get enough boots on the ground ASAP to saturate and dominate the badlands; and if the brass allow the small-unit leaders to do their thing without the obsessive micromanagement that infects our Army.
The troops should be left alone to build up a solid network of Iraqis who want the war to end. Then together they can put down the spoilers and spread the good life that the majority of the people in Iraq are now starting to enjoy.
Fighting insurgents is relatively simple. You don’t need to be the top guy in the class to win the game. But you do need common sense and commanders who aren’t afraid to stand up to bum-kissing top brass and dumb policy.
-
Hackworth? lol Are you going to quote Bozo next? He has the same credibility.
I raised the question about Clinton for the following reason: If the UN is to survive as a relevent and beneficial organization, it faces some tough decisions as far as its' own policies and how it executes said policies. As charasmatic as Clinton is, he never demonstrated the ability to make tough and potentially unpopular decisions. In fact, he has a penchant for taking the token action and leaving the problems for future administrations.
I don't think this is the kind of leader any troubled organization needs.
Additionally, I don't think any American can effectively lead the UN, with so much anti-American sentiment abroad.
This is another irony. Much of the sentiment against us is in regards to invasion of Iraq, can you guess what percentage of Iraqis are against our actions there?
-
6.022 x 10^23 ?
-
do you know what percentage of americans are against us being there?
perhaps you might consider becoming an iraqi.
as far as your arguements against clinton.
well, the only thing that i agree with is that it would be hard to get an american to run the un effectively, but only because chances are there wont be an opportunity anytime soon.
and gee, balancing the budget, stripping the deficit and reforming the welfare system, all conservative values btw, are just a little thing right? whatever steve. and all while repelling a which hunt by the kids who never got chicks in high school.
not bad.
youd be wrong on clintons credibility globally. id put it next to dubya's anyday.
i think we'd know who would win that one brother.
88
-
raider. will you be so kind as to take over this thread in my absence?
ill be out of town for a bit.
(D.C.)
you too if you would patrone.
id like to keep it alive.
please and thank you.
88
-
will give it a go lol
-
youd be wrong on clintons credibility globally. id put it next to dubya's anyday.
That's because you are a left wing whacko and would be willing to put the world's opinion ahead of what is best for America.
-
and gee, balancing the budget, stripping the deficit and reforming the welfare system, all conservative values btw, are just a little thing right? whatever steve. and all while repelling a which hunt by the kids who never got chicks in high school.
Just WTF are you talking about you farging nutjob?
-
do you know what percentage of americans are against us being there
Less than 50. Do you know what percentage of Iraqi's are glad to have us? An overwhelming majority. It was the right thing to do, you just don't llike it because Clinton and your fellow left wing nutjobs lacked the balls to make the decision. You'd be happy to do nothing until terrorists acquired nukes and then started blowing up cities en masse. Then you would try to blame America.
You're an absolute nutcase, I preaise God there are enough voters to keep people with your beliefs out of power, and those with my beliefs in power. Take it, whacko.
-
also do you think that because we invaded Iraq we made it harder for terrorists to get nukes?
Edited for incorrect information
-
(http://media.gallup.com/POLL/focus/sr030610_1.gif)
The poll you linked to asks whether we made a mistake sending them there in the first place. It does not say what percentage thinks troops are required to stay to clean up.
-
Well saying "no" would actully mean 1400 soldiers died in vain and 300 billion dollar down the drain.
Pretty "hardboiled" stuff
-
yep your right misread that one
does say that 46% favor withdrawing Some or All the troops.
-
Roberts says insurgency will continue, questions Iraqi democracy
TOPEKA, Kan. -- Iraqi insurgents are likely to continue attacks after elections, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said Friday. He also questioned whether American intervention can create democracy there.
Roberts, R-Kan., said he is concerned that majority Shiites, who make up 60 percent of the population, will dominate the new Iraqi government after Sunday's balloting and the new government will form an alliance with Iran, where Shiites also are in the majority.
The senator said he expects that insurgents "will not let up," particularly if Shiite turnout is high and Sunni turnout is low. Under former President Saddam Hussein, Sunnis dominated politics; Sunni insurgents are battling U.S. and Iraqi forces.
"I don't think you can lay down democracy in a country in rocky soil like so much Astroturf," Roberts said.
Roberts spoke to an audience of about 150 Kansas business leaders and legislators during a forum sponsored by the Kansas Chamber of Commerce.
"We are in for some very challenging times," Roberts said. "If we are not successful, what kind of message does that send to the insurgents? What kind of message does that send to al-Qaida?"
In a brief interview later, Roberts said: "I think the insurgency will continue in its murderous way to just completely put aside the election, more especially if the Shiites turn out 80 percent, which is I think is probably a fair number."
Roberts said he hopes the new government will be "pluralistic," but added, "It's possible, but not very probable."
Meanwhile, in speaking to the same audience, Rep. Jim Ryun, R-Kan., said he is not concerned about low turnout in Sunday's elections, adding that only a third of American colonists supported breaking away from England as the American Revolution began.
He said that although Iraq remains dangerous, Iraqis have freedoms that didn't exist when Saddam was in power.
Even Roberts said, "This is the first election they've ever had, so let's hope for the best."
But Roberts said Sunni turnout is likely to be depressed by threats of violence from the insurgents, and that troubles him.
"I don't want to see a situation where the Shia just completely dominates the situation and then joins at the hip with Iran, who is also Shia," he said. "Then you have a crescent of influence with two Muslim countries with Shia dominance that not would be in the best interest of the United States."
Roberts said he is concerned about an alliance because Iran has resisted democratic reforms.
-
Holding an all-Iraqi elections at present state of internal affairs in rebellious regions of Iraq (notably Sunni opposition) has been the moronic proposal. Now it is a moronic reality.
Iraq can survive as a united country only if it's a federated state, kinda 'Iraqi Soviet Union' or 'Iraqi Bundesrepublik' (at best). Not the 'United States of Iraq'.
Give the guys some time for the autonomous self-rule (regional elections) AND ONLY AFTER THAT the general elections. This can work. But the general elections held within a relatively short time-span after the start of the occupation of Iraq DO NOT LOOK and ARE NOT the best thing to do right now.
The problem is that the USA walks on Iraqi lands in the British boots.
Thank you, the British Empire ! :D
-
Originally posted by genozaur
Holding an all-Iraqi elections at present state of internal affairs in rebellious regions of Iraq (notably Sunni opposition) has been the moronic proposal. Now it is a moronic reality.
really....do you actually read the news?
-
in his defense, i am guessing that he not only reads the news, but reads non US news sources which have had a markedly differing viewpoint than the american media on these matters.
that is not to say that he is right or wrong...but what are you most interested in...putting him down or learning what he means?
are you reading other news?
are you trying to see it from another perspective?
no offense meant gunslinger, but what would happen if you just asked him what he meant and listened?
surely you wouldnt get cooties?
would you?
-
I thought that was this was. An election to set up the 276 person council or whatever. then those guys elect another council. and that council picks the new leader. sounds like electoral congress to me. And timing is good. They needed something over their to lift the spirits of the people and the troops and I think they got it. Good job to all those involved over there from the voters to the soldiers.
on a 2nd note I read the same type article Genz on Aljazeera.net it was an op-ed and they said basically the same thing. I got the idea though that it wouldnt matter when we held them it would have been the wrong time.
-
Originally posted by JB88
in his defense, i am guessing that he not only reads the news, but reads non US news sources which have had a markedly differing viewpoint than the american media on these matters.
that is not to say that he is right or wrong...but what are you most interested in...putting him down or learning what he means?
are you reading other news?
are you trying to see it from another perspective?
no offense meant gunslinger, but what would happen if you just asked him what he meant and listened?
surely you wouldnt get cooties?
would you?
you make a good point but to call free elections moronic and witnessing it today calling it a moronic reality is well....moronic.
To hear the tails of happiness from people who get to vote for their leaders for the first time in over 50 years is a happy heart warming tail.
Secondly, To witness the lackluster atempts made on the polling places brings me hope that the insurgancy's back is in fact broken (but not out of the fight) Zarquai (SP) promised the elections would not go forward and they did....he has lost this battle....the iraqis have won it.
"the mob IS rome" and today the Mob decided...... Just my opinion
-
Originally posted by patrone
Nothing will change because they change the Secretary General and I really doubt Clinton would fit
No doubt. Clinton fits all.
-
Originally posted by JB88
well, i think that he has a semi-populous viewpoint, that he has the ability to integrate differing opinions and seems to do well with absorbing different ideologies. the man is intelligent obviosly and has a way of rebounding when put down.
hes an optimist which helps, and i think that the world could some of that.
now, i hope that this isnt going to turn into a clinton bash, because we had eight years of that and ive had pretty much enough of it ya know?
i understand what his shortcomings were as president, though i do not share the whole "slick willy" view that many of the right wing elements did.
i think that clinton has the gravitas to lend credibility to the organization and get some things done.
he has had a pretty good perspective for a base from which to jump.
Not a too bad read.
Yet the words "no initial occupation plan" must be supplemented with the clarification "no sound ocupation plan whatsoever".
-
Originally posted by JB88
excellent read...and dont i agree on the bumkissing part lol
We Can Still Win
By David H. Hackworth
The invasion of Iraq was sledgehammer-simple: Slug in some “shock and awe” and kiss Saddam Hussein goodbye.
But while our troops and generals deserve a big “bravo” for their brilliance and bravery during the initial war-fighting phase, the occupation – which went wrong right from the get-go and has bled along for almost two more terrible years – is going down as one of the biggest snafus in U.S. military history.
If the generals had any kind of plan to stabilize Iraq, it had to have been drawn up and approved by serving officers seriously stoned on LSD. But as there’s zip evidence of any high-level pre-invasion planning effort, I suspect that Gen. Tommy Franks bought into all the Pentagon hype about how once the statue of Saddam fell it would be wine, roses and ecstatic dancing in the streets – and then the majority of our soldiers would leave 40,000 peacekeepers behind to assist the appropriately grateful Iraqis in building a booming, oil-rich democracy and return home to confetti and victory parades.
Our troops were truly magnificent in the early days of the fumbled occupation. Their skill, sacrifice and flexibility gave new meaning to “take charge and move out, field expediency and staying loose,” and prevented even worse disasters in the chaos that ensued after our forces took down Saddam.
There is no doubt both that our warriors won the battle and that our generals blew the occupation and have been playing catch-up – badly – ever since. And nearly two years later, too many of our senior military geniuses still don’t understand that we’re fighting insurgents and that they need to get the necessary additional combat power on the ground quicksmart.
Again, the three mistakes that have continued to haunt our forces in Iraq since April ‘03 are: (1) No initial occupation plan; (2) no acknowledgment at the top that we’re fighting an insurgency war; and (3) not enough combat troops to put down the insurgents, who daily become smarter, stronger and better-organized.
Our grunts have been letting me know since the early days of the invasion that there has never been enough people power on deck to do the job. “We’re stretched too thin” has been a constant complaint. “Battalions are doing the work of brigades and brigades divisions,” snorts an infantry skipper now in the Mosul area of operations.
So far, not one general has had the guts to stand tall and demand more troops from either Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers – who was selected for the job because he’s a technical whiz, not a warfighter – or his boss, SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. And late last year, when a reporter tore into Rummy on CNN about how our forces were knee-deep in an insurgency war that wasn’t going well, Rummy remained in undaunted denial, defending the one-note, high-tech 21st-century force he keeps pushing – in spite of the overwhelming evidence that this war is now all about insurgency.
Meanwhile, our brass hats appear to be suffering from the Shinseki disease they caught bearing witness to then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki’s being treated as a leper for standing up to Rummy over the number of troops needed for the occupation. The lesson learned from this telling example: Don’t cross Rummy. So even though Shinseki was dead-right, the brass went along – to get along – with a shamefully inadequate troop strength.
In my judgment, the war in Iraq against the insurgents is still winnable: if Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran are told to stop supporting the insurgents or else; if we get enough boots on the ground ASAP to saturate and dominate the badlands; and if the brass allow the small-unit leaders to do their thing without the obsessive micromanagement that infects our Army.
The troops should be left alone to build up a solid network of Iraqis who want the war to end. Then together they can put down the spoilers and spread the good life that the majority of the people in Iraq are now starting to enjoy.
Fighting insurgents is relatively simple. You don’t need to be the top guy in the class to win the game. But you do need common sense and commanders who aren’t afraid to stand up to bum-kissing top brass and dumb policy. [END of QUOTE]
Not a too bad read.
Yet the words "no initial occupation plan" must be supplemented with the clarification "no sound ocupation plan whatsoever". :rolleyes:
-
You're a tard.
We were in Germany for 8 years, Japan for 11.
You start crying foul after how long?..months? TARD.
-
Originally posted by Steve
You're a tard.
We were in Germany for 8 years, Japan for 11.
You start crying foul after how long?..months? TARD.
The ocupation plans in one word :
for Germany - deNazification,
for Japan - demilitarization.
So, for Iraq it has to be "democratization" ? :rofl
-
The ocupation plans in one word blah blah blah
You limp in w/ a maudlin attempt at humor because you cannot make a point against my last.
Owned... go to bed.
-
he called you a tard.
he must be right.
nobody ever uses that word unless they are. im pretty sure of that.
-
Blimey!!!
Reading this thread you'd think thatawar between America and the rest of theworld is imminent. What is all this"amerihater" stuff?Sounds a little kneejerk and paranoid. I don't think people realy hate other ordinary people ( unless brainwashed into it ) I think they just disagree with Government policies. I disagree with much current US govt policy. It scares me that we have a strong USA govt who is ready to use force of arms to impose its world view on others. It scares me that my once great little country has a Govt with its nose firmly affixed to Bush's pants. But that doesn't mean I or I'm sure many of the rest of us actualy hate Americans. So come on guys. This is a BBS where we can chat about stuff that is interesting not a nationalistic petty little sqwak box for paranoid people! is it ?:confused:
-
Originally posted by JB88
why is it that the united states of america...would have lost what was it 17 casualties in somalia and backed out?
werent we there to liberate those people from thier warlords?
and what of the sudan? genocide there. worse than saddam and usay and qusay could have even fantasized about.
the killing fields, the hutus and the tutsies.
slaughters.
no rights whatsoever. nothing.
---------------------------
Because clinton was a chicken sh it and feard his leagacy more then doing the right thing.
UN turned its back on africa.
next?
-
So after all that, 11 pages of your iraqi will not work out.
The elections were/are a HUGE SUCCESS. 66% turn out.
Bush and those who voted form him were Correct.
UN, France, Germany, Russia, and Kerry and those who voted for him Wrong side of history once again.
-
Wait and see JBA. Its what happens next thats going to show who was right.
I'm still not convinced the US giovt or anyone else has the right to blow a place to pieces and impose "democracy" on anyone to be honest.
-
Originally posted by JBA
The elections were/are a HUGE SUCCESS. 66% turn out.
66%? according to who?
Who monitored this election? Who is giving you these figures?
Hope you understand that 66% is a very high claim, even to western standards?
Even if the real figure was 40%, I would be satisfied, that will say: If the election was monitored by anyone.
-
My understanding was that there were some UN people monitoring the election and the numbers were from them.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
My understanding was that there were some UN people monitoring the election and the numbers were from them.
My understanding was that it was done from the neighbouring country Jordan, not inside Iraq.
-
You may be right I just remember hearing on the news about # coming from the UN.
-
And they dont even know if any of the sunnis voted (30% of population) how can they claim 66%?
There is 280,000 Iraqs living abroad that where registered abroad for voting, 80,000 of these are living in my country: Sweden. 60% of them voted. Yet 93% of the 280,000 is claimed to have been voting.
I dont really get this Math together.
New figures claiming 57% voted, from the original 78% claimed, thats a big jump.
New figures, 60% voted.
-
I saw that low % of sunni's voted and several cities had 0 voters. There is a report from al-jazeera (credibility who knows) that only 1 person voted in fallujah. Yes there were some places where people probably didnt vote out of fear or retribution. I will stay say its not a bad start.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I saw that low % of sunni's voted and several cities had 0 voters. There is a report from al-jazeera (credibility who knows) that only 1 person voted in fallujah. Yes there were some places where people probably didnt vote out of fear or retribution. I will stay say its not a bad start.
That some cities would not be able to vote at all, due to the security situation was known long before the poll started. That only 1 might have voted in falluja is questionable and does not really matter. I say even a low number as 40% would have been good in my eyes. I agree It is not a bad start
I dont see the reason for making the figures higher then they actully are. All kind of propaganda has a limit. It will finely reach a point when it will not matter what USA will claims, no one will belive them and this is truelly sad for all parts.
What is the worst, is that people start to question the history as well, looking up events in WWII, WWI to find flaws and lies.
Not good, not good at all.
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050131/140/fbfgf.html
Votes cast in Iraq's first democratic elections for half a century are being counted today as officials estimated at least 60% of Iraqis defied militant violence to go to the polls.
14 million eligible voters appeared higher than the 57% that had been predicted
The Shia-dominated south and Kurdish north hailed the election as a spectacular success, claiming a turnout of as high as 70%.
United Nations officials described the process as "representative and fair".
-
I understand that voters were allowed to vote in another province if they felt insecure voting in their home province, which should have allowed some voters in Sunni areas a safer alternative.
BTW, in other news, angry expatriates voting in London and the Netherlands "escorted" al-Jazeera camera crews off the premises. The body of a suicide bomber in Baghdad, who only managed to kill himself, was spit upon by those on the way to and from voting. Some ranters in the Democratic Underground forum referred to the terrorists as "freedom fighters" [freedom from what?] and the voters as "puppets" (and they wonder why many Americans regard the Dems as the anti-American party).
-
Originally posted by Rasker
The body of a suicide bomber in Baghdad, who only managed to kill himself, was spit upon by those on the way to and from voting.
Hm,,, what did he use Dynamite from Acme or just ordinary firecrackers bought in the local store?
Moron:lol
-
Originally posted by JBA
So after all that, 11 pages of your iraqi will not work out.
The elections were/are a HUGE SUCCESS. 66% turn out.
Bush and those who voted form him were Correct.
UN, France, Germany, Russia, and Kerry and those who voted for him Wrong side of history once again.
well, you got nixon right. why not make it two.
-
San Francisco Chronicle
U.S. 'in for a shock'
In early election results, Shiite cleric's alliance trouncing Washington's favorite
Borzou Daragahi, Chronicle Foreign Service
Baghdad -- Partial results from Sunday's election suggest that U.S.-backed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's coalition is being roundly defeated by a list with the backing of Iraq's senior Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, diminishing Allawi's chances of retaining his post in the next government.
Sharif Ali bin Hussein, head of the Constitutional Monarchy Party, likened the vote outcome to a "Sistani tsunami" that would shake the nation.
"Americans are in for a shock," he said, adding that one day they would realize, "We've got 150,000 troops here protecting a country that's extremely friendly to Iran, and training their troops."
The partial totals so far show the Iraqi List headed by Allawi, a secular Shiite and onetime CIA protege, trailed far behind with only 18 percent of the votes, despite an aggressive television ad campaign waged with U.S. aid. A lopsided majority of votes, 72 percent, went to the United Iraqi Alliance list, topped by a Shiite cleric who lived in Iran for many years and whose Sciri party has close ties to Iran's clerical regime. More than a third of the alliance's vote came from Baghdad, the cosmopolitan capital where Allawi had been expected to fare well.
Although the results are only from Baghdad and five southern provinces where the Shiite parties were expected to score strongly, and from only 10 percent of the country's 5,216 polling stations, the scale of the alliance's vote underscored the probability of a historic shift in the Shiites' favor from decades of Sunni minority rule in Iraq.
Safwat Rashid, a member of Iraq's Independent Election Commission, and international election officials warned observers not to read too much into the early numbers, which did not include tallies in the country's Sunni or Kurdish provinces.
Rashid said the Baghdad numbers came from "mixed" -- meaning Sunni and Shiite -- neighborhoods in the city where Allawi was expected to perform well. Hussein said Allawi had also performed poorly in Babil province, a relatively urbanized, mixed Shiite-Sunni area south of Baghdad.
He said the vote total and the total turnout numbers wouldn't be known for another 10 days.
Already, Western officials in Baghdad appeared to be downplaying worries about the possible victory by the alliance, topped by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, a cleric who spent years exiled in Iran.
The alliance "is a very diverse group of people, from Westernized independents to Sunni sheikhs to people who really believe in an Islamic state, " one Western diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity said of the alliance on Wednesday. "It will be hard to maintain unity."
The election commission also released final vote tallies from overseas voters in eight countries, the United States, Britain, France, Iran, Syria, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Australia. The alliance won of 44 percent of the 170,000 votes cast in those countries, the Kurds 18 percent and Allawi's list 12 percent. In U.S. voting, Allawi garnered just 5 percent of the vote, less than the Communist Party total.
Some Sunni leaders said the Shiite coalition's strong showing to date did little more than validate the deep sense of alienation felt by Iraq's Sunnis, most of whom did not cast ballots Sunday.
"The Shia were determined and encouraged their supporters to vote and to register, and the Sunnis didn't care that much, either out of fear or apathy," said Adnan Pachachi, a foreign minister in the years before Saddam Hussein who is a prominent Sunni leader. "This is the story, really."
But signs also have emerged that some Sunni leaders are ready to involve themselves at least in a limited way in the country's political debate. The leaders of 13 mostly Sunni political parties that stayed out of the election agreed earlier this week that they would take part in writing a permanent constitution for Iraq.
When the vote count is final, the 275 seats in the National Assembly will be divided up among the 111 parties, individuals and coalitions that ran in the election, with each ticket getting seats according to its proportion of the vote. Each list that receives one-275th or more of the vote total gets at least a seat.
A two-thirds majority of the parliament must approve a president and two deputy presidents, who will be in charge of naming a Cabinet. The new assembly is also responsible for writing the constitution, a process that could be adjusted in order to include Sunni representatives.
Presuming the constitution is approved by referendum next autumn, new elections for a permanent government will be held by year's end.
None of the votes announced Thursday came from the Kurdish north, where heavy turnout is sure to guarantee a strong Kurdish presence in the assembly.
Kurdish political leader Jalal Talabani said he would seek the office of either president or prime minister when the legislature convenes. "We, as Kurds, want one of those two posts, and we will not give it up," Talabani, head of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and a candidate on the unified Kurdish list of candidates, told reporters.
Now that the election is over, Pentagon authorities have decided to start reducing the level of U.S. forces in Iraq next month by about 15,000 troops, down to about 135,000, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Congress Thursday. "I think we'll be able to come down to the level that was projected before this election," he said.
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that about 40,000 of Iraq's best forces "can go anywhere in the country and take on almost any threat." But he acknowledged that more than two-thirds of the 136, 000 members of Iraqi security forces that the United States and its allies have trained and equipped were unready to tackle the insurgency.
That uprising began rattling the nation anew Thursday as at least 26 Iraqis and three U.S. Marines died in an uptick of violence following days of post-election calm.
Insurgents stopped a minibus south of Kirkuk, ordered army recruits off the vehicle and killed 12 of them. Gunmen fired on a vehicle carrying Iraqi contractors to jobs at a U.S. military base in Baquba, killing two.
A suicide bomber struck a foreign convoy escorted by military humvees on Baghdad's airport road. Rebels attacked Iraqi police Thursday in the Baghdad suburb of Abu Ghraib, killing one policeman and wounding five, the Interior Ministry said.
One U.S. Marine was killed Thursday in Babil province, the U.S. command said. Two other Marines were killed in action Wednesday night in Anbar province.
source (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/04/MNGSMB5MDT1.DTL)