Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rude on February 17, 2003, 03:10:12 PM
-
I've been reading pretty much all that has been said here in the O Club forum regarding the US, our President and war against Iraq.
Now I usually am careful as to what I say on these boards as I'm aware of the futility of debate with some of the regular posters. I've finally reached my pain threshold and will spill how I really feel about the US efforts to fight terrorism.
We will do whatever it is WE feel is necessary to secure the safety of AMERICAN citizens, AMERICAN interests and the AMERICAN way of life. If some of you one world government advocates don't like it, get over it.
It's OUR goverment.....it does not exist to serve you or anyone else other than AMERICANS.
Now you can view my position as wrong, ignorant, uneducated, simplistic or even arrogant, but I'm an AMERICAN and don't give a flip what any of you leftwing, socialists/communists, college attending, sign carrying apologists have to say regarding anything AMERICA chooses to do.
Ya see, there are bad folks in this world that want to hurt people...we now have some that want to hurt the US and it's citizens....now while some of you would tie our hands, giving those ill doers time to invent new and more effective ways to kill AMERICANS, we on the other hand are going to do something about it whether you like it or not....understand? We don't care what you think or how you feel about this issue.
So....sit back with your paint and poster board and start makin some more signs....if you think ya have something to protest now, just wait until 30 days have passed.
I feel better now:)
-
That is all cool and all valid. But tell your countrymen to get off the "its right" or "please agree with us" rants. What your doing is blatent aggression.
The UNs involvement is to try to give the US long enought to cool down and change thier mind. But as the troops took 1 year to build up we know that nothing that happens this week or in the last 6 months even matters at all. This was decided by Bush befor he even took office and set in motion for real sometime in the summer of 2001.
So go ahead and wipe out another nation whose dictator has moved from your good list to your bad list. Dont ask for permision or beg for forgivness. Get it over with.
Your attitude is refreshing Rude. The issue of course is casualties. Better hope they roll over befor you have to clean out Bagdad street to street. This action will be very hard to explain to vets in 20 years or thier orphand children in 20 years.6
I still think its kind of funny though..A bunch of Saudis blow up the WTC and a bunch of Iraqis and Afganis have and are going to die for it. Meanwhile Americans and Canadians are in Saudi prisons on trumped up charges brought on by muslim extremists...
what a world we have. It will be interesting.
-
Frigging "A" Rude.
I'm not American, and I have had my differences of opinions with many Americans on this board, but on this particular issue I'm with you guys 100%.
Go git 'im.:mad:
-
Alot of Americans don't like the idea of this war ethir... not only euro's posting about it.
-
Originally posted by Manedew
Alot of Americans don't like the idea of this war ethir... not only euro's posting about it.
yea, yea...Sadaam says thanks.
-
Pongo... I have a hunch the Saudi's will someday be dealt with as well. I guess technically our actions could be called "blatant(sic) agression". Millions of people probably could have been spared had Chamberlain had some. I'm one of those many Americans who doesn't particularly care if you feel we are right... or agree w/ us. We are doing what we feel is best for our country... we also happen to feel it's what is best for the world(whether it is right or not, neither you and I know for sure, but history will tell). But, since we feel it is best for our country that we proceed, no international outcry from a bunch of appeasors who haven't learned history's lessons will deter us. So, the contries who are trying to stop our "aggression" can get on board and thus maintain their airs of relevance in world politics or they can maintain their stance, and be proven to be moot.
With any luck, the Iraqis will get rid of Saddam on their own and no further blood need be shed...personally, it's what I pray for.
-
We will do whatever it is WE feel is necessary to secure the safety of AMERICAN citizens, AMERICAN interests and the AMERICAN way of life. If some of you one world government advocates don't like it, get over it.
It's OUR goverment.....it does not exist to serve you or anyone else other than AMERICANS.
It may be your government, but it sure as toejam aint your planet mate.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Manedew
Alot of Americans don't like the idea of this war ethir... not only euro's posting about it.
We don't listen to them either.:)
Look....it's sooooo simple....Bush is our president....he makes policy decisions....they either fail or succeed....we have an election....if he can't deliver, he's out and someone else gets the helm.
I support him because I believe him to be doing what he believes to be the right thing and he's trying to lead instead of being popular like Clinton.
If he's wrong, then he'll be gone.
-
Originally posted by Manedew
Alot of Americans don't like the idea of this war ethir... not only euro's posting about it.
Proof positive that ousting Saddam is the right thing to do.
-
well I didn't vote for him :)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
That is all cool and all valid. But tell your countrymen to get off the "its right" or "please agree with us" rants. What your doing is blatent aggression.
The UNs involvement is to try to give the US long enought to cool down and change thier mind. But as the troops took 1 year to build up we know that nothing that happens this week or in the last 6 months even matters at all. This was decided by Bush befor he even took office and set in motion for real sometime in the summer of 2001.
So go ahead and wipe out another nation whose dictator has moved from your good list to your bad list. Dont ask for permision or beg for forgivness. Get it over with.
Your attitude is refreshing Rude. The issue of course is casualties. Better hope they roll over befor you have to clean out Bagdad street to street. This action will be very hard to explain to vets in 20 years or thier orphand children in 20 years.6
I still think its kind of funny though..A bunch of Saudis blow up the WTC and a bunch of Iraqis and Afganis have and are going to die for it. Meanwhile Americans and Canadians are in Saudi prisons on trumped up charges brought on by muslim extremists...
what a world we have. It will be interesting.
It's a necessary message that needs to be sent...Others of the same ilk are watching and watching closely.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
It may be your government, but it sure as toejam aint your planet mate.
Tronsky
Like we're down there ruling your world....last time I was in Australia, I was spending my money. Nice try.
You like Saddam so much, pack up your bags and head to Bagdad instead of throwin stones at your friends.
-
Have you all forgotten why osama hates the U.S. it because we kicked saddam out of kuwat remember!!!
Have we also forgotten the saddam still shoots at our aircraft flying to protect the U.N, nofly zone!!!
And yas it is our planet we support more of them anyone else can or will!!!
-
Originally posted by Rude
We will do whatever it is WE feel is necessary to secure the safety of AMERICAN citizens, AMERICAN interests and the AMERICAN way of life. If some of you one world government advocates don't like it, get over it.
i feel better now:)
That's exactly how it's noticed on my side of the atlantic ocean.
Bush & Tony will do what they want but don't they hide behind Nato and UN, talkin of freedom. That's BS.
Regards Blitz
btw. would buy it if Bush senior had started bringin democracy and freedom to your friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait 10 years ago as announced
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
btw. would buy it if Bush senior had started bringin democracy and freedom to your friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait 10 years ago as announced
Uh, are you forgetting the no small matter of democracy and elections? Bill Clinton was in charge '93-2001.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Uh, are you forgetting the no small matter of democracy and elections? Bill Clinton was in charge '93-2001.
Ok Sir, so why Bush junior didn't start with them friends when he was elected and fullfilled what papa anounced in a great speech?
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
Ok Sir, so why Bush junior didn't start with them friends when he was elected and fullfilled what papa anounced in a great speech?
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
And what makes you think he hasn't? Afghanistan is a far better place to live today than a couple of years ago. Care to deny this?
-
Hey Blitz.. I'm curious...you seem to think Iraq is no threat to the US... we disagree... are you saying since Iraq is no threat to the U.S. that we should just leave them alone entirely?
-
Oh, forgot to mention Kuwait and Saudi. It has never been the intent or purpose of the US to overthrow a foreign government that is beneficial to it's citizens. And we don't declare war against those that haven't in some way provoked us.
However, in those cases like Iraq, we very well may install a democratic government after we've rebuilt their countries. Please tell me why you are opposed to the US doing so.
Is there a better form of government than the one with the rule of law and where the citizens are free to elect their own leaders?
-
Originally posted by blitz
That's exactly how it's noticed on my side of the atlantic ocean.
Bush & Tony will do what they want but don't they hide behind Nato and UN, talkin of freedom. That's BS.
Regards Blitz
btw. would buy it if Bush senior had started bringin democracy and freedom to your friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait 10 years ago as announced
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
Ya know why thats the perception in Europe? Becuase it's the truth. The problem is not the US, it's euro's who are jealous and have a problem with history and the hand it has dealt them....your economy is in a shambles, your political system serves everyone but the German common man and the EU is not the saviour you had hoped it would be. Try carryin some signs to clean up your own back yard before yappin at the US to follow your lead. What's really funny, is the US citizens perception of Europe is one of, who? We don't give you guys a thought in our daily lives....sure would be nice to blame someone else for our problems.
Blame it on the US....what a bunch of crap. Open your eyes....we're not your enemy....if 3000 Germans died in the middle of Munich, you'de bark a different tune.
You're a cheap shot artist at best....like I said, we'll do what we feel is best for our nation, so get over it.
Bush isn't hiding behind NATO or the UN....can you read? Bush told the UN to act or become irrelevant. Come on....you're a youngster aren't ya....it's the only rationale I have for such empty remarks.:)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
And what makes you think he hasn't? Afghanistan is a far better place to live today than a couple of years ago. Care to deny this?
Afganistan wasn't 1 ya friend , ya gave weapons to the moslem terrorists so they could fight the Russians aggressors, that's all.
After it was all over ya didn't care toejam about Afganistan... til 9.11,
than bush immediately explores his interests for the poooor Afganies.
Regards Blitz
btw i was referring to Saudi Arabi and Kuwait
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Originally posted by Steve
Hey Blitz.. I'm curious...you seem to think Iraq is no threat to the US... we disagree... are you saying since Iraq is no threat to the U.S. that we should just leave them alone entirely?
Definately NO!
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Blitz,
We shouldn't leave them alone? But if they are in no way a threat to us, why shouldn't we? Tell me your angle on this so i know where you're comin from.
Thanks
-
Saddam is not the threat. He's 2-bit dictator, hardly worthy of our effort.
Bomb Paris.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Rude, you are totally correct. The US government's ultimate responsibility is to the people of the United States of America, not to anyone else ... Just as the French government is responsible for the French people, and the German for the Germans. They will all do what they think is right for their people.
and that I can respect....if it were true....they will do what will most likely get them re-elected.
Bush is going to live or die with his choices and that is refreshing. The Democrats here are loving this....they meet in committee each morning to discuss topic tactics.
I hope he is the man I believe him to be, or I'm goin to look kinda silly:)
-
btw. would buy it if Bush senior had started bringin democracy and freedom to your friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait 10 years ago as announced -Blitz
How? It's a bummer the Sultans of Kuwait went back on their word for more democracy after they were liberated. However, why didn't Germany then step up to the plate and do *something* favorable? And do you dare suggest we go to war with Saudi Arabia to have a regime change? Tsk, tsk.
Your attitude is refreshing Rude. The issue of course is casualties. Better hope they roll over befor you have to clean out Bagdad street to street. This action will be very hard to explain to vets in 20 years or thier orphand children in 20 years. -Pongo
Yeah, unlike Saddam, we'll make every effort to spare his civilians. I guarantee you, there will be less death during this war in Iraq than there has been at Saddam's hand in the past 5-yrs. So in essence, you really do not care about civilians. Just continue fooling yourself on that one. With this upcoming war, once again, the Iraqis will surrender in droves and we'll feed and shelter them until it's over all the while the "captors" evoke stories of hardship and atrocity under his regime. This time Saddam cannot surrender using terms of settlement that he stays in power and has to remove his weapons of destruction. He's gone this time. Once we remove Saddam from power, we'll try to assist in setting up a new government but it'll be a government of the people, just like it is in Afghanastan, rather than our governing them.
-
Originally posted by Rude
It's OUR goverment.....it does not exist to serve you or anyone else other than AMERICANS.
Are you sure? Are you sure YOUR goverment is serving YOUR interests?
I know more than one western country where a goverment like yours would ignite serious and masive revolts.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Open your eyes....we're not your enemy....if 3000 Germans died in the middle of Munich, you'de bark a different tune.
We aren't as quick as you when it goes to war, we had 2 horrible wars here in europe. Except some boneheads .
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Amen Rude.
S!
Nim
-
Originally posted by Steve
Blitz,
We shouldn't leave them alone? But if they are in no way a threat to us, why shouldn't we? Tell me your angle on this so i know where you're comin from.
Thanks
Because UN decided to control him and that's very nessasary.
UN didn't decided though, to have a regime change although i would like to see it with Saddam dead or in excile, who cares.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
.
-
err if the americans feel threataned by the current leader of iraq why not just send in an elite squad of snipers remove saddam and send in a new person...of course you can rant at me all you want this is the only thing im posting on this subject EVER...
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Are you sure? Are you sure YOUR goverment is serving YOUR interests?
I know more than one western country where a goverment like yours would ignite serious and masive revolts.
Am I sure? Ask me in 4 weeks.
As to you knowing about other western governments, you don't know jack about ours....it's not perfect, but it's OURS. It does ultimately serve US CITIZENS, not those overseas who criticize it.
When we criticize it, it's because we have that RIGHT as American citizens to criticize it.
Just sit back and get over it....your opinion is without salt.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
And what makes you think he hasn't? Afghanistan is a far better place to live today than a couple of years ago. Care to deny this?
Afghanistan in only a better place for thoe's of you who dont like their women treated like they are lower than dog toejam. Where the lengh of your beard determained whether or not you stayed out of jail. Thoes of us who like filling soccer stadiums with massive crouds to watch women being executed we are really pissed off about the changes in afghanistan. Damn it I want opression I want to be able to beat my women with out explaining to the cops why. I want to destroy all the kite's on the planet because they are evil. And one damn thing no more flippin signing or we gonna shoot someone. If you have any thousand year old monuments blown up give us a call.
Ya iraq is a real nice place too you can kill whoever you want whenever you want and allmost no one gets in your way. You have some chemical weapons you want to try there is a town down the road no one will mind if we kill all the men women and
children there. If there is a country near by you want invaded we can do it. We have a group of people up north we want to kill but the damn american satan is in the way and wont let us.
The next time you find your bellybutton in the fire dont call us clean up your own crap.
If we dont clean up this little pile of crap now there is gonna be a giant pile of it later and its gonna be on everyone shoes. You can protest all you want make your signs chant your america is evil chant. But you will not be able to save your children YOUR children from the fate that will come to them. When your standing in line at the death camp waiting your turn on the pyre.
Ask yourself this what price would I pay what would I give up for just one chance to go back and change what happend.
Instead of toteing around your I hate america sign maybe you might want to change it to Iraqi people unite oust sadam before its too late. A free and strong Iraq might be the corner stone of a middle east that does not flame out the entire planet with its political racial and religious opression.
Give peace a chance yes lets. But make sure you cut the head off the snake first.
-
Originally posted by Rude
As to you knowing about other western governments, you don't know jack about ours....it's not perfect, but it's OURS. It does ultimately serve US CITIZENS, not those overseas who criticize it.
Been living in Texas for several months, I know a bit about your goverment.
On the other hand, the general feeling here is just americans critizing overseas goverments just cause they dont support US foering policy.
-
"My True feelings, By Rude"
"....anybody got a match??"
;)
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
On the other hand, the general feeling here is just americans critizing overseas goverments just cause they dont support US foering policy.
Mixed by the fact that G.W. Bush is plainly lying in his reasons to attack Irak. The reason is OIL, not FREEDOM.
Also there's a little debate here about the rightneousness of attacking a nation because it is a dictatorship. What prevents Bush attacking yet another 3rd world nation on the grounds that "it is a dictatorship"?.
We're establishing a serious precedent here. There's something called "international laws", laws that say that no nation is allowed to violate other nation's sovereignty (sp?) unless attacked first.
On the rethorical about "it's all about self-defence", well, Basically what you're doing is validating Japan's attitude in 7/12/41, doing a "preventive attack" on the grounds that America was then seen by Japan as a threat. So they attacked first, much for your dismay and anger.
Now Bush says he see irak as a threat...so he attacks first. That kind of war Bush wants to start it's simply called "Agression war", thing that I always have thought to be established as illegal in Nuremberg trials in 1946.
And the reason, again, is no "freedom for iraqis". Is no "self defence".
That's simply "massive-scale robbery of natural resources of other nation using any excuse at hand".
Finally, Rude, if you don't care what the rest of the world say, then I'd ask you and your fellow countrymans to stop being angry at what the rest of the world thinks of your nation. You say euros trash you, you say the rest of the world don't like you. I've read dozens of times in this forums that that's unfair. I used to agree...
But, well , things like this do show WHY most of the world don't like your nation.
What is myself, I've always thought in positive about USA. I cried in 9/11, and I've always felt the deepest of the sympaties for your people. But if Irak is invaded without a proper UN resolution allowing for it, that will also change. I know you don't mind, but it's simply to illustrate that you're losing any sympathy left for your nation in the rest of the world.
What you'r nation and president want to do is basically invade a nation to seize their resources for YOUR benefit. Don't say euros trash you because we're jeallous (lol)...euros trash you because we see that such a policy can't be allowed. (Well, France trash you because they don't want to lose their share of Irak's oil, but I'm talking about the average man here, not about the governments.
Want to live alone in your nation?. Nice...but then stop pretending the rest of the world must like you. As simple as that.
-
BTW
Originally posted by Rude
and that I can respect....if it were true....they will do what will most likely get them re-elected.
Here in spain Jose Maria Aznar is backing USA's stance in the Security Council of the UN,and offering plenty of logistical and political help to the US so you can attack irak as soon as possible.
90% of Spanish people condemn that attitude.
There are more proofs that politics do what THEY want to do, regardless of what their people tell them to do, but none as clear as this one.
In any case you are talking about governments, I'm talking about people, normal people. Governments can be forced or bribed,black mailed or even threatened to support you. Is exactly what you're doing now, turning down trade agreements with Germany because they chose to speak against an agression war. I won't get started on the NK food embargo, because that's so subhuman that I don't want to get on fire.
That's called "chantage", you've used it a lot of times in the past, you're using it once again. Feel free to feel warm feels about your govenrment and Bush. But don't ask any of us to do it too.
In the end, governments can be FORCED to back your political views, But the individual can't be manipulated this way. It will be a long process, but someday you'll find you're alone in the world because noone else wants to hear from you.
I know America has loved isolationism in the past, but we will reach a point where that isolationism will stop being an option taken by YOU, but being a fact forced by THE REST OF THE WORLD.
-
"My True feelings, By Rude"
"....anybody got a match??"
Looks like a (typical) dud to me. 99% of Rude's posts say he isn't listening to anyone but Americans, in one form or another... (ok Rude, gotcha, again, thanks.) I on the other hand find it fascinating to hear perspectives from people from Hong Kong to Finland to Moscow. Rude sounds like he needs to either cover his precious little ears or start his own isolationist BBS.
It's ironic, as this entire issue is international in scope and effects many many countries in the world, of which the US is but one. It's doubly ironic that Rude's "screw you" position is what's maddening the world in the very 1st place. Must be a Texas thing.
-
I wonder if there will come a day when we become tired of being America and Americans. I'm sorely troubled by seeing again american kids marching off to fight in a world at large where they are despised alive, dehumanized when dead and villified when they stay at home.
I don't need to lay out here the bitter miserable places Americans have been dying for our causes, despite or in concert with forigen opinion for the last 100 years.
And yah know somethin?? Americas borders remain unchanged, her childern come home, and despite all of mans previous history to the contrary, we let the world try again... we go home.
And the next generation prepares for it's duty.
You and the world peanut gallery sit in your homes, surrounded by the blessings of america; and you spit upon her.
We don't care.
What we do, we do for us.
At the end of the day, we do not give a rats bellybutton what the world thinks of us.. yes, we sneer and point at Normandy, or Berlin or London and shake our heads and say "Lest you forget.."
And you do.
We never learn that lesson. Arn't you guys lucky. ;)
And we will continue to go on, each generation, after the last, doing what we will do, despite your world and your incensed rehtoric of 'cowboys, gangsters and uncultured cretins'
We go forth for reasons you cannot behold, for causes you will revile, for dreams you do not share.
Because we do it for America. Because we ARE Americans. We will continue on, tipping at the windmills our national psyche deems the current 'American Task'.
So, wail; weep, worry..
Rest assured, we're gonna do it any damn way.
Again.
God Bless and Keep America.
I know America has loved isolationism in the past, but we will reach a point where that isolationism will stop being an option taken by YOU, but being a fact forced by THE REST OF THE WORLD.
When that happens, you may rest at last, Ram... for there will be no America with Americans in it.
-
RRAM,
Mixed by the fact that G.W. Bush is plainly lying in his reasons to attack Irak. The reason is OIL, not FREEDOM.
I see you are one of the many who are easily brainwashed. If you think about your statement, it makes no sense. We do not currently have any oil shortage, no gasoline lines, and gasoline prices are not much different than for a gallon of water. OPEC controls the levels of exports and thus pricing and there really is no shortage. Just how is the invasion of Iraq going to bring the USA more oil? Please explain.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Like we're down there ruling your world....last time I was in Australia, I was spending my money. Nice try.
You like Saddam so much, pack up your bags and head to Bagdad instead of throwin stones at your friends.
Funny, i thought friends could be honest with each other. But you don't want freinds like that - you want people just to accept what you want like your opening tirade.
I somehow think you wouldn't have been talking garbage like that whilst you were here, or you would most likely have been told to pull your head outa your arse.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Been living in Texas for several months, I know a bit about your goverment.
On the other hand, the general feeling here is just americans critizing overseas goverments just cause they dont support US foering policy.
Several months in Texas? Yep...your qualified to know our country and it's government....make ya a deal....take your socialist, one world government, Bush bashing opinions into a Texas dance hall and you'll walk outta there wearin your arse for a hat.
As to your appraisal of the overall consensus regarding Americans criticizing overseas governments because they don't support US foriegn policy? Get a clue....why should we feel any different? We're Americans, not socialists....we don't care about how YOU feel we should live and act....sheesh.
Another thing....if you don't like what we believe in or how we conduct ourselves on the worlds stage, then get you rear end back to Spain....or can't you educate or employ yourself back home? Just curious.
-
Originally posted by Nash
"My True feelings, By Rude"
"....anybody got a match??"
Looks like a (typical) dud to me. 99% of Rude's posts say he isn't listening to anyone but Americans, in one form or another... (ok Rude, gotcha, again, thanks.) I on the other hand find it fascinating to hear perspectives from people from Hong Kong to Finland to Moscow. Rude sounds like he needs to either cover his precious little ears or start his own isolationist BBS.
It's ironic, as this entire issue is international in scope and effects many many countries in the world, of which the US is but one. It's doubly ironic that Rude's "screw you" position is what's maddening the world in the very 1st place. Must be a Texas thing.
Ram said he shed tears on 9-11.....we don't need his tears or anyone elses....we need his support. Looks like any effort past grabbin a kleenex isn't going to happen...oh, unless it's to post here how bad we are or what mistakes we're making.
As to you Nash.....I'm done with trying to debate or have any meaningful conversation regarding this topic....I'm sick and tired of socialists telling us how we should live and how our government should govern....who do you folks think you are? If ya don't like it, well, that's too bad isn't it.
As to covering my ears? If you think this is the first time I've heard folks speak of things they have no clue about, then you're kidding youself. I suppose you have the answers eh?
Get some stones then and seriously, tell us all how the US should behave and how that will solve the issue in Iraq. Tell us what we're doing wrong and how bad we are....or maybe bashin our president is your thing?
What's you bag dad? Tell us how to live so you'll like us again.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Funny, i thought friends could be honest with each other. But you don't want freinds like that - you want people just to accept what you want like your opening tirade.
I somehow think you wouldn't have been talking garbage like that whilst you were here, or you would most likely have been told to pull your head outa your arse.
Tronsky
Trust me...there isn't a word I typed on this board that I wouldn't say to your face.....as to being honest? I am being honest....you just don't like it is all. You spoke your mind, I spoke mine.
Now, why don't you give me an accounting of just how bad ol America has wronged the Aussies....seriously.....what have we done to you and yours? I'de like an answer to that please.
-
Hey, Ram........
Web posted Saturday, January 4, 2003
U.S. committed to N. Korea food aid
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States has become one of the largest donors of food to impoverished North Korea, sending shiploads of corn, rice, flour and other food despite misgivings about where some donations end up.
The Bush administration intends to continue the assistance, officials say, in spite of those concerns as well as recently renewed tensions over nuclear weapons.
Please enlighten me if you have other information. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Oh, forgot to mention Kuwait and Saudi. It has never been the intent or purpose of the US to overthrow a foreign government that is beneficial to it's citizens. And we don't declare war against those that haven't in some way provoked us.
However, in those cases like Iraq, we very well may install a democratic government after we've rebuilt their countries. Please tell me why you are opposed to the US doing so.
Is there a better form of government than the one with the rule of law and where the citizens are free to elect their own leaders?
Was never a friend of Scharia, suppression of human rights and countries supportin international terror financialy worldwide even if these countries benefit their people with the key to paradise.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened in no way by Iraq, it's just plain rediculous
-
Just for clarification....I'm not condemning whole nations or peoples here. I don't expect others to agree with us...it's the nasty American/Bush bashing I've seen that pisses me off.
I'm simply voicing my opinion straight to the whiney, share the power with us, one world government, poster makin, socialists, American bashin girlscouts, who think the world is a place where no one wants any harm to come to anyone kinda posters here on this board.
And to those that don't like what I've said, tough. The truth of the matter is that NOTHING short of castrating ourselves would satisfy you anyway.
Ya know what? If some of you feel strongly about how wrong we are or even if you just don't like us, if you would just remain consistent, I could at least respect that. The truth of the matter is that if it got bad....real bad....and you needed our help, you'de forget all about how bad we are and come a runnin. How do I know this...one, is history....the other is the fact that so many of you leave your blessed homelands and come here to America....you drive our cars, live in our cities, work for our companies, play our games and yes, the whole time, SOB us behind our backs or from a keyboard. If ya don't like us or what we stand for then at least have some spine and march you butt back to where ya came from.
I'm done...just had to get a few things off my chest....like I said earlier, I feel better now.:)
-
Ah keeps ah tellin yah, yah gawdamned forigeners, ya'all don't wanna piss amurricuns off!
See?
an yuh know whut, ammerricuns invented the smiley face, too.
just ta piss y'all off.
:)
-
Originally posted by Rude
Ya know what? If some of you feel strongly about how wrong we are or even if you just don't like us, if you would just remain consistent, I could at least respect that. The truth of the matter is that if it got bad....real bad....and you needed our help, you'de forget all about how bad we are and come a runnin. How do I know this...one, is history....the other is the fact that so many of you leave your blessed homelands and come here to America....you drive our cars, live in our cities, work for our companies, play our games and yes, the whole time, SOB us behind our backs or from a keyboard. If ya don't like us or what we stand for then at least have some spine and march you butt back to where ya came from.
I'm done...just had to get a few things off my chest....like I said earlier, I feel better now.:)
It's called Globalism, since when ya don't like that?
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way , it's just plain rediculous
-
man that is just plain mean! not the kites!
Originally posted by icemaw
I want to destroy all the kite's on the planet because they are evil.
-
My .02 here will probably suprise some.
I don't really agree with Rude or Hangtime.
Here you will now see the truly ugly side of Toad.
I'm totally sick and tired of seeing the US vilified everytime we try to do what we think it the "right thing". And say what you will, the US has done FAR more good than bad. Yep, we've made mistakes; we've done far more great things.
No matter what we do though, the rest of the world just squeakes.
The most annoying part of the squeaking though, is that it comes primarily from countries that never even get off their bellybutton and try to end oppression by dictators. Or, if they do try, they find they can't do it without involving us.
The Balkans were a prime example. Despite all the Euro hoo-rah of "we'll handle this one", people kept dying till Clinton violated the NATO charter and put the airstrikes in. And of course we got bashed for that too. We didn't come early enough. We used too much force. Innocent people died.
This "innocent people died" one really makes me wonder. Did it escape notice that a WHOLE BIG BUNCH OF INNOCENT PEOPLE HAD BEEN DYING FOR A LONG TIME TO A BUNCH OF GENOCIDAL MANIACS BEFORE WE DROPPED THE HAMMER?
I guess it did.
So, that's why I differ from Rude and Hang. Oh, I think Saddam is a Class I Bastige. I think he has lots of chem and bio weapons and is probably real close to a nuke.
I think a lot of innocent people die in Iraq ever day. There's ever indication he killed his own son. Think about THAT one for a moment, mothers and fathers around the world. He's a gem.
However, I'm willing to pull all the US troops out and bring them home and let the rest of you bloody know-it-alls that never actually do anything except complain handle it from now on.
I feel exactly the same way about North Korea (which I think the Bush Administration is handling in a masterful way. No talk, no more blackmail money until you put the nukes down. Perfect.) I'd bring all the US military out of there too..... right fargin' now. If the NK's come across the border, I'm sure the French will show the Security Council how to handle that in short order.
It makes no difference at all to me if I buy my next cheap television from Kim Jong Il's TV's-R-Us or from Samsung. It certainly isn't worth the life of even one American boy.
Some of you may have noticed we buy lots of flip-flops, cheap tools and cotton T-shirst from the fine gentlement that brought you Tienanmen Square. In fact, China is a "most favored" nation for trade with us. So buying stuff from repressive regimes is nothing new for us....... or for the rest of the world.
Those of you slamming our Afghan effort.... well, that one I'd still support. We did make a promise to those people. While things have vastly improved....... women in school; imagine that!...... we've not done all we can or should do there.
But, definitely time for the boys to come home, particularly from Europe. And this with a firm pledge that we'll never, ever be back. You guys know all the correct answers, so it's pretty clear you don't need our help.
I'd say the only time US troops leave home is when we've got enough proof to convince ourselves that we know who just attacked us and then we go with the same marching orders that Rome gave its troops headed to Carthage. In fact, it's fine with me if we just "reach out and touch someone" with the big hammer in that event.
For my fellow Americans that tell me we've got to be proactive and attack before we're attacked, I say BS. We've never been that way and I don't want to start now.
Yeah, we may suffer another serious attack as a result. However, we took Pearl Harbor on the chops and came up swinging. We'll do the same again and if we do, we'll HAVE the whole country behind it and that's all we need.
People die every day. I'm not afraid to die. Nathan Hale wasn't afraid to die.
The idea that Americans don't die to foreign attack was never valid. It wasn't valid 7Dec41 and it wasn't valid 11Sep01. We're going to lose more citizens no matter what we do. We'll lose them whether we attack Iraq or not. This isn't over by a long shot.
So let's not become what we've struggled against all these years: A nation that attacks another sovereign nation without cause for "just war". Let's not become what we stood against for so long.
As for the rest of yas........ it's clear that only you folks have all the bloody answers to the world's problems and only you have the gumption and morals to solve them all in the correct way.
After all, just look at the record. I defer to your obvious wisdom and incredibly successful track record.
Good luck to yas.
-
Oh, yeah... find someplace else to hold yer UN meetings too.
It stands for nothing and I'd prefer it stood for nothing in some stand for nothing country. Geneva seems about right.
-
Careful Toad. Someone might accuse you of thinking rationally.
-
It happens to me a lot.
:D
-
Ram chantage es bribery en barbaro.
Anyhow the UN has the balls of Chimpmunks, the war in Iraq will happen , I think Rumsfeld and his lot are a bunch of crooks but I do think it is neccesary to take out Saddam now before he becomes more of a threat.
The Arab States are shaking in their heels because the liberation of Iraq will cause unrest in their countries most probably of people wanting a change of government thus many of the monarchy/ dictatorships in the Arab states will fall some for the better some for the worse. Most likely the royal families will have to flee or end with their heads on a platter.
-
Hmmm... I think that you'll find democracy is not generally consistent with Islamic faith. AFAIK, there is one arab democratic government and they aren't really a country... Palestine.
-
Well Hangtime. Canadians were in normandy and London and Hong kong and Italy and Siclely and Korea and Kuwait and Afganistan.
We opted out of your little piece of stupidity in Vietnam and people like yourself probebly thought we were disloyal to the old US of A for doing so.
Well I think we should opt out of your little piece of aggression in Iraq too. And enough Canadians have died that you have forgotten about that I dont feel bad saying your a self centered self serving self agrandizing bunch of idiots sometimes.
And this is one of those times.
All your going to do is go kill a bunch of people that mean you no harm for a cause you dont in your heart of hearts believe in. But fill your boots. All I see is a bunch of US whining about lack of support.
I think most if it comes from a need to feel suported and reasured that the violence your goverment is about to let loose is in keeping with your "ideals". It is not. You are going to kill a few 100 thousand Iraqis to save them from their horrible leader.
Who will relieve you of yours when the folly he is dragging the world into is revealed?
He wont get burned alive in a gas fire. He will get his presidential library and a bunch of book deals.
-
Toad:
Impressive post.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Trust me...there isn't a word I typed on this board that I wouldn't say to your face.....as to being honest? I am being honest....you just don't like it is all. You spoke your mind, I spoke mine.
Now, why don't you give me an accounting of just how bad ol America has wronged the Aussies....seriously.....what have we done to you and yours? I'de like an answer to that please.
When did I say America had wronged Australia?
You're the one who got mightly defensive (remember the friends who throw stones?) because you didn't like what I said.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by blitz
It's called Globalism, since when ya don't like that?
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way , it's just plain rediculous
Globalism is your bag dad....not mine. I'm in favor of helping our allies any way we can....I just define em differently...kinda like those who stand with us instead of tuckin tail when it becomes uncomfortable. Some of you want your cake and eat it as well.
One world government is euro think....we're Americans and proud of it.
Did you hear Chirac yesterday? And you folks call the US arrogant.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hmmm... I think that you'll find democracy is not generally consistent with Islamic faith. AFAIK, there is one arab democratic government and they aren't really a country... Palestine.
That statement don't hold water....
1....the democracy in Palestine is a show only...not the real deal.
2....You forgot Turkey
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Well Hangtime. Canadians were in normandy and London and Hong kong and Italy and Siclely and Korea and Kuwait and Afganistan.
We opted out of your little piece of stupidity in Vietnam and people like yourself probebly thought we were disloyal to the old US of A for doing so.
Well I think we should opt out of your little piece of aggression in Iraq too. And enough Canadians have died that you have forgotten about that I dont feel bad saying your a self centered self serving self agrandizing bunch of idiots sometimes.
And this is one of those times.
All your going to do is go kill a bunch of people that mean you no harm for a cause you dont in your heart of hearts believe in. But fill your boots. All I see is a bunch of US whining about lack of support.
I think most if it comes from a need to feel suported and reasured that the violence your goverment is about to let loose is in keeping with your "ideals". It is not. You are going to kill a few 100 thousand Iraqis to save them from their horrible leader.
Who will relieve you of yours when the folly he is dragging the world into is revealed?
He wont get burned alive in a gas fire. He will get his presidential library and a bunch of book deals.
Pongo....
There is no way on God's green earth that we will kill several hundred thousand people. Who sold you that bill of goods?
You watch.....we'll roll in and wait outside of Bagdad....they will give us the country. And if I'm wrong, I'll be the first one here to admit it.
As to Toad's approach, I would agree with him with one exception...it's time to do whats right...bad folks have hurt enough innocent people....if I thought for a moment that the UN would act instead of just posture, then pullin away from conflict would be just fine with me.
Bush is doing what Toad suggested....we'll finish what we've started, but in the future I'm afraid you guys will have to blame us for something else....bad beer maybe?:)
-
Originally posted by Rude
Globalism is your bag dad....not mine. I'm in favor of helping our allies any way we can....I just define em differently...kinda like those who stand with us instead of tuckin tail when it becomes uncomfortable. Some of you want your cake and eat it as well.
One world government is euro think....we're Americans and proud of it.
Did you hear Chirac yesterday? And you folks call the US arrogant.
Not sure if it's euro think, but we like it because the worlds problems will nothing but grow if every nation only looks for it's own interests.
Uited Nations must become much more strong to be able to solve problems, no doubt that will take decades but it's the only way i can see other than soft dictatorship as announced by Bush with his Holy War.
Veto right has to be fall for winners of WW2.
IMHO
Regards Blitz
btw No1 said Europe can't be arrogant too if it's thrown on us
America is threathened by Iraq in no way , it's just plain rediculous
-
....the democracy in Palestine is a show only...not the real deal.
Aaah... so not all Palestinians are suicide bombing heathens? In fact, if you're saying it's not a democracy, and there is no majority power, those in the government advocating suicide bombing are in the minority and do not represent the general populace.
You'd better tell Hortlund that. He's got them all down as anti-Christs.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
When did I say America had wronged Australia?
You're the one who got mightly defensive (remember the friends who throw stones?) because you didn't like what I said.
Tronsky
Looks like you and I define friendship differently....among my peers it goes like this....we stand up for one another...always!
And if we disagree, we air it out in private and not in front of others....especially those who would wish us harm.
Like I said earlier....I'm done yappin about it...think what ya want to think....the US and it's policies are not the enemy here....bad things are going to happen in the future and we'll do what we can to stop it....with or without your help.
-
the problem rude is that .....not every nation will help you in your wars....like it or not.....you seem NOT to like it...so you bash other nations.
do I want Saddam out...you bet your bellybutton I do.
do I want to help the US do it....you bet your bellybutton i do....BUT after 4 of my countrymen died from a MISTAKE(pilot on drugs)....makes me go Hmm.....do i really want 2....the worst part is your makin Saddam out to be the worst of the lot.....WRONG!!!!
try korea....the said they are goin 2...and already have the possibility of nukes...with the missile to reach ya'z....yet you refer that problem to the UN(big mistake in my view)
you'll never change the fact that others view your country as arrogant...materialistic...se lf-centered nation.
in your 1st post you confirm that again...we are the biggest and the best so diddly the rest.....blablabla away if ya want..it won't change the general attitude of your countrymen or how others view your country....just look at your prez....
Its like the magic bullet theory....your gov. is tryin to make others swallow a stupid theory(about Saddam)
but again I say he has to go....what I sayin is your doin it the WRONG way!!!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Aaah... so not all Palestinians are suicide bombing heathens? In fact, if you're saying it's not a democracy, and there is no majority power, those in the government advocating suicide bombing are in the minority and do not represent the general populace.
You'd better tell Hortlund that. He's got them all down as anti-Christs.
The Palestinian people are no different than us....they want a life for themselves and their families....their leaders have taught them to hate for generations, in effect, stealing away their chance for a good life....just plain sold out.
There is a cancer of evil at work in this world...the sooner folks realize that, the sooner we can do something about it...together.
It's not about agreeing on every topic and turning away from who we are as nations...it's about putting aside our disagreements and fighting a common foe....that will bring about choice and freedom for the world....not appeasment, politics or spineless inaction.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You'd better tell Hortlund that.
Yes, because Rude's word is my law.
-
This is what Im seeing:
France and Germany are increasing the chances for a devastating war in Iraq by dividing european unity that needs to be coupled with American military might in a show of force designed to compell the Iraqi leader to flee or force a largely bloodless internal coup.
Unfortunately Hussein will no doubt read the Franco/German stance as an aliance in favour of his continued rule. The consequences could very well indeed be the up until recently uneccessary forcing of the military option. The result which will be the death of thosands, perhaps hundreds of thosuands. perhaps the trigger to a far greater cataostrophe.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Pongo....
There is no way on God's green earth that we will kill several hundred thousand people. Who sold you that bill of goods?
Don't think it will be 100thousands of Iraqies, maybe a few thousand innocent people and their military personal of cause. American causualities ? At most a few hundred if at all that many.
But what's the difference then ?
It's an preventive strike for absolutely no good reason.
As to Toad's approach, I would agree with him with one exception...it's time to do whats right...bad folks have hurt enough innocent people....if I thought for a moment that the UN would act instead of just posture, then pullin away from conflict would be just fine with me.[/B]
It wasn't Saddam and his republican brigades that hit WTC, that's the point.
Bush is doing what Toad suggested....we'll finish what we've started, but in the future I'm afraid you guys will have to blame us for something else....bad beer maybe?:) [/B]
You'll finish what ya have started, that's the most important sentence for me.
Paul Wolfowitz, vize defence mimister at that time, showed a list of 60 nations to Joschka Fischer shortly after WTC assault.
America will get every one on that List 1 by 1 , he announced.
That is exactly what is scaring many people around the world.
Bush's idea of a Holy Crusade around the world.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way , it's just plain rediculous
-
Toad.
About the US food embargo to North Korea.
Its true that US' president said that he intented to go on with food donations, but several newspapers here in Spain published just yesterday that USA has cut them to force North Korea to change their policy and stance regarding nuclear power and development.
This is from yesterday's newpspapers ,as I said. Sadly I don't have them anymore to quote them, but it's a fresh new. Maybe is wrong (media in Spain is not better than in USA), but that was what was published.
-
Originally posted by SLO
the problem rude is that .....not every nation will help you in your wars....like it or not.....you seem NOT to like it...so you bash other nations.
do I want Saddam out...you bet your bellybutton I do.
do I want to help the US do it....you bet your bellybutton i do....BUT after 4 of my countrymen died from a MISTAKE(pilot on drugs)....makes me go Hmm.....do i really want 2....the worst part is your makin Saddam out to be the worst of the lot.....WRONG!!!!
try korea....the said they are goin 2...and already have the possibility of nukes...with the missile to reach ya'z....yet you refer that problem to the UN(big mistake in my view)
you'll never change the fact that others view your country as arrogant...materialistic...se lf-centered nation.
in your 1st post you confirm that again...we are the biggest and the best so diddly the rest.....blablabla away if ya want..it won't change the general attitude of your countrymen or how others view your country....just look at your prez....
Its like the magic bullet theory....your gov. is tryin to make others swallow a stupid theory(about Saddam)
but again I say he has to go....what I sayin is your doin it the WRONG way!!!
It's not about gettin anyone to help us....it's about how others are actively standing in our way...if ya don't want to help then say so, then get outta the way....we don't have the friends we diplomatically court...they are convenient at best and that's a two way street.
We're arrogant? Why is that? We act when others need help....we answer the call....we are a free thinking people who have come along way nationally in a very short period of time....we have not accomplished what we have by being timid.
The issue is with other nations....instead of gettin off their butts and striving to make their own lives better, they would rather suck our hind titty or blame us because it's easy.
Again, you don't get it man....we do not give the rest of the world a thought as we live our daily lives...we're too busy trying to take care of our business....on 9-11, our agenda changed....others across this planet have now become our business.
It's like some of you think we laugh in your faces or look down on you in some way....our culture is what it is....it's not personal unless your European....they want the wealth and power to be shared....yeah right. If Chile were a super power, they'de criticize them....it's not about the US but rather about envy...not cultural, but economic. Euros are pissed because they percieve themselves to be the footstool of America....that's not how we view Europe as a people...it's just what you've been fed for 50 years.
-
Originally posted by SLO
you'll never change the fact that others view your country as arrogant...materialistic...se lf-centered nation.
I'll bet we could change that perception real quick if we pulled up stakes and went home, including keeping the billions for ourselves that Americans, notice I said Americans, not the US, not the US government, contribute every year to help those around the world in need.
Well, the perception might still be there but the rhetoric would certainly change. Where the hell would you be if we decided to end all trade with you country? A bit worse off than we'd be I'd bet.
-
Originally posted by blitz
Don't think it will be 100thousands of Iraqies, maybe a few thousand innocent people and their military personal of cause. American causualities ? At most a few hundred if at all that many.
But what's the difference then ?
It's an preventive strike for absolutely no good reason.
It wasn't Saddam and his republican brigades that hit WTC, that's the point.
You'll finish what ya have started, that's the most important sentence for me.
Paul Wolfowitz, vize defence mimister at that time, showed a list of 60 nations to Joschka Fischer shortly after WTC assault.
America will get every one on that List 1 by 1 , he announced.
That is exactly what is scaring many people around the world.
Bush's idea of a Holy Crusade around the world.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way , it's just plain rediculous
Well Mr. Blitz.....you may condone the killing and terrorizing of German citizens, but in the US, we aren't going to live like that.
You said it best....folks around the world are scared....we're just pissed.
What about the cook book of bio and chem weapons that the french found when arresting suspected Al Queda terrorist....it came from Iraq....that's news not many want to hear.
Poor old Saddam....just a great guy who has learned to play the UN like a cheap fiddle...Aziz said it best in a news conference...."The UN should be careful as to who they support....the muslim populations in your own countries may not like it". Just another form of terrorism.
Maybe you guys just want to see more Americans die....would that make ya happy? And when it happens, you'll blame us for rockin the boat and say it was our fault. Too predictable.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'll bet we could change that perception real quick if we pulled up stakes and went home, including keeping the billions for ourselves that Americans, notice I said Americans, not the US, not the US government, contribute every year to help those around the world in need.
Well, the perception might still be there but the rhetoric would certainly change. Where the hell would you be if we decided to end all trade with you country? A bit worse off than we'd be I'd bet.
Trade is something both side's benefit from if ya don't know :D
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way , it's just plain rediculous
-
hmm not really iron......most of your CREDIT is due to BUYIN power outside your country...take that away and you'll be in big trouble.
Canada is your BIGGEST trading partner(yet Bush ignores us and prefers dealing with mexico)....call it arrogance or preference....we see it as arrogance
I live the North American style of life.....but since I'm french I try an study or view things in a little different manner.
I didn't mean anything derogatory about your country being arrogant...I was just saying the Truth about how others see you....yet you still think its jealousy
Thats the problem you see....you don't pay attention to how others see you...thats called arrogance.
about us bein in trouble if you don't trade with us....i think you may be wrong in that aspect....never forget Canada is the biggest supplier of natural products on this planet....you need us just like we need you....you get your uranium from us to make you look big...see we do help ya'z
-
AKIron wrote:
Oh, forgot to mention Kuwait and Saudi. It has never been the intent or purpose of the US to overthrow a foreign government that is beneficial to it's citizens. And we don't declare war against those that haven't in some way provoked us.
Chile. President Allende. Democratically elected leader, a socialist unpopular with Americans. CIA helped overthrow him and put a murderous Pinochet in power.
Interestingly enough, in Saudi Arabia and other Middle East opressive dictatorships, it's a population minority group thatis opressing the majority. Those 'governments' do not have the people behind them; they're sitting on them, with the tacit support and acceptance of Americans.
So I'd argue that democracy and a free market would be MORE beneficial to the population, rather than having a regime that violates human rights. I'd say economically and spiritually, the Saudi people would be better off with democracy. So I'd argue that the words to be used would not be *beneficial to the people* but *beneficial to the US* - other than that, no other comments.
I agree with Rude's original statement. I apply it also to France, Russia, Germany and other nations. So when the French protest, they do it because they're the FRENCH government protecting FRENCH interests attempting to make FRANCE a better place for all FRENCH people living there.
So if you accept Rude's original statement, you cannot disrespect France for their stance without coming off as a hypocrite.
Flame away. Am just trying to inject some perspective and logic into the debate - I have no hidden agendas, and am personally undecided about whether a war would be a good thing, a necessary thing or whatever. Seems to me that one has to choose the decision that causes the least damage - there ain't no right one.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Maybe you guys just want to see more Americans die....would that make ya happy? And when it happens, you'll blame us for rockin the boat and say it was our fault. Too predictable.
Nah, 60000 young americans dyin in the rice fields of Vietnam for an idiotic and wrong policy was just enough to remind us that the USA which did many great things in it's history can also make very big and bloody mistakes. Maybe this Holy crusades is another 1, not sure but possible.
I don't like the whole idea of one country decides who's to live and who's to die all around the globe.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way , it's just plain rediculous
-
With the disclaimer that I don't favor a US invasion of Iraq without UN mandate, allow me to highlight a few things that jump out at me in SLO's post.
Originally posted by SLO
do I want Saddam out...you bet your bellybutton I do.
[/b]
Well, here's your chance. How about pushing for SADDAM to comply with the UN Resolutions he's ignored for the last 12 years.
How about CANADA stepping up on the world stage and saying, "hey, enough's enough; the Inspectors aren't there to disarm Iraq and play hide and seek. They're there to CONFIRM THAT IRAQ HAS ALREADY disarmed, as Iraq agreed to do. So any obstruction of Inspections will be considered cause to act. Let's put the responsibility for avoiding conflict right where it should be: on Iraq."
And any BS about "the Inspectors" not being obstructed right now this very instant is just that. EVERY time Blix comes to the UN he says he needs more "compliance".
BUT after 4 of my countrymen died from a MISTAKE(pilot on drugs)....makes me go Hmm.....do i really want 2....
And several of mine died to a B-52 JDAM when the wrong coordinates were sent after a battery change on the designator.
Two points. 1) The pilots weren't briefed on the Canadian exercise. That is a command and control function. It obviously had tragic results. However, if you're trying to make the case that only the US makes command and control errors......
Hate to be the one to point this out, but mistakes are made in every war. In fact, they're made in training exercises too.
2) "flying on drugs". Yes, basically speed. I think if you research you'll find every military has that in their "bag of tricks". Look how long the missions are/were in Afghanistan. If I'm not mistaken, speed for aircrews goes back to WW2 in most nations.
I'm sorry it happened. But it WAS an accident.
try korea....
Korea's being handled quite nicely, particularly given the way the UN is handling Iraq. Every day NK makes another boneheaded announcement that INSURES the UN will have to actually ACT.
Don't forget that the US forces in Korea serve under the United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command. There's that blue flag that you all revere so much waving at the DMZ.
Sooner or later the ostriches of the Security Council are going to have to do something about NK.
All without the US saying or doing anything. Thus avoiding the "arrogant" and "unilateral" BS that we get pasted with all the time.
NK is alienating itself from the rest of world and managing that all by it's insane little self.
but again I say he has to go....what I sayin is your doin it the WRONG way!!!
There is no "right" way. However, you can sit around saying "he's got to go" for a long time. More than 12 years apparently. Sooner or later..... and it's "later" by anyone's measure...... you have to put up or shut up.
All that said, I'm not for a US invasion without UN mandate. I say bring all the troops home from the region and let the world keep the peace in the Middle East.
BTW, we get lambasted for the Palestine/Israel thing all the time too. Cod knows I'm not an Israel supporter but I do support their right to a homeland and I know they wouldn't have that if it were left to the rest of the world minus the US.
But what I want to know is... for all the criticism of US policy in Israel/Palestine, at least we have one and we're in there trying to make it better.
Where are the rest of yas? Don't hear much guidance given to Israel's Sharon or Palestine's Arafat from Canada. Did I miss it?
-
@Iron : That's not an arrogant post you think ?
If so show me a really arrogant post so I'll be able to compare.
-
Here you go Straffo:
Straffo
Le français n'est pas plus une langue de merde que le polonais.
Arrogant enough?
-
But toad
How can you spout off high an mighty about US sacrifice and ignore the sacrifces of my country. In your eyes and words the deaths and service both in peace and war of canadians doenst exist. Its easier for you to think that no country ever does anything but the US. Well we didnt participate in Panama or Granada..wonder why not. We were there in Afganistan and The gulf and nearly every where else. But if we dont aggree with you on this one we are a bunch of traitorous whimps.
Could it be that we look at what your country is going to do and think its a huge mistake backed by a bunch of middle sized to large lies?
I could cut and paste all your nonsence about only the US ever doing anything and reply to you at length about the back up and support the US has recieved for 50 years from my small country with a population the size of one of your cities. But why bother. You wont see it and you dont care.
We are not affraid to join you in attacking Iraq. We dont think that it should be done period.
Your state department spin doctors seem to be getting lots of americans on side for the blood bath, forgive the rest of the world if we are not so persuaded by your propaganda machine.
Rude. I know that the people in charge have a much more realistic view of the potential cost in lives of "liberating" the iraqi Oil-people. How many Iraqis do you think died in the last gulf war?
-
Originally posted by straffo
@Iron : That's not an arrogant post you think ?
If so show me a really arrogant post so I'll be able to compare.
Here's one for ya.....US arrogance ya say?
EU candidates accept joint position on Iraq
BRUSSELS (AP) — Future EU members endorsed a joint European declaration Tuesday warning Saddam Hussein he has one last chance to disarm, hoping to mend a bitter rift over a possible war on Iraq.
The endorsement ignored the damaging impact of French President Jacques Chirac's tirade against eastern European nations that have backed Washington's hard-line stance.
"We had extensive, very effective and constructive consultations and we have reached an agreement," on the EU summit declaration, said Greek President Costas Simitis, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency.
The 13 future members backed the hard-fought statement by European leaders warning Saddam he faces a "last chance" to disarm. They gave no deadline and said U.N. weapons inspectors must have more time to finish their work.
While the declaration aimed at creating unity, Chirac's withering attack on future EU members who signed letters last month backing the U.S. position created a new split between pro-American and staunchly European camps.
"It is not really responsible behavior," Chirac told reporters Monday just after the EU issued its declaration on Iraq. "It is not well brought up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."
He warned the eastern candidates their position could be "dangerous," because the parliaments of the 15 current EU nations still have to ratify the decision for 10 new members to join the bloc next year. He singled out Romania and Bulgaria, who are still negotiating to enter the bloc in 2007.
France has long been the least enthusiastic about the prospect of EU expansion, fearing its own leading influence would inevitably diminish.
Britain, the United States' staunchest ally, and Germany, which with France has tried to slow the drive toward war, criticized the attempt to silence eastern European nations.
"They have as much right to speak up as Great Britain or France or any other member of the European Union today," Blair told reporters in London. "They know the value of Europe and America sticking together."
Eastern European capitals reacted defiantly to the French attack, reminiscent to some of the former Soviet Union's overbearing manner.
"It is not the first time that pressure is being exerted upon us in one or another form," Bulgarian Deputy Foreign Minister Lyubomir Ivanov told state radio. "But in my opinion this is not the productive way to reach unity and consensus in the Security Council."
Romanian President Ion Iliescu called Chirac's remarks "irrational."
"Such reproaches are totally unjustified, unwise, and undemocratic," he told the British Broadcasting Corp.
The Bulgarian prime minister welcomed the endorsement as a "positive show of unity for the union."
"The document the 13 agreed upon is proof that this meeting here ... has had a positive effect," said Bulgarian Prime Minister Simeon Saxcoburggotski, the country's former king.
In addition to the declaration, 10 former communist countries, seven of them EU candidates, reiterated their support for Washington's position on Saddam.
The two statements reflected the deep divide within Europe over Iraq, one of the factors prompting Greece, which holds the EU's rotating presidency, to call Monday's emergency summit to mend the rift.
Despite Chirac's veiled threat, the candidates said they did not believe their entry into the EU was at risk.
"I believe Chirac said what he did in a moment of irritation," Romanian Foreign Ministry State Secretary Cristian Coltianu said. "We consider the process of enlargement to be irreversible."
The EU declaration was endorsed by representatives of the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Malta.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
But toad
How can you spout off high an mighty about US sacrifice and ignore the sacrifces of my country. In your eyes and words the deaths and service both in peace and war of canadians doenst exist. Its easier for you to think that no country ever does anything but the US. Well we didnt participate in Panama or Granada..wonder why not. We were there in Afganistan and The gulf and nearly every where else. But if we dont aggree with you on this one we are a bunch of traitorous whimps.
Could it be that we look at what your country is going to do and think its a huge mistake backed by a bunch of middle sized to large lies?
I could cut and paste all your nonsence about only the US ever doing anything and reply to you at length about the back up and support the US has recieved for 50 years from my small country with a population the size of one of your cities. But why bother. You wont see it and you dont care.
We are not affraid to join you in attacking Iraq. We dont think that it should be done period.
Your state department spin doctors seem to be getting lots of americans on side for the blood bath, forgive the rest of the world if we are not so persuaded by your propaganda machine.
Rude. I know that the people in charge have a much more realistic view of the potential cost in lives of "liberating" the iraqi Oil-people. How many Iraqis do you think died in the last gulf war?
Well, let me quote your own press.......
Copyright 1993 Pacific Press Ltd.
The Vancouver Sun
March 11, 1993, Thursday, 1* EDITION
SECTION: Pg. B12
LENGTH: 221 words
HEADLINE: War victims exaggerated, analyst says
BYLINE: INDEPENDENT
DATELINE: London
BODY:
As few as 1,500 Iraqi soldiers may have been killed by allied forces in
the Persian Gulf War - a tenth of the previous lowest estimate - according
to a former analyst in the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, John Heidenrich.
The most conservative estimate of Iraqi battlefield casualties from allied
air and ground action had been 15,000 but most range from 25,000 to
100,000. Fewer casualties could help to explain the astonishing speed of
Iraq's military recovery after the war.
According to a former British chief of defence staff, Sir David Craig, the
allies stopped their advance before achieving their objective of destroying
President Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard partly because they feared
accusations of "butchery."
It has always been a mystery what happened to hundreds of thousands of
Iraqi soldiers thought to have been in the Kuwait theatre of operations
south of the Euphrates. A senior British officer said after the war that he
assumed thousands of dead lay "in collapsed trenches."
Based on interception of signals from more than 40 divisions, allied
intelligence had to assume that there were more than 600,000 Iraqi troops
when the allied air bombardment began on Jan. 17, 1991. It is now widely
accepted that those divisions were at between 50 and 75 per cent strength,
at most.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Here you go Straffo:
Arrogant enough?
see in my answer here :http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79205
You made a little translation error.
And I didn't edited my previous post to change my sentence.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nathan Hale wasn't afraid to die.
:confused:
Who is Nathan Hale?
-
Rude do you think it's more or less arrogant than AKIron post ?
If it's less arrogant what about explaining me HOW AKIron's post is less arrogant ?
-
Originally posted by Naso
:confused:
Who is Nathan Hale?
He was an American Revolutionary Patriot.
-
Show me where I've ignored Canada's sacrifices please.
As for the agree/disagree, I think you can find numerous posts where I've said I don't support US action against Iraq without UN Security Council mandate. Forgive me, but isn't this your position as well?
Population of one of our cities? No, you've got ~ 30 million +. We've no city that size; you've got a bit more than 10% of our population. And your "defense" spending, on a percentage basis, is lower than it was prior to WW2.
Canada does support UN action and it supports the US, usually. In fact, Canada at least does participate, far more then can be said for most of the nation's b*tching right now. I recognize that and so do most Americans. However, be realistic and honest with yourself.
As to the political/diplomatic side of it, you folks can feel free to take the lead on any of the International Issues that you think we're screwing up.
I'd certainly welcome Canada announcing that they will engage Palestine and Israel in peaceful talks and solve that problem for the world. Feel free to deal with North Korea as well.
Take it as "Canada bashing" if you will....... and I suppose you will..... but I never ignored Canada's sacrifice. I also don't have an unrealisitic view of Canada's contribution. Nor have I seen much engagement politically/diplomatically in the true "hot spots" of the world.
Just how I see it.
-
“I only regret,” he said, “that I have but one life to lose for my country.” (http://www.ctssar.org/patriots/nathan_hale.htm)
Nathan Hale.
-
Originally posted by Rude
He was an American Revolutionary Patriot.
Thank you, Rude. :)
And Toad (just saw your post, checking now the link)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Rude do you think it's more or less arrogant than AKIron post ?
If it's less arrogant what about explaining me HOW AKIron's post is less arrogant ?
Is it arrogant to state a fact?
Private dollars from US citizens flowing to countries outside of our borders are helpful....pull that wealth back within our borders and it would have an effect. Take a look....
Among international donors, the United States gives the largest amount of official aid to developing countries, contributing more than 20 percent of total DAC assistance. As a percentage of gross national income, however, this aid is the smallest among government foreign assistance programs. But as this chapter has made clear, the true measure of U.S. generosity and sustainable development is not just government aid-it is total U.S. international resource flows, including private capital and philanthropy.
When all these private flows are added to official development assistance, the United States moves into first place for total resource flows. Table 6.4 summarizes and compares U.S. government and private international assistance for 2000, 2005, and 2010. The table also includes estimates for the Millennium Challenge Account, projected to increase U.S. government aid by $5 billion a year in 2006. For private international giving, poorly documented and therefore underestimated in all categories, the table provides a range from the lowest estimates supported by research to reasonable higher estimates suggested by known gaps in research. This range of numbers provides a much-needed starting point for estimating private international giving.
The table provides a different perspective on the common criticism that the United States is not generous in its overseas contributions. Although official development assistance is a smaller percentage of gross national income in the United States than in other countries, it is also a smaller percentage of total giving. According to the DAC standard of 0.7 percent of gross national income, total U.S. international giving in 2000 should have been $69.5 billion. The actual total of official development assistance and private giving was $44.5 billion, or 0.45 percent of U.S. gross national income-well within the average range for DAC donors.
When other official government and private assistance are added to this $44.5 billion, the United States moves far ahead in the total amount of resources provided to developing countries. So Americans have not given up on foreign aid. They have simply found new channels through which they can express their compassion for less fortunate people abroad. Official government aid has been displaced by a rising tide of private giving with significantly lower transaction costs, more client-directed services, and more willingness to cede ownership to recipients.
The recognition by the U.S. government of nonofficial development assistance and its importance to economic and political development has an enabling quality for global development assistance. It could encourage other donors to improve their national climate for private giving, such as through laws allowing tax-deductible contributions. Governments could work to ease the flow of immigrants’ remittances to their hometowns abroad and could study new ways of working at the grassroots level with workers in these towns, supported by immigrants. Citizens of industrial countries everywhere no longer expect their governments to do it all. They want to participate in giving as volunteers-and in ways that ensure accountability and transparency in their giving.
From America’s earliest assistance to international refugees in Santo Domingo (in today’s Dominican Republic) and food shipments for famine-struck Ireland, to the work of the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, to today’s "mega donors"-Ted Turner and Bill and Melinda Gates-Americans have consistently given time, money, and in-kind contributions to international causes, preferring to channel these donations through private organizations. This vast assistance should be better documented. As the United States defines its assistance role in the 21st century, it must understand and work more closely with providers of private resources. The future calls for a new approach that recognizes and incorporates private giving, focusing on grassroots support, local ownership, sustainability, accountability, and-notleast-passion and commitment.
-
Link for that Rude, if you please.
I was looking for something like that not long ago.
;)
-
You havent seen Canada doing anything diplomatically anywhere in the world for a long time because the Politicians are too busy F*****G its own Taxpayers.
Cant do anything else while there's money to be squandered.
Yes this is Canada Bashing on my part, But as a Canadian I'm allowed :D
-
Originally posted by Rude
Is it arrogant to state a fact?
Private dollars from US citizens flowing to countries outside of our borders are helpful....pull that wealth back within our borders and it would have an effect. Take a look....
Among international donors, the United States gives the largest amount of official aid to developing countries, contributing more than 20 percent of total DAC assistance. As a percentage of gross national income, however, this aid is the smallest among government foreign assistance programs. But as this chapter has made clear, the true measure of U.S. generosity and sustainable development is not just government aid-it is total U.S. international resource flows, including private capital and philanthropy.
When all these private flows are added to official development assistance, the United States moves into first place for total resource flows. Table 6.4 summarizes and compares U.S. government and private international assistance for 2000, 2005, and 2010. The table also includes estimates for the Millennium Challenge Account, projected to increase U.S. government aid by $5 billion a year in 2006. For private international giving, poorly documented and therefore underestimated in all categories, the table provides a range from the lowest estimates supported by research to reasonable higher estimates suggested by known gaps in research. This range of numbers provides a much-needed starting point for estimating private international giving.
The table provides a different perspective on the common criticism that the United States is not generous in its overseas contributions. Although official development assistance is a smaller percentage of gross national income in the United States than in other countries, it is also a smaller percentage of total giving. According to the DAC standard of 0.7 percent of gross national income, total U.S. international giving in 2000 should have been $69.5 billion. The actual total of official development assistance and private giving was $44.5 billion, or 0.45 percent of U.S. gross national income-well within the average range for DAC donors.
When other official government and private assistance are added to this $44.5 billion, the United States moves far ahead in the total amount of resources provided to developing countries. So Americans have not given up on foreign aid. They have simply found new channels through which they can express their compassion for less fortunate people abroad. Official government aid has been displaced by a rising tide of private giving with significantly lower transaction costs, more client-directed services, and more willingness to cede ownership to recipients.
The recognition by the U.S. government of nonofficial development assistance and its importance to economic and political development has an enabling quality for global development assistance. It could encourage other donors to improve their national climate for private giving, such as through laws allowing tax-deductible contributions. Governments could work to ease the flow of immigrants’ remittances to their hometowns abroad and could study new ways of working at the grassroots level with workers in these towns, supported by immigrants. Citizens of industrial countries everywhere no longer expect their governments to do it all. They want to participate in giving as volunteers-and in ways that ensure accountability and transparency in their giving.
From America’s earliest assistance to international refugees in Santo Domingo (in today’s Dominican Republic) and food shipments for famine-struck Ireland, to the work of the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, to today’s "mega donors"-Ted Turner and Bill and Melinda Gates-Americans have consistently given time, money, and in-kind contributions to international causes, preferring to channel these donations through private organizations. This vast assistance should be better documented. As the United States defines its assistance role in the 21st century, it must understand and work more closely with providers of private resources. The future calls for a new approach that recognizes and incorporates private giving, focusing on grassroots support, local ownership, sustainability, accountability, and-notleast-passion and commitment.
Yup...bad ol Americans....justa a bunch of arrogant turds.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Link for that Rude, if you please.
I was looking for something like that not long ago.
;)
Here ya is....
http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/usassistance.htm
-
Originally posted by straffo
Rude do you think it's more or less arrogant than AKIron post ?
If it's less arrogant what about explaining me HOW AKIron's post is less arrogant ?
I was responding to a post by Slo in which he called Americans arrogant, materialistic, and self-centered. Kinda pisses me off when I think of all the help both in money and lives sacrificed to help those around the world less well off than we are.
If ya don't like it, stick it where the sun don't shine. Now, that I admit IS arrogant.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I was responding to a post by Slo in which he called Americans arrogant, materialistic, and self-centered. Kinda pisses me off when I think of all the help both in money and lives sacrificed to help those around the world less well off than we are.
If ya don't like it, stick it where the sun don't shine. Now, that I admit IS arrogant.
You're not being arrogant....just honest.
Some here in this thread just hate the fact that we're fat and happy....they want the same for themselves...difference being, they want us to share what we have instead of workin for it themselves...it's called Socialism.:)
-
Originally posted by Toad
My .02 here will probably suprise some.
I don't really agree with Rude or Hangtime.
Here you will now see the truly ugly side of Toad.
Good luck to yas.
Thank you Toad for that post. You saved me the trouble, and probably put it more eloquently than I could. I agree with you 100%
All you people/countries out there who don't like what we do, pound sand. Next time you need our help, go somewhere else for assistance. I for one am sick of bailing everyone else out and then when we ask for assistance, we get the shaft.
to the boys and girls over there that have to do the dirty work for the U.S. and unfortuately, the rest of the world. U.K. not included in that. :D They still like us.
-
Nah, 60000 young americans dyin in the rice fields of Vietnam for an idiotic and wrong policy was just enough to remind us that the USA which did many great things in it's history can also make very big and bloody mistakes.
Blitz, you are obviously reaching and know nothing about the Vietnam War. "For an idiotic policy"??? Yes, the war (as wars go) may not have been run correctly, but that was in an effort to spare civilian deaths and why our politicians took so much control. But the policy was the defense of a country being invaded, I think a noble policy.
The conflict has origins in WW2 when under German (Vichy French), then Japanese and then back to French occupation (thanks to the British who high-tailed it out of there after disarming the Japanese in the South.) The French then try and wrangle the country back but after Dien Bien Phu, where the French get a boody nose and basically surrender once again (though, they shouldn't have been there anyway), there is a meeting in Geneva led by the French where the country was split along the 17th parallel. (The USA didn't sign this agreement, it should be noted.) And there were to be elections held to unify the country under one rule but the way things got set up, it was basically communist/totalitarian state in the North and democratic in the South. So now you have the South not wanting to relenquish power and the North who want all the power and basically the motion is set in place and the North begins a long process of infiltration and outright invasion of the South.
Once again it was America (and Australia and S Korea) trying to defend a country from invasion. The USA never sent troops into the North, and the war might've been much different if we took McArthur's lead in Korea and made a landing to split the North in two. That would've wreaked havoc on the infiltration of the South. But that never happened, all our efforts were in an attempt to stop the North from invading the South and no intention on overthrowing the North. Anyway, what really breaks Americans' hearts is that we tried to defend a nation from invasion and none of the world cared...at times, it appeared as though not even the South cared.
So once again, the USA attempts to clean up a mess started by Europe and not with goals of occupation of Indochina as with the French, but really to thwart an overt invasion of the South by the communist North. But you try to turn this around and use this against us as bad ol' Americans. You live in Germany?...don't be throwing stones.
-
Originally posted by Puke
Blitz, you are obviously reaching and know nothing about the Vietnam War. "For an idiotic policy"??? Yes, the war (as wars go) may not have been run correctly, but that was in an effort to spare civilian deaths and why our politicians took so much control. But the policy was the defense of a country being invaded, I think a noble policy.
The conflict has origins in WW2 when under German (Vichy French), then Japanese and then back to French occupation (thanks to the British who high-tailed it out of there after disarming the Japanese in the South.) The French then try and wrangle the country back but after Dien Bien Phu, where the French get a boody nose and basically surrender once again (though, they shouldn't have been there anyway), there is a meeting in Geneva led by the French where the country was split along the 17th parallel. (The USA didn't sign this agreement, it should be noted.) And there were to be elections held to unify the country under one rule but the way things got set up, it was basically communist/totalitarian state in the North and democratic in the South. So now you have the South not wanting to relenquish power and the North who want all the power and basically the motion is set in place and the North begins a long process of infiltration and outright invasion of the South.
Once again it was America (and Australia and S Korea) trying to defend a country from invasion. The USA never sent troops into the North, and the war might've been much different if we took McArthur's lead in Korea and made a landing to split the North in two. That would've wreaked havoc on the infiltration of the South. But that never happened, all our efforts were in an attempt to stop the North from invading the South and no intention on overthrowing the North. Anyway, what really breaks Americans' hearts is that we tried to defend a nation from invasion and none of the world cared...at times, it appeared as though not even the South cared.
So once again, the USA attempts to clean up a mess started by Europe and not with goals of occupation of Indochina as with the French, but really to thwart an overt invasion of the South by the communist North. But you try to turn this around and use this against us as bad ol' Americans. You live in Germany?...don't be throwing stones.
America cared toejam about freedom and democracy in Vietnam.
It was all cold war power interests and not a single american soldier died there for a good reason.
You bombed a little 3rd world country back to stoneage, used chemicals like Agent Orange bigtime without any moral problems and this little tough country still suffers till today from your assault.
And it was NOT the fault of the brave american soldiers who gave their best there in vain, it was the fault of ya politicians.
Good thing about was there explored a big Peace Movement in America to stand up, using their civil rights and bringin that watermelon to an end at last because they couldn't stand that horrible injustice brought there in the name of democrazy and freedom.
To say the least, after 30 years of thinkin it all over and wounds on both sides healed a bit it is about time for an apologize from America, isn't it?
Regards Blitz
Never said i like Vietnam goverment but it's their country not ours.
-
Originally posted by Puke
And there were to be elections held to unify the country under one rule but the way things got set up, it was basically communist/totalitarian state in the North and democratic in the South.
South Vietnam was a democracy? Wrong.
The reason it got 'set up that way' was because Uncle Ho would have won if the South had held free elections in 1956.
-
It was all cold war power interests and not a single american soldier died there for a good reason.
The war was really about defending one country against the invasion of another. And the invaders were not a bunch of nice guys...as is always the case. And it really showed after 1975.
You bombed a little 3rd world country back to stoneage, used chemicals like Agent Orange bigtime without any moral problems and this little tough country still suffers till today from your assault.
Agent Orange was only used in SVN to defoliate areas being used to infiltrate the south. In fact, if I recall right, it was nothing different than what could be used in your home garden and made by DuPont. It wasn't used to kill people. And an interesting statistic is that we dropped more bombs on SVN than NVN, just for the record. And when we bombed the North, we made every effort to spare civilian lives, to the detriment of sound tactical sense and the lives of American pilots. But sometimes bombs go errant and that's a shame. But what is just as true is that sometimes those SA-2s (which are tranported over bumpy dirt roads to different SAM sites and jumble their electronics) go errant and zip around into a little village after launch and then explode. Urban renewel it's called. But that was quickly masked and claimed to be Americans killing babies again. And you get the "Stone Age" quote wrong too, so look into that one. Many areas of the North were not bombed such as the dykes and dams, harbors and docks and Gia Lam International and much more. It was not indiscriminent bombing of cities as such was common in WW2, but precision bombing.
Never said i like Vietnam goverment but it's their country not ours.
Whose government? They never had a government, always under Chinese or French rule (Germany and Japan for a short time too.) Then France leads a group to split the country in two which ends up being a communist government in the north and a democratic one in the south. The North wants to "reunite" the country but the South fears communist rule and asks for help against the invasion. USA helped the South defend itself. The Soviet Union helped the North invade the South. But I guess Germany is good at turning a blind eye; afterall, all them ovens in WW2 weren't baking bread and then the populace of your country can only say "but we had no clue." Again, don't cast stones and basically all your points you've made are incorrect once again. I will toot my own horn and state the Vietnam War is something I make study of. I can tell that you only know the typical banter. Read a book.
I guess coming to the aid of West Berlin was just a "cold war" interest too. We shouldn't have been there either.
-
I wonder how many people see that most of the 3rd world crap we seem to end up getting involved with is a direct result in the colonialism of Euro nations and thier direct failure to do anything about the mess they created way back when?
The Iraq mess is..a mess. We view them as a threat to the needed stablity of the Middle East. Like it or not... the ME is relevant to the economy of this nation (USA) and that of most of the world. This is ONE reason we are doing as we are.
The 2nd is that the regime of Saddam is active in its desire to obtain Nukes and other weapons of MD. India w/a Nuke is one thing.... Iraq is another. Yes... he claims to of disarmed but supposdly we have evidence to the contrey. Collin Powell went forth w/this evidence.
Irag could become another N-Korea. You see NK is a verrrry unstable nation w/a verrrry unstable Leader/government. The ONLY thing that has prevented the N-K's from going south is the presence of 40k troops flying under the US flag and all that implies.
Okay... we could place a hoard of US troops in the ME..right? I mean we could place them there and watch Iraq? Uhhhh NO... they..the ME people would realllly detest US troops there no doubt.
So..what do we do? The inspections are a farce. You cant monitor the square milage of Iraq, period. He could have items tucked away that we'd never find. We have to act on intelligence recieved, accumlated over time.
Bush feels that Saddam is a dangerous threat right up there w/Bin-Laden. He intends to elimante that threat. I actualy dont think he cares about re-election. That ALONE should say something.
xBAT
-
The reason it got 'set up that way' was because Uncle Ho would have won if the South had held free elections in 1956.
Montezuma, the contention the South made was that the North under communist rule were not allowed to vote freely. Thus the South cancelled any election for reunification and contested the Geneva Accords.
I think you miss something...yes, the South was Democratic and the North was Communist even before the elections for reunification. The vote in 1956 was for who would rule when the two countries when re-united. And I think President Diem of South Vietnam had a point in questioning just how free those "free elections" in the totalitarian state of the North were to be.
-
Originally posted by Puke
I think you miss something...yes, the South was Democratic and the North was Communist even before the elections for reunification. The vote in 1956 was for who would rule when the two countries when re-united. And I think President Diem of South Vietnam had a point in questioning just how free those "free elections" in the totalitarian state of the North were to be.
Diem won the election by 98% of the vote in the south, he was about as democratic as Saddam Hussien. Then he gets assassinated by his own Army and the counry is run by a series of inept military strong-men until the US finally leaves.
Yeah, we were defending democracy.
-
Originally posted by Puke
People make mistakes.
Countries make mistakes.
Even America, you can nothin do about it, only tryin your best
And Vietnam adventure was the biggest mistake America ever made.
And if ya can't see, that this endless killing of civillians, bodycount every evening on tv, torture, murder, using napalm on little towns regularly was a political crime altogether, i can't help ya, puke.
60000 Americans and over a million Vietnam people paid a very high price for a little lecture of democracy teached by american politicians in the jungle of Vietnam.
It was not different from what the russians did in Afganisthan, it was just the other way round.
Regards Blitz
-
Blitz, we will have to disagree. I do not see the overall reason for the Viet Nam war as being evil or a big mistake on the USA's part, but I do see how it was micro-managed by Washington as being a mistake...and that's it. But you don't really understand the war, and thus I can't help you. Did you know Napalm was only used in SVN? SVN never made claims we were conducting a political crime, so it's hard to even discuss this stuff with you when you really have little grasp of the details and I can tell keep pulling out these cliches. It all comes down to one point, assisting one country in repelling an invasion... INVASION. (Note the big letters.)
Montezuma, whether you think Diem is a good leader or not does not mean SVN was not a democratic country. (I think he was a numnutt.) To be detailed about all this would take volumes, but there was much squabbling between religious groups, casts/societies and more which caused a lot of infighting for power in the South. It's not an easy thing to follow. Point is, the country was Democratic. Kennedy was assassinated about the same time as Diem...was it a plot? Was America not democratic? The North had a greater populace and was under communist rule and I can see where someone would have problem with a vote for reunification under those conditions. You know, back through the ages the northern part of Annam has always had the greater populace, but when the country was split at the 17th parallel and the French had to come South and the Viet Minh North, there was much more North to South travel of civilians than South to North. I think something can be made of that too.
Is this my first hijack of a thread? I love chatting about the Vietnam War, it's my greatest interest, so my apologies to Rude.
-
damn guys relax man...we all on the same side......
and AKIron...read it carefully.....i said "people view you like that"
where in there does it say 'I DO'
Its a known fact or perception of you by others 'OUTSIDE' your diddlyin country......stop looking in your own backyard once in a while....
sorry guys...no offense intended.....
look at the global picture and you'll see most agree that iraq does need help and that Saddam needs to leave.....but folks are seeing Bush use his in-experience in foriegn affairs surface...by usin his cowboy(most non-american see em that way) approach to this whole affair....
AGAIN AKIRON.....I say this as someone who looks at it globally....not internally
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I was responding to a post by Slo in which he called Americans arrogant, materialistic, and self-centered. Kinda pisses me off when I think of all the help both in money and lives sacrificed to help those around the world less well off than we are.
If ya don't like it, stick it where the sun don't shine. Now, that I admit IS arrogant.
Try to re-read your post as it was made by me.
and "poof" (that's the sound of a miracle ...) it will sound arrogant ...
strange no ?
Rude I can copy and paste a whole dictionnary if I want
.
Your answer was neither a rebutal nor a genuine work.
I asked YOU personnaly to explain me the differences not anyone else.
And please keep it short so I won't spent my sleep time translating it.
-
Originally posted by Puke
Blitz, we will have to disagree.
It's not we, You disagree.
Half of the world and half of America sah it exactly the way i mentioned.
And because many, many people in ya own country stood up against their goverment in a great democratic manner, even soldiers, this mindless, bloody war had come to an end.
Regards Blitz
-
Blitz, you're wrong about so many things and so blind to the facts Puke is presenting you that there is no point in discussing it with you.
If half the world agrees with you, well, that says something too. They didn't do their research either.
Nice job, Puke. You obviously have made a study of VietNam.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Blitz, you're wrong about so many things and so blind to the facts Puke is presenting you that there is no point in discussing it with you.
Nice job, Puke. You obviously have made a study of VietNam.
If half the world agrees with you, well, that says something too. They didn't do their research either.
Every nation got their own dirty red spots in there history, doesn't help to always yell, "We're the best, we're so
proud,
we only do good", cures nothin. You can't rewrite history , how hard ya may try.
Regards Blitz
-
Originally posted by Toad
If half the world agrees with you, well, that says something too. They didn't do their research either.
:D
Regards Blitz
-
We're not rewriting the history of the VietNam war it but you obviously never bothered to learn it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
We're not rewriting it but you obviously never bothered to learn it.
There is 2 way to read this post
And at last one is very offensive for all the German I know.
-
Originally posted by Toad
We're not rewriting it but you obviously never bothered to learn it.
I feel so bad :D
Regards blitz
-
methinks blitz is feeling a little guilty about all those ovens and wants to tar all humanity with his brush.
lazs
-
Posted this in another thread, but relevant to Rude's original post here...
There are a couple of reasons I believe the US is pursuing the issue of Iraq. We have seen numerous examples in the last ten years of the UN failing to take decisive action to prevent genocides and general racial or political oppression. In case after case, in Yugoslavia, Africa, and the Middle East, dictators and thugs have gone about their criminal and often grizzly tasks of killing and oppression with little fear of intervention by an impotent United Nations. Yes, impotent, and made so by the very diversity of culture, values, and national interests of the nations that belong to it. My own belief is that President Bush decided to push the Iraqi issue to either finally make the UN relevant, or to prove it irrelevant and unworthy of further support by this country. I believe he hoped the UN would just this once say, “Enough is enough,” and act decisively to remove Saddam from power. If the UN could do this, and free the Iraqi people from his tyranny, then perhaps the next time it was challenged by a dictator or ethnic cleansing the mere threat of “decisive action” would actually give the perpetrators pause to reconsider their chosen course of action.
And it almost worked. The US’ pledge to act with or without UN sanction resulted in the unanimous passage of UN resolution no. 1441 last November. This was to be the Iraqi dictator’s last chance for cooperative disarmament, and promised “serious consequences” if he failed to comply fully and eagerly. That, coupled with the US/UK military buildup forced the Iraqi despot to agree to 1441. Does anyone out there believe for a moment that the UN would have enacted 1441 last November, or that Iraq would have accepted it, if George Bush (and PM Blair, who’s own support can not be understated in importance) had not made his speech to the UN…and backed it up by deploying forces to the region? The problem of course is, once you commit to such a course of action you may be required to follow through on your pledge. If you don’t, than no one will ever take you seriously again. Unfortunately, it appears certain member nations of the Security Council don’t understand this. Bush, however, does.
As we have seen, Baghdad immediately began testing the resolve of the Security Council. When Blix made his first report to the Council, which in essence said that Iraq was not complying with resolution 1441, that was the point the UN could have averted the war I believe is just weeks away. They could have joined together to declare Iraq in material breach, and passed a second resolution authorizing military action after a certain short deadline passed, giving Iraq only until then to change their attitude in dramatic and meaningful ways. Saddam remembers the last time the UN issued a deadline, and another such decree might just have been taken more seriously than the French, German, and Russian battle cry, “give the inspectors more time.” Saddam instead has seen the UN for what it. He has continued to doll out empty promises and little dribbles of “apparent increases of cooperation” on the eve of each new report deadline. In this way, Blix has been forced to qualify any negative aspects of his reports with words such as “possible change in attitude” and “signs of increased cooperation.” Saddam knows full well that as long as he throws out these little tidbits, countries like France and Russia will greedily seize upon them to prevent the UN from acting.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi people continue to suffer at the hands of their own government, and other potential despots and tyrants are emboldened to forsake even the trappings of civilization, for who will stop them?
Why did President Bush choose Iraq for this litmus test of the UN? First, the last ten years of Iraqi defiance of the UN was the firmest bedrock he could find to build a case on. Second, the events of 9/11 woke up the world to what could happen if certain elements got a hold of WMD such as Iraq has most certainly been developing. It highlights the threat Iraq posses to not only its neighbors, but to the world at large. Third, maintaining the sanctions and no-fly zones on Iraq, are not only costly in and of themselves, but are also proving ineffective in forcing Iraq to reform itself. How many thousands in Iraq have died at Saddam’s orders, or have suffered deprivations to build his palaces and rebuild his military and WMD arsenals. Finally, both President Bush and to a great extent the American people see the whole Iraqi problem as unfinished business.
Blix has as much as stated that inspections will not result in a disarmed Iraq, if Iraq is intent on hiding WMD from the inspectors. He has said specifically that more inspectors are not the answer. Only if Iraq embraces the disarmament process, enthusiastically, publicly, and honestly as South Africa did, can there be any hope that inspectors will be able to verify Iraq if free of WMD. There is no sign that Saddam intends to do so, so removing Saddam is the only way to end the suffering of Iraq while insuring that country is no longer a threat to world peace and stability.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
methinks blitz is feeling a little guilty about all those ovens and wants to tar all humanity with his brush.
lazs
Why should i feel guilty my friend,
wasn't born when that happened
and i always fight those who deny it, even if they live in the USA, abusing the right of free speech.
I made my lessons :D
Regards Blitz
-
Originally posted by Rude
I've been reading pretty much all that has been said here in the O Club forum regarding the US, our President and war against Iraq.
Now I usually am careful as to what I say on these boards as I'm aware of the futility of debate with some of the regular posters. I've finally reached my pain threshold and will spill how I really feel about the US efforts to fight terrorism.
We will do whatever it is WE feel is necessary to secure the safety of AMERICAN citizens, AMERICAN interests and the AMERICAN way of life. If some of you one world government advocates don't like it, get over it.
It's OUR goverment.....it does not exist to serve you or anyone else other than AMERICANS.
Now you can view my position as wrong, ignorant, uneducated, simplistic or even arrogant, but I'm an AMERICAN and don't give a flip what any of you leftwing, socialists/communists, college attending, sign carrying apologists have to say regarding anything AMERICA chooses to do.
Ya see, there are bad folks in this world that want to hurt people...we now have some that want to hurt the US and it's citizens....now while some of you would tie our hands, giving those ill doers time to invent new and more effective ways to kill AMERICANS, we on the other hand are going to do something about it whether you like it or not....understand? We don't care what you think or how you feel about this issue.
So....sit back with your paint and poster board and start makin some more signs....if you think ya have something to protest now, just wait until 30 days have passed.
I feel better now:)
DAMNIT!!.... Ok fine, now I HAVE to publicly admit I LIKE this guy!
RUDE!!
-
Blitz, I'm all for free speech. And that includes discussing and pointing out differences of interpretation or even outright error and includes my disagreeing with you openly and freely. There is not much I can say to you regarding the Vietnam War though other than suggest you please take some time and visit your local library and grab a book and heed what that has to say rather than me before you speak so knowingly again about it. But I will always disagree that it wasn't a noble effort on USA's part...I think it was. That's really my whole point. But again, the war was managed by politicians and managed incorrectly and that's where a lot of the trouble in the USA stems from. In the beginning, most Americans did support the war but after a long time of mismanagement and an appearance that there was no goal or end in sight, the anti-war movement did swell. Heck, I would probably be one of the protestors just based on how the war was executed and I was at risk to go or my son was. This just popped into my head, has no relevance really, but did you know that Germany sold back our own bombs to us at a greatly increased price (I think from $3 to $12 a bomb or something) with full knowledge that they would be used in Vietnam? Anyway, that's it with this topic and I'm done and will walk away. And... David Hasselhoff sucks! heh heh.
-
Puke and thanks.
I admire your paitence.
Blitz, should by some chance or quirk of fate your nose ever get busted, please; think of me.
-
I would be interested in reading books about the US involvement in Vietnam that portray the goals or policys that got the US involved as noble.
I have read a great many books on the war. But I apperently missed a whole body of works that portray the war that way.
But I am willing to learn.
-
Pongo, allow me to suggest:
A Better War by Lewis Sorley ISBN 0-15-100266-5
Even if it does nothing to change your mind, I believe you will enjoy it and I believe it will at least make you question some of the "universal truths" about the VietNam war that most people read off posters and adopted as articles of faith.
It deals primarily with 1968 to 1975, is extremely well documented.
If you decide to read it, please let me know what you think.
-
Originally posted by Rude
That statement don't hold water....
1....the democracy in Palestine is a show only...not the real deal.
2....You forgot Turkey
You're right. I forgot about Turkey.
-
Pongo, I'm glad you wish to learn. Most of my best references on such a topic are actually with my father. As an aside to explain that I'm not copping out, his best friend the past couple years was a Captain in the SVN Army and who actually spent some really bad years in prison when the North conquered the South. Same with a few of his brothers. Anyway, this guy is my father's tennis partner and what is funny is my father has picked up on some of the Vietnamese language so that when they play doubles, they can communicate and give instructions to each other about what they should do while the ball is in play and the opposing team has no clue what they are talking about. That cracks me up...to hear my dad speaking Vietnamese. And, they may take a visit to Vietnam and I'm invited to go. :D My father's interest has really increased recently and he knows the subject has always been of interest to me and borrowed a bunch of my books that discuss such matters, the history of the country and path to the war. I actually study more the war as in place, and mostly Rolling Thunder and the air-war. The actual origins of the war I find to be so complex and convoluted that it boggles my mind. But simplified down a bit, I do think I have a pretty good understanding of how it all fell into place. Anyway, back to the books. I'd personally suggest not to read about "Air War" subject but those books that concentrate on the history from WW2 to Rolling Thunder. Yeah, they are more boring than reading about the bombing. Stanly Karnow's book is probably still available and widely popular, though there are a few errors in it that really bug me. I really like "The United States Navy And The Vietnam Conflict, Pt I and II" as published by the Naval Historical Center, but you cannot buy them anymore. Part II, 1959-1965 is more interesting to me. These get into specifics and you may be able to find them in a university somewhere. I have a lot of stuff on microfilm and electronic records and a lot of stuff from the National Archives. I'm looking at my bookshelf and am realizing that I think most books out there pretty much provide the same history and thus the same conclusion that I draw. McNamara's book is pretty interesting, but you'll probably "poo-poo" that one. Anyway, what conclusion do you draw from your readings? Why was the USA in Vietnam? You do know our involvement goes way back, and Roosevelt wanted Vietnam's independence but when Truman took over, he didn't want to alienate France and Britain over it and backed off on that subject. And things mount from there. Again, what do your books say to you, I'm not sure you've stated this yet.
I'm editing to add: Please list a few sources that support your point of view. I will look into them.
-
Puke, did you happen to read A Better War? If so, what did you think?
-
Toad, Puke have you ever hear "Pickle Pickle Pickle" (or something like that)
I've heard one time in a meeting were my father was speaking with an american pilot (who if I'm not mistaken was a wild weazel pilot) but it was quite a long ago and I was learning english at this time :)
(not that I'm fluent today but my level as improved a lot thanks to the O'club posting ;))
-
Yep.
"Pickle" was dropping the ord. Usually repeated 2-3 times over interphone from the backseater or bombardier or whoever toggled the weapons away.
-
I like you too Tumor
:)
-
Thanks Toad !
Now I've just to find where can he have droped bomb ... easy ;)
-
a little news for blitz......vietnam was a justified war.....i repeat....vietnam was a justified...hmm.. hmm police action:p
never disagree with em blitz..or they'll all jump on ya:rolleyes:
ya gotta see it the american way my german friend.....muhahahaha:D
Vietnam was a cold war action between 2 super powers of the time.....PERIOD!!!!
just like Korea.:cool:
-
You merely have to look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea right now and then consider how well VietNam is doing since unified under the rule of the North to see what it was all about in both Korea and VietNam.
See, Slo, the problem with the unresearched "I read it off a protest poster" view of the world is that it totally ignores the reality of the world right in front of you.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You merely have to look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea right now and then consider how well VietNam is doing since unified under the rule of the North to see what it was all about in both Korea and VietNam.
See, Slo, the problem with the unresearched "I read it off a protest poster" view of the world is that it totally ignores the reality of the world right in front of you.
so what your sayin is that I only read protest posters and ignore everything else....
Korea was just a staging ground for control of the region between the allies(democracy) and Russia/China(communism)
vietnam was just a staging ground for control of the region between the US(democracy) /Russia(communism)
they both fought for supremcy of either democracy or communism
hmm does that sound stupid to you....or maybe I'll keep reading protest posters:D
-
Toad, I've actually not read that book but I've been behind on my readings. Ever since starting Aces High, I've slowed my Vietnam readings and have been covering WW2, though I'm currently going through Michel's "The 11 Days Of Christmas." But I'm about ready to make another mass-buy on Amazon and will include the title you mention.
Slo, it sounds like you try to use the term Police Action and make it something negative, though I wouldn't really classify the Vietnam War as a police action. But if it were, I don't necessarily see anything negative in one. Really, to describe the Vietnam War in one-sentence I would state it was a war to repel invasion, which I think was a noble cause. The Ho Chi Minh Trail was a one-way street and ran north to south. Supplies came in from the ports in the northeast and along the northeast and northwest railroad and journeyed south to make war IN the South. There was never any invasion north or attempt to overthrow the North by the South. Troops and tanks never rushed north to invade Vinh or Thanh Hoa or even Hanoi and Haiphong. And it wasn't a war to kill babies and civilians, but quite the opposite. It would have been easy to do, because though you think of Vietnam and lots of water and rice paddies, it's only that way due to dikes and damns. It would have been easy to flood out a good deal of the population and once that's done, starve them because they could no longer grow their rice. The bombing first started in an effort to send signals to Hanoi to stop the aggression and later was used to target those areas that supported aggression south. But again, I re-iterate, there was no invasion north. The South was invaded from the waters to the esat and south, from Laos and Cambodia to the West and for a time from the North across the DMZ...on all sides. Montezuma had a great point about Diem's regime, but democracy I guess can take some time to get right and the effort was there. And sometimes it's a case of a lesser of two evils just like our support for the USSR against Nazi-Germany, the support of troubled SVN govts (loaded with corruption) against invading communists. It was also a different time, and the USSR did make threats upon the world including Nikita stating "we will bury you." Along with the Berlin Airlift, Korean invasion, communist Chinese takeover, Hungarian uprising, Cuba and really a host more. Though I personally believe the idea was noble, how it was run was not. And Pierce Arrow really set the tone for poor management of the war when the strikes were announced in Washington prior to them actually occuring because of a blunder and which provided time for the defenses to get poised and ready. And in the end, two-years after the USA pulled out of the region, SVN, Laos and Cambodia fell to communism and underwent killings and ethnic cleansing of tragic proportions. Not every step taken along the way to the path of war was perfect, but I still think it a noble cause...to defend against invasion a country struggling for democracy.
I gotta run to work.
-
Originally posted by SLO
hmm does that sound stupid to you....or maybe I'll keep reading protest posters:D
I make it a practice not to make ad hominem attacks.
I'll just say that's an extremely superficial view.
As I said, the difference between North Korea and South Korea today alone should tell you what it was about.
And that's just one example. The gulf between East and West Germany prior to reunification is another.
-
Puke,
Scout around the Borders, B. Dalton's and Waldenbooks first. I found my copy on the "sale bench" for a mere fraction of the list price.
It does focus quite a bit on this that you just stated:
"but democracy I guess can take some time to get right and the effort was there."
The effort was finally coming together but too late. And as I said, it's amazingly well documented.
Enjoy!
-
Originally posted by Toad
As I said, the difference between North Korea and South Korea today alone should tell you what it was about.
And that's just one example. The gulf between East and West Germany prior to reunification is another.
How arrogant Toad, to suggest that South Korea and both West and East Germany wouldn't be what they are today without US sacrifice/involvement/interferrence. And not just WWII but ever since. The audacity. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by AKIron
How arrogant Toad, to suggest that South Korea and both West and East Germany wouldn't be what they are today without US sacrifice/involvement/interferrence. And not just WWII but ever since. The audacity. :rolleyes:
please no insult intended.....
but why is it you only mention the US.....in Korea it was the ALLIES....in Germany it was the ALLIES.....
My uncle who is dead today...fought in Korea....not mentionning your Allies is an INSULT...but yet you do it all the time....take care how you show yourself....or some might think your ARROGANT!!!!
then the arrogants say: who cares there just jealous
its not a question of jealousy...but recognition
please no insults intended
-
Originally posted by SLO
please no insult intended.....
but why is it you only mention the US.....in Korea it was the ALLIES....in Germany it was the ALLIES.....
My uncle who is dead today...fought in Korea....not mentionning your Allies is an INSULT...but yet you do it all the time....take care how you show yourself....or some might think your ARROGANT!!!!
then the arrogants say: who cares there just jealous
its not a question of jealousy...but recognition
please no insults intended
No insult taken, nor was a slight intended. However, I'll go on a limb here and suggest that without US initiative there would have been no allied participation in either Korea or in defeating the USSR in Germany.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
No insult taken, nor was a slight intended. However, I'll go on a limb here and suggest that without US initiative there would have been no allied participation in either Korea or in defeating the USSR in Germany.
as a recognized SUPER power you ARE supposed to take the lead....it doesn't mean you can flash it in everyones faces.....a little humility goes a long way.....
but as a neighbor of yours....I understand most of ya's.....I grew up watching... listening... to most of what you all listen too.
BUT....not all understand or know where you come from....most perceive it as arrogance....no insult intended please
-
Just trying to take the lead again in Iraq where it's needed. A little shaming of some seems to be in order. If that doesn't work then just stand the hell back so you don't get hurt.
-
Originally posted by SLO
a little news for blitz......vietnam was a justified war.....i repeat....vietnam was a justified...hmm.. hmm police action:p
never disagree with em blitz..or they'll all jump on ya:rolleyes:
ya gotta see it the american way my german friend.....muhahahaha:D
Vietnam was a cold war action between 2 super powers of the time.....PERIOD!!!!
just like Korea.:cool:
Sorry Slo, can't follow that road of Anti - War Propaganda any more.
Maybe Hang and puke, Toad and Sauerkraut convinced me.
I must admit Saddam Hussein and his mighthy republikan gard is a thread to America like the overwelming deadly Vietnam was.
Regards Blitz
Saddam is a bigger threath to the America and the world than i thought.
He's got the secret weapon ever Hitler dreamed of.
He want's to destroy the free words morality and America's
civil rights.
Damn, he's won the first battles already if we look to Americas and Englands gouvernment.