Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: blitz on March 17, 2003, 02:19:41 PM
-
We can't just say Bush & crew are a 'Bunch of Liars' as they told already about a year ago that they will force a war with Iraq 'With the UN or without them' ......
They only tried to hide behind UN and abuse it after they decided long ago to go for their very own targets.
They failed miserably politically and now they use their military force to reach very questionable political goals.
A sovereign country is attacked by a superpower to change their political regime by violence.
There's no UN resolution now or in the past to back that.
This is no defence war its an 'Angriffskrieg'!
Bush wants to get rid of an old buddy who was at least as bad when supportet by the USA as he is now. He killed 125000 iranian soldiers with the WMDs, which components were sold by western countries such as Germany, USA, France.
US didn't care about his WMD use at that time.
Even more suspicious they blocked an UN resolution to condemn Irak at that time for WMD use.
This war is fought for other main reasons as freedom and democrazy of Iraq people.
If it wasn't only for propaganda reasons what US government told us about the democratic future of Kuwait before the last gulf war they had forced the 'liberated' Kuwait to got rid of their repression regime within the last 10 years.
Same goes for the democratic regimes of Pakistan and Egypt, still your bigtime friends.
This war isn't fought because Iraq has anything to do with Al Queida because their isn't the slidest proof of that.
This war isn't fought mainly for oil, but oil is 1 of the reasons or do you really think USA would go there if they had only sandclocks to sell?
The main reasons for me is Paul Wolfowitz stategy paper out of the late 80ties.
Time has come to gain much more power in this world for the neoconservative falkons in the white house.
Will that be good or bad for the world? Nobody knows.
But history shows that might corrupts pretty well.
It's always good to have a competition to have some balance.
After the end of the cold war there is a power vacuum and the Rumbsfelds and Wolfowitzs of the US government try to use it for their benefit.
The criminal attack on the WTC just came in handy for them.
As i see it, the 3000 innocent victimes are abused by the very right political spectrum of the USA. American people are kept in fear and panic by an irresponsible government. Shame on them.
I hope Saddam Hussein leaves his country to avoid a war and to save his miserable live.
If not i hope this war is over very quick and there are only a few people to die on both sides.
This war can be horrible for iraq people.
This war is a politicall desaster for the world.
........What we can say though is: ' Bush and his warmongers are a Bunch of Blackmailers'
Imho Blitz
There aren't 'Soft Targets' , it's people you are killing.
'Collateral Dammage' :which idiot invented that phrase? It's women, children and old men who will be teared apart.
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
You need to do a better cut and paste of someone elses post on your socialist UBB's, Blitz, so that the sentences are fluid, one right after the other, and paragraph indentations, that way it will appear that you actually wrote this post. :D
-
IMHO the Iraqi lives lost in the unfortunate need to evict the current regime by force will be far less than the number that would have been lost had the Butcher been allowed to remain in place. I just hope that Saddam's subordinates care enough about their own lives to refuse orders to unleash WMD's upon their own people in Baghdad.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You need to do a better cut and paste of someone elses post on your socialist UBB's, Blitz, so that the sentences are fluid, one right after the other, and paragraph indentations, that way it will appear that you actually wrote this post. :D
No socialist UBB reading here, only Prawda :D
Regards Blitz
-
A sovereign country is attacked by a superpower to change their political regime by violence.
Iraq is a sovereign country which has brought on this war. It has been in a cease fire with the US for 10+ years, and one of the conditions it agreed to all those years ago was that it would prove to UN inspectors that it had destroyed all of it's WMD. It hasn't done so, now comes the war again.
-
Originally posted by blitz
No socialist UBB reading here, only Prawda :D
Regards Blitz
Oh Blitz! :( (And I thought using CNN as a lone source was bad) ;)
-
Originally posted by Rasker
IMHO the Iraqi lives lost in the unfortunate need to evict the current regime by force will be far less than the number that would have been lost had the Butcher been allowed to remain in place.
actualy you appear to know a lot.....
you are one of those guys whos consider winner, with less dead people arent you ?
btw we arent just awoken euros... we are whinning about US`s international politic for long years..
but do you know what i do not see Blitz ???
How is possible ,that Spain supoprt them, while 93% of population is agains.....
and Did you see Blair in last days ??? i guess he is already sorted with fact, that he will be kicked out
our president today said, that he will present attitude of our people and not what he do consern as good for us....
im not wondering that US living in our country do call this country free in comparation with US
btw do you realize that even if Sadam will use WMD, that people will point on US, that US is responsible per it ?
anyway Blitz its hard hobby to try make those "smart guys" thinking from diferent point of view isnt it ? :D
-
germany and france lose again, this is getting to be a habit.
-
Originally posted by blitz
No socialist UBB reading here, only Prawda :D
Regards Blitz
actualy Pravda in our language, but we are not so eastern :D
-
Fish fish fish... troll troll troll... blah blah blah
-
Prawda is in no way a good source...it's just plain rediculous.
"How is possible ,that Spain supoprt them, while 93% of population is agains....." - Please support those stats Eaglecz. Is your source just plain rediculous too?
-
Originally posted by john9001
germany and france lose again, this is getting to be a habit.
It's the world's NR 1 that lost something. :(
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
god //i hope blitz is not a Knight..if you are..U are defntly on the "Never Chek 6 Lists"
Semper Fi...
Somthing Germany and France have no clue about..
oops im wrong..there always faithful of being weenies
lololol
Love
BiGB
-
You are idiot blitz. Bush was covinced by Powell to go the UN. Others in the Bush admin were opposed and thought Bush should make plans to get rid Saddam early on. Some wanted Bush to go after Saddam before heading into afghanistan.
It was the powell faction (that includes Bush Sr.) that won the arguement. The other side thought the UN would do nothing but hand wringing. They now believe that had they never went to the UN then the US would be in a better position then now.
The US did not hide behing the UN. Your country and France did. Bush said from vwery early on that the US would not rely on the UN to protect its interests, even before 1441.
Now we have had months hand wringing and atleast in the case of Blair it has hurt him politically.
The US went out of its way by going to the UN. That part has ended and gotten him nowhere.
-
Originally posted by blitz
We can't just say Bush & crew are a 'Bunch of Liars' as they told already about a year ago that they will force a war with Iraq 'With the UN or without them' ......
They only tried to hide behind UN and abuse it after they decided long ago to go for their very own targets.
They failed miserably politically and now they use their military force to reach very questionable political goals.
A sovereign country is attacked by a superpower to change their political regime by violence.
There's no UN resolution now or in the past to back that.
This is no defence war its an 'Angriffskrieg'!
Bush wants to get rid of an old buddy who was at least as bad when supportet by the USA as he is now. He killed 125000 iranian soldiers with the WMDs, which components were sold by western countries such as Germany, USA, France.
US didn't care about his WMD use at that time.
Even more suspicious they blocked an UN resolution to condemn Irak at that time for WMD use.
This war is fought for other main reasons as freedom and democrazy of Iraq people.
If it wasn't only for propaganda reasons what US government told us about the democratic future of Kuwait before the last gulf war they had forced the 'liberated' Kuwait to got rid of their repression regime within the last 10 years.
Same goes for the democratic regimes of Pakistan and Egypt, still your bigtime friends.
This war isn't fought because Iraq has anything to do with Al Queida because their isn't the slidest proof of that.
This war isn't fought mainly for oil, but oil is 1 of the reasons or do you really think USA would go there if they had only sandclocks to sell?
The main reasons for me is Paul Wolfowitz stategy paper out of the late 80ties.
Time has come to gain much more power in this world for the neoconservative falkons in the white house.
Will that be good or bad for the world? Nobody knows.
But history shows that might corrupts pretty well.
It's always good to have a competition to have some balance.
After the end of the cold war there is a power vacuum and the Rumbsfelds and Wolfowitzs of the US government try to use it for their benefit.
The criminal attack on the WTC just came in handy for them.
As i see it, the 3000 innocent victimes are abused by the very right political spectrum of the USA. American people are kept in fear and panic by an irresponsible government. Shame on them.
I hope Saddam Hussein leaves his country to avoid a war and to save his miserable live.
If not i hope this war is over very quick and there are only a few people to die on both sides.
This war can be horrible for iraq people.
This war is a politicall desaster for the world.
........What we can say though is: ' Bush and his warmongers are a Bunch of Blackmailers'
Imho Blitz
There aren't 'Soft Targets' , it's people you are killing.
'Collateral dammage' :which idiot invented that phrase? It's women, children and old men who will be teared apart.
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
Get over it
-
You need to do a better cut and paste of someone elses post...
Too funny.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
god //i hope blitz is not a Knight..if you are..U are defntly on the "Never Chek 6 Lists"
you are american arent you ?
-
Originally posted by Curval
Prawda is in no way a good source...it's just plain rediculous.
Curval i beg your pardon, here comes my everyday prawda :)
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/ Berlin
My brain breakfast for the last 20 years
Can ya spell light conservative? :)
It is as entertaining as a dry towel :)
To bad, i always miss to find the Yellow press :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
actualy you appear to know a lot.....
you are one of those guys whos consider winner, with less dead people arent you ?
Huh? Do you mean, that I consider Iraqi's winners because fewer of them will die, than if we left Saddam in place? Definitely yes. Winners because they will finally have hope of a government that won't oppress and brutalize them to preserve its own power? Why not? Am I willing to risk some American lives to help this to happen? Why not, we've been doing this when unusual circumstances call for it, since 1917.
-
Originally posted by Batz
You are idiot blitz. Bush was covinced bt Powell to go the UN. Others in the Bush admin were opposed and though Bush should make plans to get rid Saddam early on. Some wanted Bush to go after Saddam before heading into afghanistan.
It was the powell faction (that includes Bush Sr.) that won the arguement. The other side thought the UN would do nothing but hand wringing. They now believe that had they never went to the UN then the US would be in a better position then now.
The US did not hide behing the UN. Your country and France did. Bush said from vwery early on that the US would not rely on the UN to protect its interests, even before 1441.
Now we have had months hand wringing and atleast in the case of Blair it has hurt him politically.
The US went out of its way by going to the UN. That part has ended and gotten him nowhere.
Thank you, Sir. I know that Colin Powell wasn't in that falcon group, to bad he lost control of the 'Bloodhounds' :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
"The criminal attack on the WTC just came in handy for them. "
It may as well be Prawda...spewing sh_t like that.
Sorry man...I simply cannot believe that people can read it and be "taken in" by it.
-
Originally posted by Rasker
Huh? Do you mean, that I consider Iraqi's winners because fewer of them will die, than if we left Saddam in place? Definitely yes. Winners because they will finally have hope of a government that won't oppress and brutalize them to preserve its own power? Why not? Am I willing to risk some American lives to help this to happen? Why not, we've been doing this when unusual circumstances call for it, since 1917.
ok i see your point clearly now
but if you wanna help someone, just ask him, what he wants you to do
People of Iraq arent looking for your bombs... they are looking for a moment, when you will kill Sadam&get out by their owen words
and they did say clearly, do not expect any regards but thank you
im not quite sure, that US will "help" them as they ask for it.
Im not quite sure, if someone ever told to US people, whats point of view of Iraqi people
-
Originally posted by Curval
"The criminal attack on the WTC just came in handy for them. "
It may as well be Prawda...spewing sh_t like that.
Sorry man...I simply cannot believe that people can read it and be "taken in" by it.
It's my own opinion as i wrote, don't need no copy and paste. Just collected some information outa the news, the newspaper, from this BBS.
Don't ask nobody to share my conclusions, no namecalling of private people, just my opinion :)
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
blitz: They failed miserably politically and now they use their military force to reach very questionable political goals.
I take exception to that! You call delaying the impending downfall of the US welfare state through preserving US power to issue world's fiat money a "questionable political goal"? I guess you have a few year supply of food, water and ammunition in you basement to sit through the period of unrest when US goes bancrupt and people are told to actually work for their living - and compete with chinese on quality and labor cost at that? Wait - you are not even here to suffer the consequences... You'll sit it over in Germany.
And what the heck are neo-conservatives? What's wrong with plain old "republican socialists"?
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
Of course it is not. America is threatened by France and Germany having created a currency that can displace dollar as world reserve money. Iraq is just a guy who first refused to accept dollar for oil in favor of Euro. For setting that precedent he must be shot. $500 billion a year of free foreign goods obtained in excange for dull-colored paper will be in danger if we let him defy us. That $500 bil is probably 25% of our real GDP or more, once the crap used to pad it is removed.
miko
-
interesting facts miko
thanks
-
Originally posted by miko2d
blitz: They failed miserably politically and now they use their military force to reach very questionable political goals.
.... when US goes bancrupt
miko
Highly doubt that, but when that happens i'm the first in the queue to send a care parcel, but don't draw me into a war like this, please. :)
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
It's my own opinion as i wrote, don't need no copy and paste.
Your opinion is that 9/11 was some sort of convenient excuse for the US government to bully the world into doing what it wants?
That is an insult to the memory of those who were murdered.
My opinion.
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
ok i see your point clearly now
but if you wanna help someone, just ask him, what he wants you to do
People of Iraq arent looking for your bombs... they are looking for a moment, when you will kill Sadam&get out by their owen words
and they did say clearly, do not expect any regards but thank you
im not quite sure, that US will "help" them as they ask for it.
Im not quite sure, if someone ever told to US people, whats point of view of Iraqi people
The Iraqi people will have the opportunity to express themselves for the first time since 1991. I weep that we didnt finish our task back then. I'm glad that we will finish it now. I hope that all Iraqi people will live to enjoy the freedom that the coalition forces will win for them!
-
Originally posted by Curval
Your opinion is that 9/11 was some sort of convenient excuse for the US government to bully the world into doing what it wants?
That is an insult to the memory of those who were murdered.
My opinion.
No, it is an insult to your government, please read twice.
I didn't say Bush & Crew didn't care about the victims of 11/9 .
But these folks are professionals, they know pretty well how to use such a horrible day .
Just as politicians use nature cathastrophes for their advantage to be reelected.
Be at the place, show emotion, shake some hands....
It's called politics.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3 (http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3 )
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Of course it is not. America is threatened by France and Germany having created a currency that can displace dollar as world reserve money. Iraq is just a guy who first refused to accept dollar for oil in favor of Euro. For setting that precedent he must be shot. $500 billion a year of free foreign goods obtained in excange for dull-colored paper will be in danger if we let him defy us. That $500 bil is probably 25% of our real GDP or more, once the crap used to pad it is removed.
miko
Interesting,,,, what is the Euro based on? The US dollar is based on the US Govt- ie. US treasury bonds. Look at the spread between German/French gov bonds vrs. US T-bonds. Especially short term yield curve. Then tell me if you would rather have your "cash" in the Euro.
-
Originally posted by blitz
No, it is an insult to your government, please read twice.
I didn't say Bush & Crew didn't care about the victims of 11/9 .
But these folks are professionals, they know pretty well how use such an horrible day .
Just as politicians use nature cathastrophes for their advantage to be reelected.
Be at the place, show emotion, shake some hands....
It's called politics.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
You don't like what we are doing, do something about it. I'd love the opportunity to kick some German butt.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You don't like what we are doing, do something about it. I'd love the opportunity to kick some German butt.
I did my friend.
Was with the peacemarchers in feb, was with the candle light queueon saturday, try to stay informed all my live.
Yes, i know i'm a godam appeaser :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
who started firing at planes in the no-fly zone anyway....
-
lol blitz they are so pathetic LOL
welcome to the club mate ... some freaking lame wanted to kill me via UBB as well, few hours ago ... they are so lucky, that eastern europian arent allowed to visit US freely, coz i would like to see those brave patriots behind keyboard :D
-
Originally posted by blitz
Was with the peacemarchers in feb, was with the candle light queue
f*cking hippie
..oh almost forgot
:)
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
who started firing at planes in the no-fly zone anyway....
egg or chicken ?
-
ygsmilo: Interesting,,,, what is the Euro based on? The US dollar is based on the US Govt- ie. US treasury bonds. Look at the spread between German/French gov bonds vrs. US T-bonds. Especially short term yield curve. Then tell me if you would rather have your "cash" in the Euro.
Nothing. Just like dollar. I am not talking about rates this week but about global picture.
US bond yields have the same relation to reality as NASDAQ level had in 2000.
Foreign countries hold about 4 trillion of US debt. And how many trillions of dollars as their "currency reserves"? They have no chance to buy anything worthwhile for that money - otherwise we would not have this huge trade deficit, so why do thy still accept $500 billion a year in exchange for goods? What happens if they just stop taking it, not even dump it back causing the major drop in dollar and enormous inflation here?
Do you know how much dollar has to drop to correct $500 billion in trade imbalance?
US lost the backing for it - the soviet threat, the industrial dominance, the technological dominance. We control nothing that would make them accept dollars.
It need not necessarly be Euro - that is just the first challenger - they may try to replace some reserves with yuan, or gold or anything else. The dollar is not good because they are holding it - but because they keep accepting it and accumulating it.
Once we hold our hand on a world's oil spigot, they will have to continue. Simple as that.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Nothing. Just like dollar. I am not talking about rates this week but about global picture.
US bond yields have the same relation to reality as NASDAQ level had in 2000.
Foreign countries hold about 4 trillion of US debt. And how many trillions of dollars as their "currency reserves"? They have no chance to buy anything worthwhile for that money - otherwise we would not have this huge trade deficit, so why do thy still accept $500 billion a year in exchange for goods? What happens if they just stop taking it, not even dump it back causing the major drop in dollar and enormous inflation here?
Do you know how much dollar has to drop to correct $500 billion in trade imbalance?
US lost the backing for it - the soviet threat, the industrial dominance, the technological dominance. We control nothing that would make them accept dollars.
It need not necessarly be Euro - that is just the first challenger - they may try to replace some reserves with yuan, or gold or anything else. The dollar is not good because they are holding it - but because they keep accepting it and accumulating it.
Once we hold our hand on a world's oil spigot, they will have to continue. Simple as that.
miko
Good valid points but the real issue is liquidity. Thats why the dollar has the power it does. I would disagree with the statement that currencies are based on nothing- they are notes based on the "value" of the issueing country especially since the dollar was decoupled from the gold standard ( which is another 100 page thread in its own right ) The value of those currencies are linked back by the countries abilty to service its debt ie bonds and other gov. paper. Arb is the word when it comes to the dollar/Euro.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Once we hold our hand on a world's oil spigot, they will have to continue. Simple as that.
miko
finaly someone who know something about world economy
any other whinne about war agains terrorists or islam ?
no ?
If you realy dont know what was official purpose to build al qaida, be ready to hell if you will try to stay in Iraq w/o UN
and UN isnt about to play game for your profit
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
f*cking hippie
..oh almost forgot
:)
Welcome, my communist friend :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
lol blitz they are so pathetic LOL
welcome to the club mate ... some freaking lame wanted to kill me via UBB as well, few hours ago ... they are so lucky, that eastern europian arent allowed to visit US freely, coz i would like to see those brave patriots behind keyboard :D
I served my country behind a gun long before I bought my first keyboard.
-
Originally posted by blitz
Welcome, my communist friend :D
Yeah, everyone who knows me knows all about my communist sympathies. -Imagine rolleyes emoticon here-
-
hehe
i wasnt so brain washed, so i didnt serve my country with gun
somehow im not about to kill from will of someone else
but you are dong great thing mate
a lot people in Komunist countries was proud to live there and proud to die for ideas.... yeah yeah and they was all free as well :D
you are so diferent, so go go go
:D :D
-
euro bellybutton clowns LOL
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yeah, everyone who knows me knows all about my communist sympathies. -Imagine rolleyes emoticon here-
ofcourse you are ... just look at the colour of your sign :D :D :D
(or am i already that tired ? :D )
-
Oh, king, eh, very nice. And 'ow'd you get that, eh?
By exploiting the workers! By 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.
If there's ever going to be any progress,--
I didn't know we 'ad a king! I thought we were autonomous collective.
You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes-- There you go, bringing class into it again...
That's what it's all about! If only people would--
I *told* you! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We're taking turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week--
But all the decisions *of* that officer 'ave to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting--
By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--
But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major--
:D
-
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony!
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!!
I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!
Oh, what a giveaway! Did'j'hear that, did'j'hear that, eh? That's what I'm all about! Did you see 'im repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?!
:eek:
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yeah, everyone who knows me knows all about my communist sympathies. -Imagine rolleyes emoticon here-
Die größten Kritiker der Elche waren früher selber welche :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Another European donut clown.
-
Originally posted by rc51
euro bellybutton clowns LOL
Personally , i liked Charly Rivell better :)
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
thats "moistened *bint*"
-
Originally posted by Rasker
thats "moistened *bint*"
You can weep if ya feel like :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
I like to stick to name calling... Bush is a moron... Guess he hasn't been in the political scene long enough to realize the international community takes for ever to make up it's mind. He hasn't stuck to his guns on the international political scene and the US also voted for "Threat of serious consequences. " What the hell does that mean? I'm going to come down there and piss on you sheep if you don't disarm?
Who accepted the surrender of a nation after a conflict and allows them to keep an estimated 60% of their amoured forces? Another moron. Now we have the same conflict all over again.
I believe the international community is at fault with the lack of clarity in the first resolution. Does not set a clear guideline, timeline or what consequences mean. It played right into the hands of Sadam.
Bush is using the war on terror as a means to exert US foreign policy on other countries that have something to offer the US economy. I strongly doubt you'll see a buildup of forces in Korea... What do they have the US could take? I guess we'll just have to be content to have another nuclear power on the block with the missles to deliver them.
Inspections are slow but they were inhibiting Iraq as a threat to the US. I would hate to think what one more month, as France was willing to compromise as, would do? Would it make a difference? Probably not, but at the least, Bush would gain more international support and begin to make France look dumb if they do not want to act. Bush has lost support by forcing a US timeline and then not following it himself. Blair will pay for that.
-
Originally posted by MotorOil
Inspections are slow but they were inhibiting Iraq as a threat to the US. I would hate to think what one more month, as France was willing to compromise as, would do? Would it make a difference? Probably not, but at the least, Bush would gain more international support and begin to make France look dumb if they do not want to act. Bush has lost support by forcing a US timeline and then not following it himself. Blair will pay for that.
More propaganda.
France was not willing to allow one more month. France emphatically stated they would not approve any timeline that had the end result of noncompliance as war. What they proposed, was one more month, then we'll decide what to do. Which would put us exactly where we are today.
-
Except you'd have a little more international support, say Canada, Mexico and possibly enough for 9 votes... But that would just be screwing with the US timeline.
On the flip side, you could be right.
-
Originally posted by MotorOil
Who accepted the surrender of a nation after a conflict and allows them to keep an estimated 60% of their amoured forces?
Um...that would be the UN I believe. I seem to recall that Stormin' Norman wanted to keep going and cut the head off the snake in Baghdad, but the UN wouldnt let him.
My, my...its amazing how much people forget in 12 years. Only when its convenient to them though.
-
Originally posted by sling322
Um...that would be the UN I believe. I seem to recall that Stormin' Norman wanted to keep going and cut the head off the snake in Baghdad, but the UN wouldnt let him.
My, my...its amazing how much people forget in 12 years. Only when its convenient to them though.
US instigate a Iraq rebellion because they thought this would blow away a weak Saddam.
Once it started, US military watched Saddams republican guards slaughter the rebellion within 2 weeks and did nothin.
They paid a very high price .
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
the usage of English in this thread hilarious is. Like it do I and Yoda appreciate it too probably.
-
Once it started, US military watched Saddams republican guards slaughter the rebellion within 2 weeks and did nothin. -Blitz
The UN didn't do anything either.
But who is doing something now?
So when the USA doesn't do something you have a complaint and when the USA does do something you have a complaint. I can see you just want to complain no matter what.
-
OMG this cowboy will really attack! i feel so sorry for you US people,
he ruins you and nobody see it :(
-
Maybe someday euros will realize that most Americans consider being called a Cowboy as a compliment... unless you are a Steelers fan.
:)
-
the usage of English in this thread hilarious is. Like it do I and Yoda appreciate it too probably.
And how many foreign languages do you speak, master of tongues? From your previous posts, I can see you struggle with English as a first language, nevermind second or third.
They are making a big effort to discuss this issues, and all you can do is ridicule them for it. That's doesn't make you look smart or witty or even vaguely funny. Just pathetic.
Sling - you seem to regard Schwarzkopf's opinion highly. What about his current opinion, which pretty much challenges the entire Bush strategy?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
They are making a big effort to discuss this issues
[/b]
ok, since you are apparently not talking about straffo or blitz...who exactly are you talking about?
-
Straffo has been pretty much on his own defending France after some pretty abusive treatment by the usual suspects on this board. Some of the comments, if they had been directed at the US, would have them wailing like a bunch of squeakes on heat. Or posting pictures of the graves of American war dead.
Blitz has trolled and got some big bites.
Either way, if your language skills aren't particularly good, it takes a lot of effort to stay with a discussion, both in terms translating to understand a reply and then formulating a reply yourself.
Ask NikPaz, he seems to have great difficulty with the English language, but really puts the effort in - and it's worth it every time.
-
The term "cowboy" is an interesting one. I suppose it's a derogatory term, but I don't see how it can be. I guess it'd be like calling the Japanese Prime Minister a "samurai" or Tony Blair a "knight."
GhostFT, I'm touched that you are concerned for us Americans. I am interested in your special insight and how we'll be ruined, so if you don't mind extrapolating on that point, I'd appreciate it.
-
Samurai = Chivalric Knight = Cowboy !
Eh????
-
Oh, and I do greatly respect all of you who can read/speak more than one language.
Hungarian stopped in my family with my grandmother. Her and her sisters and brothers never taught my mother and their kids how to speak it because they felt it to be a better way for the kids to assimilate into this country. My mother is somewhat upset about it and as I get older I kinda wished it had been passed down and I had some grasp of the language. My respects to you!
-
Dowding, they are the same thing in terms of not being derogitory. Also, I can point out bad knights/samurais/cowboys just like I can point out good knights/samurais/cowboys.
But I don't quite understand "eh."
-
I don't understand what you are saying. If you are trying to compare the key attributes of Samurai, Chivalric Knights and Cow-boys, I'm sorry but cowboys are really the odd men out. Chivalric knights and samurai were very much men of war and the right hand men of a ruler. They obeyed strict rules on conduct as befitting whatever.
A cowboy is a peasant beside the Samurai and Knight - a man who toils on the land, belongs to no ruling elite and is very much an ordinary working man enjoying no special priviledges.
No biggie, I just didn't see the comparison, that's all.
-
Puke think that even if the spelling is the same the meaning is not allways the same ...
When you read Cowboys in the mouth of a Yuropean think more (if I'm not mistaken) of a maverick(*) than cowboy.
(*) your version of the "chien fou"
-
Dowding,
I see we have a problem with our comprehension. I'm not comparing a cowboy directly to a knight, but I am comparing how they are neither derogitory words in their country of origin. Please, go back and have another go at reading my post.
Peasants are probably the most noblest of the three mentioned, actually. You keep adding "chivalric" to the knight, but I'm not talking about fantasy King Arthur here. I'm talking about the guys clubbing serfs for their money. 100-Years War doesn't make them chivalrous.
But I'm kind of disgusted you look down on the man who toils the field yet you flaunt unwarranted kudos to those born with silver spoons in their mouths with power-by-birth to go along with it.
Please cut the "chivalric" crap. They are just knights. Thank you.
Here, I'll help you out...here's my original statement:
The term "cowboy" is an interesting one. I suppose it's a derogatory term, but I don't see how it can be. I guess it'd be like calling the Japanese Prime Minister a "samurai" or Tony Blair a "knight."
-
Straffo, I see where you are coming from. Maverick might work...but then again, people tend to like an air of independence too, which Maverick connotates to me. You might just want to stick with "warmonger" if you really want to make a cutting comment.
-
You keep adding "chivalric" to the knight, but I'm not talking about fantasy King Arthur here.
Neither am I. A Chivalric knight is a historical term of reference.
But I'm kind of disgusted you look down on the man who toils the field yet you flaunt unwarranted kudos to those born with silver spoons in their mouths with power-by-birth to go along with it.
Where did I 'look down on' the peasant? My description is entirely accurate. They were toilers of the land, they didn't belong to a ruling elite and they didn't have any special priviledges. I really don't see what your objecting against.
Please cut the "chivalric" crap. They are just knights. Thank you.
Like I said, it's a historical term of reference used by historians. The notion of chivalry has been romaticized by Hollywood et al, I think that is what you are objecting against, and that was not what I was referring to.
-
Originally posted by Puke
Straffo, I see where you are coming from. Maverick might work...but then again, people tend to like an air of independence too, which Maverick connotates to me. You might just want to stick with "warmonger" if you really want to make a cutting comment.
It was not a comment, just a "For Your Information" post.
-
Dowding, come off it...I'm talking all knights, chivalric and non-chivalric alike. So I use the term "knight." I bet you I can look in the dictionary and find the word "knight" all alone and by itself. I bet you I can even check out a book about knights and the adjective "chivalrous" doesn't precede "knight" 99% of the time.
Just like there were various types of knights, there were various types of cowboys too. Some had great power and held large tracts of land and ran large ranching operations with many people working below him. Ahhh, a land-owner...this sounds somewhat like a knight! Some even belonged to the "ruling elite" for their region too! Oh my, I think we do have a similarity here. Some even upheld the laws of their nation and seeked out criminals and ruffians. I still don't see the term Chivalric Cowboy being derogatory.
Man, why do I get wrapped up into these stupid topics. Someone wants to debate cowboys and knights.
-
I must admit i was surprised you stuck with that argument for so long.
-
Terminology
The terms are often confused, and often needlessly distinguished. The term knighthood comes from the English word knight (from Old English cniht, boy, servant, cf. German Knecht) while chivalry comes from the French chevalerie, from chevalier or knight (Low Latin caballus for horse). In modern English, chivalry means the ideals, virtues, or characteristics of knights. The phrases "orders of chivalry" and "orders of knighthood" are essentially synonymous.
Martlet, 'cause I'm bored and cannot sleep tonight. Maybe I'm really not making sense, it's 3:15 a.m. here.
-
Originally posted by Puke
Oh, and I do greatly respect all of you who can read/speak more than one language.
Hungarian stopped in my family with my grandmother.
Her She and her sisters and brothers never taught my mother and their kids how to speak it because they felt it to be a better way for the kids to assimilate into this country.
My mother is somewhat upset about it and as I get older I kinda wished wish (mixed tense) it had been passed down and I had some grasp of the language.
My respects to you!
:D Sorry couldn't resist
-
:D
-
A cowboy could whip any knights bellybutton in a hurry. In fact, I bet most could whip 6 knights at once.
-
Originally posted by blitz
We can't just say Bush & crew are a 'Bunch of Liars' as they told already about a year ago that they will force a war with Iraq 'With the UN or without them' ......
They only tried to hide behind UN and abuse it after they decided long ago to go for their very own targets.
They failed miserably politically and now they use their military force to reach very questionable political goals.
A sovereign country is attacked by a superpower to change their political regime by violence.
There's no UN resolution now or in the past to back that.
This is no defence war its an 'Angriffskrieg'!
Bush wants to get rid of an old buddy who was at least as bad when supportet by the USA as he is now. He killed 125000 iranian soldiers with the WMDs, which components were sold by western countries such as Germany, USA, France.
US didn't care about his WMD use at that time.
Even more suspicious they blocked an UN resolution to condemn Irak at that time for WMD use.
This war is fought for other main reasons as freedom and democrazy of Iraq people.
If it wasn't only for propaganda reasons what US government told us about the democratic future of Kuwait before the last gulf war they had forced the 'liberated' Kuwait to got rid of their repression regime within the last 10 years.
Same goes for the democratic regimes of Pakistan and Egypt, still your bigtime friends.
This war isn't fought because Iraq has anything to do with Al Queida because their isn't the slidest proof of that.
This war isn't fought mainly for oil, but oil is 1 of the reasons or do you really think USA would go there if they had only sandclocks to sell?
The main reasons for me is Paul Wolfowitz stategy paper out of the late 80ties.
Time has come to gain much more power in this world for the neoconservative falkons in the white house.
Will that be good or bad for the world? Nobody knows.
But history shows that absolute power corrupts pretty well.
It's always good to have a competition to have some balance.
After the end of the cold war there is a power vacuum and the Rumbsfelds and Wolfowitzs of the US government try to use it for their benefit.
The criminal attack on the WTC just came in handy for them.
As i see it, the 3000 innocent victimes are abused by the very right political spectrum of the USA. American people are kept in fear and panic by an irresponsible government. Shame on them.
I hope Saddam Hussein leaves his country to avoid a war and to save his miserable live.
If not i hope this war is over very quick and there are only a few people to die on both sides.
This war can be horrible for iraq people.
This war is a politicall desaster for the world.
........What we can say though is: ' Bush and his warmongers are a Bunch of Blackmailers'
Imho Blitz
There aren't 'Soft Targets' , it's people you are killing.
'Collateral Dammage' :which idiot invented that phrase? It's women, children and old men who will be teared apart.
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
I find it somewhat amusing that European diplomats are giving us advice on how to avoid a conflict with Iraq. Their track record in that regards hasn't exactly been crowned with success.
Bemused, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by sling322
Um...that would be the UN I believe. I seem to recall that Stormin' Norman wanted to keep going and cut the head off the snake in Baghdad, but the UN wouldnt let him.
My, my...its amazing how much people forget in 12 years. Only when its convenient to them though.
Your recollection seems to be a little clouded. Stormin Norman allowed a large portion of the Iraqi army to escape to prevent slaughtering them. Whether this was a mistake or on purpose, makes no difference. No political head gave any direction to Norm as he accepted the surrender. He chose the terms. It was a bad surrender deal for the UN and good for Sadam. He would have given up his first born to stay in power however, that and a lot more were never asked for by Norm or the UN. Kuwait was liberated, that was the primary objective. Politically, it was seen as immoral to continue the slaughter to Baghdad. Images of the highway of death were being broadcast and Bush didn't want to loose public opinion. Sure Norm wanted to go all the way, his hands were tied and the fact remains it was he who accepted the surrender.
Funny how the facts remain through 12 years and they are there to conveniently look at. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
I find it somewhat amusing that European diplomats are giving us advice on how to avoid a conflict with Iraq. Their track record in that regards hasn't exactly been crowned with success.
Bemused, Shuckins
Nobody asked ya to avoid a conflict with them, all we asked for was to avoid a bloody war.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
McGroin, Yeah, yeah, you got me. Normally, me do bester with my english when I'm not fightering insomnia at 3 a.m.
-
Blitz is right about Shuckins
ohh well their propaganda is working well :D
-
Originally posted by blitz
We can't just say Bush & crew are a 'Bunch of Liars' as they told already about a year ago that they will force a war with Iraq 'With the UN or without them' ......
They only tried to hide behind UN and abuse it after they decided long ago to go for their very own targets.
They failed miserably politically and now they use their military force to reach very questionable political goals.
A sovereign country is attacked by a superpower to change their political regime by violence.
There's no UN resolution now or in the past to back that.
This is no defence war its an 'Angriffskrieg'!
Bush wants to get rid of an old buddy who was at least as bad when supportet by the USA as he is now. He killed 125000 iranian soldiers with the WMDs, which components were sold by western countries such as Germany, USA, France.
US didn't care about his WMD use at that time.
Even more suspicious they blocked an UN resolution to condemn Irak at that time for WMD use.
This war is fought for other main reasons as freedom and democrazy of Iraq people.
If it wasn't only for propaganda reasons what US government told us about the democratic future of Kuwait before the last gulf war they had forced the 'liberated' Kuwait to got rid of their repression regime within the last 10 years.
Same goes for the democratic regimes of Pakistan and Egypt, still your bigtime friends.
This war isn't fought because Iraq has anything to do with Al Queida because their isn't the slidest proof of that.
This war isn't fought mainly for oil, but oil is 1 of the reasons or do you really think USA would go there if they had only sandclocks to sell?
The main reasons for me is Paul Wolfowitz stategy paper out of the late 80ties.
Time has come to gain much more power in this world for the neoconservative falkons in the white house.
Will that be good or bad for the world? Nobody knows.
But history shows that ´power corrupts pretty well.
It's always good to have a competition to have some balance.
After the end of the cold war there is a power vacuum and the Rumbsfelds and Wolfowitzs of the US government try to use it for their benefit.
The criminal attack on the WTC just came in handy for them.
As i see it, the 3000 innocent victimes are abused by the very right political spectrum of the USA. American people are kept in fear and panic by an irresponsible government. Shame on them.
I hope Saddam Hussein leaves his country to avoid a war and to save his miserable live.
If not i hope this war is over very quick and there are only a few people to die on both sides.
This war can be horrible for iraq people.
This war is a political desaster for the world.
........What we can say though is: ' Bush and his warmongers are a Bunch of Blackmailers'
Imho Blitz
There aren't 'Soft Targets' , it's people you are killing.
'Collateral Dammage' :which idiot invented that phrase? It's women, children and old men who will be teared apart.
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
Even more true. With embedded reprters,we got: Propagada ministry now :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain ridiculous, it's a classic 'Angriffskrieg'
-
Dowding, i'll certainly agree, Straffo has maintined a civility i havew been unable to achieve... but it's not frenchmen dying in iraq. Frankly, civil or not, Straffo has nothing to defend. frances position is indefensible.
Nobody asked ya to avoid a conflict with them, all we asked for was to avoid a bloody war.
Blitz, yer dripping p u s s y moans and wails are kinda pointless.. this 'war' is the most bloodless war in history. more folks died in car accidents today than war deaths in iraq this week. get a grip man.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Dowding, i'll certainly agree, Straffo has maintined a civility i havew been unable to achieve... but it's not frenchmen dying in iraq. Frankly, civil or not, Straffo has nothing to defend. frances position is indefensible.
Blitz, yer dripping p u s s y moans and wails are kinda pointless.. this 'war' is the most bloodless war in history. more folks died in car accidents today than war deaths in iraq this week. get a grip man.
Yeah, right now, but ya playin va banque ......
And: This war is illegal as ya know.
You guys are the agressor this time, not the russians...
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain ridiculous, it's a classic 'Angriffskrieg'
-
illegal?
kinda like shootin murderers without a permit?
-
Quote:"This war is a politicall desaster for the world. "
Doubtful, but it's great for the U.S. and our allies.
I wish it were a political disaster for the world, then all you Euro rutabagas would suffer some consequence for your appeasement politics. Unfortunately, all will benefit from our actions.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
illegal?
kinda like shootin murderers without a permit?
Right! Exactly right, this is it what makes the police different!
Finally ya got it hang, WTG
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain ridiculous, it's a classic 'Angriffskrieg'
-
ah. so if instead we had CNN showing 'POLICE ACTION: IRAQ' you'd shut the hell up?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
ah. so if instead we had CNN showing 'POLICE ACTION: IRAQ' you'd shut the hell up?
I was wrong finally, ya still doesn't got it:(
If 75%of the world + pope, + churches+ UN is against this war your presi is only an ex-alcaholic with an 'God tells me ' in his head if he still goes to war with Iraq.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain ridiculous, it's a classic 'Angriffskrieg'
-
Geez. 75%? Prove it. You pull numbers and percentages out yer arse as if it had a business calculater shoved up it, Blitch.
:D
Originally posted by blitz
I was wrong finally, ya still doesn't got it:(
If 75%of the world + pope, + chuchches+ UN is against this war your presi is only an ex-alcaholic with an 'God tells me ' in his head if he still goes to war with Iraq.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain ridiculous, it's a classic 'Angriffskrieg'
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Geez. 75%? Prove it. You pull numbers and percentages out yer arse as if it had a business calculater shoved up it, Blitch.
:D
Are we the remaining of the 'axis of evil' , Arlo?
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain ridiculous, it's a classic 'Angriffskrieg'
-
Blitz. 72% of the U.S. Population supports the war, are you saying they are all either fools or mistaken? You argue your points intelligently Blitz.. I'll be sure to look for your eloquent retractions once we uncover Saddam's luncay///WMD. Are you man enough for something like that?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Blitz. 72% of the U.S. Population supports the war, are you saying they are all either fools or mistaken? You argue your points intelligently Blitz.. I'll be sure to look for your eloquent retractions once we uncover Saddam's luncay///WMD. Are you man enough for something like that?
I know very well they are good people :)
Ever heard the word : Propaganda?
I hope ya find WMDs to proof at least 1 of ya points but why search, jusk ask Doni Rumsfeld about it, he definately knows all about. And if not, he just gives a call to his old pal , Saddam.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain ridiculous, it's a classic 'Angriffskrieg'
-
Whew .... ya got me there. Now ... where'd you say you get your numbers from again? I must have missed it. Or is it something you need to pass? ;)
Originally posted by blitz
Are we the remaining of the 'axis of evil' , Arlo?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Whew .... ya got me there. Now ... where'd you say you get your numbers from again? I must have missed it. Or is it something you need to pass? ;)
If 72% of the US population support that illegal war that is 72% of the world right, Arlo? :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain ridiculous, it's a classic 'Angriffskrieg'
-
You're the dodgeball champion of your school I bet. ;)
Originally posted by blitz
If 72% of the US population support that illegal war that is 72% of the world right, Arlo? :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You're the dodgeball champion of your school I bet. ;)
No idea what that is, but yes, i was :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain ridiculous, it's a classic 'Angriffskrieg'
-
So you're implying that 72% of the population has been mislead and fooled by propaganda? Funny... I'm thinking most of the rest of the world has been, that and they refuse to believe anything the U.S. tells them because, admit it or not, there is a lot of Anti- U.S. sentiment goin around.. It happens when you are sole KOTH.
-
Hell ... I bet 75% of the world doesn't even know what's happening in Iraq. Not even a remote guess. A large chunk of `em may not have even heard of Iraq. Some of them would probably gladly kill for a Big Mac.
Originally posted by Steve
So you're implying that 72% of the population has been mislead and fooled by propaganda? Funny... I'm thinking most of the rest of the world has been, that and they refuse to believe anything the U.S. tells them because, admit it or not, there is a lot of Anti- U.S. sentiment goin around.. It happens when you are sole KOTH.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Sling - you seem to regard Schwarzkopf's opinion highly. What about his current opinion, which pretty much challenges the entire Bush strategy?
Well, you are wrong again. Stormin Norman WAS against the idea of force, about 60 days or more ago. However, after seeing the B.S. stupidity in the UN itself, the total lack of co operation by Saddam, and the total incompetence of Hans Blix, he made a 180 and said that we should not hesitate to take Saddam on and take him out ASAP.
-
.
-
The Ugly Truth About Canadians[/size](http://www.silverladder.com/literature/humor/canadians/flag.jpg)
FACT: Canadians are more likely to than any other nationality to eat roadkill. In fact, Canadians refer to dead raccoons found on the highway as "Toronto Bologna."
(Source: McMillan's Culture Guide 1999-2000)
FACT: Canada is the world's largest supplier of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines and back bacon.
(Source: Gene Raphael's Big Book Of Canucks)
FACT: A 1987 survey found that Canadians have the worst handwriting in the whole world. They also frequently misspell the word "sauce."
(Source: Heritage United Poll - Summer 1987)
FACT: Almost half of the planes in the Canadian Air Force are made completely of paper.
(Source: Jane's Information Group)
FACT: When eating at fancy restaurants, or even not-so-fancy ones, there is an 81 percent chance that a Canadian will leave no tip. There is a 19 percent chance that a Canadian will leave an upside-down penny stuck into a wad of chewed-up gum. He will probably laugh about it afterward, too.
(Source: Culture, Culture, Culture - p. 59)
FACT: Canadians frequently give tourists and vistors bad directions on purpose. Many of them hope that the tourists will drive into an open mine shaft and die.
(Source: Northern Neighbor Network Online)
FACT: Canada only has three museums, and two of them are dedicated to the history of the buffalo
(Source: Seeing The Sights - p.108)
FACT: Canadian stamp collectors are 54 percent more likely to eat their stamps than stamp collectors of other nationalities are. Canadians are also known to taint their stamp adhesive with LSD.
(Source: Peter Fontaine's Big Book Of Wow pp.207-208)
FACT: Canadians don't tell their children about the myth of Santa Claus. When December rolls around, they entertain their kids with stories of Saint Oh, a skinny man with a pencil thin mustache who likes to stab people with an ice pick.
(Source: Winter Holidays Worldwide - p.80)
(http://www.silverladder.com/literature/humor/canadians/mapp.jpg)
This is a Canadian map.
I can't figure it out either.
FACT: 75 percent of Canadians think it's okay for young people to smoke random plants that they find growing on the side of the highway.
(Source: B.C. Believer Online)
FACT: Eight out of ten Canadians think people in wheelchairs should have to live on an island overrun by ferrets.
(Source: ASPCA)
FACT: 42 percent of the average Canadian's income comes from money stolen from the collection plate at church. The Canadians who don't go to church get most of their money via strong-arm tactics used on the paperboy.
(Source: UNICEF UNIWorld Report 1995)
(http://www.silverladder.com/literature/humor/canadians/knowthisguy.jpg)
Most Canadians claim to know this guy.
They don't, but they'll lie to you about it anyway.
FACT: The majority of Canadians believe that "teaching toddlers the correct way to smoke a cigarette" is a matter of national importance and should be government funded.
(Source: Manitoba Free Press)
(http://www.silverladder.com/literature/humor/canadians/football.jpg)
Playing football is illegal in Canada.
In fact, most sports are illegal in Canada.
Canadians prefer that their young people spend their time by using illegal drugs or vandalizing public works of art.
Playing football in Canada is punishable by a $75 fine and/or death.
-
Originally posted by blitz
I know very well they are good people :)
Ever heard the word : Propaganda?
I hope ya find WMDs to proof at least 1 of ya points but why search, jusk ask Doni Rumsfeld about it, he definately knows all about. And if not, he just gives a call to his old pal , Saddam.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain
ridiculous, it's a classic 'Angriffskrieg'
America Didn't Seem to Mind Poison Gas
By Joost R. Hiltermann
International Herald Tribune
January 17, 2003
In calling for regime change in Iraq, George W. Bush has accused Saddam Hussein of being a man who gassed his own people. Bush is right, of course. The public record shows that Saddam's regime repeatedly spread poisonous gases on Kurdish villages in 1987 and 1988 in an attempt to put down a persistent rebellion.
The biggest such attack was against Halabja in March 1988. According to local organizations providing relief to the survivors, some 6,800 Kurds were killed, the vast majority of them civilians.
It is a good thing that Bush has highlighted these atrocities by a regime that is more brutal than most. Yet it is cynical to use them as a justification for American plans to terminate the regime. By any measure, the American record on Halabja is shameful.
Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show (1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja, and (2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame. The result of this stunning act of sophistry was that the international community failed to muster the will to condemn Iraq strongly for an act as heinous as the terrorist strike on the World Trade Center.
This was at a time when Iraq was launching what proved to be the final battles of the war against Iran. Its wholesale use of poison gas against Iranian troops and Iranian Kurdish towns, and its threat to place chemical warheads on the missiles it was lobbing at Tehran, brought Iran to its knees.
Iraq had also just embarked on a counterinsurgency campaign, called the Anfal, against its rebellious Kurds. In this effort, too, the regime's resort to chemical weapons gave it a decisive edge, enabling the systematic killing of an estimated 100,000 men, women, and children.
The deliberate American prevarication on Halabja was the logical, although probably undesired, outcome of a pronounced six-year tilt toward Iraq, seen as a bulwark against the perceived threat posed by Iran's zealous brand of politicized Islam. The United States began the tilt after Iraq, the aggressor in the war, was expelled from Iranian territory by a resurgent Iran, which then decided to pursue its own, fruitless version of regime change in Baghdad. There was little love for what virtually all of Washington recognized as an unsavory regime, but Iraq was considered the lesser evil. Sealed by National Security Decision Directive 114 in 1983, the tilt included billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other credits to Iraq.
Sensing correctly that it had carte blanche, Saddam's regime escalated its resort to gas warfare, graduating to ever more lethal agents. Because of the strong Western animus against Iran, few paid heed. Then came Halabja.
Unfortunately for Iraq's sponsors, Iran rushed Western reporters to the blighted town. The horrifying scenes they filmed were presented on prime time television a few days later. Soon Ted Koppel could be seen putting the Iraqi ambassador's feet to the fire on Nightline.
In response, the United States launched the "Iran too" gambit. The story was cooked up in the Pentagon, interviews with the principals show. A newly declassified State Department document demonstrates that U.S. diplomats received instructions to press this line with U.S. allies, and to decline to discuss the details.
It took seven weeks for the UN Security Council to censure the Halabja attack. Even then, its choice of neutral language (condemning the "continued use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq," and calling on "both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons") diffused the effect of its belated move. Iraq proceeded to step up its use of gas until the end of the war and even afterward, during the final stage of the Anfal campaign, to devastating effect. When I visited Halabja last spring, the town, razed by successive Iranian and Iraqi occupiers, had been rebuilt, but the physical and psychological wounds remained.
Some of those who engineered the tilt today are back in power in the Bush administration.
They have yet to account for their judgment that it was Iran, not Iraq, that posed the primary threat to the Gulf; for building up Iraq so that it thought it could invade Kuwait and get away with it; for encouraging Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs by giving the regime a de facto green light on chemical weapons use; and for turning a blind eye to Iraq's worst atrocities, and then lying about it.
The writer is preparing a book on U.S. policy toward Iraq, with partial support from the Open Society Institute and the MacArthur Foundation.
Regards Blitz
-
Originally posted by Steve
Blitz. 72% of the U.S. Population supports the war, are you saying they are all either fools or mistaken? You argue your points intelligently Blitz.. I'll be sure to look for your eloquent retractions once we uncover Saddam's luncay///WMD. Are you man enough for something like that?
Rumsfeld "Offered Help to Saddam"
By Julian Borgor
Guardian
December 31, 2002
The Reagan administration and its special Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, did little to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against Iran, it was reported yesterday.
US support for Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq war as a bulwark against Shi'ite militancy has been well known for some time, but using declassified government documents, the Washington Post provided new details yesterday about Mr Rumsfeld's role, and about the extent of the Reagan administration's knowledge of the use of chemical weapons.
The details will embarrass Mr Rumsfeld, who as defence secretary in the Bush administration is one of the leading hawks on Iraq, frequently denouncing it for its past use of such weapons.
The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.
Intelligence on Iranian troop movements was provided, despite detailed knowledge of Iraq's use of nerve gas.
Rick Francona, an ex-army intelligence lieutenant-colonel who served in the US embassy in Baghdad in 1987 and 1988, told the Guardian: "We believed the Iraqis were using mustard gas all through the war, but that was not as sinister as nerve gas.
"They started using tabun [a nerve gas] as early as '83 or '84, but in a very limited way. They were probably figuring out how to use it. And in '88, they developed sarin."
On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.
However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war.
In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations.
Mr Rumsfeld has said that he "cautioned" the Iraqi leader against using banned weapons. But there was no mention of such a warning in state department notes of the meeting.
Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave" attacks.
A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department.
Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare.
The only occasion that Iraq's use of banned weapons seems to have worried the Reagan administration came in 1988, after Lt Col Francona toured the battlefield on the al-Faw peninsula in southern Iraq and reported signs of sarin gas.
"When I was walking around I saw atropine injectors lying around. We saw decontamination fluid on vehicles, there were no insects," said Mr Francona, who has written a book on shifting US policy to Iraq titled Ally to Adversary. "There was a very quick response from Washington saying, 'Let's stop our cooperation' but it didn't last long - just weeks."
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain ridiculous, it's a classic 'Angriffskrieg'
-
Do you have subscriptions to every anti-American agenda rag out there? :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Do you have subscriptions to every anti-American agenda rag out there? :D
No, only to the intelligent ones :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain ridiculous, it's a classic 'Angriffskrieg'
-
If you're the judge then the jury's still out. :D
Originally posted by blitz
No, only to the intelligent ones :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
If you're the judge then the jury's still out. :D
I'm the judge? Naaaah, i'm just a spectator :D
Regards Blitz
Resignation speech of Robin Cook, in full. Former Foreign Secretary and now former Cabinet minister.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the Back Benches. I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here. None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr. Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.
It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview. On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement. I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.
The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime. I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.
I applaud the heroic efforts that the Prime Minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution. I do not think that anybody could have done better than the Foreign Secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council. But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed. Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
France has been at the receiving end of bucketloads of commentary in recent days. It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac. The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner -- not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.
To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse. Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.
I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo. It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbors in the region. France and Germany were our active allies. It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.
The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis. Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.
The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands. I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back. I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops. It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.
Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy. For four years as Foreign Secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.
Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralized and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days. We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term—namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months. I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted. Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. I welcome the strong personal commitment that the Prime Minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.
Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq. That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.
What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.
The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people. On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.
From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war. It has been a favorite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support. I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the Government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. - Robin Cook, MP
-
Then .... quiet in the gallery. :D
Originally posted by blitz
I'm the judge? Naaaah, i'm just a spectator :D
-
..
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Then .... quiet in the gallery. :D
To much fun cheering while the warmovie is running :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain ridiculous, it's a classic 'Angriffskrieg'
-
Still upset over missing the "human sheild" bus last month? I'm sure you wouldn't have missed the one coming back. :D
Originally posted by blitz
To much fun cheering while the warmovie is running :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Still upset over missing the "human sheild" bus last month? I'm sure you wouldn't have missed the one coming back. :D
I'm upset watchin on TV these scarred to death american POWs the Iraqi forces got. :(
Bring ya boys home to their families, damn !
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain ridiculous, it's a classic 'Angriffskrieg'
-
That's the plan. Some will make the ultimate sacrifice ... freeing people from tyranny and helping make the region more stable. If it could have been done by remote control or via the internet or maybe by writing a scathing article about it, I'm sure one of those methods would have been used.
Originally posted by blitz
I'm upset watchin on TV these scarred to death american POWs the Iraqi forces got. :(
Bring ya boys home to their families, damn !