All I can tell you from the UK is that if Germany has followed the same trend I have seen here things will have got worse. People are beginning to believe your government is capable of doing anything to get to where it wants to be..
Good to see that American values are being upheld in Iraq...
- Thread starter Tenchiro
- Start date
<Snipped for brevity>
Sure you are the most powerful nation on earth at present. You can do what you like.
Add that to the attitude you have presented above and you can perhaps begin to see why people might resent the US.
Especially if they believe you aren't doing the right thing..
yo einstein, way to put ya point forward... write off ya most important ally (sp? )... reminds me of the GI who asked me if aussie had done anything in WWI and WWII.. does 95 000 troops count ?#@^
as for your ' Please get used to following, as you will not be doing any leading in your lifetime. ' line... the best one you have ever put out killer... way to look like an idiot... honestly, from your response i think you must think i m attacking you.... that kind sh1t couldn t be further from the truth
i pull out the peace pipe in hope.. not for your FVCKED UP PRES... but for normallacy (sp?_
parts...........
G13
What a load of crap LL, not only is this untrue, you know it to be untrue but you still vomit it out from a wounded sense of jingoistic pride. "WE KNOW WE ARE THE BEST" bwahahahah, what a load of bollocks. You can't go it alone and you know it, that's why you are at the UN now cap in hand asking for help. It's obvious to anyone with a brain that George and his cronies bit off more than they could chew in Iraq, or, more to the point, more than they could pay for. The idea that your country can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants is one of the reasons religious zealots pilot commercial airliners into skyscrapers. I'm not, REPEAT, not condoning 9/11 but if the attitude you display is prevalent in your country, i.e- you don't matter, lesser country person, I'll do as I please; then be aware that people are going to fight back by whatever means possible, fair or as in 9/11, foul.
Ironically Partsy is due to get his American citizenship pretty soon. I guess that will make his opinion as relevant as yours by your own twisted logic. Sticks in your craw I'm sure.
About getting the hell out of there:
I'm all for it. In fact, if I was the President I'd drastically alter our forign policy. I'd get the hell out of everywhere. I'd take the military back home, and train the hell out of everybody. We'd beef up intelligence so that we'd actually know whats going on. I'd cut ALL forign aid. Sorry jack, you're not getting any of our surplus grain, any of our health care. Forign nations get NOTHING without trading equal value for it. Health care would be paid for by the government's dime. We're going to get everybody in America a decent job with a living wage. Nobody goes hungry. College educations are cheaper because the Government foots most of the bill. We take care of our own before we worry about doing the job of other governments.
I'd show the world what life would be like without America. Guess what? In less than a year, everybody would be BEGGING us to help them out. And I wouldn't.
Thats Jorvik's politics in a nutshell.
I'm all for it. In fact, if I was the President I'd drastically alter our forign policy. I'd get the hell out of everywhere. I'd take the military back home, and train the hell out of everybody. We'd beef up intelligence so that we'd actually know whats going on. I'd cut ALL forign aid. Sorry jack, you're not getting any of our surplus grain, any of our health care. Forign nations get NOTHING without trading equal value for it. Health care would be paid for by the government's dime. We're going to get everybody in America a decent job with a living wage. Nobody goes hungry. College educations are cheaper because the Government foots most of the bill. We take care of our own before we worry about doing the job of other governments.
I'd show the world what life would be like without America. Guess what? In less than a year, everybody would be BEGGING us to help them out. And I wouldn't.
Thats Jorvik's politics in a nutshell.
Ah, the relentless jingoism of a proud American. I'd have hoped that we could have gotten over the nationalism thing in the 21st century. After all, the citizens of the Roman Empire thought much the same thing. The Greeks seemed to be the pinnacle of civilization as well. The British empire as well.
The whole can do attitude thing is bull****, in my opinion. Much like the general Republican attitude that successful people are self made (and I don't think that social mobility is nearly as prevalent as it is made out to be) , it ignores the fact that the United States is blessed with abundant natural resources, ports that don't ice over in the winter, and a natural insulation from enemies.
If I ever reach 100, I fully expect China or India to be the dominant nation on the planet. If countries still exist, that is.
Stick to lifting weights Meat, cos you're way out of your depth arguing politics
Do you honestly think the rest of the world would suffer more than America from an American policy of complete isolation like you endorse? Go and find out what "hubris" means and see if you can find any connection to the asanine statements above
Certainly India LO, why not? Good education system, excellent English skills, democratic system and hard workers- why wouldn't they be a success? Might be worth checking but as far as I know the per capita GDP in India is higher than China. The middle class is far greater.
...and others who've wanted to but haven't yet responded:
I am at least happy that some of you detected a sense of fun or "jingoism" in my responses. Although these are extreme wordings that I posted, like repetition of racist jokes, my true feelings are in there somewhere. I just really grow tired of all the anti-American rhetoric and tabloid-regurgitating bull$hit I see here...and I do my best to tolerate it. Partsbara's words were the final straw on this camel's back. I have tried in the past to debate according to the rules of logic, but I find myself to be the only one abiding by them. So instead of continually strapping one hand behind my back, I decided in this thread to respond in kind...BS quip for BS quip.
fluff- your comments(this time) were the most even-keeled.
partsbara- you know better than to question my intelligence and if you don't like the smell, then stay out of the slop. I would like a pull on that g13-loaded peace pipe, though.
valve bouncer- you got the crime correct but were a little off on the motive. I don't think that it's that we bit off more than we can chew so much as Bush is thinking re-election and his cocksure attitude is waning with his approval ratings. The US military is a killing machine, not a police force for nation-building. As far as partsy getting US citizenship, I think it's great. We have lots of hippies here already and I'm sure he'll fit right in.
Silver- you ARE correct that I'm a proud American; how unfortunate that you're not. I fully recognize that American civilization will crumble over time as did the civilizations of Rome and Babylon before. Many of the same social fractures that Tacitus noted in his master work are now present here. Time is a persistent enemy that overtakes all, but tribalism will be as enduring as our species.
Now please excuse me while a saddle up; there's a sun setting off in the distance.
I am at least happy that some of you detected a sense of fun or "jingoism" in my responses. Although these are extreme wordings that I posted, like repetition of racist jokes, my true feelings are in there somewhere. I just really grow tired of all the anti-American rhetoric and tabloid-regurgitating bull$hit I see here...and I do my best to tolerate it. Partsbara's words were the final straw on this camel's back. I have tried in the past to debate according to the rules of logic, but I find myself to be the only one abiding by them. So instead of continually strapping one hand behind my back, I decided in this thread to respond in kind...BS quip for BS quip.
fluff- your comments(this time) were the most even-keeled.
partsbara- you know better than to question my intelligence and if you don't like the smell, then stay out of the slop. I would like a pull on that g13-loaded peace pipe, though.
valve bouncer- you got the crime correct but were a little off on the motive. I don't think that it's that we bit off more than we can chew so much as Bush is thinking re-election and his cocksure attitude is waning with his approval ratings. The US military is a killing machine, not a police force for nation-building. As far as partsy getting US citizenship, I think it's great. We have lots of hippies here already and I'm sure he'll fit right in.
Silver- you ARE correct that I'm a proud American; how unfortunate that you're not. I fully recognize that American civilization will crumble over time as did the civilizations of Rome and Babylon before. Many of the same social fractures that Tacitus noted in his master work are now present here. Time is a persistent enemy that overtakes all, but tribalism will be as enduring as our species.
Now please excuse me while a saddle up; there's a sun setting off in the distance.
Ya know.....(and this is a general comment not meant to be attached to any previous post in particular).
I think it is impossible to deny that the US is the most generous nation on Earth.....as it has the most to give....why that is so, well that's a different discussion entirely....
What bugs a lot of non-americans, (and this is of course not limited to americans), are the people who spout off about the aforementioned generosity....when they themselves had nothing to do with it....and quite possibly have never even dropped a quarter into a Salvation Army bucket at Christmas.
It's kinda like the whole "We won the World Series!!"....Oh really? What position did you play?
It just seems that a lot of "average joes" take an awful lot of credit for things that they had nothing to do with.... (pardon the grammar)...
I think it is impossible to deny that the US is the most generous nation on Earth.....as it has the most to give....why that is so, well that's a different discussion entirely....
What bugs a lot of non-americans, (and this is of course not limited to americans), are the people who spout off about the aforementioned generosity....when they themselves had nothing to do with it....and quite possibly have never even dropped a quarter into a Salvation Army bucket at Christmas.
It's kinda like the whole "We won the World Series!!"....Oh really? What position did you play?
It just seems that a lot of "average joes" take an awful lot of credit for things that they had nothing to do with.... (pardon the grammar)...
No glory like reflected glory is there
When people ask me what I've done for my country I tell them I leftOh, I didn't say they'll be successful, I'm just not sure they have the resources to be the world leader.
If I'm wrong, educate me. I don't pay enough attention to that part of the world.
llkoolkeg, I understood where you were coming from and your intent. And I agree, it's disapppointing to see Americans who aren't proud of our country. Being proud doesn't mean blind, but being consistently pessimistic is sad.
Hey man, thats just what I believe would put a firecracker under the world's ass to get its act together. Arrogence? Absolutly.Originally posted by valve bouncer
Stick to lifting weights Meat, cos you're way out of your depth arguing politics
Am I ignorant to how politics work? Yup. I don't care. I don't see how my layman's plan wouldn't work. It is easy to dismiss somebody's view and write it off to ignorance, but that action helps nobody.
This is the best MMike post ever.
I agree with what you said 100%.
YAAAAAYYY!!! What do I win?
I see your point. Here is another view of the same phenomenon-
What bugs a lot of Americans are people who love receiving the $US with their left hand all the while badmouthing what brings about its collection and concealing a dagger behind their back in the right one.
Both are legitimate problems.
A weekend in Iceland with dubya.
Will you accept that it's possible to both love something and wish to change it for the better all at the same time? If my brother joined some freak cult, I'd still love him, but I'd sure as hell want him to change. That's the way I feel about our government and it's supporters right now.
And Jorvik, we would suffer a lot more from insulation than the rest of the collective world. Are you prepared to pay $10/gallon for gas, $1500 for a DVD player, 3X as much for lumber, $2000 for your next bike frame, etc.?
Is Jorvik getting a Turner?
A small shred of credibility. :devil:
Can I trade it for cash?
No.
But if you save up 500 shreds of credibility you can redeem them for a soul.
Without question. That is a cornerstone of representative democracy. I have no great care for our centalized gov't and its agents, either, but I do love my country very much. I don't join $hit like politrickal parties, but if I was to, it would be the Libertarians.
Trade might be tricky, I'll give you that...
Harsh. But very funny.
Whaddya mean this time?Originally posted by llkoolkeg
[B
fluff- your comments(this time) were the most even-keeled.
I'm always the most even-keeled, on either side of the argument..
Ya, a little.
MMike is the Newman (from Seinfeld) of Ridemonkey. He can be annoying but the show wouldn't be as good with out him.
My title/avatar should be changed....
Yah, maybe you could get rid of the geeky looking guy in front of the maple leaf. Who is that anyway?
dude, do you seriously think those 82 countries supported the US because they all agree with the US??.
look at this, in Peru (a tiny country in the world scheme of economics and military power), said cool US give it a go. (something like an ant yelling to an elephant "Go kill the lions!!")
Of course, at that the US was evaluating extending the ATPA to quite a few south american countries, which means a few hundred million more bucks of southamerican exports. most of countries who agreed where in the same position as peru. at least every latin american country but Venezuela. you have like 25% of those 82 countries right there. (strangely, all those countries who showed support were allowed into the ATPA)
Only those strong enough could have disagreed and not suffer some kinda of economic, political, tactical punishment. those were the ones who could have said no, and not having a revolution because stopping trade with the us probably would probablby cause an economic collapse.
most of those 82 countries who agree, agreed because any other choice would have definately made a dent in the US-Xcountry diplomatic, economic relationship. easy as that.
where do u get those crazy ideas of loyalty, righteouness and international friendship and crap like that??? and then people like those call dreamers those who opposed war??
not my point. my point is that we're not "oil-thirsty-go-it-alone-imperialists". that needs to be acknowledged by everyone who wants to be taken seriously on the iraq issue. not my rules - THE rules.
would you entertain, for a moment, that this is just one of the actions which will facilitate & foster such beneficial relationships for the future? i believe this passes Occam's RazorOriginally posted by ALEXIS_DH
look at this, in Peru (a tiny country in the world scheme of economics and military power), said cool US give it a go. (something like an ant yelling to an elephant "Go kill the lions!!")
Of course, at that the US was evaluating extending the ATPA to quite a few south american countries, which means a few hundred million more bucks of southamerican exports. most of countries who agreed where in the same position as peru. at least every latin american country but Venezuela. you have like 25% of those 82 countries right there. (strangely, all those countries who showed support were allowed into the ATPA)
Only those strong enough could have disagreed and not suffer some kinda of economic, political, tactical punishment. those were the ones who could have said no, and not having a revolution because stopping trade with the us probably would probablby cause an economic collapse.
most of those 82 countries who agree, agreed because any other choice would have definately made a dent in the US-Xcountry diplomatic, economic relationship. easy as that.
where do u get those crazy ideas of loyalty, righteouness and international friendship and crap like that??? and then people like those call dreamers those who opposed war??
Sorry I took so long.
I will try and make it brief.
I never believed fully the WMD were the reason we should have gone in there. Way before that was discussed as a reason to go in....we had the gulf war. the gulf war was to remove Saddam and his loyals from their occupation of a little country. We pushed him back quickly once we started and made a deal with him to allow him to stay in power if he followed some rules. Fast forward a few years. Sadam has not cooperated with the UN and has then forgoed the right to his ruling. We went in to finish the job. Where we didn't have much blood shed in the Gulf war that was the easier part of the task. We stopped while the stopping was good....with certain conditions for saddam. Saddam forced our hand to back up what the UN couldn't/wouldn't.
The timing was crazy after 9/11 but my reasons for going in were apart from the 9/11 mayhem. I supposed 9/11 was used as a catalyst to this operation....to go in with less opostion. Decision backfired. I feal the UN was powerless or scared to do anything with Iraq. With good reason? Most possibly. Is that a good reason not to do something? Not neccesarily. The US was committed to finishing what I say should have been done back then. Get rid of Saddam. Saddam should not have been left in power....we tried it the easy way. It failed. Now we are doing it the hard way with one hand tied behind our back. Not one of the naysayers has any idea that would rectify this problem Pre/post war and they know it. They are just not happy it went this route. I can respect that, but really nothing else was working.
Everyone says it is the wrong thing to do....yet no one has a clue how to do it the right way. Show us the options that would have worked.
Ummm I am not going to proofread sorry. I type real bad so bare with me.
Fluff, sorry it took so long. It has been crazy in the office and only after a power outage did I think I could sneak more than a few minutes on RM at a time.
Rhino
No problem.
Had there been compelling evidence of the existence of WMD and Iraq's intent to develop and deploy them WMD would have been one of the better justifications given. However, there was too much manipulation of available information and a lack of clear evidence presented. Sadly it is far too easy for governments to hide behind the veil of national security or 'public interest' (the latter of which translates into governmental shame IMO). So I guess we agree that WMD were not a good reason (this is not an attempt to twist your words BTW).
I have no real issue with removing an occupying force (a la Gulf war) but I fail to see how you can justify 'finishing the job' over a decade later when Iraq was effectively far less dangerous.
What were the conditions that Saddam had failed to uphold? Were the US/UK actions in the intervening decade fair and legitimate?
I think it should be clear to everyone who cares to think a little that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and that 9/11 could not be used as justification for action in Iraq. The UN was not necessarily powerless or scared, that is US propaganda used to justify unilateral action. More accurately the UN were unwilling to use force as they did not see the justification to do so. The only nations who saw force justified were the US and (sadly) the UK.
Other justifications I have seen relate to Saddam Hussein's repression of his own people. If that is to be believed then we should also see the US pressing the UN to intervene in many other nations (Saudi Arabia has a terrible record on human rights and oppression) but they are strangely silent.
The crucial point here is that the action taken to overthrow Saddam Hussein was extreme. It used massive military power and destructive force, leaving thousands of people dead and thousandsof others without access to basic needs (eg. clean water). Surely that kind of action should only be used as a last resort?
You ask for options that would have worked. I would ask you what end result you were seeking before I could even start to answer your question. And should the result be the removal of Saddam Hussein, I would again ask why? The bare bones of the question is why did he need to be removed and what were the benefits (to the Iraqi people) of his removal, what was the acceptable cost (not simply in monetary terms but in the effects on peoples' lives and the loss of so many lives) and finally, what was the risk of leaving him power until an alternative approach became possible?
Even at my least cynical I cannot understand the US approach to this issue. They first backed Saddam Hussein into a corner and then proceeded to to the same to the UN and finally themselves until invasion became the only option.
The only possible motive I can see is to ensure US dominance of the Middle East and its oil reserves. Not a good justification to me.
ok, i'm taking the gloves off.
This may very well be the most important post on this topic in this forum you will ever read. It is for this reason that i need your strict attention so you will understand the truth, NOT what you want to believe.
you were wrong. I don't know where you got your info, but if it was the beeb, drop 'em.
you can rest easy that those who make the important decisions will insure even your comfort for days to come. If you are cynical or skeptical, good. But please do so without prejudice.
This may very well be the most important post on this topic in this forum you will ever read. It is for this reason that i need your strict attention so you will understand the truth, NOT what you want to believe.
below is from the United Nations, who have no higher authority (to my chagrin)
...it goes on, but i hope by now you get the idea.
you were wrong. I don't know where you got your info, but if it was the beeb, drop 'em.
ibid.
on this, we agree.
holy crap, dude, does the King's English define "unilateral" as 82 countries?
ok, looks like we're getting back on track...hope you're not setting me up
but, have you seen this? Please read all of it. It's compiled from Human Rights Watch, not from Skynews, so you can trust it.
from our president in the 2003 SOTU address:
dominance? who would want to manage that train-wreck? kind sir, it's getting better every day over there. Get your head out of the sand, even Reuters is reporting that tourism is up. (I picked that because there's a freshet of news about restoration of services - surely you've seen those)
you can rest easy that those who make the important decisions will insure even your comfort for days to come. If you are cynical or skeptical, good. But please do so without prejudice.
No twisting needed. Saddam didn't do what was needed for him to stay in power. The agreement (resolutions XXXXXXXXXXXX
that $tinkle post eludes to) has Saddam being left in power under conditions....conditions he decided he didn't need to abide by. So we (in a very american type phrase) went into "Finish the job." Saddam should have been removed initially not just pushed back he became a threat for everyone when he jumped his boarder in a take over attempt.Saddam made any action to remove saddam justified when he decided he didn't need to abide by the directions in (whichever resolution)
I hear this all the time...."why didn't we go here too then?" I always ask them so you say we shouldn't attempt to fix something, because we can't be doing it everywhere all at the same time?
what kind of reasoning is that?What benefit to the Iraqi people? The world? Come on, you are baiting me right? Yeah you are right, he was an OK guy..... once you get to know him......
:rolleyes Saddam is/was bad news.....for his own people, the people of Kawait, and the rest of the world.Saddam wasn't exactly innocent. He gave the UN the figurative finger and the UN spent a better part of a decade talking and threating (with no real power/influence) Saddam and he just smiled while he knew the UN would do nothing. Diplomacy failed long before the US took action. "In the end" invasion and the removal of Saddam was the only option.
This hasn't bore fruit either. We haven't gone in there and secured the oil for ourselves....that idea has failed. Not because we couldn't do it......we haven't.
Rhino
Great start...
Somehow I doubt it is the most important post I will read here. Quit patronising me, you know nothing about me apart from the fact that we clearly disagree on this matter.
It would seem that the US President disagrees with you. He did not have UN sanction to invade Iraq.
Clearly I must be wrong if I disagree with you, that's pretty much the logic here. And of course my news sources are incorrect whereas yours are infallible.
Perhaps rather than posting that stuff from the UN you would like to summarise it and detail its relevance to my post?
And back in the real world..
It was the US and the UK who wanted to invade Iraq, anybody they drummed up to support this stance was insignificant and only there by co-ercion. That the US could not get UN backing makes it unilateral in effect. Let's not split hairs or deal in semantics, the US did what they wanted to do regardless of what anyone else thought. Simply look at the ultimata they issued.
And the point is that if that is why the US went into Iraq why are they happy to see human rights abused elsewhere and not bat an eyelid. In fact in many cases they will support a regime wuth records as bad as Iraq's. Hypocrisy at best.
Of course, he's impartial...
Errm, clearly the US want dominance over there. Why else are they there??? And I should bloody well hope it's getting better over there everyday, after all it couldn't get much worse. Currently there are still many things not working that were working 12 months ago.
Like I said, you know nothing about me so why patronise me? And why do you assume prejudice because I disagree with you? Do you thing I feel the US can do no good because I think they were wrong in this matter?
oh geez, go to the UN website and you'll see for yourself.
Arg! It was NOT about oil, ok, maybe a little, but it was NOT a primary motivating factor.
For the USA at large -- it's about establishing a greater presence in the unstable region... or simply put, expanding the US Empire. I couldn't be about oil cuz it was not a good investment, it was not cost effective.
For the Bushs' and his people personally -- it was about moving their religious agenda forward. Money and power (oil) take second place big time when they honestly believe that Israel needs to occupy the holy lands in order for Jesus Christ to come again.
...and this is the only issue on the table. If my parlance seems patronising, it may be due to the level of discomfort brought about by showing my cards. My intent is not to interpret, but rather to share my findings.
and i thank the good lord he didn't hold out for it one more time. certain citizens, i wager, feel likewise.
It's not me you're taking issue with, i'm just a messenger.
I vow it is all relevant & irreducible.
full text for your leisure & convenience.
detante. We'll simply agree to disagree, as we seem to be giving different weights to different aspects of this rather complicated topic. Although i cannot see marginalising the Polish special forces, or the Aussies, who are always looking for a good scrum.
As much as i recognise that as a sound point, would not our "imperialist regime" be out of line if we went to The Sudan, Cuba, North Korea, 1/3 of Africa...
Not only is he the President, he's also the leader of the Republican Party. Who wants a leader that can't lead?
from your side of the pond, somebody disagrees with you. (i thought the Telegraph wasn't allowed to print good news
)the only part of you that i know is your position on this topic - which i view as flawed. Do you want to appeal to pity, or do some bare knuckle politics? Even PM Blair takes a good beatdown at Parliament. (sidebar: we need that here, even if it guarantees Bush is a 1-term president)
The fact of the matter (errrr, I mean "my opinion") is that the UN agreed with the US that Saddam was violating the rules, flaunting their authority, and ripe for removal; however, they were NOT willing to invade. "Why?" you might ask... well, it's thanks to Shrub (or dickface, as I like to call him).
The moral support was there, the reasoning and logic was there, the resources and wherewithal... all there. Unfortunately, dickface had spent a solid two years ****ting on everyone's dinner plate. Did he REALLY expect people to fall in line after he'd spent all that time reminding them how much more powerful we are than them? If so, he must be even stupider than I thought (and I think he's REALLY stupid)...
This was something that needed to be done; but by the right people, in the right way, at the right time. We failed on all three fronts, and now have a billion-dollar -a-day cluster**** on our hands (suprise, suprise) that is costing lives and stability every day it continues.
So here's my big **** YOU to Bush for ruining the reputation of the presidency, the opportunity for economic recovery, the (admittedly precarious) stability of the middle east, and our world-wide diplomatic relations just like he ruined everything else he ever laid his fat, dirty hands on.
The moral support was there, the reasoning and logic was there, the resources and wherewithal... all there. Unfortunately, dickface had spent a solid two years ****ting on everyone's dinner plate. Did he REALLY expect people to fall in line after he'd spent all that time reminding them how much more powerful we are than them? If so, he must be even stupider than I thought (and I think he's REALLY stupid)...
This was something that needed to be done; but by the right people, in the right way, at the right time. We failed on all three fronts, and now have a billion-dollar -a-day cluster**** on our hands (suprise, suprise) that is costing lives and stability every day it continues.
So here's my big **** YOU to Bush for ruining the reputation of the presidency, the opportunity for economic recovery, the (admittedly precarious) stability of the middle east, and our world-wide diplomatic relations just like he ruined everything else he ever laid his fat, dirty hands on.