One step closer to tyranny

[Javert]

Historians say a million Americans would have perished in an invasion, not Truman.

Not Historians either. I'm sure military advisors figured it out BEFORE they dropped the bomb eh?

Quote:
By the time the allied forces had taken Iraq completely, over 2 million innocent Iraqis will have died.

Wouldnt that have been Clinton/the UN's problem?

No. Sure, blame the previous presidency. Many people do this (on both sides), you shouldn't.

If there is anything I have learned from reading threads like these its that there are rarely any clear good guys or bad guys, for every point made there is always going to be some sort of valid counter point. Sticking so blindly close to one side as people on both sides of this argument doesn't help either. The US is not a bad guy nor is it a good guy, Bush is neither a bad guy nor is he a good guy, Isreal is neither bad nor good, the Palestinians are neither bad nor good, completely pro Bush supporters are neither right nor wrong, completely anti-Bush people are neither right nor wrong. Do you understand what I am saying?

There may be good intentions, but wrong methods. However, blind as it may sound, a prerequisite for an argument IS to take a stance. Though compromise is always ideal, it doesn't always work with ideology. However, I'm sure that anyone neutral can come up with VERY harsh details affirming mistakes and misconduct of the American government in the past half-century. There are more than mere shades of grey.

Although I hope to the day I die the Bomb is never again dropped, I believe its dropping on Hiroshima (not Nagasaki) would have saved soldier's lives on both sides AND curtailed the war.

 

[seinfeldrules]

No. Sure, blame the previous presidency. Many people do this (on both sides), you shouldn't.

Wait, your saying that Saddam killed 2 million innocent people from the time of Bush's innaguration to the time of the invasion? Wow, I thought this was a serious discussion.

There may be good intentions, but wrong methods. However, blind as it may sound, a prerequisite for an argument IS to take a stance. Though compromise is always ideal, it doesn't always work with ideology. However, I'm pretty sure that anyone neutral can come up with VERY harsh details affirming mistakes and misconduct of the American government in the past half-century.

And far more details outlining the positives America has accomplished. You refuse to look at those. What country are you from?

Although I hope to the day I die the Bomb is never again dropped, I believe its dropping on Hiroshima (not Nagasaki) would have saved soldier's lives on both sides AND curtailed the war.

Wow, even the most bitter rivals can agree on some things. Well nevermind. Most things. Nagasaki was needed as well. The Japanese believed it was some sort of freak of nature at first, not the bomb. :flame: :naughty:

 

[Korgoth]

I post a link with almost all of my claims. That forum link was taken from an actual report, its not like they made it up. I resent otherwise. I never said the Bush administration is correct 100% of the time, I would say 85%. Its Anti-Americans that I resent that believe everything they claim or say is a lie. It disgusts me. One day when you need America's help, I hope we remember this.

First of all, learn to edit your posts, and quit spamming this thread. Its ridiculous to have 4 or 5 replies in a row on the same page. Second, I am American, look at my location, all I want is what is best for the American people, so go ahead and call me un-patriotic thats the only tool you have.

 

[Javert]

Wait, your saying that Saddam killed 2 million innocent people from the time of Bush's innaguration to the time of the invasion? Wow, I thought this was a serious discussion.


And far more details outlining the positives America has accomplished. You refuse to look at those. What country are you from?

It was a serious discussion, until you chose to insult my intelligence instead. Very well, I will admit I emphasized negatives in US history; because those are the mistakes we need to learn from but have yet to do so. Those are the events and times that has culminated to the present and constructed the tumultuous world we live in today. To emphasize the positive, though inspiring and educational, does not compare to the moments in history that shook our foundational beliefs and faiths, causing reflection and re-evaluation. Check my public profile, or the top right of my posts, to see what country I am from.
This will probably be my last post here.

 

[Pogrom]

Agreed. The US and the USSR were really at war (it wasnt called the Cold War for nothing), and we are at war with the Axis of Evil as the world turns today (War v Terrorism)At what point in the war did we have nuclear weapons? Just post a date for me. Duh..

On how many fronts are we fighting this war? War against the Axis. War against Terror...

Oh, and you state that I seem to believe Saddam more than I believe the president (whoever he may be). Wrong. I believe the UN. I believe independant experts.

I don't believe those who have a vested interest in making me believe what they are saying. Never take it at face value.

We shouldnt. I am not willing to wait around for another 9/11.

What gives the US the right to be the world's policeman? Are you against accountability? Why not support multilateral action?

I'm not saying we support puppet gov'ts either.[/QUOTE

Are you saying you don't support puppet governments? Or you shouldn't support puppet governments?

If possible, we go in, go out. Leave the country to clean up for its own mess (I mean, you support that in Iraq anyways right?). That way we wont have to deal with the prisoner garbage anymore and can accomplish our goals without listening to rhetoric from people like yourself.

That would defeat the purpose of going in in the first place. That would create a terrorist/anarchic state. Way to promote democracy! :thumbs: Reading between the lines - you just want to kill anyone you see as a threat, with no regard to global stability, human rights or international law. Applaudable!

I can see the next question: Where? Well NK and Saudi Arabia would be on the top of my list. Also, the stated objective was to make America a safer place, be it to take down Saddam or get rid of WMDs. I would rather fight the battle in Baghdad with trained troops than on American soil with police officers and medics.

There's not really much to say here. I can see it all happening now. America establishes the new global empire. Dissent is not tolerated. Transnationals go hand in hand with corrupt governments. I can really see it. You'd be right there, in the front row, eh? Waving the flag as America takes over the world.

America is not better than the rest of the world. America is simply more martial than the rest of the world.

America has 2% of the world's population.
America accounts for 50% of the world's military budget.

 

[crabcakes66]

And far more details outlining the positives America has accomplished. You refuse to look at those. What country are you from?

Far more?
Id say the good and the bad is pretty much 50/50. For every good thing we do we **** something else up royaly....... Usualy thanks to uber-patriotic reigious zealots or anti-everything hippies....

 

[Pogrom]

We shouldnt. I am not willing to wait around for another 9/11. I'm not saying we support puppet gov'ts either. If possible, we go in, go out. Leave the country to clean up for its own mess

Okay, I've had time to actually sit and digest this statement. My editing opportunity for my previous post has expired, so here is a new one.

What exactly are you advocating? A cycle of invasion and re-invasion?

If you go into a country and destroy their order, their infrastructure, their checks and balances, then just leave - what do you think is going to happen?

You'll create hatred and fear. You'll be driving the terrorist's own agenda. You'll be reinforcing to the rest of the world that America is an international bully.

And what will happen in this sorry excuse for a nation? Well, there are a few possibilities:

1) A new totalitarian/dictatorial state will emerge. Maybe it will be friendly to the US. Maybe it won't. Either way, here'll be horrible human rights abuses. Have to invade again to get rid of the 'new' Saddam.

2) A new theocratic state will emerge. Given their track record, I hardly think they'll be partial to the US. A new haven for terrorists. Time to invade again!

3) The nation will splinter into tiny territories, controlled by warlords and bandits. Again a haven for terrorists. Again with the human rights abuses. Again with the invasion!

Listen seinfeldrules - I like arguing with you because playing Devils Advocate is fun. And you are capable of arguing intelligently - which is a delight on an internet forum. But I can't for the life of me understand your statement above.

You seem to have me confused with those America-hating, war is never right type of people. I'm not. But neither do I agree with you.

I support military intervention - as long as it is sanctioned by the UN, is multilateral, and is driven by reason - not ideology.

I support the rule of law - especially when an administration tries to obfuscate the issue. It is clear that certain elements in the upper tiers of the USA do not support this rule.

And it is painfully obvious that the USA has a poor record in the area of nation-building. Out of 13 nations in which the US has installed democracy, only Germany and Japan are successes. That makes them the exception, not the rule.

I look forward to your reply.

 

[seinfeldrules]

What gives the US the right to be the world's policeman?

We are the only ones willing to do so.

Are you against accountability? Why not support multilateral action?

No. There is a coalition, you forget that it isnt only the US in Iraq.

Reading between the lines - you just want to kill anyone you see as a threat, with no regard to global stability,or international law. Applaudable!

Yes, if need be- see below I guess. Furthermore, would not removing leaders such as Saddam and Kim Jong Il create more stability. In Kim Jong Il's circumstance the SK's would be more than willing to fix that mess. I dont think there would be much of a mess in NK actually.

Dissent is not tolerated

Wrong, dissent without kindapping American travelers and executing them is allowed. Dissent is allowed where fair schools are taught. Dissent is allowed when it doesnt involve the preaching of killing American citizens to young school children.

If you go into a country and destroy their order, their infrastructure, their checks and balances, then just leave - what do you think is going to happen?

That statement of mine was more out of a mixture of being tired and not caring. Also a little too much of Jay Sevron. It just needs to be said that people like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il do not need to be in power at any cost. People pass off Saddam and Jong Il's threats as propoganda, but then on the flip side: When was the last time an American leader threatened (offensive) nuclear annihilation of a country other than the USSR? I cannot think of one solid example.

 

[Apos]

Whoa, this guy is in serious denial. Seinfeld? More like George.

 

[nicrd]

Seinfeldrules, do you read anything about foreign politics ? what happens in the world? No, not CNN'S internationnal news, but something written by anyone else than an american? Im not saying you dont have any good internationnal news sources in America, i'm just saying that if you want to open your mind on the world you NEED to read about it from different sources that see it from different perspectives.

I just have trouble with the fact that you think that America should be a world police. Does americans know more than others about peacekeeping? Are you smarter or more educated than everyone else? Seriously, I think you have to open your mind a bit and accept that nobody's perfect.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I just have trouble with the fact that you think that America should be a world police.

Who else is willing to step into this role! And yes, I read stuff written by Brits all the time. Do Americans know more about peacekeeping? Nah, we are willing to learn though, unlike 95% of other nations around the globe. I accept that nobody is perfect. I also accept that America has much better intentions than mostly any other country on this planet. I think that people like you need to get off your anti-American platform and start respecting us for doing the things that your country doesnt have the guts or moral righteousness to do.

 

[Korgoth]

Offensive War is moraly righteous? Where the hell was I when that one came about?
And don't even start with the "oh we freed the Iraqi people", thats BS... The reason for this war in first place was WMD, when that came up fruitless it was a suggested "link" to al qaeda, when that came up fruitless, it was for the poor people of Iraq. America as a whole wouldn't have went in for that reason, the ramifacations humanely and economically wouldn't have been equal in the minds of the majority. So after taking us to war under false pretenses they decided they would flip the game and make themselves (administration) look like saints. Get over it.

 

[Warbie]

That's a bit presumptuous Seinfelrules.

This isn't about morals or righteousness. There are attrocities taking place in various countries throughout the world which noone seems to be getting involved in, including the US.

I don't believe for a second that the US would have invaded Iraq if 9/11 hadn't taken place. This doesn't mean I believe this action to be wrong, just as me thinking that the US being made the 'world's police force' would be the worst idea ever make me anti American.

 

[not28]

Who else is willing to step into this role! And yes, I read stuff written by Brits all the time. Do Americans know more about peacekeeping? Nah, we are willing to learn though, unlike 95% of other nations around the globe. I accept that nobody is perfect. I also accept that America has much better intentions than mostly any other country on this planet. I think that people like you need to get off your anti-American platform and start respecting us for doing the things that your country doesnt have the guts or moral righteousness to do.

yeah, reading British news makes you a very enlightened individual. conveniently disregard the fact that their government bends over and takes it from American politics. i think you need to get off your Holier-Than-Thou bullshit bandwagon and think about making this country better instead of dicking around in countries halfway across the world.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Offensive War is moraly righteous? Where the hell was I when that one came about?
And don't even start with the "oh we freed the Iraqi people", thats BS... The reason for this war in first place was WMD, when that came up fruitless it was a suggested "link" to al qaeda, when that came up fruitless, it was for the poor people of Iraq. America as a whole wouldn't have went in for that reason, the ramifacations humanely and economically wouldn't have been equal in the minds of the majority. So after taking us to war under false pretenses they decided they would flip the game and make themselves (administration) look like saints. Get over it.

Again, nothing to back up your claim. If you wish to involve yourself in this argument at least read over the topic and respond to the facts/links before continuing. Much of what you just stated has already been stated, then rebuked.

This isn't about morals or righteousness. There are attrocities taking place in various countries throughout the world which noone seems to be getting involved in, including the US.

Well, maybe if others would help out, we could do something. American forces would be spread out far too thinly for this goal to become accomplished. As it is, the UN refuses to strongly squash these problems and it is left to the US to defeat them as they become a threat to our security.

 

[Warbie]

The 'spread to thin' argument doesn't hold with me, it's not as though anything was being done before the Iraq invasion.

The key point being 'it is left to the US to defeat them as they become a threat to our security', which is perfectly understandable - but little to do with morals or righteousness.

 

[Korgoth]

Um hello wierdo I started this topic! And I don't need any articles or facts to back up what I just said because unless you've been asleep for the last year you've known this for a while now. And if its been rebuked, I'd like to know how you "rebuke" actual occurances.. Powells statement to the UN regarding WMD to the run up to the war in Iraq. Bush's comments on the terrorism links in his state of the union address... what the hell more do you want? The truth is hard sometimes, i know...

 

[seinfeldrules]

Well, you may have started the topic, then fallen asleep somewhere during the middle.

Powells statement to the UN regarding WMD to the run up to the war in Iraq

My argument has been said a thousand times, it is clear the Iraqis had WMD, the question now is: Where are they?

And I don't need any articles or facts to back up what I just said because unless you've been asleep for the last year you've known this for a while now

Again, this "Because he said it, it must be true" attitude is what degrades arguments like these.

Bush's comments on the terrorism links in his state of the union address

Post them, I dont recall any.

 

[Korgoth]

google his state of the union address from last year I can't be arsed to do it right now (leaving for work in like five minutes) And your the one with the "He (Bush) said it so it must be true" attitude. And about the WMD sure they had it, we sold it to them. But maybe, just maybe they weren't lying when they said they destroyed them, I mean the least we could have done is gave the inspectors who were already on the ground a few months more, why didn't we? Oh right, because they were an immediate threat to ours and israels security, and now they are nowhere to be found... I'll tell you one thing though, i'd rather saddam had them than for them to be missing, no telling who has them now. Saddam isn't stupid enough to try and bomb America, he liked his golden throne to much for that.

 

[seinfeldrules]

So the inspectors had 12 years, how many more do you think they needed? And sorry, Im not wasting my time researching your so called facts. That is your job in a debate. I am the one with the "Your conspiracy theories are probably not true" attitude anyways.

 

[Javert]

Powell Terror Report News

For the record.

 

[Pogrom]

We are the only ones willing to do so.

That's bullshit. The world should be policed by a coalition of nations, and policed according to the rule of law. That is why the UN was founded by the Allies after WWII.

The USA is not some magical country that is somehow 'better' than the rest of the world. It is a good country, but unfortunately it is full of people. People, whether they be American or Norwegian, are not perfect. The American system is not perfect. The Administration is not perfect.

Why believe that YOU and YOU ALONE will not fall prey to corruption, hegemony and neo-imperialism?

No. There is a coalition, you forget that it isnt only the US in Iraq.

There is no real coalition. There is the USA, and there are a bunch boot-kissing lickspittles. The only countries besides Australia and Britain in the coalition are there because they were offered economic and political concessions. There is no such thing as a moral war in the coalition.

Yes, if need be- see below I guess. Furthermore, would not removing leaders such as Saddam and Kim Jong Il create more stability. In Kim Jong Il's circumstance the SK's would be more than willing to fix that mess. I dont think there would be much of a mess in NK actually.

No, it wouldn't. Global stability doesn't only concern the US and their perceived enemies. Countries neutral to the US may be persuaded to become unfriendly. Allies of the US may become uneasy at the casual use of force.

And it is also about responsibility. If you destroy a nations's way of life, well, to quote Colin Powell "If you break it, you bought it, Mr President."

Wrong, dissent without kindapping American travelers and executing them is allowed. Dissent is allowed where fair schools are taught. Dissent is allowed when it doesnt involve the preaching of killing American citizens to young school children.

Again you fail to see the bigger picture. Iraq and North Korea don't constitute dissent. I'm talking about the US' allies. When the Opposition leader of Australia stated that if he won the election this year, he would bring home the Aussie troops.

Soon after this statement Australia had George Bush, the American ambassador to Australia, and the head of Foreign Affairs all publicly berate him. There were also veiled threats, in the form of implied economic penalties and a possible 're-evaluation' of the US-Aus startegic global alliance.

Since when is the USA allowed to interfere in the free democracy of another sovereign nation? Apart from Chile and Nicuragua of course...

That statement of mine was more out of a mixture of being tired and not caring. Also a little too much of Jay Sevron. It just needs to be said that people like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il do not need to be in power at any cost. People pass off Saddam and Jong Il's threats as propoganda, but then on the flip side: When was the last time an American leader threatened (offensive) nuclear annihilation of a country other than the USSR? I cannot think of one solid example.

The USA doesn't have to threaten others with nuclear war. It is always an implied threat, as everybody knows that the USA had the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

My argument has been said a thousand times, it is clear the Iraqis had WMD, the question now is: Where are they?

The only definitive proof of WMD is that of the WMD America gave them. Your argument HAS been said a thousand times, but you are missing the picture.

When Bush keeps so vehemently states "We knew that Iraq had WMD!" he deliberately keeps his statements vague.

Nothing too unusual about that - that's modern day political talk. But notice what he doesn't say. He doesn't say he was sure Iraq had WMD recently. He doesn't say there is proof that Iraq was actively pursuing a WMD program. All he says was that "We knew that Iraq had WMD!"

That's like me saying:

"The USA funds terrorists!"
"But how do you know?"
"Well, they funded the contras in the 80s! That is proof that the USA funds terrorists."

 

[Korgoth]

So the inspectors had 12 years, how many more do you think they needed? And sorry, Im not wasting my time researching your so called facts. That is your job in a debate. I am the one with the "Your conspiracy theories are probably not true" attitude anyways.

MY GOD MAN, it was his freakin' state of the union address. If you can't face facts then I'm sorry... Oh wait here ya go' total of 5 minutes googled, I couldn't do it last night because I had to leave for work. (And how the hell is quoting a speech given by the president in front of the nation a conspiracy theory? I fail to grasp your reasoning here. It seems when you get backed into a corner in a debate, you become moronic and just start making stuff up off the top of your head to try and discredit the opposition)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript.7/index.html

Oh and just to make it perfectly clear for you, i'll quote the passages in question so you don't even have to read the damn thing!

These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

And....
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript.8/index.html

Here you go....

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Is that clear enough for you? Can you see where he tried to link Saddam and Al Qaida together? Do you need someone to read it to you slowly? Ok fine here are a few more quotes to push the "link" that never existed.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Oh what the hell, one more can't hurt right?

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

Wow if that isn't clear enough for you I don't know what else to do. Lets see I think I passed your criteria here..

*Link to major (reputible) News Agency, featuring article in question
*Quotes of said article, with specific "links to terrorists and al qaida" in bold lettering for easy understanding

And here is the Powell story I refered to that you said didn't exist (the mobile weapons lab speech that was indeed false that he presented to the UN during the run up to the war)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3596033.stm
The beauty part of this article is this is the one where he admits he was wrong, so no doubt here eh?
Now, will you please firmly place your foot in your mouth and drop it? Or do you want to get served again? :cheese:

 

[seinfeldrules]

That's bullshit. The world should be policed by a coalition of nations, and policed according to the rule of law. That is why the UN was founded by the Allies after WWII.

The USA is not some magical country that is somehow 'better' than the rest of the world. It is a good country, but unfortunately it is full of people. People, whether they be American or Norwegian, are not perfect. The American system is not perfect. The Administration is not perfect.

Why believe that YOU and YOU ALONE will not fall prey to corruption, hegemony and neo-imperialism?

Was that not the plan of the league of nations? We saw how that ended up. There is just too much jealously and greed between nations and I have lost all faith in the so called UN and many international laws.

There is no real coalition. There is the USA, and there are a bunch boot-kissing lickspittles. The only countries besides Australia and Britain in the coalition are there because they were offered economic and political concessions. There is no such thing as a moral war in the coalition.

That is pure opinion and you know it.

No, it wouldn't. Global stability doesn't only concern the US and their perceived enemies. Countries neutral to the US may be persuaded to become unfriendly. Allies of the US may become uneasy at the casual use of force.

And it is also about responsibility. If you destroy a nations's way of life, well, to quote Colin Powell "If you break it, you bought it, Mr President."

I think you will find that more countries are more likely to lean towards democracy than away from it.

I'm talking about the US' allies. When the Opposition leader of Australia stated that if he won the election this year, he would bring home the Aussie troops.

Soon after this statement Australia had George Bush, the American ambassador to Australia, and the head of Foreign Affairs all publicly berate him. There were also veiled threats, in the form of implied economic penalties and a possible 're-evaluation' of the US-Aus startegic global alliance.

Since when is the USA allowed to interfere in the free democracy of another sovereign nation? Apart from Chile and Nicuragua of course...

If he would not be our friend, why should we become his friend? Sorry, but it is like handing a homeless man a donation for punching you in the face. I'm not informed with the situations in Chile and Nicuragua enough to make an intelligent response.

The USA doesn't have to threaten others with nuclear war. It is always an implied threat, as everybody knows that the USA had the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

We could argue our opinions on this all day. Unless faced with another WWII type scenario I dont think we would ever use nukes, even in such a situation I doubt we would use them.

The only definitive proof of WMD is that of the WMD America gave them. Your argument HAS been said a thousand times, but you are missing the picture.

When Bush keeps so vehemently states "We knew that Iraq had WMD!" he deliberately keeps his statements vague.

Nothing too unusual about that - that's modern day political talk. But notice what he doesn't say. He doesn't say he was sure Iraq had WMD recently. He doesn't say there is proof that Iraq was actively pursuing a WMD program. All he says was that "We knew that Iraq had WMD!"

Read this, it supports what I have been claiming all along.

Kay himself believes that in order to get the full picture, an independent panel needs to investigate. He was very careful not to blame the administration—there were no accusations of "sexing up" the intelligence. On the contrary, he absolved policymakers of any misjudgments, and said he still supported the war. (Britain's Tony Blair got a similar reprieve last week, when the much-anticipated Hutton report found him innocent of making a 2002 WMD assessment "more exciting.") But intelligence is never gathered or assessed in a political vacuum, and leading Democrats will be sure to demand that any investigation extend to the White House.

It turns out we were all wrong, probably, in my judgment," Kay stammered before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. "And that is most disturbing." With perhaps 85 percent of the Survey Group's work done, Kay said it was likely that no WMD would be uncovered. His team did find evidence that Iraq was working to develop the poison ricin, and he warned of "unresolved ambiguity" about other Iraqi programs. Too much evidence had been destroyed and looted in the early days of the war, he said. But in Kay's mind, the absence of evidence should not obscure a larger fact: Iraq was a monumental intelligence failure.

The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which represented Washington's best available analysis, concluded that "Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction [WMD] programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions," that it had "invested more heavily in biological weapons" and that "most analysts" believed that it was "reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." Even the French and Germans believed that Saddam had WMD.

 

[CptStern]

do you ever post in any other thread besides the ones that slam america?

 

[seinfeldrules]

These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

Who says they couldnt? An NK ship was caught last year bringing SCUDs to some other country in the Middle East. I forget exactly where.

Is that clear enough for you? Can you see where he tried to link Saddam and Al Qaida together? Do you need someone to read it to you slowly? Ok fine here are a few more quotes to push the "link" that never existed.

That is still being debated. There might well be links. Read here for just one.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110005133

Again, your argument is based solely on anti-American opinions. You choose to believe that the Bush administration makes up everything without evidence to back it up. Clinton and Kerry also thought the Iraqis had WMD, which they still might. A bomb recently went off with WMD (sarin) in Iraq. You dont see much being made of that story, I wonder why...

 

[seinfeldrules]

do you ever post in any other thread besides the ones that slam america?

Pretty much, I read over the HL2 stuff, but dont have much to add to those conversations. Your opinion is usually lost in things which dont really matter anyways.

 

[CptStern]

I see...I ask because you seem very opinionated in some things

 

[seinfeldrules]

I ask because you seem very opinionated in some things

In politics and sports yes, in games I am as well. Just wait for Valve to miss a release date on a patch and you shall hear seinfeld's roar again I got pretty worked up over IW's nerfing of action in CoD as well. Pissed me off pretty royally.

 

[nicrd]

seinfeldrules,

1. I am not anti-american.

2. Life (especially politics) is not 'black and white' as you think it is. There are only shades of gray out there.

3. No one is pure evil, not even the terrorists who bombs themselves thinking that they are saving their people, and no one is pure good, not even Bush.

4. Yes, some other countries are doing lots of effort to keep world peace. An example? France by refusing to go to war alongside of Bush. Even if you think they were wrong (everything is possible), they did this for world peace as much as Bush went in Irak for world peace.

 

[seinfeldrules]

1. I am not anti-american.

2. Life (especially politics) is not 'black and white' as you think it is. There are only shades of gray out there.

3. No one is pure evil, not even the terrorists who bombs themselves thinking that they are saving their people, and no one is pure good, not even Bush.

4. Yes, some other countries are doing lots of effort to keep world peace. An example? France by refusing to go to war alongside of Bush. Even if you think they were wrong (everything is possible), they did this for world peace as much as Bush went in Irak for world peace.

1. OK, but if you believe every anti-Bush theory out there, then you just as well are. I'm sure I had my reasons for making such an accusation. I'm sick of everyone going around blaming America for all the world's ills.

2. I think everything does not need to be made as 'gray' as everyone makes it out to me. To me; America is white and terrorism (Al Qaeda and such) is black.

3. Anyone who would recruit schoolchildren to blow up other schoolchildren is pure evil to me.

4. I think France refused to go in because they were scared some of their dealings with Saddam would be uncovered. Saddam was also deeply in debt to them. However, the argument of being pacifistic could also be made.

 

[clarky003]

To me; America is white and terrorism (Al Qaeda and such) is black.

racist?

OK, but if you believe every anti-Bush theory out there, then you just as well are

wtf..? are you insane, do you have to like bush in order to be pro American???

theory? ... use your intuition , bush's statements encouraging the war havnt been proved yet, and alot of them where exaggerated 'claims'

I'm sick of everyone going around blaming America for all the world's ills.

People are not blaming America , their blamming the government thats in control. which unless short sightedness is a problem, doesnt have any relation to how anyone views Americans on the whole ,

infact I like to think of governments as having no relation directly to the people they control what so ever.

but you try to make us think we are bad mouthing every American by saying that :rolling: , or your just mislead through a biased opinion

 

[nicrd]

seinfeldrules, do you know why I dont like Bush? Why I wish he does not get reelected ?

Because I'm scared of terrorism. My father is a businessman and used to go to a lot of meetings in the twin towers. Lukily for him, he was not there on the 11th of september 2001. I strongly wish that terrorism stops all around the world. Maybe I live in Canada, I still believe its possible they attack here. I even more believe that they can attack again in America. Even if someone I know will be killed by terrorist or not, I want it to stop.

I know you wont believe anything I'm saying because its only some "I believe" and I dont have any links or articles to back it up. But anyways, I have one last thing to add : I strongly believe that the attitude that Georges W. Bush has with foreign politics is helping terrorist to recruit alot of new and younger ones that will hate even more America (and all of the western civilisation).

 

[seinfeldrules]

racist?

Black and white in reference to good and evil for goddsake.

wtf..? are you insane, do you have to like bush in order to be pro American???

Obviously not, but if you jump at any chance to bash the elected American president at any opportunity then you are insulting America. By calling him a moron, you are calling the American people morons for electing him.

People are not blaming America , their blamming the government thats in control. which unless short sightedness is a problem, doesnt have any relation to how anyone views Americans on the whole ,

By blaming our gov't- you are blaming the people who elected it, who elected the gov't?

 

[clarky003]

Obviously not, but if you jump at any chance to bash the elected American president at any opportunity then you are insulting America. By calling him a moron, you are calling the American people morons for electing him.

thats a weird way of thinking dude, Im worried for you, seriously.. only excessively superficial people think like this.

People are not blaming America , their blamming the government thats in control. which unless short sightedness is a problem, doesnt have any relation to how anyone views Americans on the whole ,

But the general population dont make the big decisions after they have been elected, which is what really matters, .. and if I recall the vote wasnt exactly properly done when Bush was voted in.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Because I'm scared of terrorism. My father is a businessman and used to go to a lot of meetings in the twin towers. Lukily for him, he was not there on the 11th of september 2001. I strongly wish that terrorism stops all around the world. Maybe I live in Canada, I still believe its possible they attack here. I even more believe that they can attack again in America. Even if someone I know will be killed by terrorist or not, I want it to stop.

Well, the method in which we defended the Twin Towers prior to 9.11 was obviously proven inneffective. In my view, Bush did the right thing by changing this approach. By hitting the countries which harbor and fund terrorism, he is showing the world that America will no longer be sitting back waiting for another attack. Now the Iraqi War did nothing to prevent this you say? Sofar that cant be confirmed, nor denied, however, Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program shortly after the invasion. The War in Iraq has proven, in this manner, to be a strong, indirect attack upon terrorism. If a country like Libya is willing to give up its nuclear weapons program, then think of the other leaders of such countries who are quivering in their boots that they could be next. It is a message to countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea that they better back off America, or face our rage.

I understand your opinion, and it clearly doesnt need any facts or links to back it up. It seems to be a well thought out opinion. I just feel links and facts are needed to sort out all the outlandish conspiracy theories floating across the net.

 

[seinfeldrules]

But the general population dont make the big decisions after they have been elected, which is what really matters, .. and if I recall the vote wasnt exactly properly done when Bush was voted in.

The vote was controversial, but it was handled in the correct manner. I will freely admit that I feel leaders like Chirac and Schroeder are extreme liberal hippies, but to back that up I feel most of Germany and France feel that way.

 

[clarky003]

sort out all the outlandish conspiracy theories

outlandish, only to those who lack insight, and intuition of mind. If you see everything for how its first told, then your are either patriotic , and have an unquestionable faith so whatever is in your mind is always the true thing thats happening.

or your unwilling to look deeper into matters, and realise that this world is a F@&$ed up place and nothing is as straight forward as your lead to believe from school to your working life.

since terrorisim was coming to an all time low anyway, before the war started. Its pretty obvious that its seemingly a controlled revenge job. because if the Government arnt seen to be doing anything to protect their country, then they are looked upon as weak..

?? to a media watcher this might make sense.

but from a moral point of view its quite a horrific realisation.. it shows some of us are not evolving, and are still willing to fight fire with fire.

which if you ask me, is very sad.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Well so far no evidence can be given for 90% of the conspiracy theories so they are outlandish. I'm sorry if Im not willing to believe my liberal next door neighbor tells me.

 

[Pogrom]

Was that not the plan of the league of nations? We saw how that ended up. There is just too much jealously and greed between nations and I have lost all faith in the so called UN and many international laws.

Applying this to a smaller scale - you are supporting vigilante tactics?

e.g. I say that there is just too much jealousy and greed between people for national governments and federal courts to work. So I'm just gonna get my gun and shoot everyone who I think is a criminal.

Why have you lost faith in international laws, when the rest of the developed world seems to get along fine?

That is pure opinion and you know it.

I beg to differ

And there is more where that came from.

I think you will find that more countries are more likely to lean towards democracy than away from it.

Democracy != vigilante unilateralism.

If a country doesn't want to support the USA's war on terror, why does that make it against democracy?

Is Spain hell-bent on 'leaning away from democracy?'

If he would not be our friend, why should we become his friend? Sorry, but it is like handing a homeless man a donation for punching you in the face. I'm not informed with the situations in Chile and Nicuragua enough to make an intelligent response.

So you are saying that the only thing important in the Alliance between the US and Australia is support for your war? Is not he relationship stronger than just providing military support? Your analogy is flawed, by the way.

First: Australia is not a 'homeless person', they are a full partner in a long-reaching and mature strategic alliance. Second, Australia is not asking the USA for any handouts.

Just because Australia has a strategic alliance with the USA, do you believe Australia's foreign policy should exactly echo the USA?

Look at Canada - they have provided no troops for the Iraq debacle. But is the USA threatening to sever trade relations? NO!

Why do you think people are not allowed to have differing opinions?

And as for Chile: Have a read of this...

The U.S. role in Chile has been an ill-kept secret for over 25 years. In 1972, columnist Jack Anderson blew the lid off the International Telephone and Telegraph Co.'s involvement in coup-plotting there. The dirt on ITT, which was heavily invested in Chile, included offers of $1 million for CIA efforts to prevent Dr. Salvador Allende, the leader of the Popular Unity (Socialist-Communist) coalition and the winner of Chile's 1970 presidential election, from ever taking office. In 1975, the U.S. Senate report Covert Action in Chile, 1963-1973 revealed extensive U.S. government intervention in Chilean politics for a decade prior to the military coup of September 11, 1973. Among the exposed schemes were CIA attempts to block the results of Chile's 1970 presidential election by hook (bribing representatives to vote against him in the required congressional runoff election) or by crook (fomenting a military coup), courses of action known, respectively, as "Track I" and "Track II." The U.S. government's attitude towards democracy in Chile is best summed up with Henry Kissinger's famous words: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people."

Read this, it supports what I have been claiming all along.

Your quotes are not proof of WMD. At best, they only prove that Saddam would like to have WMD. That he was perhaps spending money to try and get them. But after the monumental intelligence failure before the war, how do we know they got THAT part right?

By blaming our gov't- you are blaming the people who elected it, who elected the gov't?

Well, about 40% of Americans did. That is the average national voter turnout.

So I think most people can make the distinction between hating the Administration and hating America.

Can you make the distinction? Or does being anti-Bush automatically make you anti-American?

*EDIT - I issues with grammar have :x