Fri Jul 18, 2003 3:00 pm
Originally posted by Tour of Duty
Oke, I know what you mean. And I understand it. But look it this way ():
Americans can get very fast influenced. For example: few months ago everybody ( Americans) supported Bush in his war against terrorisme. Now, after the war is 'over', it seems Bush 'lied' ( or the CIA) in his speech about nuclaire weapons in Africa + there is still no weapons found in Iraq.
Now suddenly more than 30% of the USA has another opinion about the war.
Now I am re-reading it. It makes no sence to the subject. But it was something I really wanted to say to you guys. You don't have to get pissed about it, it is just our European ( at least mine) opinion
I support that opinion, also the "this is not an offend to you guys" part. No reason to get frustrated.
About being ill-informed, it depends on the media-source. I know European media sometimes has a different view on the events then the US media, but both could be true in the end. They can tell a story about an event in such a way that it gives a different view of that event.
Fri Jul 18, 2003 3:03 pm
lol, I don't agree the fulll way with you, Tour of Duty, but about the last part you do have a point! (the part about Bush before the strike and afterward with his public opinion...
Fri Jul 18, 2003 4:25 pm
Originally posted by Tour of Duty
He did better things in the economy than Bush Jr, and Bush Sr.
And hell, even a president had a sex life. Lewinski wanted only money. If she didn't liked to get shagged by Bill, why didn't she told that to the police much earlier?? Aparantly she liked it.
hmmm.... the economy was faltering before Bush took power. It is a current flucuation typical in economic history. Our economy was on a roll destined to falter (and remember that there was a republican house and senate for at least half of the good years... the economy is usually party independent). People really give the president too much credit and too much blame for the economy. The budget is passed by the house and the senate, but then again maybe many of you non-Americans really don't know how our system works.
Unlike most of you, I will not try to state any knowledge on Irag that I could not possibly have. I enjoy watching those that act as if they have true knowledge. I will only address this point: if you think that the weapons of mass destruction argument was based around ICBM's... then get some knowledge. It was never stated that they would attack from Iraq. The threat was based on local distribution. I am holding out on any opinion on the necessity of the action until I get actual knowledge.
Hey, one thing I am glad though is that Bush didn't act like Clinton and let that French wuss dictate our foriegn policy. He told us to stay out of Kosovo, Clinton did, and hundreds of thousands of innocences were slain by a madman. I always wondered when it was that Chirac got control of America.... I am at least glad that Bush told him to go to hell.
Fri Jul 18, 2003 7:31 pm
ICBM's?!? Please explain!!! ( I am only a stupid Dutch guy afterall...) lol
Fri Jul 18, 2003 8:14 pm
Rule and Sannop, and also SHwoff -- thanks again for coming to the defense of the greatest nation on Earth.
As for Bush 'lying'...why are Britain and Tony Blair still standing by the info? (What? You haven't heard?) Because the faulty doc was only a tiny piece of the overall information. But the wonderful leftists in the American and world media don't want to mention that, since it would take away the effect of brow-beating complete bullshit into susceptible minds.
ICBM -- Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
Terrorists don't need ICBMs, morons. All they need is a boat with a bomb somewhere off the coast of NYC or LA. So much is shipped by boat or barge into the US that customs, etc. can only manage to inspect 1 out of 30 or so (I don't know the exact number), and the selection process is random.
There are many ways we could be up terrorist-shit creek; the focus on missiles alone is just silly.
There never has been a time when the power of America was so necessary or so misunderstood... -- Tony Blair, PM, Great Britain, in front of Congress on July 17, 2003 (for those who don't know since their media may just be old Pravda or CNN knockoffs)
As for Bush 'lying'...why are Britain and Tony Blair still standing by the info? (What? You haven't heard?) Because the faulty doc was only a tiny piece of the overall information. But the wonderful leftists in the American and world media don't want to mention that, since it would take away the effect of brow-beating complete bullshit into susceptible minds.
ICBM -- Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
Terrorists don't need ICBMs, morons. All they need is a boat with a bomb somewhere off the coast of NYC or LA. So much is shipped by boat or barge into the US that customs, etc. can only manage to inspect 1 out of 30 or so (I don't know the exact number), and the selection process is random.
There are many ways we could be up terrorist-shit creek; the focus on missiles alone is just silly.
There never has been a time when the power of America was so necessary or so misunderstood... -- Tony Blair, PM, Great Britain, in front of Congress on July 17, 2003 (for those who don't know since their media may just be old Pravda or CNN knockoffs)
Fri Jul 18, 2003 8:17 pm
Originally posted by <ddcc> Dutchy (nl)
ICBM's?!? Please explain!!! ( I am only a stupid Dutch guy afterall...) lol
I was in a rush when I wrote that. ICBM stands for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. The statements were being made that the US should not have gone into Iraq because Sadam did not have a method of delivery. ICBMs would be the largest threat. We can intercept most bombers, and we dominate the seas.
The lack of any of the above methods of delivery is not relavent to the discussion of the justification for the war. It was never thought to be remote delivery, it was always assumed that the weapons would be packaged and brought over to the US in shipping containers, luggage, etc etc.
I AM NOT defending the US in Iraq. I do not want to get into that discussion, and frankly I am withholding judgement. I am merely stating that the specifc attacks against Bush made on this forum based on the fact that Saddam was not able to deliver any weapons to the US were illogical.
I will defend Bush in regards to the economy. And Doug is correct, the terroist do not need a remote delivery system.
Fri Jul 18, 2003 8:24 pm
Originally posted by <ddcc> Dutchy (nl)
ICBM's?!? Please explain!!! ( I am only a stupid Dutch guy afterall...) lol
And Dutchy, most of us do not have that negatiive attitude to Europeans.
I love the Dutch.... Berkamp is my favorite striker of all time. You might have won the world cup in the US if he would have played up front instead of Kluivert. (Man did he miss a lot of shots).
Fri Jul 18, 2003 9:14 pm
Hmmm, okay. I am not going to directly comment on some of the posts, but I will post what I know and what my opinion is. I hope it is of some value to people not familiar with the US and the way it works, theoretically.
CAPITALISM - a free market system where the people (i.e private business owners, corporations, regular people) determine the status and health of the economy. In a capitalist system, the government is responsible for protecting the country from hostile nations/groups.
So in essence, the President of the United States of America is NOT responsible for the economy. Anyone who thinks that he is does not understand the basic workings of a capitalist system. Now, the US is trully a mixed economy, mixed because of some Socialist systems that we have (i.e. Welfare, Social Security Benefits). Also, the Fed, which controls the interest rates, today does influence the market. This agency was established because at one time JP Morgan comtrolled practically all of the banking in the United States. To leave this to one private individual was a threat to national security (not meaning we were open to attack, but our economy is vital to the survival of the United States.)
THE WAR IN IRAQ - Ask yourself. If Saddam Hussein ran YOUR country, wouldn't you want someone to save your butt? Recently, an Iraqi nuclear scientist brought some US officals to his backyard and dug up, under his rose bushes, plans and parts of a centrifuge. A centrifuge is used to separate impurities in Uranium in order to make a more potent nuclear weapon.
PRESIDENT BUSH - Bush is the first President since Ronald Regan to have the stones to do what needs to be done. He means what he says, and for a politician you must respect that. He gave the Taliban 2 weeks (or so) and followed through. He gave Saddam time through more UN Resolutions, and then a 72-hour ultimatum, and he followed through. We don't have to like the things that he is doing, but you must understand that these are the ugly things in life that have to get done. And there is more needed to do.
SADDAM NOT HAVING WEAPONS TO REACH THE US - Great point to the one who posted "Neither did bin Laden" (that motherfucker). Neither did Adolf Hitler have the weapons to invade all of Europe, and win, in 1933 when he was elected Chancellor of Germany. Against the Versailles treaty (like the UN Resolutions) he continued his military build-up. The world at that time (like the UN today) failed to have the nerve to stop him, tired from WWI as they were. The difference today is that Bush has the stones to prevent future Hitlers during his watch.
ANTI-AMERICAN SENTIMENT - This I just don't understand. If the US opened it borders tomorrow, over half of the world, maybe more, would flock to the US. Many people are here today illegally because we have the greatest country in the world. Those that don't want to be here illegally usually go to Europe or Canada. And why? Because in the last century these countries modelled a great part of their cultures like the United States. How many countries since 1776 have elected Presidents and not had power passed down from King to Prince?
CAPITALISM - a free market system where the people (i.e private business owners, corporations, regular people) determine the status and health of the economy. In a capitalist system, the government is responsible for protecting the country from hostile nations/groups.
So in essence, the President of the United States of America is NOT responsible for the economy. Anyone who thinks that he is does not understand the basic workings of a capitalist system. Now, the US is trully a mixed economy, mixed because of some Socialist systems that we have (i.e. Welfare, Social Security Benefits). Also, the Fed, which controls the interest rates, today does influence the market. This agency was established because at one time JP Morgan comtrolled practically all of the banking in the United States. To leave this to one private individual was a threat to national security (not meaning we were open to attack, but our economy is vital to the survival of the United States.)
THE WAR IN IRAQ - Ask yourself. If Saddam Hussein ran YOUR country, wouldn't you want someone to save your butt? Recently, an Iraqi nuclear scientist brought some US officals to his backyard and dug up, under his rose bushes, plans and parts of a centrifuge. A centrifuge is used to separate impurities in Uranium in order to make a more potent nuclear weapon.
PRESIDENT BUSH - Bush is the first President since Ronald Regan to have the stones to do what needs to be done. He means what he says, and for a politician you must respect that. He gave the Taliban 2 weeks (or so) and followed through. He gave Saddam time through more UN Resolutions, and then a 72-hour ultimatum, and he followed through. We don't have to like the things that he is doing, but you must understand that these are the ugly things in life that have to get done. And there is more needed to do.
SADDAM NOT HAVING WEAPONS TO REACH THE US - Great point to the one who posted "Neither did bin Laden" (that motherfucker). Neither did Adolf Hitler have the weapons to invade all of Europe, and win, in 1933 when he was elected Chancellor of Germany. Against the Versailles treaty (like the UN Resolutions) he continued his military build-up. The world at that time (like the UN today) failed to have the nerve to stop him, tired from WWI as they were. The difference today is that Bush has the stones to prevent future Hitlers during his watch.
ANTI-AMERICAN SENTIMENT - This I just don't understand. If the US opened it borders tomorrow, over half of the world, maybe more, would flock to the US. Many people are here today illegally because we have the greatest country in the world. Those that don't want to be here illegally usually go to Europe or Canada. And why? Because in the last century these countries modelled a great part of their cultures like the United States. How many countries since 1776 have elected Presidents and not had power passed down from King to Prince?
Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:21 pm
Originally posted by Sannop
I was in a rush when I wrote that. ICBM stands for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. The statements were being made that the US should not have gone into Iraq because Sadam did not have a method of delivery. ICBMs would be the largest threat. We can intercept most bombers, and we dominate the seas.
The lack of any of the above methods of delivery is not relavent to the discussion of the justification for the war. It was never thought to be remote delivery, it was always assumed that the weapons would be packaged and brought over to the US in shipping containers, luggage, etc etc.
I AM NOT defending the US in Iraq. I do not want to get into that discussion, and frankly I am withholding judgement. I am merely stating that the specifc attacks against Bush made on this forum based on the fact that Saddam was not able to deliver any weapons to the US were illogical.
I will defend Bush in regards to the economy. And Doug is correct, the terroist do not need a remote delivery system.
You're right. Saddam could be able to deliver a weapon. But why didn't he attack? He had 10 years to do it.
No, the real reason Bush attacked was NOT for the WMD, NOT for the suffering people... When US troops invaded Baghdad people started looting governement buildings, hospitals, musea... There was only one place really protected by American troops: The Ministry of Oil. For some reason this seemed more important then guarding a hospital and maybe saving Iraqui lives.
Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:14 am
Originally posted by FLOPPY
When US troops invaded Baghdad people started looting governement buildings, hospitals, musea... There was only one place really protected by American troops: The Ministry of Oil. For some reason this seemed more important then guarding a hospital and maybe saving Iraqui lives.
No Floppy, I do not agree with you on that one!!!
And for Bush: I do believe he did right to make Bin Laden flee, and I think they have enough evidence that will make the attack on Iraq justified. We, those who reply on this post, do NOT have all the inside information that they do have at the White House. But what I do not like about Bush is the way he keeps on going warning different countries that those countries may not allow terrorists to stay yhere. Ofcourse; I think that being terrorist is wrong. Ofcourse I think attacking in such manners as 9/11 is even more wrong. But I think that Bush will finally will make a mistake one day if he goes on with warning and threatening those countries. And by making a mistake I mean that some day he will not have the right information... And finally I also think that some other worldleaders will be getting tired with Bush. And that could mean that worldwide economy could get worse...
Well, I think that I have written enough. I hope I didn't offend anybody; al least that was not my goal!!!
Originally posted by Sannop
I love the Dutch.... Berkamp is my favorite striker of all time. You might have won the world cup in the US if he would have played up front instead of Kluivert. (Man did he miss a lot of shots).
Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:13 am
Originally posted by FLOPPY
When US troops invaded Baghdad people started looting governement buildings, hospitals, musea... There was only one place really protected by American troops: The Ministry of Oil. For some reason this seemed more important then guarding a hospital and maybe saving Iraqui lives.
Wow floppy I didn't know that you were privy to the most sensitive information on the planet. Hell, the CIA needs to start reading gaming forums... that would save a lot of money, time, and lives.
Seriously, you logic is flawed. Bin Laden waited years. The fact of Saddam's waiting does not prove a thing. If hitler had waited a few more months you would probably be waking up each day to the national socialist radio network and saluting the third reich.
And maybe he hasn't been waiting, there have been connections to terroists networks found in Iraq.
The French, Germans, and Russians have their own hidden agendas just like everyone else... yes including the good ol' USA.
But once again... I am so glad that we are not allowing countries full of individuals that dislike the US to dictate our foriegn policy.
Also, I have heard several economists argue that the oil thing doesn't fly. I am very interested in this subject. The arguement was that by freeing up more oil... the power of the oil companies would be limited. I am no expert in economics.. but it at least sounds plausible.
I believe that any strong opinion is based on too sparse of data to draw accurate conclusions. But the discussion is great.
Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:22 am
Originally posted by <ddcc> Dutchy (nl)
...But I think that Bush will finally will make a mistake one day if he goes on with warning and threatening those countries. And by making a mistake I mean that some day he will not have the right information... And finally I also think that some other worldleaders will be getting tired with Bush. And that could mean that worldwide economy could get worse...
In my personal opinion I think that you have hit on something here. But I am not concerned about his rep on the world stage, I am glad that we have a leader with a chip back on his shoulder. (I believe that Jimmy Carter lost it by allowing our embassy to be held hostage for so long.. and the complete vietnam fiasco.)
I am concerned with his obvious lack of concern for his rep at home. His Dad fell for the same trap. He assumed that he would be elected and he was wrong. Politcs in the US, like anywhere else, is a game. And the conservatives do not play it well.
Face... I agree that they have found items that are commonly used for destructive versus productive nuclear power, but I don't think that a centrifuge is one. Do you have the article that you read about the centifuge? I would be very interested to read it. I was a Nulcear power plant operator while in the navy and we had to have extremely purified product also. I know that destruction needs even further condensing, so I am wondering what they found.
Sat Jul 19, 2003 4:19 am
Originally posted by Sannop
Hey, one thing I am glad though is that Bush didn't act like Clinton and let that French wuss dictate our foriegn policy. He told us to stay out of Kosovo, Clinton did, and hundreds of thousands of innocences were slain by a madman. I always wondered when it was that Chirac got control of America.... I am at least glad that Bush told him to go to hell.
You have a point in that. But now I am wondering...Is Bush not doing the same thing as Chirac ( think of Afghanistan and Iraq)? It almost 'seems' America wants to control those countries. Well, maybe it is not true about Afghanistan, but the 'peace' in Iraq is not so really peacefull as we ( or America) hoped it will be. I can imagine why some Iraqie-people are angry about the arrive of the Americans. How would you guys feel if another country takes over Washington? (if you think of Juli 4th 1776 you know how it feels). Because of that there are fights, deaths, and still a Saddam who MAYBE can shoot back. ( with chemical weapons??). If that so, I think I have no problem with the war against Iraq.
Sat Jul 19, 2003 4:21 am
Originally posted by Sannop
I love the Dutch.... Berkamp is my favorite striker of all time. You might have won the world cup in the US if he would have played up front instead of Kluivert. (Man did he miss a lot of shots).
LoL Sannop. How do you know all those names?
Only Berkamp=Bergkamp
Sat Jul 19, 2003 8:14 am
Originally posted by Sannop
Wow floppy I didn't know that you were privy to the most sensitive information on the planet. Hell, the CIA needs to start reading gaming forums... that would save a lot of money, time, and lives.
Seriously, you logic is flawed. Bin Laden waited years. The fact of Saddam's waiting does not prove a thing. If hitler had waited a few more months you would probably be waking up each day to the national socialist radio network and saluting the third reich.
The French, Germans, and Russians have their own hidden agendas just like everyone else... yes including the good ol' USA.
But once again... I am so glad that we are not allowing countries full of individuals that dislike the US to dictate our foriegn policy.
Also, I have heard several economists argue that the oil thing doesn't fly. I am very interested in this subject. The arguement was that by freeing up more oil... the power of the oil companies would be limited. I am no expert in economics.. but it at least sounds plausible.
I believe that any strong opinion is based on too sparse of data to draw accurate conclusions. But the discussion is great.
I saw it in the news... But I'm sure in US news you would only see the American victory flag, the heroic stories and all the Iraqui happy people. Media is a powerfull tool isnt it?