Just remember that the Europeans settled in America, if we didn't do that you people wouldn't have invested the wheel just yet.

Holland ruled during the 16th,17th, and 18th century, we actually settled New York, but first it was called New-Amersterdam

but then we fucked up a bit cause of those Spanish, Brittish and Portuguese

Joe Six-pack's statement above was referring to Americans. Keep smoking your reefer in Amsterdam buddy. It has affected your judgment. lol And you wonder why we think Europeans are pompous?

By far the most ignorant statement on this board to date.

What a dumb ass.

someone say "usa"? :Graucho

http://www.kicken.com/images/kicken.....bin.laden.gif


:321GFY islam :321GFY

keep going back to an irrelevant question. I guess thats called debating in georgia. ]:1orglaugh


how many were "slaughtered" last time dopey?
keep shouting "slaughter" and thousands of inoccents will die" you'll be popular in france.

can we get another "slaughter thousands" out of you? come on, its so scary!

Yeah, some assclown from georgia knows so much more than our current government. You're the smart one, the government doesn't know anything.:1orglaugh

The real question? you think this war revolves around your non-sensical question about a bird? thank god you have nothing to do with anything important.


ahhhhh. I see. I suggest you ask the rest of the world about the evidence. france and germany are afraid to go to war but the only people who don't believe colin powell's evidence are you and the iraqi mouthpieces. (good company you keep)

back to the non-sensical question. you really know how to drive a point home. hahahaha


wow! that gives you so much more relevance! I had no idea.
Well, I've seen where they signed the declaration of independence, I've seen where washington crossed the delaware, I've seen where he captured trenton. I've been to gettysburg (where soooo many shrieked and moaned)

what's your point? that your tourist ass is right about anything?
I couldn't really sift through the horseshit and find where you were right.

really? could you please point out where he says "chickenhawk" cause I can't find it. I'm thinking that this is just some term you and your buddies throw around at the trailer park.
oh, you said "slaughter" again too! now you've got us all really, really, scared.
Oh no! not your big relevant question again! drive home the pointless big guy!
Gee, that's not what the dictionary says. I guess this *is* just trailer park slang.

I guess what your trying to say in your twisted back woods way, is that if you didn't serve in the military, you really can't direct our nation (as the president has) or have an opinion on war (as I have)
That's kinda like what they do in iraq and korea. But please, keep talking. you're brilliant.:thumbsup

Translation: 12clicks put me in my place. I have no way to dispute what he said so I'll pretend he'ws "not worth my energy" yeah, that's it.

Translation: dopey chick that I am, I HAD to say something.









-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
have fun guys. I'll be back later to look in on your rants.:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Last time I checked I was still a bloke...

Chap - give it up and stick to porn-slinging :glugglug

they are not pansies

they are smart, and they just trying to live and enjoy their life

they had enough wars in their history

Didnt say you couldnt have an opinion or that you had to serve, but when you start calling other people pansies its interesting to know if you were so gung ho about fighting YOURSELF. As shermans quote illustrates, often the people who clamor for war the most are those who have never experienced it themselves. What i see now is the usa being "led" by a bunch of war hungry people who avoided it like the cowards they are when they had their chance. Most if not all of the chickenhawks in the bush administration were all in favor of vietnam and other wars, as long as someone else did the dying. As for bush directing our nation, you dont find it illuminating that a guy who wants war so much is himself a draft dodger and DESERTER?

Well, the defense intelligence agency estimates 100,000 and the un has estimated about 150,000, and thats without an occupation. But since the military doesnt want anyone to know such things, especially civilian deaths, the true number will never be known. Go here to see how defense secretary dick cheney had someone fired in 1992 for talking about such things.

No sane person could buy what you are saying here because there is doubt all over the world about their "evidence". I can see why others say its useless responding to you.

From your (lack of) response to my question its obvious that you are indeed a chickenhawk. But then, we knew it all along.

Actually it was Spain that intercepted the boat load of Scuds that were headed to Yemin.

The arguement that the US is "affraid" to fight N. Korea is niether true or an intellegent argument. If the US went in and bombed the N. Korean reactors they could wipe out Soeul, and hit the Japanese main land. How would that make everyone feel? The backlash toward America would be even worse then it is now.

Leave Saddam alone and in a year or two he will be in the same boat as Kim Jong Ill with nukes and dictating to the world.

France has more deals with Iraq then any country in the world. It's about oil alright. Why do you think France doesn't want any action? OIL

You either beleive the US, or you beleive Saddam. It's your choice.

Not true. I believe neither.

I wish people would stop criticizing every move the US makes and come up with a better solution rather than just shooting off their arrogant mouths when they probably know less than 10% of the real facts of what's going on in Iraq.

Let's here it. Solution time folks.


1) Leaving Saddam alone is not an option.

2) Diplomatic avenues are all but exhausted.


Knowing that..... go ahead, spill your big ideas. WHAT'S THE SOLUTION?



If you can't come up with a better workable solution, why not shaddap? Thanks.

Maybe you people think the US should send Saddam over a few of it's hottest women to suck his dick? Yeah, that might get him to be reasonable.



Seriously.

Everyone that has been criticizing and shouting down the US and Bush's decisions etc..... should really be doing all that to Iraq, the Iraqi gov't and Saddam himself. Why? Simple, because this crisis can be averted by a few actions on THEIR part. They are the ones in the wrong here, they are the ones who pose a threat to world peace, and it is they who support and foster terrorism in the world. Don't beleive it? Saddam has publicly announced large monetary rewards for anyone who commits certain acts of terrorism against certain targets, it's a matter of public record.

When will you peacenicks wake up? This saddam bullshit isn't gonna just go away, until someone does something about it. The US is doing that, and I for one applaud and support them. Once Hussein is gone we can all say good riddance, unless of course you're brain-dead and miss him.

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

I'm in favor of removing Saddam from power. I don't believe a word he says, believe he is a grave danger to the peace and security to the region, and think that it must be done by force because we have already exhausted every possible diplomatic solution. I feel very, very sorry for people still wrapped up in the "peace at any price, everything the U.S. does is bad, stop the imperialst war machine" rhetoric of the Vietnam-era peace movement. They have just about as little touch with reality as the sort of moron who would pose a question like "Euro-Pansies. spineless or just gutless?" There are idealogues on both sides of this question - they make funny comments but should be ignored where possible.

Like I said, I support the idea of removing Saddam from power, and agree that it will have to be by force. While I support the idea of disarming Saddam by force, I disagree most strongly with the idea of unilateral action by my country whenever and where ever it feels it should. I DO NOT operate from the assumption that the U.S. has the right to decide which governments can stand and fall on its own, just because we have the might. That flies in the face of America's historical positions on this sort of activity (yes, I know. we've been very hypocritical about it particularly in the Western Hemisphere).

That the Bush administration finds itself trying to convince American public opinion that France and Germany are "irrelevant" (if Mexico and Canada agree with something when the U.S. does not agree, does it make the U.S. irrelevant in North America?) shows just what morons they are - because skillful use of diplomacy probably would have brought them on board, whereas this "you are for us or against us" is probably causing nations to dig in their heels.

Defending GW is a really sucky place for me to find myself, but that is a stupid post. I feel no different about this post than I do about the years of Clinton-bashing over his opposition to the Vietnam debacle.

I don't know how old you are, Little Chimp, but the world was very, very different back then. The sons of privledge went into the Guard (first choice) or Reserves (second choice). Many of the rest went to school (you'd be suprised how many men in their 50s have two degrees, 500 college credits, useless graduate degrees, ect.). The standing military was far larger then than it is now, and there were political considerations that prevented large-scale callups of the Reserves, let alone the Guard. There were some Reserve and Guard callups during 'Nam, but not that many - so they were safe havens. And all but a few did their damnest not to get sent there - not out of cowardice, not out of fear, and certainly not out of lack of patriotism. The damn war just didn't make any sense.

I do think it would be kind of funny to see how many "hawks" there would be on this board if it was routine to see your 18- and 19- year old neighbors, cousins, brothers, etc. called away for two years these days; it would be even funnier if it was the pre-lottery system, where college graduates got called up after their student deferments ran out. Might just be hearing a very different tune from a lot of people.

Quote:
Let's here it. Solution time folks.

1) Leaving Saddam alone is not an option.

2) Diplomatic avenues are all but exhausted.

Knowing that..... go ahead, spill your big ideas. WHAT'S THE SOLUTION?
--------

Part of the problem is most of the world do not agree with number 2. Since its 10 odd years since the Gulf War I and Saddam has actually done nothing of note in that time, I don't think it's an unreasonable viewpoint. Particularly as the US/UK has come up with Jack-Shit intelligence wise to backup their claims.

I do not have the technical knowledge, but I can't believe that despite Saddams dodging around, the US does not have the technology to track him down and assassinate the bastard. Otherwise WTF is the trillion dollar spy satellites etc. etc. for ?

Due to Saddams dodging around, you might have to blow up 4 cars as they leave a palace to get the one he's in. Better than killing 1/2 mil innocents or whatever the latest death toll forecast is.

No, its bush who needs a bj.


Its not just they, its us too. You and many others conveniently forget that we created people like saddam and osama. The same people from the reagan/bush days are in charge now. What makes you think that whoever they install this time will end up being any better?

So you think its really that simple? We create the problem, then invade and occupy an islamic country, install a puppet govt, and everybody lives happily forever after? You honestly think this will make things better and not worse regarding terrorism? If you do, i got a bridge to sell you...........

Why not? Has he not been contained for the past dozen years? Do you think he is going to do something knowing that it will be his end? Why was mutually assured destruction good for russia, china etc but no good for saddam?

How is this? Blix and his inspectors say they need many months. Can you not see that bush has long ago decided he wants to invade and is grasping for any reason to sell it to people? Why is he in such a hurry? Oil? Waging the dog to draw attention away from domestic problems? Billions for his daddys friends in the military industrial complex? I dunno the real agenda, but it seems obvious its not for the reasons he says.

for all those who think N.Korea should be attacked,
Korea doesn't have enough Oil !! so stop asking
:Graucho

Its funny how you talk like europe is one single nation. If you do a little research you'll find that there are european countries who are actually pro war.

I like US even that I'm European. I like every person who treats me nice.

I don't understand the bashing on US and EU. You should be attacking goverments and not the people. If your sorry excuse of a brain took time to check polls you would probaly change your mind about us.

US surfers and fine horny english guys pays me $35000 every month for doing nearly nothing, plus I do some designs and run some fine webmaster sites. For what I care you can call me a pussy, a dork or whatever you like. Just keep sending my money from US, Germany and England.

I have lots of american friends and we always have fun. I bought 50% of a new project based in US today. I don't judge that person because he's american. I judge his actions against me and so far he has been fair and nice to work with. If I can make him the same amount as I make every month I'll be more than happy. Same goes for everyone else. If they treat me nice and don't cheat I don't give a fuck about where they are from.

Best regards,
Mike

Note:

Digi is right. I'm danish and Denmark signed the political agreement about standing side by side with US. So 12clicks... do your homework or fuck off if you can't get things straight. Apparently you get your knowledge from TV and that REALLY don't help you much.

People like you who keep chirping out this point sadly miss the fact that that was then, this is now. So what if 10 or 15 years ago circumstances in the world indicated that it was in the west's best interest to "back" certain groups? Who gives a fuck. Times change.


That point is useless and time-wasting. It's done. Over. Try to move on.

But heres the difference pd. Clinton dodged the draft, but he opposed the vietnam war. Dubya and his entire family, as well as most other conservatives supported and believed in the vietnam war. Hence the term "chickenhawks", they are gung ho for war but only if its not their own asses at risk.
You think its stupid to point out how so many people push war but arent willing to fight themselves? And why is it stupid to point out that the tough talking gung ho for war bush dodged the draft for a war he supported and may very well be a deserter? Why is it stupid to ask those kind of questions?

@headless

headless wrote: Germany and France are pussys


Hey man, think 2 times, before you write down such a bullshit. You think really its cool, to butch thousands of people, just to kill ONE MAN???? am i a pussy because i think this is wrong?
You talk here with a big mouth...are you there to fight??? I dont think so....
did you ever see children, mothers in front of their childs etc dying, because of ONE MAN????

There should be a specialforce or something else to fuck up this sadam asshole..... I am german and i think, this freak is a dangerous piece of shit for the whole world.....but there must be another way, to bring him down....

So dont talk a shit, that the germans and the french fries are pussys.

Bush? I agree in some cases with bush, but he shouldnt open his mouth too much, because with such people, the united states get more and more enemys....and if you think, that you are sooo very safe there because of military and technologie etc..., i can tell you : YOU ARE 100% NOT !!!! The 11.th september a fucking day, for the whole world was showing the best example.

:eek7

I said nothing to indicate any of what you're saying here. All I said was "once Saddam is gone we can all say good riddance", nothing more.

Of course it will be uphill from there, but I'm telling you, doing nothing is not an option either. The rat infestation in Iraq needs to be cleaned out, period. You obviously don't like it, but that's really your tough shit now isn't it?

And only an idiot would think that the big bad terrorists will leave us alone if the US were to back off and "mind their own business" as it were. Right. If you believe that, then I am the one that has some nice land to sell you. Lovely view of the Everglades I'm told, you'll love it.

Sorry, but I don't happen to know much about the Bush family support for the war in Vietnam. Yes, most conservatives supported it - but George H. Bush hadn't started sucking up to the conservatives yet and was widely regarded as a moderate back then. There are plenty of reasons to disagree with Bush. This happens to be a very dead-end road that may have a certain emotional appeal to the choir in the left-hand pews - but does very little good pursuing, that's all I'm saying.

You are correct in assuming that who helped Saddam get to where he is today is not relevant to the discussion of what to do about him. Me personally, I believe the U.S. has the responsiblity to take him out because we helped to build him up. People like you either can't understand the fact - or wish to obscure the fact - that Saddam is a case of the chickens coming home to roost.

I agree - it's time to move on. So when we capture Baghdad and get our hands on the documents, let's make public ALL the sources that Saddam got his WMD support from. That way we can prevent it from every happening again.

You want to know why that won't happen? Because in the insane twisted fucked up world of Reagan/Bush I, their determination of what "was in the west's best interest to "back" certain groups" took on a quality that defied common sense (not to mention any number of U.S. laws). In all likelyhood the U.S. overtly or covertly, through direct assistance or "benign" (malignent) negelect, may have aided Saddam in obtaining information and materials that helped him begin his chemical and biological weapons programs. If true, it would have been done in direct violation of U.S. law, not to mention in violation of any number of treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory power - including, perhaps, one we are thumping on the N. Koreans for violating right now.

So - when it comes to an arguement about what to do about Saddam, you are completely correct - it's irrelevant. When it comes to the future, however, it is of enormous importance, and only the truly short-sited can conclude otherwise.

Well well. What an intellectual thread we have here :-)

I have to say that a thread which starts out with bashing Europeans - calling them Euro-trash and spineless don't really inspire a serious discussion.

For me though, the truth is that most people don't filter. It's pretty easy starting name-calling, when you should at least base it on something relevant and constructive.

The US haven't actually produced hard evidence that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. And don't you find it just a little weird that the whole Osama Bin Laden issue sort of vanished with all the war talk?

The US-Government is doing their very best to rally all Americans into believing that the Europeans are gutless and not taking responsibility. That's a very old an well-known strategy for avoiding internal fuges in a time of a huge ressession - do you really by into it still?

In terms of "being rescued by the US" - how many crisis world wide haven't been started by the US as a super-power country?

It IS infact a huge country with a financial influence world wide - unfortunately it seems to be lobbied and ruled by 5% of the population.

I think the remaining 95% need to get a grip - watch some serious news, get real inside info, and filter the information properly.

Try to look at the big picture - and bring some valid arguments to the table.

It seems - since we're all 18+ - that namecalling is a little banale and not very constructive.

Ehm, actually that's not true. Giovanni da Verrazano was the first one to see "new york" about 500 years ago. At that time the Algonquins where the natives in NY. The Dutch fur hunters where here in 1621 made a trading station in 1624 but didn't buy it til 1626 (Peter Minuit) However, they already lost it to the English
without battle in 1664. That's hardly 3 centuries....

It was called "Nieuw Amsterdam" though...

haha, what world do you live in?
Fact: Iraq *had* weapons of mass destruction.
Fact: All those weapons have now gone missing with no explaination.
Fact: Iraq attacked kuwait without provocation
Fact: Saddam tried to assasinate President bush Sr.

Listen, I know why you're in love with Saddam and hate the US but why don't you tell the rest of us?


I'm watching the at. General right now talk about the Osama issue (but I guess that doesn't help your wacky position does it?)

No, the french and germans are doing their very best to rally all Americans into believing that the Europeans are gutless and not taking responsibility. funny how you call the truth "strategy"

Lets see, there was the crisis of ending the soviet strangle hold on the eastern block. There was the freeing of afghanistan from the taliban (or were you ok with their treatment of women?)
oh, or are we talking about a crisis that europe had to come save us over?
That number would be zero.

yeah, this is the goofy stance that you people who hate america always spew. Gee, if 95% of the people don't believe what the "MiaSimonsens" of the world believe, they must be unaware.

you mean the big picture where the US spends more money on the rest of the worlds well being than any other 10 countries combined? that picture?

you confuse name calling with identifying a spade as a spade.:1orglaugh

Well, I guess first and foremost - I don't hate America - the US at all. On the contrary. I like the country, I like the people, I do believe that there are strong ties between the US and Europe in terms of immigrants, etc.

I do not "love" Saddam Hussein, and if you read that from my thread then I guess I am more aware of the level of your filtering.

I have absolutely no respect for tyranni in any shape or form.

I am not pro dictatorships and I don't believe in robbing anyone of the freedom to choose.

However, since we are infact talking about invading a different country - I think it is important that evidence is clear.

Forget about the shit about oil. The US has enough oil to support themselves in Alaska. Europe has oil in the North sea and don't will be able to support a lot.

However, I do think you are being very naive and black & white in your views - and adding name-calling/the truth (according to you) - to including me isn't really helping out much.

Do what you need to do.

"2. Since its 10 odd years since the Gulf War I and Saddam has actually done nothing of note in that time, I don't think it's an unreasonable viewpoint. "


Yes -- he has done nothing but ignore the cease-fire he agreed to....

You either beleive Powells address to the UN, or you beleive that he lied. There is no grey area.

As for the Germans I think that Schroder put them in a hole with his anti-American campaign.

As for France. It's ALL ABOUT OIL. They have the most to gain/lose in this.

For God's sake, all we've heard about in the last week is how the Germans, along with their stinking French pals, don't want to get into an armed conflict with Iraq. Everyone know the real reason why: both countries have large investments in that hell-hole, and they don't want to lose their jack. But, that's the interesting contradiction here: the Germans, a nation run by a bunch of socialist environmentalist flower children, have investment capital tied up in a very dangerous area. Now, they're protesting possible war, not because they give a crap about the Iraqui people or peace or stability or the frickin' environment. They're worried about losing their money. Remember, always follow the money.

Fort Baghdad

Put things in perspective within a 100 year timeline and you will see the importance of a US military base in the middle east, what better location than Iraq - next to Iran, Kuwait, Saudi 'friends', Jordanian and turkish allies, plenty food, plenty oil, you will notice how oil becomes secondary motive.

If things go Bush's way you will see Iraq become headquarters for Us military operations in the region for the next century or until the threat (which is 'fueled' by oil - no pun intended and let's not kid ourselves) is eliminated or the oil whichever comes first they are interconnected.

Additionally the region of Iraq has always been aggressively militant and is, was and will always be a liability from that perspective. Add to this impending Iraqi domination in the world crude oil production by 2030 and you can bet a few senators and their investor relations are squirming a little bit. As they should, there is no current energy replacement for oil, most of the war machine of all nations, and this includes industry required for production, most of this is dependent on oil and swithcing to an alternative that doesn't yet exist is talking about decades maybe generation or two.

But tossing uneducated personal insults I'm not sure if that helps too much and is very irrelevant.