Username:
B
I
U
S
"
url
img
#
code
sup
sub
font
size
color
smiley
embarassed
thumbsup
happy
Huh?
Angry
Roll Eyes
Undecided
Lips Sealed
Kiss
Cry
Grin
Wink
Tongue
Shocked
Cheesy
Smiley
Sad
<- 123 ->
--
--
List results:
Search options:
Use \ before commas in usernames
Edit history:
Martin: 2003-09-14 08:17:43 pm
(Sweden had an aid figure of 1.7 billion in 1997, US had 6.9 bil in the same year.  Percentagewise it may be less, but it is still a huge sum.)

No it's not. It's fucking little. Just think about how "Great" your economy is.

What is it that makes you think blacks are "not in any way" equal to the whites?  Have you lived in the USA?  I have, more than 10 years now.  From what I see around me, Blacks have no less opportunities than Whites -- in fact, they have more opportunities than Whites.  Have you ever heard of Affirmative Action?  Or Minority Job Quotas?

Am I not right to say that black people have much worse economy? I can't find any ethnical reason for this, it has to be political. It's fucking narrow-minded believing something else. (If you're actually meaning that black and whites has the same economic standard, and can prove it, then I'm obviously wrong here.)


>Sure, USA is a free country - for the ones that can afford it. You have no social security whatsoever.

What?  Please explain?  I am in extreme disagreement with this statement simply because me and my dad came to USA 10 years ago with $500 dollars, and I am now making $2000 a week (part time)...

Then you must've been working hard. Undoubtly, USA is a great country for rich people with no desire to help the weaker ones. (pay taxes)
I'm speaking about the ones that cannot work. In the US, they are left on the streets. In Sweden, there's great help for such people. My cousing for example. She's about 30 and has schizophrenia and is therefor not able to work, actually she's never been able to work. She lives in a nice, central flat in a big town. Her economy is doing alright. Amazing, isn't it?

>Twenty days of bombing gives twenty years of terrorism.

I don't understand this line.

I forgot the second B in Bombing...
Let's say you live in Iraq. Both your parents are killed by american bombs. Do you think you will just forgive and forget? No. You will hate the US. This way, more terrorists are born.

> It's sad that Bush doesn't understand that you can't stop terrorism by bombing everything.

Please tell me, how else can you stop terrorism?  I can tell you one very successfull way terrorism was stopped.  In the phillipines, during the WW2 I think, troops were being hassled by terrorists.  So what did they do?  They caught 6 of the terrorists, and made 5 of them eat pig fat and guts.  Then they shot the 5 of them with bullets that were washed in pig fat, and buried them with pig carcasses.  This ensures that they don't go to their heaven.  They sent the 6th one off to his buddies, and guess what, terrorism stopped in Philippines for 10 years.  The only way to effectively combat savage people, is by savage means.

Oh, yeah. That's really effective. Why don't we just kill everyone, and the problem will be solved?

I wonder what would happen if the US, instead of spending so much money on the army, spent it all on actually _helping_ people. Hmm...
tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden
Phil you don't out spam me cuz in this thread there's no spam on htis thread (yet) it's a hard political conversation wherein there's no complete right answer, the mather is to complicated for that. But i find your stance quite ignorant. About iraq, about Bush, about the USA's government intentions, About the position of the unfortunate in the USA. Though i must say it looks like you're willing to argue on the mather

-No America is not the sole world power, just the biggest (military) and the biggest producer of weapons and the biggest warmonger.

-USA's interferring with the world happens to be always with country's/regions with big economical/military/political interest for the USA

-while on the other hand it rapes all (third world) country's wich are unimportant <=> usa don't want to get important
by misusing there weight in various international organisations like WTO and IMF.

-They did this to almost to the whole of South America, a good  recent example are Argentina and Venezuela. Argentina bowed for USA, and the IMF and is bankrupt now. Venezuela didn't, it even repelled the CIA funded rightwing coup (wich was started by a big media offensive (the american way)). Venezuela is better of then ever before (except the rich elite). Why did USA bother so much what hapens in Venezuela? O-I-L  (this was where i learned Colin Powell was on the wrong side to what a huigelaar!)

-O-I-L gets us back to Iraq or better even Saoudie Arabia big allie of USA where human rights get broken on a big scale, but hey they sell us OIL so why bother?
back to Iraq, right after Baghdad was taken they secured the ministry of OIL bigtime, just a couplel of blacks away from the biggest and one of the oldest library's of the world, it  got completely thrashed cuz they forgot about it. But hey who cares you can't make OIL out of books can you?

ILLITERATE????*

*(damn hope i spell that right that would be silly to fuck up)

-Bush didn't even got the mayority at the elections, we all know that. He was choosen by the judges of whom no1 didn't vote for their own camp. He's a democrat i'm a democrat oh i vote for him, he's a republican, i'm a republican oh I vote for him. That's how stupid politics are in the usa. It's not about who has the best ideas it's the one who can buy the most flags with your silly stars and your stupid stripes(or who has the most judges in this case). It already starts with the system, just two party's it's like food with only two flavours. Iow a country where Schwarzenegger could become gouvernour.

-the example with the bully:

It's not right to bully we all know that but trying to solve this by being aggresive, I have never seen it work. Finding out why that person is being such a bully (90% would be out of insecurity) and solving that does.That's what i blame the terrorist of 11-9 (yes in europe we do it the other way around) most, they never (publicly) said why.

Bowling for Columbine: the southpark part was great, says it all for me

Oh great!I just hear on the news that Israel wants to kill Yassar Arafat (did USA whisper this into their ears?)
Edit history:
Orbs: 2003-09-14 08:16:53 pm
tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden
from the TEQ forum
(www.playteq.com)

The good news for the Pentagon yesterday was that its investigators had finally unearthed evidence of weapons of mass destruction, including 100 vials of anthrax and other dangerous bacteria.

The bad news was that the stash was found, not in Iraq, but fewer than 50 miles from Washington, near Fort Detrick in the Maryland countryside.

Smiley
Edit history:
Orbs: 2003-09-14 08:12:17 pm
tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=3888
there's a lot of "nice" articles on that site about iraq, Dick Cheney how great US is towards anything that mathers the environment/ sustainable developments
tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden
btw i read that article from your link..i totally agree with the written email

What is your world? Does it end at your door?
tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden
"During the Clinton Administration, there were 6 major terrorist attacks against the U.S. which left over 415 dead and 6,500 injured."

and 11 sept 01 were 3000 right?

415-3000

Bush loses

(not that i find this a legit way of argueing)
Edit history:
phil: 2003-09-15 12:25:53 am
Huhae
To orbs: Uh...  Again, useless trivia.  Think, orbs THINK: *why* did sept 11th happen?  Because Clinton, "the best thing ever to happen to US politics", did NOTHING (except waste some cruise missiles on tents) to retalitate to six *major* (there were minor ones too) terrorist attacks on US embassies, ships, WTC (1993), etc....  Clinton made the terrorists think that US wont do anything.  Guess what, Bush is not an onanistic wimp like Clinton.  Again, I feel safe with Bush 2.

To tim: You have this weird conception that violence is one sided.  I kill a guy, so I'm bad, right?  You never stop to think that I killed the guy *because* he killed my family, my friends' family, and other families, and was planning to kill more.  But hey, America sucks! right?

To martin: US has no obligation to help others.  Nowhere in the US Constitution is there such a mandate.  The fact that US passed out 7 billion in 1997 (probably double that figure in 2003) is amazing.  What is also amazing, is that noone says "thanks."  Instead, they all say "die evil Empire of America!" ... :/

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/blackpower/f500/0,15298,,00.html ... Check that out  

Quote:
MOST POWERFUL BLACK EXECUTIVES
FORTUNE 500 Executives
Of the 50 [black] business men and women on our main list, 34 are leaders at [not just black] FORTUNE 500 companies.


If I lived in Iraq, and both my parents are killed by american bombs, I would stop and think.  That is, of course, if my parents both werent killed by Saddam earlier, which is usually the case.  I wouldn't hate the US unless I hated it allready -- through Saddam's propaganda.  Do you ever stop to think how many ex-Iraqi people were for the war?  I remember at one instance there was a protest against the war in the UK.  95% of UK Iraqis DID NOT SHOW UP.  One guy wrote a big column how he is happy that his family, still in Iraq, would finally be freed from dictatorship and that he could finally see him.

Have you ever lived under a dictatorship regime?  My parents have.  My father had to change his last name twice, to avoid being killed, because his earlier last names *sounded* jewish (he is not jewish himself).  Jewish people in Stalinist Russia were like black people during KKK.  My Grandfather was executed by Stalin's people because he returned from France to Russia and they thought he was a spy (he was an artist.)  You obviously have no clues whats going on in Iraq.

You wanna talk about Military spending?  http://www.cdi.org/issues/europe/burdensharing.html

To orbs (again) :  America is a world power.  World makes 49 tril in purchase parity.  Of this, USA makes 10.4 tril, next are China with 5.7and Japan with 3.5 and India with 2.7.  The 3 runners up combined are 11.8 trillion.  USA is makes more of the worlds parity than the 3 runners up.  That alone makes it a world power.  Biggest war monger?  You are misinformed.  To inform yourself, check our India, Pakistan, THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST, North Korea...  USA is also the biggest agricultural producer of the entire world, not to mention one of the biggest industrial labor force (percentage per population, China and India have more simply because theyre billion+ countries), is on par with the Saudi Araba for first place in oil production.  Etc etc.  US is #1 in exports, close 2nd is germany, and the rest lag behind like I lag behind Jozsef.  All that combined, the US is, *undesputably* the sole world power.  If you are going to argue this point with any sane historian/politician, he will tell you the same thing.

(By saying US is the sole world power, I'm not trying to be bigoted, I'm just telling you what position the US is in and how other things relate to this extremely criticized position)

"USA's interferring with the world happens to be always with country's/regions with big economical/military/political interest for the USA "

So?  What are you trying to say?

Youre saying Argentina is worse off then Venezuela?  Argentina has 3 times greater purchasing power parity (391 to 133 bil), has 37% poverty line (compared to venezuelas 47%).  It exports only 19% to the US, while Venezuela, who you say "didnt bow" to usa, is exporting 60% (!) of its goods to the US...

Once again, you are greatly misinformed.  Do your homework before you try to join a discussion and not a "spam" ;p

Bush got the majority at the Electoral College, which is how things are done in the US.  This is NOT without precedent!  People are makeing a big deal of this because they are ignorant of history, and of the law.

1888, Benjamin Harrison took the Electoral College majority, despite failing the Population vote.  Also Rutherford B. Hayes, in 1876.  Also Andrew Jackson in 1824 won a very weird election.  Also in 1800, Thomas Jefferson vs Aaron Burr, I think it was even closer than Bush 2 vs Gore.  Theres a lot more there, I just don't have time to look through all of them, go see http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/index2.html for yourself.  But hey, you'd rather base your facts on Bowling for Columbine, right?  "Best documentary" which was not even a true documentary (lots of fiction and midrepresented facts in there, but I still liked it as a movie, to be honest...)

The fact that so many presidential elections were close, shows that there are a lot of good Presidential candidates out there.

Oh, and I can tell you why the terrorists of 11-9 (or whatever is most comfortable for you...) did it: because they had no choice.  They were brought up to hate america by rich, fat, lard assed people like Saddam, and those fuckers in Saudi Arabia, and etc.  The fat dictators don't wanna die themselves, so they detireorate their countries to such a level that peoples lives are miserable, and they WANT to die, for whatever reasons.  Fundamentalist religion reasons are easy to accept at this point.

One of a few exceptions to this is Turkey, which has been under the wing of the US (like Japan was, 50 years ago) leading it to a freer society.  But hey, America is a war monger, right?
Sheesh, don't get influenced by politics this much guys...
Edit history:
Orbs: 2003-09-15 10:02:36 pm
tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden
Nono it's good discussions like this keep your mind fresh. Though you shouldn't be a to depressife person cuz there's a lot of unfair/stupid/wrong things, but only cuz ppl debate and think about shit like this the world is a bit better then yesterday. I don't feel like answering you straight away Phil cuz I see you come with serious arguements wich deserves serious reply and I don't feel like that at all cuz i'm tired, i just want to relax and have a game tonight.
To Phil

I agree with you about US being number one in so many ways. So I thought about listing some more facts (I hope you dont mind). This list is clipped from book of Michael Moore called "Stupid white men".

"USA is number one in:
-millionaires
-billionaires
-firearm deaths
-beef production
-per capita energy use
-carbon dioxide emissions (more than Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, India, Indonesia, Germany, Italy, Mexico and UK combined)
-total per capita municipal waste (720 kg per person per year)
-hazardous waste produced (by factor of more than twenty times the nearest competitor Germany)
-oil consumption (surprise?) Grin
-natural gas consumption
-the least amount of tax revenue generated (as percentage of gross domestic product)
-the least amount of federal and state government expenditure (as percentage of GDP)
-daily per capita consumption of calories
-lowest voter turnout
-the number of international human rights treaties not signed
-among countries in United Nations with legally constituted government to not ratify the UN
Convention on the Rights of Child
-likelyhood of children under age of fifteen to die from gunfire"

etc...

You probably got the picture where I'm getting here. Only 5% of worlds population lives in US. Still this 5% manages to consume 20% percent of worlds resources. And it still seems to be not enough.

Anyway what really happened in Florida at the end of presidential election 2001? I belive some of us would like to know.
Huhae
Uh...  Have you even read what I said Alex.  I'll take your word that US consumes "20%".  But you haven't taken any note of what I said earlier, so let me repeat myself.

US makes 21% of worlds gross domestic product.

Here is a definition of GDP in case you don't know:

gross domestic product
n. Abbr. GDP
The total market value of all the goods and services produced within the borders of a nation during a specified period

Hmm... Does this mean US is totally self sufficient?

While 17% of the worlds imports come into the US, US exports 10% back to the world.  So there is a 7% more imports than exports.  What most people DON'T know is that 20% of US imports and 22% of US exports go to its neighbor Canada.  So, taking the self-contained North American system of USA and Canada, and keeping in mind the closed world system, we have an even smaller import/export overflow.

Besides, 7% more import than export doesnt mean anything.  If the USA did not have this imbalance, it would not make 20% of the worlds resources, would it?  All this make sense when you realise the key point -- America, wether it wants it or not, is the sole world power...

If you have any more trivia you are confused about, feel free to paste it...
tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden
thx Alex, Phil try again cuz that last reply just didn't do
Edit history:
alex: 2003-09-17 04:13:57 pm
> US makes 21% of worlds gross domestic product.

So you think that is good reason to consume and pollute at the same rate?  Bush had pulled out 1997 The Kyoto Protocol agreement on global warming, which has been signed by 178 other countries. Why? Is it because "America, wether it wants it or not, is the sole world power", so it can do what it wants? I think the most obvious reason is that Bush's precidential compaign was funded by oil companies. Keeping The Kyoto Protocol signed would have meant that USA would consume less oil, which would have resulted in financial loss for oil companies. Or maybe I'm just confused with trivia again.

You also seem to have some kind of admiration for Bush II rather that for Clinton. I dont say that Clinton was any good, but at least he had brains (though he failed to use them when offered a blowjob at work :)) Bush II is just a doll who does what he is told to do. I'll list some more trivia from the same source that I had last time.

5 months after Bush took a seat at White house he had:
-Cut $39 million from federal spending on libraries
-Cut $35 million in fundin for advanced pediatric training for doctors
-Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%
-Delayed rules that would reduce "acceptable" levels of arsenic in drinking water
-Cut funding research for research into cleaner, more efficiend cars and trucks by 28%
-Revoked rules strenghtening the power of government to deny contracts to companies that violate federal laws, environmental laws and workplace safety standarts
-Allowed Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton to request suggestions for opening up national monuments for foresting coal mining, and oil and gas drilling
-Broken his campaign promise to invest $100 million per year in rain forest conservation
-Reduced by 86% the Community Access Program, which coordinated care for people without health insurance among public hopitals, clinics and other health care providers
-Nullified a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential ramifications of chemical plant accidents
-Rejected an international accord to enforce the 1972 treaty banning germ warfare
-Cut $200 million from workforce training programs for dislocated workers
-Cut $200 million from the Childcare and Development grant, a program that provides child care to low-income families as they are forced from welfare to work
-Eliminated prescription contraceptive coverage to federal employees
-Cut $700 million in funds for public housing repairs
-Cut half a billion(!) dollars from the Environmental Protection Agency budget
-Overturned workplace ergonomic rules designed to protect workers' health and safety
-Abandoned his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, a major contributor to global warming
-Approved Interior Secretary Gale Norton's controversial plan to auction off areas close to Florida's eastern shore for oil and gas development
-Announced his plans to allow oil drilling in Montana's Lewis and Clarck National Forest
-Treatened to shut down White House AIDS office
-Denied college financial aid o students convicted of misdemeanor drug charges ( though convicted murderers are still eligible for financial aid)
-Pushed through a tax cut, 43 percent of which goes to the wealthies 1 percent of Americans
-Pushed for a bill making it harder for poor and middle-class Americans to file for bankruptcy, even when facing overwhelming medical bills
-Cut 15,7$ million from programs dealing with child abuse and neglect
-Proposed elimination of the "Reading Is Fundamental" program, which gives free books to poor children
-Pushed for development of "mini-nukes", designed to attack deeply buried targets - a violation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
-Tried to reverse regulation protecting sixty million acres of national forest from logging and road building
-Cancelled the 2004 deadline for auto makers to develop prototype high-mileage cars
-Appointed oil and coal lobbyist J. Steven Giles as Deputy Secretary of the Interior
-Sought the dismissal of a class-action lawsuit filed in the US against Japan by Asian women forced to work as sex slaves in World War II
-Proposed to ease the permit procces for constructing refineries and nuclear and hydroelectric dams, inluding lowering environmental standards
-Proposed the selling of oil and gas tracts in the Alaska Wildlife Preserve

As you can see, he has been quite busy to make USA better place for its citizens. It seems to be very important to him that Americans can keep on driving their big cars and consume oil. And who really cares about environment? He wont be seeng environmental situation in say 50 years, why should he care? And why should poor children get books for free? They can watch TV which is much more entertaining. If they can afford it that is..

USA is indeed the country of opportunities. But if you are stupid and come from a poor family, USA has really nothing to offer. Why should rich people of America pay more taxes to make it better for poor people to live? They are able to consume it themselves even though it is sometimes hard to find a void where to stick the money.

Infrastructure of USA is as rotten as USSR's in good ol' days. It's just that politicians are smart enough to hide it. And when they say on TV that financial situation in USA is getting worse and try to encourage people to work harder, americans do it no questions asked. And when they tell you that we are going to war on Iraq, because we want to disarm them from bio-weapons not because of oil, it really seems to make sence. "We have enough oil anyways. See how big our cars are?" I'm just very exited to know when will they find the weapons of mass destrution they came there for.

I'm looking forward for your reply to prove my trivia wrong with you right opinion (tm of US corporation). Oh and you failed to answer my question about elections in Florida, I hope you make it up in your reply.
Edit history:
Orbs: 2003-09-17 03:25:19 pm
tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden
:clap:

/me votes Alex for president
thanks  Smiley
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Ohhhhh! I get it! Bush went into Iraq to "rescue" it's people and protect the world from massive annihilation... How mighty decent of him.

A capitalist like me might have thought he did it to "rescue" the worlds greatest oil reserve. Into his own pocket.
Huhae
to Ripah: People like to individualise politics.  This is simply an incorrect thing to do if you want to understand whats going on.  What you say is a prime example.

"Bush went into Iraq to "rescue" it's people and protect the world from massive annihilation... How mighty decent of him. "

"A capitalist like me might have thought he did it to "rescue" the worlds greatest oil reserve. Into his own pocket. "

First of all, the people most directly responsible for the United States' current foreign policy are Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powel (right behind them are the many advisors and of course the House of Senate and the Congress.)  President Bush is a figure head, almost as symbolic as Queen Elizabeth.  Yes, he is Commander in Chief, but he does not control the United States.  He is about 51% of the Executive Branch, which is 33% of the US government.  That said, Bush can be said to be responsible for 17% of US "politics."

What is so wrong for the US to remove an oppressor from control of a large Oil resource?  Better it be in the hands of a world power which can distribute it with the global picture in mind, rather than it be in the hands of a dictator which can use it to further his opressive goals.

BTW, in 2001 US made 8.054 million bbl/day -- Iraq, in 2001, made 2.452 million bbl/day .....  You have been fed this bullshit that the war is 100% about oil for so long that you believe it.  Thats how politics work, its 99% bullshit propaganda that you get fed so that you support a specific side (in this case, the fundamentalistically liberal side.)  Don't eat their bullshit -- don't eat MY bullshit.  Find it out for yourself!
Just a small note.

"What is so wrong for the US to remove an oppressor from control of a large Oil resource?"

Phil, didn´t you learn anything as a kid?
One of the basic rules in life are "This is mine, this is yours."

You can´t just take things from people, just because you define yourself as a better owner of it, you know.
Huhae
I don't see any sense in your arguments Alex.  You say in the same line: "Bush had pulled out 1997 The Kyoto Protocol agreement on global warming, which has been signed by 178 other countries. Why? Is it because "America, wether it wants it or not, is the sole world power", so it can do what it wants?"

Do you not realise that America, as the sole world power -- the biggest (on an average, by 50x times) producer of goods -- will also be the biggest polluter?  In order to make goods, you have to have electricity, converting factories, etc.  This all makes pollution.  So, you say it pulled out the protocol on global warming (which, by the way, is a FARCE made up by scientists just so they can have more grants) because "it can do what it wants?"

Uh..  First of all let me take you up on that -- "Yes."  United States is a sovereign country, the most successfull in the history of the human civilization, so YES it can do what it wants.

But the real reason why it pulled out is simply because it CANNOT fulfill the requirements of the Kyoto protocol -- as a direct *consequence* of it making, on the average, fifty times as many goods as any other country!

I can't believe I have to process this information for you, I think you are a smart enough person to make these common sense conclusions yourself.  In the end, yes, you *are* confused with trivia.  Definitely not something I would want a President to be confused with (orbs...)

Please give me an example how Clinton has brains when Bush 2 doesn't?

Here are some examples where Clinton did NOT have brains:

Under Clinton, Military secrets ended up in China.

Under Clinton, that same China laundered money for Clintons reelection campaign (hmmm...)

Under Clinton, "dispatched to hold illegal fundraisers at Buddhist temples, where he collected money from dozens of nuns who--despite having taken vows of poverty--each managed to produce a $5,000 check for Clinton's re-election. His top fundraiser, Terry McAuliffe, the current head of the aforementioned DNC, made $18,000,000 from a $100,000 investment in Global Crossing, now bankrupt and under investigation for shady government contracts during the Clinton Administration. "

Under Clinton, on 19 of 20 occasions where ENRON asked the Clinton Administration to underwrite foreign loans, the administration said yes, to the sum total of $2 billion dollars.

Under Clinton we had way too many Presidential pardons to drug-runners and tax cheaters.

Under Clinton we had Whitewater, the Travel Office firings, the perjury scandal, etc etc etc.

And again, "During the Clinton Administration, there were 6 major terrorist attacks against the U.S. which left over 415 dead and 6,500 injured"

And you, Alex, Are telling me that Clinton had more Brains???  Maybe thats not such a good thing, if all those brains did were increase the size of his bank account and his home furnuture.  (I bet you don't remember when he sold White House furniture for himself when his 2nd term was done...)"

Clinton was a Democrat piece of shit that got lucky because the Economic Cycle -- which has NOTHING to do with the Presidential Cabinet -- was on the up-swing.

If you mention Clinton as being better than Bush in the future, I'm simply going to laugh.  At you.

Alex do you live in the USA?  Have you ever been to the USA?  I have for 10 years.  I came here with nothing except my dad, and he came here with nothing except me.  Right now I am in my 3rd year at the City University, I am allready doing part-time work worth of $2,000 dollars per WEEK.

All your trivia falls short because it means: nothing.  I've been from one ghetto to the other, I have lived in the biggest metropolises (New York City) to the smallest towns (Palisades Park, NJ -- 15,000 people), and I can tell you that America is truly the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

All YOU can do, on the other hand, is give me some random trivia from the book of some fundamentally liberal person.  Go on with it. Smiley

"Infrastructure of USA is as rotten as USSR's in good ol' days"  This statement is really funny.  I have lived in both USA for 10 years, and in USSR for 10 years (I am right now 2 months short of my 20th birthday).  My parents have lived in USSR all their lives.  You are Russian, no?  I am sure you have lived na rodnoi zemle.  All I can tell you without offending you is that that statement is really, really funny.  And untrue.  "LOL"....

Weapons of Mass Destruction.  I'll say this only once more, so pay attention:

Quote:
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm) gave Iraq a final opportunity to prove its claim that it has disarmed. The resolution states that if Iraq fails to cooperate or provide a full accounting of its weapons programs, the country will face "serious consequences". Yet, Iraq did not cooperate. Chemical weapons discovered by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s are now missing and unaccounted for ( http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002975 ). Chemical weapons warheads have been found that were not declared in Iraq's supposedly complete disclosure ( http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/17/sprj.irq.bush.reax/index.html ).


Concerning elections of Florida.  What question do you have?  Bush won Florida because he had more votes than Gore.  They counted them by hand.  This has happened about 5 or 6 times before in US history (i've outlined them in an earlier post of mine).  Any more questions?  I am happy to answer them, even though im "tm of US Corporation" (whatever the fuck thats supposed to mean...  "LOL")
Huhae
Yes I did learn that Carl.  Let me congratulate you on joining the "comment-before-you-read" club that everyone else debating me seems to have joined.  I can see why people don't read what I write -- I write a lot, but if you do it can answer your comment beforehands saving time.

Since you like wasting time though, and I have nothing better to do, I will gladly repeat myself for you.

"Phil, didn´t you learn anything as a kid?
One of the basic rules in life are "This is mine, this is yours." "

You are taking this individualistic notion and applying it metaphorically to a the global stage with a sole world power as its subject.

While on the individualistic level, if something belongs to you it obviously makes no sense for me to take it away from you.

However, on the global level, something like an oil natural resource does NOT belong to any other country!  You can't take it away from Saddam -- because it belongs to the world.  It was Saddam (and his like-minded buddies in Saudi Arabia, et al.) who was thorttling Oil output in order to raise prices -- agreeing to lower them only if the 1st-world countries did favors for him.  Obviously, favors done for Saddam will not be anything good, because they are favors done for an oppressive dictatorship regime (now gone, thankfully).

Again, removing this yoke over the civilized world from Saddam, is not wrong.  All the UN could do was put an embargo on it, which did no good -- it nullified Iraq EXTERNALLY as an industrially opportunistic country with a national oil treasure (under a more sensible government than Saddam that is), and it nullified Iraq INTERNALLY -- because otherwise Saddam would have used the profits from Oil for his agenda -- which was an expansive Chemical Biological and Nuclear weapon program which was obnoxiously waved under the noses of UN "inspectors".  Inspectors which, btw, were forced to wait outside huge hangars and watch as closed-container trucks moved in and out of them, obviously carrying the incriminating evidence out, before being allowed in to "inspect"....

That digression aside, I hope I have clarified things for you.
Edit history:
Orbs: 2003-09-18 11:00:10 am
tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden
STFUup out not reading what you write it's quite obvious that we've read (all your stupid pro-econimical-extortion-right-wing-oily-stars&stripes-Uncle_Sam-liberty_for_all_justice_for_some-propaganda)

Why do you think that all happened? Maybe cuz the US tried to use him as a marionet against Iran? (It was Rumsfeld even who shook hands with Saddam back in the early 80's). And when they finally clean their own mess (in a wrong fashion) they completely fuck up. Result: US lost trust from their allies and rest of the world, Israeli-Palestinian confict only got worse, fundamentalism got bigger and will be even more specific anti-US (that's actualy a good thing for the Europeans:)).
tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden
WTF a natural reserve doesn't belong to a country? Ofcourse it does. If it wouldn't we would life in a anarchistic world
tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden
High oil prices are good cuz it will raise the presure on developing alternative energy sources. Developments wich the oilfarmers try to slow down.

In Holland they just started experimenting with busses on hydrooxyygen, can't wait until one explodes Smiley
tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden
Btw you mentioned freer Turkey...Ever heared how the Turks treat the Kurds?
>Please give me an example how Clinton has brains when Bush 2 doesn't?

"During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

That ought to be something...