About the "American Flag" debacle and 9/11

Edit history:

phil: 2003-09-13 04:06:18 am

2003-09-13 04:05:16 am

Huhae

I just want to say that some of you guys have no fucking respect for other human beings.

You should be ashamed of yourself for criticizing Stubb's affection, summarized with the American flag, that he displayed earlier on (last year?)...

Obviously, I'm like one of maybe two or three Americans on this site, but fuck, Nolan is from USA, no? And in any case, since when have all of you kids become accomplished politicians when all you do is sit on your ass and play SINGLE PLAYER quake.

It annoys me substantially when I see a dickhead like Rolle go "America sucks" and not being able to continue the phrase with "because...."

Blar. America > you.

Thread title:

Morfans

2003-09-13 08:41:19 am

Hell is where the heart is.

As you say, this all happenned over a year ago. And as Thomas said, it was all pretty immature stuff.

People are a year older and hopefully a year wiser by now.

Why rake it all up again?

(BTW. I thought the use of a Danish flag was very funny)

Martin

2003-09-13 01:23:28 pm

>I just want to say that some of you guys have no fucking respect for other human beings.

The US has no respect for other human beings.

>Obviously, I'm like one of maybe two or three Americans on this site, but fuck, Nolan is from USA, no? And in any case, since when >have all of you kids become accomplished politicians when all you do is sit on your ass and play SINGLE PLAYER quake.

So I guess YOU are the accomplished politician then?
Please then. Tell me what's so great about the US.
I'll tell you what sucks about it.

33 million americans live in poverty.
41 million americans have no health incurance.
There are over 11000 firearms homocides in america every year (compare with 250 in France).

CIA kills democratic president Allende in Chile, because he's a socialist. They put Pinochet to power instead. 3000 civilians dissapear in the process. That was 30 years ago on September 11th. I wonder if Fox News even mentioned it.

Vietnam war, and the use of Agent Orange. 1-2 million civilians killed.

War in Afghanistan kills as many civilians as WTC (probably even more by now, as they are still boming).

Saddam attacks Iran, with american weapons. (we wouldn't want to have those religious fanatics would we? god bless america.)
US attacks Kuwait killing hundreds of thousands iraqis.

And then in march 2003, they attack Iraq again.
Right now, the US is doing a _great_ job in making Iraq democratic. Hah.

>It annoys me substantially when I see a dickhead like Rolle go "America sucks" and not being able to continue the phrase with >"because...."

Rolle is no dickhead. YOU are.
Read Noam Chomsky and watch Bowling for Columbine.

>I just want to say that some of you guys have no fucking respect for other human beings.

The US has no respect for other human beings.

>Obviously, I'm like one of maybe two or three Americans on this site, but fuck, Nolan is from USA, no?  And in any case, since when >have all of you kids become accomplished politicians when all you do is sit on your ass and play SINGLE PLAYER quake.

So I guess YOU are the accomplished politician then?
Please then. Tell me what's so great about the US.
I'll tell you what sucks about it.

33 million americans live in poverty.
41 million americans have no health incurance.
There are over 11000 firearms homocides in america every year (compare with 250 in France).

CIA kills democratic president Allende in Chile, because he's a socialist. They put Pinochet to power instead. 3000 civilians dissapear in the process. That was 30 years ago on September 11th. I wonder if Fox News even mentioned it.

Vietnam war, and the use of Agent Orange. 1-2 million civilians killed.

War in Afghanistan kills as many civilians as WTC (probably even more by now, as they are still boming).

Saddam attacks Iran, with american weapons. (we wouldn't want to have those religious fanatics would we? god bless america.)
US attacks Kuwait killing hundreds of thousands iraqis.

And then in march 2003, they attack Iraq again.
Right now, the US is doing a _great_ job in making Iraq democratic. Hah.

>It annoys me substantially when I see a dickhead like Rolle go "America sucks" and not being able to continue the phrase with >"because...."

Rolle is no dickhead. YOU are.
Read Noam Chomsky and watch Bowling for Columbine.

Carl

2003-09-13 02:18:17 pm

Hey, Phil.

Rolle ain´t no dickhead. And all that was, as mentioned, a year ago. Why bring all that up again?

And I agree with Marvin.
Totally.

amrik

2003-09-13 03:05:29 pm

*puts on robe and wizard hat*

Saddam attacks Iran, with american weapons.
Yepp, you are correct about this. In the 1980s america gave chemical weapons to Iraq to use against Iran. But, oh no, chemical weapons are soooo bad, no humane nation would provide/use them!

phil

2003-09-13 05:23:05 pm

Huhae

I have read Noam Chomsky and I have seen Bowling for Columbine, in fact I have had more debates about this than Peter has had tries in that e1m3_100 of his.

Let me just summarise some points which seem to escape the minds of people warped in their liberal individiualistic notions: America has the UNIQUE burden of being the SOLE world power. It is not a world power with another one, such as Communist Russia or somebody else. It is the only one in the world. This means 100% of the criticism and 100% of the blame goes on the USA. (When you take this into account, you realise USA isn't doing so bad at all.)

I hope the fact that the USA makes 10 trillion in purchase parity every year (20% of the entire world...) and puts 7+ billion economic donor dollars to other countries establishes that the industrial and economic power of the USA is greater than most other countries combined.

US still bombs Afghanistan? Are you dense? http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia_near_east/afghanistan/timeline.html

That said, you must also realise the nature of *all* governments. Governments are a necessary evil that either exploit the evil part of the nature of man (such as in dictatorships) or combat the evil part of the nature of man (such as in a "democratic" republic).

In ALL the history of the world, the only way people have become free from their opressors is through war with them -- with the use of weaponary. The Brits freed themselves thus from the French once upon a time, both of the two were freed from the Mongolic hordes simply by being on the other end of the buffer zone that is Russia, and Americans freed themselves from Brits, and from slavery -- all through war. It is INHERENT in the nature of man to oppress others, and so free people must (and have, through history) periodically "freed" themselves through war. The American Constitution was put in place as a proclamation that the people of the USA are free, and will do anything to be free. Yes, it was hypocritical to have slavery back then, but look where the INSIGHT of the Constitution has brought us to now: blacks are about as equal (having been enslaved by many countries before Americans adopted the practice) to other people as anyone else. They have cushy jobs in government workplaces, work REALLY slow, and when they get fired because of that they yell "Racism." Exploiting America indeed.

All that said, I don't think the American government is currently 100% based on the constitution, and in that it has now become opressive. From civilian drivers licenses, to gun laws, they are all unconstitutional. And yet, for being the sole world power, it is quite a free and generous country (unlike what USSR or Communist China would have been, had their ideologies been fundamantelly compatible with attaining world power.)

Pinochet, Bay of Pigs (surprised you didn't mention that), and etc., are mistakes of the USA. As it is a world power, they have been multipled by that much. However, if Saddam was an instrument of the USA to keep smaller "Saddams" down (and the region stable, something you never thought of?) and if the USA has "no respect for human beings" then why did it depose him, twice, once from Kuwait when he threatened freedom there, and now from the planet? The only way America could avoid making such grave mistakes is if it did NOTHING. In which case you would have Saddams in the entire third world (which is easiest to opress), from south south america, to central america, to middle east, to indo-asia.

In the end, what America does on the individual level is unjust. But what it does on the level of the sole world power, is the only option. Please factor that in whenever you think that America is "bad".

I have read Noam Chomsky and I have seen Bowling for Columbine, in fact I have had more debates about this than Peter has had tries in that e1m3_100 of his.

Let me just summarise some points which seem to escape the minds of people warped in their liberal individiualistic notions: America has the UNIQUE burden of being the SOLE world power.  It is not a world power with another one, such as Communist Russia or somebody else.  It is the only one in the world.  This means 100% of the criticism and 100% of the blame goes on the USA.  (When you take this into account, you realise USA isn't doing so bad at all.)

I hope the fact that the USA makes 10 trillion in purchase parity every year (20% of the entire world...)  and puts 7+ billion economic donor dollars to other countries establishes that the industrial and economic power of the USA is greater than most other countries combined.

US still bombs Afghanistan?  Are you dense?  http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia_near_east/afghanistan/timeline.html

That said, you must also realise the nature of *all* governments.  Governments are a necessary evil that either exploit the evil part of the nature of man (such as in dictatorships) or combat the evil part of the nature of man (such as in a "democratic" republic).

In ALL the history of the world, the only way people have become free from their opressors is through war with them -- with the use of weaponary.  The Brits freed themselves thus from the French once upon a time, both of the two were freed from the Mongolic hordes simply by being on the other end of the buffer zone that is Russia, and Americans freed themselves from Brits, and from slavery -- all through war.  It is INHERENT in the nature of man to oppress others, and so free people must (and have, through history) periodically "freed" themselves through war.  The American Constitution was put in place as a proclamation that the people of the USA are free, and will do anything to be free.  Yes, it was hypocritical to have slavery back then, but look where the INSIGHT of the Constitution has brought us to now: blacks are about as equal (having been enslaved by many countries before Americans adopted the practice) to other people as anyone else.  They have cushy jobs in government workplaces, work REALLY slow, and when they get fired because of that they yell "Racism."  Exploiting America indeed.

All that said, I don't think the American government is currently 100% based on the constitution, and in that it has now become opressive.  From civilian drivers licenses, to gun laws, they are all unconstitutional.  And yet, for being the sole world power, it is quite a free and generous country (unlike what USSR or Communist China would have been, had their ideologies been fundamantelly compatible with attaining world power.)

Pinochet, Bay of Pigs (surprised you didn't mention that), and etc., are mistakes of the USA.  As it is a world power, they have been multipled by that much.  However, if Saddam was an instrument of the USA to keep smaller "Saddams" down (and the region stable, something you never thought of?) and if the USA has "no respect for human beings" then why did it depose him, twice, once from Kuwait when he threatened freedom there, and now from the planet?  The only way America could avoid making such grave mistakes is if it did NOTHING.  In which case you would have Saddams in the entire third world (which is easiest to opress), from south south america, to central america, to middle east, to indo-asia.

In the end, what America does on the individual level is unjust.  But what it does on the level of the sole world power, is the only option.  Please factor that in whenever you think that America is "bad".

Hanz

2003-09-13 06:20:19 pm

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

A bit silly to remind of this again.. But since it's been done, I might as well make myself clear.

My concern with the flag last year was "why remember 9/11 in particular?". Not to disrespect the victims of 9/11, it's just that sooo many more innocent lives are lost all the time that it bothered me to give some special attention to this particular event. Moreso in SDA that is normally so neutral of world happenings. It is, in my opinion, like disrespecting every other innocent lives that were lost - As if they were not worthy to be mentioned in the SDA. Of course Stubby only meant good with the flag, but I unfortunately didn't take it that straightforwardly.

phil

2003-09-13 07:12:55 pm

Huhae

I've got ten roses. Hanz would rather me not give the roses to anyone. Other hand, Stubbz would at least give one rose to one of ten people. So, I think Stubbz's action was nothing but *humane*. Sept11 was the worst terrorist act bar none. Thousands of people die every day, and we all have that on our minds, but the global results that Sept11 caused are unsurpassed in importance.

I do agree with you partially: people don't take things straightforwardly anymore -- instead they try to find hidden meanings. Sad

Hanz

2003-09-13 09:02:14 pm

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Quote:

I've got ten roses. Hanz would rather me not give the roses to anyone. Other hand, Stubbz would at least give one rose to one of ten people.

Bad analogy, as Stubbz has infinite roses in this case but he decided to give only one. Well, perhaps nobody would be reading SDA if Stubby only posted about accidents and terrorist acts every day, but it is evident that this single exception had a negative effect as well. Had he posted, say, 5 similar messages earlier, I wouldn't have complained.

Quote:

Sept11 was the worst terrorist act bar none.

I think the invasion of Iraq is on par. I do count it as terrorism as it didn't even have acceptance of the UN.

phil

2003-09-13 09:05:35 pm

Huhae

See Hanz, this is where we differ.

You think removing a dictatorship regime is an act of terrorism, on par with the terrorism of September 11. There is simply no rationale behind this thought. I, as a rational man, can therefore have no further discussion with you -- unless you provide some rationale that you have not before.

Hanz

2003-09-13 09:16:05 pm

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Quote:

There is simply no rationale behind this thought. I, as a rational man, can therefore have no further discussion with you -- unless you provide some rationale that you have not before.

I will just bow down to your unsurpassed rationality and leave you with your rational brain to ponder why I disagree. It's for the best of both of us.

phil

2003-09-13 10:05:02 pm

Huhae

Whats there to ponder about?

USA removes a terrorist regime, and you say that act of liberation is on par with terrorists killing 3 thousand people? Go on with your dumb self.

Orbs

2003-09-13 10:44:09 pm

tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden

Ok i have made a little training session for those still being on the Bush administrationside.

step 1

Think...

if your unable to do this just change your mind else proceed to step two..

step 2

get a random fact about the USA foreign politics the last 20 years (if you realy need help on this mssg me)

step 3

think again...

step 4

draw conclusion

step 5

If the conclusion still has anything positive about the way that USA plays her international role since Bush JR became president, go back to step 1

else, see?

step 6 What are we going to do about it?

Orbs

2003-09-13 10:46:55 pm

tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden

And don't even get started about Israel that's realy hopeless. /me tries to hide the fact that he's partly Jew

Orbs

2003-09-13 10:49:51 pm

tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden

btw making the par was done on the 11th, now to get par again some more planes are nescesary, or better change of attitude (on all sides)

phil

Edit history:

phil: 2003-09-14 02:24:54 am

2003-09-14 02:24:26 am

Huhae

Orbs what the fuck are you talking about?

Me, personally, I feel that the world is MUCH safer when the USA is under the leadership of Bush 2 than it would have been under Clinton, or any other Democrat for that matter.

For a rational outlook on American Foreign Policy, check out http://www.brain-terminal.com/letters/sit-down-stand-up/equivalence.html

Kay

2003-09-14 05:32:51 am

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Clinton was the best thing ever to happen to US politics =P

phil

2003-09-14 05:39:39 am

Huhae

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

Which is why Sept 11 happened. Thankfully, Bush 2 is not as weak willed and shallow as Clinton.

Timinator

2003-09-14 08:50:58 am

18 to the diablo2 holy grail

Phil, i gotta say, reading your thoughts just annoys me

especially stuff like this "America > you. "

and "America has the UNIQUE burden of being the SOLE world power"

that last thing to me is just wrong, in fact they are the only sole world power because they think they are.

Look back at the Iraq thing, US goes to the UN, tries to get support, most countries tell them where to shove it (if they were a world power when they say jump the other countries would ask how high) infact as far as I know the only countries that really supported it where great britain, whose politians are now mostly wondering why they supported it and the others coming up with random reasons why it was a good idea .. and australia .. who does whatever the US says.

So really the US is just trying to be the big school bully with great britain playing the smaller bully, .. and aussie is that annoying thing that hangs around the popular crowd

And what the fuck is with the attack on rolle? He is a good guy with a good sense of humour (even if it is swedish).

Btw I realise you will have lots to say about this probably, you'll try to rubbish everything i say and give a random link to something but i don't really care, you seem to be far to angry to do anything except defend you beliefs.

Phil, i gotta say, reading your thoughts just annoys me

especially stuff like this "America > you. "

and "America has the UNIQUE burden of being the SOLE world power"

that last thing to me is just wrong, in fact they are the only sole world power because they think they are.

Look back at the Iraq thing, US goes to the UN, tries to get support, most countries tell them where to shove it (if they were a world power when they say jump the other countries would ask how high)  infact as far as I know the only countries that really supported it where great britain, whose politians are now mostly wondering why they supported it and the others coming up with random reasons why it was a good idea .. and australia .. who does whatever the US says.

So really the US is just trying to be the big school bully with great britain playing the smaller bully, .. and aussie is that annoying thing that hangs around the popular crowd

And what the fuck is with the attack on rolle?  He is a good guy with a good sense of humour (even if it is swedish).

Btw I realise you will have lots to say about this probably, you'll try to rubbish everything i say and give a random link to something but i don't really care,  you seem to be far to angry to do anything except defend you beliefs.

Martin

Edit history:

Martin: 2003-09-14 01:02:35 pm

2003-09-14 12:56:10 pm

>Let me just summarise some points which seem to escape the minds of people warped in their liberal individiualistic notions: America has the UNIQUE burden of being the SOLE world power. It is not a world power with another one, such as Communist Russia or somebody else. It is the only one in the world. This means 100% of the criticism and 100% of the blame goes on the USA. (When you take this into account, you realise USA isn't doing so bad at all.)

I don't think being the sole world power is an excuse for comitting massmurder.
Let's take Netherlands as an example. In April of 2002 the whole government resigned because of what happened in Srebrenica 7 years earlier. It was found that Netherlands was _partly_ responsible of _not stopping_ the murder of 8000 muslims. I would like to see the US government to take the same responsibility for their actions.

>I hope the fact that the USA makes 10 trillion in purchase parity every year (20% of the entire world...) and puts 7+ billion economic donor dollars to other countries establishes that the industrial and economic power of the USA is greater than most other countries combined.

As for the donation stuff. Sweden always tries to give 1% of its GDP (depending on the economy from year to year) In the US, with a total GDP of 10.4 trillion dollars (2002), and lets say 7 billion dollars of economic donar. How much is that in percent? Hmm... 0.067%... That's just fucking greedy. Correct me if I'm wrong here Smiley

>In ALL the history of the world, the only way people have become free from their opressors is through war with them -- with the use of weaponary. The Brits freed themselves thus from the French once upon a time, both of the two were freed from the Mongolic hordes simply by being on the other end of the buffer zone that is Russia, and Americans freed themselves from Brits, and from slavery -- all through war. It is INHERENT in the nature of man to oppress others, and so free people must (and have, through history) periodically "freed" themselves through war. The American Constitution was put in place as a proclamation that the people of the USA are free, and will do anything to be free. Yes, it was hypocritical to have slavery back then, but look where the INSIGHT of the Constitution has brought us to now: blacks are about as equal (having been enslaved by many countries before Americans >adopted the practice) to other people as anyone else. They have cushy jobs in government workplaces, work REALLY slow, and when they get fired because of that they yell "Racism." Exploiting America indeed.

War is not the only way. India freed themselves from GBR without war.
From what it seems, the black ppl are not in any way equal to the whites. My poor english may be understanding this wrong, but are you actually saying that the blacks exploit America? Geez.

>All that said, I don't think the American government is currently 100% based on the constitution, and in that it has now become opressive. From civilian drivers licenses, to gun laws, they are all unconstitutional. And yet, for being the sole world power, it is quite a free and generous country (unlike what USSR or Communist China would have been, had their ideologies been fundamantelly compatible with attaining world power.)

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

>Pinochet, Bay of Pigs (surprised you didn't mention that), and etc., are mistakes of the USA. As it is a world power, they have been multipled by that much. However, if Saddam was an instrument of the USA to keep smaller "Saddams" down (and the region stable, something you never thought of?) and if the USA has "no respect for human beings" then why did it depose him, twice, once from Kuwait when he threatened freedom there, and now from the planet? The only way America could avoid making such grave mistakes is if it did NOTHING. In which case you would have Saddams in the entire third world (which is easiest to opress), from south south >america, to central america, to middle east, to indo-asia.

Saddam attacked Kuwait. US saved Kuwait. Saddams troups retreated. US kept bombing Saddams retreating troups, killing 100 000 of them. Some groups in Iraq starts revolt towards Saddam and the US promises to help. However, US doesn't help. Instead, the revolting Iraqis are slaughtered by Saddam, with weapons US has provided him with. The US still wanted Saddam to rule Iraq, and hold back Iran.

A few days ago, there was an article about that Allende/Pinochet matter in the newspaper. There it said, that the US government had actually not even admitted it was a mistake. Powel had only said "It's nothing we're proud of". Once again, I would like the US to tell the world that they've made misstakes, and then take the consequences of it. Why the US has not accepted the War tribunal in Haag is still a mystery to me. If they have done nothing wrong, what is there to fear?

In march, when the war against Iraq started, the reason was to make sure to destroy all weapons of massdestruction, and stop terrorism. They had no evidence to any of this, and still today, they have found no weapons of massdestruction. Saddam never liked the religous (infact, he attacked the Shiamuslims with biological weapons). Now everybody is talking about freeing the Iraqi people, which has been done. So why doesn't USA just leave the country and let UN handle it instead? It's obvious the US is not welcome there... The sanctions has already killed half a million children.

>In the end, what America does on the individual level is unjust. But what it does on the level of the sole world power, is the only option. Please factor that in whenever you think that America is "bad".

Twenty days of boming gives twenty years of terrorism. The war has just begun, and it's going to be even worse. It's sad that Bush doesn't understand that you can't stop terrorism by bombing everything.

>Let me just summarise some points which seem to escape the minds of people warped in their liberal individiualistic notions: America has the UNIQUE burden of being the SOLE world power.  It is not a world power with another one, such as Communist Russia or somebody else.  It is the only one in the world.  This means 100% of the criticism and 100% of the blame goes on the USA.  (When you take this into account, you realise USA isn't doing so bad at all.)

I don't think being the sole world power is an excuse for comitting massmurder.
Let's take Netherlands as an example. In April of 2002 the whole government resigned because of what happened in Srebrenica 7 years earlier. It was found that Netherlands was _partly_ responsible of _not stopping_ the murder of 8000 muslims. I would like to see the US government to take the same responsibility for their actions.

>I hope the fact that the USA makes 10 trillion in purchase parity every year (20% of the entire world...)  and puts 7+ billion economic donor dollars to other countries establishes that the industrial and economic power of the USA is greater than most other countries combined.

As for the donation stuff. Sweden always tries to give 1% of its GDP (depending on the economy from year to year) In the US, with a total GDP of 10.4 trillion dollars (2002), and lets say 7 billion dollars of economic donar. How much is that in percent? Hmm... 0.067%... That's just fucking greedy. Correct me if I'm wrong here :)

>In ALL the history of the world, the only way people have become free from their opressors is through war with them -- with the use of weaponary.  The Brits freed themselves thus from the French once upon a time, both of the two were freed from the Mongolic hordes simply by being on the other end of the buffer zone that is Russia, and Americans freed themselves from Brits, and from slavery -- all through war.  It is INHERENT in the nature of man to oppress others, and so free people must (and have, through history) periodically "freed" themselves through war.  The American Constitution was put in place as a proclamation that the people of the USA are free, and will do anything to be free.  Yes, it was hypocritical to have slavery back then, but look where the INSIGHT of the Constitution has brought us to now: blacks are about as equal (having been enslaved by many countries before Americans >adopted the practice) to other people as anyone else.  They have cushy jobs in government workplaces, work REALLY slow, and when they get fired because of that they yell "Racism."  Exploiting America indeed.

War is not the only way. India freed themselves from GBR without war.
From what it seems, the black ppl are not in any way equal to the whites. My poor english may be understanding this wrong, but are you actually saying that the blacks exploit America? Geez.

>All that said, I don't think the American government is currently 100% based on the constitution, and in that it has now become opressive.  From civilian drivers licenses, to gun laws, they are all unconstitutional.  And yet, for being the sole world power, it is quite a free and generous country (unlike what USSR or Communist China would have been, had their ideologies been fundamantelly compatible with attaining world power.)

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

>Pinochet, Bay of Pigs (surprised you didn't mention that), and etc., are mistakes of the USA.  As it is a world power, they have been multipled by that much.  However, if Saddam was an instrument of the USA to keep smaller "Saddams" down (and the region stable, something you never thought of?) and if the USA has "no respect for human beings" then why did it depose him, twice, once from Kuwait when he threatened freedom there, and now from the planet?  The only way America could avoid making such grave mistakes is if it did NOTHING.  In which case you would have Saddams in the entire third world (which is easiest to opress), from south south >america, to central america, to middle east, to indo-asia.

Saddam attacked Kuwait. US saved Kuwait. Saddams troups retreated. US kept bombing Saddams retreating troups, killing 100 000 of them. Some groups in Iraq starts revolt towards Saddam and the US promises to help. However, US doesn't help. Instead, the revolting Iraqis are slaughtered by Saddam, with weapons US has provided him with. The US still wanted Saddam to rule Iraq, and hold back Iran.

A few days ago, there was an article about that Allende/Pinochet matter in the newspaper. There it said, that the US government had actually not even admitted it was a mistake. Powel had only said "It's nothing we're proud of". Once again, I would like the US to tell the world that they've made misstakes, and then take the consequences of it. Why the US has not accepted the War tribunal in Haag is still a mystery to me. If they have done nothing wrong, what is there to fear?

In march, when the war against Iraq started, the reason was to make sure to destroy all weapons of massdestruction, and stop terrorism. They had no evidence to any of this, and still today, they have found no weapons of massdestruction. Saddam never liked the religous (infact, he attacked the Shiamuslims with biological weapons). Now everybody is talking about freeing the Iraqi people, which has been done. So why doesn't USA just leave the country and let UN handle it instead? It's obvious the US is not welcome there... The sanctions has already killed half a million children.

>In the end, what America does on the individual level is unjust.  But what it does on the level of the sole world power, is the only option.  Please factor that in whenever you think that America is "bad".

Twenty days of boming gives twenty years of terrorism. The war has just begun, and it's going to be even worse. It's sad that Bush doesn't understand that you can't stop terrorism by bombing everything.

Orbs

2003-09-14 01:49:42 pm

tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden

have little to add besides US made this law (i believe it's called the intervention-law or something) to invade the Netherlands (or any other country) if some of the US soldiers would have to face international courts. Isn't that great? 20 days of bombing provokes 20 years off terrorism is so true, only look at Israel.
Nice fact about 11 september Israel military bulldozer a Palestinian harbour (it was a dutch funded 3rd world aid project in the Gaza area) because they knew it wouldn't make headlines anyway cause of the attacks on the towers.

phil

Edit history:

phil: 2003-09-14 02:48:36 pm

2003-09-14 02:46:01 pm

Huhae

Quote:

and "America has the UNIQUE burden of being the SOLE world power"

that last thing to me is just wrong, in fact they are the only sole world power because they think they are.

I can understand why it would annoy you that America is the sole power, but are you actually saying its not? Cause it is; not because they thing they are, but because it is a matter of fact (so I don't have to turn anything you say to "rubbish" since that is what it allready was -- being based on a false premise that is.)

phil

2003-09-14 03:35:24 pm

Huhae

>I would like to see the US government to take the same responsibility for their actions [as the Netherlands].

Again, USA is a world power, Netherlands is not. Therefore, what is possible in the Netherlands, is radically impossible in the USA (such as that kind of change of Government.) That's not what *I* think, thats just how it *is*. I agree with you that the United States government needs a BIG change... I think Bush is doing a satisfactory job -- although someone not as idiotically looking as him would have been better -- most of you don't know that the current foreign policy of the USA is not the brainchild of Bush 2, but the collaboration of his Cabinet (namely, Condoleeza Rice (smartest person on pres. cabinet ever?) and Colin Powell).

(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.)

>War is not the only way. India freed themselves from GBR without war.

Good example. Except GBR fucked up the boundaries (Kashmir) and now India is at a standoff with Pakistan. (They also had a war in '71 over Bangladesh.)

Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru's joint efforts are a unique case, and I hope they set a precedent for others. The reality is that they havent.

> From what it seems, the black ppl are not in any way equal to the whites. My poor english may be understanding this wrong, but are you actually saying that the blacks exploit America? Geez.

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?

>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)...

> Saddam attacked Kuwait. US saved Kuwait. Saddams troups retreated. US kept bombing Saddams retreating troups, killing 100 000 of them. Some groups in Iraq starts revolt towards Saddam and the US promises to help. However, US doesn't help. Instead, the revolting Iraqis are slaughtered by Saddam, with weapons US has provided him with. The US still wanted Saddam to rule Iraq, and hold back Iran.

US never *promised* to help. They knew if they helped, they would have to totally remove saddam, which would destabilize all other countries that depended on saddam around him. The revolting Iraqis *thought* that we would help, but like in the KGB invasion of Hungary, and in the Bay of Pigs, as a world power with a full world view -- USA could *not*.

Btw, the US did not give Saddam the chemical weapons he used to kill around 20,000 Iraqis during that uprising...

> A few days ago, there was an article about that Allende/Pinochet matter in the newspaper. There it said, that the US government had actually not even admitted it was a mistake. Powel had only said "It's nothing we're proud of". Once again, I would like the US to tell the world that they've made misstakes, and then take the consequences of it. Why the US has not accepted the War tribunal in Haag is still a mystery to me. If they have done nothing wrong, what is there to fear?

I don't think the USA would be proud of something that is not a mistake. Do you think so? Obviously it is a mistake, but when the sole world power starts going around telling mass media that "we are making mistakes" can you imagine the frenzy that will be created? You have to keep the big picture in mind.

US did not accept the war tribunal because the Victor is Right. Or have you never heard of that statement? In order to fight people like Hitler, you have to do some bad things yourself.

Here is an example: You are fighting a bully. He is pulling at your hair, kicking you in the groin, and not going by the rules at all. So you get pissed, and gouge his eyes. You win. Should you be judged for gouging his eyes in the same way that he should be judged for bullying other people all that time, kicking your nuts, etc?

>In march, when the war against Iraq started, the reason was to make sure to destroy all weapons of massdestruction, and stop terrorism. They had no evidence to any of this, and still today, they have found no weapons of massdestruction. Saddam never liked the religous (infact, he attacked the Shiamuslims with biological weapons). Now everybody is talking about freeing the Iraqi people, which has been done. So why doesn't USA just leave the country and let UN handle it instead? It's obvious the US is not welcome there... The sanctions has already killed half a million children.

Can you imagine how many children Saddam has orphaned? No, so don't try to plug your statements with random trivia like "The sanctions has allready killed half a million children."

If I don't give you food until you become good, and you don't become good of your free will, it's not *my* fault.

Besides, if the US had removed sanctions, all the money and trade that the Iraq would have gotten, under Saddam, would have gone into the chemical weapons program. But of course you don't care to see this, you only care about random trivia...

Fuck trivia, here are some facts:

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 ).

Hmm..... So we still had no reason to go to war? How about freeing 24 million from a dictator? Give me more trivia, plz.

>Twenty days of boming gives twenty years of terrorism.

I don't understand this line.

> 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.

>I would like to see the US government to take the same responsibility for their actions [as the Netherlands].

Again, USA is a world power, Netherlands is not.  Therefore, what is possible in the Netherlands, is radically impossible in the USA (such as that kind of change of Government.)  That's not what *I* think, thats just how it *is*.  I agree with you that the United States government needs a BIG change...  I think Bush is doing a satisfactory job -- although someone not as idiotically looking as him would have been better -- most of you don't know that the current foreign policy of the USA is not the brainchild of Bush 2, but the collaboration of his Cabinet (namely, Condoleeza Rice (smartest person on pres. cabinet ever?) and Colin Powell).

(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.)

>War is not the only way. India freed themselves from GBR without war.

Good example.  Except GBR fucked up the boundaries (Kashmir) and now India is at a standoff with Pakistan.  (They also had a war in '71 over Bangladesh.)

Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru's joint efforts are a unique case, and I hope they set a precedent for others.  The reality is that they havent.

> From what it seems, the black ppl are not in any way equal to the whites. My poor english may be understanding this wrong, but are you actually saying that the blacks exploit America? Geez.

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?

>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)...

> Saddam attacked Kuwait. US saved Kuwait. Saddams troups retreated. US kept bombing Saddams retreating troups, killing 100 000 of them. Some groups in Iraq starts revolt towards Saddam and the US promises to help. However, US doesn't help. Instead, the revolting Iraqis are slaughtered by Saddam, with weapons US has provided him with. The US still wanted Saddam to rule Iraq, and hold back Iran.

US never *promised* to help.  They knew if they helped, they would have to totally remove saddam, which would destabilize all other countries that depended on saddam around him.  The revolting Iraqis *thought* that we would help, but like in the KGB invasion of Hungary, and in the Bay of Pigs, as a world power with a full world view -- USA could *not*.

Btw, the US did not give Saddam the chemical weapons he used to kill around 20,000 Iraqis during that uprising...

> A few days ago, there was an article about that Allende/Pinochet matter in the newspaper. There it said, that the US government had actually not even admitted it was a mistake. Powel had only said "It's nothing we're proud of". Once again, I would like the US to tell the world that they've made misstakes, and then take the consequences of it. Why the US has not accepted the War tribunal in Haag is still a mystery to me. If they have done nothing wrong, what is there to fear?

I don't think the USA would be proud of something that is not a mistake.  Do you think so?  Obviously it is a mistake, but when the sole world power starts going around telling mass media that "we are making mistakes" can you imagine the frenzy that will be created?  You have to keep the big picture in mind.

US did not accept the war tribunal because the Victor is Right.  Or have you never heard of that statement?  In order to fight people like Hitler, you have to do some bad things yourself.

Here is an example:  You are fighting a bully.  He is pulling at your hair, kicking you in the groin, and not going by the rules at all.  So you get pissed, and gouge his eyes.  You win.  Should you be judged for gouging his eyes in the same way that he should be judged for bullying other people all that time, kicking your nuts, etc?

>In march, when the war against Iraq started, the reason was to make sure to destroy all weapons of massdestruction, and stop terrorism. They had no evidence to any of this, and still today, they have found no weapons of massdestruction. Saddam never liked the religous (infact, he attacked the Shiamuslims with biological weapons). Now everybody is talking about freeing the Iraqi people, which has been done. So why doesn't USA just leave the country and let UN handle it instead? It's obvious the US is not welcome there... The sanctions has already killed half a million children.

Can you imagine how many children Saddam has orphaned?  No, so don't try to plug your statements with random trivia like "The sanctions has allready killed half a million children."

If I don't give you food until you become good, and you don't become good of your free will, it's not *my* fault.

Besides, if the US had removed sanctions, all the money and trade that the Iraq would have gotten, under Saddam, would have gone into the chemical weapons program.  But of course you don't care to see this, you only care about random trivia...

Fuck trivia, here are some facts:

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 ).

Hmm.....  So we still had no reason to go to war?  How  about freeing 24 million from a dictator?  Give me more trivia, plz.

>Twenty days of boming gives twenty years of terrorism.

I don't understand this line.

> 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.

phil

2003-09-14 03:35:51 pm

Huhae

My spam > Orbs' spam

Smiley

Timinator

Edit history:

Timinator: 2003-09-14 04:23:05 pm

2003-09-14 04:15:09 pm

18 to the diablo2 holy grail

Quote:

I can understand why it would annoy you that America is the sole power, but are you actually saying its not? Cause it is; not because they thing they are, but because it is a matter of fact (so I don't have to turn anything you say to "rubbish" since that is what it allready was -- being based on a false premise that is.)

Sole power? BS, perhaps on judging countries one at a time the US is this so called "sole power" but what about the UN? With all the other countries combined is the US still the sole power? i'm sure you'll come up with a way to say yes. And you completely ignored someone elses post about the US thinking they are above judgement of the rest of the world.

Even if they are a sole power they shouldn't be able to do whatever the fuck they like and have no accountability to the rest of the world, another example is the environment, US pollutes a hell of a lot but doesn't want to do much about that because it will hurt the economy.. if the economy is hurt then it won't be so big and the "sole power".

In the meantime the environment is crapping out, 1 example depletion of the ozone layer, making a hole which means in NZ you get sunburnt far quicker (a few minutes) and can get skin cancer .. that just 1 example.

but really I can't be arsed arguing with you, you seem to reply to anyone and everyone that posts in this and whatever they say you just make yourself sound right (at least to you)

I will not post in this thread again, partly because of your point of view which is to win something you need to fight. So fuck you i'm ignoring you :bird:

actually one last thought

you wrote this

Twenty days of boming gives twenty years of terrorism.

I don't understand this line.

What he means is if you do bad shit to someone they won't just forget and be your friend, future generations will also be pissed at you

> 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.

This line sums you up perfectly .. you just DON'T KNOW WHEN TO STOP !! Sometimes there is NO winner .. in this case 1 option is not 2 fight because arguing with you is like :wallbash: You also mention to beat the terrorists those troops not only had to become terrorists themselves .. but to outdo them, so one lot of terrorists are stopped, another go unpunished. But that doesn't matter since they were americans who can't be judged.

One last thing, I don't have anything against americans, just fools who dont' know when to quit (this includes people from all over the world)

end of edit and end of post

[quote]

I can understand why it would annoy you that America is the sole power, but are you actually saying its not?  Cause it is; not because they thing they are, but because it is a matter of fact (so I don't have to turn anything you say to "rubbish" since that is what it allready was -- being based on a false premise that is.)
[/quote]

Sole power? BS, perhaps on judging countries one at a time the US is this so called "sole power" but what about the UN?  With all the other countries combined is the US still the sole power? i'm sure you'll come up with a way to say yes.  And you completely ignored someone elses post about the US thinking they are above judgement of the rest of the world.

Even if they are a sole power they shouldn't be able to do whatever the fuck they like and have no accountability to the rest of the world, another example is the environment, US pollutes a hell of a lot but doesn't want to do much about that because it will hurt the economy.. if the economy is hurt then it won't be so big and the "sole power".

In the meantime the environment is crapping out, 1 example depletion of the ozone layer, making a hole which means in NZ you get sunburnt far quicker (a few minutes) and can get skin cancer .. that just 1 example.

but really I can't be arsed arguing with you, you seem to reply to anyone and everyone that posts in this and whatever they say you just make yourself sound right (at least to you)

I will not post in this thread again, partly because of your point of view which is to win something you need to fight.   So fuck you i'm ignoring you :bird:

actually one last thought

you wrote this

Twenty days of boming gives twenty years of terrorism.  
 
I don't understand this line.

What he means is if you do bad shit to someone they won't just forget and be your friend,  future generations will also be pissed at you

> 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.

This line sums you up perfectly .. you just DON'T KNOW WHEN TO STOP !! Sometimes there is NO winner ..  in this case 1 option is not 2 fight because arguing with you is like  :wallbash:  You also mention to beat the terrorists those troops not only had to become terrorists themselves .. but to outdo them, so one lot of terrorists are stopped, another go unpunished.  But that doesn't matter since they were americans who can't be judged.

One last thing, I don't have anything against americans, just fools who dont' know when to quit (this includes people from all over the world)

end of edit and end of post