Bush le simplet

[djnvcm]

Monday 17th march 2003 is a major break through in the world affairs
One state of the earth has decided to start the war against another one at a distance of more than 8000 km and against the will of world community of states.

Tomorrow, China will be free to invade Taiwan; India/Pakistan; North Korea/South................................(fill up the blanks)...........

Robin Cook, one of the main british minister has immediatly resigned saying that (translation tentative from "Le Monde" dated 19/3/03) :
- Military power of Irak is half the one of the first gulf war
- It is wrong to say that this country is a threat justifying the war
- What was disturbing me the last weeks is to think that if Al Gore were elected we would not be sending our troops in this war.............................

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by djnvcm
Monday 17th march 2003 is a major break through in the world affairs
One state of the earth has decided to start the war against another one at a distance of more than 8000 km and against the will of world community of states.

Tomorrow, China will be free to invade Taiwan; India/Pakistan; North Korea/South................................(fill up the blanks)...........

Robin Cook, one of the main british minister has immediatly resigned saying that (translation tentative from "Le Monde" dated 19/3/03) :
- Military power of Irak is half the one of the first gulf war
- It is wrong to say that this country is a threat justifying the war
- What was disturbing me the last weeks is to think that if Al Gore were elected we would not be sending our troops in this war.............................

Complete and utter nonsense:

1, This isn't a new war, its the completion of one that began and sadly was not finished in 91

2. The UN has itself with the US unanimously passed resolution after resolution condemning your buddy Saddam and mandating that he disarm. unfortunately the level of beaurocracy is so high there, that they can't actually do it themselves. And even if they could, who would do it, ummhmm., the US, so its really the same result in the end, just less time the French and Germans get to feel special and hurt our economy.

3. Oh no, not a resigning demagogue? what next, a sit-in in France?

4. Lastly, only a fool would use the old "what if" arguement. Bush was elected. I didn't want him, but I'm glad Gore wasn't in office during 911. There's where we would have acted like the Europeans - appeasers

[Ralph63]

The problem with large "Bush doctrine" preemptive US military commitments, is that US can realistically only handle a very few selected rogestate/terrorist-troubles at a time. Only one at a time of the magnitude of Irak. How can this be exploited? Well, take the recent murder of the Serbian primeminister, Zoran Djindjic, for example. Is it a coincidence that the shady figures behind this chose to do this exactly now, then they very well know that US/UN is 100% occupied with the Irak-issue?

Above is one of the built-in problems with preemtive US-military commitments around the globe. The more US exhausts its recourses in one selected issue at a time, the more new terrorists networks, roge-states and border-quarrels states are likely to take their chances, while attention is set elsewere.

Besides; I read an article that US volonteer-army recruitment system apparently is going through growing tensions since 11 september. Dissatisfaction with neverending abroad assignments and therefore growing problems on the homefront (divorces, domestic quarrels). Also, the US-gov sets their hopes/taxmoney on new ever more effective weapons-systems, while the military-personnel actually shrinks in size. "Do more with less" its called.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by djnvcm
..... if Al Gore were elected we would not be sending our troops in this war.............................
True, I cannot be certain of your nationality merely from the fact that you list france as your location, but your posts clearly seem to be ESL (English as a Second Language. No offense intended).

So, I am assuming the you are, indeed, french. In which case, I am mystified at your use of the word "our" as highlighted above.

Where does a french guy get off, referring to troops of the "Coalition of the Willing" as "our" troops?

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Ralph63
.....Besides; I read an article that US volonteer-army recruitment system apparently is going through growing tensions since 11 september. Dissatisfaction with neverending abroad assignments and therefore growing problems on the homefront (divorces, domestic quarrels). Also, the US-gov sets their hopes/taxmoney on new ever more effective weapons-systems, while the military-personnel actually shrinks in size. "Do more with less" its called.

I take issue with your perspective. First of all, unlike yourself, I live in the United States, have been in the Service of this country, and am cogizant of the general state of our military preparedness. Not an expert by any means. But, I consider your analysis to be unfounded, especially since you chose to just "throw" it out there with no attribution.

If you make factual claims to prove a point, show it as more than some off the wall "opinion" by providing links to the material in question instead of just announcing, " I read it somewhere." Perhaps your links will bring with them an aura of respectability that even an opponet would have to consider.

[Ralph63]

Originally posted by MichaelC
If you make factual claims to prove a point, show it as more than some off the wall "opinion" by providing links to the material in question instead of just announcing, " I read it somewhere." Perhaps your links will bring with them an aura of respectability that even an opponet would have to consider.

OK, fair enough. Go to www.washingtonpost.com and search the article "Unrivaled Military Feels Strains of Unending War" in the archives. It was publiced february 16, 2003.

[Alfred]

Djnvcm is right. Iraq is just the first country we plan to invade.

Here is the list:

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya
France

France you say? Yes, we plan to invade France in the September/October timeframe. Let me give you the ten reasons why we plan to invade France:

1. We will have worldwide support
2. Like the Iraqis, the French will surrender quickly
3. California wine is better
4. Paris has far too many French in it
5. The roads are nicer than in the Middle East
6. The best French troops are foreigners and probably hate the French anyway. (Foreign Legion)
7.The country will probably be on strike.
8. We have been there a couple of times before and know the territory
9. The British will wrestle with us for the right to shoot first
10. There are already 75,000 American soldiers in France


On another note. Chirac has said that if Sadaam uses gas or biologicals (which the French say he does not have) then France will send troops to help the US. I hope that Bush says NO in a very Texas way.

Remember George Patton: “I would rather face a German division in front of me than a French division behind me.”

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Alfred
Djnvcm is right. Iraq is just the first country we plan to invade.

Here is the list:

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya
France

France you say? Yes, we plan to invade France in the September/October timeframe. Let me give you the ten reasons why we plan to invade France:

1. We will have worldwide support
2. Like the Iraqis, the French will surrender quickly
3. California wine is better
4. Paris has far too many French in it
5. The roads are nicer than in the Middle East
6. The best French troops are foreigners and probably hate the French anyway. (Foreign Legion)
7.The country will probably be on strike.
8. We have been there a couple of times before and know the territory
9. The British will wrestle with us for the right to shoot first
10. There are already 75,000 American soldiers in France


On another note. Chirac has said that if Sadaam uses gas or biologicals (which the French say he does not have) then France will send troops to help the US. I hope that Bush says NO in a very Texas way.

Remember George Patton: “I would rather face a German division in front of me than a French division behind me.” Alfred, as usual you are cracking me up here! It must be a real "hoot' to sit around and hoist a beer with ya. Of course, being as you are located in SLC, you might not be into that sort of thing. Nonetheless, I like your sense of humor.

I expect there will some french-oriented person along shortly with no sense of humor at all to take you to task for your vile, rascist ways.

[minusthejihad]

ah the French? forget about them, too much attention anyway. I do hope that we will go through with the rest of those though, sincerely.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Alfred
Djnvcm is right. Iraq is just the first country we plan to invade.

Here is the list:

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya
France

France you say? Yes, we plan to invade France in the September/October timeframe. Let me give you the ten reasons why we plan to invade France:

1. We will have worldwide support
2. Like the Iraqis, the French will surrender quickly
3. California wine is better
4. Paris has far too many French in it
5. The roads are nicer than in the Middle East
6. The best French troops are foreigners and probably hate the French anyway. (Foreign Legion)
7.The country will probably be on strike.
8. We have been there a couple of times before and know the territory
9. The British will wrestle with us for the right to shoot first
10. There are already 75,000 American soldiers in France


On another note. Chirac has said that if Sadaam uses gas or biologicals (which the French say he does not have) then France will send troops to help the US. I hope that Bush says NO in a very Texas way.

Remember George Patton: “I would rather face a German division in front of me than a French division behind me.”

I think we should move France to the top of the list. That way, they won't be able to help build any more breeder reactors, or broker any more third party arms deals to hide their involvement with states that promote and support terrorism.

We may even prevent them from directly selling an already rolled nuke to some murderous bastards.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
I think we should move France to the top of the list. That way, they won't be able to help build any more breeder reactors, or broker any more third party arms deals to hide their involvement with states that promote and support terrorism.

We may even prevent them from directly selling an already rolled nuke to some murderous bastards.

say buhbye to their budies the Hezbollah as well in that case. I'm really surprised that the US hasn't brought this relationship up more often, like after the Francophone summit where Chiraq shook hands with a man who was directly responsible for bombing US Marine baracks.

[Salim]

you just have to admire them :) (no, not the French)

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by Salim
you just have to admire them :) (no, not the French)

Again. Do you speak in code or something? Is it that hard to get your point across or at least reply to a specific question in general. No one knows what you are talking about?

Did you mean, all the French want is for us to admire them? Then you said, no not the French? I have no clue guy.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Again. Do you speak in code or something? Is it that hard to get your point across or at least reply to a specific question in general. No one knows what you are talking about?

Did you mean, all the French want is for us to admire them? Then you said, no not the French? I have no clue guy.

That's precisely what the frog-eaters want; they want recognition. They want acclaim. The worst thing to a Frenchman is to be ignored.

They believe, incredibly, that as long as the eyes of the world are on France, they are illuminating and leading the world. They believe it to be their destiny.

That's a real thigh slapper!

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Ralph63
The problem with large "Bush doctrine" preemptive US military commitments, is that US can realistically only handle a very few selected rogestate/terrorist-troubles at a time. Only one at a time of the magnitude of Irak. How can this be exploited? Well, take the recent murder of the Serbian primeminister, Zoran Djindjic, for example. Is it a coincidence that the shady figures behind this chose to do this exactly now, then they very well know that US/UN is 100% occupied with the Irak-issue?

Above is one of the built-in problems with preemtive US-military commitments around the globe. The more US exhausts its recourses in one selected issue at a time, the more new terrorists networks, roge-states and border-quarrels states are likely to take their changes, while attention is set elsewere.

Besides; I read an article that US volonteer-army recruitment system apparently is going through growing tensions since 11 september. Dissatisfaction with neverending abroad assignments and therefore growing problems on the homefront (divorces, domestic quarrels). Also, the US-gov sets their hopes/taxmoney on new ever more effective weapons-systems, while the military-personnel actually shrinks in size. "Do more with less" its called.

I can't cite where or when, but I read an article that there is a growing affinity for beastiality, among Swedish men; that this is causing problems on the homefront; divorces, domestic quarrels, etc. Also, that the Swedish government sets its hope on more effective programs designed to draw their men back to what has been considered a normal domestic relationship.

As far as our country being able to do more with less, keep your eyes on the next few weeks news programming. You're going to see something you can't even comprehend. You Putz!

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Ralph63
OK, fair enough. Go to www.washingtonpost.com and search the article "Unrivaled Military Feels Strains of Unending War" in the archives. It was publiced february 16, 2003. The Washington Post requires registration in order to access complete articles at its archive. They allow reading of complete articles on the day of publication and I have read there before, but I do not like the concept of registering at sites merely to read what is there. I do it at particular sites, but not many.

I appreciate your effort in referencing the article but in the future, perhaps you could post the entire text with link.

I would like to say in response to some of the points that you did make concerning the morale of active military personell that I was an enlistee in the Viet Nam era and I griped about everything just like everyone else, draftee and enlistee alike.

The essentially unstable nature of the military life with the sort of demands that can separate family members at a moments notice, placing loved ones in the way of harm, has always been a source of friction among families. It is not anything new and to attribute these type of things to some new phenomenon is not accurate. It is just the way things are, unfortunately. I understand that the members of metropolitan police departments whose assignments are often similar to the those of the military, suffer from much the same problems.

Also, and this is solely my opinion. any shrinkage in the military in recent years has been purposive in order to effect concepts of streamlining. There is no shrinkage, to my knowledge, from any lack of committment on the part of Americans to serve their country in a volunteer army.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by MichaelC

Also, and this is solely my opinion. any shrinkage in the military in recent years has been purposive in order to effect concepts of streamlining. There is no shrinkage, to my knowledge, from any lack of committment on the part of Americans to serve their country in a volunteer army.

I believe his motivation is to lower morale by invoking doubt on the veracity of our troops; that they are there unwillingly to fight and win. This is a none too clever ploy.

Perhaps he should change his nom de plume to "Baghdad Ralph"?

He is a saboteur. (Hey.... those were French words....) :mad:

[mimil]

Hello everyone,

Please find attached a part of american history that you can find on the following link:

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch3_p11.htm

"In France, enthusiasm for the American cause was high: the French intellectual world was itself in revolt against feudalism and privilege. However, the Crown lent its support to the colonies for geopolitical rather than ideological reasons: the French government had been eager for reprisal against Britain ever since France's defeat in 1763. To further the American cause, Benjamin Franklin was sent to Paris in 1776. His wit, guile and intellect soon made their presence felt in the French capital, and played a major role in winning French assistance.

France began providing aid to the colonies in May 1776, when it sent 14 ships with war supplies to America. In fact, most of the gun powder used by the American armies came from France. After Britain's defeat at Saratoga, France saw an opportunity to seriously weaken its ancient enemy and restore the balance of power that had been upset by the Seven Years' War (the French and Indian War). On February 6, 1778, America and France signed a Treaty of Amity and Commerce, in which France recognized America and offered trade concessions. They also signed a Treaty of Alliance, which stipulated that if France entered the war, neither country would lay down its arms until America won its independence, that neither would conclude peace with Britain without the consent of the other, and that each guaranteed the other's possessions in America. This was the only bilateral defense treaty signed by the United States or its predecessors until 1949.

The Franco-American alliance soon broadened the conflict. In June 1778 British ships fired on French vessels, and the two countries went to war. In 1779 Spain, hoping to reacquire territories taken by Britain in the Seven Years' War, entered the conflict on the side of France, but not as an ally of the Americans. In 1780 Britain declared war on the Dutch, who had continued to trade with the Americans. The combination of these European powers, with France in the lead, was a far greater threat to Britain than the American colonies standing alone.

With the French now involved, the British stepped up their efforts in the southern colonies since they felt that most Southerners were Loyalists. A campaign began in late 1778, with the capture of Savannah, Georgia. Shortly thereafter, British troops drove toward Charleston, South Carolina, the principal Southern port. The British also brought naval and amphibious forces into play there, and they managed to bottle up American forces on the Charleston peninsula. On May 12 General Benjamin Lincoln surrendered the city and its 5,000 troops, the greatest American defeat of the war.

But the reversal in fortune only emboldened the American rebels. Soon, South Carolinians began roaming the countryside, attacking British supply lines. By July, American General Horatio Gates, who had assembled a replacement force of untrained militiamen, rushed to Camden, South Carolina, to confront British forces led by General Charles Cornwallis. But the untrained soldiers of Gates's army panicked and ran when confronted by the British regulars. Cornwallis's troops met the Americans several more times, but the most significant battle took place at Cowpens, South Carolina, in early 1781, where the Americans soundly defeated the British. After an exhausting, but unproductive chase through North Carolina, Cornwallis set his sights on Virginia.

In July 1780 France's Louis XVI had sent to America an expeditionary force of 6,000 men under the Comte Jean de Rochambeau. In addition, the French fleet harassed British shipping and prevented reinforcement and resupply of British forces in Virginia by a British fleet sailing from New York City. French and American armies and navies, totaling 18,000 men, parried with Cornwallis all through the summer and into the fall. Finally, on October 19, 1781, after being trapped at Yorktown near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, Cornwallis surrendered his army of 8,000 British soldiers.

Although Cornwallis's defeat did not immediately end the war -- which would drag on inconclusively for almost two more years -- a new British government decided to pursue peace negotiations in Paris in early 1782, with the American side represented by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay. On April 15, 1783, Congress approved the final treaty, and Great Britain and its former colonies signed it on September 3. Known as the Treaty of Paris, the peace settlement acknowledged the independence, freedom and sovereignty of the 13 former colonies, now states, to which Great Britain granted the territory west to the Mississippi River, north to Canada and south to Florida, which was returned to Spain. The fledgling colonies that Richard Henry Lee had spoken of more than seven years before, had finally become "free and independent states." The task of knitting together a nation yet remained."

A this time, America was fighting for its independance against the british and france was on american side and helped them gained there independance.

This just to mention that the all discussion about USA-France relationship as oftenly approched on this site is childish. And I trully belive that such behavior are first totally none constructive, but are also the very roots of future diplomatic problems. We are all on the same boat.

Regards,
mimil

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by mimil
Hello everyone,

Please find attached a part of american history that you can find on the following link:

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch3_p11.htm

"In France, enthusiasm for the American cause was high: the French intellectual world was itself in revolt against feudalism and privilege. However, the Crown lent its support to the colonies for geopolitical rather than ideological reasons: the French government had been eager for reprisal against Britain ever since France's defeat in 1763. To further the American cause, Benjamin Franklin was sent to Paris in 1776. His wit, guile and intellect soon made their presence felt in the French capital, and played a major role in winning French assistance.

France began providing aid to the colonies in May 1776, when it sent 14 ships with war supplies to America. In fact, most of the gun powder used by the American armies came from France. After Britain's defeat at Saratoga, France saw an opportunity to seriously weaken its ancient enemy and restore the balance of power that had been upset by the Seven Years' War (the French and Indian War). On February 6, 1778, America and France signed a Treaty of Amity and Commerce, in which France recognized America and offered trade concessions. They also signed a Treaty of Alliance, which stipulated that if France entered the war, neither country would lay down its arms until America won its independence, that neither would conclude peace with Britain without the consent of the other, and that each guaranteed the other's possessions in America. This was the only bilateral defense treaty signed by the United States or its predecessors until 1949.

The Franco-American alliance soon broadened the conflict. In June 1778 British ships fired on French vessels, and the two countries went to war. In 1779 Spain, hoping to reacquire territories taken by Britain in the Seven Years' War, entered the conflict on the side of France, but not as an ally of the Americans. In 1780 Britain declared war on the Dutch, who had continued to trade with the Americans. The combination of these European powers, with France in the lead, was a far greater threat to Britain than the American colonies standing alone.

With the French now involved, the British stepped up their efforts in the southern colonies since they felt that most Southerners were Loyalists. A campaign began in late 1778, with the capture of Savannah, Georgia. Shortly thereafter, British troops drove toward Charleston, South Carolina, the principal Southern port. The British also brought naval and amphibious forces into play there, and they managed to bottle up American forces on the Charleston peninsula. On May 12 General Benjamin Lincoln surrendered the city and its 5,000 troops, the greatest American defeat of the war.

But the reversal in fortune only emboldened the American rebels. Soon, South Carolinians began roaming the countryside, attacking British supply lines. By July, American General Horatio Gates, who had assembled a replacement force of untrained militiamen, rushed to Camden, South Carolina, to confront British forces led by General Charles Cornwallis. But the untrained soldiers of Gates's army panicked and ran when confronted by the British regulars. Cornwallis's troops met the Americans several more times, but the most significant battle took place at Cowpens, South Carolina, in early 1781, where the Americans soundly defeated the British. After an exhausting, but unproductive chase through North Carolina, Cornwallis set his sights on Virginia.

In July 1780 France's Louis XVI had sent to America an expeditionary force of 6,000 men under the Comte Jean de Rochambeau. In addition, the French fleet harassed British shipping and prevented reinforcement and resupply of British forces in Virginia by a British fleet sailing from New York City. French and American armies and navies, totaling 18,000 men, parried with Cornwallis all through the summer and into the fall. Finally, on October 19, 1781, after being trapped at Yorktown near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, Cornwallis surrendered his army of 8,000 British soldiers.

Although Cornwallis's defeat did not immediately end the war -- which would drag on inconclusively for almost two more years -- a new British government decided to pursue peace negotiations in Paris in early 1782, with the American side represented by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay. On April 15, 1783, Congress approved the final treaty, and Great Britain and its former colonies signed it on September 3. Known as the Treaty of Paris, the peace settlement acknowledged the independence, freedom and sovereignty of the 13 former colonies, now states, to which Great Britain granted the territory west to the Mississippi River, north to Canada and south to Florida, which was returned to Spain. The fledgling colonies that Richard Henry Lee had spoken of more than seven years before, had finally become "free and independent states." The task of knitting together a nation yet remained."

A this time, America was fighting for its independance against the british and france was on american side and helped them gained there independance.

This just to mention that the all discussion about USA-France relationship as oftenly approched on this site is childish. And I trully belive that such behavior are first totally none constructive, but are also the very roots of future diplomatic problems. We are all on the same boat.

Regards,
mimil geeeeeeeeeeesh!! Lighten up Mimil. We're having a little fun in some grim times with the current crop of duplicitous politicians from france. I cannot remember the precise number of my countrymen who are buried in there, but I think we have MORE than paid back any debt which you feel we might have accrued.

TWICE!

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by MichaelC
geeeeeeeeeeesh!! Lighten up Mimil. We're having a little fun in some grim times with the current crop of duplicitous politicians from france. I cannot remember the precise number of my countrymen who are buried in there, but I think we have MORE than paid back any debt which you feel we might have accrued.

TWICE!

Every American history student knows that France's ulterior motive was removing Britain, so they could dominate the trade for the raw materials from the colonies.....

Basic rule numero uno: No one does anything, unless there's a payoff.

I think there's in excess of 6,000 buried at Normandy, alone....

[mimil]

Originally posted by MichaelC
geeeeeeeeeeesh!! Lighten up Mimil. We're having a little fun in some grim times with the current crop of duplicitous politicians from france. I cannot remember the precise number of my countrymen who are buried in there, but I think we have MORE than paid back any debt which you feel we might have accrued.

TWICE!

I never mentionned or talked about any debt, I do not question the fact that france does not speak german because of the american intervention. I am saying that WWII is not a proper argument to protest about the french position.

As for french duplicitous politiciens ... I am still not sure what is my position. I never liked many of the country politics in the past, to be honest I am still searching for one worth trust anywhere else. Whatever Chirac's motive, and I do not here express any opinion on the content, I am pretty amazed by the fact that he has the guts to stand up and resist the american juggernauts. It seems to please and make life so much easier for so many other leaders that ... I am stunt by such a position.

Finally, who said I was french ??

Regards,
Mimil

[Johnny Yuma]

September 11 was not only the first attack on the American mainland in 150 years, but it was also sudden and unexpected. Three thousand civilians were brutally killed without any warning. In the months that followed, Americans worried about anthrax attacks, biological terror, dirty bombs and new suicide squads. Even now, the day-to-day rhythms of American life are frequently interrupted by terror alerts and warnings. The average American feels a threat to his physical security unknown since the early years of the republic.

September 11 added a new layer of assertiveness to Bush’s foreign policy. Understandably, the administration decided that it needed total freedom of action. When NATO, for the first time in its history, invoked the self-defense clause and offered America carte-blanche assistance, the administration ignored it. NATO has its limitations, which were powerfully revealed during the Kosovo campaign, but the signal this sent to our closest allies was that America didn’t need them. Thus as seen by the rest of the world, 9-11 had a distressingly paradoxical effect. It produced a mobilization of American power and yet a narrowing of American interests. Suddenly, Washington was more powerful and determined to act for its own core security and even pre-emptively when it needed to.

After 9-11, the rest of the world saw something quite different. They saw a country that was hit by terrorism, as some of them had been, but that was able to respond on a scale that was almost unimaginable. Suddenly terrorism was the world’s chief priority, and every country had to reorient its foreign policy accordingly. Pakistan had actively supported the Taliban for years; within months it became that regime’s sworn enemy. Washington announced that it would increase its defense budget by almost $50 billion, a sum greater than the total annual defense budget of Britain or Germany. A few months later it toppled a regime 6,000 miles away—almost entirely from the air—in Afghanistan, a country where the British and Soviet empires were bogged down at the peak of their power. It is now clear that the current era can really have only one name, the unipolar world—an age with only one global power.

America’s position today is unprecedented. A hundred years ago, Britain was a superpower, ruling a quarter of the globe’s population. But it was still only the second or third richest country in the world and one among many strong military powers. The crucial measure of military might in the early 20th century was naval power, and Britain ruled the waves with a fleet as large as the next two navies put together. By contrast, the United States will spend as much next year on defense as the rest of the world put together (yes, all 191 countries). And it will do so devoting 4 percent of its GDP, a low level by postwar standards.

American dominance is not simply military. The U.S. economy is as
large as the next three—Japan, Germany and Britain—put together. With 5 percent of the world’s population, this one country accounts for 43 percent of the world’s economic production, 40 percent of its high-technology production and 50 percent of its research and development. If you look at the indicators of future growth, all are favorable for America. It is more dynamic economically, more youthful demographically and more flexible culturally, than any other part of the world. It is conceivable that America’s lead, especially over an aging and sclerotic Europe, will actually increase over the next two decades.

(Boy does it feel good to be on the inside....)

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by mimil
I never mentionned or talked about any debt, I do not question the fact that france does not speak german because of the american intervention. I am saying that WWII is not a proper argument to protest about the french position.

As for french duplicitous politiciens ... I am still not sure what is my position. I never liked many of the country politics in the past, to be honest I am still searching for one worth trust anywhere else. Whatever Chirac's motive, and I do not here express any opinion on the content, I am pretty amazed by the fact that he has the guts to stand up and resist the american juggernauts. It seems to please and make life so much easier for so many other leaders that ... I am stunt by such a position.

Finally, who said I was french ??

Regards,
Mimil Nobody said you were french, but since you appeared to be taking up their cause and implying that people were out of line, it seemed to me that you were putting the onus for our disrespect on us (Americans) rather than on france where it belongs. If you think Chiraq is taking his position from some principled and altruistic motive, please grow up. That is ridiculous.

Had it not been for the Israelis, iraq would have been twenty years into their nuclear program producing weapons grade material from a reactor built by france. france provides iraq with mirage fighter jets and spare parts. france thought the cozy oil deals made with the savage Hussein would put it in an enviable position, but the Iraqi Nat'l Congress in exile has nipped that in the bud.

So, if you think we're going to get all teary eyed around here about a lowlife location like france, forget it. As Mr. Yuma has already pointed out, they didn't help the fledgling United States for any other reason than their own self interest. And their self interest is all they are into now. When we start turning up weaponry in Iraq with "made in france" stamped on it, a portion of their true motives will be exposed.

[Communication]

France and Germany are left to wonder: Did they carry things too far?

In Berlin, a reporter talking to a German official heard that the Schroeder government initially believed Iraq was a one-issue crisis, narrowly confinable to disagreement on the military undertaking and the painful although surmountable problem (in the middle term) of Germany's nonparticipation.
.
But reacting in fear of isolation, the official suggested, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's willingness to subordinate Germany to a French view of confrontation with the United States on many wider fronts has brought the government to a position it now finds an awkward fit with Germany's long-term interests, outside the two men's realm of when they ran for re-election on a pacifist platform last September...

"Have They Gone Overboard?" this week's cover-story in Le Point, a center-right newsmagazine, wondered over a picture of Chirac and Foreign Minister Dominic de Villepin. Its lead editorial's response was mostly yes, noting viperishly that France was rather good at accommodating itself to any detestable status quo. But that hardly signaled some kind of special unease, no more than the middle-ground financial daily La Tribune did in saying Tuesday that France would pay dearly for its gratuitous threat of a veto.




http://www.iht.com/articles/90195.html

[mimil]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Every American history student knows that France's ulterior motive was removing Britain, so they could dominate the trade for the raw materials from the colonies.....

Basic rule numero uno: No one does anything, unless there's a payoff.

I think there's in excess of 6,000 buried at Normandy, alone....

Excactly, thank you to make my point. Then it is obvious that the intervention in iraq is not to free the country from an oppresing leader. Neither it is to free the poor iraqi people.

We talk about war, we about the motives. Now anyway it will happen.

I watched yesterday the debate in the house of commun. I was amazed by the political speach of tony Blair. But supprinsingly absent of the debate, is what will be done when the war is over. Those questions have hartdly been adressed by anyone.

Does peace in the middle east means a werternization of the region ? What kind of goverment will be put in place ? By who ? What kind of control will be enforced to ensure what is now being said: That the nation ressources will be given to the people of irak, that democratie will become a reality ?


Peace has various meanings, so does democracy and so does "Serious consequences".

Look at afghanistan, the suppose talibans there in power have mainly changed country, ben laden is still running, and the pipeline is on the way (http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm).

What bothers me is that we don't ear anymore about afghanistan since the war is over.

Finally when talking about diplomacy I don't understand why there is no debate in the US about what is hapening. Tony blair at least faces his opinions in front of his political class. In USA you ask the senat six month prior to the facts to give there consent. On a political point of view, this war has been approved. The amercian people have also said yes to the war by electing Bush 2 years ago. It's is a very funny kind of democraty to tackle issues in this way. Lets go back to the house of commun, the speach by Mr Blair was very convincing, and it is only when question came that it lost some of its power. This confort my idea of a need for open debates, and not only a single man talking.

Anyway, sorry for that messy post, my point is simply that opposition is a healthy compromising force in any debate and that we should be be thankfull of its existance rather than blaming its position.

Regards,
Mimil

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by mimil
Excactly, thank you to make my point. Then it is obvious that the intervention in iraq is not to free the country from an oppresing leader. Neither it is to free the poor iraqi people.

Let me take a stab at this before going back to my second night job.

Um, yes you are right, so? Every educated person knows that we expect payoffs. We expect to be able to live securely and sell our products to 1.5 billion people who are always prodded somewhere between socialism and totalitarianism, none of which permitts the frivolous spending of money and consumption - consumerism. So its not the most moral objective nor lifestyle, but compared to the poverty, fear for your life, lack of freedom, and no possiblity of pursueing happiness except for Jihad, its a positive alternative, no?


We talk about war, we about the motives. Now anyway it will happen.

I watched yesterday the debate in the house of commun. I was amazed by the political speach of tony Blair. But supprinsingly absent of the debate, is what will be done when the war is over. Those questions have hartdly been adressed by anyone.

Actually, we've been following it pretty close here, I mean the discussion, and I can tell you that much has been said, such as the billions we plan on donating (your welcome - personally, out of my taxes, you are welcome), the statement issued "the oil belongs to the people of Iraq", etc. But you bring up a very valid point:

The PEACENIKS, knowing the war was inevitable, and being true humanitarians, should have focused on the issue of what will be done after the war, rather than spend all their breath preventing the inevitable.


Does peace in the middle east means a werternization of the region ? What kind of goverment will be put in place ? By who ? What kind of control will be enforced to ensure what is now being said: That the nation ressources will be given to the people of irak, that democratie will become a reality ?


Great questions. But whatever will surely be better for all humanity than what exists there today.


Peace has various meanings, so does democracy and so does "Serious consequences".

Look at afghanistan, the suppose talibans there in power have mainly changed country, ben laden is still running, and the pipeline is on the way (http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm).

Will get to this later, promiss. But just lookinh thru that site, something doesn't smell right. Like proof.


What bothers me is that we don't ear anymore about afghanistan since the war is over.

We hear about it everyday. Maybe moving up to an actual news site instead of reading sites like "truth out" may give you some more insight.


Finally when talking about diplomacy I don't understand why there is no debate in the US about what is hapening. Tony blair at least faces his opinions in front of his political class. In USA you ask the senat six month prior to the facts to give there consent. On a political point of view, this war has been approved. The amercian people have also said yes to the war by electing Bush 2 years ago. It's is a very funny kind of democraty to tackle issues in this way. Lets go back to the house of commun, the speach by Mr Blair was very convincing, and it is only when question came that it lost some of its power. This confort my idea of a need for open debates, and not only a single man talking.

Anyway, sorry for that messy post, my point is simply that opposition is a healthy compromising force in any debate and that we should be be thankfull of its existance rather than blaming its position.

Regards,
Mimil

Ok, first of all, there was plenty of debate, but evenn with the bickering, we are united. We know what a threat is and we're going to finish the job that should have been done in 91.

Second, say "The amercian people have also said yes to the war by electing Bush 2 years ago." really exposes your agenda. Care to prove this? While you're out, check out this link that Justpat found fthat completely disproves this arguement, notice the date:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/809168.stm

"US Vice-President Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein. "

Anyway, enjoy and talk to you later.

[mimil]

Just to clarify:
"The amercian people have also said yes to the war by electing Bush 2 years ago."

Is the election of a president an unconditionnal approval of its politic over time? That is what I meant with this sentence.

Sorry for not being clear.

Regards,
Mimil

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by mimil
Just to clarify:
"The amercian people have also said yes to the war by electing Bush 2 years ago."

Is the election of a president an unconditionnal approval of its politic over time? That is what I meant with this sentence.

Sorry for not being clear.

Regards,
Mimil

And by my above source and link and quote, the American people were given 2 options, each of which was certain of war.

[mimil]

Originally posted by MichaelC

Had it not been for the Israelis, iraq would have been twenty years into their nuclear program producing weapons grade material from a reactor built by france. france provides iraq with mirage fighter jets and spare parts. france thought the cozy oil deals made with the savage Hussein would put it in an enviable position, but the Iraqi Nat'l Congress in exile has nipped that in the bud.



About Osiris, and osirak:

"It should be known that, until Carter which realized the damage, the sale of engines of research in the world was going well. They are large units or small some far from dear, known as MTR (Materials Testing Reactor) which render great services in the industrial research, the manufacture of the radioisotopes of medical use (a simple scintiscanning uses some) or industrialist (the element ionizing of a smoke detector is americium 241 etc. 200 MTR exist in the world, and any respected university, even in the Third World has one of them. In fact especially the american sold them, business is business. It should be known that some of these engines functioned with very enriched fuel completely suited and without any difficulty of entering the composition of a weapon. The yankees are thus "the" culprits of the proliferation, and they prefer not to praise themselves"


"Like its name indicates it Osirak is the certified copy of Osiris, an engine who functions with a little enriched fuel and completely incompetent of quarrelsome use: the limit of enrichment of uranium not proliferating is 20%, it is a physical reality, Osiris always was below by construction. "

mimil

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Let me take a stab at this before going back to my second night job.

Um, yes you are right, so? Every educated person knows that we expect payoffs. We expect to be able to live securely and sell our products to 1.5 billion people who are always prodded somewhere between socialism and totalitarianism, none of which permitts the frivolous spending of money and consumption - consumerism. So its not the most moral objective nor lifestyle, but compared to the poverty, fear for your life, lack of freedom, and no possiblity of pursueing happiness except for Jihad, its a positive alternative, no?

Darn it! You beat me to the punch. Thank you, sir.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by mimil
About Osiris, and osirak:

"It should be known that, until Carter which realized the damage, the sale of engines of research in the world was going well. They are large units or small some far from dear, known as MTR (Materials Testing Reactor) which render great services in the industrial research, the manufacture of the radioisotopes of medical use (a simple scintiscanning uses some) or industrialist (the element ionizing of a smoke detector is americium 241 etc. 200 MTR exist in the world, and any respected university, even in the Third World has one of them. In fact especially the american sold them, business is business. It should be known that some of these engines functioned with very enriched fuel completely suited and without any difficulty of entering the composition of a weapon. The yankees are thus "the" culprits of the proliferation, and they prefer not to praise themselves"


"Like its name indicates it Osirak is the certified copy of Osiris, an engine who functions with a little enriched fuel and completely incompetent of quarrelsome use: the limit of enrichment of uranium not proliferating is 20%, it is a physical reality, Osiris always was below by construction. "

mimil Your "opinions" are welcome as long as they make sense, but of course you realize that there are other views on the matter. Here is one of them from the webpage of the Federation of American Scientists:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm

Iraq began to expand its nuclear sector in the 1970's, but made little progress in the early 1980's, when most of its energy and attention were focused on the war against Iran. In September 1980, at the onset of the Iran-Iraq War, the Israeli Chief of Army Intelligence urged the Iranians to bomb Osiraq. On 30 September 1980 a a pair of Iranian Phantom jets, part of a larger group of aircraft attacking a conventional electric power plant near Baghdad, also bombed the Osiraq reactor. Minor damage to the reactor was reported. No further Iranian air attacks against Iraqi nuclear facilities were identified during the rest of the seven-year war.

When Israeli intelligence confirmed Iraq's intention of producing weapons at Osiraq, the Israeli government decided to attack. According to some estimates, Iraq in 1981 was still as much as five to ten years away from the ability to build a nuclear weapon. Others estimated at that time that Iraq might get its first such weapon within a year or two. Prime Minister Menachem Begin felt military action was the only remedy. Begin feared that his party would lose the next election, and he feared that the opposition party would not preempt prior to the production of the first Iraqi nuclear bomb.

The raid would have to occur before its first fuel was to be loaded, before the reactor went "hot" so as not to endanger the surrounding community. The target was distant: 1,100 km from Israel. Preparations included building target mock-ups and flying full scale dress-rehearsal missions. The aircrews were selected from the cream of the IAFs fighter corps. The IDF Chief-of-Staff, Lt. Gen. Rafael (Raful) Eitan, briefed the pilots personally. Displaying unusual emotion, he told them: "The alternative is our destruction".

[Alfred]

Originally posted by MichaelC
Your "opinions" are welcome as long as they make sense,


This is a rather severe requirement....it must be new. Does that mean that Takeo and Northlander are now to be stricken??


:)

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Alfred
This is a rather severe requirement....it must be new. Does that mean that Takeo and Northlander are now to be stricken??


:) I wish!!

[Northlander]

As americans Im sure you will find a way to remove us without making it look like you are breaking the rules of this forum.

Basic rule numero uno: No one does anything, unless there's a payoff.


thank you. I cant belive we agree on one single thing. So you would say that USA are not in Iraq to free the iraqi people?

I for one would say that France do not oppose USA out of morality alone.

BTW. I heard you lost a helicopter. What can I say?

[Mediocrates]

1 - do you want to be a martyr? give the word, we'll kick you off if you want us to. otherwise I don't see it happening.

2 - probably right, who really cares about Iraq anyway apart from as a proxy to bash the US?

3 - say whatever you want, fire your AK into the air, buy a pastry, pet your dog.

[Johnny Yuma]

Basic rule numero uno: No one does anything, unless there's a payoff.
thank you. I cant belive we agree on one single thing. ?

Nope! Not yet. Don't believe it, because we don't.

So you would say that USA are not in Iraq to free the iraqi people?

No. I wouldn't say that. I would say that the payoff is that we are there to get rid of a tyranical bastard that poses a threat to the United States, and, in the process, get the Iraqi people out from under his grip. It's a win/win situation. Besides, mother said, "Charity starts at home...."

I for one would say that France do not oppose USA out of morality alone.

Hmmm... perhaps I was a bit hasty, when I said we didn't agree on something.

Here, you are right. France does not oppose us out of morality alone. France wishes to continue selling military components to someone who would like to kill Americans..... and, they would like to continue developing the Iraqi oil fields.

For you to say that France has the moral high ground, is like a whore claiming she's a virgin to the next trick she propositions.

BTW. I heard you lost a helicopter. What can I say?

Yeah. One had mechanical failure and crashed in Kuwait. It happens here, from time to time. We expect it. We've got plenty more.

BTW... Heard you lost a Concorde a while back. French ingenuity? Ohhh! I'm sorry. I forgot. You're a Swede. You guys don't have anything like that. I like your meatballs, though......

But in regards to the helicopter, and you and I both know which helicopter you'd like it to have been, I heard was spraying some Iraqi guts all over the desert.

Don't worry. He's still out there......

So let me ask you a few questions:

Do you, as a Swede, feel personally threatened by what the United States is doing?

Do you think people in the United States are talking about Sweden? If not, does that bother you?

Would you consider yourself attractive? Do others consider you attractive? If so, why?

Have you ever heard voices in your head? If yes, what did they say?

Are you frightened by Americans? If the answer is no, why not?

Do you have nightmares about Americans? If the answer is no, it should be yes.

[Northlander]

I know I shouldnt argue with some fat white trash inbreed wacko from arizona but I cant help it. Some army you got there crashing their own helicopters. Isnt it better to use it against the so called enemy?

For your information my country do have WMD capabilty. Our whole nation is a bloody high-tech, chemical manufactory. We sell a load of regular arms to about anyone that pays. That I call a threat.
I used to think it was a shame not long ago. Now I dont.
There is afterall a tiny little chance that your excuse for president finds out and starts to demand inspections. We of course will in turn refuse and hopefully after that I will get the chance of meeting interesting people like you.

On the other hand we might not ever meet afterall, maybe its just a sweet dream. Not all people are so stupid that they wait for an attack would you say? Pre-emptive strikes can go both ways and since large part of our population can speak american without accent and also sees the benefits of fighting the war on enemy soil I still have hopes for a scenario like that. You have a way of picking the right enemies so far. Well, Vietnam excluded, but hopefully one day you will pick the wrong.

Im sure you wake up with a hard-on every night dreaming about iraqi guts in some desert. I would just love so much to cure you from it. Why are you not in the desert killing children BTW? Basic training was to hard for you? Did you have to pass an IQ test?

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Northlander
I know I shouldnt argue with some fat white trash inbreed wacko from arizona but I cant help it. Some army you got there crashing their own helicopters. Isnt it better to use it against the so called enemy?

For your information my country do have WMD capabilty. Our whole nation is a bloody high-tech, chemical manufactory. We sell a load of regular arms to about anyone that pays. That I call a threat.
I used to think it was a shame not long ago. Now I dont.
There is afterall a tiny little chance that your excuse for president finds out and starts to demand inspections. We of course will in turn refuse and hopefully after that I will get the chance of meeting interesting people like you.

On the other hand we might not ever meet afterall, maybe its just a sweet dream. Not all people are so stupid that they wait for an attack would you say? Pre-emptive strikes can go both ways and since large part of our population can speak american without accent and also sees the benefits of fighting the war on enemy soil I still have hopes for a scenario like that. You have a way of picking the right enemies so far. Well, Vietnam excluded, but hopefully one day you will pick the wrong.

Im sure you wake up with a hard-on every night dreaming about iraqi guts in some desert. I would just love so much to cure you from it. Why are you not in the desert killing children BTW? Basic training was to hard for you? Did you have to pass an IQ test? I'm laughing so hard, I spit on the monitor screen!!

I don't intend to steal any of Mr. Yuma's thunder, as I know he'll have a good time time with this idiotic post, but I did want to say, before I kick back and await his arrival, that you have a habit of regularly digging yourself into some incredibly large holes and now you seem to see fit to also pull the dirt in on your head all by yourself.

My American readers will grasp the idiom I use, though you may be left in the dust, as you generally are in all your posts.

Posts like this hardly need be commented upon. They really do stand on their own as a cautionary tale concerning the mental condition of people who live in your neck of the woods.

Mr Yuma! Mr. Yuma! Where are you!?

[Alfred]

It is near impossible to explain to a European our reasons for going to war. We do not think alike.

They come up with all these "motivations" because that is what they would do if they were running the show. They cannot believe our reasoning because they are not Americans.

Europeans do not liberate....they conquer or colonize.

Europeans are masters of killing and genocide

Europeans can out Machiaveilli (sp) the Americans any day


America was formed by Europeans who were sick of Europe and who wanted a new order. America has been free from day one for the poor and oppressed.

We do not need to listen to Old Europe...they have very little to offer except excellent cuisine.

America is not perfect. Far from it. We have our share of airheads (liberals), communists, nazis and the like.

But America is the most generous and the least imperialistic of any major nation on earth.

We need not listen to the blathering of the effete.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Northlander
I know I shouldnt argue with some fat white trash inbreed wacko from arizona but I cant help it. Some army you got there crashing their own helicopters. Isnt it better to use it against the so called enemy?

For your information my country do have WMD capabilty. Our whole nation is a bloody high-tech, chemical manufactory. We sell a load of regular arms to about anyone that pays. That I call a threat.
I used to think it was a shame not long ago. Now I dont.
There is afterall a tiny little chance that your excuse for president finds out and starts to demand inspections. We of course will in turn refuse and hopefully after that I will get the chance of meeting interesting people like you.

On the other hand we might not ever meet afterall, maybe its just a sweet dream. Not all people are so stupid that they wait for an attack would you say? Pre-emptive strikes can go both ways and since large part of our population can speak american without accent and also sees the benefits of fighting the war on enemy soil I still have hopes for a scenario like that. You have a way of picking the right enemies so far. Well, Vietnam excluded, but hopefully one day you will pick the wrong.

Im sure you wake up with a hard-on every night dreaming about iraqi guts in some desert. I would just love so much to cure you from it. Why are you not in the desert killing children BTW? Basic training was to hard for you? Did you have to pass an IQ test?

Actually, we have a true multi-cultural society, so our gene pool is more varied than what you have on that iceberg you live on. Frankly, based on the attrition rate of your population, you won't last another 150 years. In other words, your birth rate can't keep up with the death rate. Better get busy....

WMD capabilities huh?... Hmmmm. I wonder if your government knows that?

Hmmmmm... an even greater hmmmmmm. You're threatening us with a pre-emptive strike? Ooooh! Someone get me a Zannex!

What are you gonna throw our way? Fruit soup? Potato dumplings? Or the dreaded pickled herring? Oh yeah. Weapons of Meatball Destruction.... :rolleyes:

Humph. Wake up with a ... well... you know.. ;) Naah. I'm gonna be thinking of a Swede. Ya shure! Can't wait to meet you, too..... sweetie! I bet you'll look really cute in a wedding dress....

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Alfred
It is near impossible to explain to a European our reasons for going to war. We do not think alike.

They come up with all these "motivations" because that is what they would do if they were running the show. They cannot believe our reasoning because they are not Americans.

Europeans do not liberate....they conquer or colonize.

Europeans are masters of killing and genocide

Europeans can out Machiaveilli (sp) the Americans any day


America was formed by Europeans who were sick of Europe and who wanted a new order. America has been free from day one for the poor and oppressed.

We do not need to listen to Old Europe...they have very little to offer except excellent cuisine.

America is not perfect. Far from it. We have our share of airheads (liberals), communists, nazis and the like.

But America is the most generous and the least imperialistic of any major nation on earth.

We need not listen to the blathering of the effete. Hear, Hear ! I am down with that with that statement, Alfred.

[Johnny Yuma]

...... my wife is standing here asking, "Now how did he know you were a fat white trash whacko from Arizona?"

... but she's Norwegian. They don't particularly like Swedes, either....


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

[Johnny Yuma]

Okay... she told me to divulge a little about myself.

I'm not really "from" Arizona, even though I do live here, now. I'm really "from" Florida. And the reason I moved here is because I was offered an attractive position with a local firm.
When I say attractive, I mean very attractive.

We live in an up-scale neighborhood in a 4000 square foot energy devouring money pit; four bedrooms, formal living and dining rooms, den, two offices, three car garage, indoor jacuzzi, and... a snooker table; my personal favorite.

We have a Shar Pei that thinks he's a human being, and he prefers not to walk on grass, because it's not as soft as the carpet in the house. He also loves New York Strips.... medium rare. Just a little A-1 sauce, please. Sorry... I went on about the dog.. I'm fond of him.

I have six vehicles at the house; a 2002 Montero, a 1961 Chevy pickup (cherry), a 1966 Mustang (coupe, not fastback, also cherry), a 2001 Jeep Sahara, and a 1999 "Mini Wini' motorhome. I'm hating the price of gas, right now.... We really need those oil fields...... ;)

That's about all I'm going to tell you, because anything else might be enough for you to make good on your "pre-emptive strike". :rolleyes:

Otherwise, if that's what it means to be white trash, I'll take it any day, over being a pasty effeminate Swede.....

If that's

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
I never mentionned or talked about any debt, I do not question the fact that france does not speak german because of the american intervention. I am saying that WWII is not a proper argument to protest about the french position.

As for french duplicitous politiciens ... I am still not sure what is my position. I never liked many of the country politics in the past, to be honest I am still searching for one worth trust anywhere else. Whatever Chirac's motive, and I do not here express any opinion on the content, I am pretty amazed by the fact that he has the guts to stand up and resist the american juggernauts. It seems to please and make life so much easier for so many other leaders that ... I am stunt by such a position.

Finally, who said I was french ??

Regards,
Mimil

Your syntax speaks volumes..... You write your sales English as though you are speaking Francais....

[Northlander]

Alfred I think you better send that list of the bad europeans and the good americans to the arab nations cause they sure dont know it. What we saw today was pure hate on the streets in S.Arabia,Egypt,Jordan etc etc. Hate towards USA, not europe.

This is about preventing terrorism, yeah right.

ok, Johnny I see calling you white trash did hurt. Im sure you have gotten your share of the american dream. Dont worry I was just trying to provoke you.
My point of taking Sweden as an example is because no matter how laughable a conflict would be between us we are potentially much more of a threat than Iraq is to you so you wouldnt lack reasons. It would also be more fun for you because we wouldnt just stand still in the desert having our guts blown out by apaches, more of a challenge so to speak. Dont get me wrong, you would win of course but maybe life wouldnt be so fun after that.

On occasions we harbour terrorists or potentional terrorists as most other european countries indeed do. That is because of the very large number of immigrants we take in compared to our population and especially the countries they come from. Mainly countries where you americans have done your stuff. That is a terrific reason wouldnt you say? We dont train them but what the heck.

We have no nuke program even though we had. We however do sell arms all over the place. Our laws says we cant sell to countries in war but the government does it nevertheless.
We clearly sell far more than Iraq so there you have another reason.
Since we always have seen war with Russia as the most emminent threat we still needed some kind of deterent during the cold war and nukes were out of the question, its there biological weaponry comes into place. It doesnt matter that our population doesnt know it as long as the russians do. There you have the ground for most of the swedish medical and chemical industries. Since we are one of the countries in the world with most scientists per capita we never had any problems keeping fairly up to date with the military development in the world.
In a much debated article one professor at an university here wrote that the time it would take to lay over the production from medical to military in the event of a crisis were somewhere around 3 weeks in the largest medical factories. Probably shorter during the most serious crisis with the russians.
With a little fantasy you can probably imagine that our nation as a very small neutral country during the cold war had little choice but to really plan for retaliation on the russians. Just in case. The price for them always had to be higher the the gains. My point is that you americans could quite easy use this as an excuse for invasion so today basically any western country with a average level of chemical industry could be seen as a potential threat. Iraq is probably 20 years after any european and most asian countries when it comes to military science AND in amount of armsdeals.

Me and my friends just discussed how it comes that the Iraqis use the tactics the do. The logic of the defence of Baghdad is obvious. That they have understood but other than that its like they have absolutely no idea about whats happening or what will happen. What have they done since the last war in preparing for this? Anyone here doing their military service is used to training for a war they will surely lose, the hypothetical war with the russians. The sole purpose of the training and also the weaponry is not to win but rather to create as much terror and destruction as possible. You get my point? Really dirty fighting. The Iraqis are in the same situation but they have no similar doctrine.

The japanese army used anthrax in manchuria during their occupation there and even today the chinese government have problems getting rid of it. The spores lives in the ground. Poor farmers still live with open wounds in the legs that never heals just from moving in certain areas. 60 years after.
Many americans are very naive when you see modern conflicts. You are far to used to battle people that fight on your terms. I hope you nothing bad, I really dont do but you must understand that sooner or later someone will really start to think about military doctrines like that of even my own, pathetic small peaceful welfare state. Invasion can never be an option. Ever.
Had the Iraqis seen it the same way and had they indeed HAD any of the chemical/biological weapons you say they have, they would have striked at you in USA by now.

No matter how cool you feel when seeing your tremendous military power you should realise that the majority of the world sees it too. I dont feel threatened by you. But many people do. Especially arab nations today and I imagine N.korea. How long do you think it takes for anyone finding out effective deterents? What do you think Iran is thinking about now? S.Arabia? When they realise that terrorbalance is indeed possible they will feel much safer.

Im sad this is the truth but it really is. Why would people outside US accept living in fear of attack by you? You lose security and your population are even more threatened by every military victory you have. Not the opposite. Since you never seem to stop your wars I still hope you pick the wrong choice someday anyway. It will learn you that war is hell and war is terror. Depending on who is next I guess we will find out eventually.

I say it will take 2 or 3 more weeks for you to have total victory. That is not a good defence which is the evidence they were never a threat to you. I would much rather fight you now than the russians during the cold war. You are more capable clearly but it would nevertheless be easier in many ways. Mainly regarding propaganda and the public opinions but also because of your doctrine and also the background of your soldiers.

the Iraqis fail to see anything about you but nevertheless I wish them good luck as an invaded nation.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Northlander
Alfred I think you better send that list of the bad europeans and the good americans to the arab nations cause they sure dont know it. What we saw today was pure hate on the streets in S.Arabia,Egypt,Jordan etc etc. Hate towards USA, not europe.

This is about preventing terrorism, yeah right.

ok, Johnny I see calling you white trash did hurt. Im sure you have gotten your share of the american dream. Dont worry I was just trying to provoke you.
My point of taking Sweden as an example is because no matter how laughable a conflict would be between us we are potentially much more of a threat than Iraq is to you so you wouldnt lack reasons. It would also be more fun for you because we wouldnt just stand still in the desert having our guts blown out by apaches, more of a challenge so to speak. Dont get me wrong, you would win of course but maybe life wouldnt be so fun after that.

On occasions we harbour terrorists or potentional terrorists as most other european countries indeed do. That is because of the very large number of immigrants we take in compared to our population and especially the countries they come from. Mainly countries where you americans have done your stuff. That is a terrific reason wouldnt you say? We dont train them but what the heck.

We have no nuke program even though we had. We however do sell arms all over the place. Our laws says we cant sell to countries in war but the government does it nevertheless.
We clearly sell far more than Iraq so there you have another reason.
Since we always have seen war with Russia as the most emminent threat we still needed some kind of deterent during the cold war and nukes were out of the question, its there biological weaponry comes into place. It doesnt matter that our population doesnt know it as long as the russians do. There you have the ground for most of the swedish medical and chemical industries. Since we are one of the countries in the world with most scientists per capita we never had any problems keeping fairly up to date with the military development in the world.
In a much debated article one professor at an university here wrote that the time it would take to lay over the production from medical to military in the event of a crisis were somewhere around 3 weeks in the largest medical factories. Probably shorter during the most serious crisis with the russians.
With a little fantasy you can probably imagine that our nation as a very small neutral country during the cold war had little choice but to really plan for retaliation on the russians. Just in case. The price for them always had to be higher the the gains. My point is that you americans could quite easy use this as an excuse for invasion so today basically any western country with a average level of chemical industry could be seen as a potential threat. Iraq is probably 20 years after any european and most asian countries when it comes to military science AND in amount of armsdeals.

Me and my friends just discussed how it comes that the Iraqis use the tactics the do. The logic of the defence of Baghdad is obvious. That they have understood but other than that its like they have absolutely no idea about whats happening or what will happen. What have they done since the last war in preparing for this? Anyone here doing their military service is used to training for a war they will surely lose, the hypothetical war with the russians. The sole purpose of the training and also the weaponry is not to win but rather to create as much terror and destruction as possible. You get my point? Really dirty fighting. The Iraqis are in the same situation but they have no similar doctrine.

The japanese army used anthrax in manchuria during their occupation there and even today the chinese government have problems getting rid of it. The spores lives in the ground. Poor farmers still live with open wounds in the legs that never heals just from moving in certain areas. 60 years after.
Many americans are very naive when you see modern conflicts. You are far to used to battle people that fight on your terms. I hope you nothing bad, I really dont do but you must understand that sooner or later someone will really start to think about military doctrines like that of even my own, pathetic small peaceful welfare state. Invasion can never be an option. Ever.
Had the Iraqis seen it the same way and had they indeed HAD any of the chemical/biological weapons you say they have, they would have striked at you in USA by now.

No matter how cool you feel when seeing your tremendous military power you should realise that the majority of the world sees it too. I dont feel threatened by you. But many people do. Especially arab nations today and I imagine N.korea. How long do you think it takes for anyone finding out effective deterents? What do you think Iran is thinking about now? S.Arabia? When they realise that terrorbalance is indeed possible they will feel much safer.

Im sad this is the truth but it really is. Why would people outside US accept living in fear of attack by you? You lose security and your population are even more threatened by every military victory you have. Not the opposite. Since you never seem to stop your wars I still hope you pick the wrong choice someday anyway. It will learn you that war is hell and war is terror. Depending on who is next I guess we will find out eventually.

I say it will take 2 or 3 more weeks for you to have total victory. That is not a good defence which is the evidence they were never a threat to you. I would much rather fight you now than the russians during the cold war. You are more capable clearly but it would nevertheless be easier in many ways. Mainly regarding propaganda and the public opinions but also because of your doctrine and also the background of your soldiers.

the Iraqis fail to see anything about you but nevertheless I wish them good luck as an invaded nation. You know, you should make your point in fewer words if you really want anyone to take you seriously.

I started laughing at the threat that "swedish warriors" might pose to invaders. Perhaps someone else will fill in the gaps in your knowledge, but if memory serves me, didn't sweden pretty much roll over for the nazis?

Valiant warriors? C.mon now, this isn't the joke and parody thread.

[Northlander]

Nevertheless its about how a weak countrys doctrine MIGHT be against a strong superpower. It will maybe be more interesting when you attack the next nation. Lets say N.Korea.

Iraq does not have the capability but all western countries have. That is why you will not attack any western country regardless. Laugh all you wont but it will not happen. Its not the 40´s anymore.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Northlander
Alfred I think you better send that list of the bad europeans and the good americans to the arab nations cause they sure dont know it. What we saw today was pure hate on the streets in S.Arabia,Egypt,Jordan etc etc. Hate towards USA, not europe.

This is about preventing terrorism, yeah right.

ok, Johnny I see calling you white trash did hurt. Im sure you have gotten your share of the american dream. Dont worry I was just trying to provoke you.

Naah. You didn't hurt me. I'm the world's only living heart donor. :p

Hey.. Just between you and me...... do you spend a lot time alone? I'm guessing you do, and that's sad.... Has anyone recommended you seek professional help? You probably hear that pretty often, huh? You probably wouldn't have near the problems you've had with the girls, if you do. I think you'd be a much happier individual if you gave it some serious thought and sought out some intervention. With all those scientists and pharmaceutical companies you have in Sweden, surely there's help available...

My point of taking Sweden as an example is because no matter how laughable a conflict would be between us we are potentially much more of a threat than Iraq is to you so you wouldnt lack reasons. It would also be more fun for you because we wouldnt just stand still in the desert having our guts blown out by apaches, more of a challenge so to speak. Dont get me wrong, you would win of course but maybe life wouldnt be so fun after that.

I think you're right on the money with this one. The Swedes would make formidable opponents. (Someone get the net....)

On occasions we harbour terrorists or potentional terrorists as most other european countries indeed do. That is because of the very large number of immigrants we take in compared to our population and especially the countries they come from. Mainly countries where you americans have done your stuff. That is a terrific reason wouldnt you say? We dont train them but what the heck.

We have no nuke program even though we had. We however do sell arms all over the place. Our laws says we cant sell to countries in war but the government does it nevertheless.
We clearly sell far more than Iraq so there you have another reason.
Since we always have seen war with Russia as the most emminent threat we still needed some kind of deterent during the cold war and nukes were out of the question, its there biological weaponry comes into place. It doesnt matter that our population doesnt know it as long as the russians do. There you have the ground for most of the swedish medical and chemical industries. Since we are one of the countries in the world with most scientists per capita we never had any problems keeping fairly up to date with the military development in the world.
In a much debated article one professor at an university here wrote that the time it would take to lay over the production from medical to military in the event of a crisis were somewhere around 3 weeks in the largest medical factories. Probably shorter during the most serious crisis with the russians.
With a little fantasy you can probably imagine that our nation as a very small neutral country during the cold war had little choice but to really plan for retaliation on the russians. Just in case. The price for them always had to be higher the the gains. My point is that you americans could quite easy use this as an excuse for invasion so today basically any western country with a average level of chemical industry could be seen as a potential threat. Iraq is probably 20 years after any european and most asian countries when it comes to military science AND in amount of armsdeals.

Me and my friends just discussed how it comes that the Iraqis use the tactics the do. The logic of the defence of Baghdad is obvious. That they have understood but other than that its like they have absolutely no idea about whats happening or what will happen. What have they done since the last war in preparing for this? Anyone here doing their military service is used to training for a war they will surely lose, the hypothetical war with the russians. The sole purpose of the training and also the weaponry is not to win but rather to create as much terror and destruction as possible. You get my point? Really dirty fighting. The Iraqis are in the same situation but they have no similar doctrine.

The japanese army used anthrax in manchuria during their occupation there and even today the chinese government have problems getting rid of it. The spores lives in the ground. Poor farmers still live with open wounds in the legs that never heals just from moving in certain areas. 60 years after.
Many americans are very naive when you see modern conflicts. You are far to used to battle people that fight on your terms. I hope you nothing bad, I really dont do but you must understand that sooner or later someone will really start to think about military doctrines like that of even my own, pathetic small peaceful welfare state. Invasion can never be an option. Ever.
Had the Iraqis seen it the same way and had they indeed HAD any of the chemical/biological weapons you say they have, they would have striked at you in USA by now.

No matter how cool you feel when seeing your tremendous military power you should realise that the majority of the world sees it too. I dont feel threatened by you. But many people do. Especially arab nations today and I imagine N.korea. How long do you think it takes for anyone finding out effective deterents? What do you think Iran is thinking about now? S.Arabia? When they realise that terrorbalance is indeed possible they will feel much safer.

Im sad this is the truth but it really is. Why would people outside US accept living in fear of attack by you? You lose security and your population are even more threatened by every military victory you have. Not the opposite. Since you never seem to stop your wars I still hope you pick the wrong choice someday anyway. It will learn you that war is hell and war is terror. Depending on who is next I guess we will find out eventually.

I say it will take 2 or 3 more weeks for you to have total victory. That is not a good defence which is the evidence they were never a threat to you. I would much rather fight you now than the russians during the cold war. You are more capable clearly but it would nevertheless be easier in many ways. Mainly regarding propaganda and the public opinions but also because of your doctrine and also the background of your soldiers.

the Iraqis fail to see anything about you but nevertheless I wish them good luck as an invaded nation.

It breaks my heart, to hear how blatantly insecure you are. It might help if you find a girlfriend, or someone that can prop up your (among other things) sagging ego, and soothe your self-loathing.
( ... forget the net. Someone get the tranquilizer gun.)

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Northlander
Nevertheless its about how a weak countrys doctrine MIGHT be against a strong superpower. It will maybe be more interesting when you attack the next nation. Lets say N.Korea.

Iraq does not have the capability but all western countries have. That is why you will not attack any western country regardless. Laugh all you wont but it will not happen. Its not the 40´s anymore. America takes care of business where the need arises and the whimpering from sweden means nothing.

I notice how you avoided mentioning sweden's lack of valor when America and others were out kicking Axis butt.

[Alfred]

Northlander.

My good friend is a former Swedish paratrooper..the Special Forces part of it. He shakes his head with the way Sweden has gone. He left about 10 years ago.


Let me be patient and understanding. I won't say bad things about Sweden....or Germany....or Fr...Fr.....frr....well, excluding France in that statement.

You Europeans seem to think that America is trying to take over the world. What have you guys been smoking??

We have been getting killed by Islamic terrorists since the early 1970's...and we have done practically NOTHING to fight back.

How many times have Islamic terrorists killed Swedes?

Well, we have lost probably 1000 people BEFORE September 11 to these raghead fanatics. Setpember 11 we lost 3200 more.

The mistake Bin Laden made was that he gave America a new Pearl Harbor. We woke up. We are at war.

What you and DVC and TAKEO don't seem to be able to understand is that we are NOT at war with the world; we are at war with the Terrorist Nations and those that support them.

What is so bloody difficult to understand???????

I cannot understand why you bozo's keep turning a war agsinst terrorists countries into a war on the world...or France, or Sweden, or Germany.

We are at war with:

1. International Terrorism...Al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups that have killed, and who plan to kill, Americans.
2. We are at war with three main States that have supported these terrorists for years: Iran, Libya and North Korea. With Syria, Pakistan and the Palestinian terrorist groups on the watch list

That is all.

Why is it that you Swedes....thousands of miles away from the center of this, give a hoot about our war? Why in the world would you NOT support us??? Are you for the terrorists??

That is what really makes us furious towards the Europeans right now. After all we have done for you. The US is under international attack by the terrorists and their sponsers and YOU fight us.

That is why a major shift has occured in the US. We now know who are friends are in this world.

As Bush said. You are with us, or against us. That does not mean you have to provide troops or money. All we want is support and understanding for the war we are fighting.

Europe has failed the test. Europe....old Europe that is, are no longer our allies. They are not necessarily our enemies, but they are no longer our allies.

All this stupid blather about Sweden or France fighting the US is silly. Our enemies are the countries I mentioned. If Old Europe WANTS to have the US as an enemy....as a rally cry to develop a stronger EU under French domination, then so be it. But realize that you are making it up. You are creating a boogie man to rise up against.

And you know what? France is leading you by the nose. For they are creating the big, bad American boogie man who is fighting the world.

[Johnny Yuma]

:cool: As to why the Swedes are.......... envious?:

www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=46615#post46615

[Kapiti]

If Northlander's concern's about the world arrogant new bully boy in the world were so silly they would not be echoed by most of the public opinion in every country in the world except the US and Israel.

Britain and Australia are the most committed behind the US and in both countries the dissappointment with the US is only exceeded by the dissappointment with the respective prime ministers who have taken their countries into entirely unpopular unjust wars.

Please attack my country, Australia the same way you have attacked Sweden. Is this the best you children can do ? A clear majority in Australia have not supported our participation without UN backing.

Do you really think that the opinions of the rest of the world can be dismissed so easily and without consaquence.

The only fair contest in this war is the contest between the display of American ignorance or arrogance. I am not sure which is greater but its a close contest and no doubt world records are being broken.

[Johnny Yuma]

Peace Activist Etiquette

With all of this talk of impending (now happening) war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror.

These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost.

We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Kapiti
If Northlander's concern's about the world arrogant new bully boy in the world were so silly they would not be echoed by most of the public opinion in every country in the world except the US and Israel.

Britain and Australia are the most committed behind the US and in both countries the dissappointment with the US is only exceeded by the dissappointment with the respective prime ministers who have taken their countries into entirely unpopular unjust wars.

Please attack my country, Australia the same way you have attacked Sweden. Is this the best you children can do ? A clear majority in Australia have not supported our participation without UN backing.

Do you really think that the opinions of the rest of the world can be dismissed so easily and without consaquence.

The only fair contest in this war is the contest between the display of American ignorance or arrogance. I am not sure which is greater but its a close contest and no doubt world records are being broken.

I like Australia. My sister-in-law's from Horsham (sp.). And I've dear old friends in Melbourne. I'm not gonna dis my friends.

Sporting for a fight, are we, mate? Go have Fosters and chill out. No one's got it in for the Aussies. You've got troops over there, as well.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Peace Activist Etiquette

With all of this talk of impending (now happening) war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror.

These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost.

We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed. A great post, Yuma. I will be passing this around.

[euphoria]

I'm new, but God, I love this forum. Kudos to Johnny and ALfred. :)

[Kapiti]

Johny, you sound if you actually have a sense of humour. I am the only Australian who hates Fosters (and all the other beers for that matter) but I appreciate your comments.

In reply I will give all the people who think that war demands better reasons than the US has presented some instructions about what to do when confronted by a group of people who think that the way to solve future terrorism is simply to blast everything.

1 Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. The easiest way to do this is to grunt and groan reguarly and to repeatdly say "Kill those terrorist bastards"

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, point to anyone, anyone at all and say that he or she is a terrorist infiltrator who has been to Iraq.

3 The person you are talking to,(the redneck) will immediately confront the named "terrorist" and ask them to prove that they have never been to Iraq. Don't worry even if the person can show a passport indicating that they have never been outside the US, the person you are talking to will assume that they could have used a different passport.

4 Since the "terrorist" can never prove they have not been to Iraq, the redneck will assume safely in his own mind that they must be a terrorist.

5 The redneck will quickly work out that the best way to secure his own future safety is to eliminate such terrorists and will accordingly kill him with a sub machine gun. (Its OK he had a licence for it). While shooting 500 rounds into him he also kills many of the people around the "terrorist" who obviously were also terrorists also since they were hanging around a proven terrorist.

Punching someone in the nose is not the only way to stop getting a bloody nose yourself.

[Northlander]

No matter how ineffective the iraqi defence are maybe they dont need to defend at all. To me it looks like amerikan soldiers are throwing grenades at other american soldiers and that americans are shooting down their allies.

Your peaceactivist post were really funny Johnny. I will use it on my activist friends. However I think they will disagree and say something about the very true fact that it is indeed possible to hit warmonglers in the face until they realize that violence wasnt such a funny thing after all.

After all, many american soldiers in the vietnamese jungle with their buddys brains in their face, finally realised that. Maybe it is what it takes to keep you people from travelling the world armed to the teeth.

[Northlander]

good one kapiti :)

What you and DVC and TAKEO don't seem to be able to understand is that we are NOT at war with the world; we are at war with the Terrorist Nations and those that support them.

No you are not. You just invaded a non-threat. Regardless of Saddam, they are no threat to you. You just ran over the UN and that means most of the world. That makes you hostile. Sorry, alot of people sees it that way. You just shouldnt have gone outside the security council. It is that simple.

The moment your nation created this pre-emptive strike doctrine you gave us the finger. Its a threat and hostility towards anyone not completely sucking up to the US. So from now on whenever there are hostilities towards USA just remember this new worldorder started with your new security doctrine. Your current administration can either rethink or not. Its not really up to us. In 10 years from now maybe you will have a different policy and different governmet then I will be happy to see you guys as friends.

I feel sorry for the 30percent americans that do not like this worldorder. They are admireble people who must have a hard time. Those americans will have to symbolise what I like and admire about your nation. There is still hope.

[Johnny Yuma]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kapiti
Johny, you sound if you actually have a sense of humour. I am the only Australian who hates Fosters (and all the other beers for that matter) but I appreciate your comments.

You finally figured it out! Took you long enough.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Northlander
good one kapiti :) I feel sorry for the 30percent americans that do not like this worldorder. They are admireble people who must have a hard time. Those americans will have to symbolise what I like and admire about your nation. There is still hope.

That would be the coalition of gays and lesbians, the American Comunist Worker's Party, NOW, the Cuban government, etc..

You could be their poster boy.

[Alfred]

Originally posted by Northlander

No you are not. You just invaded a non-threat. Regardless of Saddam, they are no threat to you. You just ran over the UN and that means most of the world. That makes you hostile. Sorry, alot of people sees it that way. You just shouldnt have gone outside the security council. It is that simple.
[/B]

I am sorry you feel that way. The reason we have not fought back in the last 30 years is because of too much concern the "international community." You see, the international community wants us to keep getting hit by these fanatics without doing much in return. The international community is not our friend in most instances.

We are growing weary of this line of thought. Especially after Sept. 11. After Sept 11 we cannot humor the little countries of the world.....things are getting too dangerous.

So, you can protest. You can riot, you can hold your breath until you turn blue. But we will defend our country. That is our right and that is our duty.

We are a sovereign country and do not bow down to the UN. The UN is a forum to discuss issues. It is NOT our government and we do not obey its pronouncements unless we agree with them.

The is part of being an independent country. Something you can read about in your history books. You may not like it but this free country helped keep your little country free from your eastern comrades. Do you doubt for one minute that our presence in Europe kept the Soviets from taking over the whole continent?

If you want to feel under attack because we are bombing an enemy then so be it. You must have a good reason....maybe you are helping good olde Sadaam out like you helped out the Nazis.

Like I said earlier:

Iraq
Iran
Libya
North Korea


By the way.

I understand why the Germans are against us. They have been taught since 1946 that war is evil and that the miliatry is evil. They believe that all war is evil because they had to destroy the Prussian militarism within their country. As Germans in general go to extremes in everything they do, they have gone to extreme non-militarism.

The French I can also understand. They envy and hate anyone better than they are. That is why they hate the Brits the Americans and anyone else who is a threat to their self delusionment.

Old Europe no longer has the Soviets to worry about so they are strutting about like roosters making noise. That is fine with me.

Just don't destroy all your ties to America. You may need them at some future point.

[Mediocrates]

My entire life all I've heard abouty is the poor delicate sensibilities of barbarian warrior middle eastern arab muslim countries. The arab street this, OPEC that, they hate us, they mistrust us, they want to kill some Jews, blah blah blah blah.

I say let's civilize them or erase them.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
My entire life all I've heard abouty is the poor delicate sensibilities of barbarian warrior middle eastern arab muslim countries. The arab street this, OPEC that, they hate us, they mistrust us, they want to kill some Jews, blah blah blah blah.

I say let's civilize them or erase them. I second that emotion!

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by MichaelC
I second that emotion!

Without objection... passed!

[Alfred]

I would also like to add that with the execution of American POW's (possibly), and the chance that this may occur in the future; that we pay a bit more attention to winning the war than making sure we do not drop a bomb 3 inches off target.

We are also hearing news of Iraqi soldiers "faking" surrender, only to kill our troops trying to take them prisoner.

If you ask American veterans of the Battle of the Bulge about Malmedy, you will discover that "things became much clearer" after that incident.

To make it simple (for our European friends)....in the future, when an American says "surrender" and an Iraqi picks his nose whilst thinking about it...the Iraqi is dead. In the future, you may have fewer Republican Guards POWs.

One of my fond memories of the Israeli war in Lebanon was the rumor going around that the Israeli Army called in F-16's to blow up the building that a sniper was located in.

Now THAT is a way to win a war!

[Northlander]

So, you can protest. You can riot, you can hold your breath until you turn blue. But we will defend our country. That is our right and that is our duty.

Well, its not people like me that are your nations problems. Its the guys that will anthrax you that are.
And they will do it because of your foreign politics and nothing else. Because of your support to Israel and regimes like that of Saddams. Now they will also do it because of your removal of regimes like Saddams. Hadnt you put your nose in it in the first place you wouldnt have to "defend" now.

You do know the difference of defence and aggression do you?

I say let's civilize them or erase them.

I say ask them to leave or send them back to america in plastic bags.

To make it simple (for our European friends)....in the future, when an American says "surrender" and an Iraqi picks his nose whilst thinking about it...the Iraqi is dead. In the future, you may have fewer Republican Guards POWs.

Expected, what else is new? Watch your back when the iraqis surrender though, maybe your own black muslim soldier gives it to you in the back.

One of my fond memories of the Israeli war in Lebanon was the rumor going around that the Israeli Army called in F-16's to blow up the building that a sniper was located in.

Now THAT is a way to win a war!

Fond memories huh? Depends on which war you pick I guess. They are always different and this war wont be the same as the next. I have had fond moments in front of my tele watching documentarys from Vietnam. Absolutely love it. Just mangle them until they leave.

THAT is a way to win a war.

[Ralph63]

Originally posted by Alfred
So, you can protest. You can riot, you can hold your breath until you turn blue. But we will defend our country. That is our right and that is our duty.

The best way to defend against arabic extremest groups in the long run would be to support and encourage any native democratic oppositions within those arabic countries. But US dont do that. Infact they dont bother if the rulers are dictatorships at all - as long as they cooperate fully with US. Also US should finally insist on throwing those Israel extremist settlers out of pre-67 Palestina, once and for all.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Alfred
I would also like to add that with the execution of American POW's (possibly), and the chance that this may occur in the future; that we pay a bit more attention to winning the war than making sure we do not drop a bomb 3 inches off target.

We are also hearing news of Iraqi soldiers "faking" surrender, only to kill our troops trying to take them prisoner.

If you ask American veterans of the Battle of the Bulge about Malmedy, you will discover that "things became much clearer" after that incident.

To make it simple (for our European friends)....in the future, when an American says "surrender" and an Iraqi picks his nose whilst thinking about it...the Iraqi is dead. In the future, you may have fewer Republican Guards POWs.

One of my fond memories of the Israeli war in Lebanon was the rumor going around that the Israeli Army called in F-16's to blow up the building that a sniper was located in.

Now THAT is a way to win a war!

Yes, we have given the Iraqi regime multiple opportunities to avoid this war. And we are giving Iraqi soldiers multiple opportunities to save themselves.

Unfortunately, the jihad-genocidal Arab and Islamist terrorists don't think twice about killing innocent civilians, so we should not be surprised when they lure troops to a supposed "surrender" and then ambush them.

The bottomline, clearly, is that we must be prepared to ratchet up our approach as needed. After hearing Gen. Tommy Franks yesterday, I'm confident the Bush Administration and Pentagon are prepared to do that if necessary. They hesitate only to make it clear who is responsible.

The Battle for Baghdad is going to be fierce. Saddam's Islamist terrorist allies - allies the peaceniks insist he doesn't have - are going to fight to the death and use every brutal tactic imaginable. We must gather the will to defeat them, even if that means cutting a path to downtown Baghdad with MOABs or even tactical nukes.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Ralph63
The best way to defend against arabic extremest groups in the long run would be to support and encourage any native democratic oppositions within those arabic countries. But US dont do that. Infact they dont bother if the rulers are dictatorships at all - as long as they cooperate fully with US. Also US should finally insist on throwing those Israel extremist settlers out of pre-67 Palestina, once and for all.

Nonsense. There is no better way to embolden Arab terrorists than by rewarding decades of terrorism against Israel, only some of which is limited to ethically cleansing the West Bank.

The US has supported too many Arab dictators in the past - though generally for tactical reasons. But it is never too late to fix that, and having once supported dictators does not prohibit a country (particularly one that periodically undergoes a peaceful transfer of power) from acting resolutely against them.

[Alfred]

I agree.

The Battle of Baghdad is going to be tough, and we will lose a lot of guys (should make our european "friends" very happy).

This war has changed. We have been pussy footing around, making sure every bullet is accounted for...making sure we don't run over endangered species of desert rodents..making sure every bomb hits its target to the inch.

Sadaam, who I think is still alive, will use WMD around Baghdad. He is waiting this long to exploit the media and get people like Northlander all excited. Once he is surrounded and is like Hitler in the bunker, then we will get gassed.

There are very few things in this world to Americans highly ticked off than pictures of executed Americans.

I actually feel sorry for the poor bastard Iraqis now. (to paraphrase our greatest...George Patton).

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Northlander
Well, its not people like me that are your nations problems. Its the guys that will anthrax you that are.
And they will do it because of your foreign politics and nothing else. Because of your support to Israel and regimes like that of Saddams. Now they will also do it because of your removal of regimes like Saddams. Hadnt you put your nose in it in the first place you wouldnt have to "defend" now.

[........]

[........]

[........] Watch your back when the iraqis surrender though, maybe your own black muslim soldier gives it to you in the back.



[........] I have had fond moments in front of my tele watching documentarys from Vietnam. Absolutely love it. Just mangle them until they leave.

THAT is a way to win a war.
In the last week you and takeo have shown all of us here just how "anti-war" you actually are. Which is to say, not at all.

Both of you are gleeful over the death of YOUR enemies. How is this different from the behavior that you falsely accuse others of?

You, yourself, seem to revel in and take a peculiar pleasure in the death of Americans. How do you square this sick bloodlust with all the phoney anti-war stands you've pretended to take in the past?

Glorying in the death of others !! You continue to prove yourself to be the cockroach most of us have always known you to be.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Okay... she told me to divulge a little about myself.

I'm not really "from" Arizona, even though I do live here, now. I'm really "from&q