| Author | Message | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 461 Registered: 2-2003 |
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 646 Registered: 8-2001 |
Another one: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 645 Registered: 8-2001 |
I just read this threat and there is a lot I agree with, but there seems to be something missing: We all seem to say that we should act in our own best interest. There seems to be little or no discussion with what is right and what is wrong in this thread. The US does interfere all around the world: Venezuela, Panama, Iraq, Kosovo, the Carribean, Chile, Nicaragua etc. All of those nations and areas have had our foot print on them within the last decade. We cause deaths in Nations other than ours for our interests, when we are not threatened. Women, children, conscripts, innocents dead, so that we can maintain our place in this world. No discussion about the morality of our behavior. That's what I see missing here, dicussion of whether it is morally justified to kill to maintain our standard of living or our idology. Art, your statement about the morality of what we are doing is great from the standpoint of each of us as good moral citizens. However, we as indivuduals don't make "moral" decisions on whether to go to war or not! Governments make this decision. Yes we elect them and they are our representatives but we all know that Government, specifically those elected, don't make many decisions based on morality but on what gets them re-elected. Do you think that Bush would have gone to war if 78% or whatever the number was DID NOT support the war. I doubt it. I also don't think he would have gone to war if there wasn't oil in Iraq or he hailed from a state that has oil money/business (hence campaign money) out the Wazoo. In some cases moral decisions are made if and only if the majority of the candidate's constituents support the decision. In other words polls rule the roost. The Senator or President who makes his choices based on what is morally right when it conflicts with what is "politically" prudent doesn't stay in office very long. I lived In Pennsylvania for a short while when Republican Senator Arlen Specter was Governor. For years he was an ardent Pro-Life supporter and pandered to the religious right (though he was much more moderate). When running for Senator a few years ago the polls showed a dramatic shift since his run for office 8 years prior. Guess what....his morals changed suddenly and he was now a converted Pro-Choicer! He won the election on that issue alone. I can remember how excited the freshman Republicans were when they took office in the mid 90's thinking they were going to change the country with their "Contract with America". It took less than a few months for many of the to realize how government works and the coruption of even the best intentioned individuals. Only 2 things in the contract ever got passed. While our version of Democracy isn't perfect I do think it's better than any other viable options. But the bottom line is that you can't really equate Government decision making based soley on what is right and what it wrong based on morals. Government only make morally right decisions if it directly benefits those on power. I think these quotes sum up best what good intentioned people face when they seek power. "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine �Compassion is the use of public funds to buy votes.� Thomas Sowell �A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.� Thomas Jefferson �Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.� � George Washington "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" � George Washington | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1595 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: My point is this: We shouldn't be doing this stuff. It's wrong, and if history is any guide, it will come back and get us, sooner or later. And its wrong to kill people, except in self defense. Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1575 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art, good points. The Iran arms-for-hostages deal was abhorrent to me. It still turns my stomach that Ollie North is now a millionaire book writer & TV correspondent. He & Poindexter & others should be in jail, IMO. However, our opposition to the Sandinistas was well-founded: they were Cuban- and Soviet-supported Communist savages. Enabling them to get a beachhead on the Central american mainland could have had nasty repercussions for world stability and the safety of the US (remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? Imagine if there were also nules pointed at us in Nicaragua!). Remember, at that time, Communism presented a clear & present danger to the US. Now, I agree that the folks we supported weren't much better regarding human rights, but that's the reality. Sometimes national priorities & safety trump other concerns. I just think it was asinine to do business with Iran of all people to launder money for Nicaragua... As for Chile: I know the CIA was involved in deposing Allende. Don't know much more. A number of friends from the service who were around them tell me that Allende was about to declare a Marxist state in Chile, and we responded to that. This is anecdotal info; not sure if it was true, as I have never researched it. Not defending it--just reflecting what I have heard. Art, I think I understand your point; some of these actions are abhorrent--sometimes so even in a broad context. Like it or not, ALL nations engage in these things to one degree or another. That neither makes them right nor wrong. It is just the realpolitik | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 402 Registered: 11-2002 |
arthur, Couldn't agree more. I didn't know a single thing about the things you just mentioned. But it just enhanced my feelings towards this case.  | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1591 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: There is terrible moral outrage at those who did 911. But we can't use it as an excuse to kill unconnected people. We do kill for our own economics: remember what we did in Central America? We funded rebels with illegally gotten money (selling weapons to our enemies the Iranians) to use on a freely elected government that we disagreed with, killing priests, and others who defended them. We also assisted those who overthrew a democratically elected President whose ideas we didn't like Allendi (sp) from Chile, trained the troops to interrogate people, then throw them out of helicopters over water. Funded people who killed Catholic Priests who spoke out against the Military rules of Chile after they had killed the deomocratically elected officials. Dave we do do those things, and have done them for quite a while. It made what we are, but its also wrong. That's what I've been complaining about, we're just repeating our prior behavior. Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1572 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art, you may be right about the Russians vs. the Nazis. Hard to tell where that might have gone had we remained with our thumbs in our arses... As for morality: every person's measure of that is different. Some thought Bill Clinton's perjury was immoral & a felony act; others did not. Can you imagine how many versions of morality you could come up with regarding the actions of ANY nation-state on the world stage, much less the sole remaining superpower? Kind of a pointless argument, I would think. The bottom line is that nation-states have always acted in what they think are their best interests (and the best interests of their allies sometimes), and we are no different. And you will ALWAYS be able to find someone who will feign self-righteous moral outrage at any policy or action said nation-state might take. What's the point? The fact is that we do not "kill to maintain our standard of living or our ideology". Only savage nations , such as Iraq, China, the Soviet Empire, the Nazis, North Korea, Cambodia, N. Vietnam etc etc etc engage in this. And I would venture to say that, had bin Laden & his merry band of cowardly thugs not murdered 3,000 people on our shores IN COLD BLOOD (and where's the moral outrage at that?), we would not have attacked Iraq at this time. Just my $0.02. | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 401 Registered: 11-2002 |
Jim, There isn't necessarely a solution to everything, and if there is, it's not a garantee that we not at this board. But war sure isn't the solution to the problems we can't solve otherways. | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Intermediate Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 1274 Registered: 7-2002 |
didn't mean that to sound sarcastic. just tired of debating half truths on all sides with no solutions. just wears you down after awhile. | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Intermediate Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 1273 Registered: 7-2002 |
all true. so what is your simple solution? | ||
| Dan (Bobafett)
Member Username: Bobafett Post Number: 577 Registered: 9-2002 |
Jim, You say that the SAs are two-faced because they sell us oil with a smile and then fund anti-US efforts. How is that *ANY* different from anythign the US has done the world over? We take over Iraq in the name of freedom, and yet we're trying to shift the balance of oil power (which, incidentally, will not and should not ever happen, because it's the Saudis, not the rest of OPEC or even OAPEC that has created stability for 20 years). I can't think of a single post WW2 US foreign 'adventure' which hasn't been two-faced in nature. I don't think anyone here is defending the Saudis so explicitly, but instead, the hypocritical and rather thinly veiled lies the general american public is fed (without question) are the reason there's such anti-US sentiment around the world. Oh - and all of this speak about terrorist funding? We've been doing it since the 60's, of not earlier. Not in the new terms of islamic extremists (although the largest ever taliban gathering was held in Chicago, and our President )I believe it was Nixon) likened them to the founding fathers of this country). And before you guys get on the 'show me' wagon, you'll have to give me a few days as I'm out of town. I'll come back and give you all the documented publishing you want. --Dan | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Intermediate Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 1271 Registered: 7-2002 |
god I hate politics....what a beating...giving me tired head.... | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1588 Registered: 6-2001 |
I just read this threat and there is a lot I agree with, but there seems to be something missing: We all seem to say that we should act in our own best interest. There seems to be little or no discussion with what is right and what is wrong in this thread. The US does interfere all around the world: Venezuela, Panama, Iraq, Kosovo, the Carribean, Chile, Nicaragua etc. All of those nations and areas have had our foot print on them within the last decade. We cause deaths in Nations other than ours for our interests, when we are not threatened. Women, children, conscripts, innocents dead, so that we can maintain our place in this world. No discussion about the morality of our behavior. That's what I see missing here, dicussion of whether it is morally justified to kill to maintain our standard of living or our idology. Dave, you're wrong about Europe speaking German had we not entered the war: they'd be speaking Russian. We helped defeat Hitler, but Russia bore the brunt of it. Remember, the Russians had already started to advance against the Germans by the time we got any troops to the war. Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1570 Registered: 1-2002 |
No surprise, considering the king's brother, who is in charge of the national intelligence & counterterrorism agency, has been proven to have given millions to militant Islamic groups directly connected with Al Queda & other terrorist groups. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 644 Registered: 8-2001 |
Dave, Read the Post Article below. Seems the Saudis could have provided more security but failed to do so. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56204-2003May14.html Jon | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1568 Registered: 1-2002 |
Jon, excellent post. Very well articulated. We agree even more than you may realize. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 640 Registered: 8-2001 |
I guess I shouldn't start a debate and then not have time to respond to it. Well here goes: One, where did Iran and Pakistan come into this one? If you read any of my earlier posts before the war started you may remember my willingness to support any war against a country that had a significant hand in 9/11. Iraq hardly fit that bill. Saudi Arabia was the origin of nearly all the attackers. Media reports alleged that some members of the Saudi Royal family (a princess) directly contributed money to organizations in SA that funded two of the attackers. Someone who is a friend of mine sat in on two high level State Department briefings that led to Cabinet level meetings with the Bush administration that confirmed the source of the funds. Bin Laden is Saudi and rumors have it he still has significant funds in Saudi banks that the Royal family is scarred to freeze for fear of angering him. Bottom line is that most of you who were for the war against Iraq, would I am sure, cite as clear and convincing evidence, any proof that even ONE Iraqi was flying one of those jets into the Pentagon or the Trade Centers, yet no one questions 19 of them! What the hell is wrong with this picture? Next up Pakistan! We know that several 100 Al Queada fighters and most likely Bin Laden himself are in the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Musharif turns over a few unimportant players every couple of months to keep us at bay and to keep himself in power, but he isn't willing to send his troops into the disputed tribal territories or allow our troops to go in there. In fact we are only allowed to engage in intelligence gathering not actual covert operations inside Pakistan. When they nabbed Bin Laden's deputy it was Pakistani forces that conducted the raid. We were allowed to go along as observers only. I think it's time we sent our troops in there and told Musharif to make way. I should add: if the US had any reason to, don't you think they would have made allegations towards SA? After all, Bush seems just as hell-bent as Saddam was on ruling the region. SA didn't try to assassinate Bush's daddy. Second point, I think that SA might be a harder fight since they have pretty up to date machinery compared to Iraq. Fighting an air force that has 3rd and 4th generation F15's and pilots trained by the US might be harder than a country that has literally no air force and uses 25 year old Russian made MIGs that can't even get off the ground. Dan, you should read more of Art's posts. He's saddened at the loss of life, regardless of who caused it, and sour as well if we caused it. All well and good and I am sure that Art and other war veterans have seen some horrible things that those of us that have not been to war can never fathom. However, I live in DC and work 10 minutes from the Pentagon. My entire family lives in NYC and two of my family work on Wall Street and live blocks away in the Village. I have seen the horrors of 9/11 having seen the damage at the Pentagon a few hours later and seeing the rubble of two trade centers literally days after it happened. I wasn't in Vietnam but then again many of you who espouse the horrors of war weren't at Ground Zero or the Pentagon either. Don't forget the "sad" loss of life of nearly 3000 people and the sourness most of us have towards the country of origin for those who did this. I'll stay out of where I'm not wanted and bad on me if I decide to stay. We still need our "allies" in the Middle East. Can't agree more. We shouldn't be in Europe (NATO), the UN, South Korea, Japan or Germany, or meddling in the Middle East. What allies?? We haven't got any in the Middle East. Just because we bribe some Middle Eastern leaders to give us some token speeches about supporting us doesn't make them our allies. I venture to guess that the majority populations of each Middle Eastern country hate our guts. I consider a nation our allies if their people support us not two or three leaders. You say get out of all foreign countries and stop meddling. Fine with me. But what about when their corrupt uncontrolled gov'ts go haywire and you have to pay $10 a gallon for gas or pay $200 for your toaster because of union wages? Toasters come from China not SA. As far as the gas argument goes... well everything in life is a trade off. If you want to be a slave to Saudi oil just so you can preserve some trees and sea lions in Alaska that's your own fault. I would trade those trees, parks, and animals for 3000 innocent lives any day. Bottom line is that we could likely drill for oil in Alaska and make up much of the loss. Doing absolutely nothing for 8 years after they continuously attacked us led to 9/11. Damned if you do, and damned if you dont. I'd rather at least try to eliminate the threat than do nothing. We eliminated the wrong threat (not even a threat in my opinion). And as I said before. I do not have anything agains the US interfering when it's necessary. But I do not aprove of the US dearming all countries with heavy firepower, making the US the only country with weapons of mass destruction. You probably can't understand that, being an American. I argued this point a while back. What gives us exclusive right to have WMD's. The Norhh Koreans have them so what!! Do you honestly think they might use them. We would relegate those "grass eating, dirt boiling communists" to dust for 100,000 years. Mutual destruction promotes peace and in this case they might be able to nuke 20% of the US in the time it takes us to nuke half of Asia. If we "left them alone" and NKorea knew they could get away with it, they would invade SKorea in about 2 seconds. And since SKorea is a big part of our foreign trade, what happens to the USA? Our economy suffers big time. And if our economy suffers, what happens to everyone else's economy? They suffer too. When the "Asian Contagion" hit in the late 90's and South Korea (which is the 11th largest economy) tanked along with the rest of Asia, our economy barely noticed. Hell, Japan is the world's second largest economy and they have been in and out of recession for nearly 10 years. The Nikkei, which was at 38,000 in 1987, is now at 8000. GDP has slowed from 8-10% during the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's to negative growth over the past 12 years. A one-bed room condo on the Ginsa strip that changed hands for 1.5 Million is now worth 200K. Didn't stop our economy from racking up 5% growth for over 5 years or the largest stock market advance in history between 1982 and 2000. We have the most flexible economy in the world. We weathered the largest stock market bubble in history and the worst bear market and still have half the unemployment of Europe. And all this took place while the world's second largest economy has tanked. And you are worried about the 11th largest?? We attacked Iraq due to claims about WMD there & close ties to Al Queda. Both seem to be proving out, albeit VERY slowly. The WMD is irrelevant to me whether they exist or not. Dave we seem to agree on many things and seem to have the same ideological background (conservative??) but there is absolutely no proof of Iraq's role in 9/11 or at least not to the extent of Iran (where over 25 terror camps reside and over 100 Al Queda fighters trained), Pakistan where Bin Laden is now hiding, and SA (already mentioned their role). Jonas, please provide evidence that the US is "interfering all over the world". I agree with your assessment of the Europeans (most not all) sittiong around and doing nothing and then asking the US (or expecting) us to clean up the mess. That being said we have no business being involved in Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, when we ignored what has gone on in many other countries. Take a look at the worst occurrences in the 20th century and you will come to the conclusion that it is impossible to prevent or eliminate these atrocities. See http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm for a list of these. They number in the thousands. How do you weed out which ones to engage and which ones not to. Easy, but brutally cold answer. The ones that have some strategic importance to the US. Maybe you could argue that Bosnia could have led to another world war (Kosovo as well) but Haiti, Somalia, and others don't fit the bill. Forget all that human rights bullshit. We didn't give a crap about the Khmer Rouge regime, Stalin's massacre of 20,000 people or the plight of the 6 million Jews. Prior to the Second World War we went to war when our interests were attacked. Plain and simple. Does that make us bad?? Up to everyone else to decide. I still think we should have let Europe suffer the consequences of Bosnia and Serbia and made them get off their asses. I posted this thread because I am sick of seeing the Saudi's smile and shake our hand when behind our backs they hate us. They only kiss our asses because we buy their oil. Hell we built the royal family with billions of US$$$$$'s. Imagine for a moment that we found out the Grand Canyon contained more oil than SA and we could drill it and hence stopped buying their oil. I think you would see their true colors. I don't feel any safer today because of our victory in Iraq. Neither do the other Americans who work in SA. Saying they accept the risk is correct and likewise they chose to work there knowing the risks, but hell we have Americans all over the world and we still do business with a country that promotes, finances, and harbors terrorists. It�s time we come up with a revised list of "Axis of Evil" folks and SA and Pakistan should be put on notice that their names will be on the list next January when Bush makes his next State of the Union address unless the Saudi's confiscate Bin Laden's assets and the Pakistanis either turn over Bin Laden or let us do the job. Regards, Jon P. Kofod 1995 F355 Challenge #23 | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 447 Registered: 2-2003 |
Jonas, if that theory of yours happened, we'd be involved in the biggest civil war in history. We would, I hope history would be a lesson, unite and force that person into retirement or an early grave. We tried to get rid of Clinton for some financial troubles/misconduct/whatever in his past and because he got a blow job from someone other then his wife. Do you think we'd sit idle and allow Hitler, Stalin, Milosovic, or Saddam Jr. to take power and treat us and other countries the way they did? Come on, use your sensibility here. If the US turned from liberator to conqueror, the "problem" leader and supporters would be handled internally. Oh yeah. Better believe it. We call it checks and balances. Do you think if Mr. President (or Mr. Dictator) wanted to declare war, that the government was really stacked 100% in their favor? Lets let history be our guide. What happened to put Hitler in power was masterful manipulation of the people. After WW1, my Grandparents and Great Uncles were sent to the US because another war was coming, my Great Grandfather sensed it. And he didn't want to see his sons dying for a cause he didn't believe in. A cause a majority of the Germans didn't believe in during WW2. Say we annexed Iraq and started going after other countries bent on creating an empire. Don't you think there would be external (world) and some if not massive internal (US citizen) resistance? Don't mistake disarmament a US devised and solely supported concept. Sunny | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 395 Registered: 11-2002 |
Dave, thanks. To answer your post. You are right about UN, they do have some issues there, and I wont comment that, for the fact that I do not not that much about it But as you said yourself. The US is getting stronger and stronger. And that is exactly what bothers me and get's me nervous the same time. Because, what if a future leader of the US is a "hitler" typed powersick individual? - Then theres no-one to fight him. Because we have all been disarmed by you present presidents. I know it's a pretty wild theory, but It could happen. It happened in Germany, which was/is a very well balanced country. I am actually nervous about the US getting bigger and stronger. Cuz' no one knows who's gonna run the country in the future. Pfeww, now I can breathe again. | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 188 Registered: 12-2002 |
It seems to me that alot of folks in other countries want our help when they need it, but they get really upset when we don't do what they think is best for THEM. So, what are they suggesting, that the US take a poll of every country and ask what they want us to do and act accordingly? I think ANYONE in the USA would say we should act in our own best interests. If the UN is not in our best interests, why would we follow along with what they want? Does anyone really think all countries are "equal" and that Eritrea has as much weight in world affairs as the USA? Come on. So, Jonas, I think really what you are upset about is that the USA is not doing what your country thinks is best. Well, get used to it because we always should and will do what is best for us. I don't see the logic in letting other nations who are less important to us in global affairs dictate our actions. So what it boils down to is that other folks are pissed that we don't do what they want. Well, if their nation was the USA (or on par with us), then their opinions would be weighted accordingly. So why are there countries so upset with us when they should be looking to their own governments and leaders for the answers to their questions about why their voice does not overpower our voice. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1554 Registered: 1-2002 |
Fair enough, Jonas. Actually, your English is VERY good. Much better than any of my Eurpoean languages at this moment (although I used to be 100% fluent in German many years ago...). Yes, Jim, we do meddle in various world affairs, just like every 1st & 2nd world country (and a few 3rd world countries as well). We have done so for 200+ years. It is part of living & surviving in a hostile world. So what? We are no different from France, Russia, Germany, England, Mexico, Cuba, China, etc etc etc. But only we get criticized for it, and I am sick & tired of that hypocrisy! And the final straw was the worthless UN naming Cuba to the Human Rights Commission, which is led by Libya, and was formerly led by Iraq. And these cocksuckers have the nerve to criticize us? The UN and its snail-eating appeasement/surrender monkey members need to take a good, hard, long look in the mirror before sniping at us. But methinks that is EXACTLY why the do snipe at us: they have looked in the mirror & found themselves wanting. Meanwhile, like it or not, the US just keeps getting stronger & stronger--flawsm warts, and all. | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 391 Registered: 11-2002 |
No no, it's only 10 o clock in the evening. So it isn't that bad. I haven't updatet my profile, cuz' im currently unemployed. Dave, maybe I was a little to forward going in my accusations. But I'm danish, and English is not our language. It's not easy for me to write in this language, I need to consider everything I write so it's not misunderstood. But it's hard, because I only have 2 hours of English every week. It's not easy you know. But as Jim said, I'm just trying to see it from you point of view. As I would like you to see it from mine. | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Intermediate Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 1252 Registered: 7-2002 |
understood. are you saying the US doesn't meddle in world affairs? I think we do...some good some bad. I have no "proof", but you know we do. THere is obviously a bigger picture involved, but if you just see that the US is always mucking it up then that is your view. It is late in Denmark so Jonas is probably at work or in bed. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1553 Registered: 1-2002 |
Jim, he is accusing the US of interfering everywhere. I just want him to provide evidence. He wants evidence of the WMD accusation, and I think turnabout is fair play, no? If he doesn't like the heat, he should not make the accusation. | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Intermediate Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 1250 Registered: 7-2002 |
I think we are being a bit hard on Jonas. He was asking questions adn trying to understand it from our view, but he also asked to see it from his view. He is also young. From his view all he sees is the US mentioned in every conflict whether we are teh agressor or not. He doesn't see the whole complete picture. None of us really do, but we decipher it out of the muck as best we can. I am tired of typing rants.... | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1550 Registered: 1-2002 |
Jonas, please provide evidence that the US is "interfering all over the world". As best I can tell, you are wrong. We attacked Afghanistan because of 9/11. Would you have had us deliberate in the grand European tradition, and then do absolutely NOTHING, also in the grand Eurpoean tradition (example: Bosnia)?? We attacked Iraq due to claims about WMD there & close ties to Al Queda. Both seem to be proving out, albeit VERY slowly. So, please show me where else we are interfering? NATO does not have a charter for military action in the Mid East. In addition, those worthless cocksuckers the French (NATO members) blocked our attemps to defent fellow NATO member Turkey from possible Iraqi retribution. So obviouslyl, NATO is flawed, dur primarily to the French. We also tried the UN, but once again those cocksuckers the French vetoed any Security Council action, and actually tried to bribe (with cash) smaller UN members ot vote against the US, in the US' attempt to enforce ALREADY PASSED UN RESOLUTIONS. Is any of this getting through to you, Jonas?? Now, Hussein had murdered hundreds of thousands of people. We are just beginning to find the graves. And in the grand Eurpoean tradition of coddling & appeasing murderous tyrants (just like Bosnia), you advocate that the US should have done nothing but engage in endless debate. And as for your claim that more people are dying in Iraq than before the war? BULLSHIT, Jonas. Reference the link below about the mass graves (also like Bosnis; ARE YOU BEGINNING TO SEE THE PATTERN HERE, my apologist Eurpoean friend?). You wonder why we keep mentioning Europe's seeming ignorance (willful or not) about the benefits of a strong US? Well, it's because of head-in-the-sand attitudes like yours. And that of those cocksuckers the French, whose arse belongs to us. The point is not to generate thanks for the US. The point is that without a strong US putting down the petty tyrants before they become Hitlers, you guys are toast. You will debate & debate. And then you will be rolled over in weeks. Remember, without the US, the Soviet Union would have been a whole lot larger, Jonas. Now, your profile says you are a McDonald's manager. So perhaps you should focus on burger quality instead of pontificating about things you apparently know nothing about. | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 442 Registered: 2-2003 |
Dave, what a horrible link. How dare you post such propaganda. *scoff* We're responsible for way more carnage in Iraq. Just wait until they find the mass graves WE made. Ok, sure. I wonder what would have happened if he had WMD... hmm? Glad we don't need to find out. Sunny | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 387 Registered: 11-2002 |
We should be grateful you say, for interfering all over the world? You do it because you can. Nobody else can, because we don't have resorces to do it. Why couldn't the US work the UN in a war, if it was this necessary for the US to attack them. Or use Nato. Instead of going behind the back of UN. Actually dissing everything the UN stands for. (Not an attack at the american people) And yes we would speak German, and I'm not saying that thE US shouldn't have helped ind WW2, I've never said that. Don't know why you keep bringing it up. It was necessary for Europe that the US helped, because of the superior German army. I'm pretty sure Saddam Hussein didn't pose a very big threat to anyone, especially now, when it's come out that theres n weapons. So why destroy the whole country? - 60% of the Iraqi people is not hating the US for the war. Before they didn't. The country is in complete chaos. And more people are getting killed every day now, then before the war. I really can't see this from your point of view. I totally disagree with the US methods along with a bunch of other. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1546 Registered: 1-2002 |
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86837,00.html | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 186 Registered: 12-2002 |
Jonas, You dont understand foreign policy and global economics. The threat from NKorea is against SKorea and Japan. The NKoreans have NOTHING. They are eating dirt and boiled grass. It would be very easy for them to invade SKorea (just like they did before). Except the USA is there to prevent it (why is it always the USA that has soldiers around the world keeping things in order?). If we "left them alone" and NKorea knew they could get away with it, they would invade SKorea in about 2 seconds. And since SKorea is a big part of our foreign trade, what happens to the USA? Our economy suffers big time. And if our economy suffers, what happens to everyone else's economy? They suffer too. Its all very well to have the attitude that the USA should stick to themselves, but the reality is that it doesnt work like that, and folks like you should be grateful there are countries like ours that almost single-handedly handle situations around the world where people are getting out of line. If the USA "kept to itself" you would probably be speaking German right now. If the USA kept to itself, you wouldn't even be able to use the computer to type these messages because it's chock-full of USA technology. If we kept to ourselves, you would have lost many soldiers fighting Iraq, if you had the resolve to. And you better believe that if we kept to ourselves, the hatred of the extremist islamic people would be directed towards someone else. | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 386 Registered: 11-2002 |
Off cause ! I really didn't understand your anger | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 385 Registered: 11-2002 |
You are talking against yourself. Walking away would be a good idea. Exactly. And you are not responsible for the worlds problems, and that is way the US is not supposed to try and solve them all. I really can't understand why you are using a personal attack to end this discussion, when I haven't attacked you at any time. Just tried to say what I feel about this issue. Seems like you cannot handle me being of another opinion than you? - I don't know. But it doens't make any sense. If you don't want to argue anymore, because you have something else to do, then why not just say so? I'm confused. | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 440 Registered: 2-2003 |
Walking away might be the right thing to do in all those situations. How many knives in the back do you think it will take for you to begin to face threat head on or find some other means to keep that from happening again? North Korea going nuclear is one thing. Telling the United States, being a bully in this case who already has a poor opinion of their government, what are you gonna do about, doesn't necessarily take a peaceful means of resolving the conflicts or potential conflicts between our two nations, now does it? Yeah, we FORCED North Korea to develop nukes and say those things. Just like we're responsible for all of the worlds other problems too. I understand what your saying. I really am sad we're involved in so many different affairs in so many other countries and feel the need to play bully/world police. It is a never ending argument or else our oh so wise leaders would have had this problem/problems solved long ago. I'm done arguing Sorry if I mistook it for a attack against me because of where I was born or what my passport says on it, if you'll dismiss my personal comments as well. | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 384 Registered: 11-2002 |
Personal attacks? - I wouldn't make a personal attack at you. Sorry if it sounded like that. But I'm not english or american, and do not master the language that well. And I do not hope that you expect me to. And I will also change my opionion if faced with facts, going against what I believe. And that is not the case. So it's pretty much an endless debate. | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 439 Registered: 2-2003 |
We've dismantled some of our weapons as a show of good faith towards the Russians, who signed up to do the same. I understand disarmament, but its not going to happen in 1 month, or 1 year, but a very long process, especially when other countries jump on the nuclear bandwagon. I suggest you don't confuse my misunderstanding with being American. I'm a lot more open minded then most Americans you'll find having spent several years exploring and learning about other European countries and cultures. I can admit when I'm wrong and change my opinion like any rational person when faced with different facts. If America and other countries have WMD or not, that didn't stop us from meddling nor does that simply erase all threats one country will impose on another. I expected better from you then to resort to personal attacks. Oh, and by the way, go screw yourself. | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 383 Registered: 11-2002 |
Do you sinceraly think, that N. Korea would attack you with nuclear weapons? You don't have to respond to everything that comes across. I want to bet you, that N. Korea and Iran won't attack you if the Us don't provoke it. Even if they have said so. So my answer would be. Yes, don't do anything. You can't attack everyone saying they want to attack you. Let's say you are in a bar somewhere in NY. And someone steps up and says: I'm gonna kick your silly ass; Would you then attack him right away? - I sure as hell wouldn't. Cuz' in many cases it's empty threats. Like I pretty sure these are. | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 438 Registered: 2-2003 |
Oh, yeah. And I might add, having a North Korean diplomat challenge us to our faces, we have a nuclear weapon and consider you an enemy (as we called them one of the Axis of Evil to be fair), what are you going to do about it... and to not respond, is that what your saying we should do? I suppose China, Japan, and South Korea have nothing at all to fear in a nuclear North Korea, do they. After all, we're the real enemy here. The North would have NEVER invaded the South if it wasn't for our meddling. What do you want us to do, bend over or ignore direct threats against the United States? Please. Sunny | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 382 Registered: 11-2002 |
Actually, Denmark was the country in europe to make the most "opposition" against Germany. You've heard of the undergrund allies and liberation army's ? - The danes founded those. We didn't have the firepower til face the Germans, but we sure did'nt surrender like so many other countries. And as I said before. I do not have anything agains the US interfering when it's necessary. But I do not aprove of the US dearming all countries with heavy firepower, making the US the only country with weapons of mass destruction. You probably can't understand that, being an American. Therefore again I point at what I said earlier. Look at this from both sides, instead of only your own american way. Me, coming from a country with an army with under 10.000 soldiers, I sure wouldn't like to se America as the only country with WMD. We have to have something to fight with. But you probably can't understand that being American. | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 437 Registered: 2-2003 |
Jonas, America had a policy of isolationism when it came to WW2. We didn't immediately jump into the fray, nor were we mobilized to do so. Like Dave, read into some history and you'll find we kept our nose out of it as much as we could while lending assistance until it became absolutely necessary (Pearl Harbor by bringing the fight to us) or see all of Europe under the thumb of the Germans. Attacking the US, with nuclear or conventional arms, with biological weapons or covert terrorist acts, is the biggest mistake a country can make, no matter how powerful they are by comparison. No one wants a) that kind of war or b) face total retaliation. The enemy of my enemy is my friend... that only goes so far with the Saudi's. After thinking it over now that I'm awake, I'm inclined to agree with Dave, Jim, and Ernesto that, to our face, they make nice, behind our back, they persue their true political goals and do what they can to hinder our efforts in the region. Lets face it, the Saudi's are an influence more welcome than us in the Middle East because who they are, not what they stand for. Denmark has nothing to fear, does it? After all, it surrendered to the Germans on April 9th, 1940 at the cost of several thousand lives and was occupied for 5 years. Would you rather see we capitulated? I didn't think so. So the next time you decide to bash us for our foreign policy, why not post the wonderful solutions your EU and UN buddies have devised/executed to fix the problems in the Middle East and Europe without our influence. Sunny | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Intermediate Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 1245 Registered: 7-2002 |
we don't want to attach them we want them to stop funding terrorists. The double talk just like us. They sell us oil and smile while using that money to fund anti us groups. | ||
| Jonas Petersen (Karsten335)
Member Username: Karsten335 Post Number: 380 Registered: 11-2002 |
Jim, again, here's a country that the US wan't to attack. Iran, also. And N. Korea. This is getting out of hand. I think there's a very simple solution to it. If the US minds its own buisness, they probably will too. They would probalby have attacked you now, IF they really wanted to. They have the weapons to do it. | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Intermediate Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 1243 Registered: 7-2002 |
Seriously, what do we do about Saudi Arabia? The only power they have over us is oil. Is alternate energy source the only answer? Weening off oil won't work. Their oil will be shipped to other places and it will get used and how do you enforce quarantining their oil especially since it is their only resource. If we just quit using oil then that is just too bad for them I guess. Sell it somewhere else. Will we ever develop new energy sources while oil is available? What if the gov't said...Okay Exxon, Mobil, Halliburton etc...we aren't going to war, btu we will fund $75Billion for you guys to have us a new energy source in 5 years. Woudl that work? | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1487 Registered: 2-2001 |
I agree on SA. I think they are the BIGGEST problem we have regarding terrorism and anti-American sentiment in the area. They definitely have A LOT more involvement with terrorist groups that is known (at least publicly), and their hypocritical two-faced dealing with the US where the smile at us but are extremely anti American when we are not looking is plainly obvious. SA should definitely be a US target (maybe no military right now though) against the war on terror. However, to say that our elimination of the Taliban and Sadam regimes and war against Al Qaeda/terror somehow led to the current bombings is simply not true. Doing absolutely nothing for 8 years after they continuously attacked us led to 9/11. Damned if you do, and damned if you dont. I'd rather at least try to eliminate the threat than do nothing. Ernesto | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1545 Registered: 1-2002 |
The left keeps losing elections because they are bankrup of ideas. So all they have left is flailing, criticizing, and b!tching. IMO, of course... | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Intermediate Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 1238 Registered: 7-2002 |
Why does the left just insist on criticising and attacking the right? The left has offered no solutions that I know of or remember other than passive observance. No blood for oil, no war, no whatever. But they don't seem to offer any long term solutions. Fine, no war is good with me...what do you do when another 9/11 happens? You say get out of all foreign contries and stop meddling. Fine with me. But what about when their corrupt uncontrolled gov'ts go haywire and you have to pay $10 a gallon for gas or pay $200 for your toaster because of union wages? I don't think we are trying to take over the world. I thikn we are saying "grow up, get civilized, build something, sell something or stop bitching because you have nothing" Are we making all Iraqi's were khakis and gap denim shirts as the new US uniform? Do we make them now solute the american flag and host pro Bush rallies? No. So don't try to tell me we are doing a bad thing to these funked up countries | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1542 Registered: 1-2002 |
And this morning, this from our "friends" the Saudis: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20030514/ts_nm/saudi_explosions_dc Good luck, guys. We'll hold you to this promise.  | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1541 Registered: 1-2002 |
Jon, I agree with you 100%. The Saudis have done nothing more than window dressing, and they are still funding terrorists, homicide bombers & their families, etc. However, we are pulling out of SA...and I suspect that, as soon as Iraqi oil is back to pumping at full capacity, and we are the primary buyers, you will see a different attitude towards SA. Right now, we are kissing their arses (unnecessarily & embarassingly, I might add) to keep th eoil flowing to us. Soon I hope that changes. Of course, we all could consume 5% less gasoline & electricity, & wean ourselves from ALL Mideast oil, but far be it from the American consumer to turn off a few lights & drive their fat-arsed Suburbans & H2's any less. As for Pakistan? Well, they are a mixed bag. There is only so much Musharrif can do or risk being overthrown by the extremists in Pakistan. Then, the situation would be infinitely worse for the US. So we have to keep him in power to enable him to help us in dribs & drabs... | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 429 Registered: 2-2003 |
Dan, you should read more of Art's posts. He's saddened at the loss of life, regardless of who caused it, and sour as well if we caused it. I'm with you, what could have really been done to save them? Americans for whatever reason, were brave or foolish enough to remain in the region. Thats a risk they took. Lets not pull the trigger on every country that doesn't side with us 100% or side with us at all. We'd quickly lose the allies we've retained through this last conflict (some at least) and trade one dictatorship in the region for another. I'd rather not like to see the history books show in a hundred or so the U.S. started the third world war. I'm sure the minority in Germany felt the same way for their part in the conflict in WW2.. screw everyone else, we'll do or take what we want. Uhhhh... no I'll stay out of where I'm not wanted and bad on me if I decide to stay. We still need our "allies" in the Middle East. We attacked Iraq because it furthered our interests, and maybe those of the world as a whole (as we believed). If a bunch of Saudi's were killed in the United States as an act of terrorism, would Saudi Arabia stop holding our hand and attack us? I don't think so. Prove the SA's were behind the attack and I bet the American populace, me included, will want the Prince's or Sultans or whatever he's called head on a platter. If we're executing civilians and treating those in Iraq no better then their dictator, no friggin wonder we're a target. I'm a cowboy, gung-ho, prior military full of HOO-AHH!, but I'd rather not make everyone's business our own and claim responsibility for the rest of the worlds problems. Sunny | ||
| Dan (Bobafett)
Member Username: Bobafett Post Number: 576 Registered: 9-2002 |
One, where did Iran and Pakistan come into this one? Two - what can the Saudi government have done to prevent this? The Saudis have been instrumental so far in the US efforts in the region. I love the cowboy US attitude towards everything. I don't see people screaming about the civilians killed everyday at the hands (direct or otherwise) of US or US-backed forces. --Dan I should add: if the US had any reason to, don't you think they would have made allegations towards SA? After all, Bush seems just as hell-bent as Saddam was on ruling the region. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 631 Registered: 8-2001 |
I gave my reasons for opposition to the war in Iraq before the bombing started, kept my mouth shut during the war (except to support our troops) and said little after the war. Yet we still have lengthy debates on where the weapons of mass destuction are and whether they exist at all. The left is now whinning about our inability to find them, the right is heaping praise on their successful military campain and how the world is now a safer place and how the US is out of harm's way from the imment attack from Iraq by nuclear weapons, bio weapons, and chemical weapons and so on and so on. Today 9 (at last count) innocent Americans were killed in a country that provided financial support to the hijackers of 9/11, housed and educated the leader of that group, and was the country of origin for 99% of the hijacker's that took over 3000 lives on 9/11. Yet no real discussion on the matter by the left or the right. And of course the Saudi's are silent on the matter all together. And now it looks like Al Queada will use this attack as a way of spreading inaccurate information that the attack caused the US to pull out of SA. Bush still priases SA and Powell arrives at the scene of dead Americans and shakes hands with the SA leaders who allowed this to happen. As I stated many times we have bigger fish to fry and the top of the list is Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Iran. The war in Iraq may have achieved what Bush and many of you wanted (liberate the Iraqi people, cheap oil, make daddy Bush happy, search for weapons of mass destruction, and so on). But it sure as hell didn't make the world safer for 9 Americans today. The North Koreans have now seen what a defenseless (read non-nuclear capable) country faces when confronted by the largest and most powerful military in the world. They now know their only defense is to become a nuclear force. We should pull everyone out of SA, stop selling them our military hardware, freeze all their assets around the world, sieze all assets on US soil, and boycott all their oil and make them our next target. Why the hell is Bush holding hands with King Abdullah and President Musharif? I am getting sick of seeing all the smiles and handshakes from our administration with the rulers of SA. F'em I say we start letting them know their on our newly revised "Axis of Evil" list and under probation! Am I the only one who feels this way? Regards, Jon P. Kofod 1995 F355 Challenge |