@Deviant:Scripter:
Oh c’mon CC, you’re not really gonna use the “jumpstart the economy” argument are you? That’s almost as bad as the “war for oil.”
How are either of those arguments “bad”? Are they bad because they are true and Americans just want to put their hands to their ears screaming “we’re not listening!” or is it bad because in spite of the obvious coincidences in timing, America’s insistance on acting in her own interests when it comes to oil, etc., it sounds ridiculous to an American?
The only countries that America is going to scare (IMHO) are the one’s that NEED to know we’re serious and won’t tolerate terrorism. France, Germany, and Russia know that we’d never attack them, so why would they be scared of us? Iraq, North Korea, etc. still have it in their heads that they can keep rattling this big-dog’s cage, and we won’t respond.
By the way, what exactly are “America’s demands”?
Whatever they think they can get away with a few weeks after they are finished plundering Iraq . . . .
(being mildly facetious)
Maybe we don’t fear an attack, but still we can be scared by your behavior. So, we are not scared of you, but by you. How can we trust someone who acts untrustworthy, who acts after his own interests only, not joining or following larger agreements? … IMHO…
Acts in our own interests only? Now that’s very wrong.
Rogue nations with WMD’s are only a US problem?
A dictator killing millions of Iraqi’s is a US problem?
A man paying suicide bombers targeting Israel is a US problem?
F_alk, the larger agreements do not neccessarily make them right. There are many examples to prove this, but I’d rather not get into that. The point is, believe it or not, the world will be a better place when Saddam is gone. Believe it or not, Iraqi people’s lives will be saved by forcing a regime change in that country. Believe it or not, American lives will be under less of a threat by forcing removal of WMD rather than dragging this on for another 12 years.
And once we finish what we started, I have a feeling yours and a couple other countries out there, are going to have some egg on their face…
How are either of those arguments “bad”? Are they bad because they are true and Americans just want to put their hands to their ears screaming “we’re not listening!” or is it bad because in spite of the obvious coincidences in timing, America’s insistance on acting in her own interests when it comes to oil, etc., it sounds ridiculous to an American?
They’re bad becuase they’re wrong. :(
Do you want to start a thread on either of these? Be my guest…
@Deviant:Scripter:
Maybe we don’t fear an attack, but still we can be scared by your behavior. So, we are not scared of you, but by you. How can we trust someone who acts untrustworthy, who acts after his own interests only, not joining or following larger agreements? … IMHO…
Acts in our own interests only? Now that’s very wrong.
Rogue nations with WMD’s are only a US problem?
A dictator killing millions of Iraqi’s is a US problem?
A man paying suicide bombers targeting Israel is a US problem?F_alk, the larger agreements do not neccessarily make them right. There are many examples to prove this, but I’d rather not get into that. The point is, believe it or not, the world will be a better place when Saddam is gone. Believe it or not, Iraqi people’s lives will be saved by forcing a regime change in that country. Believe it or not, American lives will be under less of a threat by forcing removal of WMD rather than dragging this on for another 12 years.
And once we finish what we started, I have a feeling yours and a couple other countries out there, are going to have some egg on their face…
well, we’ll never know now will we? No one desputes that Saddam’s regime is evil. They still have not found any WMD and in fact resolution 1441 has taken a back seat to “unseating the regime”, so this is not a great argument. Also the dictator killing millions of iraqi’s is a problem, and as for the funding of suicide bombers - well, i think that Iraq is near the end of a very long list there.
The rest of the world is not arguing that something should not be done. I think even the pariahs of the western world (France, Canada, Germany) would agree that something needs to be done. The question to be asked is “was war necessary”? Of course now that we are seeing that war is working (at the expense of many thousands of lives, billions of dollars in blown up infrastructure, etc.) however there will never be a chance for us to say “yes, a peaceful diplomatic solution worked”. Certainly people might argue “well, it didn’t work for 12 years”, but i don’t believe that the approach was appropriate in the first place.
For example, what would have happened in 1860’s America if the Chinese said “well, things are not working in your country, so we’ll apply Chinese-style methods to resolve things”? The whole thing was mishandled from 1991, and just as Winnipeg needs a good rain in the spring to clean up the sand and crap from the winter roads, apparently Iraq needs a good war to clean up the sand and crap from the last upteen years.
The point of this rant is that we agree something needed to be done.
We disagree that iraq needed the snot bombed out of it and a full-scale invasion.
How are either of those arguments “bad”? Are they bad because they are true and Americans just want to put their hands to their ears screaming “we’re not listening!” or is it bad because in spite of the obvious coincidences in timing, America’s insistance on acting in her own interests when it comes to oil, etc., it sounds ridiculous to an American?
They’re bad becuase they’re wrong. :(
Do you want to start a thread on either of these? Be my guest…
well, no point to a separate thread given that this point has been discussed before. It’s just funny that Americans refuse to believe that which is so obvious to the rest of the world. I mean come on! When i’m on a date with a woman, i am so much more subtle about my intentions than Jr. is - the seduce vs. rape methods, i guess . . . .
@F_alk:
…your political (GWB election) and diplomatic (Iraq conflict) problems are worse :)
Let’s settle the political carp once and for all! You settle your EU’s political problems and we’ll settle our US problems. I don’t understand France nor Germany’s government … and you (, 95% of US citizens and 99.9999999% of the rest of the world) do not understand the US Electoral College.
As for the diplomatic …
Hussein had 12 years to comply, disarm, cooperate and be diplomatic. Saddam had 12 years to kill Kurds (5000 in one village), Muslims, women and children(1.5 million wasn’t it?) The UN (and US) talked with the Iraqi sham front of a government (not Hussein,which is the real Iraqi government), passed resolutions, embargoed, inspected and attempted diplomacy for 12 years. How many more years will you wait? How many more UN resolutions will you pass? Enough diplomacy!
@F_alk:
…we can be scared by your behavior.
This from a nation where people deface the graves of those who died to help free a nation? No, nations. NO, a continent! This from a region of the world where Le Pen, a neo-fascist, got 20%(?) of the vote?(We would not deprive Le Pen, Ted Kennedy, David Duke or Hillary Clinton of their right to speak, but we fear the rise of radicals.) This from a nation where marchers (as seen on TV) waved placards, this weekend, saying, “Vive Chirac! Stop the Jews!”? (Those Evil Zionist Masters!) Chirac later responded by suggesting that the people should be careful who they choose as enemies. I suggest Chirac be careful who he and his government choose as friends.
Currently, the Operation Iraqi Freedom Coalition Members see France as having made some poor choices in friends who oppose overturning Hussein’s regime…
1)China and Syria (see #3 below, add Sryria there, too) - the nuclear-chemical pipeline to Iraq, set up by France (and denied by Chirac), but the proof stands,
2)Russia - which supplied two generals to advise the Iraqi military on methods to oppose the Coalition forces. These generals left Iraq less than three weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced,
3)Jordan, Sudan and Iran - which allowed fundamentalist Muslims to gather and traverse to Iraq for Jihad (passports found on live prisoners and dead bodies of Arab attackers by US forces), and
4)Iraq - Which it now appears has WMD. Various US forces have uncovered mustard gas dumped in the Tigris River, 12 barrels of nerve gas south of Baghdad, 20 loaded and ready-to-fire rockets with mustard gas east of Baghdad(npr.org and reuters.com).
@F_alk:
How can we trust someone who acts untrustworthy, who acts after his own interests only, not joining or following larger agreements?…
Untrustworthy? This from a country with a man,no, a chancellor, Schroeder, who prostituted himself to voters, turning against the US to win his election. Then he has the Audacity to say “everything’s okay … we’re really friends.” Then he pulls a Chirac again!
Untrustworthy? This from a country with a man, no, a president, Chirac, who has twenty-nine years of business/political ties with Saddam Hussein’s regime. Having supplied nuclear aid twice in an unstable region of the world for France’s economic benifit. Having supplied military aid during the 12 year embargo (sound familiar?)
His own interests? Oil? This war would lower the price of oil as it did after the Persian Gulf War, part I.
His own interests? Power? Some in the US government are talking impeachment.
His own interests? … to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. His first responsibility is to protect the US. The WTC was attacked by terrorists. Citizens from more than 50 countries died. President GW Bush declared war on terrorists and terrorism. He has proof that Iraq supports terrorism. The US Congress and 77% of the citizens approve.[Note: Voters lean 40% Republican, 40% Democrat and 20% Independant. With 77% that would be, worst case, 40% Rep., 20% Ind. and 17% Democrats support GWB’s decision.] US safetym and sovereignty come first. If we agree with the UN it’s a bonus. NO BONUS today.
Not joining or following larger agreeements? …
If the rest of Europe decided to make Germany a nuclear waste dump would all Germans agree?
Once upon a time most countries agreed not to attack Germany. What if they had stuck to it?
Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists have chosen the US as the Great Satan.
Capitalist economies do not function well with the threat of terrorism. If the US falls, which it might if it does not defend itself, then the rest of the world will follow. Not that the US is great alone, but much of the rest of the world are sheep(as I’m sure the US citizens are at times.)
Look at the progress being made in Africa by fundamentalist Islam. They control or cower(murder, massacre, slavery and starvation) most of north Africa.
Then there are the struggles in Indonesia, Pakistan, India and China(yes, even China has Islamic troubles.)
The fundamentalists in Sudan, Jordan, Syria and Iraq already fear what will happen to their countries. That is why some come to fight the US/coalition forces in Iraq.
Even in France and Germany there are problems. Does not Germany have 8,000,000 Muslims? Aren’t many of these voters(1-2 million[?] or more concentrated in some major cities.) Estimates put the # of fundamentalists in Germany at 800,000. France has about 6,000,000 Muslims. Many of them voters and about 500,000 or so fundamentalists. Some Europeans fear what they see; others pay it no mind.
The politicians seem to be playing it safe … doing almost nothing. Yet they have shared evidence of terrorist cells and disrupted plots of sabotage. (I never want concentration camps nor the secret police here nor in Europe, but I do want friends and allies who remember history.)
Even the US saw far enough ahead to design, build and drop Little Boy and Fat Man. By killing and wounding hundreds of thousands the US saved millions of Japanese and Americans. However, it left a terrible stuggle in the minds of many Americans. Bush may have to bear the burden of taking the next step in military defense … the preemptive attack for a truly just cause, not for false reasons as has often been done in the past.
Eastern European countries, fresh from the constraints of a different terror, have joined the coalition. They offer what little they have, but some of it is invaluable. Experience with Russian munitions and booby traps, as well as knowledge of torture chambers that few westerners have ever seen (or survived.)
The conservative and reformed Mulahs must step forward to fight for the hearts, lives and souls (for those of us who believe in the soul) of all Muslims. They must show a new path … a Peace Jihad.
What will France and Germany bring, besides diplomacy, to this monumental struggle that is before us all?
I am amazed that I put so much in this post, since I know , F_alk, that you will not accept the facts above. In addition, you will, as in the past, imply that I am a fascist.
“Standing there you are my friend. Take another step and you are my dead friend.”
Well said. :P
I only have one thing to add to your “untrustworthy” section, and that is that Chirac stabbed Colin Powell in the back at the UN, so don’t even begin to preach about trusting other countries F_alk.
Xi, i ramble on your niveau, d’accord?
@Xi:
and you (, 95% of US citizens and 99.9999999% of the rest of the world) do not understand the US Electoral College.
…brave call…
…Enough diplomacy!..
I see: No diplomacy equals no problems with diplomacy
@F_alk:
…we can be scared by your behavior.
This from a nation… No, nations. NO, a continent! This from a region of the world where Le Pen…This from a nation …
look over there, and a bit up:
<–-----------------------------
does it say France? No, and later you seem to remember the difference between the two countries called Germany and France.
1)China and Syria (see #3 below, add Sryria there, too) - the nuclear-chemical pipeline to Iraq, set up by France (and denied by Chirac), but the proof stands,
I haven’t even heard of that accusation. I thought it was us Germans to sell such a lot of stuff, next to the US and France. Why are the US and Germany forgotten?? … standing proof, i see…
4)Iraq - Which it now appears has WMD. Various US forces have uncovered mustard gas dumped in the Tigris River, 12 barrels of nerve gas south of Baghdad, 20 loaded and ready-to-fire rockets with mustard gas east of Baghdad(npr.org and reuters.com).
Jumping on unproven news again, aren’t you? I found one small article on npr, with RUmsfeld saying something like “first claims of having found WMDs are often wrong”…… I have not found anything about mustard gas in the Tigris, loaded rockets etc. They found some suspicious barrels, which are now being examined and are (regardless what’s in them) “weapon-ready”.
I know everyone tends to believe “his” news more than others, but i learnt pretty quick to wait for a day or two after each war-news, to see which proves to be true and which can be discarded directly.
@F_alk:
How can we trust someone who acts untrustworthy, who acts after his own interests only, not joining or following larger agreements?…
Untrustworthy? This from a country with a man,no, a chancellor, Schroeder, who prostituted himself to voters, turning against the US to win his election. Then he has the Audacity to say “everything’s okay … we’re really friends.”
Xi…… as i said before:
(1) “peace” does not equal “anti-americanism”
(2) What are friends there for: to tell you when you are about to do some B.S., at least that’s the way in Europe. It seems like in the US friends are there to cheer with you no matter what kind of crap you just did…
Should our nations really stop to be friends, well… a friend who can’t take critics is not really worth it.
And better a Kanzler who prostitutes himself for peace than a president who prostitutes himself for oil and the rich, and isn’t even smart enough to notice.
… for France’s economic benifit. …
Did anybody else notice that of course the economic interests of the US are not an issue or a reason for the war? It’s only an allowed reason for those who don’t support the US, it seems…. I wonder…
His own interests? Oil? This war would lower the price of oil as it did after the Persian Gulf War, part I.
His own interests? Power? Some in the US government are talking impeachment.
His own interests? … to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. His first responsibility is to protect the US. The WTC was attacked by terrorists. … US safetym and sovereignty come first. If we agree with the UN it’s a bonus. NO BONUS today.
A lower oil price would come really handy to the US. Power in the sense of power to the USA.
His own interests are then “the US’ interests”. Read again what you wrote:
You have a nationalists gov’t. Treating the others well is a bonus.
Safety and sovereignity come first!
Man, you have learnt nothing even of WWI !
Not joining or following larger agreeements? …
If the rest of Europe decided to make Germany a nuclear waste dump would all Germans agree?
Once upon a time most countries agreed not to attack Germany. What if they had stuck to it?
Why don’t you start to compare apples with peaches? Strawberries with Cherries??
(1) When did “the world” decide to devaste the US? (2) Which country attacked Germany before they or one of their allies had been attacked first?
If the US falls, which it might if it does not defend itself, then the rest of the world will follow.
Are all of you such cowards? Do you really think democracy and freedom are weaker and would lose to religious fundamentalism? It sounds like that, and it seems like i have more trust in the values that you claim to defend than you.
The fundamentalists in Sudan, Jordan, Syria and Iraq …
Fundamentalists in Iraq before the war? Name one! SH was fighting them, he hated them as much as they hated him! The Baath Party was once a socialist, but all the time a secularist party.
Even in France and Germany there are problems. Does not Germany have 8,000,000 Muslims? Aren’t many of these voters(1-2 million[?] or more concentrated in some major cities.) Estimates put the # of fundamentalists in Germany at 800,000. France has about 6,000,000 Muslims. Many of them voters and about 500,000 or so fundamentalists. Some Europeans fear what they see; others pay it no mind.
The politicians seem to be playing it safe … doing almost nothing. Yet they have shared evidence of terrorist cells and disrupted plots of sabotage. (I never want concentration camps nor the secret police here nor in Europe, but I do want friends and allies who remember history.)
Where ever you get your “facts” from, i strongly would recommend to look for better sources.
And i must say: the way our politicians treat the “terrorist danger” to me seems to be the better way. Read on some other threads about my stance on how to fight terror.
Even the US saw far enough ahead to design, build and drop Little Boy and Fat Man.
After a German urged the Gov’t… and it was emigrants who were the prominent heads working on the bomb, from Germany, Italy, Hungary (AFAIR).
By killing and wounding hundreds of thousands the US saved millions of Japanese and Americans.
To be proven, plus: it was a pure terror attack, like the terror bombings Germany had to suffer. So, to safe your soldiers, you get back to use terrorists means? Afraid that an American could actually die while fighting for his ideals?
Bush may have to bear the burden of taking the next step in military defense … the preemptive attack for a truly just cause, not for false reasons as has often been done in the past.
“May have” sounds like “hasn’t done yet”…… that would imply that even this war is not for a “truly just cause”.
Eastern European countries, fresh from the constraints of a different terror, have joined the coalition. They offer what little they have, but some of it is invaluable. Experience with Russian munitions and booby traps, as well as knowledge of torture chambers that few westerners have ever seen (or survived.)
OMG…. Hell yeah, in eastern europe it was and is mandatory to be tortured as a citizen… Xi, could you do me a favor and not vote until you changed your sources of information?
The conservative and reformed Mulahs must step forward to fight for the hearts, lives and souls (for those of us who believe in the soul) of all Muslims. They must show a new path … a Peace Jihad.
What will France and Germany bring, besides diplomacy, to this monumental struggle that is before us all?
Ask any Mullah and he will tell you that the “great Jihad” is a peaceful effort, and the “small Jihad” is this “holy war”. And btw, religious muslim leaders do fight for the above. It’s just that we don’t see it that way, as we just see that they seem to be “against us”.
What we will bring depends on the US. If the US says “we rule and all others can get f*cked”, then why should France or Germany spend a single Euro?
I am amazed that I put so much in this post, since I know , F_alk, that you will not accept the facts above. In addition, you will, as in the past, imply that I am a fascist.
Absolutely. I don’t even accept some as facts: I know those are wrong.
And, as you might have seen, i don’t imply you are a fascist, but an ignorant nationalist.
“Standing there you are my friend. Take another step and you are my dead friend.”
- English translation of Arabic spoken by US forces on contact with Arabs in Iraq (2003).
See how the US tries to makes friends, and now have a look how the Brits behave ….
@Deviant:Scripter:
…and that is that Chirac stabbed Colin Powell in the back at the UN, so don’t even begin to preach about trusting other countries F_alk.
Did you know who used this “stabbed in the back” rethorics in Germany after 1918? I guess not.
@Deviant:Scripter:
Believe it or not, American lives will be under less of a threat by forcing removal of WMD rather than dragging this on for another 12 years.
Have you (or anybody of you) seen “Bowling for Columbine”?
It seems like the average US citizen feels very threatened, by everything.
Kind of manic to “protect” himself, his family, the nation, the world….
Gheez… who would have thought that the US might be a country of near-paranoids ?
Watch that movie, and see the difference between e.g. the US and Canada… I wonder how Iraq was a threat to the US when even the Israelis didn’t consider them a threat under the formerly current conditions.
I have to say F_alk,
i read Xi’s disjointed, illogical and in places patently false bit of rhetoric and thought “best not to comment - i’ll probably hurt myself trying”.
Well done. That was just too crazy.
And the shear amount of disconnect - i got lost a few times in there, losing threads, picking up some that made no sense, and some of it was just plain racist.
Anyway, better you than me.
First, I apologize for the ‘ramble’ on my part … was repeatedly called away … poor excuse … should have used ‘smooth flow of thought check’ (advanced spell check…get it!)
F_alk, I’ll give you a few points …
A) I did jump early on the WMD … barrels appear to be pesticide and rockets contents to be tested yet …
B) the following statement, unclear as to which war, has confused us both … “Once upon a time most countries agreed not to attack Germany. What if they had stuck to it?”,
C) ‘i strongly would recommend to look for better sources.’ Please, recommend 2 or 3! Thank you,
D) You made a point here … I said, “Even the US…” and you replied, ‘After a German urged the Gov’t… and it was emigrants who were the prominent heads working on the bomb, from Germany, Italy, Hungary (AFAIR).’ Please, do not assume that I was giving the US full credit for everything.
Now for a little clarification …
In conclusion …
@F_k:
‘Have you (or anybody of you) seen “Bowling for Columbine”?’
Thusly, you show how intellectually gullible you are by considering this piece of Hollywood tripe a credible source. Much of the world bases its opinion of the entire US population on the movies made by liberal nuts in “Whorellywood.” Et tu, F_alk!
This looks like the start of a new forum …
@F_k:
To be proven, plus: it was a pure terror attack, like the terror bombings Germany had to suffer. So, to safe your soldiers, you get back to use terrorists means? Afraid that an American could actually die while fighting for his ideals?
this one, too, with lots of quibbling over semantics …
@X:
"Bush may have to bear the burden of taking the next step in military defense … the preemptive attack for a truly just cause, not for false reasons as has often been done in the past. "
’ “May have” sounds like “hasn’t done yet”… that would imply that even this war is not for a “truly just cause”.’
An ignorant nationalist seeking enlightenment …
if i may . . .
Now for a little clarification …
- “how many years … how many resolutions … UN and US tried diplomacy,” and your answer is … ,
not enough years, not enough resolutions, not enough appropriate managment of the situation, too many bombs
- Germany is not in the same region (on the same continent) as France? Are they not both part of the EU? Guess I need to get a new World Atlas ,
kind of a bit of a non-sequitor, no? I mean they are on the same continent as Russia and Spain, and save for a small strait of water, of Britain too.
- should you have said, ‘Politics does not equal anti-Americanism?’,
it really does not matter. It appears that any criticism of American policy equals anti-Americanism. I criticize Canadian politicians daily, does this make me anti-Canadian?
- please, note the word “appears” in the WMD statement,
(lost me here)
- regarding your ‘economics of the US are not an issue’ comment, note the line “Capitalist economies do not function well with the threat of terrorism…” ,
well, i think that the threat of terrorism may well have been substantially more remote with fewer self-serving actions in the mid-east. I think that if America had fostered a different relationship and performed differently with regards to many countries in the middle east, the threat of terrorism might be less. Also consider that many that support and fund terrorism are not so much Iraq as those in Saudi Arabia (America’s ally).
- as to interests … what world leader, of any regard in history, did not look out for his/her country’s own interests. Don’t we all hope that those are his/her interests? Then,
- “safety and security” related to threats and violence against the nation and citizens.
of course cleaning up one’s mess is also sometimes in their interests. The thing was there was little in the way of apparent threats to safety and security post 9/11. In fact, i would argue that America just created a whole new problem with this invasion business.
8 )‘WWI’ … a good example of stupid 'joining or following larger agreements,
9) the old ‘compare rutabagas to rhubarb,’ from your perspective, is seen by me as “oranges to tangerines” … not perfect , but many comparisons have differnces,
gotta’ agree with F_alk on this one. completely different situations do not make for a good metaphor.
- ‘Are all of you such cowards?’ I do not speak for everyone(everyone breathes a sigh of relief.)and I won’t take that as an insult … just a sign of your loss of patience with me,
cowards? sometimes it takes a stronger man to walk away from a fight and find a peaceful solution. Are all of you such lunatics? Obviously not. Just because people support a policy of invading another country pre-emptively does not make them lunatics. Personally i’m afraid of very little in this world, and i’m not afraid to die. I am afraid to kill someone else tho’, especially an innocent person.
In conclusion …
@F_k:‘Have you (or anybody of you) seen “Bowling for Columbine”?’
Thusly, you show how intellectually gullible you are by considering this piece of Hollywood tripe a credible source. Much of the world bases its opinion of the entire US population on the movies made by liberal nuts in “Whorellywood.” Et tu, F_alk!
i havn’t seen it yet, however from what i’ve read in the news etc. it doesn’t sound like it’s missed its mark by THAT much.
This looks like the start of a new forum …
@F_k:To be proven, plus: it was a pure terror attack, like the terror bombings Germany had to suffer. So, to safe your soldiers, you get back to use terrorists means? Afraid that an American could actually die while fighting for his ideals?
this one, too, with lots of quibbling over semantics …
this is actually a fair point.
how is a person sacrificing their life (i.e. a suicide bomber) much different than the one who bombs from the air with only the risk of their life (and a pretty narrow one that was too, unless you were flying an apache helicoptor).
how is a person sacrificing their life (i.e. a suicide bomber) much different than the one who bombs from the air with only the risk of their life (and a pretty narrow one that was too, unless you were flying an apache helicoptor).
Please tell me you are not drawing a comparison between the suicide bombers and our soldiers. :evil: :evil: :evil:
However, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and for the sake of conversation, I’ll pretend you’re not:
Generally, suicide bombers target CIVILIANS. Soldiers (at least ours anyways) are fighting against other soldiers, and there’s something vastly about military vs. military as oppossed to military vs. innocents.
@Deviant:Scripter:
how is a person sacrificing their life (i.e. a suicide bomber) much different than the one who bombs from the air with only the risk of their life (and a pretty narrow one that was too, unless you were flying an apache helicoptor).
Please tell me you are not drawing a comparison between the suicide bombers and our soldiers. :evil: :evil: :evil:
However, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and for the sake of conversation, I’ll pretend you’re not:
Generally, suicide bombers target CIVILIANS. Soldiers (at least ours anyways) are fighting against other soldiers, and there’s something vastly about military vs. military as oppossed to military vs. innocents.
ok ok, i will for your sake ignore the fact that Iraqi suicide bombers have been blowing themselves up at American army sites and that American bombers have been blowing up both soldiers AND civilians.
obviously there is no comparison.
Even though CC was faster than me again :)…. i will add some points.
@Xi:
C) ‘i strongly would recommend to look for better sources.’ Please, recommend 2 or 3! Thank you,
Have a look at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-catalogue/EN?catalogue=Eurostat
Eurostat has only limited data for free, the other might be more fruitful.
Or else, google it :)…… Germany has between 2-4 million (official: about 3 million, less than 0.5 million of them eligible to vote), France in most sources has less muslim inhabitants than Germany.
But even if there are more: In the paragraph were you mentioned islam, you started with “fundamentalist muslim” and then proclaimed that about 1 in 10 of all muslims would be fundamentalist. The actual and official number for islamists in germany is less than 60,000, less than 2% of the muslims.
Remembering your numbers (8 million muslims, 1-2 million voters, 0.8 million islamists) … well, you called yours facts, right? Please, give me your source. My source probably won’t help you, coming from the german webpage of the Bundesministerium für Inneres.
- Germany is not in the same region (on the same continent) as France? Are they not both part of the EU? Guess I need to get a new World Atlas ,
They are in the same region. A region is not a country. The EU is not a country. I know, you will say this is me picking on semantics. But then, i don’t expect you to understand everything i write as i meant but as i have written. BB and i had some more problems with each other on that.
- please, note the word “appears” in the WMD statement,
Oh, i see. I will quote you quickly:
@Xi:
Iraq - Which it now appears has WMD
I must admit, the two verbs confused me into picking the one that you wanted as the infinitive (right word? unconjugated verb…)
Yours sentence allows two interpretations, and i picked the wrong one.
Maybe you see why i pick on semantics, because such things happen less.
- as to interests … what world leader, of any regard in history, did not look out for his/her country’s own interests. Don’t we all hope that those are his/her interests? Then,
- “safety and security” related to threats and violence against the nation and citizens.
Ok, i hope that (and history has shown some of those) world leaders don’t look out for their countries interest on all costs. Following hegemonic urges might be in one countries interest on a first glance, but will lead to conflict (which usually is not in ones interest). Trying to stabilize by balancing the powers worked much better for peace, safety and security.
I consider that one of the easier lessons of history.
8 )‘WWI’ … a good example of stupid 'joining or following larger agreements,
Well, i see WWI as a result of Germany not following the “balancing” path as it did before Wilhelm II. with Bismarck, instead (during Willys reign) trying to get more influence. As well, you (as US) didn’t join early or because of treaties, so you consider it would have been better if the US had stayed out of that war, and followed its own national interests only?
… Well, maybe… that could have spared the world suffer from Hitler and WWII, if the germans had “won” in WWI.
- ‘why should France or Germany spend a single Euro?’ Diplomacy! ,
Wait…. we should follow an appeasement policy at you? You left the path of diplomacy. Until you return onto it, there is absolutely no reason for us to lick your boots. You want us to do what you didn’t? On what reasons?
- ‘See how the US tries to makes friends.’ This was after a few of our soldiers were blown away by ‘innocent civilians’ who got close and went BOOM!
(1) from the iraqi side, using suicide bombers is a good strategy: creating distrust between invaders and natives. And that worked perfectly in Vietnam, as history tells us.
(2) why do the UK soldiers behave so differently, even under the same threat?
@F_k:
‘Have you (or anybody of you) seen “Bowling for Columbine”?’
Thusly, you show how intellectually gullible you are by considering this piece of Hollywood tripe a credible source. Much of the world bases its opinion of the entire US population on the movies made by liberal nuts in “Whorellywood.” Et tu, F_alk!
Well, if you call them “liberal nuts”, it just adds to the credibility of the movie. Plus: I do know the difference between documentary and “pure entertainment”. If others don’t, don’t blame me.
(and restrict your use of foreign languages to things that fit ;) ).
(2) why do the UK soldiers behave so differently, even under the same threat?
Different? How so? :-?
I quote:
“The British appear confident that they have reached some level of security in four southern towns. Today, British troops had changed their combat helmets for berets in Umm Qasr, As Zubayr, Rumeila and Safwan, British officials said.
Lockwood said the berets makes the soldiers appear more friendly and approachable, and build confidence on both sides.”
from
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/national/4_1_03iraq_tipping.html
a rather “old” article, but the above behavior is part of what i meant.
from the iraqi side, using suicide bombers is a good strategy: creating distrust between invaders and natives. And that worked perfectly in Vietnam, as history tells us.
:D The US was not, in fact, invading south Vietnam. They were defending it from the North. Had they been in North Vietnam, the line between enemy and ally would have been alot clearer and the tactic would not have been as successful.
I think defining a suicide attack against a military target as terrorism is used because it is considered unconventional.
Riding up in a non military vehicle with a pregnant hostage and waving soldiers over close enough so you catch them in your explosion is unconventional.
I don’t see Americans or the British doing that. Or Australians for that matter.
If one is going to say that military bombings of military related targets, that may and has caused collateral damage, is terrorism, than ever single army that has ever, throughout history, marched to war is nothing more then a gang of terrorists.
@F_alk:
I quote:
“The British appear confident that they have reached some level of security in four southern towns. Today, British troops had changed their combat helmets for berets in Umm Qasr, As Zubayr, Rumeila and Safwan, British officials said.
Lockwood said the berets makes the soldiers appear more friendly and approachable, and build confidence on both sides.”from
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/national/4_1_03iraq_tipping.htmla rather “old” article, but the above behavior is part of what i meant.
Okay, I fail to see what your point is. :-?
Are you suggesting that the US soldiers are mis-percieving the threat and/or should deal with it differently?
The Iraqi capital city is liberated. :) Iraqi citizens can be seen cheering in the streets. :D
Believe it or not Moses, that’s still not enough to justify it for F_alk. :(
De facto.
Mr. Ghoul,
True, the US did not invade in Vietnam… but for the strategy to create distrust, that was probably even better, with supposed allies turning against you.
For the bombing of “military related targets”, i agree with you there as well. But Coventry (bombed by the Germans) was not a military target, and in the very end, the allied forces bombed german cities for no ther reasons that they had not been bombed before!
That is terrorism.
(As you might notice, i do not defend the Germans, but as there is more than black&white, these bombings were “evil” by both sides!)
D:S,
Misperceiveing: probably, to a part
bahve differently: Yes, absolutely. To create trust, to appear as liberators, who bring freedom, justice and fairness, not to appear as oppressors or occupiers… the Brits behavior is much better suited.
Remember the flags on the pulled-down statue of SH?
