<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Jan 12 2003, 10:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Jan 12 2003, 10:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well since nuclear war never broke out Saddam, North Korea, castro, ossama are just a small price to pay.
Since the US went in and helped him shouldnt we be the ones that fix our mistakes and take him out of power?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> selling them weapons was not a mistake I assure you. Our leaders knew exactly what they were doing. I don't like bush and I make fun of him all the time but in fact I beleive he is a brilliant man. Terribly brilliant.
<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Jan 12 2003, 10:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Jan 12 2003, 10:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well since nuclear war never broke out Saddam, North Korea, castro, ossama are just a small price to pay.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Weren't you telling us that they try to achieve weapons of mass destruction? Then how's that better than the old scenario? Because we have now more factions to be afraid of?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since the US went in and helped him shouldnt we be the ones that fix our mistakes and take him out of power?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How? By killing some hundred thousands of other people, many of them civilians? Hell, no. All you'd achieve would be creating even more hate - and we all know what <i>that</i> leads two.
My main problem with this proposed war is the justification for this war. First, why are we going to depose Saddam now? Why not ten years ago? What changed? Did he need 10 years to age properly, like some sort of fine wine? Second, Bush's drivel about how he knows for a fact that the Weapons are there but won't show the inspectors the proof is crap. Third is my problem with Israel. Israel has violated more UN resolutions than any other country, and has nuclear weapons. So the excuse about Hussein violating resolutions is irrelevent as a reason for war. And again, why now? He didn't violate them on the spur of the moment last August.
You notice we're only sternly reprimanding North Korea for their announced intention to make nukes. No one, no matter how stupid, would attack a country with nuclear weapons. That's why we're attacking Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin--superninjabeast+Jan 12 2003, 07:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (superninjabeast @ Jan 12 2003, 07:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You notice we're only sternly reprimanding North Korea for their announced intention to make nukes. No one, no matter how stupid, would attack a country with nuclear weapons. That's why we're attacking Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The reality is that the only thing that can guarantee a countries sovereignty these days is nuclear weapons. I recently read an article in the NYT about a brazilian cabinet member who was adamant about getting the bomb so they wouldn't have to worry about an imperialist coup! I think he got thrown out of office or something. Also North Korea may be talking militant right now, but the truth is that they are on the verge of reinstating capitalist industry there, at a pace greater than China is currently taking. The country is really screwed up, with mass famine and this new oil embargo, they are in dire straits. The United States doesn't need to worry about them any more than they already are...
"It has never happened in history that a nation that has won a war has been held accountable for atrocities committed in preparing for and waging that war. We intend to make this one different. What took place was the use of technological material to destroy a defenseless country. From 125,000 to 300,000 people were killed... We recognize our role in history is to bring the transgressors to justice." Ramsey Clark
Ramsey Clark served as U.S. Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. He is the convener of the Commission of Inquiry and a human rights lawyer of world-wide respect. This report was given in New York, May 11, 1991.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dezmodium+Jan 15 2003, 01:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dezmodium @ Jan 15 2003, 01:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ramsey Clark served as U.S. Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. He is the convener of the Commission of Inquiry and a human rights lawyer of world-wide respect. This report was given in New York, May 11, 1991. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He also works for the International Action Center, a front group for Workers World.
Dez, war may be wrong, but you should at least have your facts straight. Modern military personell never intentionally fire upon civilians. Mistakes happen, yes, such as a plane's computer misidentifying a commuter jet as a Mig from kilometers away, or a bus as a tank, etc...
Just because Saddam ordered a withdrawl, doesn't discount one of three scenarios-
1. Iraq had not unilaterally surrendered-The units that were retreating were still in combat.
2. The government didn't inform the commanders-The field commanders didn't know that Saddam had ordered a complete withdrawl in that sector, and attacked a large element according to thier rules of engagement.
3. The commanders were full aware of the situation-The field commanders wanted to make sure Saddam couldn't use those elements in a counterattack.
The weapons used, even if they were as such that cannot be used on personell, may be used upon equipment. There is a difference between people, and equipment. Some things which are legal for equipment would be too cruel to use against people. Phosphorus, incindiary, and munitions simply for the purpose of mutilation fit under illegal weapons. It is also interesting to point out an instance of a weapon that civilians may use against one another, but not military. The shotgun is standard inventory in many police stations, but is considered to be too cruel under the geneva conventions, and may not be used in combat.
On a side note, we never signed at the geneva conventions, yet we are the only country that remotely follows a single guideline. In the Gulf, Iraqi POWs under British units were subjected to worse treatment than POWs under American units. You see, a Red Cross representative had to be present at every interrogation of an Iraqi POW, to insure they were not hit, molested, or otherwise mistreated as human beings. American POWs didn't have such a wonder system in place while they were being beaten and tortured. If you look at the atrocities of other nations, our standard operations are insignifigant in thier light.
The only counterargument I can give myself is Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is really our only true national war crime. Innocent civilians were intentionally targeted, as valid military targets were also in the region, and we decided to bomb the most populous areas of those two cities.
As for you Spooge, I find it terrible you don't care for the death and suffering of others. That poor dude went through hell before he died, he was probably just trying to get out of his burning tank.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only counterargument I can give myself is Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is really our only true national war crime. Innocent civilians were intentionally targeted, as valid military targets were also in the region, and we decided to bomb the most populous areas of those two cities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> War crimes aren't decided by body count.
And just to clear a few things up that have arisen recently, here: <a href='http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/06/21/manchurian/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/06...rian/index.html</a>
Now then. I am an American. I wake up every day, shower, get dressed and go to work. I work hard. After work, I go to school to learn more and work harder. Then I go home. My new home recently purchased by me. I look to see if there's still food in my cupboards and if not, I get more. Then I take care of any chores or necessary tasks involving my home. Then, I turn on the television. Or I pick up a newspaper. Or I turn on my computer. And I find out that I'm an American. I am the Great Evil Satan on our planet. Of course, I'm an American so I think this is MY planet. I want nothing more than to turn MY planet into a cesspool. A Bright Glowing Wasteland. I want to **** in my rivers. I want to stick a great big tap into the ground and pump out all the oil and pour it straight into the ocean. Why? Because I'm an American. That means I rule the world. That means that I want everyone else to suffer and die so that I can get up in the morning and repeat my day. I think everyone else is just a worthless bag of bones. A complete waste of oxygen. I am the monster that not only lives under your bed and in your dark closet, I'm the monster that poisons you're air, water and food. Of course, I generally mind my own business but what I'm really doing is intentionally ignoring how everyone who isn't American is not capable of providing for themselves and therefore will starve to death if I don't give them everything I've worked for. And when I do give what I'm really trying to do is control everyone who isn't an American and spread my Tyrannical madness across the planet. After all, I'm an American so this is MY planet. I am the Great Satan. And I should be told as much at every possible opportunity.
Thought I'd just save everyone the trouble of posting for a few days and sum it all up here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. The government didn't inform the commanders-The field commanders didn't know that Saddam had ordered a complete withdrawl in that sector, and attacked a large element according to thier rules of engagement.
3. The commanders were full aware of the situation-The field commanders wanted to make sure Saddam couldn't use those elements in a counterattack.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As to number two.... How convenient.
As to number three... They must have also been aware that there were civilians trying to escape. (necessary evil?)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On a side note, we never signed at the geneva conventions, yet we are the only country that remotely follows a single guideline. In the Gulf, Iraqi POWs under British units were subjected to worse treatment than POWs under American units<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We should have and should be setting the examples. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And I find out that I'm an American. I am the Great Evil Satan on our planet. Of course, I'm an American so I think this is MY planet. I want nothing more than to turn MY planet into a cesspool. A Bright Glowing Wasteland. I want to **** in my rivers. I want to stick a great big tap into the ground and pump out all the oil and pour it straight into the ocean. Why? Because I'm an American. That means I rule the world. That means that I want everyone else to suffer and die so that I can get up in the morning and repeat my day. I think everyone else is just a worthless bag of bones. A complete waste of oxygen. I am the monster that not only lives under your bed and in your dark closet, I'm the monster that poisons you're air, water and food. Of course, I generally mind my own business but what I'm really doing is intentionally ignoring how everyone who isn't American is not capable of providing for themselves and therefore will starve to death if I don't give them everything I've worked for. And when I do give what I'm really trying to do is control everyone who isn't an American and spread my Tyrannical madness across the planet. After all, I'm an American so this is MY planet. I am the Great Satan. And I should be told as much at every possible opportunity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what do you do to change this misconception. I am not the great evil and you aren't either. Instead of spreading the negativity with more negativity you should act to change. I speak against war. I am the opposite of those "stereotypes" and demonstrate it every day. I am an ambassador for my country on the internet. Attitudes like yours are why these sort of lies continue to spread as you do nothing but to encourage with hatred.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Hypocrisy:
Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -sies Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN Date: 13th century 1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion 2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Dezmodium+Jan 15 2003, 10:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dezmodium @ Jan 15 2003, 10:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead of spreading the negativity with more negativity you should act to change. I speak against war. I am the opposite of those "stereotypes" and demonstrate it every day. I am an ambassador for my country on the internet.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.trt-md.org/images/einsatzgruppen_8.jpg' target='_blank'>http://www.trt-md.org/images/einsatzgruppen_8.jpg</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you failed to acknoledge the fact that in WW2 and, AND Desert storm and chances are veitnam the bush family made lots of money. they will make money the new war on iraq. just as they are making money from 9/11. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not the fact that soldiers often die for a fruitless endeavor, it's that they KILL for fruitless endeavors. You wanna die for no good reason? Shoot yourself in the head, and do it outside because noone wants to clean your bloody mess up. At least you won't be violating anybody's rights in the process.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->selling them weapons was not a mistake I assure you. Our leaders knew exactly what they were doing. I don't like bush and I make fun of him all the time but in fact I beleive he is a brilliant man. Terribly brilliant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Main Entry: self-righ·teous Pronunciation: -'rI-ch&s Function: adjective Date: circa 1680 : convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others : narrow-mindedly moralistic
This is the last warning: If this discussion further degrades into personal accusations, which can be just as easily exchanged via PM, I'll have to lock it.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Alright, alright. Settle down. You've all missed the point of my last 3 posts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm trying real hard, but I just can't feel bad. Sorry.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, if you take this sentence out of the direct context of the previous few pages, you'll find a very simple statement. With common analysis you'd surmise that I feel good. And, contrary to Dez's intent, I'm still gonna feel good.
Ok. So that's pretty easy. "But wait!" you say. "You feel good that some guy got burnt to a crisp! That's sick!" Right. That would be sick. But while you're all discussing a war with Iraq and the "idiocy" of the Bush administration, I'm watching the content and accuracy of the information placed in front of me.
For example. What is the purpose of displaying a picture of someone burnt to a crisp? One could use words to describe that scenario. One could search for news clippings relating to similar events. But a picture does something that words can't do. It introduces emotion. Nemesis himself has accused me of introducing emotion into a debate once before ( <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=6977&st=15&hl=community' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...15&hl=community</a> ).
The great thing about the discussions in this forum (and I say great because of repeated comments from idlers) is that logic is the preferred method of debate here and not emotional tirades. The point of my next post (aside from the links) was to point out how ridiculously common it is to find these emotional debates everywhere I turn. Television media uses it so often that we don't even bother pointing it out anymore. Print media is a bit craftier in that they've drifted away from pragmatic, factual news and hired writers to "interpret" the news. Reporters have become masters of asking "the right question".
Then you'll notice that I simply posted the definition of a word. I added no extra text. I used no quotes from previous replys. And yet it's assumed to be a derogatory "accusation". Sounds like an emotional response to me.
It isn't fun having your emotional chain yanked all the time. If you have a point, make it. Stop trying to get everyone to "feel" this way or that. Present an idea and then try to back it up if you're questioned on it.
I've mentioned earlier that I wasn't going to get involved in a discussion about a war with Iraq and so far I haven't. I've expressed my opinion before and it still stands: If I am in imminent danger, the gloves are off. Until then, I would disagree with heavy military force. There, you see? It doesn't take pictures of burning babies to express an opinion.
P.S. Nem, I got your post. And aside from everything here, I don't recall ever accusing "Iraq" as a nation of doing anything. If I have, then I mispoke. I blame Saddam and anyone who carries out his will for the atrocities that he's committed. In fact, I've been doing some reading about the opposition groups in Iraq. Which started with the story about the Iraq embassy in Germany. Remember that story? Check out the Iraqi National Congress ( <a href='http://209.50.252.70/index.shtml?home=home' target='_blank'>http://209.50.252.70/index.shtml?home=home</a> ). Like many Americans, I would like to see the people of Iraq decide who will be their leader. Democratically. And from what I've been reading, so would they.
Ooops. Didn't cover my tracks. I'm found out. FOILED AGAIN!
It apears that I do use emotions to relay my messages against mass murder. I forgot that emotions shouldn't tie into these sort of intellectual things.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dezmodium+Jan 14 2003, 05:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dezmodium @ Jan 14 2003, 05:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Incinerated body of an Iraqi soldier on the "Highway of Death," a name the press has given to the road from Mutlaa, Kuwait, to Basra, Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> People killed during war... What a revelation.
How about some pictures of the Kurdish Iraqi villages attacked with Sarin gas by Saddam Hussein's forces? Or perhaps some images of the Iranian soldiers killed by Iraqi mustard gas during the Iran-Iraq war? I'm sure you've got plenty of these too?
Some information for you to digest:
<a href='http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm' target='_blank'>United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441</a> offered to Iraq "a <i>final opportunity</i> to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council" and demanded that Government of Iraq should provide "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes..." (within 30 days,) while "false statements or omissions... ...shall constitute a further material breach" and warns Iraq that it would face "serious consequences as a result of [its] continued violations of its obligations."
Despite this resolution, the Iraqi regime has <i>failed</i> to account for nearly four tons of VX nerve agents, growth media for 20,000 litres of biological warfare agents, 15,000 shells for use in biological warfare, 6,000 chemical warfare bombs as well as it's information relating to it's Nuclear Weapons program. Additionally, inspectors have recently seized "large quantities" of illegally imported "weapons sector" material (including missile parts) in violation of earlier resolutions. This smuggled material is currently being evaluated to see whether it wase destined for banned WMD programmes.
The question you really need to ask is, should the rest of the world allow Iraq to <i>continue</i> thumbing it's nose at the U.N., (as it is doing now,) or instead take action to finally end the Iraqi regime's continued defiance? To my mind, if Saddam Hussein fails to comply fully with the UN demands, there can be only one option.
<span style='color:gray'> Hello Friends. Please let me try to say a few words on all of your words together. I like all of you, thats why I asked you about your opinion in the first place. You see, whether you re Iraqi or American, Black or White, Jewish or Christian or Islamic, we shouldnt care. And to have a prosperous Future for us all, we must accept that everything can only be solved through peaceful means, and then teach this truth to our allies and foes alike, till all of us realize it.
Violence will breed violence. Thats why all -except Peace- will FAIL.
To conclude, thank you all for a nice discussion and as stated above, just... Have a nice day!</span>
1) To help the iraqis? Nope. As civil unrest broke out at the end of the Gulf War, the US stood by and did nothing about it
2) To destroy their weaponry? Nope. Weapons can be destroyed too under the supervisionof the UN-sanctioned investigators
3) To replace the government? Simply replacing a government is not a cause. Furthermore, it will create a precedent to replace other governments in other countries,just like the communists did in Eastern Europe just after the Second World War
4) To make oil easier available to America? Highly probable. Oil is the key to a successfull economy.
Now, why I don't support a war against Iraq
I) Just look at history. Did the Miloseic government fall because of the Nato bombing? No, it fell due to internal struggle. Did Al Quaeda cease to exist after the bombing of Afghanistan? No, the war only generated more support for this group.
II) If NATO agrees to attack Iraq, it will totally change the face of the Organisation.It's North Atlantic, and was started to defend western Europe from the Evil Commies. It stands for " North Atlantic Treaty Organisation", not Persian Gulf Treaty Organisation. By attacking Iraq it will ignore the set geographic coordinates as defined in the Treaty of 1949, and change into the ALDO, America's LapDog Organisation, Fighting Crime all over the world.
III) Crime as the US defines it, mind you. It will ignore all the UN treaties, thus destroying the single international way of creating a lasting peace by cooperation of all countries. Furthermore, if you want to defend democracy, you will have to see that democracy is that the people choose their leaders,and the way the land is governed. It is not defined as " the leaders and the way the land is governed by the people and the leaders of some other country at the other side of the globe, that only pursue their own interests.
Some remarks on things I've read in this thread.
Some dude thought that the US had to secure the safety of all the globe. Well, I wonder why the US doesnt start with ratifying the Kyoto treaty, as it is one of the most important ways to make sure our precious Earth isnt going to hell before the turn of the nextcentury. I wonder why the US doesnt invest more in fighting AIDS and malaria. These diseases have killed more people than Hitler and Stalin, and way more than mr. Hussein. I wonder why the US wont stop helping their own economy, while blocking other countries out of their economic system. How can you expect the third world to develope when the can't sell their products in their own country, due to dumped goods, and cant sell them in the first world, due to import tariff barriers. I wonder why the US wont do anything constructive about the Israel/ Palestine conflict. I wonder why the US wont do anything about the Czechen situation. Should I continue?
Some other dude thought that everyone has to support his or he government in times of war. So yea, all germans should have supported Hitler. So yea, the american public shouldnt have held demonstrationas against the war in Vietnam. So yea, all Afghanis should have supported whats his name ( Mullah Omar? i dunno, the Taliban dude).
Timmy mentioned tons of weapons., I fail to see where those weapons fit in with the report of Hans Blix.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The question you really need to ask is, should the rest of the world allow Iraq to continue thumbing it's nose at the U.N., (as it is doing now,) or instead take action to finally end the Iraqi regime's continued defiance? To my mind, if Saddam Hussein fails to comply fully with the UN demands, there can be only one option. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If thumbing your nose at the UN was basis for bombing someone, we'd be the first to go, if only for what we've done in the middle east. There's also the childs rights bill we never signed(the reason we were kicked of the human rights comitee) and a host of other times where we basically told the UN to go **** off, Iraq ain't teh only one, bucko.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Renegade+Jan 20 2003, 05:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Renegade @ Jan 20 2003, 05:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Don't bash the U.S. If you don't like it here, move to Canada or something.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What a wonderfull attitude. "If you don't like something, just go away. Don't try to change things you find horrible and unjust, just leave." Next you're gonna tell me to go to Russia.
i have read about 2 pages of this post and most of the anti war posts are:
"sure he killed a bunch of his people, but cant we just let him slide?"
i am for this war, i am going into the marine corp this summer to defend not only america, but her allies as well
If you decide to call me names like baby killer and a war-monger, hell its your choice (we still live in america and yes, you have what is called "freedom of speech"). All that i hope is that you and your family never see an atomic bomb in your backyard. And if that takes my life.... so be it.
Isnt it kind of ironic that 90% av all the dictators and madmen USA are trying to overthrow have been placed on their high and mighty thrones by the nation itself. Isnt it also pretty silly that USA fight a war vs "terrorism" when they could be considered terrorists themselves. After all George W. Bush fights war in the same fashion as all other terrorists.
"We will have the most well educted Americans in the world" "Almost all our import comes from outside america" Two quotes of the famous madman George W. Bush. May he burn in the deepest pits of hell
All Americans should also watch Bowling for Columbine, hell, Bush should watch it. Maybe could teach some of you not to go berserk with your sidearms :/
Comments
Since the US went in and helped him shouldnt we be the ones that fix our mistakes and take him out of power?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
selling them weapons was not a mistake I assure you. Our leaders knew exactly what they were doing. I don't like bush and I make fun of him all the time but in fact I beleive he is a brilliant man. Terribly brilliant.
Weren't you telling us that they try to achieve weapons of mass destruction? Then how's that better than the old scenario?
Because we have now more factions to be afraid of?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since the US went in and helped him shouldnt we be the ones that fix our mistakes and take him out of power?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How? By killing some hundred thousands of other people, many of them civilians? Hell, no.
All you'd achieve would be creating even more hate - and we all know what <i>that</i> leads two.
First, why are we going to depose Saddam now? Why not ten years ago? What changed? Did he need 10 years to age properly, like some sort of fine wine?
Second, Bush's drivel about how he knows for a fact that the Weapons are there but won't show the inspectors the proof is crap.
Third is my problem with Israel. Israel has violated more UN resolutions than any other country, and has nuclear weapons. So the excuse about Hussein violating resolutions is irrelevent as a reason for war. And again, why now? He didn't violate them on the spur of the moment last August.
You notice we're only sternly reprimanding North Korea for their announced intention to make nukes. No one, no matter how stupid, would attack a country with nuclear weapons. That's why we're attacking Iraq.
The reality is that the only thing that can guarantee a countries sovereignty these days is nuclear weapons. I recently read an article in the NYT about a brazilian cabinet member who was adamant about getting the bomb so they wouldn't have to worry about an imperialist coup! I think he got thrown out of office or something. Also North Korea may be talking militant right now, but the truth is that they are on the verge of reinstating capitalist industry there, at a pace greater than China is currently taking. The country is really screwed up, with mass famine and this new oil embargo, they are in dire straits. The United States doesn't need to worry about them any more than they already are...
A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal
by Ramsey Clark and Others
<img src='http://deoxy.org/gif/torched.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
Incinerated body of an Iraqi soldier on the "Highway of Death," a name the press has given to the road from Mutlaa, Kuwait,
to Basra, Iraq. U.S. planes immobilized the convoy by disabling vehicles at its front and rear, then bombing and straffing the resulting traffic jam for hours. More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being [pictured above] suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the "highway of death." The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force.
(Photo Credit: © 1991 Kenneth Jarecke / Contact Press Images)
"It has never happened in history that a nation that has won a war has been held accountable for atrocities committed in preparing for and waging that war. We intend to make this one different. What took place was the use of technological material to destroy a defenseless country. From 125,000 to 300,000 people were killed... We recognize our role in history is to bring the transgressors to justice." Ramsey Clark
Ramsey Clark served as U.S. Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. He is the convener of the Commission of Inquiry and a human rights lawyer of world-wide respect. This report was given in New York, May 11, 1991.
<a href='http://www.Deoxy.org' target='_blank'>Deoxy DOT org</a>
Ramsey Clark served as U.S. Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. He is the convener of the Commission of Inquiry and a human rights lawyer of world-wide respect. This report was given in New York, May 11, 1991.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He also works for the International Action Center, a front group for Workers World.
Bertrand Russell
"Wars have never hurt anybody except the people who die."
Salvador Dali
"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind."
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in."
George McGovern
"The military don't start wars. Politicians start wars."
William Westmoreland
Just a few for thought.
OK, I'll bite. Why not?
<------ Ashamed of humanity.
Just because Saddam ordered a withdrawl, doesn't discount one of three scenarios-
1. Iraq had not unilaterally surrendered-The units that were retreating were still in combat.
2. The government didn't inform the commanders-The field commanders didn't know that Saddam had ordered a complete withdrawl in that sector, and attacked a large element according to thier rules of engagement.
3. The commanders were full aware of the situation-The field commanders wanted to make sure Saddam couldn't use those elements in a counterattack.
The weapons used, even if they were as such that cannot be used on personell, may be used upon equipment. There is a difference between people, and equipment. Some things which are legal for equipment would be too cruel to use against people. Phosphorus, incindiary, and munitions simply for the purpose of mutilation fit under illegal weapons. It is also interesting to point out an instance of a weapon that civilians may use against one another, but not military. The shotgun is standard inventory in many police stations, but is considered to be too cruel under the geneva conventions, and may not be used in combat.
On a side note, we never signed at the geneva conventions, yet we are the only country that remotely follows a single guideline. In the Gulf, Iraqi POWs under British units were subjected to worse treatment than POWs under American units. You see, a Red Cross representative had to be present at every interrogation of an Iraqi POW, to insure they were not hit, molested, or otherwise mistreated as human beings. American POWs didn't have such a wonder system in place while they were being beaten and tortured. If you look at the atrocities of other nations, our standard operations are insignifigant in thier light.
The only counterargument I can give myself is Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is really our only true national war crime. Innocent civilians were intentionally targeted, as valid military targets were also in the region, and we decided to bomb the most populous areas of those two cities.
As for you Spooge, I find it terrible you don't care for the death and suffering of others. That poor dude went through hell before he died, he was probably just trying to get out of his burning tank.
I await wonderous flaming!
War crimes aren't decided by body count.
Then, here: <a href='http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020311-40815350.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020311...11-40815350.htm</a>
And just to clear a few things up that have arisen recently, here: <a href='http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/06/21/manchurian/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/06...rian/index.html</a>
Now then. I am an American. I wake up every day, shower, get dressed and go to work. I work hard. After work, I go to school to learn more and work harder. Then I go home. My new home recently purchased by me. I look to see if there's still food in my cupboards and if not, I get more. Then I take care of any chores or necessary tasks involving my home. Then, I turn on the television. Or I pick up a newspaper. Or I turn on my computer. And I find out that I'm an American. I am the Great Evil Satan on our planet. Of course, I'm an American so I think this is MY planet. I want nothing more than to turn MY planet into a cesspool. A Bright Glowing Wasteland. I want to **** in my rivers. I want to stick a great big tap into the ground and pump out all the oil and pour it straight into the ocean. Why? Because I'm an American. That means I rule the world. That means that I want everyone else to suffer and die so that I can get up in the morning and repeat my day. I think everyone else is just a worthless bag of bones. A complete waste of oxygen. I am the monster that not only lives under your bed and in your dark closet, I'm the monster that poisons you're air, water and food. Of course, I generally mind my own business but what I'm really doing is intentionally ignoring how everyone who isn't American is not capable of providing for themselves and therefore will starve to death if I don't give them everything I've worked for. And when I do give what I'm really trying to do is control everyone who isn't an American and spread my Tyrannical madness across the planet. After all, I'm an American so this is MY planet. I am the Great Satan. And I should be told as much at every possible opportunity.
Thought I'd just save everyone the trouble of posting for a few days and sum it all up here.
3. The commanders were full aware of the situation-The field commanders wanted to make sure Saddam couldn't use those elements in a counterattack.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As to number two.... How convenient.
As to number three... They must have also been aware that there were civilians trying to escape. (necessary evil?)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On a side note, we never signed at the geneva conventions, yet we are the only country that remotely follows a single guideline. In the Gulf, Iraqi POWs under British units were subjected to worse treatment than POWs under American units<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We should have and should be setting the examples.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And I find out that I'm an American. I am the Great Evil Satan on our planet. Of course, I'm an American so I think this is MY planet. I want nothing more than to turn MY planet into a cesspool. A Bright Glowing Wasteland. I want to **** in my rivers. I want to stick a great big tap into the ground and pump out all the oil and pour it straight into the ocean. Why? Because I'm an American. That means I rule the world. That means that I want everyone else to suffer and die so that I can get up in the morning and repeat my day. I think everyone else is just a worthless bag of bones. A complete waste of oxygen. I am the monster that not only lives under your bed and in your dark closet, I'm the monster that poisons you're air, water and food. Of course, I generally mind my own business but what I'm really doing is intentionally ignoring how everyone who isn't American is not capable of providing for themselves and therefore will starve to death if I don't give them everything I've worked for. And when I do give what I'm really trying to do is control everyone who isn't an American and spread my Tyrannical madness across the planet. After all, I'm an American so this is MY planet. I am the Great Satan. And I should be told as much at every possible opportunity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what do you do to change this misconception. I am not the great evil and you aren't either. Instead of spreading the negativity with more negativity you should act to change. I speak against war. I am the opposite of those "stereotypes" and demonstrate it every day. I am an ambassador for my country on the internet. Attitudes like yours are why these sort of lies continue to spread as you do nothing but to encourage with hatred.
Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
Date: 13th century
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy
<a href='http://www.trt-md.org/images/einsatzgruppen_8.jpg' target='_blank'>http://www.trt-md.org/images/einsatzgruppen_8.jpg</a>
<a href='http://www.alexgrey.com/images/wstlnd1.jpg' target='_blank'>http://www.alexgrey.com/images/wstlnd1.jpg</a>
<a href='http://deoxy.org/gif/torched.jpg' target='_blank'>http://deoxy.org/gif/torched.jpg</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you failed to acknoledge the fact that in WW2 and, AND Desert storm and chances are veitnam the bush family made lots of money. they will make money the new war on iraq. just as they are making money from 9/11. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not the fact that soldiers often die for a fruitless endeavor, it's that they KILL for fruitless endeavors. You wanna die for no good reason? Shoot yourself in the head, and do it outside because noone wants to clean your bloody mess up. At least you won't be violating anybody's rights in the process.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->selling them weapons was not a mistake I assure you. Our leaders knew exactly what they were doing. I don't like bush and I make fun of him all the time but in fact I beleive he is a brilliant man. Terribly brilliant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><------ Ashamed of humanity. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Self-Righteous:
Main Entry: self-righ·teous
Pronunciation: -'rI-ch&s
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1680
: convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others : narrow-mindedly moralistic
If this discussion further degrades into personal accusations, which can be just as easily exchanged via PM, I'll have to lock it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm trying real hard, but I just can't feel bad. Sorry.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, if you take this sentence out of the direct context of the previous few pages, you'll find a very simple statement. With common analysis you'd surmise that I feel good. And, contrary to Dez's intent, I'm still gonna feel good.
Ok. So that's pretty easy. "But wait!" you say. "You feel good that some guy got burnt to a crisp! That's sick!" Right. That would be sick. But while you're all discussing a war with Iraq and the "idiocy" of the Bush administration, I'm watching the content and accuracy of the information placed in front of me.
For example. What is the purpose of displaying a picture of someone burnt to a crisp? One could use words to describe that scenario. One could search for news clippings relating to similar events. But a picture does something that words can't do. It introduces emotion. Nemesis himself has accused me of introducing emotion into a debate once before ( <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=6977&st=15&hl=community' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...15&hl=community</a> ).
The great thing about the discussions in this forum (and I say great because of repeated comments from idlers) is that logic is the preferred method of debate here and not emotional tirades. The point of my next post (aside from the links) was to point out how ridiculously common it is to find these emotional debates everywhere I turn. Television media uses it so often that we don't even bother pointing it out anymore. Print media is a bit craftier in that they've drifted away from pragmatic, factual news and hired writers to "interpret" the news. Reporters have become masters of asking "the right question".
Then you'll notice that I simply posted the definition of a word. I added no extra text. I used no quotes from previous replys. And yet it's assumed to be a derogatory "accusation". Sounds like an emotional response to me.
It isn't fun having your emotional chain yanked all the time. If you have a point, make it. Stop trying to get everyone to "feel" this way or that. Present an idea and then try to back it up if you're questioned on it.
I've mentioned earlier that I wasn't going to get involved in a discussion about a war with Iraq and so far I haven't. I've expressed my opinion before and it still stands: If I am in imminent danger, the gloves are off. Until then, I would disagree with heavy military force. There, you see? It doesn't take pictures of burning babies to express an opinion.
P.S. Nem, I got your post. And aside from everything here, I don't recall ever accusing "Iraq" as a nation of doing anything. If I have, then I mispoke. I blame Saddam and anyone who carries out his will for the atrocities that he's committed. In fact, I've been doing some reading about the opposition groups in Iraq. Which started with the story about the Iraq embassy in Germany. Remember that story? Check out the Iraqi National Congress ( <a href='http://209.50.252.70/index.shtml?home=home' target='_blank'>http://209.50.252.70/index.shtml?home=home</a> ). Like many Americans, I would like to see the people of Iraq decide who will be their leader. Democratically. And from what I've been reading, so would they.
It apears that I do use emotions to relay my messages against mass murder. I forgot that emotions shouldn't tie into these sort of intellectual things.
People killed during war... What a revelation.
How about some pictures of the Kurdish Iraqi villages attacked with Sarin gas by Saddam Hussein's forces? Or perhaps some images of the Iranian soldiers killed by Iraqi mustard gas during the Iran-Iraq war? I'm sure you've got plenty of these too?
Some information for you to digest:
<a href='http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm' target='_blank'>United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441</a> offered to Iraq "a <i>final opportunity</i> to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council" and demanded that Government of Iraq should provide "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes..." (within 30 days,) while "false statements or omissions... ...shall constitute a further material breach" and warns Iraq that it would face "serious consequences as a result of [its] continued violations of its obligations."
Despite this resolution, the Iraqi regime has <i>failed</i> to account for nearly four tons of VX nerve agents, growth media for 20,000 litres of biological warfare agents, 15,000 shells for use in biological warfare, 6,000 chemical warfare bombs as well as it's information relating to it's Nuclear Weapons program. Additionally, inspectors have recently seized "large quantities" of illegally imported "weapons sector" material (including missile parts) in violation of earlier resolutions. This smuggled material is currently being evaluated to see whether it wase destined for banned WMD programmes.
The question you really need to ask is, should the rest of the world allow Iraq to <i>continue</i> thumbing it's nose at the U.N., (as it is doing now,) or instead take action to finally end the Iraqi regime's continued defiance? To my mind, if Saddam Hussein fails to comply fully with the UN demands, there can be only one option.
Please let me try to say a few words on all of your words together.
I like all of you, thats why I asked you about your opinion in the first place.
You see, whether you re Iraqi or American, Black or White, Jewish or Christian or Islamic, we shouldnt care.
And to have a prosperous Future for us all, we must accept that everything can only be solved through peaceful means, and then teach this truth to our allies and foes alike, till all of us realize it.
Violence will breed violence. Thats why all -except Peace- will FAIL.
To conclude, thank you all for a nice discussion and as stated above, just...
Have a nice day!</span>
1) To help the iraqis?
Nope. As civil unrest broke out at the end of the Gulf War, the US stood by and did nothing about it
2) To destroy their weaponry?
Nope. Weapons can be destroyed too under the supervisionof the UN-sanctioned investigators
3) To replace the government?
Simply replacing a government is not a cause. Furthermore, it will create a precedent to replace other governments in other countries,just like the communists did in Eastern Europe just after the Second World War
4) To make oil easier available to America?
Highly probable. Oil is the key to a successfull economy.
Now, why I don't support a war against Iraq
I) Just look at history. Did the Miloseic government fall because of the Nato bombing? No, it fell due to internal struggle. Did Al Quaeda cease to exist after the bombing of Afghanistan? No, the war only generated more support for this group.
II) If NATO agrees to attack Iraq, it will totally change the face of the Organisation.It's North Atlantic, and was started to defend western Europe from the Evil Commies. It stands for " North Atlantic Treaty Organisation", not Persian Gulf Treaty Organisation. By attacking Iraq it will ignore the set geographic coordinates as defined in the Treaty of 1949, and change into the ALDO, America's LapDog Organisation, Fighting Crime all over the world.
III) Crime as the US defines it, mind you. It will ignore all the UN treaties, thus destroying the single international way of creating a lasting peace by cooperation of all countries. Furthermore, if you want to defend democracy, you will have to see that democracy is that the people choose their leaders,and the way the land is governed. It is not defined as " the leaders and the way the land is governed by the people and the leaders of some other country at the other side of the globe, that only pursue their own interests.
Some remarks on things I've read in this thread.
Some dude thought that the US had to secure the safety of all the globe. Well, I wonder why the US doesnt start with ratifying the Kyoto treaty, as it is one of the most important ways to make sure our precious Earth isnt going to hell before the turn of the nextcentury. I wonder why the US doesnt invest more in fighting AIDS and malaria. These diseases have killed more people than Hitler and Stalin, and way more than mr. Hussein. I wonder why the US wont stop helping their own economy, while blocking other countries out of their economic system. How can you expect the third world to develope when the can't sell their products in their own country, due to dumped goods, and cant sell them in the first world, due to import tariff barriers. I wonder why the US wont do anything constructive about the Israel/ Palestine conflict. I wonder why the US wont do anything about the Czechen situation. Should I continue?
Some other dude thought that everyone has to support his or he government in times of war. So yea, all germans should have supported Hitler. So yea, the american public shouldnt have held demonstrationas against the war in Vietnam. So yea, all Afghanis should have supported whats his name ( Mullah Omar? i dunno, the Taliban dude).
Timmy mentioned tons of weapons., I fail to see where those weapons fit in with the report of Hans Blix.
If thumbing your nose at the UN was basis for bombing someone, we'd be the first to go, if only for what we've done in the middle east. There's also the childs rights bill we never signed(the reason we were kicked of the human rights comitee) and a host of other times where we basically told the UN to go **** off, Iraq ain't teh only one, bucko.
P.S. Don't bash the U.S. If you don't like it here, move to Canada or something.
What a wonderfull attitude. "If you don't like something, just go away. Don't try to change things you find horrible and unjust, just leave." Next you're gonna tell me to go to Russia.
"sure he killed a bunch of his people, but cant we just let him slide?"
i am for this war, i am going into the marine corp this summer to defend not only america, but her allies as well
If you decide to call me names like baby killer and a war-monger, hell its your choice (we still live in america and yes, you have what is called "freedom of speech"). All that i hope is that you and your family never see an atomic bomb in your backyard. And if that takes my life.... so be it.
the nation itself.
Isnt it also pretty silly that USA fight a war vs "terrorism" when they could be considered terrorists themselves. After all George W. Bush fights
war in the same fashion as all other terrorists.
"We will have the most well educted Americans in the world"
"Almost all our import comes from outside america"
Two quotes of the famous madman George W. Bush.
May he burn in the deepest pits of hell
All Americans should also watch Bowling for Columbine, hell, Bush should watch it. Maybe could teach some of you not to go berserk with your sidearms :/