Adventure Game Studio

No more than ten minutes ago, Arab reports state that Saddam Hussein has been executed.  Certianly there is something to be discussed here, how will this effect the stability in the middle-east?

Also 38th president Gerald Ford died and no one seemed to make note of it.

How will this affect the stability in the Middle East? Mate, this is the equivelant of Tito dying in 1980. Its pretty predictable where that multinational state is going to go. Rest in peace.

(http://members.aol.com/mikeljaxn/jacksons/2marlon.jpg)
Tito died?

Rest in peace? No way, Saddam can rest in agony!  >:(

What the heck IS Shitar going on about... *ManicMatt knows who Tito was*

For all who think that those who loved Saddam and wanted him back in power are just going to go "Durr... Well, shit. We'll just support the American democratic effort now", let me tell you this. This execution wasn't the best option, because guess who's a martyr now?

May he rest in utter discomfort.

No it was actually a cunning act, killing Saddam all of a sudden just before new year, and then after only a short period of reconsideration. that way he actually never reached the martyrs position he could have. Which frankly is a shame, not that I wish for anyone to be sat in jail for ages waiting for death, but because a martyrs role was what he was waiting for, and I reckon the middle east would have needed one. Oh well, people die all the time...

Quote from: Tuomas on Sat 30/12/2006 12:19:17
a martyrs role was what he was waiting for, and I reckon the middle east would have needed one.

Because he makes such a good role model???

He didn't deserve to be hung. He got the easy way out.

Quote from: ManicMatt on Sat 30/12/2006 13:11:38
Because he makes such a good role model???

yes, if you like it that way

QuoteHe didn't deserve to be hung. He got the easy way out.

It's okay, he wasn't hung, he was hanged.

QuoteThe former Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, has been hanged in northern Baghdad for crimes against humanity.

I swear if I hear English people use the word "hanged" again where it should be "hung", *I* will kill myself :P It's almost as bad as calling the people of Iraq "Iraqi People".

Hanged is the proper way to speak about it when you're talking about being hanged as a punishment.

"He was hanged for his crime"

but

"I hung the picture in the living room"

:P

As for the effects, I guess it could go any way.. we'll have to see.

I am well hanged.

Howzat? :P

You'll have to excuse me, I may have written that being slightly hanged over....

Darn, I was hoping they'd string Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney right up next to him.  (Just kidding.  I'd rather see them in prison for the rest of their lives.)

Anyway, yes, I think that he's going to become a matyr in the eyes of the Iraqis who supported him.  I don't think this is going to help our "cause" in Iraq at all.

Soliders and military leaders, whatever they do (well, all soliders and military leaders do same thing), deserve to be shot, by wild tradition of humankind. Not hung hanged.

Still, the execution (sp?) will be a public spectacle. It's soo... medieval!

Rest in... well, since you're probably meeting people you killed in your life right now... in the atmosphere they give you, Saddam.

Funny, pictures of South Park: the movie are in my head. Scenes with Saddam and Devil together... heh

(http://www.movievillains.com/images/saddam.jpg)

It must be cozy down there ;D

I think it is odd, considering that religious people seem to believe everybody can be forgiven in the eyes of god, that Saddam was killed without being given a chance to repent... and apparently religious people are pleased about it... it's all a bit barbaric and uncivilised...

Personally I find the whole thing disgusting... Let's not forget this all started as an excuse to get oil... where are the weapons of mass destruction? There are far worse and more dangerous people out there, regimes causing far more destruction and death...

No he wasn't a nice man and yes he probably deserved to die... and either way I don't care about him. I care about the American Government being kinda assholes.

I guess I don't actually care that much at all actually. It's all super two-faced.

Although I have nothing against punishing Saddam Hussein for his crimes, the whole situation leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Dubya: "I got him, Daddy! I got the bad man who tried to kill you!"

Daddy Bush: "Well done, kiddo! Have some grits!"

Both: "U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!"

Death by hanging is barbaric, but in this case I think It's justifiable.

Quote from: Yutzster on Sat 30/12/2006 19:23:05
There are far worse and more dangerous people out there, regimes causing far more destruction and death...

That's as maybe, but that doesn't mean Saddam should've gotten off lightly because he's not the biggest badass anymore. Although I think you're asking yourself why Iraq has all the attention when it shouldn't be priority anymore.

QuoteNo he wasn't a nice man

Haha! Biggest understatement of the year!  :P

I do wonder if you know what exactly Saddam has done in the past, all his crimes. You seem to be focusing on the more recent events.  ???

Lots of love, Matt

Quote from: InCreator on Sat 30/12/2006 17:21:32
Soliders and military leaders, whatever they do (well, all soliders and military leaders do same thing), deserve to be shot, by wild tradition of humankind. Not hung hanged.

Saddam never served in the military and I dont know if being the dictator of your country and doing your own thing instead of listening to the actual military leaders makes you one of them.
The uniform he wore was completely fake and just something he made up to look more dashing.

Lest we forget, he was all cosy with the US when he invaded Iran in the early 80's.

America seems to have no problem befriending these regimes when it suits them.
Just like they buddied up with the Talaban when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

You only have to look at America's relationship with the affluent sectors of the Middle East to realise that democracy and freedom, not to mention the "War on Terror!", take a backseat to big business.

It's all very depressing.

And voilà !!! (or how talking about an iraqian executed by iraqians under a judjement dictated by an iraqian jury can turn into bashing the USA)   ;D

Quote from: Nacho on Sat 30/12/2006 22:14:51
(or how talking about an iraqian executed by iraqians under a judjement dictated by an iraqian jury can turn into bashing the USA)

An Iraq currently under American occupation.

To believe that all of this isn't in some way, however small, influenced by America's foreign policy in Iraq at the moment is naive.

And look how easily bashing the current US government was construde as bashing the USA itself.   ;)

EDIT: On a seperate note, it seems the biggest fear among americans at the moment isn't terrorism or war. It's the fear of being perceived anti-american. It now seems to be on a par with being accussed of some heinous crime. Just mho  :)


(Edited for flagrant misuse of the  :P emoticon.)

Your use of the tonge emoticon is an unbeatable dialectical tactic. I surrender. You win.

Just trying to keep my post non-threatening.

EDIT: I've always considered the tongue to be cheeky rather than spiteful. :-\
          If any spite was inferred, 'pologies. ;)

I always follow my  :P with a  :) because the tongue one looks like they're sticking their tongue out in spite rather than cheeck.

If only the tongue one smiled like on msn!

I have been close a lot of times to open a thread about that, guys... For me the tonge emoticon is very, very irritating... For me it is like showing disgust, or that the opinions of someone make you sick... a really serious insult in such open minded forums.

But I know that some people sees on it the "slightly embarassed and therefore smiling with a tonge" pose we' ve seen a zillion time in manga characters.

If someone feels the same than me, I think we should open a little contest to design two different emoticons for that.

Fair enough, Nacho. Point taken. :)

And as for you, Tongue, you've gotten the better of me for the LAST time.

LimpingFish and the evil Tongue become locked in battle, suspended over a boiling pit of tar! The real sticky kind...that...m-makes your clothes...um...nevermind.

I think the off-topic-ness shows how very little Saddam means to us mwahaha!!

I'm glad I finally brought up the tongue icon.

For the time being, I'll have to use my own custom one! (http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b37/manicmatt/tongue.png)

Yeah, like I will be bothered to look up the url for the pic all the time..(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b37/manicmatt/newtongue.png)

I'm expecting a lot of flak for this, but I don't really feel much malice towards Saddam. Or rather, I didn't feel malice.
I mean, yeah, he did a lot of terrible stuff. But the way I see it, we invaded his country without just provocation, we kidnapped him, and  now we have executed him.

Yeah, that makes us much better people than him.

Hussein was a mentalist. Fact.

Hussein was an arsehole. Fact.

Hussein deserved punishment, not death. Fact.

Quote from: Mr Flibble on Sat 30/12/2006 23:50:14
..Yeah, that makes us much better people than him.

I'm sure these guys would disagree with you if they could talk:

(http://zaydoun.blogspot.com/Images/bodies.jpg)

Hey i get to use my smiley tongue again! bah can't be bothered to get it.

QuoteHussein deserved punishment, not death. Fact.

That is clearly your opinion, not a fact.  ???

Fact.

And what's all the talk about the US having chosen the time of Saddam's execution on a less news-flashy time of the year?

Quote from: ManicMatt on Sun 31/12/2006 00:48:38
I'm sure these guys would disagree with you if they could talk:

So would this guy;
(http://lexicorient.com/e.o/ill/saddam_hussein03.jpg)

God (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5368360.stm) bless (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html) America. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm)

:P

Quote from: earlwood on Sat 30/12/2006 03:16:53
No more than ten minutes ago, Arab reports state that Saddam Hussein has been executed.  Certianly there is something to be discussed here, how will this effect the stability in the middle-east?

I'm just hoping it doesn't further destablise an already destablised country.

QuoteAlso 38th president Gerald Ford died and no one seemed to make note of it.

Whoa, are you kidding? What about the televised funeral? And the interview by Bob Woodward? That was frontpage news for many publications!

And it's quite an interesting parallel the Ford interview got released just days before the Saddam hanging because, in the interview, Ford shitcanned Bush for his Iraq invasion policy and said they should have imposed further sanctions instead.

Which is also what I fucking said back in March 2003. You know, around the time when many people here said I was stark raving bonkers for thinking the invasion of Iraq was a stupid idea.

But hey hindsight is 20 fucking 20 vision, right?

Quote from: Ishmael on Sun 31/12/2006 00:55:31
And what's all the talk about the US having chosen the time of Saddam's execution on a less news-flashy time of the year?

I don' t know if the people saying that are ignorants or ill-disposed liars. Saddam was executed when he was executed because Islam' s law does not allow executions during the holy party period... A law that Saddam followed diligently, being the period with most executions in the year.

Quote from: Social Reasoner on Sat 30/12/2006 20:57:12

Quote from: InCreator on Sat 30/12/2006 17:21:32
Soliders and military leaders, whatever they do (well, all soliders and military leaders do same thing), deserve to be shot, by wild tradition of humankind. Not hung hanged.

Saddam never served in the military and I dont know if being the dictator of your country and doing your own thing instead of listening to the actual military leaders makes you one of them.
The uniform he wore was completely fake and just something he made up to look more dashing.

I think that anyone who commands warlords with armies and makes war/military-related decisions is considered a military commander. Crawling in mud and  shooting practice isn't neccessary for being one. That's what differs him from casual murderer.

For example, isn't president of US considered a highest commander by US laws?

Quote from "Kingdom of Heaven":

QuoteSaladdin: King does not kill a king.

I think that this is one thing that went wrong. How can people around the world trust their leaders if another leader could slay them any minute? Then again, "release Hussein" could be demand used by numerous further terror acts by his supporters. I sense someone striking a fist onto his table and yelling "I want him dead before new year!".
Wonder who this was...?

Well, kinda off-topic, but the video of the hanging is out. I have to warn you, this is extremely graphic and very disgusting! Please do not click this link unless you are prepared to see a human being get hung.

link removed, a video of someone's death is not entirely appropriate forum material no matter how infamous

Moderators, feel free to remove the link if you think it is too inappropriate.

So, you don't believe those with an interest in seeing that would have been able to find it themselves?

I'm with Zoot on this one, noone has the right to take lives, not even Saddams.

As far as I'm concerned he took away his own right to live. He was a cancer, and has been purged from the Earth.

Why spend money keeping him in prison? What a waste!

How much damage from one person would it take for you to think they should die? Do you think you would never think they deserved to die? If a pyscho killed your family in cold blood but were locked up, would you be happy knowing some of your tax is going towards their living costs?

I am not going to watch the video of him being hanged however, I know he's dead and that is enough. If he had killed my family and friends then I probably would want to watch it though.

Quote from: ManicMatt on Sun 31/12/2006 00:48:38


That is clearly your opinion, not a fact.  ???

It's almost as if I meant that to happen....

Quote from: ManicMatt on Sun 31/12/2006 15:59:23
How much damage from one person would it take for you to think they should die? Do you think you would never think they deserved to die? If a pyscho killed your family in cold blood but were locked up, would you be happy knowing some of your tax is going towards their living costs?

I would gladly pay money/tax to have someone who has done a heinous act stripped of his freedom for as long as he lives. For a murderer, rapist, genocidal maniac, it is an easy way out, to die. Also, why the hell should I condone state-sanctioned murder? Don't forget not everyone here is an American - concerning the western world, the death sentence is only actually used in the U.S.

Why do you think they prevent those people from having access to belts, pens, knives whenever possible? Because suicide is very popular amongst those people. A lot of them prefer death over beign in prison for 20-30-40-50-60 years (choose, depending on crime and age, as well as expectancy of further life).

Also, in cases such as Saddam, it's nothing more than bloodlust. Petty vengeance. He didn't deserve to die (and therefore not being punished at all, since he's dead, which is a binary choice, you either live, or dead. While living, you can receive punishment. When dead, not so.), he deserved to be locked up and live decades in solitary confinement, slowly going insane.

And when he's insane, his hands shaking like the feeble-minded halfwit he has now truly become, show pictures and footage to the world, showing his followers and supporters their former leader and example, that'll be worth much more than this.

Those who believe he was on the right path (and no matter how much people deny it, there's more than we think), have now seen him die for what he believed in. He didn't beg, he didn't do anything. He recited passages from the Quran and they didn't even let him finish that. He went in a dignified way (sad as I am to say that), which has a high probability of instilling a feeling in his followers that since he was willing to die for what he believed in, they might as well.

He IS a martyr to those who supported him. And the bloodshed in Iraq is far from done.

This is what I both believe and what I'm afraid of.

The biggest thing with Husseins execution is the amount of shit it will  throw up. Sure they show the pictures of shiites dancing in the streets, but what about everyone else? The ones who supported him have a cause now, a martyr.

Quote from: InCreator on Sun 31/12/2006 13:49:02


Quote from "Kingdom of Heaven":

QuoteSaladdin: King does not kill a king.

Exactly. That says it all, seriously.

Oh and why are people asking about the "stability" of Iraq now? Its the easiest question to answer. The country is divided into 3 hostile factions. The one man that was strong enough to tell them to stfu and force them united is dead. What is there to think about? I give that country at the MOST 10 years without Sadaam before they collapse because of ethnic problems. Take a look at Yugoslavia if you really need any kind of example of what happens when a unitary leader dies (and BTW Tito killed alot more people then Sadaam in political prisons and USA loved him).

 >:(
there is a problem bro why they kill saddam in sacriface festival it s very holy for muslim
and he kill a lot of people in iran war right but this is a war israil kill a lot of muslim in lubnan and in east europe srbian kill muslims too how about that and my perents came turkey from macedonia near the srbia...
saddam kill his people but why in our holy festival kill him he 69 he ll die in a few year i dont say saddam is angel
dont make fun of with saddam he is already dead that s all

There will always be a question mark above the timing of the execution, as there will be about the very act itself.

The current US government has been using Saddam as a platform to consolidate its political control since it entered office, laying the blame for everything from Al Qaeda and 9/11 to the recent situation with Iran at his door.

How anyone can believe anything the US government says regarding the middle-east anymore is beyond me. None of this has anything to do with freedom, justice, or a free democratic Iraq. It's about focusing attention on a nebulous "Enemy" figure, of using political slight-of-hand to appease the masses. Fear is the ultimate political controlling factor.

Saddam ran Iraq into the ground, and what should now be an affluent middle-eastern power, is a fractured warzone. He murdered his own people for years before the US got interested, coincidently around the time he invaded Kuwait.

The abuse of religion, of foriegn nations, of the concept of democracy itself, continues.

Next stop, North Korea...

Quote from: LimpingFish on Sun 31/12/2006 20:58:02

Next stop, North Korea...

You are forgetting Venezuala. Probably the reason they will be invaded first is because they have a law that says Americans cannot do the drilling itself, for oil. Its practically in the crosshairs already because over there gasoline is 16 cents a gallon. And I know this because I've been to Caracas.

The US gov. has been supporting/funding groups to overthrow Hugo Chavez but they are NEVER successful because he's managed to make a good image for himself to his people. Whats funny is that alot of media outlets try to suggest his "elections" are fishy. Which is funny because last time he got 95%+ of the votes. Thats not even close enough to call it "fishy". It would have to be like 51/50 to be fishy not 95/5. On top of that 5/6 of the voting regulation organizations there have claimed the elections are legitimate but one of the American groups claims EVERY time that he is cheating.

On the other hand, you have to wonder. If gasoline is only 16 cents there why are so many people poor. If they took the money they could make from drilling and distributed it to the common people everyone would be millionaires. I understand his idea of socialism about everyone needing to be an equal, but if everyone is upper class and rich, dosent that mean it has been accomplished? 

Fuck saddam! Its 2007! :)

Quote from: the vict0r on Mon 01/01/2007 01:48:39
Fuck saddam! Its 2007! :)

Eh?

What a timely execution, indeed. The American mind is so corrupted. No violence on TV. Everything that shows even a glimpse of real life has a warning of being extremely graphical plastered all around it. The same people apparently think the whole war on terrorism is justified. But it's not. If there were weapons of mass destruction in a country with no oil in it and the US would go in and get rid of said weapons, I'd understand...

If they ever get their troops out of Iraq alive and still have a military command then, I bet it's Venezuela next. But the soldiers will remain in Iraq because the situation doesn't calm down, and they'll all be eventually killed. And meanwhile they settle the situation there, the supporters of Saddam have time to plan out and attack the US. And Osama's people will join in the fun, no doubt. Now the don't even have anything to bargain with, so the US can't play time in a ransom situation.

Kinda sad. I wanted a more ironic death.
Make him eat thumb tacks. One for every person he killed.

It' s amazing for me that when someone "good" dies, there' s allway someone here which comes with something like "A condolence thread? Why? Because he was popular? The cousin of my neighbour Mr. Emily died two weeks ago and no one seems to care about that!" and now, some of those people seem to be so "sad" about the dead of such son of a bitch.

QuoteIf he had killed my family and friends then I probably would want to watch it though.

This is what's so immensely scary. We think we've gone above that, got civilised and all, but we're just as barbaric at heart. I understand the need to 'view' an execution to be able to say that all went in accordance with how the state wanted it and all, but a public execution, with with people from a rival party jeering while he's about to hang, someone whipping out their mobile to show off they were there, I mean, it's like we're back in the middle ages.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he deserved punishment, it's just that the way everything was done, it doesn't serve any purpose. Iraq is going to stay in the rut it's dug for itself for decades ahead, more terrorists are going to use this to spearhead their movement, and well, Saddam is dead. That's it. Not that I have any idea what could have been done better.

Quote from: Nacho on Mon 01/01/2007 09:03:38
some of those people seem to be so "sad" about the dead of such son of a bitch.

It seems you misinterpret what most of us who aren't happy with the hanging are saying - we don't feel saddened by the death of Saddan. I can only speak for myself, but I'm definitely not sad that he's dead. That he's dead I don't care about.

What I care about and am slightly irritated by is the public spectacle they made out of it. And I'm afraid of what the consequences are.

No sadness anywhere. And for the others, as far as I've read, they're not sad either, just wary of how this will play out.

I think my point is still "valid"... when someone "good" dies, allways someone finds a "but..."

My "feelings" (and feelings can be wrong), is that this "buts", in this case, are smaller, and I can' t understand it.

Look, I am going to put an example: Yestersay 31 of dec., 0900 in the morning, a close friend of mine is driving drunk and sees a police alcohol and drug control. He escapes and he kills himself and two girls. Today is the burial ceremony... And I am thinking where to go. To my friend' s ceremony, or to the two girls one. He died as a stupid irresponsible jerk, and I am not really sure if he deserves the homage the ceremony will be. He was a good pal, but the final spot spoils all the record.

So... If my feelings about a FRIEND who killed 3 people by irresponsability are these, imagine my scruples about a bastard who gassed towns.

Your personal feelings, however, will have no effect on the already explosive situation in Iraq that might only gain momentum from this hanging.

My personal feelings say that I don't care whether he's dead or not. He's not in power anymore, and that's what matters. My rational and skeptical side tells me it's not for the better that he was hanged in such a public way.

In a situation like you just mentioned, I'd go to the two girls' funeral, due to the accident not being their fault. In the situation concerning Saddam, there's no personal benefit in believing either (except for bloodlust and petty vengeance, which are imnsho barbaric emotions, and to which I refuse to give in) and all that really matters is how this is going to influence the already difficult situation over there.

if I have the choice of having someone terrible become a martyr by killing him in a public display of barbarism, or by having him slide into the annals of history by keeping him in solitary confinement, I'll happily opt for the latter.

Ah, Saddam, the father of terror! Certainly the cause of 9/11 and what more... Finally, dead, BURN IN HELL!
Isn't that just plain stupidity to roll all terrorism acts to Saddams fault? Oh, he killed his own people? Well, America and many other countries do it too! USA death camps in Cuba, Russian censorship etc.

I don't actually care if the bastard is dead or alive, the thing is, that all the shit is actually the same. Just another media manipulation to icrease "the war of terror" to insert fear in peoples minds. And what would be the better place and time than THE NEW YEARS EVE to remind that there is still a great chance of terrorism!

Fuck, there are pople dieing in Afghanistan. Families killed, and bodies sold back to some remaining family members so they could bury them. Deal with that!

who is terorist saddam or bush or israel
what did saddam do to you say me is he kill your  family or???
but abdullah öcalan kill a lot of people one of them in  my family and  if turkey kill the baby killer we  re barbarian and we re  terorist right cause we re muslim
be europen bro they kill saddam in most holy festival they sende a mesage to world

I think bush is a stupid idotic man who just wants power and doesnt care about the lives of his people but pretends to, therefore the equivalent of a terrorist.
I think saddam is also an idiot wanting power and killing,etc, therefore the equivalent of a terrorist.
I think there are lots of people like this in the world but saddam has now got what he deserves-although alliances idea was good. There would be a big problem to give bush what he deserves.

That's quite passionate, and pretty unthoughtful to shout out like that Neelhound. Nevertheless, I agree as much as is humainly possible. ;)

They shouldn't have hanged him. They should have chopped him up alive and finish with the head.

But there are people who always must be the one to disagree.

Quote from: Ishmael on Mon 01/01/2007 08:27:25The American mind is so corrupted.

I'm not 100% sure exactly what you meant by that ... but I'm sick and tired of the rest of the world lumping all Americans under the same umbrella.  Just because our President is destroying our country and our mass media exploits that fact doesn't make us all war-mongering capitilist pigs, I assure you.

If I were to make an ignorant statement lumping all of a people [non Americans] together based off the actions of a few of them; I, as an American, would be hammered down for saying it.  It's no different when a non-American does that to the American people.

As for Saddam ... I don't really care.  Once they handed him over to the Iraqis they could have executed him or locked him in a cell for the rest of his life, makes no difference to me as long as he's not calling the shots anymore.  I don't really see how him being detained or dead is really going to change things but I'm not on the ground there, I can't know that.

Ever thus to tryants I suppose.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 02/01/2007 14:38:50

Quote from: Ishmael on Mon 01/01/2007 08:27:25The American mind is so corrupted.

I'm not 100% sure exactly what you meant by that ... but I'm sick and tired of the rest of the world lumping all Americans under the same umbrella.  Just because our President is destroying our country and our mass media exploits that fact doesn't make us all war-mongering capitilist pigs, I assure you.

There must've been someone who voted him into the office.
-> That means, he must've got at least 51% of the votes.
-> -> 51% support for George Bush II.
-> -> -> 51% of the americans are stupid.
-> -> -> -> Rounded: 100% of them are  ;D

No, in reality, Americans aren't that bad. I've got some friends who were in Texas last year, on a student exchange, and only one of them ended up living in the same house as a sort-of-redneck family! In general, americans are all right. Russia is doing much worse things these days, especially Gazprom. But nobody pays as much attention because Russia doesn't claim they'd be the most democratic country ever.

America does claim that, and your citizens are really, really patriotic. Good thing. But on the other hand, the "most democratic country ever"...

...still has the death penalty. Even for teenagers.
..."frees" countries all over the world... no matter if they want it or not.
...don't even ask the citizens about that.
...doesn't care about cruel dictators in Africa, but always rushes if a country with oil has a dictator problem.
...exports weapons like crazy.
...is ruled by extremly right redneck racists. (ERRR  ::))

So, the world is watching you! Better up, or you'll lose your good reputation!

That was the AGS political report.  ;D

(just to clarify things, I'm a german. Try speaking to Americans or French people with a german accent once and you first thing you'll think will be "oh f*ck, we have to stop getting a bad reputation)

Oh, and for Saddam: Congrats, Iraq has a martyr now. It'd have been better if they let him rotting in a cell for the rest of his life.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 02/01/2007 14:38:50If I were to make an ignorant statement lumping all of a people [non Americans] together based off the actions of a few of them; I, as an American, would be hammered down for saying it. Ã, It's no different when a non-American does that to the American people.

I guess that's what all of us 'non-Americans' are objecting to. The ridiculous and extremely arrogant notion that the world is divided into Americans and non-Americans. It wouldn't be the same if you lumped the rest of the world together into one, as it would for us to lump Americans together, because you're simply just one country. As a non-American, I'm lumped together with South America, Canada, Russia, Europe, China, Japan, India, Africa, etc.

I'm sure FSI for example isn't happy that the rest of the world regards his home country, Russia, and his countrymen as decadent, corrupt and poor. At the same time, I'm sure a Chinese member here isn't exactly thrilled that his people are regarded as backward, communist sheep, or a French person being thought of as pompous, selfish and rude (a stereotype enforced quite strongly in North America, I might add). So basically the contrast here would be the division of Russians and non-Russians, Chinese and non-Chinese, Americans and non-Americans, etc. as all equally ridiculous.

So yes, it is very different if you were to lump the rest of the world together as non-Americans to us lumping together the people in your particular country.

P.S.
I don't want to start or contribute in a fight, and I rarely post on these threads, because of the obvious vanity of Internet-based debate, but I wanted to say this just to clarify. I'm not trying to enforce any stereotypes or anything, and I'm definately not siding with Ishmael on that statement.

Quote from: Akatosh on Tue 02/01/2007 15:27:33
51% support for George Bush II.

That's debatable. Let's ask Florida about that one shall we?

*This post brought to you from 5 years ago*

But anyway, let's not open up a can of worms on Bush.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 02/01/2007 14:38:50

Quote from: Ishmael on Mon 01/01/2007 08:27:25The American mind is so corrupted.

I'm not 100% sure exactly what you meant by that ... but I'm sick and tired of the rest of the world lumping all Americans under the same umbrella.  Just because our President is destroying our country and our mass media exploits that fact doesn't make us all war-mongering capitilist pigs, I assure you.

And to show that Darth is consistant with this view, he's even gone on the record defending the French against people who criticised them for not getting involved in the War on Terror (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=13722.msg205345#msg205345). And it's something that I appreciate.

Quote from: ildu on Tue 02/01/2007 15:54:54
I guess that's what all of us 'non-Americans' are objecting to. The ridiculous and extremely arrogant notion that the world is divided into Americans and non-Americans. It wouldn't be the same if you lumped the rest of the world together into one, as it would for us to lump Americans together, because you're simply just one country. As a non-American, I'm lumped together with South America, Canada, Russia, Europe, China, Japan, India, Africa, etc.

I think you're missing Darth's point... He's not lumping all non Americans together and distinguishing one group as Americans from another that's non Americans. He's trying to say that no matter what criticisms have been targeted at one country's government or history, you can't lump the whole nation at current like that. And the example I posted above where Darth defended the French is proof.

Please don't confuse the issue. You're making Darth out to be arrogant when he's actually trying to promote good cultural attitudes that're NOT based upon stereotypes.

Anyway...

I don't think all Americans are corrupt. Perhaps the system or the government, but I don't think the people are. I think essentially they want to do good.

The problem I think is they were misguided by a lot of false information. Stuff that tried to verify things like "Iraq has WMDs" or "Iraqis will great us a liberators" or "Mission Accomplished" or "We're winning the war".

US Citizens are starting to realise things aren't working in Iraq and in the War on Terror. There's a growing disillusionment in the government's ability to fight such a War. Consider the resignation of Rumsfeld... whoa hold on...

;D AAAAAAHHHHH ;D

Sorry, I just get so giddy when I mention the resignation of you-know-who...

Anyway, consider that and the recent midterm elections. Clearly America is looking for a better way to try and do right.

Let's hope they do. I'll say this: I'm feeling a little more confident about this year.

Quote from: ildu on Tue 02/01/2007 15:54:54So yes, it is very different if you were to lump the rest of the world together as non-Americans to us lumping together the people in your particular country.

Perhaps you missed my point?  I wasn't talking about the rest of the world vs. the US.  I was saying that if I made a comment that all Germans were Nazis because of Hitler ... something like that.  I'd be lumping all Germans together unfairly.  In that regard it's NO different from non-Americans assuming that all Americans are like our government. edit - Thanks DG ;)

As DG just pointed out ... I really think the American people had the "wool" pulled over their eyes for a long time.  And I'm really hoping for a change soon.  I don't like the path we're currently on.

Let's hope the ERRR  ;D won't get their opinions through like recently (U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, "War" on drugs, "War" on terror, actually War on Americans). I like America, and I like the Americans, but I don't like the ERRR  ;D ruled government.

And to the lumping-together thing: Saying all germans were Nazis would be lumping together. Saying all americans were ERRR ;D would be lumping together. Referring to a group as "non-americans" is like saying "non-europeans" or "germans" or "french" or... you get my point. It's not lumping together; it's more clearifying what group of people he's referring to - the people who aren't living in / from America.

NOTE: Probably I should stop using the term ERRR ;D

I think it's also a bit of a falacy to say American is controlled by "extremly right redneck racists". I think it's more accurate to say America is (or at least was until last year) controlled by neoconservatives.

Now you have the Democrats controlling both Houses of government, and most of the neocons who were authors of the War on Terror doctrine are now not in charge of US foreign policy or are trying to distance themselves from it. Rumsfeld resigned (AHHHH), Wolfowitz isn't involved in US Defense anymore (though he is in charge of the World bank), Richard Perle has criticised Bush in Vanity Fair... And consider the "The Project for the New American Century" is now dead (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6189793.stm).

All that has to happen now is Cheney gets involved in a self-inflicted hunting accident and I can rest easy in 2007!

As I said, I'm not gonna get into an argument here. I wasn't specifically directing that towards you personally. It's just something I've noticed from said population, having traveled and lived around the globe (including 4 years in said country). Your remark just brought about the observation. I guess our posts both had the same point.

I don't hate America. Far from it. I just think it has some serious problems at the moment. The concept of Freedom of Thought/Freedom of Expression has become corrupt. The politics of the Christian right, which in some cases could be termed "fundamentalist", has become so intertwined with the current Bush agenda as to be almost indistinguishable.

I don't lump all americans together, but I do think a large precentage of them are simply apathetic to what the role of the last political Superpower should be in the world.

I don't blame americans for voting Bush into two terms of office. I blame the Democratic party for not stepping up to the plate, for being politically weak twice in a row and for not being able to convince the american public that there might be an alternative to the War on Terror, and an alternative to US soldiers and their allies dying in foreign countries for a cause nobody can agree on.

America was built by people of all nationalities, and founded on the idea that every man is equal. It should be a country where everybody has a right to speak out against injustice, regardless of religion or creed.

I don't hate America. I just don't like what it has become.

There's an online American friend of mine, who has a livejournal. I have previously read of how his German associates who he used to know in person decided to stop writing to him 'cos of USA invading (Or if you prefer, liberating) Iraq. What was stupid was that my friend was 100% OPPOSED to USA invading Iraq! But his German friends asked why he wasn't doing anything to stop it! He explained the freaking obvious to them, but they didn't want to know. Pathetic attitude, and a good example I feel, of what you guys are talking about.

Quote from: ildu on Tue 02/01/2007 18:15:03As I said, I'm not gonna get into an argument here. I wasn't specifically directing that towards you personally. It's just something I've noticed from said population, having traveled and lived around the globe (including 4 years in said country). Your remark just brought about the observation. I guess our posts both had the same point.

Maybe I'm missing your point then ;)

I must confess I'm a tad confused ... wouldn't all people who are not Americans be considered "non-Americans"?  What am I missing?  I wasn't lumping the rest of the world into one category as a bad thing (or wasn't meaning too ... that'd be slightly hypocritical) it's just that, technically, the rest of the non-American world are non-Americans?

Quote from: LimpingFish on Tue 02/01/2007 18:30:42I don't lump all americans together, but I do think a large precentage of them are simply apathetic to what the role of the last political Superpower should be in the world.

I don't blame americans for voting Bush into two terms of office. I blame the Democratic party for not stepping up to the plate, for being politically weak twice in a row and for not being able to convince the american public that there might be an alternative to the War on Terror, and an alternative to US soldiers and their allies dying in foreign countries for a cause nobody can agree on.

America was built by people of all nationalities, and founded on the idea that every man is equal. It should be a country where everybody has a right to speak out against injustice, regardless of religion or creed.

I don't hate America. I just don't like what it has become.

Again though ... I think you're throwing us all under the same umbrella.  As far as I'm concerned American's didn't vote Bush into office twice.  The first time was all fucked up (I firmly believe it was fixed, duh?) and the second time he lost the popular vote and still got voted in due to some antiquated bullshit called the electoral college.  That's only the third time in our history that that's happened.  Should never happen even 1 time.  That's not "by the people" to my way of thinking.

I know quite a lot of people ... and VERY few of them voted for (or would vote for) Bush.  A lot of them are damn close to taking up arms against him because they are so against what he's doing to our country.  And I live in Florida where our governor is the President's brother and most people I know STILL feel this way.

I understand people's distaste for our President and our Government ... but please, stop thinking that we're all like that just because they govern us.  That's a true injustice to the American people.

People from the outside should be understanding enough to realize it, Darth, but their "default" stance, the one they're almost expected to take from their outsider's view, is "They've got a democracy, and they keep on saying how good it is, so somewhere along the line they must have supported this government and are as guilty as said government is". And if you say to those people that it's not so, they'll reply that in that case the system is flawed somewhere, and it's a damn big flaw if it allows something like this to happen.

No, it's not fair, but it's perfectly logical, makes perfect sense, and like every other situation like this it stinks and people just have to live with it. Some people will understand, others won't.

Quote from: Rui "Trovatore" Pires on Tue 02/01/2007 19:41:05People from the outside should be understanding enough to realize it, Darth, but their "default" stance, the one they're almost expected to take from their outsider's view, is "They've got a democracy, and they keep on saying how good it is, so somewhere along the line they must have supported this government and are as guilty as said government is". And if you say to those people that it's not so, they'll reply that in that case the system is flawed somewhere, and it's a damn big flaw if it allows something like this to happen.

People thought Hitler was okay at first ...

Stalin ...

Julius Ceasar ...

History repeats itself.  Sure the people may have supported it at some point.  That's how it happens.  Promise one thing or project a certain "image" to gain the power, then abuse it once you have it.  Time and again this happens and there's really no way to prevent that. (or just cheat the system like our current president did)

Quote from: Rui "Trovatore" Pires on Tue 02/01/2007 19:41:05No, it's not fair, but it's perfectly logical, makes perfect sense, and like every other situation like this it stinks and people just have to live with it. Some people will understand, others won't.

I couldn't disagree with that more!!

I certainly won't "live with" people thinking I'm one way because of incomplete facts and speculation based on the actions of those who govern my nation.  If somebody makes a blanket statement (which includes me) because of my government I will inform them (as I did in this thread) that it's not proper to do so.

I could find a flaw in any government of any nation on the globe and quickly come to some assumption about a person from that nation based off that.  No government is perfect and I'd like to think (especially here on the AGS boards) that most would realize this and not do the "lumping" in the first place.

But to say that I must live with it?  Nah ... just don't agree with that at all!

QuotePeople thought Hitler was okay at first ...

Yeah, I was gonna bring that up, but I thought it was a bit too much. But it's my point exactly - a lone madman won't get far, or anywhere. He needs support. He won't get to power without a lot of support.

And as you say - it happens. The trouble is, for instance, the way Hitler gave the world a nasty image of the German people. Sounding familiar? History repeats itself, indeed. And all things must pass.

QuoteBut to say that I must live with it?  Nah ... just don't agree with that at all!

*You* don't have to, thank goodness, especially since you can hold your end opf an argument (so many people seem incapable of that these days...). You can make a change in the people you talk to. That's fine and proper and as it should be. But *you* in the plural, the Americans, pretty much have to live with it, because when we're talking collectively... well, all things must pass. As far as the "image" issue is concerned, Time can indeed bring justice, thankfully. And in this day and age, it doesn't take a lot of time, either. So be patient, is my advice. I'm not saying it's easy, not saying it doesn't hurt to see your people slandered so. But overall it's just... not worth it. Being stressed over such things is inviting an aneurism, a heart attack or a stroke later in your life - nowadays, stress just piles up, piles up, piles up. You don't want to contribute to it, not like this.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 02/01/2007 20:11:42People thought Hitler was okay at first ...

Stalin ...

Julius Ceasar ...

I'm already kicking myself for getting involved, but I must object. Again, nothing against you personally, just to inform.

Hitler - He was seen as a very unstable, inflammatory and hate-motivated zealot from the very beginning. The nationalist socialist party was very different party until Hitler got in. He rised as a leader of one branch of the party gathering support from extremist conservatives, who had been against the Weimar republic since it's establishment in 1919. He took over the party by force and he was jailed after his first attempt at overthrowing the government in 1923. Due to a great depression and overall unsatisfying conditions for the middle and lower class people, leading up to racism, the nazi party gained a lot of support up until in the elections of 1932, when it received the majority of seats in the parliament. Hitler pretty much named himself chancellor of Germany the next year. Now, they had had chancellors for a long time already. Hitler wasn't a dictator yet. During the following 6 years, the nazi party became a lot more powerful and offensive. That time was a gradual progression from a democratic state into a supressive dictatorship. Fear of getting killed for opposing the regime, propaganda and control of the press were among reasons why he could keep the power.

Stalin - He pretty much inherited power from Lenin. When Lenin died in 1924, the leaders of the party where Stalin, Trotski and Buharin, of which Stalin took over. He continued in pretty much the same way as Lenin. While Stalin did a lot of bad things, he did make a lot of advancements in industry, politics, welfare, etc. The people were split from the middle in his favor. Furthermore, the immense amounts of propaganda, sparseness of settlements, great poverty and the very justified fear of getting killed if you oppose the regime did their part in keeping Stalin in office. As for Lenin, he seized power from the Czar and greatly advanced the roles of the middle and lower classes. The same reasons as with Stalin helped him keep office.

Caesar - He was not a dictator per se (well he was, but not in as negative way as one might think). He was elected by the senate to have a leading role in proceedings. His role grew gradually and he became Emperor, but the Senate was kept the same. Rome was still an elected democracy and Caesar it's 'president'. Caesar did a great lot of good for Rome, in most areas, and he was a very liked and respected leader. The senate eventually saw how the Roman public was dividing into people who opposed Caesar for bringing back dictatorship and into people who supported Caesar. They took action and killed him, and had a hard time getting the people behind them after that.

Lenin seized power from pretty horrible leadership already, Stalin continued that regime, and they both did a lot of good for the nation to gain support. Hitler was a hate-monger and was able to suppress the majority of the population with a very extremist conservative group. In the cases of Lenin and Hitler, the downward welfare of their nations were the greatest asset for them. As for Caesar, he should be cut out from this analogy, since he didn't do a lot of unpopular damaging things. he was an elected official, who was assassinated by a bunch of jealous aristocrats, when his popularity was quite stable.

So basically what I'm saying is that the consequences are very different with Bush. There was no desperation, no suppression, no force involved with Bush. When Bush was elected, the economy was doing fine, there was a surplus, everything was grand. If he even got the majority of votes, he got them from the evangelists, people on the right and normal everyday people. Nothing else there, but a result of a two-party system.

Comparing Bush to these people creates a very flimsy case. Rather compare him to people who are actually in relatively the same consequences, like the new Il Duce, Berlusconi :D or the overwhelming support of Le Pen in the last French presidential election.

Quote from: Rui "Trovatore" Pires on Tue 02/01/2007 20:24:32
Yeah, I was gonna bring that up, but I thought it was a bit too much. But it's my point exactly - a lone madman won't get far, or anywhere. He needs support. He won't get to power without a lot of support.

And as you say - it happens. The trouble is, for instance, the way Hitler gave the world a nasty image of the German people. Sounding familiar? History repeats itself, indeed. And all things must pass.

It's not how many people you know ... it's who you know that's important.  We now have a sitting president who more than 1/2 the voters didn't vote for.  He obviously knew the right people.

And yes, people shouldn't have a bad opinion of Germans because of Hitler.  It's basically the same thing here.  I'd like to think people could actually learn from the past.  Yes, obviously, Hitler was "bad" ... but since we learned afterwards that not all Germans were ideological murderous Nazis shouldn't we now, in this day and age, realize that not all Americans are war mongering big-oil lackeys?

Quote from: Rui "Trovatore" Pires on Tue 02/01/2007 20:24:32
But *you* in the plural, the Americans, pretty much have to live with it, because when we're talking collectively... well, all things must pass.

I see what you're saying ... However, I don't think the average American should have to live with the ignorance of others who form opinions based solely off the American government.  To my way of thinking that simply isn't right.  I don't think that kind of ignorance should be tolerated in any form from anybody.

You are correct in that there is very little *we* can do to change this ignorance ... but that doesn't mean we should roll over and take it either.

Quote from: ildu on Tue 02/01/2007 21:17:53Comparing Bush to these people creates a very flimsy case. Rather compare him to people who are actually in relatively the same consequences, like the new Il Duce, Berlusconi :D or the overwhelming support of Le Pen in the last French presidential election.

I wasn't trying to "compare" Bush to them ... just simply pointing out the fact that sometimes a "bad" person(s) gains the power seat and it's ignorant to assume a nation's people all carbon copies of their leader(s).

Quote from: ildu on Tue 02/01/2007 21:17:53I'm already kicking myself for getting involved, but I must object. Again, nothing against you personally, just to inform.

On that point, I'm in total agreement ;)

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 02/01/2007 21:41:14

Quote from: ildu on Tue 02/01/2007 21:17:53Comparing Bush to these people creates a very flimsy case. Rather compare him to people who are actually in relatively the same consequences, like the new Il Duce, Berlusconi :D or the overwhelming support of Le Pen in the last French presidential election.

I wasn't trying to "compare" Bush to them ... just simply pointing out the fact that sometimes a "bad" person(s) gains the power seat and it's ignorant to assume a nation's people all carbon copies of their leader(s).

Well, let's be frank. You were comparing the consequences of his getting into power to the dictators you mentioned, and the history of such situations. Of course the leader isn't the absolute representation of the people, but didn't the whole debate stem from the argumented inability of the people to affect this leadership? In that respect these situations are totally different. Legally, Bush could've been impeached for a number of issues already. It does say something about the people, in a time when the ability of public input is at it's highest. Although all the tools of alleviating this problem are there, not so many use them.

I'm just saying that if there was a president that had screwed up as much as Bush has, in most European (democratic) countries, that president wouldn't be in power for very long. But then again, in most European countries, single persons or small groups of people wouldn't be granted as much selective power as in the USA, in the first place.

But as happens with absolutely every Internet debate, were left arguing about what were talking about rather than the content of our arguments :). So just to clarify, Americans aren't all bumbling condescending rednecks (in fact, most are not :D), but for one such person to rise to such lengths of power, there must be something wrong with the system. Maybe the representatives are at fault, maybe the people aren't aware and active, or maybe the system just needs a complete jumpstart.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 02/01/2007 21:41:14

Quote from: ildu on Tue 02/01/2007 21:17:53I'm already kicking myself for getting involved, but I must object. Again, nothing against you personally, just to inform.

On that point, I'm in total agreement ;)

What, are you kicking me? :D

I didnt read anything from this thread because my glasses are broken xD, and the other ones are being fixed...
I just wanted to say how disgusting I find the USA government, first of all they attacked Iraq saying they had Nuclear power to steal petroleum from them. A country with nuclear power and with "so much hate" for USA could have used that technology to blow them all long time ago, or at least at the time they attacked them, second of all, the propaganda they do by putting irak people supporting them, that's so fake it hurts, people buy what they see, the war winners write history. Did you all see how many people were celebrating the dead of Saddam Hussein?, 50, maybe 60?.
Bush and Saddam Hussein should be killed both to make a better world, Bush is a #â,¬#@ Nazi. He uses fear and weak minded people to get what he wants.
I dont want to sound very esceptic, but did anyone see the execution of Hussein?, there are only photos and a cutted tape, they didnt even pass the whole execution at Irak.

Well, anyway, sorry for my bad english, and I dont mean to sound hateful but I really hate this damn Nazi, I have nothing with the rest of USA...

QuoteI dont want to sound very esceptic, but did anyone see the execution of Hussein?, there are only photos and a cutted tape, they didnt even pass the whole execution at Irak.

A full version of his execution can be watched at YouTube, captured on mobile phone. I watched it earlier today, it may be gone now.

Too awful to watch xD,
I dont trust that video anyway...at all.

Quote from: i k a are i on Wed 03/01/2007 01:03:42... second of all, the propaganda they do by putting irak people supporting them, that's so fake it hurts, people buy what they see, the war winners write history.

Ummmm ... I have several friends who served in Iraq who might strongly disagree with you on that regard.  I'm not taking the side of the mass-media (whom I openly chastise on a regular basis) but I trust the word of my friends who said that flocks of people thanked them on a daily basis for what they did/were doing there.

I would agree that the reasons we were given to justify the start of the war have proven false and we shouldn't have been lied to in the first place.  And perhaps it's reached a point where there is no way out of the situation in Iraq.  But to make a statement like that seems silly unless you've been there or know somebody that has.  If not ... it sounds like you're repeating something a 19 year old college kid blurted out thinking he actually knows anything about the world.

Quote from: i k a are i on Wed 03/01/2007 01:03:42Did you all see how many people were celebrating the dead of Saddam Hussein?, 50, maybe 60?.

Ummmmm² ... so you were EVERY where in the world (at the same time) when Saddam was hung and counted only 50-60 people?  Can you teach me that trick?  That'd be handy for sure!

I'm hoping you're making a joke here?

The people celebrating were at the capital, shouldnt there be more than 50 or 60 happy people there?..I think that's enough saying, I dont think Irak was ok with Sadam Hussein but why would they be happy now that some other country is stealing their resources?.. And why did so many people die for just one guy, and why with such a precise technology they attacked the whole country and the Irak media.
People there either could be cheated with the sh#t about USA liberating them, or just being used to motivate USA soldiers, or they were part of media propaganda, and if they werent then it clearly shows how few people is happy about having ther friends familes and compatriots dead. Who would be grateful for receiving bombs from USA in their country, killing hundreds of innocents, they leaved the city in chaos, without a leader, USA just said, "now is up to them to make it better", literally, USA killed the only guy who could have been a trouble for them, "the irak Bush". The reason of the attack changed dramatically, first they had some Nuclear bombs they never used xD, then it was to liberate them.
Maybe your theory is correct, "WOPS sorry!, we killed a lot of people and there was no nuclear bomb at the end, we should have research a little longer before bombing you all to hell, but now that we started it, we have to finish it, keep bombing", Bush killed the same amount of people than Saddam Hussein.

I havent been everywhere, I sure havent been buying whatever CNN showed to the world, I think USA people is so patriot they defend what is impossible, they see what they want.

EDIT
I dont want to sound like a "knowitall" young rebel  ;D, mine are just theories, noone here can talk with facts, unless they fully relay on what CNN shows, or whatever Bush says.

Quote from: i k a r i on Wed 03/01/2007 02:38:19Bush killed the same amount of people than Saddam Hussein.

I'm not sure where you got that from either ... Saddam was/is responsible for millions of deaths of his own people.  Yes civilians have been killed in the U.S. invasion ... but nowhere near that number.  Both of these websites are somewhat sensational so I take their information at face value only but some quick google searches will turn up similar findings:

Saddam's Body Count (http://www.republicanyouth.net/bodycount.html)
The number of civilians reported killed by Saddam
Min 1.26 million Max 2 million

Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)
The number of civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq (not just by American weapons)
Min 52,473  Max 58,056

Again I can't vouch for the reliability of these websites ... but I found several others that report like data.

I'm not justifying the civilian deaths caused by the US invasion.  I just find it silly to say that "Bush killed the same amount of people than Saddam Hussein" when that simply isn't the case.  Secondary we aren't targetting them as Saddam did.  Nor are we gassing them wholesale with chemical weapons.  Or making their families watch as they are slowly tortured and killed.  Or any of that.  I'm sure there are instances of "wrong" doing by the US soldiers but they are the exception, not the rule.

Quote from: i k a r i on Wed 03/01/2007 02:38:19I havent been everywhere, I sure havent been buying whatever CNN showed to the world, I think USA people is so patriot they defend what is impossible, they see what they want.

Perhaps you should find your glasses and read the rest of this thread ;)  That's a very "lumping" statement again.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 02/01/2007 14:38:50

Quote from: Ishmael on Mon 01/01/2007 08:27:25The American mind is so corrupted.

I'm not 100% sure exactly what you meant by that ... but I'm sick and tired of the rest of the world lumping all Americans under the same umbrella.Ã,  Just because our President is destroying our country and our mass media exploits that fact doesn't make us all war-mongering capitilist pigs, I assure you.

I was referring to the stereotypical American. The one who doesn't know how to program their VCR and thinks Sweden is a naighbour of China's, or the like. The ones who were about to ban GTA for Hot Coffee. Somehow they always get known to the rest of the world, along with your president. I mean no offence to anyone in particular, all the Americans here I know are Americans are way above the stereotype.

Yes I think it was "silly" to say they killed the same amount of people, but is that the point??
They are both murderers, and one of them is still alive, give him some time..
So is Bush better than Saddam Hussein for killing less people?, Saddam Hussein killed his own people?! xD, does that makes him more evil, Bush is a better person because he killed people from Irak?, a poor country noone gives a sh#~  and without war power?..Yes, OF COURSE, because they are not his own people, and USA needed some petroleum, is that so bad?. What a nice president, so patriotic. I'd like to see USA attacking Japan now if there is some political problems..Actually I wouldnt.
There are not instances of wrong in the U.S army doing, it is all wrong, do you HONESTLY think USA attacked Irak for LIBERATION?, or because they made a mistake about them having Nuclear weapons?. Why would they attack the whole country, and why would they shoot at their press. I'm more worried about Bush terrorism than Irak's.
Whatever the reason of attack is (if is not for petroleum........................), it is not justified.

QuotePerhaps you should find your glasses and read the rest of this thread Wink  That's a very "lumping" statement again.

Im not saying you or anyone here buys what CNN shows, Im just saying I don't.
Im glad Saddam Hussein is dead (probably), hopefully Bush will die too.

I cant avoid noticing you only answer some parts of my posts, maybe you do agree with some things I said..

Quote from: i k a r i on Wed 03/01/2007 15:17:16Yes I think it was "silly" to say they killed the same amount of people, but is that the point??

Yes, that's exactly the point.

The U.S. invaded Iraq (albeit under false pretense) with a military objective.  In any military action there are always civilian losses (the term is "casualties of war").  This is an unavoidable part of war no matter how smart our bombs are.  I don't like it, but it's a fact.  So yes, in the advance of the military objective(s) a lot of Iraqi civilians have been killed.

However, the important thing to realize here is that the U.S. is not targetting the civilians.  Saddam was deliberatly and cold-bloodedly targetting his own people.  He killed them by the thousands for no other reason than he disliked them.  Here is a Brief History (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/war/player1.html) of Saddam and his rise to power.  One of the most chilling videos I've seen is watching the calling out  of members of his own government (in front of the rest) and watching as they were taken out and shot in the head while he laughed and smoked cigars.

Quote from: i k a r i on Wed 03/01/2007 15:17:16They are both murderers, and one of them is still alive, give him some time..

Time to what?  Die?  Time gets us all eventually ...

Quote from: i k a r i on Wed 03/01/2007 15:17:16So is Bush better than Saddam Hussein for killing less people?,

Not for the number, but for the reasons yes.  I'm not saying Bush is a good person but he doesn't sit in the white house planning chemical attacks on the people of Montana.  There IS a difference.

Quote from: i k a r i on Wed 03/01/2007 15:17:16Saddam Hussein killed his own people?! xD, does that makes him more evil, Bush is a better person because he killed people from Irak?, a poor country noone gives a sh#~  and without war power?..

Yes.  The brutal and deliberate targetting of your own civilian populace is far worse than the regrettable civilian deaths as the result of a publically declared war (even if for the war was started for the wrong reasons).

Quote from: i k a r i on Wed 03/01/2007 15:17:16Yes, OF COURSE, because they are not his own people, and USA needed some petroleum, is that so bad?. What a nice president, so patriotic. I'd like to see USA attacking Japan now if there is some political problems..Actually I wouldnt.

"War is a continuation of politics by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz

While there is some debate over what Clausewitz meant by that, the fundemental (and obvious) point, I think, is that wars are almost always fought for political reasons.  (I have much deeper theories on this, but I won't go into that now)

The U.S. is, sadly, completely and totally dependent on oil.  The middle east has an absolute monopoly of the world's oil right now.  So we are forced to keep our influence there.  It's just a sad fact of global politics.  Sure there might be hotspots in other parts of the globe where the military might of the US could "save the day" but it doesn't benefit the U.S. politically to do so, thus, they'll continue to be ignored.  As much as we dislike it, we the people have very little say in the matter.  The U.S. isn't unique in the practice of this, just the current "bully" that everybody loves to pick on.

Quote from: i k a r i on Wed 03/01/2007 15:17:16There are not instances of wrong in the U.S army doing, it is all wrong, do you HONESTLY think USA attacked Irak for LIBERATION?, or because they made a mistake about them having Nuclear weapons?. Why would they attack the whole country, and why would they shoot at their press.

I'm not an expert on the middle east by any stretch of the imagination ... but it doesn't take a PHD to realize that as long as the middle east controls the world's oil supply that the nations (like the U.S.) that are addicted to that oil are going to take steps to ensure we get the lion's share.  The welfare of the nation depends on that.  While I don't doubt (in the slightest) that Bush's cabinet is firmly in the pockets of big oil and their main motivation may well be for their own monetary gain, it doesn't change the fact that any sovereign nation (super power) that wishes to remain so will do what is necessary to accomplish this.

Quote from: i k a r i on Wed 03/01/2007 15:17:16I'm more worried about Bush terrorism than Irak's.

That's an opinion you're entitled to.  I'm not to happy with Bush either and while it's fun to call him a terrorist it's a matter of semantics really.  He's not hi-jacking civilian planes and crashing them into civilian targets.  He's not strapping TNT to his body and detonating himself in a restaraunt.  He might be a war-mongering pig ... but a terrorist?  I don't really think so.  Again, just semantics I reckon.

Quote from: i k a r i on Wed 03/01/2007 15:17:16

QuotePerhaps you should find your glasses and read the rest of this thread Wink  That's a very "lumping" statement again.

Im not saying you or anyone here buys what CNN shows, Im just saying I don't.
Im glad Saddam Hussein is dead, hopefully Bush will die too.

I was referring to how you lumped all USA people together with the statment "USA people is so patriot they defend what is impossible, they see what they want."  Earlier in this thread I commented on this ignorant habbit people have of "lumping" a people together.

Quote from: i k a r i on Wed 03/01/2007 15:17:16I cant avoid noticing you only answer some parts of my posts, maybe you do agree with some things I said..

Not this time ;)

QuoteThe U.S. invaded Iraq (albeit under false pretense) with a military objective.  In any military action there are always civilian losses (the term is "casualties of war").  This is an unavoidable part of war no matter how smart our bombs are.  I don't like it, but it's a fact.  So yes, in the advance of the military objective(s) a lot of Iraqi civilians have been killed.

So you're OK with that, people getting killed for the good economics of your country, the most poweful nation is entitled to take what they need, that's life, right?. And if the other nation have an evil terrorist leader, even better.
Besides my point is not talking about the unavoidable parts of war, is why the war started, and you know it was for economic reasons.

QuoteHowever, the important thing to realize here is that the U.S. is not targetting the civilians.  Saddam was deliberatly and cold-bloodedly targetting his own people.  He killed them by the thousands for no other reason than he disliked them.  Here is a Brief History of Saddam and his rise to power.  One of the most chilling videos I've seen is watching the calling out  of members of his own government (in front of the rest) and watching as they were taken out and shot in the head while he laughed and smoked cigars.

U.S IS targeting the civilians, there are more civilians dead than anything else, and they knew this was going to happen, so technically, they targeted them. Unavoidable part of war, sure.
And less than 2000 deaths for USA army

QuoteTime to what?  Die?  Time gets us all eventually ...

Time to get equal with Saddam Hussein.

QuoteNot for the number, but for the reasons yes.  I'm not saying Bush is a good person but he doesn't sit in the white house planning chemical attacks on the people of Montana.  There IS a difference.

Because there's no need to, I dont think Bush is a person who feels regret for killing others, he was probably drinking champagne and eating Sushi while USA soldiers died, or watching cartoons or playing Ben Jordan, the thing is, he's smarter than Saddam Hussein, and not being a dictator means he have to act politically to get into people's brain and hearts.

QuoteYes.  The brutal and deliberate targetting of your own civilian populace is far worse than the regrettable civilian deaths as the result of a publically declared war (even if for the war was started for the wrong reasons).

Im not from USA and I see USA civilians and Irak civilians like "people", and the leaders of every country should see the others as equals, I dont believe in god, but Bush says to act in his name, so why would be worse to kill people from your country?, if there were some kind of civil war, being in Bush side is your best choice, he doesnt mind who he kills.
And the war never started for the wrong reasons, you think he didnt know what he was doing from the very beginning?, You know he did.

Quote
The U.S. is, sadly, completely and totally dependent on oil.  The middle east has an absolute monopoly of the world's oil right now.  So we are forced to keep our influence there.  It's just a sad fact of global politics.  Sure there might be hotspots in other parts of the globe where the military might of the US could "save the day" but it doesn't benefit the U.S. politically to do so, thus, they'll continue to be ignored.  As much as we dislike it, we the people have very little say in the matter.  The U.S. isn't unique in the practice of this, just the current "bully" that everybody loves to pick on.

Is easier to steal it, than to buy it, if you have the army power USA have, of course.
They just buy the people startingawarinthenameofgodtosavepeoplefromterrorismandnucleardisasters.

Quote
I'm not an expert on the middle east by any stretch of the imagination ... but it doesn't take a PHD to realize that as long as the middle east controls the world's oil supply that the nations (like the U.S.) that are addicted to that oil are going to take steps to ensure we get the lion's share.  The welfare of the nation depends on that.  While I don't doubt (in the slightest) that Bush's cabinet is firmly in the pockets of big oil and their main motivation may well be for their own monetary gain, it doesn't change the fact that any sovereign nation (super power) that wishes to remain so will do what is necessary to accomplish this.

The necessary means the most easy way, no matter who has to die. That's what wars are for.

Quotejust semantics I reckon.

Just that..
like here

QuoteEarlier in this thread I commented on this ignorant habbit people have of "lumping" a people together.

I was talking in general, I should have said "most US people", because that's what I think, is hard to express properly in english.

Quote from: i k a r i on Wed 03/01/2007 21:50:22
U.S IS targeting the civilians, there are more civilians dead than anything else, and they knew this was going to happen, so technically, they targeted them.

Yup, I remember seeing that footage of the US Jetplanes dropping bombs down on villages and the marketplace.

Care to show me a source of this information that shows more civilians have been killed by the US Army than the amount of Iraq military killed by US?

Quote from: i k a are i on Wed 03/01/2007 21:50:22

QuoteThe U.S. invaded Iraq (albeit under false pretense) with a military objective.  In any military action there are always civilian losses (the term is "casualties of war").  This is an unavoidable part of war no matter how smart our bombs are.  I don't like it, but it's a fact.  So yes, in the advance of the military objective(s) a lot of Iraqi civilians have been killed.

So you're OK with that, people getting killed for the good economics of your country, the most poweful nation is entitled to take what they need, that's life, right?. And if the other nation have an evil terrorist leader, even better.
Besides my point is not talking about the unavoidable parts of war, is why the war started, and you know it was for economic reasons.

Actually I never said I was okay with it.  Just that it was a fact of war, which it is.

Quote from: i k a are i on Wed 03/01/2007 21:50:22U.S IS targeting the civilians, there are more civilians dead than anything else, and they knew this was going to happen, so technically, they targeted them. Unavoidable part of war, sure.

You are wrong again.  I suggest you do a little research before spouting out your "facts" so freely.  According to some websites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003#Iraqi_civilian_casualties) the total number of Iraqi deaths (civilian and non-civilian) numbers as high as 733,854.  Following the link I posted earlier numbering only civilian deaths at 58,056.  That's a military (non-civilian) count of 675,798 deaths.  Far more military deaths than civilians.  Not to mention that more than 50% (according to my friend (who was a Marine on the ground in Iraq)) of the civilian deaths were caused by other Iraqis, not U.S. soldiers.

I understand you're mad about the situation ... but think before you speak.  The US is NOT targetting civilians, as much as you'd like to think they are, they aren't.

Quote from: i k a are i on Wed 03/01/2007 21:50:22And less than 2000 deaths for USA army

Please research first: American Body Count (http://icasualties.org/oif/) is now over 3000.

Quote from: i k a are i on Wed 03/01/2007 21:50:22And the war never started for the wrong reasons, you think he didnt know what he was doing from the very beginning?, You know he did.

Actually I don't.  And nor do you.  You don't (can't possibly) know what the man was thinking.  You can speculate, but you can't know.  And the war DID start for the wrong reasons.  We the people were told one thing (which turned out to be false) and that's why we went to war.  Hidden motives aside, that's why we went to war.

Quote from: i k a are i on Wed 03/01/2007 21:50:22The necessary means the most easy way, no matter who has to die. That's what wars are for.

I don't believe that's what wars are for.

Quote from: i k a are i on Wed 03/01/2007 21:50:22I was talking in general, I should have said "most US people", because that's what I think, is hard to express properly in english.

Talking in general makes it worse.  Not only are you "lumping" but you're "generalizing" too?

U.S. is not targeting civilians. Every person with a grame of brain will know that the orders from above are to avoid collateral damages as much as possible. Every civilian casualty is a casualty in the scoreboard of the insurgency.

If you are saying that the US militars are adding goals in the scoreboard of the terrorists on purpose, there' s no need to go on with the discussion because you would be showing that you are too sectarian for learning anything sensible with this...

Iraq is going bad, terribly bad. But Iraq has been a mistake, not an ethnic or political purge, as you want to make it seem.

What Videla did was. And Videla was not born in Texas...

So, your next step is probably going to post something with a lot or rage saying that someone of your family was killed by Videla, blah, blah, blah... and saying that I can't deffend the USA mentioning Videla because Argentina is not equal to Videla, blah, blah, blah...

That, exactly that, is what Darth Mandarb is saying about Bush... But you don' t listen because you go on with the manifesto. So, listen, and reply according to the thing people tells you.

Quote from: ManicMatt on Wed 03/01/2007 22:46:31
Care to show me a source of this information that shows more civilians have been killed by the US Army than the amount of Iraq military killed by US?

What about the amount of US military killed by the equipment?

That's actually rather amusing... There was a peroid when every odd three days I heard a piece of news about another copter gone down somewhere within half a globe from Iraq :P

So... copter accidents amuse you?

If you want it that way, yes. Especially if they result in dead US military outside of their war zone.

I promised myself I wasn't going to get into this, but as an American that neither supports Bush nor is in favor of the war in Iraq, I must confess that there are parts of this discussion that I find quite infuriating.

I don't think anyone here - American or otherwise - has denied that Bush is an awful president, unpopular and controversial both at home and abroad, who's time in office I'm sure will end up being a low point in our history. Plenty of Americans are unhappy with the current state of our country and the direction it's headed - anyone taking 5 seconds to use Google will realize this. And anyone willing to put in a few more minutes of effort will also discover that the mechanisms of our government are also working to undo the more egregious aspects of his presidency, including removing Bush himself from office in 2 years.

We have a bad president and the last 6 years have not been good ones for America. A lot of things need to be improved as a result. No argument there. If nothing else, as we (and many other countries) struggle with the uncertainties of terrorism and a post-Cold War world, it's a reminder that individual rights and freedoms need to be constantly defended and fought for. But I find it difficult to sit by when my country and government is compared to genocidal tyrants and state-sponsored terrorists. Or when our system of government is summarily dismissed as being broken and inferior to others. Or when the death of Americans is glibly laughed at as the punchline to a joke.

I wouldn't expect anyone from any country to be OK with this, patriotic or not. And I believe this is the point Darth Mandarb is trying to make. Ikari, Bush has many faults and our country is far from perfect, but if you're seriously going to compare him and our government to Hitler and Hussein, some of the most brutal and heartless killers the world has ever known, I suggest you take a minute and get a grip on reality, or at least think before you open your mouth.

If this is me being a nationalistic, aggressive, and ignorant American, so be it. But if you can't see that all the baseless spin and propaganda being spewed about my country is just as ignorant and nationalistic as we're accused of being, then I really feel sorry for you.

QuoteActually I never said I was okay with it.  Just that it was a fact of war, which it is.

QuoteI'm not an expert on the middle east by any stretch of the imagination ... but it doesn't take a PHD to realize that as long as the middle east controls the world's oil supply that the nations (like the U.S.) that are addicted to that oil are going to take steps to ensure we get the lion's share.  The welfare of the nation depends on that.  While I don't doubt (in the slightest) that Bush's cabinet is firmly in the pockets of big oil and their main motivation may well be for their own monetary gain, it doesn't change the fact that any sovereign nation (super power) that wishes to remain so will do what is necessary to accomplish this.

You seem rather careless about it, like if it were part of a necessary process to start a war every once in a while.
Is only normal that a country constantly improving his war power chooses the way of war to get what it needs, thats what I said that for countries like USA, war is the easiest way, even more when they attack countries like Irak with nule "war power". I dont think this will ever change as long as I live, sadly, Im just saying Bush is one murderer of many to come, and that leaders like him should be exterminated in order to have a better world. This will be delirious, as many things I probably said, but I think in a future, the peace will come when every country gets their nuclear power and noone will dare to attack the other, that, or the end of the world  :o

QuotePlease research first: American Body Count is now over 3000.

I've just red 2000 bodies this morning in an Argentina's newspaper. Blame them.

QuoteActually I don't.  And nor do you.  You don't (can't possibly) know what the man was thinking.  You can speculate, but you can't know.  And the war DID start for the wrong reasons.  We the people were told one thing (which turned out to be false) and that's why we went to war.  Hidden motives aside, that's why we went to war.

The war did not start for the wrong reasons, no matter what the people were told, Bush started the war knowing why, the people didnt know, but they didnt start it, and the army have to do what they are told, even if they knew the reason was economic, (or not).
The war started for Bush's reasons, so the decision wrong/right goes only to him.

QuoteTalking in general makes it worse.  Not only are you "lumping" but you're "generalizing" too?

I dont know what do you mean with "lumping", but yes I am generalizing, because that's how I see most of the US people, maybe Im wrong.

QuoteNot to mention that more than 50% (according to my friend (who was a Marine on the ground in Iraq)) of the civilian deaths were caused by other Iraqis, not U.S. soldiers.

"according to my friend" is not a very reliable source, even if he was in Iraq, soldiers act by orders, act like pawns for the government, and are constantly lied, is VERY hard to believe, after watching missiles going down in the middle of a highly populated city (etc.), that Iraq soldiers killed 50% of the civilians.
off-topic
I'm tired to see on TV all the tricks USA used in Irak, hiring actors, filming people burning and old currency (old money), putting small crowds celebrating, these things may be debatable, or you can deny them, except the one about the money burning, wich is filmed, wich was reported in US newschannels, and wich was probed to be money that was not in currency long before the war started. And Im talking about several documentals made by USA people

QuoteU.S. is not targeting civilians. Every person with a grame of brain will know that the orders from above are to avoid collateral damages as much as possible.

I was misunderstood, Im not saying USA objectives were to kill civilians, Im just saying they didnt give a shit about it, they are targeting them because thats unavoidable since Bush took the decision to invade Irak. And by USA I mean Bush.

EDIT

QuoteIkari, Bush has many faults and our country is far from perfect, but if you're seriously going to compare him and our government to Hitler and Hussein, some of the most brutal and heartless killers the world has ever known, I suggest you take a minute and get a grip on reality, or at least think before you open your mouth.

If this is me being a nationalistic, aggressive, and ignorant American, so be it. But if you can't see that all the baseless spin and propaganda being spewed about my country is just as ignorant and nationalistic as we're accused of being, then I really feel sorry for you.

It was a rage comparision, to be honest, but he has the potential, isnt he heartless too?, I dont think he cant sleep for killing all this people in Irak. Im gonna be EXTREMELY honest here, is not that I cry for the Irak deaths either, or that I care TOO much about it, I just cant believe there's someone alive capable of doing that and, even worse, with so much power. I think his death would be beneficial for the world. This is what makes me angry, that a cold blooded killer like Bush is still alive, and being supported for some USA people.
The propaganda is the least thing that affects me, honestly, and I repeat, I dont have nothing against most USA people, I think its people is among the greatest in the world, full of talent and intelligent, Im just saying sometimes their patritism gets in the way of the brain, and that's what Bush used in the first time. Hopefully he wont be re-elected next time..


PLEASE note that in some parts USA means Bush.  :-\

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 02:00:54I've just red 2000 bodies this morning in an Argentina's newspaper. Blame them.

I'm not blaming anybody.  If you're going to make a claim like that you should point to the source.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 02:00:54The war did not start for the wrong reasons, no matter what the people were told, Bush started the war knowing why, the people didnt know, but they didnt start it, and the army have to do what they are told, even if they knew the reason was economic, (or not).
The war started for Bush's reasons, so the decision wrong/right goes only to him.

The U.S. President cannot simply start a war.  It must be approved by Congress, the representatives of the people.  Congress approved the war in Iraq due to faulty information they were given from several different intelligence agencies.  I'm not denying that Bush lied to us.  I'm not denying that he made the decision to go to war.  But he doesn't have a magic button he could push and we suddenly find ourselves in a war.  To believe otherwise is either incredible ignorance, or simple naivety.

After the Korean and Vietnam wars congress enacted the "War Powers Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution)" which basically forces the president to get congressional approval to start a war.  Though the UN didn't support the invasion of Iraq, the US Congress did grant approval to Bush.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 02:00:54I dont know what do you mean with "lumping", but yes I am generalizing, because that's how I see most of the US people, maybe Im wrong.

Yes, you are.  It's ignorant and just plain wrong to generalize or "lump".  By lumping I meant you were taking all (or most) of U.S. citizens and making judgements on them all based on the actions of a few newsmakers.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 02:00:54"according to my friend" is not a very reliable source, even if he was in Iraq, soldiers act by orders, act like pawns for the government, and are constantly lied

You're generalizing again.  I would trust "my friend" with my life.  He upholds the ideals that I think all US soldiers should have.  He was not a pawn, doesn't lie, and I believe what he says more than any news agency or internet debate.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 02:00:54is VERY hard to believeafter watching missiles going down in the middle of a highly populated city (etc.), that Iraq soldiers killed 50% of the civilians.

Where did you see this video?  Al Jazeera?

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 02:00:54I'm tired to see on TV all the tricks USA used in Irak, hiring actors, filming people burning and old currency (old money), putting small crowds celebrating, these things may be debatable, or you can deny them, except the one about the money burning, wich is filmed, wich was reported in US newschannels, and wich was probed to be money that was not in currency long before the war started. And Im talking about several documentals made by USA people

Please link to some source for all this trickery and hiring of actors you speak of.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 02:00:54I was misunderstood, Im not saying USA objectives was to kill civilians, Im just saying they didnt give a shit about it, they are targeting them because thats unavoidable since Bush took the decision to invade Irak. And by USA I mean Bush.

They are NOT targetting civilians ... for the 10th time.  And I can assure you they DO give a shit about it.  You really need to be more careful with what you say.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 02:00:54It was a rage comparision, to be honest, but he has the potential, isnt he heartless too?, I dont think he cant sleep for killing all this people in Irak. Im gonna be EXTREMELY honest here, is not that I cry for the Irak deaths either, or that I care TOO much about it, I just cant believe there's someone alive capable of doing that and, even worse, with so much power. I think his death would be beneficial for the world. This is what makes me angry, that a cold blooded killer like Bush is still alive, and being supported for some USA people.

Odd ... I wonder if that feeling of hatred and animosity you have towards Bush is the same feeling he has/had toward Saddam and the Iraqi people?

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 02:00:54Hopefully he wont be re-elected next time..

He cannot be elected to a third term.  So we're ALL lucky in that regard.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 03/01/2007 02:18:35
but I trust the word of my friends who said that flocks of people thanked them on a daily basis for what they did/were doing there.

Lol i'd believe it. If 300,000 foreigners with assault rifles showed up in my country id be kissing their ass too.

Quote
The U.S. President cannot simply start a war.Ã,  It must be approved by Congress, the representatives of the people.Ã,  Congress approved the war in Iraq due to faulty information they were given from several different intelligence agencies.

Kosovo War 1999. President Clinton went through NATO completely bypassing any need for Congressional approval. And the president CAN go to war for (might be inaccurate by a few days/weeks) 60 days before needing approval from Congress. The President has plenty of "magic buttons".

QuoteYou really need to be more careful with what you say.

Or what? You'll invade him? lol

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Thu 04/01/2007 03:04:36Kosovo War 1999. President Clinton went through NATO completely bypassing any need for Congressional approval. And the president CAN go to war for (might be inaccurate by a few days/weeks) 60 days before needing approval from Congress. The President has plenty of "magic buttons".

The president cannot, as I understand it, declare a "war" without congressional approval.  He can take military action (as was done in Kosovo, Somalia, and Iraq in the 90s) without congressional approval.  But to declare war officially he needs congressional approval.  Now, as with anything, there are levels of political bullshit and wrangling that can be done to skirt the constitution.  However, in the case of the current Iraq war, congress DID grant it's approval.

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Thu 04/01/2007 03:04:36

QuoteYou really need to be more careful with what you say.

Or what? You'll invade him? lol

So you're generalizing that I, as an American, must be war happy?  It's interesting that the entire point of my posts in this thread keeps being proven over and over again in this thread ...

Quote from: Ishmael on Wed 03/01/2007 23:20:34
If you want it that way, yes. Especially if they result in dead US military outside of their war zone.

Idiot.

Fine, I'll just shut up since sense of humor seems to be seized here.

QuoteI'm not blaming anybody.  If you're going to make a claim like that you should point to the source.

3000 soldiers death, I've just checked a more reliable source, http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/01/02/elmundo/i-01801.htm , "El diario admite que esta escalada en la violencia en Irak se hace sentir más profundamente entre los civiles iraquíes quienes "mueren de a miles"." Here says, that "The Times" "admits" Iraqi civilians are dying by thousands, it cant be compared with the 3000 deaths of the country that started the war.
One of "The Times" Headline was, "3000 thousand deads, countless tears", I cant imagine what an Irak headline should say.

QuoteThe U.S. President cannot simply start a war.  It must be approved by Congress, the representatives of the people

So you think the president has no control over the congress, or that the congress will act according to what people wants?, do you really are that "innocent"? If Bush wants to go to war, he will end up going, with the last elections he may have lost some power, but at the time he started the war, he could do whatever he wanted, the congress was not at any point "cheated", believing the contrary would be extremely innocent from you.

QuoteYes, you are.  It's ignorant and just plain wrong to generalize or "lump".  By lumping I meant you were taking all (or most) of U.S. citizens and making judgements on them all based on the actions of a few newsmakers.

What can I say,I've never red in a newspaper "USA people is blinded by their patriotism", is just how I see it in many cases with the people that supports Bush, and the war, his re-election is a huge proof of that.

QuoteYou're generalizing again.  I would trust "my friend" with my life.  He upholds the ideals that I think all US soldiers should have.  He was not a pawn, doesn't lie, and I believe what he says more than any news agency or internet debate.

I'm not saying he has no ideals, or that he is a liar, he WAS a pawn, he was sent there either under orders or under fake reasons. Im not saying your friend is not a person to trust, Im just saying I find impossible to believe Iraqi army could have been capable of killing half of the civilians, no matter what he believes, he can't actually see that to prove it, and count it, so someone told him that. Of course neither you nor I know the facts, so is a matter of "believes".

QuoteWhere did you see this video?  Al Jazeera?
Please link to some source for all this trickery and hiring of actors you speak of.

I'm afraid this is all I can do for you, www.discoverychannel.com, www.historychannel.com.  ;D sorry.

QuoteThey are NOT targetting civilians ... for the 10th time.  And I can assure you they DO give a shit about it.  You really need to be more careful with what you say.

I'll try to be more clear, Im saying, that since the moment Bush ("and the congress") took the decision to invade Irak, they knew how many civilians deaths they will cause, in that decision he knew it was unavoidable to target Irak civilians, he started the war anyway. So he (this word may not exist) "indirectly target them", and the army do as they are told.

QuoteHe cannot be elected to a third term.  So we're ALL lucky in that regard.

I hope you're right, it wouldnt be the first time the constitution is magically altered.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 10:51:053000 soldiers death, I've just checked a more reliable source, http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/01/02/elmundo/i-01801.htm , "El diario admite que esta escalada en la violencia en Irak se hace sentir más profundamente entre los civiles iraquíes quienes "mueren de a miles"." Here says, that "The Times" "admits" Iraqi civilians are dying by thousands, it cant be compared with the 3000 deaths of the country that started the war.
One of "The Times" Headline was, "3000 thousand deads, countless tears", I cant imagine what an Irak headline should say.

I am beginning to think there's a language barrier here.  Now you're arguing my point?

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 10:51:05So you think the president has no control over the congress, or that the congress will act according to what people wants?, do you really are that "innocent"?

I never claimed the president has no control over congress.  You were making comments on how Bush just decided to invade Iraq.  I was pointing out that it's not quite that simple.  That's all.  Again I think maybe you're not understaning what I'm writing.  Or you're putting words in my mouth.  I hope the former is the case here.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 10:51:05If Bush wants to go to war, he will end up going, with the last elections he may have lost some power, but at the time he started the war, he could do whatever he wanted, the congress was not at any point "cheated", believing the contrary would be extremely innocent from you.

I would be curious to know your source of this information.  So you know for a fact that the American congress wasn't "cheated" (I'm assuming you mean they knew all along there were no WMD in Iraq and they just granted the president's wish for war)?  If you do a little reading on the matter you'll see that leading up to the declaration of war congress wasn't buying anything the Bush administration was selling.  They (even the republicans) roundly rejected two claims of "danger" from Iraq as a basis for invasion.  Third time is the charm I guess.  He convinced them (with faulty intelligence) on the WMD.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 10:51:05What can I say,I've never red in a newspaper "USA people is blinded by their patriotism", is just how I see it in many cases with the people that supports Bush, and the war, his re-election is a huge proof of that.

Bush's re-election is proof that the system is flawed.  Nothing else.  The popular vote wasn't his.  Which means most (majority) of Americans didn't vote for him.  Since you seem to need to generalize about Americans, try using that fact instead.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 10:51:05I'm not saying he has no ideals, or that he is a liar, he WAS a pawn, he was sent there either under orders or under fake reasons.

Let me do you a huge favor ... if you ever have an encounter with an American Marine who served in combat in any theater, do NOT call him a pawn.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 10:51:05Im not saying your friend is not a person to trust, Im just saying I find impossible to believe Iraqi army could have been capable of killing half of the civilians, no matter what he believes, he can't actually see that to prove it, and count it, so someone told him that. Of course neither you nor I know the facts, so is a matter of "believes".

No ... he was there, on the ground, rifle in hand, seeing it with his own eyes.  He's talking from experience in the Iraqi theater.  That's intel I trust FAR more that some reporter sitting in an air-conditioned office in New York reading a report that's gone through 20 censors and copywriters.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 10:51:05I'm afraid this is all I can do for you, www.discoverychannel.com, www.historychannel.com.

If, by these links, you mean you saw these videos on those channels that's pretty weak.  I happen to watch the History channel a LOT and I've seen plenty of film from the front.  I suppose you can believe those are all hired actors if you wish.  Seems more likely it's just a bandwagon thing than any true belief in the idea.  Just my opinion.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 10:51:05I'll try to be more clear, Im saying, that since the moment Bush ("and the congress") took the decision to invade Irak, they knew how many civilians deaths they will cause

They couldn't possibly know that.  They would have known there would be civilian deaths, as there are with any war, but they'd have absolutely no way to know the actual number.  They might speculate on statistics from past wars, but it's just speculation.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 10:51:05in that decision he knew it was unavoidable to target Irak civilians, he started the war anyway. So he (this word may not exist) "indirectly target them", and the army do as they are told.

You REALLY need to stop.  The U.S. MILITARY IS NOT TARGETTING IRAQI CIVILIANS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY!!!  Perhaps you need to look up the definition of targetting?  I'm not denying that Iraqi civilians are being killed, but the U.S. isn't trying to kill them.  It has been the U.S. doctrine for decades to "win the hearts and minds" of the civilian population.  While this has become a bit of a hot term, it's still in practice.  You don't win the hearts and minds by targetting civilians.

It should also be stated that, according to the Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions), when war is declared soldiers on both sides must wear a distinguishing uniform:

"It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly"

Most of the Iraqis/Insurgents fighting the coalition troops in Iraq are dressed as civilians.  Yes they are carrying guns, but in Iraq, your average civilian is allowed to own AND carry and AK-47 in public.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 10:51:05I hope you're right, it wouldnt be the first time the constitution is magically altered.

The constitution cannot be magically altered.  It can be ammended, sure, but it's not just a simple decision.  Of course, lawyers and presidents can find ways to skirt the constitution, but not "magically alter" it.


We seem to have reached a point where we're just making the same points over and over again.  Bottom line (as I see it) You're making generalized statements about the American people based off the actions of the American government's foreign policy.  This is the igorance that I object to.

In looking at your profie, I see you're from Argentina.  In 1982 the Argentine military kicked off the Falkland Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War) with its invasion/occupation of South Geogia.  As I understand it, the Argentine people believe that South Georgia was their land and they were entitled to take it back.  Leading up to this "war" (as war was never officially declared) the country of Argentina was in economic turmoil.  The invasion was a political move, for political reasons.  Hundreds died in the action.  While the conflict was resolved in short-order, I've read that it's still a topic of discussion in Argentina to this day.

Now ... should I assume that you're a nationalistic prideful Argentine that likes invading countries and starting wars simply based off the actions of your government even though I don't have all the facts and have never met you?

You're doing the same thing by assuming all Americans are blindly patriotic and follow their war-crazy President without question.

QuoteI am beginning to think there's a language barrier here.  Now you're arguing my point?

Im not arguing it, I've just confirmed your point by saying there are indeed 3000 US soldiers dead.
And then I said that was nothing compared to the Irak deaths.

QuoteI never claimed the president has no control over congress.  You were making comments on how Bush just decided to invade Iraq.  I was pointing out that it's not quite that simple.  That's all.

Is not that simple, I forgot to mention the paper work, and the TV speech. I dont want to sound like a smart ass, Im just saying that if the president (of US) wants to go to war he will get what he wants eventually, so it may not be THAT simple, but is just a matter of time.

QuoteI would be curious to know your source of this information.  So you know for a fact that the American congress wasn't "cheated" (I'm assuming you mean they knew all along there were no WMD in Iraq and they just granted the president's wish for war)?  If you do a little reading on the matter you'll see that leading up to the declaration of war congress wasn't buying anything the Bush administration was selling.  They (even the republicans) roundly rejected two claims of "danger" from Iraq as a basis for invasion.  Third time is the charm I guess.  He convinced them (with faulty intelligence) on the WMD.

In my opinion, the congress was not cheated,  you said they rejected the claims of danger twice, and they could not have possibly been cheated by any doubtful intelligence, I think USA congress is smarter than that. They just ended up doing what the president wanted (Or they probably were convinced of the economical advantage of the war).

QuoteBush's re-election is proof that the system is flawed.  Nothing else.  The popular vote wasn't his.  Which means most (majority) of Americans didn't vote for him.  Since you seem to need to generalize about Americans, try using that fact instead.

Well, this may be true, but you cant talk with facts here either. In the other hand if Bush has that kind of influence in his country, I dont think is too crazy to think he can manipulate the congress (and press of course) as he wants.

QuoteLet me do you a huge favor ... if you ever have an encounter with an American Marine who served in combat in any theater, do NOT call him a pawn.

Well Im sorry to say this but I just feel that every soldier from every country acts like a brainwashed pawn. I know that sounds rude, and Im sorry, but lets be honest, they always do what they are ordered, they cant judge the morality nor ask the reasons of war (they cant but noone cares). America's citizens should have made Bush go long time ago by force, you have a friend fighting there in Irak, for Bush decision, cheated at the beginning as every citizen, risking his life, Im sure he doesnt want to be there now he knows America is not in danger of a nuclear attack, but he has to stay there, as he is told.

QuoteThey couldn't possibly know that.  They would have known there would be civilian deaths, as there are with any war, but they'd have absolutely no way to know the actual number.  They might speculate on statistics from past wars, but it's just speculation.

The thing is, they knew many would die. Im not saying they are targeting them,I probably dont understand the real meaning of "targetting", they speculated many would die, and that's what happened.

QuoteThe constitution cannot be magically altered.  It can be ammended, sure, but it's not just a simple decision.  Of course, lawyers and presidents can find ways to skirt the constitution, but not "magically alter" it.

It was just an expression, let's say they can adapt it.


Ok, wait.
Argentina never occupied the "Islas malvinas", where did you read that, some english web?. Did you see where are the islands?, there were Argentinian people living there long before this war, and they are in the middle of the ocean. We never were a pro-war country, we've always been a mediator, and a provider during war times, we dont have military power, we were not having a good economical time, the english declared war with ridiculous statements and we were obligated to defend what was "ours", we didnt have enough soldiers to do this so our stupid, ignorant sick leader decided to "grab" every 18 years+ young citizen and take it to war without training, and without technology.
They invaded our territory (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Argentina_-_Pol%C3%ADtico_2.png), check a non U.S, Canadian or english history book, and you will se what I mean, you know what they say about war winners writing them.
What the english did was taking what they could of our inmense territory, seeing their country is the size of one of our 24 provinces.

I also agree we are going through the same points over and over again, let me just say I see USA people divided in two, the pro-war part, and the pacifist side, I think there is lot of people there supporting the real war reasons, and i know Im only speculating and talking without facts, but I find it hard to believe that Bush is still president if most USA people is against it. He couldnt live in peace here.
When that happened here in Argentina, we kicked the president out with a massive congregation of citizens, you can read that in this last paragraph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_de_la_Rua).
Im probably wrong, but I would be hypocrite if I lie about the way I see U.S people.

Quote from: i k a r i on Thu 04/01/2007 15:53:40Is not that simple, I forgot to mention the paper work, and the TV speech. I dont want to sound like a smart ass, Im just saying that if the president (of US) wants to go to war he will get what he wants eventually, so it may not be THAT simple, but is just a matter of time.

Now we're getting somewhere :)  Since the start of the War Powers Resolution no president that has requested a war has been denied it.  However, the power is there for Congress to say no should they choose to.

Quote from: i k a r i on Thu 04/01/2007 15:53:40In my opinion, the congress was not cheated,  you said they rejected the claims of danger twice, and they could not have possibly been cheated by any doubtful intelligence, I think USA congress is smarter than that. They just ended up doing what the president wanted (Or they probably were convinced of the economical advantage of the war).

I can see what you're saying.  I don't agree with it, but I see it.  In my opinion Congress didn't percieve a threat from Iraq (thus didn't consider there to be a point to an invasion) until they were lied to about WMD.  If I received information that the guy down the street from me was planning to kill me with a powerful weapon I wouldn't sit idly by and do nothing (the fact that there turned out to be no weapons in Iraq isn't the issue here).  Congress has to act on the information they are given.  They don't go to Iraq and check it themselves.  They were told that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction (by several intelligence agencies) and that those weapons could potentially be used on the U.S. and they acted upon that information.  Yes, the intelligence was faulty/not accurate, but they couldn't know that at the time.

Quote from: i k a r i on Thu 04/01/2007 15:53:40In the other hand if Bush has that kind of influence in his country, I dont think is too crazy to think he can manipulate the congress (and press of course) as he wants.

I wouldn't argue with that point.  But I imagine some journalists might :)

Quote from: i k a r i on Thu 04/01/2007 15:53:40The thing is, they knew many would die. Im not saying they are targeting them,I probably dont understand the real meaning of "targetting", they speculated many would die, and that's what happened.

But you have said, on several occasions, that they ARE targetting them.

Civilian casualties have been a fact of war since the first two human tribes took up sticks and went after one another.  There is a difference between collateral damage and deliberate targetting.  That's a cold way of looking at it, but it's true.

Quote from: i k a r i on Thu 04/01/2007 15:53:40Argentina never occupied the "Islas malvinas", where did you read that, some english web?. Did you see where are the islands?, there were Argentinian people living there long before this war, and they are in the middle of the ocean. We never were a pro-war country, we've always been a mediator, and a provider during war times, we dont have military power, we were not having a good economical time, the english declared war with ridiculous statements and we were obligated to defend what was "ours", we didnt have enough soldiers to do this so our stupid, ignorant sick leader decided to "grab" every 18 years+ young citizen and take it to war without training, and without technology.
They invaded our territory (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Argentina_-_Pol%C3%ADtico_2.png), check a non U.S, Canadian or english history book, and you will se what I mean, you know what they say about war winners writing them.
What the english did was taking what they could of our inmense territory, seeing their country is the size of one of our 24 provinces.

Do you see what I did there?  I took that situation and put up an outsider's take on it.  You immdiately jump to the defense to clear it up.  That's all I'm doing here.  People are making assumptions about Americans that I'm trying to prevent.

Quote from: i k a r i on Thu 04/01/2007 15:53:40we didnt have enough soldiers to do this so our stupid, ignorant sick leader decided to "grab" every 18 years+ young citizen and take it to war without training, and without technology.

So would it be fair for non-Argentinians to assume that all Argentine people were the same as this "stupid, ignorant sick" leader?

Quote from: i k a r i on Thu 04/01/2007 15:53:40Im probably wrong, but I would be hypocrite if I lie about the way I see U.S people.

You are of course entitled to your opinion.  I'm just trying to make the point that people shouldn't be casting judgement on other people in this way.

A Hypothetical:

- Imagine I wasn't here telling you that Americans aren't all clones of Bush (who you have a hatred of and wish dead).

- You have a deeply negative opinion of US citizens, the "blindly patriotic" clones.

- Now imagine you become the leader of your nation and you take political actions against the US because of these uninformed opinions you have.  Wars have begun that way.

Ignorance is very dangerous.

I'm not saying I'm the most informed guy on the planet ... but I don't cast judgement on a person/people based solely on some pre-conceived notions and stereo-types.

I think what gets up people's noses is the apparent apathy of a large proportion of the american public towards the actions of it's government. This may be an ill-informed generalization on their part, but when so little is seen to be done about the situation by those who vocally oppose the Bush administration, beyond "Yes, he's an ass.", you can understand how people outside the US could develop such a view.

Of course, it's not as easy as saying "If you disagree with your government, do something about it!", as the issue isn't so black and white.

I can't see how you're surprised, though. Inside america the divide may be more apparent, but from the outside little can be seen to differentiate the Pro from the Anti beyond "Yay Bush!" and "Boo Bush!".

Maybe the generalization of americans angers you so much because the alternative would be to admit that the Pro outnumbers the Anti.

I have no statistics to back this up, nor do I hold it as a statment of fact. It's just a scary thought.

Just read what you wrote immediatly after saying this:

QuoteNow we're getting somewhere   Since the start of the War Powers Resolution no president that has requested a war has been denied it.  However, the power is there for Congress to say no should they choose to.

QuoteI can see what you're saying.  I don't agree with it, but I see it.  In my opinion Congress didn't percieve a threat from Iraq (thus didn't consider there to be a point to an invasion) until they were lied to about WMD.  If I received information that the guy down the street from me was planning to kill me with a powerful weapon I wouldn't sit idly by and do nothing (the fact that there turned out to be no weapons in Iraq isn't the issue here).  Congress has to act on the information they are given.  They don't go to Iraq and check it themselves.  They were told that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction (by several intelligence agencies) and that those weapons could potentially be used on the U.S. and they acted upon that information.  Yes, the intelligence was faulty/not accurate, but they couldn't know that at the time.

You call that power?, they are either easily manipulated, or just "filling required spaces" (in this kind of decision).

QuoteI wouldn't argue with that point.  But I imagine some journalists might

And luckily they are entitled to do it.

QuoteI wouldn't argue with that point.  But I imagine some journalists might

It was just a retoric use of language, let's forget about it.

QuoteDo you see what I did there?  I took that situation and put up an outsider's take on it.  You immdiately jump to the defense to clear it up.  That's all I'm doing here.  People are making assumptions about Americans that I'm trying to prevent.

QuoteSo would it be fair for non-Argentinians to assume that all Argentine people were the same as this "stupid, ignorant sick" leader?`

No, it wouldnt be fair, but what Im saying is that I dont see US citizens doing something about it, that's what makes me think there are lots of US people supporting Bush war actions. Without counting the fact he was re-elected, because I took your word when you said it was a corrupted election.

In that hypothetical case, I wouldnt start a war just because I think US is a violent nation, war would be my last choice to solve any problem, sometimes war is (sadly) neccesary, but only when people like Bush or Saddam Hussein have the kind of power they do. I would only respond to attacks, from other nations before is too late, the excuse Bush used to get oil.

QuoteI'm not saying I'm the most informed guy on the planet ... but I don't cast judgement on a person/people based solely on some pre-conceived notions and stereo-types.

Every time a leader the people didnt want to have appeared here, we kicked him out, and this happened in many countries, this is what makes me doubt.


I think LimpingFish makes it more clear than I could.

Quote from: i k a r i on Thu 04/01/2007 18:27:27
No, it wouldnt be fair, but what Im saying is that I dont see US citizens doing something about it, that's what makes me think there are lots of US people supporting Bush war actions.

What about this leader of your country? May I ask, what have you done about them?

Why would we do something about this president?  ???
He hasnt done anything wrong yet.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Thu 04/01/2007 18:05:42Maybe the generalization of americans angers you so much because the alternative would be to admit that the Pro outnumbers the Anti.

No.  Generalizing is ignorant.  That's what bothers me.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 18:27:27
Just read what you wrote immediatly after saying this:
...You call that power?, they are either easily manipulated, or just "filling required spaces" (in this kind of decision).

I don't see any confusion with my two statements.  Congress does have the authority to stop it.  But when given information that Saddam was developing WMD, they acted.  Bush tried to give them two other excuses for his invasion and they rejected those.  He gave them WMD and the took the bait.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 18:27:27

QuoteSo would it be fair for non-Argentinians to assume that all Argentine people were the same as this "stupid, ignorant sick" leader?`

No, it wouldnt be fair, but what Im saying is that I dont see US citizens doing something about it, that's what makes me think there are lots of US people supporting Bush war actions.

AND

Quote from: LimpingFish on Thu 04/01/2007 18:05:42I think what gets up people's noses is the apparent apathy of a large proportion of the american public towards the actions of it's government. This may be an ill-informed generalization on their part, but when so little is seen to be done about the situation by those who vocally oppose the Bush administration, beyond "Yes, he's an ass.", you can understand how people outside the US could develop such a view.

That is exactly my point right there.

You don't see US people doing anything about it???

They're doing everything they can short of taking up arms over this situation.  Lodging protests, sit-ins, peace demonstrations, there are literally MILLIONS of anti-bush websites, voting the dems back into control of both houses ... we ARE taking action.  The problem is the mass-media (not just the US media) only shows the sensational "if it bleeds it leads" stories so you don't see a lot of the protesting that's going on here.  All you see is the War in Iraq and other war-like foreign policies.

Can you not see the hypocrisy that would arise should the citizens of the U.S. go to war over this?  We're going about it the right way I think ... I just hope it's not too late in two years.

Believe me when I say there is a LOT of tension floating in the air about this President.

Quote from: i k a are i on Thu 04/01/2007 18:27:27Every time a leader the people didnt want to have appeared here, we kicked him out, and this happened in many countries, this is what makes me doubt

And the majority of us tried that with the last election and he still managed to worm his way in.  The only bright spot I can see is that in 2 years he's out whether he wants it or not.  If he tries to abolish the 22nd amendment I'm leaving the country.  I hear Argentina is nice ...

I really tried to avoid this thread, I really really did.

First off, the US military isn't a bunch of pawns. We as soldiers have the right to refuse any unlawful order given to us. Ã, What does this mean, it means that if given the order to fire on unarmed civilians, the individual soldier can refuse to do so, and do so without punitive action against them. However this only applies to unlawful orders.

We are not mindless drones that follow orders without any moral compass to guide us. We are all individuals, we are all granted certain rights as individuals.


Next, I was there, I know what was going down on the ground. If you just watch the news and things like that, sure you will have a biased opinion of what is happening there. After all, the news is a business, the business of information, it just so happens that people are more interested in the bad than the good, therefore the bad news wins out.

Things the news doesn't show, and the things I know are happening, because I've taken part in them:

Building and rebuilding of infrastructure (I took part in a school, however, powerstations, bridges and others have been rebuilt).
Taking food and clothing into local villiages and distributed among the villiagers there.
Hiring Iraqis to work on the bases, paying them VERY good money compared to the national average, I've seen those we hired go from having not much more than the clothes on their back, to having new clothes, and enough money to support multiple wives (technically, I can only truely vouch for the clothing, they just like to tell us when they get married, and how many wives they have).
Long conversations with Iraqi civilians, ones that wish the insurgency would end, they like the fact that Saddam isn't threatening them anymore, but as Haki (our translator) once said "[The insurgents] are so stupid. They keep saying America go home, as they fire their guns at them. They don't realize that if they just stop shooting and let the government be created, you will go home."
Soldiers avoiding contact in populated areas, to the point of taking casulties themselves, unless you can see, identify, and verify it is a legitimate target, you don't fire.

this is really just the tip of the iceberg...

Now, for those that have never been in a combat situation I would like to tell you a few things. First off, it's chaos, when the bullets are flying around you, the human animal natually goes into fight or flight mode, only tons of training helps keep the flight mode from taking over and causing panic... But it is highly stressful, and many things are happening at once. Because of these two factors, mistakes happen. If an unarmed civilian pops their head up in a firefight, there is a high chance they will be shot, especially in the heat of battle. They aren't intentional, but when 17 people are poping up firing a weapon at you and it's your life on the line, you can't always have the luxury of the time needed to verify that a target is indeed legitimate. It's the nature of things.


Bottom line, the average Iraqi isn't an extremist, they are just people that want to get up, go to work, make some money, and go home to their families, most that I talked to DO want a democratic government, or at least, not a dictatorship. They want our help, and the government, which the Iraqi people elected, wants us there, because they know without our presence, they are sitting ducks for a coup, an insurgant uprising, or even the possibility of an invasion.

I honestly believe we are doing more good there than harm, because without us there, that coutry would be in worse chaos than it already is.


So, all in all, since I am an Iraqi War veteran, let me say this. I don't believe we were intentionally lied to, I believe that the intel community looked at what evidence they had, and then presented that evidence to the Congress and Bush. Congress decided to allow Bush to declare war believing that Saddam, with access to these sorts of weapons, and the current terrorist climate, could easily sell these arms to these groups. Negotiations with Saddam have failed over and over again, so violent politics was used. Even though there were plenty of mobile weapons vans found, no actual WMD's were discovered. But here is the thing, because of the stability in the regon is vital to the US because of oil, it is in the best interest of the country for us to continue to be there, to stabilize the region. I believe we did a good thing by getting Saddam out of power, I believe we are continuing doing a good thing by training Iraqi soldiers the disipline and training needed to be an army, I believe we are doing good things by helping the country rebuild.

To be honest, this is just what I think, formed by my experiences in that country. Is it possible that Bush orchastrated the whole thing including the world trade center... Sure, he could have, he could also secret run around the white house in the middle of the night wearing his wife's underwear. But nobody really knows for sure (except maybe his wife), and to say that "He knew exactly what he was doing when he invaded," is pure speculation, and shouldn't be stated as fact.

So anyway there it is. Say what you will, as I said, I've been avoiding posting in this topic for quite some time, but I just had to speak up.

Alynn said:

Quoteand enough money to support multiple wives

I enjoy this combination.

Quote from: i k a r i on Thu 04/01/2007 18:27:27I dont see US citizens doing something about it, that's what makes me think there are lots of US people supporting Bush war actions.

QuoteEvery time a leader the people didnt want to have appeared here, we kicked him out

Quote from: i k a r i on Thu 04/01/2007 15:53:40America's citizens should have made Bush go long time ago by force

Quote from: LimpingFish on Thu 04/01/2007 18:05:42so little is seen to be done about the situation by those who vocally oppose the Bush administration

Ah, I get it now. Overthrow our government, perhaps a nice little military coup? Flush over 200 years of established, stable government down the toilet? Anarchy in the streets, stock market crash sort of thing with the potential to cause worldwide economic chaos and instability? Yes, I suppose that's one way to deal with a president who, unpopular as he may be, was twice elected into office.

Here's another solution: let the mechanisms of government and the rule of law run their course. A free and open press continue to unearth government scandal, editorialize about those aspects of the administration they disagree with, and otherwise push for transparency in the government. Low approval ratings, opinion polls, and organized protests will continue to influence government decision-making. Where Bush has abused his powers as president, the courts have already ruled against him several times, and I'm sure they will continue to do so. Elections have just given control of Congress to the opposition party resulting in the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, one of the chief architects of the Iraq invasion. The Iraq Study Group has recently released their recommendations calling for a new course of action in Iraq. And, as I already mentioned, in two years Bush himself will be out of the presidency.

I don't know if I'd call that "doing nothing," but I suppose if you compare it to taking to the streets and overthrowing the government, it may look pretty tame.

Quote from: i k a r i on Thu 04/01/2007 10:51:05it wouldnt be the first time the constitution is magically altered.

Hmm, yes. Well ... speechless really.

It's pretty clear to me that you really don't know a whole lot about our country, its history, or our system of government. That's ok though, because I myself really don't know anything about Argentina. However I'm not going to sit here and tell you what's really going on in your president's head or lecture you about how your country really operates. Of course you're entitled to your opinion about us, but as Darth already mentioned, grounding it in impassioned ignorance instead of level-headed fact can be very dangerous and really piss people off.

Quote from: i k a r i on Thu 04/01/2007 21:19:07
Why would we do something about this president?  ???
He hasnt done anything wrong yet.

Maybe you were talking about a previous president, the "stupid and sick" one. I don't know.

Nevermind then.

You're f*cked both ways.

If he got into office unfairly, twice, as Darth suggests, it means your whole electorial system is corruptable.

If he was voted in by the people, also twice, as EagerMind suggests, then this supposed unfair generalization by non-americans isn't actually so unfair, based on over 51% (aka The Majority) of the voting american public supporting the Bush administration.

It sucks, sure, but...

QuoteI don't see any confusion with my two statements.  Congress does have the authority to stop it.  But when given information that Saddam was developing WMD, they acted.  Bush tried to give them two other excuses for his invasion and they rejected those.  He gave them WMD and they took the bait.

Im saying they have no power if Bush can use fault intelligence in order to manipulate them, the president will get what he wants sooner or later.

To EagerMind and Darth Mandarb:

Going back to Argentina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina) (<-link for Darth Mandarb if Bush is re-re-elected, come  ;D), we also did a pacific protest, it was called "cacerolazo" (as simple as hitting casseroles with spoons xd) and we gathered so many people in front of the pink house (yes pink), that the president had no choice but to leave, all around the country people were protesting simultaneously, it ended up with fights against the police, sadly, and with some deaths, but the president was out that same day, and the system did not change at all, ok, we had the guiness record for most presidents in a week xD, but now the country is going up with much more honest leaders, and in democracy.
You can check some links if you're interested  :-\
Cacerolazo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cacerolazo)
RIOTS 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2001_riots_%28Argentina%29)
The kind of rage we felt for the corruption made us act, I couldnt imagine what would happen if a president send compatriots to die in a war he created to get oil.
EagerMind, at first in USA, re-election did not exist, a president altered it to be re-elected, what makes you think Bush cant altere that again, I think people's rage would be too much there.

Quotegrounding it in impassioned ignorance instead of level-headed fact can be very dangerous and really piss people off.

I've talked without facts, yes, and Im sorry, but sometimes you cant have the facts, and I gave my opinion, and I still think there are many people supporting Bush in USA, as big part of the world thinks, I also think there are many against Bush luckily.

Alynn I meant no offense to you, that kind of decision a soldier can take is not the one I was talking about, if you're sent to war you have to go, no matter what you think about the reasons of the war, or if you're lied.
I think is logic that you're with the iraqis supporting the war causes and the American invasion, US put them to work in their bases and payed them money, and they are taking Oil out ir Irak, I think there are millions against it that are not working for US, that have familiars/friends death, that had their busines, their peacefuls lifes, etc.

I think I must stop talking about what I dont know, I think you all know my opinion by now, I meant no offense with mi "anger talking". It just I cant shut up with a person like Bush alive  :-X

Just to follow up on your post  Ikari...

The thing is, every one of us in the US military signed a contract knowing that exact fact, that if we are ordered into war, we will go, regardless of our personal feelings on the matter. So even if we don't agree with the reasoning, we do agree to follow what the government says. It's a volunteer army, everyone in the US military chose to be there.

So if a soldier complains about not agreeing with the war and therefore they shouldn't have to go, I have a simple answer.

You never should have signed up.

I'm sure there are millions that are against it, just like there are millions for it, after all, estimated 26,783,383 people in the country in 2006 (source: 2006 estimate/United States Census International Programs) it's easy to have millions on both sides of the issue.

Quote
The thing is, every one of us in the US military signed a contract knowing that exact fact, that if we are ordered into war, we will go, regardless of our personal feelings on the matter. So even if we don't agree with the reasoning, we do agree to follow what the government says. It's a volunteer army, everyone in the US military chose to be there.

Im going to go back a little in something I said, I know soldiers are not brainwashed people without ideas, but since the moment they signed the contract, they will have to act like it, just following orders and doing as they are told, like pawns for the goverment. Yes, that was their decisions, and they did it in order to defend their country, but do you really feel that's what your president sent you to do there?. Well my opinion is, no.

Quote
I'm sure there are millions that are against it, just like there are millions for it, after all, estimated 26,783,383 people in the country in 2006 (source: 2006 estimate/United States Census International Programs) it's easy to have millions on both sides of the issue.

Yes, is normal. Im just afraid to think how many people out there could be pro-Bush.

I dont want to start another topic, hopefully this war never happen, but Iran is saying they have nuclear power now, and that they are succesfully developing this technology, and that they will keep on doing it no matter the threats they get. I think that's scary.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Thu 04/01/2007 03:50:56
So you're generalizing that I, as an American, must be war happy?Ã,  It's interesting that the entire point of my posts in this thread keeps being proven over and over again in this thread ...

Yes. Why? Because your public is ready to fight the "nuclear threats" in Iran and North Korea. Ready to invade Cuba (once Castro dies) and invade Venezuala to remove the "evil" regimes. Its imperialism. Some of us just want to try to live our lifes and run our small countries without USA's prying fingers in every aspect of our lifes. I felt more secure in this world when the Soviet Union was around then now when there is only one hungry world power. Isolationalism > Internationalism

Im pretty disgusted with how many people viewed Sadaam's execution video. How fucked up do you have to be in the head as a nation to WANT to see a human being be killed. Im done with this thread, it makes me to angry.

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Fri 05/01/2007 04:34:24Yes. Why?

Because making generalizations like that is ignorant.  So is not reading the rest of this thread and then picking out bits and pieces to make rude comments that are clearly just meant to be inflamatory.

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Fri 05/01/2007 04:34:24Because your public is ready to fight the "nuclear threats" in Iran and North Korea. Ready to invade Cuba (once Castro dies) and invade Venezuala to remove the "evil" regimes. Its imperialism.

Yet another brilliant generalization about the people of the U.S. based off of Bush's foreign policies.

I hope there are others reading this thread who appreciate the irony that my rant about "lumping" and "generalizing" keeps being proven.  I couldn't have asked for better proof.

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Fri 05/01/2007 04:34:24Some of us just want to try to live our lifes and run our small countries without USA's prying fingers in every aspect of our lifes.

Then why does your government allow the U.S. their "prying fingers"?  Why don't the people of your country stop this?  I suppose I could generalize and say that you're all a bunch of puppets who give in to whatever the U.S. wants?  It's not always so easy is it?

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Fri 05/01/2007 04:34:24I felt more secure in this world when the Soviet Union was around then now when there is only one hungry world power. Isolationalism > Internationalism

I'm going to assume you're profile age is inaccurate then ... because the Soviet Union collapsed before you were born!  You must have a REALLY remarkable memory indeed.

Quote from: shitarâ,,¢ on Fri 05/01/2007 04:34:24Im pretty disgusted with how many people viewed Sadaam's execution video. How fucked up do you have to be in the head as a nation to WANT to see a human being be killed. Im done with this thread, it makes me to angry.

I, too, saw the same statistic you must be speaking of. The one that shows that ONLY people from the U.S. watched that video filmed by an Iraqi and released to the public by an Iraqi.

And what about the new toy some US toy factory is making, is selling way too good.
Is a 30 cm recreation of Saddam Husseins's death, you've to be fucked up to buy that.

I am not entering this thread but I just want to say, Ikari, it would help SO much if you started providing sources for what you post...

What Saddam toy that is selling way too good?

OK sorry, here you go:

The headline says "the toy that is already a sales success"
http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/01/04/elmundo/i-02602.htm

http://www.herobuilders.com/

Whoa, Saddam action figure is pretty buff! You sure someone didn't just get a Six Million Dollar Man action figure and draw a beard on him?

Ok... I had enough.

Making fun of an important fact, no matter how serious it is, is the most normal thing on Earth. If you say that the Us citizens are "fucked up" for that,then, YOU are seriosly fucked up.

Excuse me, but you are the typical sponge that swallows every information smelling "anti-yankee" for using it as a weapon in your next manifestos, but your sectarian and biased mind simply ignore simillar (but non-related to the USA) examples.

Start to be coherent. Everybody makes poo. Every shit smell bad. Do you want to discuss if the American shit smells worse? Ok, I' ll gladly discuss that... I' ll probably agree.

Do you want to make me believe that only the American shit smells bad? Sorry... I won't discuss that.

Example about naughty jokes: We had a terrorist strike here 15 years ago. One of the victims was a girl who lost their legs. She became an important activist against of the victims of terrorism here, and she is generally admired. But we have a joke... "Which are the resemblances between E.T. and Irene Villa (this girl)? Both fit in the bike basket" Ok, the joke is terrible, and its totally politically uncorrect if said in "official" forums, but its a joke that is in the street and generally provoques fun. People like black humour and  "secretelly" enjoys that.

"What does Tower A of the WTC says to Tower B? I wait for you downstreet!" Again, a terrible joke, but the joke it's  there, in the streets, and made people laugh... and if you believe that any country where this jokes has been told is "fucked up", then, you have a real problem with your sociologist axiomas.

Allow me to make clear that those jokes are spanish, and, well, while you can consider us a "fucked up" country as well, we are not (nowadays, at least) this capitalist-colonialist-belicistic entity you say the US is... ergo, "black jokes" are not linked with "being an evil-capitalistic entity", ergo, you are wrong, ergo, shut up.

Also... There are no "fucked up" jokes in your country? Reply yes and your previous statement (USA has black jokes=USA is fucked up) would reveal as hypocrital, so, shut up.

Reply "no", and you' ll reveal to be a liar, so, shut up.

I don' t see any problem with someone painting a beard to a GIJOE, attack a rope, and make money bout it... Specially I don' t see it as something so BIG for declaring a country as "Fucked up"

I don' t know if you realise that you are revealing to be as short-sighted and radical as the most short-sighted and radical north american jerk.... just that your color is the opposite.

People here has been constantly saying you "Yes... there are jerks in the USA. Yes... our president is one of those... but we are not a country of jerks" and you go on, and on, with posts which spirit basically is "You are all jerks". You should apology, my friend.

Which country has managed better than the US when they were in the simillar mighty world ruling position? Caesar's Rome? Alexander' s Mecedonia? Lionheart's  England? Napoleon' s France?

Bocanegra's Spain?

I can' t really put any examples about Argentina, because you never rules the world, but well... If you go on constantly tying the personality of the citizens with the personality of the rulers, you are not in a good position either. Anyone which access to wikipedia will see that your presidents are not samplers of intelligence and good management. Equivalently yours are even more militaristic.

For the God's shake... your national heroes are a terrorist, a drug addict and a prostitute.

Well... you know the joke, no? The best deal in the world is buying an Argentinian for the price he costs, and selling it for the price HE SAYS he costs.

I saw that doll before, but looking at that site, especially their collection, is really sickening me. They've got gay-bashing, liberal-bashing, bush-loving and most disturbingly representations of death. But surprise surprise, no joke dolls about Bush. They have a 'Crackhead Saddam', which makes absolutely no sense, so where's the 'Bush on Cocaine' doll?

Here are some highlights:

(http://www.herobuilders.com/images/Web%20YAKMED.jpg)
Ahmadinejad

(http://www.herobuilders.com/images/HB0036_sm.jpg)
Bush in Iraq? When did this happen?

(http://www.herobuilders.com/images/HB0037_38_sm.jpg)
A democrat with the Confederate flag? Really?

(http://www.herobuilders.com/images/HB0058_sm.jpg)
What can I say?

(http://www.herobuilders.com/images/HB0068bush.jpg)
Hmpf.

(http://www.herobuilders.com/images/HB0033_sm.jpg)
Dead Uday.

(http://www.herobuilders.com/images/HB0019_sm.jpg)
Yeah, hate him just because Bill O'Reilly says so.

Wow, I can Nacho is pissed off, his english took a sharp decline!

And God likes a strawberry milkshake.

But for ther record I agree with Nacho and Darth, and disagree with Ikari, and definetly Shitar.

Look at that site selling the "GiJoe witha beard drawn on"! It's so obviously small time! I think it's just weird to sell that! Does it come with a neck snapping sound effect too when you tighten the noose?

Maybe it is selling well if you say so, but how well? and does that make the whole country sick? James Blunt sells shedloads of his album, does that mean I must like his album too? That the UK likes his album? Does this question sound stupid to you? EH?

Idlu, Maniac:

Indeed it' s weird, and sickening, probably... But an idiot making that toys, and millions of idiots buying a toy (which in a big country as the USA might still be less than 1% of the total population) does not make a country "to be fucked up".

It would if it was an unique caracteristic of the US citizens, it the US was the only country in the world with such items and such humour... But I' ve seen something simillar in Spain and some other countries of Europe.

I just don' t write that down in my notebook as a "point to say when an anti-(put the name of a country here)" debate starts. Ikari does... He, who has been the spokesman of the "Americans think EVERYBODY in the rest of the world is inferior" is the one who is now treating all the americans as if they were so dumb is its stupid president. I refuse.

Quote from: ManicMatt on Fri 05/01/2007 10:46:35
Wow, I can Nacho is pissed off, his english took a sharp decline!

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/SANTAELBURRITO/NachoAnger.jpg)

edit DG - that's hilarious!!  Of course you know ... ALL spaniards have violent tempers so you better keep your doors locked for the next couple of weeks!!

(http://www.herobuilders.com/images/Web%20YAKMED.jpg)
Yakmed Ahmadinejad??

I think you're mistaken.  That's Steve Carel with a beard!!  Seriously ... use your thumb and cover up from the nose down.  That looks just like him!!  I wonder if he's a virgin?

I cannot believe that this thread has now gone to using a toy as proof of evil Americans!!  I seriously laughed out loud when I read that!

This is a little known fact; but the U.S. toymaking consortium patented violent/grusome toys so no other nation in the world can make them.  In Japan for example, the most deadly weapon their action figures can wield is a spatula and any and all blood must be hot-pink.

Come on guys ... a toy?!?!!

I didn't say anything. I just said the site was sickening - no generalization there. So really, it's just one 'guy' :).

Error!!! My English are allways bad, no matter if I are angered or no. The problem is that when me are angered not, people does not pey atenttion to what I write.

EDIT: Idlu, I don't think you generalised... I was focused in Ikari' s posts.

Actually, I think that those dolls are being sold pretty well, so, even throwing stones to my own speech... I must recognise that, no... That dolls are not just the idea of a sick guy.

That shows that in the USA there are a lot of idiots.

But even if there is a million of sold dolls... There would be only 0.3% of idiots in the US... So, saying "In America, there is a toy for idiots who is being sold pretty well, ergo, all the Americans are fucked up" is silly. You never said that... but someone said.

WTF? xD
Nacho calm down, I've just said you've to be fucked up to buy that, I didnt say US is fucked up, lol.
The toy may be selling good, but you dont need 1% of the population for that, as you said. I was just sharing funny info  ;D

QuotePeople here has been constantly saying you "Yes... there are jerks in the USA. Yes... our president is one of those... but we are not a country of jerks" and you go on, and on, with posts which spirit basically is "You are all jerks". You should apology, my friend.

I never said this, but the contrary since my first post, I said I have nothing against USA people, only his president, and those who follow him (wich I think there are many).
Let's cut this crap, bottom line: I've entered this discussion to say "I hate Bush", then I ended up saying "I think many americans follow him", and that would be it. I think is normal that many Americans are fucked up, so are many Argentinians (many xd), you took it personally because you think Im an anti-yankee, well, Im not at all.

QuoteFor the God's shake... your national heroes are a terrorist, a drug addict and a prostitute.

I dont know who are you talking about, my national heroes are nobel prices and/or inventors noone talks about  ;D
And who are you talking about when you say terrorist?

QuoteWell... you know the joke, no? The best deal in the world is buying an Argentinian for the price he costs, and selling it for the price HE SAYS he costs.

That was our national industry, then we ended up buying US people. You guys are the most egocentric kind there is xD, and you know it. Im generalizing again.

EDIT: Well, I didnt noticed the bad english cause me speaks español, but Nacho you must be a really fun person to annoy.  ;D

I don' t go picking word by word to reply to posts.... I just take the spirit of the posts, and reply to them consequently.

And the spirit of your post is definitelly anti-american in the most negative way. I was quite sure that you were going to reply in a politically correct way saying "I looooove America, and all the americans, but I hate Bush" but, well... You' ll have to work harder to convince me that you areÃ,  this "relaxed" IKARI version 2.0 and not the one I "noticed" firstly. I am open to it, though.

Don't worry, anyway, hating the powerfull country has historically been the rest of the world' s sport. You are just one more.

QuoteI dont know who are you talking about, my national heroes are nobel prices and/or inventors noone talks aboutÃ, 
And who are you talking about when you say terrorist?

I was talking to Ché Guevara, Maradona and Eva Perón. And I was not talking about "your" national heroes, but simply of "National heroes". Deny that the national heroes of Argentina are those 3 idiots, one more lie won't matter.

QuoteThat was our national industry, then we ended up buying US people. You guys are the most egocentric kind there is xD, and you know it. Im generalizing again.

Who do you talk when you say "You guys"? of Spain? Curious, I have heard many adjectives refering to us, must of them approppiate, but "egocentric" is new. Explain your reply and tell when we have been historically egocentric. I preciselly think that one of the big problems of my nation have been the complexes. You use egocentrism as an isult, but IMO it' s not something to be totally cursed. The lack of it can be so hamful as the excess. Argentina is a clear example of country that wants to pee higher than it can, actually...

And, to end... I am glad to amuse people with my EnglishÃ,  :) I don' t do it on purpose, and I hope everything can be understandable (sometimes I go back and read older posts by me, and I can't understand what they said...Ã,  :-[) but you can understand them, mistakes and typos don't really concern me.

But sorry... I can't shut up and swallow if I see something I don' t like. I preffer to sound ridiculous and say my opinion than look smart and don' t tell it. Hope everybody understands me.

I' ll try to improve, though.Ã,  :)

QuoteAnd the spirit of your post is definitelly anti-american in the most negative way. I was quite sure that you were going to reply in a politically correct way saying "I looooove America, and all the americans, but I hate Bush" but, well... You' ll have to work harder to convince me that you are  this "relaxed" IKARI version 2.0 and not the one I "noticed" firstly. I am open to it, though.

I didnt say that I love America, you're a hot headed extremist. The only country I love is the one I live, Im just saying America has excpecional things noone can deny, and "hating the powerful country" only happens when they abuse this power, just like Bush is doing, I think that is normal.

QuoteI was talking to Ché Guevara, Maradona and Eva Perón. And I was not talking about "your" national heroes, but simply of "National heroes". Deny that the national heroes of Argentina are those 3 idiots, one more lie won't matter.

Well that's the kind of ignorance I showed earlier, if you think that by saying "one more lie won't matter" I'll shut up and say you're right, you're WRONG. There are people here wich heroes are those shitheads xD, but there are A LOT less than you think, in fact I know there are more who hate them.

QuoteWho do you talk when you say "You guys"? of Spain? Curious, I have heard many adjectives refering to us, must of them approppiate, but "egocentric" is new. Explain your reply and tell when we have been historically egocentric. I preciselly think that one of the big problems of my nation have been the complexes. You use egocentrism as an isult, but IMO it' s not something to be totally cursed. The lack of it can be so hamful as the excess. Argentina is a clear example of country that wants to pee higher than it can, actually...

Whatever, I think you just want to pick a fight, I wont pick it. Cry and shout all you want xD, you think you'll get to me by talking shit about Argentina because that's what you feel I did (Probably I did, but I didnt mean to), and you're again talking from the ignorance, maybe you're trying to teach me a lesson by doing to me just what I did, cause is obvious you dont know nothing about Argentina.  ;)

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Fri 05/01/2007 14:58:09
I think you're mistaken.  That's Steve Carel with a beard!!  Seriously ... use your thumb and cover up from the nose down.  That looks just like him!!  I wonder if he's a virgin?

Yeah, now you mention it I look at the doll and see Carrell from Little Miss Sunshine where he had the beard. Very uncanny!

Quote from: i k a are i on Fri 05/01/2007 16:01:22America has excpecional things noone can deny, and "hating the powerful country" only happens when they abuse this power, just like Bush is doing, I think that is normal.

If you're going to call America the "evil imperialists" (and I'm not saying you are here Ikari, I'm talking in general), then I would hope you're doing so based off of facts and not just regurgitating all the anti-American propaganda floating around out there. Of course, if you start bringing facts into it, this cozy little picture of the "terrible angry aggressor" will start to fall apart. Our foreign policy objectives are no different from that of any other country on the planet: to protect our national interests, our national security, and our economic prosperity. The one thing that does separate us (at least for now) is that the resources we have available to pursue these objectives are much greater than anybody elses.

It may seem cute to compare us unfavorably to the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, ancient Rome, and other "super powers," but anyone taking a few minutes to scratch beneath the surface of this fantasy will realize it's total bull. I don't deny that our country has tended to meddle in other countries affairs and has acted heavy-handed at times, but that's a far cry from the "imperialism" that people are accusing us of. Anyone taking the time to learn about 20th century history will discover that there are very good reasons for our country acting the way it has. I'm not saying that necessarily justifies our behavior (that's a personal decision), but at least it will give you an understanding of it and allow for more constructive conversations on the topic. I don't expect most people will take this time, which is fine, and you're certainly free to continue disagreeing with how our country acts. But at least be open to facts and re-evaluating your position instead of thumping on your chest and passing moral judgments on us.

Bush may be a terrible president who has abused his powers in office, but don't extrapolate this one case to all of American history or to all its people. Our system is no more "broken" than any other country's, and the system that allowed him to be elected into office is now the same system that's curtailing his powers, holding him in check, and will soon remove him from office. We're certainly not the first country to have brought an unpopular leader to power, and I doubt we'll be the last, so I'm not sure how that makes us worse than anyone else.

Frankly, most Americans could care less what goes on outside our borders, and with the exception of our soldiers that are dying there, this even goes for Iraq. Most people just care about making a decent living, paying less taxes, and doing so in relative safety. I suspect this pretty much holds whether we're talking about Argentina, Europe, North Korea, or anywhere else in the world. When it comes to choosing a leader, the candidate that can put up the most compelling argument in these three areas will generally win, whether it's Bush or someone else. Again, I don't really see how this makes us any better or worse than anyone else.

QuoteCry and shout all you want xD, you think you'll get to me by talking shit about Argentina because that's what you feel I did (Probably I did, but I didnt mean to), and you're again talking from the ignorance, maybe you're trying to teach me a lesson by doing to me just what I did, cause is obvious you dont know nothing about Argentina.  ;)

Wow. The juxtaposition of this statement with the one being made my Darth is just too good to pass up. Another point for Darth.

Ikari, whether Nacho is intentionally trying to teach you a lesson here or not, there's certainly a lesson to be learned. You could benefit greatly by learning it.

Quote from: Nacho on Fri 05/01/2007 15:34:50I hope everything can be understandable (sometimes I go back and read older posts by me, and I can't understand what they said...  :-[) but you can understand them, mistakes and typos don't really concern me.

It's OK Nacho. I usually understand what you mean, not what you say. :)


EDIT: I know I've rambled on long enough, but I feel this is an important point to address:

Quote from: i k a are i on Fri 05/01/2007 01:32:14EagerMind, at first in USA, re-election did not exist, a president altered it to be re-elected, what makes you think Bush cant altere that again,

This is exactly what I'm talking about. There's not one iota of truth in this statement, and yet you throw it out there like this is some sort of fact, and then use it as evidence that we're all war-mongering supporters of Bush.

Our Constitution originally had no term limits, so a person could be elected an unlimited number of times. This was changed in 1951 with the passage of the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms. This means that the most any one person can be elected as the president is twice. If you're curious, this amendment was passed as a result of Franklin Roosevelt (the president that brought us out of the Great Depression, led us through World War II, and helped established the UN) winning 4 consecutive terms in office, the only man ever to serve as president more than twice. So if Bush wanted to run again, he'd have to amend the Constitution to remove the 22nd Amendment.

Why do I think Bush can't do this? Because he can't. Our president doesn't have the power to amend the Consitution. Proposals to amend the Constitution require a 2/3 majority vote from either the Congress or the states. For a proposal to become an actual amendment, it requires the approval of 3/4 (75%) of the states. I'm not going to say it's impossible for one man to gain this much power and influence to lawfully change our government to his own needs, but it's very very very difficult, and Bush certainly doesn't (and never did) have that much power.

This is why we don't need to take to the streets to throw out leaders we don't like. Our government is structured so it happens automatically with safeguards in place to prevent one man from taking it over. We may not have the satisfaction of instant gratification, but it also means I won't wake up one morning to find that someone has taken over the country because he didn't like the previous ruler, which is a trade-off I'm willing to make. Rule by mob (peaceful or not) only establishes that laws and government can be discarded when they're inconvenient. If you want to see how well that works, look at Thailand, where the popularly-elected prime minister was deposed by military coup in the middle of the night because a powerful minority didn't like him. If that's your idea of freedom and democracy, I'll take a pass.

Quote
Wow. The juxtaposition of this statement with the one being made my Darth is just too good to pass up. Another point for Darth.

Ikari, whether Nacho is intentionally trying to teach you a lesson here or not, there's certainly a lesson to be learned. You could benefit greatly by learning

The thing is, I dont compete in discussions unless I want to annoy the other, in order to have a productive discussion you have to accept you said stupid things, Im still holding some points though, and if you have to scream like a cheerleader "another point for Darth" so be it. (irony)

I can understand what you're saying, if you dont care too much about those iraqi people, then it's ok, me neither.
Is another different thing to support Bush war actions which I think is what's happening with many US people. Bush has won many enemies, let's hope for our safety that in these 2 years left he keeps his mouth shut and that he doesnt mess with North Korea or Iran, it could mean WW3  :P, no really.

Quote from: EagerMind on Fri 05/01/2007 21:05:44
Bush may be a terrible president who has abused his powers in office, but don't extrapolate this one case throughout all of American history or to all its people.

Yeah, just extrapolate that to the 22 per cent of the total population who voted for him and the 58 per cent of the total population who sat around apathetically not voting. Altogether that's 80 per cent. It's a good thing we still have that other 20 per cent who didn't vote for him. Yeah, they can deny responsibility over this.

QuoteI guess you can criticize us (or at least those that voted for him) for electing him as the president, but the last time I checked, sovereign nations don't require the approval of the rest of world about which leader they choose. We're certainly not the first country to have brought an unpopular leader to power, and I doubt we'll be the last, so I'm not sure how that makes us worse than anyone else.

How hypocritical! You say no other country should judge you for electing an unpopular leader when your country's government goes ahead and removes an unpopular leader (Saddam) from a country you have no sovereignty over. (Until you invaded it of course) And the majority of US citizens approved of the war at the time!

I mean, Christ, let's not white wash the hypocrisy here. It's imperialism any way you look at it.

Likewise, you say other countries shouldn't chest-thump when that's exactly what most Americans did in the lead-up and during the Iraq War. All that flag waving and "NEVA 4GET" and blah blah blah in the name of not letting the terrorists win?

Quite frankly, there's so much hypocrisy in what you say that it disappoints me you're trying to validate everything that has happened over the last few years.

QuoteFrankly, most Americans could care less what goes on outside our borders, and with the exception of our soldiers that are dying there, this even goes for Iraq. Most people just care about making a decent living, paying less taxes, and doing so in relative safety.

Okay consider the fact that Bush has done all these things: big tax cuts, low unemployment rate (4.4 per cent), high security, and a poverty rate that although has increased during his term is still lower than times when Bush Snr and Reagan were in power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Poverty1973toPresent.jpg).

How do you explain the majority of people against Bush's policies (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm)? That's 50-60 per cent of people during the last month!

Not to mention the domestic issues like the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretap program, the Valerie Plame affair, the death of habeas corpus, the blacklisting of people like Cindy Sheehan and Jeremy Glick, the deficit, dependence of foreign oil... I mean, c'mon, people care about those things and they're all related to Iraq/War on Terror.

QuoteHow hypocritical! You say no other country should judge you for electing an unpopular leader when your country's government goes ahead and removes an unpopular leader (Saddam) from a country you have no sovereignty over. (Until you invaded it of course) And the majority of US citizens approved of the war at the time!

You totally missed the point of what I was saying while also trying to twist my words into something they're not. However I acknowledge I muddled the point and I've edited that particular paragraph to remove the offending sentence.

Go ahead and criticise us, but do it based on facts, not on propaganda and hyperbole. Please, be unhappy that Bush is in power and criticize the things that our country has done as a result - lord knows a lot of Americans are, and one could only hope that all the bad press is exerting some kind of influence on his decision-making. But the fact that a bad leader can rise to power certainly isn't unique to our country. Unfortunately we're just as capable of choosing bad leadership as any other country, so I don't see how this makes us any worse when compared to the rest of the world.

There are reasons why Bush was elected to power, but those are quite aside from the fact that he's subsequently abused that power to further his own agenda. Darth already explained why people ended up supporting the invasion of Iraq, and if you're going to conclude from that that we're war-mongering imperialists, then I'm going to have to disagree with you.

QuoteLikewise, you say other countries shouldn't chest-thump when that's exactly what most Americans did in the lead-up and during the Iraq War. All that flag waving and "NEVA 4GET" and blah blah blah in the name of not letting the terrorists win?

I wouldn't begrudge any country a moment of national solidarity after an incident of unfathomable tragedy. But I do agree that things got out-of-hand, especially with France and the whole "freedom fries" thing. When did I say this was ok? No nation, including the US, should march around like they're better than everyone else, and we're certainly not the only ones guilty of this. This is what I've been saying from the beginning: we're no better or worse than anyone else.

QuoteQuite frankly, there's so much hypocrisy in what you say that it disappoints me you're trying to validate everything that has happened over the last few years.

I'm not trying to validate anything here. Where have I said that the things we've done are OK? Where have I shirked responsibility for what our country has done? I'm trying to point out that there are real reasons underlying the things that have happened, reasons which won't be found by blindly buying into all the spin. You can choose to try to understand them or not. But if you don't think similar circumstances may someday arise somewhere else in the world and that there are lessons worth learning from our particular experience, then I'm gonna have to say you're a little naive.

QuoteOkay consider the fact that Bush has done all these things: big tax cuts, low unemployment rate (4.4 per cent), high security, and a poverty rate that although has increased during his term is still lower than times when Bush Snr and Reagan were in power. How do you explain the majority of people against Bush's policies?

Big tax cuts: Yes, but when you start considering the national debt and burgeoning expenses from social security and Medicare, none of which he has fixed, then we're looking at a much higher tax burden in the near future.

Low unemployment rate: True, although many perceive that jobs are being lost to outsourcing. It's also true that while corporations are raking in record profits and the richest 1% or so of the nation are getting richer from said outsourcing, middle-class wages have remained stagnant. People may be working, but they're not happy.

High security: Possibly, although it appears that our personal liberties are being jeopardized in the process. And a study showing that the Iraq war has actually made us less safe (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ex=1316750400&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) suggests that Bush's "war on terror" isn't working after all. (If that link doesn't work, try this one (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/26/terror/main2039339.shtml).)

Poverty rate: As you mentioned, going up. Nobody cares what it was 5, 10, or 100 years ago. During Bush's term it's gone up.

QuoteI mean, c'mon, people care about those things and they're all related to Iraq/War on Terror.

Yes, people care about the war because it impacts their life. They care because of the reasons I've mentioned and also because people they know are dying or coming home maimed. Not for some vague notion of empire or "spreading democracy" to foreign lands.

Quote from: EagerMind on Sat 06/01/2007 09:49:06
Unfortunately we're just as capable of choosing bad leadership as any other country, so I don't see how this makes us any worse when compared to the rest of the world.

There are reasons why Bush was elected to power, but those are quite aside from the fact that he's subsequently abused that power to further his own agenda. Darth already explained why people ended up supporting the invasion of Iraq, and if you're going to conclude from that that we're war-mongering imperialists, then I'm going to have to disagree with you.

I'm not saying that most Americans are war-mongering imperialists. But I am saying that most of the officials you elected into office over the last six years are. Therefore, why should you be absolved when such elected officials are supposed to represent your interests? Isn't that the fundamental theory underpinning democracy?

And I'm not just talking Bush, I'm including both Congress and the Senate. Luckily, I feel a glimmer of hope over the next year with the new Congress and Senate, plus a United States that wants a new direction in Iraq.

QuoteI wouldn't begrudge any country a moment of national solidarity after an incident of unfathomable tragedy.

I'm all for national solidarity if it make you happy. What I disagree with is the US bullying other nations into fighting as cause that has nothing to do with them. Like Bush said, you're either for the US or against the US. What a shit decision!

QuoteI'm not trying to validate anything here. Where have I said that the things we've done are OK? Where have I shirked responsibility for what our country has done?

For example, the part where you said "Bush may be a terrible president who has abused his powers in office, but don't extrapolate this one case to all of American history or to all its people."

It's been a major part of American history and it was a decision approved and allowed by the majority of Americans. So, I think it's fair to extrapolate that to the extents you deny.

QuoteI'm trying to point out that there are real reasons underlying the things that have happened, reasons which won't be found by blindly buying into all the spin.

BWAHAHAH! I'm so surprised you say this now, especially when the real reasons underlying things happening were explained back in 2001 and 2002. But the majority of Americans supported Bush's spin (according to polls, over 90% post 9/11) such as "The terrorists hate our freedom" and "Iraq has WMDs".

Don't tell me I'm naive. I've been probably the most vocal opponent of the War in Iraq on this forum. Plus, you want to talk facts? I'm probably the one you links more references than anyone else. I study up on what's happening in American politics more so than most Americans do. And from a range of right and left wing sources.

So don't treat me like I'm a three year old, pal.

Quote

QuoteOkay consider the fact that Bush has done all these things: big tax cuts, low unemployment rate (4.4 per cent), high security, and a poverty rate that although has increased during his term is still lower than times when Bush Snr and Reagan were in power. How do you explain the majority of people against Bush's policies?

Big tax cuts: Yes, but when you start considering the national debt and burgeoning expenses from social security and Medicare, none of which he has fixed, then we're looking at a much higher tax burden in the near future.

Low unemployment rate: True, although many perceive that jobs are being lost to outsourcing. It's also true that while corporations are raking in record profits and the richest 1% or so of the nation are getting richer from said outsourcing, middle-class wages have remained stagnant. People may be working, but they're not happy.

High security: Possibly, although it appears that our personal liberties are being jeopardized in the process. And a study showing that the Iraq war has actually made us less safe (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ex=1316750400&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) suggests that Bush's "war on terror" isn't working after all. (If that link doesn't work, try this one (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/26/terror/main2039339.shtml).)

Poverty rate: As you mentioned, going up. Nobody cares what it was 5, 10, or 100 years ago. During Bush's term it's gone up.

QuoteI mean, c'mon, people care about those things and they're all related to Iraq/War on Terror.

Yes, people care about the war because it impacts their life. They care because of the reasons I've mentioned and also because people they know are dying or coming home maimed. Not for some vague notion of empire or "spreading democracy" to foreign lands.

You know, it's funny that you say America isn't trying to "spread democracy" to foreign lands because I looked up the White House website and low and behold there's a fact sheet from December 2005 all about bringing democracy to Iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051212-1.html

Just in case you missed that link...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051212-1.html

My favourite part is this:

"The United States Is Helping Iraqis Build Inclusive Democratic Institutions That Will Protect The Interests Of All The Iraqi People. By helping Iraqis build a democracy, America will win over those who doubted they had a place in the new Iraq, and we will undermine the terrorists and Saddamists, gain an ally in the War on Terror, inspire reformers across the Middle East, and make the American people more secure. Democracy takes different forms in different cultures, but successful free societies are built on common foundations of rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, a free economy, and freedom of worship."

Oh yeah, and this part:

Democracy In Iraq Will Inspire A Region And Help Defeat An Enemy. When the new government takes office next year, Iraqis will have the only constitutional democracy in the Arab world, and Americans will have a partner for peace and moderation in the Middle East. People across the broader Middle East are drawing inspiration from Iraq's progress, and the terrorists' most powerful myth is being destroyed.

Hahahaha, isn't that funny? Because that was over A YEAR AGO in Dec 05.
And America still hasn't made a partner for peace in Iraq. Instead, they've plunged the country in a civil war! Like, their interest in going to war in Iraq was self-serving but now it's bit them on the arse? Isn't that freaking hilarious? And it's pretty much what I predicted would happen back in 2003.

oh I love being right all the time, time to do my victory dance UNNHHG PELVIC THRUST UNNHHG UNNHGG

I guess what I'm saying is if you seriously think the US wasn't been attempting imperialism in the Middle East or "spreading democracy" over the last few years, you might want to check your government's website first.

See, I remember this stuff because I saw with my own two fucking eyes Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld talking about spreading democracy back when the Iraq War was popular.

And you call me naive?? HAHAHAHAHAH!

Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 06/01/2007 16:37:54

Quote from: EagerMind on Sat 06/01/2007 09:49:06
Unfortunately we're just as capable of choosing bad leadership as any other country, so I don't see how this makes us any worse when compared to the rest of the world.

There are reasons why Bush was elected to power, but those are quite aside from the fact that he's subsequently abused that power to further his own agenda. Darth already explained why people ended up supporting the invasion of Iraq, and if you're going to conclude from that that we're war-mongering imperialists, then I'm going to have to disagree with you.

I'm not saying that most Americans are war-mongering imperialists. But I am saying that most of the officials you elected into office over the last six years are. Therefore, why should you be absolved when such elected officials are supposed to represent your interests? Isn't that the fundamental theory underpinning democracy?

And I'm not just talking Bush, I'm including both Congress and the Senate. Luckily, I feel a glimmer of hope over the next year with the new Congress and Senate, plus a United States that wants a new direction in Iraq.

QuoteI wouldn't begrudge any country a moment of national solidarity after an incident of unfathomable tragedy.

I'm all for national solidarity if it make you happy. What I disagree with is the US bullying other nations into fighting as cause that has nothing to do with them. Like Bush said, you're either for the US or against the US. What a shit decision!

QuoteI'm not trying to validate anything here. Where have I said that the things we've done are OK? Where have I shirked responsibility for what our country has done?

For example, the part where you said "Bush may be a terrible president who has abused his powers in office, but don't extrapolate this one case to all of American history or to all its people."

It's been a major part of American history and it was a decision approved and allowed by the majority of Americans. So, I think it's fair to extrapolate that to the extents you deny.

QuoteI'm trying to point out that there are real reasons underlying the things that have happened, reasons which won't be found by blindly buying into all the spin.

BWAHAHAH! I'm so surprised you say this now, especially when the real reasons underlying things happening were explained back in 2001 and 2002. But the majority of Americans supported Bush's spin (according to polls, over 90% post 9/11) such as "The terrorists hate our freedom" and "Iraq has WMDs".

Don't tell me I'm naive. I've been probably the most vocal opponent of the War in Iraq on this forum. Plus, you want to talk facts? I'm probably the one you links more references than anyone else. I study up on what's happening in American politics more so than most Americans do. And from a range of right and left wing sources.

So don't treat me like I'm a three year old, pal.

Quote

QuoteOkay consider the fact that Bush has done all these things: big tax cuts, low unemployment rate (4.4 per cent), high security, and a poverty rate that although has increased during his term is still lower than times when Bush Snr and Reagan were in power. How do you explain the majority of people against Bush's policies?

Big tax cuts: Yes, but when you start considering the national debt and burgeoning expenses from social security and Medicare, none of which he has fixed, then we're looking at a much higher tax burden in the near future.

Low unemployment rate: True, although many perceive that jobs are being lost to outsourcing. It's also true that while corporations are raking in record profits and the richest 1% or so of the nation are getting richer from said outsourcing, middle-class wages have remained stagnant. People may be working, but they're not happy.

High security: Possibly, although it appears that our personal liberties are being jeopardized in the process. And a study showing that the Iraq war has actually made us less safe (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ex=1316750400&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) suggests that Bush's "war on terror" isn't working after all. (If that link doesn't work, try this one (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/26/terror/main2039339.shtml).)

Poverty rate: As you mentioned, going up. Nobody cares what it was 5, 10, or 100 years ago. During Bush's term it's gone up.

QuoteI mean, c'mon, people care about those things and they're all related to Iraq/War on Terror.

Yes, people care about the war because it impacts their life. They care because of the reasons I've mentioned and also because people they know are dying or coming home maimed. Not for some vague notion of empire or "spreading democracy" to foreign lands.

You know, it's funny that you say America isn't trying to "spread democracy" to foreign lands because I looked up the White House website and low and behold there's a fact sheet from December 2005 all about bringing democracy to Iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051212-1.html

Just in case you missed that link...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051212-1.html

My favourite part is this:

"The United States Is Helping Iraqis Build Inclusive Democratic Institutions That Will Protect The Interests Of All The Iraqi People. By helping Iraqis build a democracy, America will win over those who doubted they had a place in the new Iraq, and we will undermine the terrorists and Saddamists, gain an ally in the War on Terror, inspire reformers across the Middle East, and make the American people more secure. Democracy takes different forms in different cultures, but successful free societies are built on common foundations of rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, a free economy, and freedom of worship."

Oh yeah, and this part:

Democracy In Iraq Will Inspire A Region And Help Defeat An Enemy. When the new government takes office next year, Iraqis will have the only constitutional democracy in the Arab world, and Americans will have a partner for peace and moderation in the Middle East. People across the broader Middle East are drawing inspiration from Iraq's progress, and the terrorists' most powerful myth is being destroyed.

Hahahaha, isn't that funny? Because that was over A YEAR AGO in Dec 05.
And America still hasn't made a partner for peace in Iraq. Instead, they've plunged the country in a civil war! Like, their interest in going to war in Iraq was self-serving but now it's bit them on the arse? Isn't that freaking hilarious? And it's pretty much what I predicted would happen back in 2003.

oh I love being right all the time, time to do my victory dance UNNHHG PELVIC THRUST UNNHHG UNNHGG

I guess what I'm saying is if you seriously think the US wasn't been attempting imperialism in the Middle East or "spreading democracy" over the last few years, you might want to check your government's website first.

See, I remember this stuff because I saw with my own two fucking eyes Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld talking about spreading democracy back when the Iraq War was popular.

And you call me naive?? HAHAHAHAHAH!

/hi5

Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 06/01/2007 16:37:54So don't treat me like I'm a three year old, pal.

I wasn't actually. But that thoughtful and measured response was certainly something I might expect from one. Appreciate you just proving my point even further. Thanks!

Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 06/01/2007 16:37:54Like Bush said, you're either for the US or against the US. What a shit decision!

Only a Sith deals in Absolutions ...

You know something?  For the last few years I was slowly losing respect for my President.  After the faulty "WMD" intelligence was revealed I got VERY pissed off.  Not because he lied (all politicians do) but because he wouldn't own up to the fact that it was his fault.  He kept finger pointing.

You took our country to war based off of lies.  It doesn't matter who told you what ... it was your fault Mr. President.  It happened on your watch.  You're the boss.  You're responsible.  That's when I lost what last little clinging respect I may have had the man.

[Then, after Katrina, he did nothing about it for 5 freaking days (unless you count dipping below the clouds on his way back to DC on Airforce 1)  I become an opponent of him.]

Why am I saying all this?

Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 06/01/2007 16:37:54I'm not saying that most Americans are war-mongering imperialists. But I am saying that most of the officials you elected into office over the last six years are. Therefore, why should you be absolved when such elected officials are supposed to represent your interests? Isn't that the fundamental theory underpinning democracy?

You're absolutely right.  If 1/2 the people of this nation elected the man into office, the other 1/2 of us can't point fingers and say "they did it!!  we didn't want him in there!!"  It happened on our watch.  We're responsible.  That's just the way it works in a democracy.

I would say the only point I'm trying to get across is that we're not all blindly following the man.

It's actually very frustrating because it seems no matter what we do the man sits on his throne and ignores us.  It gets so frustrating that at times I think a little armed revolution might just be a good thing!

Feeling so strongly for America, taking all these steps we "anti-Bush" people can, and hating with a blinding passion the image that George Bush is giving the world of us ... I think it's not hard to understand why I don't like being "lumped" in with the man.

I will be the first to admit that I have changed a lot since first getting to AGS ... So some of these statements might come as a suprise.  I fell into the same "trap" that so many people (not just Americans) have fallen into in history.  An event (or series of events) allows somebody to take power that shouldn't ... and slowly but surely the truth comes out and we realize the mistake we've made even though we, at first, supported them.

I just hope it's not too late to recover from this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6236743.stm

"Iraqi PM Nouri has said his government could review relations with any country which criticised the execution of ex-leader Saddam Hussein."

Why does this remind me of the Bush administrations reaction to France's criticism of the Iraqi offensive? ::)

Quote from: EagerMind on Sat 06/01/2007 17:34:20

Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 06/01/2007 16:37:54So don't treat me like I'm a three year old, pal.

I wasn't actually. But that thoughtful and measured response was certainly something I might expect from one. Appreciate you just proving my point even further. Thanks!

hey how about you use sarcasm to substitute for a post with substance

oh wait you just did!

If you can't at least match up what I've said, especially the part where I showed how full of shit you are about the "spreading democracy" part, then fuck off!

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sat 06/01/2007 20:27:05I would say the only point I'm trying to get across is that we're not all blindly following the man.

Yep, I can totally concede to that. And I'm glad to hear it.

I think it' s quite clear that if the debate comes to "Is Bush an idiot or not?" we will all move to "yes", so, end of "exciting" discussion for me.  :)

Quote from: Nacho on Sun 07/01/2007 12:07:13
I think it' s quite clear that if the debate comes to "Is Bush an idiot or not?" we will all move to "yes", so, end of "exciting" discussion for me.  :)

And as that's the case, I think I can add these links without being killed immediatly:
http://www.maxmin.ws/bush/bush_content.html
http://www.stupidedia.org/stupi/Bild:Affentheater.JPG

NOTE: Some mean humor there - see below.
;D

Quote from: Akatosh on Sun 07/01/2007 12:10:41

Quote from: Nacho on Sun 07/01/2007 12:07:13
I think it' s quite clear that if the debate comes to "Is Bush an idiot or not?" we will all move to "yes", so, end of "exciting" discussion for me.Ã,  :)

And as that's the case, I think I can add these links without being killed immediatly:
http://www.maxmin.ws/bush/bush_content.html
http://www.stupidedia.org/stupi/Bild:Affentheater.JPG

;D

Well, one think is not liking him, and the other is making humour of the retarder people!  >:( I don' t agree!

Nacho please, allow me to have that phrase in my signature.. xD..there.

Great sites, especially the first one,  ;D

Quote from: i k a r i on Sun 07/01/2007 17:14:03
Nacho please, allow me to have that phrase in my signature.. xD..there.

Great sites, especially the first one,Ã,  ;D

Please, mention who I am talking about, otherwise someone could think I am talking of CJ or something...

But leave the mistakes in there...

Oooooh! I see, there is an "r" in spite of a "d"!  :)

DGMacphee, to be honest I'm not quite sure what I've done that warrants insults and being told to fuck off. If I came across as hypocritical, condescending, and sounding like my ass is higher off the ground than everyone else, that was definitely not my intention. I have no desire to start a flame war with you or anyone else in these forums.

The point I was trying to make and my feelings on this issue are pretty much the same as Darth expressed in his last post, but in words much better than mine (and probably with a cooler head). It's hard being an American and watching the path our country has gone down these past few years while world opinion turns against us. If I had it my way, Bush wouldn't be our president right now. But as you said, as our elected leader he is the voice of our nation - and the fact that he speaks for "us" is yet another reason why many of us are so angry at him. There's really nothing for it other than to accept our mistakes, push for change, and try to make amends. That a terrible tragedy like 9/11 has been twisted into a means to further his own agenda and divide our country makes it all the more difficult. Americans are proud, and it's a hard reality to accept, but hopefully as a nation we'll rise to the task.

I really don't feel like getting into anymore of a fight about this than we already have, especially since I suspect we're basically in agreement here. What's say we let this go and move onto more "interesting" things?  * extends handshake

I'll leave you all with this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15595139/), a commentary that was broadcast on the eve of our mid-term elections (if you don't feel like reading, click "Launch" on the right side of the page to start the broadcast version). You may or may not find it interesting, but I see it as hope that all is not lost.

Quote from: EagerMind on Mon 08/01/2007 04:12:35
DGMacphee, to be honest I'm not quite sure what I've done that warrants insults and being told to fuck off. If I came across as hypocritical, condescending, and sounding like my ass is higher off the ground than everyone else, that was definitely not my intention. I have no desire to start a flame war with you or anyone else in these forums.

Okay, I'll explain: I don't like being told I'm naive about such things especially since I've been carefully watching the whole situation for the last five years. And I especially did like been told I was the one being naive about the whole situation especially when I'm being told "there's no spreading democracy or imperialism here no siree" when your own government has a fact sheet about spreading democracy in Iraq.

QuoteThe point I was trying to make and my feelings on this issue are pretty much the same as Darth expressed in his last post, but in words much better than mine (and probably with a cooler head). It's hard being an American and watching the path our country has gone down these past few years while world opinion turns against us. If I had it my way, Bush wouldn't be our president right now. But as you said, as our elected leader he is the voice of our nation - and the fact that he speaks for "us" is yet another reason why many of us are so angry at him. There's really nothing for it other than to accept our mistakes, push for change, and try to make amends. That a terrible tragedy like 9/11 has been twisted into a means to further his own agenda and divide our country makes it all the more difficult. Americans are proud, and it's a hard reality to accept, but hopefully as a nation we'll rise to the task.

Good.

QuoteI really don't feel like getting into anymore of a fight about this than we already have, especially since I suspect we're basically in agreement here. What's say we let this go and move onto more "interesting" things?  * extends handshake

Okay.

/shakes hands

QuoteI'll leave you all with this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15595139/), a commentary that was broadcast on the eve of our mid-term elections (if you don't feel like reading, click "Launch" on the right side of the page to start the broadcast version). You may or may not find it interesting, but I see it as hope that all is not lost.

Yep, Olbermann is great. I think he's the best news commentator alive today. And the way he shitcans Bill O'Reilly is just magical, it's gotten to the point where Bill is too scared to even say Olbermann's name on TV or radio.

I find DG very literate and informed - for a kangaroo fucking Aussie.

Bt

Quote from: ManicMatt on Sun 07/01/2007 17:36:13
But leave the mistakes in there...

That's what makes it funny.  ;D ;D

Quote from: Blackthorne on Mon 08/01/2007 06:03:29
I find DG very literate and informed - for a kangaroo fucking Aussie.

watch who ya calling kangaroo fucking ya damn yankee or ill get kyle farnsworth to ram you to the ground

Quote from: DGMacphee on Mon 08/01/2007 05:02:17I don't like being told I'm naive about such things especially since I've been carefully watching the whole situation for the last five years.

Yes, you seem very well informed from other posts I have read. I just couldn't understand what you were getting up in my face about.

QuoteI'm being told "there's no spreading democracy or imperialism here no siree" when your own government has a fact sheet about spreading democracy in Iraq.

Yes, the White House propaganda machine is in full gear trying to sell everyone on the war and show the "terrorists" how big and scary we are. This is what everyone sees from the outside.

Looking at it from the inside, I think for the average Joe standing around the water cooler the question is "is this making me safer?" When Bush said "the terrorists that attacked us are in Iraq," we said "cool, go get 'em." But now with the White House's lies revealed, evidence that the war is making us less safe, and daily images of Americans dying with no end in sight, people just want to bring the troops home as soon as possible, regardless of the consequences in Iraq.

I don't deny that our government had imperialist intentions for going into Iraq. But I think (I hope!) you're finally seeing the American people rejecting it as the truth has become more and more clear.

I don't know, it's my take on it, I guess I could be full of shit. Really I was just trying to further the point Darth made that we're not all crazy ideologues like our president, but I guess I wasn't very clear, so ... damn.

QuoteOkay.

/shakes hands

See, love does exist in the AGS forums! :)

Quote from: EagerMind on Mon 08/01/2007 07:55:35
I don't deny that our government had imperialist intentions for going into Iraq. But I think (I hope!) you're finally seeing the American people rejecting it as the truth has become more and more clear.

Agreed.

Quote from: EagerMind on Mon 08/01/2007 07:55:35See, love does exist in the AGS forums! :)

Double agreed. :D

Here's an interesting read:
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/

(scroll down to the title that says)
End U.S. Imperialism Now!

QuoteAn “Empire” is defined as a nation state that has political control over other nation states, and uses that political control to extract the wealth and resources from the subjugated country.

The United States of America does not have any political control over any other sovereign nation on the face of the Earth. We have influence, but influence is to control as a rich uncle is to a prison warden. That's all you need to know. The entire idea of American Empire and U.S. Imperialism is dead on its face after that. No control means no empire. Period.

Oh wow.

This is what I was referring to:

Quote
The US not only does not pull in the resources of other nations…it does exactly the reverse. We pump billions and billions of dollars annually into those nations that host our facilities, and the minute any one of those nations decides we are no longer welcome, we pack our bags, leave and turn those billion-dollar institutions over to the host country. (Look up Subic Bay and Clark Air Base in the Philippines for some recent examples)

Quote
Now, let's suppose the U.S. went into Djibouti with the Marines, and stole every single thing that's produced there in a year…just grant the premise and say we stole every goddam thing they make. If we hauled away all of Djibouti's annual wealth, how long would it run the U.S. Economy, which is 7,481 times greater?

Well, 8,760 hours divided by 7,481 gives you an answer of 1.17 hours. In other words, it takes the U.S. 1.17 hours to produce what Djibouti produces in a year.

If the US really did go in and steal everything that the bottom thirty countries in the world produce, it might power the US economy for two or three days.

Conversely, the billions and billions of dollars the US spends annually in aid, rent, etc. â€" plus uncounted billions more from private American charities â€" would supply the entire GDP of Djibouti for hundreds of years.

In addition to the GDP issue, there's the prohibitive cost of a military operation. I'm not convinced looting countries is so financially justifiable.

Of course the whole argument should be read in context.

Political influence cannot be underestimated. It leads to long-term rewards, both in finances and geopolitical terms.

Oh wow. :)

(Was gonna write something about direct control and the British East India Trading Company, but no need making this thread any more OT.)

Running the risk of schadenfreude, I'm glad Saddam is dead (hopefully not a double), and that his execution was public.

QuoteIf you can't at least match up what I've said, especially the part where I showed how full of shit you are about the "spreading democracy" part, then fuck off!

DG, I really think you should stop with the abusive way you conduct yourself in arguments on the forums. I think you're very firmly in flaming terratory here, and it's not funny or endearing.

QuoteAlso, we regularly cover topics from the very serious to the very silly, but whatever the issue, if you disagree with someone, calmly explain why you think differently. Name-calling and swearing at people will not be tolerated.

You wrote this yourself in the forum rules thread, maybe you should reflect on it a little.

And it would have been nice if you could PM me about it first.

Adam should send the Police Militar to you???

Yep, right after he plants the "evidence".

All seriousness, I'll watch the cuss words.

Obviously, killing Saddam like that is a huge political mistake. Instead of letting him grow old and pale in some jailhouse and eventually rot away, they gave him a quick dramatic death, like that of a dangerous prisoner of war, too dangerous to be kept alive.
They even gave him a chance to utter a grand last remark, that people can quote forever after (although american media hasn't manage to properly translate it).

If you view that movie, you see a dirty torture facility, crowded with hecklers. In the centre you see a man who is apparently not frightened, he stands with his back straight and he refuses to put on the hood. Before he dies he chants that islamic stuff which every faithful muslim should say before he dies.
This is just one big pr-stunt. I can't believe how people can sit back and murmur "well that oughta teach 'em something! We suuuure nailed that scumbag now!" Apparently, they don't understand that this was a once in a lifetime opportunity for Saddam and his followers.

Now, I naturally find the whole spectacle extremely disturbing, and I'm disturbed how people can watch this and consider it a good solution.
To quote Riverbend (http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/361"): "After nearly four years and Bush's biggest achievement in Iraq has been a lynching. Bravo Americans"