Messages

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/

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.

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.

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.

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 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 (<-link for Darth Mandarb if Bush is re-re-elected, come  ), 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
RIOTS 2001
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.

grounding 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 

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

Saying you were "outrageously wrong" only means we'll have to wait 3 or 4 months  ..or even more..
Anyway, it'll be worthy 

Just read what you wrote immediatly after saying this:

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.

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.

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

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

And luckily they are entitled to do it.

I 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.

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.

So 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.

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.

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.

I 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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.
Im probably wrong, but I would be hypocrite if I lie about the way I see U.S people.

I'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.

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

Where 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.  sorry.

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.

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.

He 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.

[by USA people]

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Talking 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.

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.

"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

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.

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

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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 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

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

Time to get equal with Saddam Hussein.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

just semantics I reckon.

Just that..
like here

Earlier 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.

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.

Perhaps 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..

[EDIT]

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  , mine are just theories, noone here can talk with facts, unless they fully relay on what CNN shows, or whatever Bush says.

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

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...

Maybe you can take something from this edit, maybe not, I hope you do 
It was done VERY fast, you should think how to make the second leg, and find an alternative colour, or desaturate it..
Maybe you're trying to achieve an electric, or energetic feeling from your graphic, but still doesnt look very nice to me... 

well...I wasnt going to submit it, but here goes anyway...






It looks weird...I think he is sick-

I've a bug report

Spoiler

I have an Ant Nest in my kitchen

[close]

Sorry for the unuseful post, I just had to say WOW!, thats an awesome animation BaRoN, amazing 

At last we have news! cant wait! (AND WHAT NEWS!)