iraq

[kurchatovium]

I think the president is doing a great job and he has earned my trust and more importantly my vote for 2004. Sorry but thats the way I feel.

 

[DutchTickler]

I'll probably be banned again...

for expressing my anti-war belief, but i felt the need to respond to this scary post.
What Hitman is saying is that the war against iraq is justified by 9/11, weater or not Saddam had anything to do with it (his spelling error).
I thought America justified this war by the fact that iraq did not co-operate fully enough with Hans Blix.
Are there many Americans who feel the same as Hitman and claim that America has the right to invade any country they wish, because of 9/11, whether or not they had anything to do with it ?

Sadistictickler you can say you are anoyed with the Bush adminisatration all you want but you dont have to worry about coming under attack for terorist do you. So untill you know what that is like you cant say anything about it. For those in the US this war was broght to our soil on 9/11 and weater or not Saddam had anything to do with it he needs to go now, try watcing the news and you will find out about some of the horible things this guy has done. We cant sit back anymore and let this shit happen, if you recall last time the world sat back and let bad things happen Nazi germany rose to power and killed millions of people, that will not happen agin.

 

[august spies]

lets get some things straight here:

first, the argument that the us government cares anything about democracy and freedom abroad, or that this war has anything to do with freeing the iraqi people is insane. iraqs worst crimes against humanity were done with the full fledged support of the us government, and the greatest purveyor of violence and dictatorship in the world has been the us government. fact.

here that noise??? its that argument going down the toilet.

second, im not going to do this here because its been done a million times over, but people need to examine the buisness connection, both oil, oil infrastructure and the arms industry, to the current administration and look at the true motives.

thirdly, just look at the vast amount of lying the corporate media has done along with the government in their push for war, the horribly forged documents is just one thing.

forthly, for those concerned about terror in the us, this will only increase the likelyhood of terror attacks, even the cia said this.


this is a war of hegemony, plain and simple. and the troops should be supported by stopping the war and sending them home. saddam can be contained, as he was. and we can get to work here and democratically change the foriegn policy and other policies of this government

 

[TKpervert]

this is a war of hegemony, plain and simple.

Damn right it's a war of hegemony, and why shouldn't it be ?

You said ""iraqs worst crimes against humanity were done with the full fledged support of the us government, and the greatest purveyor of violence and dictatorship in the world has been the us government. fact. ""

Hmmmm... ok... cool... makes me rather happy that we don't play by the rules. That means we might actually win, eh what ??

What's wrong with that ?

I agree with 1% of what you said.

I want some links to back up the rest of your claims.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

i think bush is doing a great job!

and as of saturday, so do 78% of americans. 4% had no opinion, and 18% are morons...lol, sorry i couldn't resist.

there is one person to blame for this war. his name is sadam hussain.
steve

 

[Lost_My_Mind]

Just sadam?

Certainly you can't expect to blame JUST Sadam! Yes, he does kill his own people. Yes he does hate america. Yes he has weapons in his lands. But they only have weapons because we were the ones who sold them to iraq! I'm not saying Sadam is a perfect little angel here, far from it. All i'm saying is that there are 2 sides to this war. 2 Sides to the story. Listening to a 1 sided biased story will be full of half truths and a few lies. Bush is no angel himself. I'm going to quote something he said on TV the day before we started the war:

"And please iraqi citizens, do not destroy your oil wells, they are a symbol of your freedom and a chance to come together in peace and happyness with your fellow man!"

Yeah, fellow man like BP and Shell....

In a recent CNN.com poll they asked the question "Do you think Sadam had something to do with 9-11?" 83% said yes. 83%?!!! Thats a little far fetched, when you consider i remember we were supposedly hunting down this guy with a beard, maybe you heard of him. Goes by the name Osama Bin Laden. Whatever happened to our hunt for him? Did bush realise we would never be able to find him, and rather then look bad in the media, decided to pin the blame on another international asshole? Now, if this war were a war against bin laden, OR if they could actually PROOVE that sadam had anything to do with 9-11, i might support it.

Fact is, because of their cultural backgrounds, Osama hates Sadam and vice-versa. Osama also hates Sadam because of a personal grudge. I don't remember specifics about this story, so excuse me if i seem vauge. I heard it once about 1 1/2 year ago.

In the early 90s pre-gulf war, Iraq wanted to overthrow Sadam. So they seeked help. The taliban offered its services, in exchange for power there. Iraq said "we'll just get the USA". This angered the taliban, against both the US and against IRAQ. We all know what happened in gulf war. We really dropped the ball there. But the taliban was left with nothing. So they started minor conflicts in iraq, and TRIED to bomb the WTC in 1993. The iraq conflicts were nothing major. Then they go and bomb the US Embassy in africa. Then they go and slam planes into the WTC. Then they go into hiding. Which brings us up to speed today.

So, as you can see, its doubtfull that Sadam had anything to do with 9-11. Do i think he enjoyed it? Yes. Two reasons. 1) Shitload of americans died. 2) Taliban isn't that big of a group and what little member they had did a suicide bombing.

I think he just sat back and laughed as he saw his enemys kill his enemys without having to lift even a finger.

 

[Oddjob0226]

I'll probably be banned again...

Were you really banned?

 

[Hitman]

I support the war as I have stated in many posts here. This is why I think we should be there. The UN gave Saddam 12 years to get rid of his wepons and he didnt, Saddam has used chemical wepons on his own people and has commited mass genocide. We tried peace and he has not responded. So this is a last resort. I dont want war, I dont like seeing our boys over there getting killed and my prays are with them. You dont have to like this war or the bush adminastration but at least pray for the safe return for our soldiers.

 

[DutchTickler]

I support the war as I have stated in many posts here. This is why I think we should be there. The UN gave Saddam 12 years to get rid of his wepons

That's right, the UN gave Saddam 12 years to get rid of his weapons. But the UN didn't want to attack Iraq. That was the decision of one country only.

 

[Sadistictickler]

Saddam has used chemical wepons on his own people and has commited mass genocide.

With full support of the US, thousands of Kurds were slain in the 1980's. The US GAVE him his chemical weaponry, and guess what? The president who took him off the list of evil dictators (Saddam's name was put on that list by Carter) was a Republican named Reagan. Republican governements are into alot of foul business including the coup of the former Chili dictator Pinochet.

 

[MadKalnod]

Pass the Dutchie on the Left-Hand Side...

Originally posted by DutchTickler
That's right, the UN gave Saddam 12 years to get rid of his weapons. But the UN didn't want to attack Iraq. That was the decision of one country only.

Originally posted by Sadistictickler
With full support of the US, thousands of Kurds were slain in the 1980's. The US GAVE him his chemical weaponry, and guess what? The president who took him off the list of evil dictators (Saddam's name was put on that list by Carter) was a Republican named Reagan. Republican governements are into alot of foul business including the coup of the former Chili dictator Pinochet.

I don't know about everybody else, but I just love being lectured about morality by the Dutch, don't you? I mean, just look at Amsterdam, their Shining City on a Hill (or, in a Vale, as the case may be), with cafes that sell more drugs than drinks and a brothel every other block. Why, one can't even sneeze in Amsterdam without getting three drug addicts and a prostitute wet. Sure, you say, one can find the same situation in New York or Los Angeles, but we foolish Americans are such moral neophytes that we believe such things to be a breakdown in the social order and problems to be solved. No, we should follow the example of the morally superior Dutch, who voted to make their capital a haven of *****s and junkies, who actually wanted it that way.

Indeed, it is only the superhuman moral sense of the Dutch which can explain how 17 Unanimous U.N. Security Council Resolutions insisting quite clearly that Iraq disarm or face serious consequences are rendered null and void by the refusal of France, Germany and Russia to sign an 18th one finally enforcing the promised penalties. Here I was thinking that the U.N. had abandoned its responsibilities by doing nothing while Saddam used those 17 resolutions as toilet paper; but the Dutch have helped me see that it is we Americans who have dangerously abandoned the U.N. by acting as if those previous resolutions actually meant something; and that we are doing this "alone" even though we have 40+ other countries supporting us, who, if I'm not mistaken, are members of the U.N. themselves.

Only the Dutch moral giants can explain why Jacques Chirac, actually called "Jacques Iraq" by the French press for his long and documented history of personal business dealings with Saddam Hussein, is a paragon of selfless nobility for protecting the Baathist regime while only the vaguest and most insubstantial allegations of "George Bush's oil buddies" are grounds for declaring that the Coalition forces enter Iraq flying the Jolly Roger as they liberate Umm Qasr and Basra.

It is the Dutch who see far more clearly than we pitiful Americans that our failings in the past forbid us from taking the correct action now; that because we helped to set up Saddam we cannot change our minds and depose him; that it is more important to be consistently wrong than inconsistently right because hypocrisy is clearly a more serious crime than any actual crimes comitted by Hussein's professional rapists and murderers. I don't quite see how stopping a tyrant is as equally immoral as supporting him, but I'm glad the Dutch can explain it to us.

The Dutch understand far better than we the enlightened morality of allowing a mentally unstable dictator with known ties to terrorism ($25,000 per suicide bombing paid to the Palestinians, the Salman Paq {spelling?} facility south of Baghdad where terrorists trained to hijack jetliners, Mohammed Atta meeting with Iraqi Intelligence in Czechoslovakia prior to 9/11, the late Abu Nidal's swanky Baghdad bachelor pad, members of Al Qaeda the PLO identified among the bodies of Iraqi troops, etc...) to continue developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Heck, we Americans are so stupid that we can't even understand how trying to prevent another 9/11-level atrocity by getting rid of a tyrant eager to supply WMDs to suicidal terrorists makes us a bigger threat to global stability than the terrorists and tyrants themselves. We're so lucky the Dutch are there to set us straight.

But, what do I know? I'm only a morally inferior and culturally ignorant American. I see with my own eyes the footage of missiles hitting Saddam's palaces/torture mills in Baghdad, reducing them to craters, while the apartment blocks on either side are still standing unscathed with their lights on and phone service intact, and I'm too stupid to recognize that as the wanton indiscriminate slaughter of Iraqi women and children that those enlightened Dutchmen know it to be. I'm just blinded by the obvious evidence, or "propaganda" as the superlatively enlightened Dutch would say.

In fact, here's a conundrum that only those master moralists in Amsterdam can explain over their hashish bricks: If the Coalition troops (some of whom are members of this very Forum, you know) are all such rabid bloodthirsty lunatics, eager to exterminate every Iraqi they see, then why oh why does every tactic taken by the Republican Guard and Fedayeen Saddam brigades hinge upon the assumption that we will expose our troops to severe risk if it means avoiding harm to civilians? They disguise themselves as civilians, they use them as human shields, they fake surrenders, they hide military equipment in hospitals, they threaten conscripts with watching their captive wives and children raped to death if they even think about surrender, and the list goes on and on. Why would they do such things if they didn't believe we were serious about protecting the innocent Iraqi civilians? Why would such tactics be working to the extent that they are if we were cold-blooded monsters? According to the last statistics I read before the weekend, all but three of our direct-combat casualties were incurred under such circumstances. We have luckily suffered very few casualties, but those we have seem to be because Saddam's forces are taking brutal advantage of our stated intent of not harming innocent Iraqi bystanders. How can that be if we're indiscriminately blood-crazed warmongers, there to kill all the women and children specifically in order to depopulate the country so that Bush can steal the oil for himself and his Freemason masters unopposed? Could it be that we actually mean what we say about protecting the Iraqi people after all? Of course not, say the Dutch, that's all propaganda, and we are fools and hypocrites for believing it.

It's so great that we have the Dutch around. Who else could explain to us why 15 deaths from a missile that accidentally hit a Baghdad market require more global moral outrage and stern finger-wagging from Kofi Anan than the tens of thousands of intentional murders, rapes, and tortures commited by that missile's intended targets over the past two decades?

Because the Dutch farmlands feed the world, don't they? The Dutch clothe the world, don't they? Dutch money goes to help the impoverished nations of the Third World more than American money does, right? When there is a disaster, the world looks to the Dutch to fix it, not America, right? The Dutch manufacture the aircraft used by airlines the world over, and Dutch technology has safely sent men to the moon and back many times. Dutch culture is in high demand across the world, and American songs and stories and talents are rejected or unknown outside our own benighted borders. Any evidence to the contrary is falsified propaganda put out by the evil Bush and his administration, who are somehow capable of putting together such a pervasive conspiracy despite being utter imbeciles.

Of course the Dutch advise America to do nothing in the face of a threat. They've had so much practice, after all.

 

[shark]

just a few more points:

In northern iraq,a base of Al Ansar terrorists was found.Experts have stated that there is NO way Hussein would not have known about them being there.This will prove the connection to international terrorists.

Testimony and reports have shown that Tim McVeigh had been in contact with Iraqi intelligence officials,as well as an Iraqi plant masquerading as an asylum seeker(Hussein al Husseini,john doe #2).Terrorist acts involving Iraq go back as far as Oklahoma City.

It still looks like many people need reminders of history as well.The US does not sell scuds,AK47s or their variants,nor any of Iraq's current armor or aircraft,so you know where to stick the "you built them" theory.

The US the biggest purveyor of violence in the world?Fact? Just more communist propaganda,much like the peace marches,which are largely organized and financed by international communist groups.Show where the US purveyed this violence:

37 million in the USSR
66 million in China
However many victims of torture,murder,rape,etc.throughout the world.
Show the numbers.

One more point for the dummies who think this war will be the sole reason for any future terrorist attacks in the US: Osama stated in the post-9/11 tape that "socialists are also unbelievers"(sic).To him,and to many of the terrorists and their supporters and sympathizers,this is an international war based on wahabbist Islam and only uses politics as a front,or excuse,as it is convenient.The US is just the biggest target,and the first.

Lastly,this bull about who backed who ignores reality.Political relations change for whatever reasons,and adjustments have to be made.
Only a true fool will sit back and let himself,or herself,be bombed,shot,etc., because "we sold him the stuff".

Wake up.

 

[Sadistictickler]

In northern iraq,a base of Al Ansar terrorists was found.Experts have stated that there is NO way Hussein would not have known about them being there.This will prove the connection to international terrorists.

Yes, and that's autonome Kurdic teritory, Saddam hasn't got anything to do in the region anymore

Testimony and reports have shown that Tim McVeigh had been in contact with Iraqi intelligence officials,as well as an Iraqi plant masquerading as an asylum seeker(Hussein al Husseini,john doe #2).Terrorist acts involving Iraq go back as far as Oklahoma City.

So, you're saying Saddam planned the Oklahoma bombing? I'd like to see your information source because I have a very hard time believing that; I never knew the American anti-governement movement was linked to Saddam... 🙄

It still looks like many people need reminders of history as well.The US does not sell scuds,AK47s or their variants,nor any of Iraq's current armor or aircraft,so you know where to stick the "you built them" theory.

And well, how do you think then Saddam got his extensive knowledge to produce quality Anthrax? There are just 3 countries that can produce good anthrax: the US, Russia and thanks tho the US: IRAQ...

The US the biggest purveyor of violence in the world?Fact? Just more communist propaganda,much like the peace marches,which are largely organized and financed by international communist groups.Show where the US purveyed this violence:

37 million in the USSR
66 million in China
However many victims of torture,murder,rape,etc.throughout the world.
Show the numbers.

I think you could consider the innocent Vietnamese and Cambodian civillians that have died during the Vietnam war, the Iraqi's that have died due to trade embargo, and the casualties, both Palestinian and Israelian that have been caused due to American policy towards Israel

One more point for the dummies who think this war will be the sole reason for any future terrorist attacks in the US: Osama stated in the post-9/11 tape that "socialists are also unbelievers"(sic).To him,and to many of the terrorists and their supporters and sympathizers,this is an international war based on wahabbist Islam and only uses politics as a front,or excuse,as it is convenient.The US is just the biggest target,and the first.

Ever thought of the fact that this latest act of agression of the US towards the Arab world makes a whole lot more muslims, of which there are about 1 bilion, really pissed off. And it requires just 4 or 5 guys to commit attacks as 9/11

 

[Sadistictickler]

Re: Pass the Dutchie on the Left-Hand Side...

I don't know about everybody else, but I just love being lectured about morality by the Dutch, don't you? I mean, just look at Amsterdam, their Shining City on a Hill (or, in a Vale, as the case may be), with cafes that sell more drugs than drinks and a brothel every other block. Why, one can't even sneeze in Amsterdam without getting three drug addicts and a prostitute wet. Sure, you say, one can find the same situation in New York or Los Angeles, but we foolish Americans are such moral neophytes that we believe such things to be a breakdown in the social order and problems to be solved. No, we should follow the example of the morally superior Dutch, who voted to make their capital a haven of *****s and junkies, who actually wanted it that way.

If I hadn't been Dutch, alot of your blabla would had been irrelevant. What the **** does it matter that we have legal prostitution and legal softdrugs? I suppose you haven't thought of the fact that with those issues legal, the governement can control the matter; if a prostitute can work legally she doesn't need a pimp or whatever, or an illegal brothel. It's way better than just saying
"illegal!"; for that's ignoring the problem instead of solving it.

Indeed, it is only the superhuman moral sense of the Dutch which can explain how 17 Unanimous U.N. Security Council Resolutions insisting quite clearly that Iraq disarm or face serious consequences are rendered null and void by the refusal of France, Germany and Russia to sign an 18th one finally enforcing the promised penalties. Here I was thinking that the U.N. had abandoned its responsibilities by doing nothing while Saddam used those 17 resolutions as toilet paper; but the Dutch have helped me see that it is we Americans who have dangerously abandoned the U.N. by acting as if those previous resolutions actually meant something; and that we are doing this "alone" even though we have 40+ other countries supporting us, who, if I'm not mistaken, are members of the U.N. themselves.
Only the Dutch moral giants can explain why Jacques Chirac, actually called "Jacques Iraq" by the French press for his long and documented history of personal business dealings with Saddam Hussein, is a paragon of selfless nobility for protecting the Baathist regime while only the vaguest and most insubstantial allegations of "George Bush's oil buddies" are grounds for declaring that the Coalition forces enter Iraq flying the Jolly Roger as they liberate Umm Qasr and Basra.

you forget, the "serious consequences" were never listed, and as such, the US would need a mandate to attack, which they haven't. Furthermore, I don't know where you have read that Chiraq would have personal business with Saddam. You are correct if you say Russia's and France's anti-war statement is a bit hypocrite, for both French and Russian oil companies have interest in Iraq. Yet, that doesn't still mean their anti-war veto is injustified; for a very large part of the French population is against the war, thus Chiraq has done correctly as a democratic ruler. And the fact that you've got 40+ countries with you doesn't mean you're right. If I want to shoot Bush, I am sure about 1 billion people will say it's alright, but does that make it right? And besides that, China AND the entire muslim world is against the war, and that's 2/3rd of the entire world population being completely ignored by the US... I'd call that an amount of arrogance about the size of Jupiter...

It is the Dutch who see far more clearly than we pitiful Americans that our failings in the past forbid us from taking the correct action now; that because we helped to set up Saddam we cannot change our minds and depose him; that it is more important to be consistently wrong than inconsistently right because hypocrisy is clearly a more serious crime than any actual crimes comitted by Hussein's professional rapists and murderers. I don't quite see how stopping a tyrant is as equally immoral as supporting him, but I'm glad the Dutch can explain it to us.

Let's state it the other way: the only time when the US takes "noble" action is when it involves US interests. In the first Gulf War, the US acted the way they did because Kuwait is filled to the brim with oil, vital for the US industries. If Kuwait was just a big load of sand without any oil under the ground, the US would had said something like "oh well, that's their problem". If that had been the case, the US governement would had probably let Saddam slaughter 90% of the Kuwaity population. And where were the US when Iraq had attacked Iran with chemical weapons? They just didn't care, in fact, they supported Iraq just to make sure the radical islam-revolution would not spread to other middle-east countries.

The Dutch understand far better than we the enlightened morality of allowing a mentally unstable dictator with known ties to terrorism ($25,000 per suicide bombing paid to the Palestinians

Now there's a big difference between your view and mine. I don't see those Palestinians as terrorist. I see them as desperate people, left without hope because of a 60 year during occupation. (Israel doesn't comply to the international rules of how an occupying country should treat those who have been occupied) Do you know desperate you have to be to strap a shitload of dynamite to your waste and blow yourself up with that? Maybe you should ask someone who tried to commit suicide...

the Salman Paq {spelling?} facility south of Baghdad where terrorists trained to hijack jetliners, Mohammed Atta meeting with Iraqi Intelligence in Czechoslovakia prior to 9/11, the late Abu Nidal's swanky Baghdad bachelor pad, members of Al Qaeda the PLO identified among the bodies of Iraqi troops, etc...) to continue developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Heck, we Americans are so stupid that we can't even understand how trying to prevent another 9/11-level atrocity by getting rid of a tyrant eager to supply WMDs to suicidal terrorists makes us a bigger threat to global stability than the terrorists and tyrants themselves. We're so lucky the Dutch are there to set us straight.

Tell me, where did you get that info? It's quite odd, but I have never seen that eventhough I daily spend some 6 to 8 hours on the internet...

But, what do I know? I'm only a morally inferior and culturally ignorant American. I see with my own eyes the footage of missiles hitting Saddam's palaces/torture mills in Baghdad, reducing them to craters, while the apartment blocks on either side are still standing unscathed with their lights on and phone service intact,

You forget about the missiles that go wrong, like hitting a market and the appartment blocks. By the way, ever heard of modern water-plants? They work on electricity. Guess what? An entire city is cut off water supplies when one of your super bunker-busters blasts away the powerplant.

In fact, here's a conundrum that only those master moralists in Amsterdam can explain over their hashish bricks: If the Coalition troops (some of whom are members of this very Forum, you know) are all such rabid bloodthirsty lunatics, eager to exterminate every Iraqi they see, then why oh why does every tactic taken by the Republican Guard and Fedayeen Saddam brigades hinge upon the assumption that we will expose our troops to severe risk if it means avoiding harm to civilians? They disguise themselves as civilians, they use them as human shields, they fake surrenders, they hide military equipment in hospitals, they threaten conscripts with watching their captive wives and children raped to death if they even think about surrender, and the list goes on and on. Why would they do such things if they didn't believe we were serious about protecting the innocent Iraqi civilians? Why would such tactics be working to the extent that they are if we were cold-blooded monsters? According to the last statistics I read before the weekend, all but three of our direct-combat casualties were incurred under such circumstances. We have luckily suffered very few casualties, but those we have seem to be because Saddam's forces are taking brutal advantage of our stated intent of not harming innocent Iraqi bystanders. How can that be if we're indiscriminately blood-crazed warmongers, there to kill all the women and children specifically in order to depopulate the country so that Bush can steal the oil for himself and his Freemason masters unopposed? Could it be that we actually mean what we say about protecting the Iraqi people after all? Of course not, say the Dutch, that's all propaganda, and we are fools and hypocrites for believing it.

Please, tell me, where have I said that Saddam's regime was good natured and caring for it's citizens? You forget however, Iraq is not the only regime acting foul towards it's citizens, while the US doesn't even bother...

It's so great that we have the Dutch around. Who else could explain to us why 15 deaths from a missile that accidentally hit a Baghdad market require more global moral outrage and stern finger-wagging from Kofi Anan than the tens of thousands of intentional murders, rapes, and tortures commited by that missile's intended targets over the past two decades?

Did the people that died choose for the regime, or this war? No. They wouldn't had died if the US wouldn't had gone to war.

Because the Dutch farmlands feed the world, don't they? The Dutch clothe the world, don't they? Dutch money goes to help the impoverished nations of the Third World more than American money does, right? When there is a disaster, the world looks to the Dutch to fix it, not America, right? The Dutch manufacture the aircraft used by airlines the world over, and Dutch technology has safely sent men to the moon and back many times. Dutch culture is in high demand across the world, and American songs and stories and talents are rejected or unknown outside our own benighted borders. Any evidence to the contrary is falsified propaganda put out by the evil Bush and his administration, who are somehow capable of putting together such a pervasive conspiracy despite being utter imbeciles.

Of course the Dutch advise America to do nothing in the face of a threat. They've had so much practice, after all.

1. Does that have ANYTHING to do with Iraq?
2. Some of the things you state are true, however:
Holland devotes a larger percentage of it's GPD to Third World countries.
If it were so wonderful, WHY would the US help dictators like Pinochet and Saddam?
The US are reluctant to feed those who need it the most: the starving people of Africa
US pharmaceutical corporations refuse to make AIDS-medicine affordable for people suffering from the AIDS-epedemic in Africa.

So please, don't tell me how "great" the US is because 99% of their "nobleness" is hypocrisy

 

[Hitman]

You know what Sadistictickler im really getting tired of all of you US bashing, You say your not a Anti-American that is a bunch of bullshit all you do is rag on America like we are the cause of all of the worlds problems. Yes we have made mistakes in the past, no one is perfect sorry we could not live up to your high Dutch standerds. Just remember if there was not America there would be no free world where you could express your Anit-American bullshit.

 

[goddess_nemesis]

To theallknowing1

Of course it's not an excuse. But can you do better than what Bush is doing now? I don't think so!
Another thing, why don't you have any trust or any confidence in him? What has he done to prevent it?
Nobody's perfect. If they were, then we wouldn't be in this mess!

Luv & God Bless,
Nik

 

[MadKalnod]

Re: Re: Pass the Dutchie on the Left-Hand Side...

If I hadn't been Dutch, alot of your blabla would had been irrelevant. What the **** does it matter that we have legal prostitution and legal softdrugs? I suppose you haven't thought of the fact that with those issues legal, the governement can control the matter; if a prostitute can work legally she doesn't need a pimp or whatever, or an illegal brothel. It's way better than just saying
"illegal!"; for that's ignoring the problem instead of solving it.

You're so right. Since enforcing laws against drugs and prostitution is so difficult, we should emulate the Dutch and simply not have the laws to enforce. What a brilliant solution to simply lower our standards rather than attempt to cure the social ill. More crimes should be legal, then people wouldn't break the law; what genius that is in its simplicity. Heck, why have laws against theft and murder while we're at it? It's in people's nature to steal and kill, like the need to have sex and get high, and it's the responsibility of Government to provide us with safe outlets for such primitive animal urges.

The Dutch have decided that the best way to solve a problem is to simply declare that it is no longer a problem. That's not ignoring it at all, no sir. And, the fact that the Dutch are proud of their position that the best way to manage certain crimes is to declare that they are no longer illegal has absolutely no connection to their pride in maintaining that the best way to deal with the threat of Middle Eastern tyranny and terrorism is to simply declare that they are not really threats. So you're right, that's not relevant at all.

you forget, the "serious consequences" were never listed, and as such, the US would need a mandate to attack, which they haven't.

I guess I'm just an inferior American for remembering that the terms of the truce (not peace treaty but truce) in the first Gulf War were contingent upon Hussein's disarmament within 45 days of signing, and that the subsequent 16 Resolutions over the next 12 years were demands that he adhere to the terms of that first cease-fire agreement. I would think that if Saddam was told that the war will resume if he doesn't meet a specific condition in forty-five days, he can be forgiven for forgetting about it after 12 years of ignoring it and 16 other reminders. I must be a fool to think that this is the long-delayed Second Half of Gulf War I resuming after an extended intermission.

I must also be a fool for thinking that the September 2001 resolution passed by the U.S. Congress granting the President the authority to pursue terrorists and the regimes that harbor them as he sees fit, and the November 2002 resolution by Congress authorizing the use of military force in Iraq are more than meaningless pieces of paper. Clearly, they are but leaves borne on the wind if the U.N. does not approve them. Indeed, why should we Americans let our country be governed by the officials we ourselves elected, and not simply hand over all sovereignty to the bureaucrats of the European Union, over whose appointment we have no say whatsoever? They know what's best for us so much better than we poor ignorant savages who just live here.

Furthermore, I don't know where you have read that Chiraq would have personal business with Saddam.

Oh, I don't know. Just newspapers, TV and radio reports, magazine articles, that sort of undocumented hearsay. I should have taken more copious notes, but I recall The Weekly Standard and National Review magazines covering it fairly extensively. Of course, they're just house organs of the administration's propaganda machine and contain naught but lies and falsehoods by the dufflebag. Not like the enlightened, refined and unbiased European media, not a bit.

You are correct if you say Russia's and France's anti-war statement is a bit hypocrite, for both French and Russian oil companies have interest in Iraq. Yet, that doesn't still mean their anti-war veto is injustified; for a very large part of the French population is against the war, thus Chiraq has done correctly as a democratic ruler. And the fact that you've got 40+ countries with you doesn't mean you're right. If I want to shoot Bush, I am sure about 1 billion people will say it's alright, but does that make it right? And besides that, China AND the entire muslim world is against the war, and that's 2/3rd of the entire world population being completely ignored by the US... I'd call that an amount of arrogance about the size of Jupiter....

Let's state it the other way: the only time when the US takes "noble" action is when it involves US interests. In the first Gulf War, the US acted the way they did because Kuwait is filled to the brim with oil, vital for the US industries. If Kuwait was just a big load of sand without any oil under the ground, the US would had said something like "oh well, that's their problem". If that had been the case, the US governement would had probably let Saddam slaughter 90% of the Kuwaity population. And where were the US when Iraq had attacked Iran with chemical weapons? They just didn't care, in fact, they supported Iraq just to make sure the radical islam-revolution would not spread to other middle-east countries.

Wow. I need to take a few moments to wrap my poor addled Yankee head around those two paragraphs. Let me see if I've got the key points of Sadistictickler's argument surrounded:

The majority of the French people oppose war with Iraq, so Chirac is being a good democratic leader by doing as they ask. However, since every poll I've read indicates that no less than 70-80% of the American population favor war in Iraq, Bush is somehow arrogantly ignoring democracy by doing as they ask.

I cannot use the fact that there are 40+ countries supporting the U.S. decision to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime with force as justification, because strength in numbers does not grant legitimacy. However, Sadistictickler is free to use the fact that 1 billion Muslims and 1 billion Chinese oppose military interevention in Iraq as justification, because strength in numbers grants legitimacy.

France and Russia stand to gain no small economic benefit by avoiding war with Iraq, and the moral correctness of their decision to veto war is not negated by the fact that they have a significant interest in maintaining the status quo. However, America is acting to prevent future Islamofacsist atrocities upon the civilized world, as well as its own citizens, by dethroning one of the worst despots and terrorist backers in the area, but the moral correctness of its decision to end a brutal regime is completely negated by the possibility of potential economic stability.

Again, Wow. It's just a measure of how much more advanced the Dutch are than me, because it sure looks like he's contradicting himself every other sentence there, doesn't it? We are in the presence of a true Master here, not just of morality but of logic as well! And, since I thought that 1 billion Muslims + 1 billion Chinese = 1/3 of the Earth's 6 billion population rather than 2/3 (not that strength in numbers counts...), I guess that just goes to show how far ahead of us poor Yanks the Dutch are in basic mathematics as well...

Now there's a big difference between your view and mine. I don't see those Palestinians as terrorist. I see them as desperate people, left without hope because of a 60 year during occupation. (Israel doesn't comply to the international rules of how an occupying country should treat those who have been occupied) Do you know desperate you have to be to strap a shitload of dynamite to your waste and blow yourself up with that? Maybe you should ask someone who tried to commit suicide...

I don't need to ask anyone else. I have tried to commit suicide myself, and I guess I was mistaken to believe that no matter how awful my life was, it was far better to work for improving it rather than end it with a melodramatic gesture. I guess the enlightened and noble European thing to do would have been to ram my abusive father with a jacket full of TNT instead of working out our differences without bloodshed.

Indeed, here's another fine example of superior Dutch logic and morality on display for our edification: Israel does not obey international rules, and so the Palestinians are perfectly justified in treating innocent Jewish women and children as targets of preference for random, indiscriminate slaughter. However, Iraq does not obey international rules, and America has no business in targeting the murderous agents of that regime and its agents only with the most precisely focused military action ever seen on this planet. And of course, the fact that the Israelis have half a billion Muslims salivating over their extinction, and working ceaselessly toward that end, compares in no way to the deplorable suffering of the Palestinians, in their U.N.-administered welfare state, where they are actually expected to stay on their side of the fence if they can't stop murdering busloads of Jewish students every day. They shouldn't be expected to try the peaceful methods of negotiation that we are urged to adopt.

(A note for those of you playing along at home: This is the part where Sadistictickler will berate me for my ignorance about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, spending large tracts of his response to do so, possibly even accusing me of racist motives for my position, but at no point actually refuting any of the points I've made here. It would be gauche and simplisticly American to do so, don't you know? Special bonus points to anyone who can justify a way for him to call me a Nazi and a Zionist Dupe in the same post!)

Tell me, where did you get that info? It's quite odd, but I have never seen that eventhough I daily spend some 6 to 8 hours on the internet...

Well, porn sites don't normally carry much in the way of news and current events.

Again, I'd refer you to the Weekly Standard and National Review as I did above, but you know they, or any other print/broadcast media source for that matter, cannot be trusted for reliability and fact checking. Indeed, everything written on the Internet, where any froth-mouth with an ideological axe to grind can put together a web page claiming "proof" that Bush and the British royal family are really shape-shifting reptillian aliens masterminding a millennia-old conspiracy to rule the world so they can eat all our brains, is the absolute last authority on accuracy; and every word there is Divine Truth straight from the lips of the Almighty Himself.

You forget about the missiles that go wrong, like hitting a market and the appartment blocks. By the way, ever heard of modern water-plants? They work on electricity. Guess what? An entire city is cut off water supplies when one of your super bunker-busters blasts away the powerplant.

Yes, that one missile that went astray just totally invalidates the tens of thousands that hit within 1 to 3 feet of their legitimate military targets as planned, doesn't it?

Here, the Dutchman displays his superior grasp of science and technology as well. As a pitifully limited American, I would have thought that the lights I see still on all over Baghdad are a sign that power plants have not been harmed. Silly me. It is a testament to superior Dutch powers of sight that he can intuit lights everywhere as a clear sign that power has been cut and water along with it. Indeed, he knows that even though the one place where loss of water has been reported, in Basrah, it happened not because Baath Party Loyalists sabotaged the pumps to punish the citizens for welcoming Coalition forces, but rather because it was hit by one of our bombs fired at Baghdad almost halfway across the country. You're too smart for me!

Please, tell me, where have I said that Saddam's regime was good natured and caring for it's citizens? You forget however, Iraq is not the only regime acting foul towards it's citizens, while the US doesn't even bother.....

True, you haven't said anything like that. Indeed, you've devoted so much of your discourse to pointing out how wrong and shameful America is that you've barely mentioned Iraq at all. I mention such things only to make you aware of them, but of course you know so much more about it than we American bumpkins, don't you?

And as for those other regimes that act foul towards their citizens, you would gladly endorse military action by the United States against them, wouldn't you? You wouldn't offer the slightest protest or opposition if we went in to clean out the dictatorships in North Korea or Saudi Arabia or Cuba or China, would you?

But you're right, we wouldn't even consider trying to avert genocide in places like, oh, I don't know, Bosnia... Somalia... Haiti... East Timor... That was you uber-selfless Euros all the way in those places, not us, right?

Did the people that died choose for the regime, or this war? No. They wouldn't had died if the US wouldn't had gone to war.

Why, you're absolutely right. If we did nothing, then the tens of thousands of Iraqis (who also do not get to choose their government) who would continue to be raped and tortured and murdered at the hands of Saddam's Baath Party gangsters, and those millions worldwide who would be massacred by nuclear/chemical/biological terrorist attacks supplied by Husseins WMD programs, could all die with a smile on their lips, knowing that they sacrificed themselves so fifteen people in a Baghdad market would not have been killed by accident.

1. Does that have ANYTHING to do with Iraq?

Why, it's a litany of the noble accomplishments of the Dutch people, a catalogue of all you, and indeed all of Europe, have done to earn the right to have a bigger say in how the world works than America. We poor Yanks haven't done anything to match, let alone surpass, the grandiose achievements of the Dutch; so clearly we should sit at your feet in the Hague and treasure the droplets of wisdom on being the last remaining Superpower, nay Hyperpower, with which you so generously and magnanimously condescend to grace us.

2. Some of the things you state are true, however:
Holland devotes a larger percentage of it's GPD to Third World countries.

Ah, yes, there's that superior Dutch math on display again. 50% of an 8-ounce glass just absolutely dwarfs 25% of a 55-gallon drum into insignificance, doesn't it?

If it were so wonderful, WHY would the US help dictators like Pinochet and Saddam?

Gee, what about that "National Self-Interest" thing that you're willing to let the French and Russians invoke like diplomatic immunity? We thought that Communist insurgents and Islamic revolutionaries were bigger threats at the time, so we shook Pinochet and Saddam up and pointed them at the people we didn't like. A deplorable move? Of course. Even more deplorable to stop supporting them and actively oppose them later? Apparently so by your superior Dutch moral standards.

The US are reluctant to feed those who need it the most: the starving people of Africa
US pharmaceutical corporations refuse to make AIDS-medicine affordable for people suffering from the AIDS-epedemic in Africa.

We do send food to Africa. Invariably, it either rots in the warehouses of the thugs who run those countries and intentionally starve their populations in order to keep them too weak to revolt; or the starving masses refuse to eat it, on the grounds that it's been Genetically Modified for the express purpose of alleviating their hunger and they won't trust it.

As for the AIDS drugs, I confess to not knowing much about your superior Dutch Socialist Economics, but perhaps you might explain a way in which the pharmaceutical companies can spend enormous sums on materials and research for years, then receive no compensation for their great effort because the AIDS drugs must be given away freely, and not implode in bankruptcy when it is demanded that they repeat the process. People shouldn't go into business and think about making any money, let alone profit, because they must live their lives for the good of the state and the masses, right?

But hey, the Dutch colonized South Africa, invented Apartheid, and made a killing in South African diamond mines without anybody calling them on it, so what the hell do I know about compassionate foreign policy in Africa?

So please, don't tell me how "great" the US is because 99% of their "nobleness" is hypocrisy

You're so right. America is a useless blemish upon the Earth like a geopolitical appendix; and the Earth would just spin off its axis into the sun if something catastrophic happened to Holland.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

let's all get on the same page.

in case some of you have missed the daily breifings out of centcom, it is the stated position of the coalition, that it was an iraqi groung to air missle that hit that market place. all tlams have been accounted for. so get it right, it wasn't the u.s.!
let's also not forget the testimony of surendered iraqi leaders, that al-qeada has cells working in co-operation with the iraqi government in the cities of bahgdad, and bashra. the terrorist group in the north was an off shoot of al-qeada, and under the protection of sadam, that's why the kurds had to put up with it's existance!
well that's it for now, others here are doing a fine job of defending the u.s., and this just war!
steve

 

[Haltickling]

Mad Kalnod

MK, should you ever want to know why such big parts of the world resent the bigotry and hypocrisy America (especially under the Bush administration) stands for, read your own posts. There's the reason. But I seriously doubt you want to know this.

Dutch, it's useless to argue against some people. You won't change their mind anyway. I've given up my hopes and goodwill for them long ago.

 

[MadKalnod]

Re: Mad Kalnod

MK, should you ever want to know why such big parts of the world resent the bigotry and hypocrisy America (especially under the Bush administration) stands for, read your own posts. There's the reason. But I seriously doubt you want to know this.

DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!

Yes folks, Hal has just dismissed me as an offensive, bigoted hypocrite and withdrawn from the field, a clearly superior strategy to refuting my points or trying to enlighten me.

Should you ever want to know, Hal, why America regards Old Europe as a bunch of jealous, spiteful, bitter has-beens who would rather sit and criticise we upstart youngsters across the pond for our successes than help us solve the problem that threatens us both, read your own posts.

But seriously, Hal, I do want to know that. Because, you see, there was a time when I first joined the TMF that I looked up to you as one of the Smart Cookies around this board, and your opinion mattered to me. Thank you so much for revealing to me that my admiration was sadly misplaced.

I've given up my hopes and goodwill for them long ago.

Good to know you think so highly of me, Hal. Good to know.

 

[Sadistictickler]

Madkalnod, just ONE little thing about a proper discussion:

Personal arguments are not considered to be discussing. If I say: "your opinion doesn't matter because you're just one of them dumb yankeeboys", I'm not discussing a matter. That's one of the most fundemental rules of discussion. You just do it all the time, for you're practically saying "Dutch people should shut up because they're just plain dumb"

which ofcourse, is crap, yet, you fail to recognise that. that's what Haltickling is pointing out

 

[Sadistictickler]

Re: Mad Kalnod

Dutch, it's useless to argue against some people. You won't change their mind anyway. I've given up my hopes and goodwill for them long ago.

Yeah, I think I'll do that because we clearly have a winner when it comes to dogmatics... 🙄

 

[Hitman]

Well dont you know MadKalnod because we are American that automaticlly makes us hypocrites. We love and support our troops in the Gulf that makes us bad people. Lets think, all of you who are from other countrys dont like the US but if by any chance you come under a major attack you come running to the US for help, so who are the hypocrites here. Interesting

 

[MadKalnod]

Madkalnod, just ONE little thing about a proper discussion:

Personal arguments are not considered to be discussing. If I say: "your opinion doesn't matter because you're just one of them dumb yankeeboys", I'm not discussing a matter. That's one of the most fundemental rules of discussion. You just do it all the time, for you're practically saying "Dutch people should shut up because they're just plain dumb"

You're right, Sadistic. Every place in my previous posts where I impugned the morality, intelligence, and usefulness of the Dutch people as a whole should have simply mocked and belittled you specifically. It seems a little nastier to me, but if that's the way you would prefer it...

Of course, you are free to repeat at length, in a tone which implies that your being European automatically makes you more sophisticated morally than non-Europeans, that America is the most evil nation the world has ever seen and that I, or indeed any other citizen of the U.S., am a hypocrite and a villain and a fool for defending it from your accusations. It simply isn't fair for me to return the favor and question the perfect, utopian status of your homeland. Your obvious indignation at such tactics should in no way be interpreted by you as a hint that I or my countrymen might actually harbor similar emotions in reaction to your ceaseless maligning of our nation as we go about the grim but necessary task of preserving our collective security. As an American, I have far less right to be offended by the tsunami of Anti-U.S. rhetoric from you and your fellow Europeans, which drenches us daily, than you have to take umbrage at my leaky faucet of mockery towards the Netherlands. You are under no obligation to learn from this experience about how others might feel because of your statements, after having been on the sharp end of such behavior yourself for a change.

Further, all I have written previously was based upon what I perceive to be your "America always wrong/Europe always better" viewpoint, admittedly exaggerated to an absurd extreme for comedic purposes, for that is my style, but it's still your Euro-centric attitude that all my jibes hinge upon. Don't blame the mirror, even a funhouse mirror, if your reflection isn't as handsome as you thought it was.

And you are indubitably correct that this has not been a proper discussion, for that requires that both parties be at least prepared to entertain the concept, even as an abstraction, that the other might be right. However, as a warmongering chicken-hawk blood-for-oil Yankee, I am automatically wrong no matter what I say. I have gladly read your post in reply to mine, thought at length about the points you made, and then posted detailed reasons as to why I found them lacking intellectual weight. You and Hal have chosen not to respond in kind, but rather to dismiss the manner in which I presented my argument as unfair without actually disproving my position. A lesser man than I might consider this a sign that you have no response which proves your case; that you know you cannot compete with what I say, so you bang your spoon on your high-chair about the way I say it; and that criticism of style is the last resort of those who know they have been defeated on issues of substance. Indeed, a far lesser man than I would take some small measure of perverse pride and no small measure of schadenfreude at your outrage, believing that the first man to lose his temper has already lost the argument.

I shall do neither of those things, however. I shall merely take comfort in my faith that history, and a radically improved Middle East free of autocratic despots and theocratic insurgents in the decades to come, will look back upon the first years of the 21st Century and affirm that the United States and her allies were completely justified in taking their current course of action; and that the so-called "noble protest" of France, Germany, and the rest will be regarded with even less respect than Ireland's reluctance to assist the Allies in WW1 & WW2 if it meant supporting Britain.

 

[shark]

Some of the post I was going to give has been addressed already,so this won't take long.

Where did I say that Hussein planned the Oklahoma City bombing? I said there was Iraqi involvement,and some believe in 1993's WTC too.
For addresses on this,try searches on:

this site

Jayna Davis
David Schippers

www. foxnews.com
www. warroom.com

look for Murrah Building or Oklahoma city

By the way,the so-called anti-government movement had nothing to do with Oklahoma city.This was proven 6 YEARS AGO. Jayna Davis was investigating this incident for the last 7 YEARS.You might first try to use somewhat current information for your ideas.

As far as Vietnam and Cambodia,there was already fighting in progress,
alot of it long before and after US involvement.I left out Pol Pot,so you can add another estimated 3 million.Just for the record, though, this paragraph,and its partner in my last post,were more directed to august's post.Since you decided to reply,that's fine.

The Muslims are pissed off all the time about something the west does.
I'll again refer to Osama's last tape,in which he stated that socialists are unbelievers,too.Most of this is religious in nature,and
the Arabs, who are so inclined, will do as they please, whenever they can and declare themselves holy warriors in the process.Until you start praying to Allah and reading the Koran,these types will never be satisfied.

As for our policy towards Israel,Arabs don't dictate our allies for us.They might dictate yours,however.I'm just curious as to how much of this US-Israel concern is anti-US and/or anti-semitic in nature. After all,the US didn't settle the Jews there,the UN did.Why is there no anti-UN backlash about this from some of you people?