Devastating.....:(
-
I'm not stupid. I know America has done bad things. However, the motivations behind virtually all American actions are noble. We have fought numerous wars in the name of bringing justice and democracy to citizens around the world. I challenge you to name one war within the past 100 years that America engaged in for profit. We have never kept the countries we have invaded. We have always rebuilt them to conditions better than before. And we have always left them much better off. The only exception I can think of is Vietnam, where America just kind of bungled and withdrew without making a truly positive difference (but not because we didn't try). I just find it terribly hypocritical that much of the world (Europe, I'm looking your way) has the nerve to criticise America for its noble (albeit challenging) position in the middle east when many of them owe their very existence to similar causes taken up by America.
espeir wrote:
I just find it terribly hypocritical that much of the world (Europe, I'm looking your way) has the nerve to criticise America for its noble (albeit challenging) position in the middle east when many of them owe their very existence to similar causes taken up by America.
You are right, my excuses. Everyone know that the good America invaded Iraq becasue Saddam Hussein had WMDs had Al-Qaeda links oppressed the Iraqi people. I am sure God will punish eupropeans, because God blesses America. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson -- modified at 14:29 Tuesday 7th March, 2006
-
espeir wrote:
I just find it terribly hypocritical that much of the world (Europe, I'm looking your way) has the nerve to criticise America for its noble (albeit challenging) position in the middle east when many of them owe their very existence to similar causes taken up by America.
You are right, my excuses. Everyone know that the good America invaded Iraq becasue Saddam Hussein had WMDs had Al-Qaeda links oppressed the Iraqi people. I am sure God will punish eupropeans, because God blesses America. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson -- modified at 14:29 Tuesday 7th March, 2006
America invaded Iraq because it posed a threat to the entire world (which turned out to be less than expected). So America decided to go against the popular and self-centered opinions of the rest of the world and commit itself to ousting Saddam Hussein and bringing liberty to Iraq (and Afghanistan). Where are America's ignoble deeds? We spent hundreds of billions of dollars to take over a couple of countried only so we can give them back better than before. What do we get out of it? Regional stability. That's it. Why do we do it? Because America is the best country in the entire world. It's that simple. We're better than Canada. Better than Europe. Better than everyone. We rule.
-
America invaded Iraq because it posed a threat to the entire world (which turned out to be less than expected). So America decided to go against the popular and self-centered opinions of the rest of the world and commit itself to ousting Saddam Hussein and bringing liberty to Iraq (and Afghanistan). Where are America's ignoble deeds? We spent hundreds of billions of dollars to take over a couple of countried only so we can give them back better than before. What do we get out of it? Regional stability. That's it. Why do we do it? Because America is the best country in the entire world. It's that simple. We're better than Canada. Better than Europe. Better than everyone. We rule.
Bravo. I am so proud of America, I wish I was american. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Bravo. I am so proud of America, I wish I was american. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
You can't be. It's the home of the brave. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!
-
I'm not stupid. I know America has done bad things. However, the motivations behind virtually all American actions are noble. We have fought numerous wars in the name of bringing justice and democracy to citizens around the world. I challenge you to name one war within the past 100 years that America engaged in for profit. We have never kept the countries we have invaded. We have always rebuilt them to conditions better than before. And we have always left them much better off. The only exception I can think of is Vietnam, where America just kind of bungled and withdrew without making a truly positive difference (but not because we didn't try). I just find it terribly hypocritical that much of the world (Europe, I'm looking your way) has the nerve to criticise America for its noble (albeit challenging) position in the middle east when many of them owe their very existence to similar causes taken up by America.
espeir wrote:
motivations behind virtually all American actions are noble
The motivations behind the people who burned "witches" at the stake were noble as well. Noble != Smart -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
-
America invaded Iraq because it posed a threat to the entire world (which turned out to be less than expected). So America decided to go against the popular and self-centered opinions of the rest of the world and commit itself to ousting Saddam Hussein and bringing liberty to Iraq (and Afghanistan). Where are America's ignoble deeds? We spent hundreds of billions of dollars to take over a couple of countried only so we can give them back better than before. What do we get out of it? Regional stability. That's it. Why do we do it? Because America is the best country in the entire world. It's that simple. We're better than Canada. Better than Europe. Better than everyone. We rule.
Give it a rest. This guy is just an idiot getting a kick out of getting a rise out of you. You can not argue with logic that says: The US deserves to be attacked by Iran (or any other disgruntle world citizens) because we attacked Iraq. I could write more, but it is just not worth it.
-
Give it a rest. This guy is just an idiot getting a kick out of getting a rise out of you. You can not argue with logic that says: The US deserves to be attacked by Iran (or any other disgruntle world citizens) because we attacked Iraq. I could write more, but it is just not worth it.
Another idiot misinterpret what I say. Typical. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
espeir wrote:
I just find it terribly hypocritical that much of the world (Europe, I'm looking your way) has the nerve to criticise America for its noble (albeit challenging) position in the middle east when many of them owe their very existence to similar causes taken up by America.
You are right, my excuses. Everyone know that the good America invaded Iraq becasue Saddam Hussein had WMDs had Al-Qaeda links oppressed the Iraqi people. I am sure God will punish eupropeans, because God blesses America. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson -- modified at 14:29 Tuesday 7th March, 2006
Michel Prévost wrote:
had Al-Qaeda links
"The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda. "It's a lock," says this source." Saddam's al Qaeda Connection
Michel Prévost wrote:
had WMDs
What were those things Saddam shelled the Kurds with? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
espeir wrote:
I just find it terribly hypocritical that much of the world (Europe, I'm looking your way) has the nerve to criticise America for its noble (albeit challenging) position in the middle east when many of them owe their very existence to similar causes taken up by America.
You are right, my excuses. Everyone know that the good America invaded Iraq becasue Saddam Hussein had WMDs had Al-Qaeda links oppressed the Iraqi people. I am sure God will punish eupropeans, because God blesses America. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson -- modified at 14:29 Tuesday 7th March, 2006
-
Michel Prévost wrote:
had Al-Qaeda links
"The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda. "It's a lock," says this source." Saddam's al Qaeda Connection
Michel Prévost wrote:
had WMDs
What were those things Saddam shelled the Kurds with? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
I am not CIA specialist, nor I know whether Al-Qaeda had ties or not. But didn't Rumsfeld meet with Saddam Hussein not so long ago? Does this make rumsfeld have links with Al-Qaeda? Didn't Ossama Ben Laden used to work for the CIA? Anyway, this was not the point of my post. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
So you REALLY believe that Saddam never had WMD? You believe that he would not have provided them to terrorist to attack the US?
I never said that. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
I am not CIA specialist, nor I know whether Al-Qaeda had ties or not. But didn't Rumsfeld meet with Saddam Hussein not so long ago? Does this make rumsfeld have links with Al-Qaeda? Didn't Ossama Ben Laden used to work for the CIA? Anyway, this was not the point of my post. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
Michel Prévost wrote:
I am not CIA specialist
Well you sure acted like one when you were making the assumption in your other post.
Michel Prévost wrote:
But didn't Rumsfeld meet with Saddam Hussein not so long ago?
No, it was long ago. Try December 20, 1983. 23 years ago. The world was a diffrent place then.
Michel Prévost wrote:
Does this make rumsfeld have links with Al-Qaeda?
What??? Did you read the article? Saddam gave money to Al-Qaeda.
Michel Prévost wrote:
Didn't Ossama Ben Laden used to work for the CIA?
No, he was given arms to defeat the Soviets. You are making big streaches with your assumptions. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
I never said that. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Michel Prévost wrote:
I am not CIA specialist
Well you sure acted like one when you were making the assumption in your other post.
Michel Prévost wrote:
But didn't Rumsfeld meet with Saddam Hussein not so long ago?
No, it was long ago. Try December 20, 1983. 23 years ago. The world was a diffrent place then.
Michel Prévost wrote:
Does this make rumsfeld have links with Al-Qaeda?
What??? Did you read the article? Saddam gave money to Al-Qaeda.
Michel Prévost wrote:
Didn't Ossama Ben Laden used to work for the CIA?
No, he was given arms to defeat the Soviets. You are making big streaches with your assumptions. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
What??? Did you read the article? Saddam gave money to Al-Qaeda.
I could probably found numerous articles stating the reverse. But I am tired of this pointless discussion, as it was not the subject of this thread. Read the post "My point is...". -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Another idiot misinterpret what I say. Typical. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Can't the US make a better armour?:doh:, can't imagine if these sharpnels strike our body.:omg:, why not bush consider a pull out now? otherwise it will be too late :(. but i wish somehow, the americans pay back Iran someway. WTF:(^
VuNic
VuNic wrote:
Can't the US make a better armour?,
No. Armor means weight and weight means loss of manuverability. If you sacrifice manuverability to protection, your force would not even be able to move. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
America invaded Iraq because it posed a threat to the entire world (which turned out to be less than expected). So America decided to go against the popular and self-centered opinions of the rest of the world and commit itself to ousting Saddam Hussein and bringing liberty to Iraq (and Afghanistan). Where are America's ignoble deeds? We spent hundreds of billions of dollars to take over a couple of countried only so we can give them back better than before. What do we get out of it? Regional stability. That's it. Why do we do it? Because America is the best country in the entire world. It's that simple. We're better than Canada. Better than Europe. Better than everyone. We rule.
espeir wrote:
Where are America's ignoble deeds?
Giving the American smack-down to a country with no WMDs and no ties to terrorism against the USA, that wasn't a threat to anyone in the area, and that also wasn't a breeding ground for the kind of terrorists that actually do have a grudge against us. Also, there's the whole no-bid contract thing (not that past administrations haven't been ignoble as well), and the lack of commitment to rebuilding (both in Afghanistan and Iraq). I know you think things are better over there now, but that's not what our troops or their citizens are saying.
espeir wrote:
What do we get out of it? Regional stability.
Regional stability! That's rich. Let's see...fat contracts for a bunch of administration cronies, a puppet government in the region giving us just enough control to keep influence over the oil nations, but retaining enough chaos to provide another unsecured Islamic breeding ground for the kind of ideology that will keep our "war on terror" alive indefinitely (more tax dollars to the Department of Fatherland Security, less money for FEMA -- that works out well, doesn't it?). Oh, and the American people also get a massive national debt, a growing deficit, a falling dollar (propped up by our creditors at the moment because they're screwed if the bottom falls out), and migration of jobs offshore (of course, if the dollar falls far enough, we'll be cheap labor and the jobs will come back). And all for such a noble cause. I don't dispute that many people support the war for noble reasons. I'm just saying that that's not actually why we're there. We're there for the same reason any war is fought -- money, power, control. I agree that the USA is the best country in the world, but don't for a minute doubt the subjectivity of that belief. Many people can and do make the same claim about their homelands.
-
Michel Prévost wrote:
had Al-Qaeda links
"The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda. "It's a lock," says this source." Saddam's al Qaeda Connection
Michel Prévost wrote:
had WMDs
What were those things Saddam shelled the Kurds with? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
That information is acknowledged to be possibly not credible. The assertion is that the weapons were destroyed during and immediately after the first Gulf War. The Kurds were shelled before that.
-
espeir wrote:
Where are America's ignoble deeds?
Giving the American smack-down to a country with no WMDs and no ties to terrorism against the USA, that wasn't a threat to anyone in the area, and that also wasn't a breeding ground for the kind of terrorists that actually do have a grudge against us. Also, there's the whole no-bid contract thing (not that past administrations haven't been ignoble as well), and the lack of commitment to rebuilding (both in Afghanistan and Iraq). I know you think things are better over there now, but that's not what our troops or their citizens are saying.
espeir wrote:
What do we get out of it? Regional stability.
Regional stability! That's rich. Let's see...fat contracts for a bunch of administration cronies, a puppet government in the region giving us just enough control to keep influence over the oil nations, but retaining enough chaos to provide another unsecured Islamic breeding ground for the kind of ideology that will keep our "war on terror" alive indefinitely (more tax dollars to the Department of Fatherland Security, less money for FEMA -- that works out well, doesn't it?). Oh, and the American people also get a massive national debt, a growing deficit, a falling dollar (propped up by our creditors at the moment because they're screwed if the bottom falls out), and migration of jobs offshore (of course, if the dollar falls far enough, we'll be cheap labor and the jobs will come back). And all for such a noble cause. I don't dispute that many people support the war for noble reasons. I'm just saying that that's not actually why we're there. We're there for the same reason any war is fought -- money, power, control. I agree that the USA is the best country in the world, but don't for a minute doubt the subjectivity of that belief. Many people can and do make the same claim about their homelands.
-
VuNic wrote:
Can't the US make a better armour?,
No. Armor means weight and weight means loss of manuverability. If you sacrifice manuverability to protection, your force would not even be able to move. "You get that which you tolerate"
So you find an acceptable middle ground, and adjust your tactics accordingly. Zeros were relatively unarmored and very agile, which hurt us until we adjusted our tactics. Never get into a turning battle with a Zero, right? Hit and run. Sacrificing protection for agility turned out to be a rather bad decision for them.