World Idiots

[Roamy]

Ha china and their new satellite missile. Who gives a ****. So you think we are dumb enough to put up all of our satellites without any means do defend our position. i know many of you anti american fools are rooting for anyone to take us on but you are just kidding yourselves. we can destroy the world without ever leaving home. you guys need to get a clue because you know we never will unless it is over. The fools you need to worry about are countries like Iran and the likes. Why do you think the Russians threw in the towel - simple because they finally figured out there was no way to win. china will figure out the same. This whole thing is a joke. We are just trying to keep the rouge nations from doing damage in the free world. you guys seem to sit there and think there is some magical nation that is going to appear and militarily defeat us. What are you smoking. you need to be concerned about you future and not who might be able to screw us because if we go down you are coming right along with us.

[oily oaf]

Blimey! The prospects are are bit gloomy when you put it like that mate.
I was gonna start watching a 12 part serial about a transsexual window cleaner from Bolton tonight as well :(

(dons hat and coat and rushes down to newsagent to cancel subscription to "Weather-beaten Babes")

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fousto...chill dude. The people who use facts,logic and history know that while the US has their moments where they have screwed the pooch, in the end, we know you guys are not going to nuke us. Just chill....cause your words likely are gasoline to guys like Eki, who only come to this forum to bash the US. He doens't get away with it un tested, but hey, why make his job easy? He thinks America are a bunch of war mongers....of course he ignores all the other nasty stuff unless confronted by it, but hey, you cant win em all.

Just know a few people who don't say much but have a brain appreciate on occasion the USA gets it VERY right.....

[janneppi]

Lay off the magic mushrooms fousto. :p :

[Eki]

Lay off the magic mushrooms fousto. :p :
So, why do you think fousto plays golf?

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~thsiang/turf/mushroom/mushroom.htm

"Periodic abundance of mushrooms on golf course might attract the eye, but don't go running willy nilly around the golf course harvesting mushrooms. While golf courses are often a good place to spot mushrooms, they are, nevertheless, a dangerous place to collect them for eating, and this practice is not recommended. "

[Eki]

We are just trying to keep the rouge nations from doing damage in the free world.
Nothing personal, we just don't trust the US. Just like you don't trust Iran or China.

[millencolin]

oi, speaking from a Australian 20-21 yr old view... im not against america, americans or american beliefs. If it wasnt for america, half my diet would be non existant (subway n coke). Although a lot of australian think negative thoughts of your President, doesnt mean we want to fight you...

Go have a watery tasting beer and relax

[Dazz9908]

So, It's ok for the US to do things like this without wimper to rest of the world. But as soon as some one else does this, the US complains if the y own it up their.
What is the US scared of loosing a few spy sats, and space domination, guess what, no body owns it up their, and they did this in their own Air space. So US and any one else. pull your heads in, Juts t because you did it doesn't no no one else can.

[A.F.F.]

I don't trust China, North-Korea or any country where they sell awfully lot of kebab, I guess it's fair to say I don't care for middle eastern countries either. World peace would be much closer if they made a parking lot of the whole middle east area. :up:

[Eki]

World peace would be much closer if they made a parking lot of the whole middle east area. :up:
Wouldn't it be a helluva long walk to/from your car?

[A.F.F.]

I'd also like to add that all people of Turku are dumb and what I heard, all Swedish are homesexuals. I dunno if it's true but that's what I heard.

[A.F.F.]

Wouldn't it be a helluva long walk to/from your car?


Yes it would. I'm an idiot.

[Storm]

But are you a world idiot ? :p :

[viper_man]

You know, some people say Americans are gung ho idiots.

[Erki]

Just think how many Formula 1 tracks you can build on that gigantic parking space. :s hock:

[harvick#1]

Although a lot of australian think negative thoughts of your President, doesnt mean we want to fight you...


most Americans have negative thoughts about our president :p : thats nothing new

[jso1985]

The real world idiots are the guys who think they're "cooler" because they hate the US, I'm not saying everyone should love without restrictions teh USA, but idiots who have no clue really why they hate the USA and just do it to look "cool" are the real world idiots
and their commander is Hugo Chavez

[XSARA]

Hugo Chavez

There's a world idiot for you.

[Daika]

we can destroy the world without ever leaving home.

Sad but true and there in lies the problem. I don't know who said this "God may have created earth in 7 days but i can destroy earth in tenfold, that makes me more powerfull than God " (don't know the excate quote) probably a former US-president.

Rather have the US on my side but mind you US lost the war in Vietnam not because lack of firepower. I feel the same is happening in Iraq.

[Eki]

At least Chavez is a man who's not afraid to speak his mind and give tit for tat.

[Ian McC]

Nothing personal, we just don't trust the US. Just like you don't trust Iran or China.


And who exactly is 'we' ?

[Ian McC]

Ha china and their new satellite missile. Who gives a ****. So you think we are dumb enough to put up all of our satellites without any means do defend our position. i know many of you anti american fools are rooting for anyone to take us on but you are just kidding yourselves. we can destroy the world without ever leaving home. you guys need to get a clue because you know we never will unless it is over. The fools you need to worry about are countries like Iran and the likes. Why do you think the Russians threw in the towel - simple because they finally figured out there was no way to win. china will figure out the same. This whole thing is a joke. We are just trying to keep the rouge nations from doing damage in the free world. you guys seem to sit there and think there is some magical nation that is going to appear and militarily defeat us. What are you smoking. you need to be concerned about you future and not who might be able to screw us because if we go down you are coming right along with us.

I take it this is a extract from George W Bush's address to the nation?

[Daika]

I take it this is a extract from George W Bush's address to the nation?

Could be Jack Bauer

[Eki]

And who exactly is 'we' ?
According to fousto, "World Idiots".

[Hawkmoon]

I'm pretty happy that the US "won" the Cold War. I hate to think what the world would be like if the communist Soviet Union had won.

I find US foreign policy to be a little hypocritical at times, especially where the Middle East is concerned, but on the whole I have no problem with America.

The US has a big stick that keeps a lot of the more rabid, looney nations in check, but they use that stick with considerable restraint more often than not. I would go so far as to say that if they got the stick out a bit more frequently we might be living in a much calmer world.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Hawkmoon, you wont be getting any Christmas cards from Eki now....join the club. He doesn't want to hear anything about an American doing anything right...OF course, what he fails to realize that the world isn't about absolutes, and while the Yanks get it wrong every now and then, they get it right a lot more often, and I have more faith in their ability to make up for mistakes than to trust the Chinese, Russians and about 10 other nations that claim to take the high road to speak for my interests.

Eki thinks everyone should be like Finland, what he fails to realize, the rest of the world is not Finland...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, Chavez is a big bag of wind, but of course, that would be attractive to you? I thought you were smarter than that. Before the next 20 years is out, You will see what a mess Chavez is going to make in Venezuela. He is using economic models that make Cuba work so well.....

[F1boat]

I'm pretty happy that the US "won" the Cold War. I hate to think what the world would be like if the communist Soviet Union had won.


It would have been an awful place. Bulgaria was a communist country, close to the nion in the past. The Sovieth communism was a tyranny, created by bloodshed and treachery. Sometimes I might be irritated by the USA, but I'm so happy that they won the Cold War, because of this, I can be here chating with you, because of theis, I can by Coke or pizza or burger whenever I like, becuase of this I can watch a new Star Wars movie when it comes out (and I can watch it uncut) and I can buy a new Harry Potter book immediately after its release.
The USA won the Cold War for themselves, but their victory was victory for the world. Some people complain abut USA being bad. They might be, but the others are much, much worse. China? If everything is all right there, how happens that so many Chinese want to leave it? Russia? Great country, great history, but the USSR was the most terrible thing ever to exist IMO.
About USA haters - who are they - Kadaffi, Chaves, Castro? At least two of them have their hands coevered with blood.
I support USA.

[A.F.F.]

Eki thinks everyone should be like Finland, what he fails to realize, the rest of the world is not Finland...

As much as I like Eki and respect his coherant policy of sticking his opinions I once more have to say he represent his very own view, not the whole Finland. Or world idiots.

[Eki]

OF course, what he fails to realize that the world isn't about absolutes,
On the contrary. I've been saying for years here that the world isn't black and white like Bush seems to think. There is no "good" and "evil" (it's in the eye of the beholder like beauty), not everyone wants to be like Americans, and "with us or against us" doesn't work in real world. And I've also been saying that if you try to fix something without knowing what you're doing, you might end up doing even more damage.



Eki thinks everyone should be like Finland, what he fails to realize, the rest of the world is not Finland...
On the contrary again. I think everyone should be let to be the way they want to be without anyone trying to force them into a different mold, especially using violence. Even Iran, North Korea and Cuba. Possible change should start from the people of those countries, not from the president of the US.

[Eki]

He is using economic models that make Cuba work so well.....
And the sanctions the US has had on them since the 1950s don't have anything to do with them being as poor as they are now? And Cuba was a paradise on earth for everyone before the revolution?

[555-04Q2]

we know you guys are not going to nuke us.

The Japanese probably thought the same thing, and then, BOOM X 2 :(

[Eki]

As much as I like Eki and respect his coherant policy of sticking his opinions I once more have to say he represent his very own view, not the whole Finland. Or world idiots.
Traitor. From now on, I will call you a Bush appeaser or a Bush!te. Or maybe Another Bush Buff aka ABB.

[Bebee]

So, It's ok for the US to do things like this without wimper to rest of the world. But as soon as some one else does this, the US complains if the y own it up their.
What is the US scared of loosing a few spy sats, and space domination, guess what, no body owns it up their, and they did this in their own Air space. So US and any one else. pull your heads in, Juts t because you did it doesn't no no one else can.

That pretty much sums up my opinion.... Well, at least I think so (sorry but there are quite a few typos there and I might be misinterpreting you're opinion).

Personally, I don't think anyone (including the Americans) should have such weaponry. However, since they do, it's a double standard to say that "it's okay for us to have whatever the hell we like, but you're not allowed to because we don't want you to." As for using the "national security" argument to justify in doing so, that really goes both ways so it's technically not a valid reason.

[Hawkmoon]

That pretty much sums up my opinion.... Well, at least I think so (sorry but there are quite a few typos there and I might be misinterpreting you're opinion).

Personally, I don't think anyone (including the Americans) should have such weaponry. However, since they do, it's a double standard to say that "it's okay for us to have whatever the hell we like, but you're not allowed to because we don't want you to." As for using the "national security" argument to justify in doing so, that really goes both ways so it's technically not a valid reason.

I would rather the US have nuclear weapons than Iran or North Korea. The US isn't going to send one my way for the greater glory of god or to prove that the "Peoples" Republic of North Korea is the best place on earth. That's exactly what those two countries could do.

The US will only launch a nuclear attack with a very good reason, such as ending the war in the Pacific in WWII.

So yes, I think it's OK for the US, Britain, France etc. to have nuclear weapons and try to prevent others from having them. The Western nations are all stable democracies. The likes of Iran and North Korea are not and that makes a very big difference.

[Eki]

I would rather the US have nuclear weapons than Iran or North Korea.
I'd rather none of them have nuclear weapons.



The US isn't going to send one my way for the greater glory of god or to prove that the "Peoples" Republic of North Korea is the best place on earth. That's exactly what those two countries could do.
How do you know that? Have they said they intend to do so? Or is it more like American politicians have claimed they could do so?

[Mark in Oshawa]

It would have been an awful place. Bulgaria was a communist country, close to the nion in the past. The Sovieth communism was a tyranny, created by bloodshed and treachery. Sometimes I might be irritated by the USA, but I'm so happy that they won the Cold War, because of this, I can be here chating with you, because of theis, I can by Coke or pizza or burger whenever I like, becuase of this I can watch a new Star Wars movie when it comes out (and I can watch it uncut) and I can buy a new Harry Potter book immediately after its release.
The USA won the Cold War for themselves, but their victory was victory for the world. Some people complain abut USA being bad. They might be, but the others are much, much worse. China? If everything is all right there, how happens that so many Chinese want to leave it? Russia? Great country, great history, but the USSR was the most terrible thing ever to exist IMO.
About USA haters - who are they - Kadaffi, Chaves, Castro? At least two of them have their hands coevered with blood.
I support USA.

Congratulations for being part of the free world. Some would have left you to your fate, and a few posters on here despite all their bleating would have you live in tyranny forever. Occaisonally opportunities come for democracy to have a say in freeing the oppressed, and when they happen, it is hope for the rest of the oppressed.

Eki would just have every nation go along in its own vaccuum, nothing ever changing.

The US gets a lot of things wrong at times, but they are mistakes of naivety at times, and mistakes made with no malice towards the common man.

Some of the nastiest people in the world consider the US the enemy, so if you want to jump on board that bus, Eki, you are free to do so, but if you wasted as much of your time condemning those people as you did the US, your words would have some meaning. Instead, you just sound like as Stalin would say a "useful idiot" who if you read your history, were those in the leftist parties or Communist parties of Western Europe, and people in the far left wing intelligista of American Society. In the 30's, they were very good at white washing some of the ills and crimes Stalin perpetrated against his own people in his many purges and pogroms. Eki, your knee-jerk dogmatic attack on all things American makes you sound just like those people from that era.

The thing is Eki, I would like to consider better of you, and I would like to think you just need to learn more about how things work, but I came to the conclusion you are an anti-American based purely on some sort of ill-logic that only you can explain. IN this thread and on others, I have challenged you repeately to condemn some truly nasty people with the same vigour that you attack the US. I have even AGREED with you to a limited extent when you made a point that could be consdered rational by a open mind, but you just don't stop. You quite frankly sound like a fool at times and for that, I am just going to have to keep refuting a lot of your baseless and knee-jerk arguments. You are so adept at changing the subject that at times is difficult, but nevertheless, I will do so. Why? For the sport of it....and maybe others will learn to think. I don't need people to agree with me Eki, but I would love to see them use logic and come by their arguments in some rational fashion that is based in more than a desparate need to denigrate one nation based on the fact their Customs was rude to me.....

[A.F.F.]

Traitor. From now on, I will call you a Bush appeaser or a Bush!te. Or maybe Another Bush Buff aka ABB.

[Bushmode] Bring it on [Bushmode off]

[Hawkmoon]

I'd rather none of them have nuclear weapons.


How do you know that? Have they said they intend to do so? Or is it more like American politicians have claimed they could do so?

It would be best if the things didn't exist, but they do.

It's got nothing to do with American politicians. The Ayatollah in Tehran is not a rational, sane person. If he wakes up in the morning and decides that god told him to nuke Israel in a dream then that's exactly what he will do. The same goes for Kim Jong Il. He's been shooting missles over the Sea of Japan. I'm sure the Japanese aren't very comfortable with a nuclear powered North Korea.

There is nothing to stop these guys from doing whatever they want other than the threat of retaliation from the West. These are not democracies. They are dictatorships both. If George Bush or Tony Blair decide they want to start throwing nukes around they will have to go through their respective governments. Unless there is a stunningly good reason for it they will get turned down and probably removed from office shortly there after.

Come on Eki, you don't honestly think the US and Iran are comparable nations, do you?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Ha china and their new satellite missile. Who gives a ****. So you think we are dumb enough to put up all of our satellites without any means do defend our position. i know many of you anti american fools are rooting for anyone to take us on but you are just kidding yourselves. we can destroy the world without ever leaving home. you guys need to get a clue because you know we never will unless it is over. The fools you need to worry about are countries like Iran and the likes. Why do you think the Russians threw in the towel - simple because they finally figured out there was no way to win. china will figure out the same. This whole thing is a joke. We are just trying to keep the rouge nations from doing damage in the free world. you guys seem to sit there and think there is some magical nation that is going to appear and militarily defeat us. What are you smoking. you need to be concerned about you future and not who might be able to screw us because if we go down you are coming right along with us.

So your saying America could take on the whole world in war and win??????

If the USA fought the UK alone in total war the whole world would be annihilated.
China is just trying to show America that they can't get there own way all the time. This whole thing is similar to how WW1 started. Nationalism, Germans trying to show the British Empire didn't rule the world.

BTW You said the US is saving the free world. Maybe America sould become a free country before they think about that :laugh:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ya...America is a police state and as soon as there is a revolution....

what rot....


Listen, the Americans are a little cranky right now. Some of them still remember 21 gents who just decided to fly perfectly good airplanes into two buildings to prove a point of how anti-American they can be. So when Americans see other nations provoking things, some of them don't take it well. Hey, it is part of human nature....

As for the Chinese putting out an anti-satellite weapon, I fail to see the point in doing it if you are only now going toturn around and ask the US to dump their Anti-Sat weapons. You want a non profileration treaty to rid the world of a weapon, making one is NOT the way I would do it....

[EuroTroll]

As for the Chinese putting out an anti-satellite weapon, I fail to see the point in doing it if you are only now going toturn around and ask the US to dump their Anti-Sat weapons. You want a non profileration treaty to rid the world of a weapon, making one is NOT the way I would do it....

I'm far from sure that the Chinese are sincere about this, but I think it would actually make sense if they were. You can't go into a negotiation saying "Listen, that weapon you have. We want you to give it up." Well, you could of course, but it wouldn't do you much good.

You'd get a much better result if you said, "That weapon we both have... We don't really need it, do we?"

On a more general note, I guess it's inevitable that as China's economy continues to grow at a much faster pace than those in Northern America and Western Europe, it's position - it's relative muscle - will grow also. In the end, and within the next century, I think it's fairly clear that China will become more powerful than the US. In the end, 300 million people can't match 1.3 billion in terms of output. Of course, the US has Europe - despite the occasional bickering we are obviously very much on the same side. And then, thank God, there's India... :)

Another very interesting question, of course, is what sort of developments will an increasingly powerful China encourage in Russia.

[Eki]

The Ayatollah in Tehran is not a rational, sane person.
Which Ayatollah? There are many of them. And how do you know he's not a rational sane person? Do you know him personally?

If you mean their Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, he has been elected by the Assembly of Experts, who can also dismiss him if they don't like him or think he's nuts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

"The Supreme Leader of Iran is responsible for the delineation and supervision of "the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran". The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader. The Assembly of Experts elects and dismisses the Supreme Leader on the basis of qualifications and popular esteem--none have ever been dismissed.[1] The Assembly of Experts is responsible for supervising the Supreme Leader in the performance of legal duties."


The same goes for Kim Jong Il. He's been shooting missles over the Sea of Japan.
So? It's not that the US has never tested their weapons at the Pacific Ocean. Have you heard of Bikini (the atoll, not the swimwear)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll

"Bikini Atoll (also known as Pikinni Atoll) is an uninhabited 6.0-square-kilometer atoll in one of the Micronesian Islands in the Pacific Ocean. It is a member of the Marshall Islands. It consists of 36 islands surrounding a 594.2-square-kilometer lagoon. As part of the Pacific Proving Grounds it was a site of more than 20 nuclear weapons tests between 1946 and 1958, including the first test of a practical hydrogen bomb in 1954.

The navigator and explorer Otto von Kotzebue named Bikini Atoll Eschscholtz Atoll after the scientist Johann Friedrich von Eschscholtz.

Preceding the nuclear tests, the indigenous population was relocated to Rongerik Atoll. The tests began in July 1946. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, some of the original islanders returned from Kili Island but were removed because of the high radioactivity."

[Ian McC]

Another thread descends into Eki vs Rest :rolleyes:

[Hawkmoon]

Eki.

Let's get one thing cleared up. I am all for the abolition of nuclear weapons by all countries.

You cannot honestly compare North Korea, a military dictatorship, or Iran, a religious dictatorship, with the US, a free democracy. Read your own Wikipedia quote about Iran. The leader controls everything from the military to the justice system to radio and television. He is not elected by the people and cannot be removed by the people. He has the sole power to declare war. If he wants to declare a "holy" war against Israel tommorrow then that's exactly what we will bloody well get.

The comparison between US testing in the 1950's and North Korean testing today is not valid. There was an entirely different mindset throughout the world then than there is today. The Cold War is over and the Superpowers have largely, but not entirely, dismantled their arsenals.

Show me the nuclear threat to North Korea that requires them to develop nuclear weapons. South Korea don't have them, nor do Japan. China is their closest ally, so no threat there. India have no reason to threaten North Korea. Besides, India has problems with Pakistan to keep it busy.

That only leaves Europe and the US, neither of whom have anything to gain from attacking North Korea and risking upseting China. So as far as I can see, North Korea has no valid defensive reason to develop a nuclear arsenal. Which means that the weapons are for offensive purposes. I'm sure Tokyo and Seoul are pretty nervous at the moment.

[janneppi]

And how would North Korea use the weapon offensively?
Hitting South Korea would be stupid, you don't want a fallout that near you, how exactly are going to invade Japan.
And if you nuke someone from that area, you have US turning your land into a mush in matter of minutes.
Pyongyang knows this very well, nuke is a last defence weapon for the small country up against likes of US. Remeber they are still technically at war.

"Don't strike here or we'll hit whoever we can reach" is the message North Korea sends with the nuke.

[Hawkmoon]

By developing nuclear weapons North Korea are putting themselves under threat. They have no need to develop these weapons. They're not holdovers from the Cold War such as those of other nuclear powers and they are not threatened militarily by anyone. The same thing that stops North Korea from attacking Japan stops others from attacking North Korea and that's a superpower ally, namely China.

Have Finland developed nuclear weapons in response to the years of antagonism with Russia?

[Eki]

And how would North Korea use the weapon offensively?
Hitting South Korea would be stupid, you don't want a fallout that near you, how exactly are going to invade Japan.
And if you nuke someone from that area, you have US turning your land into a mush in matter of minutes.
Pyongyang knows this very well, nuke is a last defence weapon for the small country up against likes of US. Remeber they are still technically at war.

"Don't strike here or we'll hit whoever we can reach" is the message North Korea sends with the nuke.
Exactomundo. And IF, and that's still a big IF, Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons and not peaceful nuclear energy as they say, their motive is most likely the same. Both Iran and North Korea saw what happened to Iraq when they didn't have nuclear weapons. That's likely the lesson they learnt.

[A.F.F.]

Have Finland developed nuclear weapons in response to the years of antagonism with Russia?

No.

Couple of years ago Russia did trespass our air space a few times. Guess what we did ?? We verbally disapproved it. When they did it again, we verbally disapproved it strongly.

That's what Finland is cabable of :up:

:dozey:

[Eki]

Have Finland developed nuclear weapons in response to the years of antagonism with Russia?
There has not been any obvious need. Russia has not in the last 60 years verbally or physically attacked us demanding us to change our political system and government. If they had, I certainly hope our government would have tried to do something to strengthen our defense.

[janneppi]

By developing nuclear weapons North Korea are putting themselves under threat. They have no need to develop these weapons. They're not holdovers from the Cold War such as those of other nuclear powers and they are not threatened militarily by anyone. The same thing that stops North Korea from attacking Japan stops others from attacking North Korea and that's a superpower ally, namely China.

I'm not sure NK trusts (or can trust) China anymore for it's defence, atleast now NK shows willingness to stand on it's own. BTW, South Korea also had it's own nuclear program, officially it dropped the program in the seventies, but later confessed enriching uranium as late as 2000, why would N Korea trust it's Southern rival to have stopped it now?

It's right old mess. :)

[janneppi]

There has not been any obvious need. Russia has not in the last 60 years verbally or physically attacked us demanding us to change our political system and government. .
I would't go as far, they did pressure us a lot.
It's notable that Sweden did have a nuclear program to fend of Soviet Union, but they scrapped it in the sixties. Apparently they could produce a nuke in relatively short time if ever felt the need.

[Eki]

I would't go as far, they did pressure us a lot.

True, but it was very subtle compared to the rhetoric the US has used against North Korea, not to mention the sanctions. Finland's relationship with the Soviet Union was mutually beneficial. They never put any sanctions on us or fortify the border. Instead they traded with us to the point they were so much in debt to us that it took Russia 15 years to pay off that debt. The Soviet Union didn't have the "with us or against us policy", they were mostly satisfied that Finland wasn't against them.

[F1boat]

About North Korea and iran, who saw what happened in Irak... some dictators saw what happened to one of their kind and, scared, began developing their own weapons. We have many Iraqis in Bulgaria, they all supported the war. They show some photos on TV - things which Saddam did to those people, who tried to disagree with him.
He had put their faces in acid, then left them alive, scared and disfigured hideously forever. Saddam is dead now, but his regime deserved to fall. It was a terrible tyranny and no matter why the USA destroyed it, it was the right thing to do.

[Eki]

Read your own Wikipedia quote about Iran. The leader controls everything from the military to the justice system to radio and television. He is not elected by the people and cannot be removed by the people. He has the sole power to declare war. If he wants to declare a "holy" war against Israel tommorrow then that's exactly what we will bloody well get.

Some seem to believe the Supreme Leader doesn't like the president that much. Could it mean he's not that "insane" after all?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246942,00.html

"There is another sign that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is losing support in high places. The age.com reports Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has snubbed a request by Ahmadinejad to discuss the country's nuclear program. A newspaper owned by Ali Khamenei has already called for the president to stay out of the international debate on the issue — which has resulted in U.N. sanctions.

The ayatollah's refusal to meet with Ahmadinejad is said to be a first — and an indication of growing unrest within the Iranian leadership over the president's hardline policies."

[Mark in Oshawa]

True, but it was very subtle compared to the rhetoric the US has used against North Korea, not to mention the sanctions. Finland's relationship with the Soviet Union was mutually beneficial. They never put any sanctions on us or fortify the border. Instead they traded with us to the point they were so much in debt to us that it took Russia 15 years to pay off that debt. The Soviet Union didn't have the "with us or against us policy", they were mostly satisfied that Finland wasn't against them.


Ya, Finland was going to invade Russia? No one in their RIGHT Mind would think of that, including the most paranoid Russians. The US on the other hand would have invaded North Korea years ago if they thought the North Koreans were a threat. By building the nukes, they are now more a threat then they were before.

IF anything, they are more likely to be threatened by having a missle for offensive purposes. That said, the US isn't adding more troops to South Korea. South Korea toyed with nukes but was told by the Americans that wouldn't be a good idea. China doesn't want to see Nukes on the Korean penisula either, because their presence of Nukes means China doesn't hold all the cards in this part of the world.

North Korea is a crappy little autocratic dump with a standard of living so low, that it has no business spending the money it does on a military. South Korea would be told flat out by the Americans to leave the North Koreans alone if North Korea didn't have the army it does have. The Korean war was if you remember started by the Communist North invading the Pro-Western South. Yet another war started by dictatorial thugs that is now a hangover in the mess on the 38th parallel. We have millions of troops facing each other because it is obvious the one side cannot be trusted and the paranoid North Koreans are happy to keep everyone guessing how they cannot be trusted. The US has no interest in invading it. Why? What would be the benefit? If you believe the Yanks invaded Iraq for oil, you have to understand the North Koreans are lucky to have grass because people there have had to EAT it because of the way the country is run. There is nothing there that the US would want, and the only reason the South would have an interest is to libreate basically their cousins and reunite a country that was split by the start of the "cold war". The North Korean government makes the Chinese look like enlightened democrats when it comes to human rights.....

No...North Korea is a dump by its own design. Even the Chinese think they are nuts with this Nuclear program. Just like giving Iran an nuclear reactor when the nation is floating in oil "For energy purposes" is a lie too.

All these nations seem to think they will get more respect with nuclear weapons, and in a sense they do, but they would get more respect if they ran nations on democratic principles and human rights. To defend their right to build nukes ignores how the autocratic thugs who run these nations treat their own people.

[Mark in Oshawa]

AS for the Chinese and their anti satellite weapon, no one has ever really shown how adding more weapons to the space race is going to convince other nations to pull theirs out.

I have stated it before, I state it now, it isn't the democratic nations of the west that start wars against other democratic nations. It is only the autocratic and dictator run nations that are threatened by the US and others. If you want proof of this, look at the nations of the former east bloc that have become democracies. What happened? By the paranoid anti-American's best theories, they would be in more danger of invasion. The opposite occured. They were invited to join the EU often and also NATO. Invited, not invaded....

You want peace in this world, be in a nation that is run on a peaceful succession of leaders, respect for freedom of the indiviudal, and freedom of thought and speech. If you want to be invaded, just become such an obnoxious pain - in - the - @ss that even an "idiot" like George W. Bush can convince 53 democratic nations to invade you.

Until people on here realize they are defending thugs and despots for anti-American propaganda, I guess I will keep saying it....

[Eki]

Ya, Finland was going to invade Russia? No one in their RIGHT Mind would think of that, including the most paranoid Russians.
Actually, when they invaded Finland in 1939, the main justification for the invasion they claimed was that Finland was a threat to Leningrad. The other justification they claimed was that they were going to "liberate" the Finnish working class from their fascist and capitalist leaders. The excuses Bush gave for invading Iraq weren't that original. And I'm sure someone had used similar excuses even before Stalin.

[Eki]

There is nothing there that the US would want, and the only reason the South would have an interest is to libreate basically their cousins and reunite a country that was split by the start of the "cold war".
The South Koreans know they would have to fight and kill their cousins in order to liberate them, so I'm not sure if most of them would like to try it.



Just like giving Iran an nuclear reactor when the nation is floating in oil "For energy purposes" is a lie too.
Burning their oil for electricity would be extremely stupid when they can refine it to gasoline, plastics and other petrochemicals for a higher profit. Finland has a lot of wood to burn, but 30% of its electricity comes from nuclear power. Why? Because nuclear energy is still the cheapest way to produce huge amounts of electricity and it's more friendly to the environment than burning wood or oil.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Actually, when they invaded Finland in 1939, the main justification for the invasion they claimed was that Finland was a threat to Leningrad. The other justification they claimed was that they were going to "liberate" the Finnish working class from their fascist and capitalist leaders. The excuses Bush gave for invading Iraq weren't that original. And I'm sure someone had used similar excuses even before Stalin.

I said no one in their RIGHT MIND Eki would believe the Finn's would invade. Stalin was a lot of things, but sane wasn't one of them.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The South Koreans know they would have to fight and kill their cousins in order to liberate them, so I'm not sure if most of them would like to try it..

The South Koreans wouldn't have to do anything if the North Korean Military surrendered. Show them a good meal. North Koreans have no idea of what is going on in the outside world. If they truly knew, the little midget running the show there would be hanging from a lampost.

You cannot defend Kim Il Sung surely???




Burning their oil for electricity would be extremely stupid when they can refine it to gasoline, plastics and other petrochemicals for a higher profit. Finland has a lot of wood to burn, but 30% of its electricity comes from nuclear power. Why? Because nuclear energy is still the cheapest way to produce huge amounts of electricity and it's more friendly to the environment than burning wood or oil..

I agree, nuclear power is more efficient, but the second Iran got their reactor they started enriching Uranium. India also said they wouldn't do any such thing when they bought CANDU reactors from Canada in the 70's yet within a few years they build nuclear weapons. The thing is, Eki, Iran has never given any lip service to the enviromental worries of the planet. Nukes are not always cheaper either. They are not cheap if you pay attention to enviromental impact concerns either. I believe in nuclear power, but in the case of Iran, I know damned well their motives were not in helping the world's enviroment. You might choose to believe that, but you believe in the best intentions of the worst people, and believe the worst intentions of the best people. This is why I argue with you Eki, it is so obvious you have an agenda towards slagging any democratic nation that actually doesn't roll over and play dead when confronted by a dicatorship. You defend dictatorships and their actions , I deplore them.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think about this Eki, and I am worried. You ACTUALLY believe the North Koreans are right in any way, shape, or form? IT is a communist/autocratic/dictatorship. In every time that one of them was exposed to democracy, capitalistic ideas and education on a level untainted by outright brainwashing, the people there have not picked up arms, but on the contrary have wanted to join the rest of the civilized world. North Koreans would be no different. It is only you would argue that the South Koreans would invade and enslave them all....or whatever you would believe.

Sometimes I doubt your sanity, but that is ok, it gives me a hobby......

[Eki]

The South Koreans wouldn't have to do anything if the North Korean Military surrendered. Show them a good meal. North Koreans have no idea of what is going on in the outside world. If they truly knew, the little midget running the show there would be hanging from a lampost.
Based on a BBC document I've seen, the North Koreans, at least many of them, may really be so brainwashed that they truly believe that Americans are the cause of all their problems and are out to get them, so I guess many of them wouldn't surrender. The Soviet prisoners of war in Finland have said that they were told never to surrender because the Finns were evil and would torture and kill them in terrible ways. They were genuinely surprised when they were treated even as well as they were.

[Hondo]

Exactomundo. And IF, and that's still a big IF, Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons and not peaceful nuclear energy as they say, their motive is most likely the same. Both Iran and North Korea saw what happened to Iraq when they didn't have nuclear weapons. That's likely the lesson they learnt.


You do have a valid point there.

[janneppi]

I think about this Eki, and I am worried. You ACTUALLY believe the North Koreans are right in any way, shape, or form? IT is a communist/autocratic/dictatorship. In every time that one of them was exposed to democracy, capitalistic ideas and education on a level untainted by outright brainwashing, the people there have not picked up arms, but on the contrary have wanted to join the rest of the civilized world. North Koreans would be no different. It is only you would argue that the South Koreans would invade and enslave them all....or whatever you would believe.

Where in this thread does Eki argue against South Korea, or defends North Korea?
Looking at issues from another angle isn't agreeing with or condoning their viewpoint.

[speedy king]

The real fools in the world are the ones who feel they can summarise a whole nation in one sentence :dozey:

[Hawkmoon]

The real fools in the world are the ones who feel they can summarise a whole nation in one sentence :dozey:

Not a whole nation. Just the few who lead it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Janneppi, if Eki said right off the top he thinks The North Koreans are brainwashed fools who are demented, I would have taken what he said more seriously. The problem is Eki continually takes up for the regimes he wouldn't live under by making excuses for their behaviour as if it was justified. If you read what he says, he argues their points with no attempt to put it into context. The only way I know Eki is ashamed of something a regime does is when he comes out and admits it when I get mad at him for defending these guys.

Phrase your arguments better Eki and not automatically put the US as the bad guy, and Maybe I wont bust your chops over it.

[Eki]

I think about this Eki, and I am worried. You ACTUALLY believe the North Koreans are right in any way, shape, or form?
It's not about what I believe, it's about what the North Koreans believe. Many of them probably believe they are right. You can't fake those tears you saw at the funeral of Kim Il Sung. I think it's similar to the Stockholm syndrome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

[janneppi]

Janneppi, if Eki said right off the top he thinks The North Koreans are brainwashed fools who are demented, I would have taken what he said more seriously. The problem is Eki continually takes up for the regimes he wouldn't live under by making excuses for their behaviour as if it was justified. If you read what he says, he argues their points with no attempt to put it into context. The only way I know Eki is ashamed of something a regime does is when he comes out and admits it when I get mad at him for defending these guys.

Phrase your arguments better Eki and not automatically put the US as the bad guy, and Maybe I wont bust your chops over it.
Or perhaps you need to start reading his post more carefully. ;)
Didn't you just yesterday call for respecting others and what they write, even if one doesn't agree with them?

[Hondo]

And how would North Korea use the weapon offensively?
Hitting South Korea would be stupid, you don't want a fallout that near you, how exactly are going to invade Japan.
And if you nuke someone from that area, you have US turning your land into a mush in matter of minutes.
Pyongyang knows this very well, nuke is a last defence weapon for the small country up against likes of US. Remeber they are still technically at war.

"Don't strike here or we'll hit whoever we can reach" is the message North Korea sends with the nuke.

I have been thinking about this and Eki's #48 post and find their arguments valid and already proven completely feasible by the event known as the Cuban Missle Crisis. Nobody wants a nuke popped on their own territory, no matter how big or small the country may be. I remember the Cuban deal and can remember neighbors that had bomb shelters in their back yards. The nuclear argument did keep the USA from messing around with Cuba again by agreement.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Janeppi, Eki, If you believe that the North Korean's would be victims of the Stockholm syndrome, you might be right but I also think in a nation where people have been starved for no other reason than Kim's strange way of dealing with crisis you would have to believe that it wouldn't take long for many there to wonder what the truth was once the veil of secrecy is opened to the people there.

Are the people of North Korea paranoid. Only as paranoid as Kim Il Sung's wee little mind is. In any case, I don't have any time for the idea that he is in any way right, even if he is nuts. I do know this much though, Kim knows damned well the Americans are not coming any time soon. Most of his actions and provocations vs the Americans usually come when he needs more food aid or when the Americans are busy with another issue (Iraq).

[janneppi]

I also think in a nation where people have been starved for no other reason than Kim's strange way of dealing with crisis you would have to believe that it wouldn't take long for many there to wonder what the truth was once the veil of secrecy is opened to the people there.
That would happen only after the removal of Kim and his cronies and it happens only two ways, he get's the boot from his own people, which is unlikely, or by an outside military force which would first have to fight the people to liberate them.



I do know this much though, Kim knows damned well the Americans are not coming any time soon.
How does can he be sure of it when in three years time US was the driving force behind two invasions to countries with the same kind of issues with US. If he can blackmail for concessions and food help, he's succeeded. If the threat of nuclear strike in Japan keeps Americans out, he's succeeded.

[Eki]

Janeppi, Eki, If you believe that the North Korean's would be victims of the Stockholm syndrome, you might be right but I also think in a nation where people have been starved for no other reason than Kim's strange way of dealing with crisis you would have to believe that it wouldn't take long for many there to wonder what the truth was once the veil of secrecy is opened to the people there.
The problem is that their government has convinced them that their starving is due to the West, not their government. Besides, I'd imagine the North Korean military is relatively well fed compared to many of the civilians. Even ancient Rome knew that an army marches on its stomach. In war, the soldiers always eat first and the civilians get what's left.

[Mark in Oshawa]

That would happen only after the removal of Kim and his cronies and it happens only two ways, he get's the boot from his own people, which is unlikely, or by an outside military force which would first have to fight the people to liberate them.


How does can he be sure of it when in three years time US was the driving force behind two invasions to countries with the same kind of issues with US. If he can blackmail for concessions and food help, he's succeeded. If the threat of nuclear strike in Japan keeps Americans out, he's succeeded.

Janeppi, the huge difference is the North Koreans are no threat to anyone in the immediate future. In spite of their massive buildup on the 38th Parallel, they have never bothered to invade the south because Kim and his father both knew that the US would help the South and likely so would the rest of the western world. The other factor you ignore is the control and influence the Chinese have. The Chinese use North Korea to annoy the Americans but when Kim gets a little too pushy, a little phone call from Beijing reminds Mr. Kim who really can control his nation. If North Korea was to ever fall, it wont be the Americans, I suspect the Chinese will engineer the change.

The Americans would have invaded a long time ago if they thought it would help things, but as long as the Chinese back Kim, no one is invading. Which is why North Korea getting nuclear weapons is annoying everyone, including the Chinese. America is quite happy to just put up big front, knowing that in reality, it is Beijing that controls Kim....

[Hondo]

I don't think America would have invaded North Korea at all prior to 9/11. People forget that the Korean War was a United Nations Police Action with many more nations than just America fighting with the South Koreans to restore the politically created 38th parallel.

There had been many provocations since the ceasefire that could have been used as a reason to invade.

Take away 9/11 and there is no way Bush or any other president would have gotten permission to invade anybody.

[veeten]

How does can he be sure of it when in three years time US was the driving force behind two invasions to countries with the same kind of issues with US. If he can blackmail for concessions and food help, he's succeeded. If the threat of nuclear strike in Japan keeps Americans out, he's succeeded.

It's very simple...

There is nothing, at present, that North Korea has that is of interest to the US ( in the form of fossil fuels, precious metals & minerals, or refined stock). But attacking a trade partner, (South Korea, Japan, Southeast Asian countries, or even China [Nationalist or Communist]) is a different story altogether. Whenever Kim decides to 'rattle his saber' at other nations within the region in general, and Western ones in specific, he gets attention. The 'trick' is to keep it from going too far, as he knows that the 'folks in Bejing' might take exception to that.

It's the impetus behind all motions of Foreign Affairs, or as Al Capone put it...

"... If somebody messes with me, I'm gonna mess with Him."

[Eki]

Take away 9/11 and there is no way Bush or any other president would have gotten permission to invade anybody.
Bush only got permission to invade Afghanistan, yet he decided to invade also Iraq and with a much greater force.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, much greater force was required, and while you say Iraq is an illegal invasion, I say it isn't. Technically Bush is enforcing the UN resolutions. Now the UN said they didn't want that, but the UN as we well know never does anything if the Security council is split and it is often split for no reason other than the Chinese and Russians don't want anyone to do anything.....

AT some point, the UN either is to have meaning with its resolutions, or they are hot air. I say if Bush didn't back the resolutions with a threat of invasion, then they are meaningless.....

[Eki]

Now the UN said they didn't want that, but the UN as we well know never does anything if the Security council is split and it is often split for no reason other than the Chinese and Russians don't want anyone to do anything.....

Even without any vetos, the US and Britain weren't going to get the needed support for their latest draft of resolution, so they decided not to bother presenting it and simply circumvent the UN.

[Hondo]

Bush only got permission to invade Afghanistan, yet he decided to invade also Iraq and with a much greater force.

He got permission from the UN to invade Afghanistan. He got permission from the United States Senate and Congress to invade Iraq. Without 9/11, he wouldn't have gotten permission from anybody to invade anything.

Don't y'all kid yourselves about a new administration. With the country's mood the way it was at the time, the vast majority of Democrats fell into line and approved of the invasion of Iraq also. I would imagine that most Americans thought there would be dancing in the street and an orderly transition similar to France and other countries in Europe during WWII when the Allies liberated them from the Third Reich. Imagine our surprise to see those people looting their own museums and going for each other's throats. When things started going badly, thats when the Democrats bailed out on the whole idea. All of a sudden they never even heard of Iraq.

[Eki]

He got permission from the United States Senate and Congress to invade Iraq. Without 9/11, he wouldn't have gotten permission from anybody to invade anything.

If they were really sincere, they should have done more background research and listened to the experts who warned against an invasion.

[janneppi]

Janneppi, the huge difference is the North Koreans are no threat to anyone in the immediate future. In spite of their massive buildup on the 38th Parallel, they have never bothered to invade the south because Kim and his father both knew that the US would help the South and likely so would the rest of the western world. The other factor you ignore is the control and influence the Chinese have. The Chinese use North Korea to annoy the Americans but when Kim gets a little too pushy, a little phone call from Beijing reminds Mr. Kim who really can control his nation. If North Korea was to ever fall, it wont be the Americans, I suspect the Chinese will engineer the change.

The Americans would have invaded a long time ago if they thought it would help things, but as long as the Chinese back Kim, no one is invading. Which is why North Korea getting nuclear weapons is annoying everyone, including the Chinese. America is quite happy to just put up big front, knowing that in reality, it is Beijing that controls Kim....
As i said earlier, perhaps NK doesn't trust China anymore,
imagine your Mr. Kim.
-South Korea has a history with nuclear developement, why shoulf NK believe they have now been honest when SK lied before?
-Japan is talking about becoming a major player, Koreans remember their 1000 year history with Japan, and it's not all kittens and strawberry cakes.
-China is rearming itself with possible Taivan day trip in mind. A possible war would drag Koreas into the fight.
-China has transformerd massively in the last 20 years, who's to say in 10, 20 years time China does a deal with US not to interfere with their "democratising" project.
-US has shown willingness to be stupid about it's foregn policy.

I dont't think no one is targetting NK anytime soon, but i'm not a paranoid leader of country with very few "outs".

[Hondo]

If they were really sincere, they should have done more background research and listened to the experts who warned against an invasion.

Oh they were really sincere. You don't have to be smart to be a politician, you just need to get your name on the ballot and be elected. I don't know about Finland, but here, for every 10 experts that say one thing, you can get 10 experts that will say the opposite. Just look at the global warming debate.

Here again, with the popular mindset at the time, to have voted against the invasion would probably have cost you your job at the next election and you would have to go back to suing McDonalds because someone's kid is too fat or chasing ambulances for a living.

Voting for the invasion gives you the out of pointing at the President and whining that it was his idea and he convinced you it was the right thing to do.

President Bush should not have pursued an invasion of Iraq, based on what he actually had. This one is squarely in his lap.

I can assure you that nobody thought Iraq would fall apart like a children's daycare center with no supervision.

[Mark in Oshawa]

He got permission from the UN to invade Afghanistan. He got permission from the United States Senate and Congress to invade Iraq. Without 9/11, he wouldn't have gotten permission from anybody to invade anything.

Don't y'all kid yourselves about a new administration. With the country's mood the way it was at the time, the vast majority of Democrats fell into line and approved of the invasion of Iraq also. I would imagine that most Americans thought there would be dancing in the street and an orderly transition similar to France and other countries in Europe during WWII when the Allies liberated them from the Third Reich. Imagine our surprise to see those people looting their own museums and going for each other's throats. When things started going badly, thats when the Democrats bailed out on the whole idea. All of a sudden they never even heard of Iraq.

It is amazing to point out Hilary Clinton voted for the invasion, as did many of the people who claim they never saw it, like John Kerry " I voted for the invasion before I voted against it". The democrats are idiots for if they had a principled and consistent campaign for a proper debate without playing partisan games, none of this likely would have happened. Instead, they didn't want to look weak on the war on terror, so they went in on it. Lets face it, for those who think Bush is an idiot, just remember he got elected twice against two supposed "geniuses". Both Gore and Kerry looked like slimeballs promising everything to everybody, and if the 2008 is any indication, Ms. Clinton is straddling a fence of doing that as well.

I don't think the plan for what to do afterwards was ever really verbalized and it was my reason for not supporting the invasion; but when the invasion happened, I had to hope America had a plan for the peace keeping. To an extent, they did, but I don't think anyone really could know how fast the wheels could come off things in Iraq. The sad part is, Iraq deserves better, and it deserved a lot better when Saddam was running the country.

Of course, it is water under the bridge now, and I don't think people really can understand what really is happening now. The US is now trying to stop the sectarian violence and THAT is why opposition in the US is growing. The public was for supporting the effort to rid the world of a piece of trash like Hussein, but the nation building stuff isn't in the American DNA. They built their nation on their own and they don't want to have to put out time, money and lives to do it for a nation that is more content to shoot at each other. Nevertheless, they now have a moral responsiblity to try, and I guess that is where they are now. Trying to decide when they have had enough.....

[Hondo]

Well, we didn't build our nation all on our own. If the French hadn't stepped to help out during the later part of the American Revolution, we'd all be speaking......English!! LOL!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fiero, the really goofy part is, as much as the French helped the US back then, look what a pain the tail the French are to just about everyone now. They find ways to tick off everyone, especially Americans, even when there isn't something like the Iraq mess going on....

God love the French, because besides themselves, it appears the rest of the world sometimes only tolerates em.

[Eki]

Israel's use of cluster bombs from U.S. examined. I doubt anything will be done about it as usual though:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/27/usa.israel.reut/index.html

Israel's use of cluster bombs from U.S. examined

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The Bush administration will notify Congress Monday that Israel may have violated agreements with Washington when it fired U.S.-supplied cluster munitions into Lebanon in its war with Hezbollah last summer, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.

Citing State Department officials who spoke Saturday, the Times said the preliminary findings had spawned a sharp debate -- which one official characterized as "head-butting" -- within the administration over whether Washington should penalize its ally for using cluster munitions in towns and villages where Hezbollah guerrillas placed rocket launchers.

The Times reported some midlevel Pentagon and State Department officials contended Israel violated U.S. prohibitions on using cluster munitions against populated areas.

[Hondo]

Israel will counter with the fact that they didn't use them against towns and villages. They used them against rocket launchers. The fact that Hezbollah set the launchers up in populated areas isn't Israel's problem. But for groups like Hezbollah, the propaganda value of having Israel wipe out a bunch of civillians more than outweighs the loss of their military hardware. The media and others fall for it all the time. Why has nobody taken Hezbollah to task for setting up their rocket launchers in residential areas with full knowledge of and counting on the civillian casualties that would occur when the strikes to eliminate the launch sites came.

I'm not up on large military munitions, but my off-hand guess is that cluster type munitions stood a better chance of eliminating the launcher, it's support equipment, and reloads while minimizing damage to surrounding structures. 1000 pound bombs make a mess of everything.

I have no doubt some genius will allow that Israel should have done nothing at all and just let Hezbollah zip rockets in on them until they got bored and went bowling.

[Eki]

I'm not up on large military munitions, but my off-hand guess is that cluster type munitions stood a better chance of eliminating the launcher, it's support equipment, and reloads while minimizing damage to surrounding structures. 1000 pound bombs make a mess of everything.
I'd imagine an individual bomb in a cluster bomb is rather small and wouldn't do much damage on hardware. I'd imagine it's primarily an anti-personnel weapon like the old shrapnel artillery ammunitions and is intended against large formations of military troops.


I have no doubt some genius will allow that Israel should have done nothing at all and just let Hezbollah zip rockets in on them until they got bored and went bowling.
Actually Hezbollah didn't launch any rockets until Israel attacked them. They just snatched two Israeli soldiers. Nothning would have stopped Israel from sending a patrol to Lebanon to try and get the snatched soldiers back. IMO Israel over reacted and it's response was out of proportions.

[Knock-on]

If they were really sincere, they should have done more background research and listened to the experts who warned against an invasion.

It's very easy in hindsight to have listened to the experts advocating not starting the conflict.

However, as has been pointed out, almost all the politicians were behind this and the expectation was that we were going in there to liberate a country. I think most of us did expect to see dancing in the street and for a short time, that happened.

What has happened since is, as you say, a result of PPP. (P*ss poor planning)

The horrendous state of Iraq at present is a travesty.

[Eki]

Here's another, maybe idiotic, question. I noticed that one of the banner ads here said "Apply for US citizenship, it's fast and easy". If the US is really the heaven on earth, why do they have to advertise it? Wouldn't there be enough applicants without advertising?

[race aficionado]

probably the ones advertising it are the ones that can make money out of the gullible out there.
remember, there is a sucker born every . . . .

[Eki]

probably the ones advertising it are the ones that can make money out of the gullible out there.
remember, there is a sucker born every . . . .
So it's like those who write and sell books titled "How to become a millionaire by playing poker" instead of going to Las Vegas and doing it by themselves?

[race aficionado]

interesting to see what idiot actually means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

because I was about to say - reacting to Eki's book comment -
that there is an idiot born every . . .

so yes, the gullible ones can be considered idiots in that case.

[Eki]

Oddly enough, a military coup in the US might be a good idea:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/03/iran.warning.reut/index.html

Former military chiefs urge talks with Iran
POSTED: 11:00 p.m. EST, February 3, 2007

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Three former senior U.S. military officials warn that any military action against Iran would have "disastrous consequences" and urged Washington to hold immediate and unconditional talks with Tehran.

The Bush administration has increased the regularity and vehemence of its accusations against Iran, prompting speculation it could be laying the ground for military attack against the Islamic state.

Washington has also sent a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf, a move seen as a warning to Iran, which the United States accuses of seeking atomic arms and fueling instability in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Iran denies the charges.

In a letter to London's Sunday Times newspaper, the three former U.S. military leaders said attacking Iran "would have disastrous consequences for security in the region, coalition forces in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions," they wrote.

"The current crisis must be resolved through diplomacy," they said.

The letter was signed by retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, a former military assistant to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, retired U.S. Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Hoar, a former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command; and retired Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan, a former director of the Center for Defense Information.

[Roamy]

Oddly enough, a military coup in the US might be a good idea:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/03/iran.warning.reut/index.html

Former military chiefs urge talks with Iran
POSTED: 11:00 p.m. EST, February 3, 2007

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Three former senior U.S. military officials warn that any military action against Iran would have "disastrous consequences" and urged Washington to hold immediate and unconditional talks with Tehran.

The Bush administration has increased the regularity and vehemence of its accusations against Iran, prompting speculation it could be laying the ground for military attack against the Islamic state.

Washington has also sent a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf, a move seen as a warning to Iran, which the United States accuses of seeking atomic arms and fueling instability in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Iran denies the charges.

In a letter to London's Sunday Times newspaper, the three former U.S. military leaders said attacking Iran "would have disastrous consequences for security in the region, coalition forces in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions," they wrote.

"The current crisis must be resolved through diplomacy," they said.

The letter was signed by retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, a former military assistant to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, retired U.S. Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Hoar, a former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command; and retired Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan, a former director of the Center for Defense Information.

Eki based on our current military operations I wouldn't be listening to any of these old duffs. I am sure they were around to advise on Iraq when that happened. Looks like we need some real fresh blood in the military. also I think we need to completely revamp our military training in many areas. We are still having a lot of difficultly fighting a ememy who doesn't mind dying. Something all the experts completely missed.

[agwiii]

Eki based on our current military operations I wouldn't be listening to any of these old duffs. I am sure they were around to advise on Iraq when that happened. Looks like we need some real fresh blood in the military. also I think we need to completely revamp our military training in many areas. We are still having a lot of difficultly fighting a ememy who doesn't mind dying. Something all the experts completely missed.

Fousto, that is one of the traditional problems with bureaucracy - it stifles innovation and creativity. Change is slow to come, but it does come.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't think Dubya will get any support to invade Iran. What is more, as dumb as he can be at times, he is smarter than that. But it is like a union negotiating with a company, they always vote for a strike even when they know in their hearts they wont.

As for The Israeli's and Hezboallah, Eki, they snatched two soldiers by entering Israel to do it. Further more, if they did nothing, what would say Hezbollah wouldn't do it again and again? Furthermore, they had been launching the odd rocket on occasionally all along....That war was provoked, just like every other one in that part of the world.

[Roamy]

oooooohhh how do you like the rumor that Isreal popped the head nuke guy in iran??

[agwiii]

oooooohhh how do you like the rumor that Isreal popped the head nuke guy in iran??

Could be good news. What do you think?

[Eki]

It's probably just a rumour, just like the rumours the Iraqi opposition spread about the Iraqi WMDs. I wouldn't consider an Iranian propaganda radio funded by the US very reliable source. But if it's true, it's a murder, just like the murder of that former Russian spy in Britain, and should be solved and the culprits should be punished. It wouldn't be a smart thing to do by the Israelis to have murdered that scientist. If Iran is indeed planning to build nuclear weapons, this could delay them but not stop them. What's sure is that now Iran would have a reason to retaliate and not many would blame them. However, if Israel is capable of murdering UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, murdering an Iranian scientist wouldn't give them a guilty conscience.

[Roamy]

It's probably just a rumour, just like the rumours the Iraqi opposition spread about the Iraqi WMDs. I wouldn't consider an Iranian propaganda radio funded by the US very reliable source. But if it's true, it's a murder, just like the murder of that former Russian spy in Britain, and should be solved and the culprits should be punished. It wouldn't be a smart thing to do by the Israelis to have murdered that scientist. If Iran is indeed planning to build nuclear weapons, this could delay them but not stop them. What's sure is that now Iran would have a reason to retaliate and not many would blame them. However, if Israel is capable of murdering UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, murdering an Iranian scientist wouldn't give them a guilty conscience.

retaliation by Iran would be sweet

[Eki]

Khamenei seems to have more faith in Bush being reasonable than I do:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/08/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html

"Some people say that the U.S. president is not prone to calculating the consequences of his actions," Khamenei said in remarks broadcast on state television, "but it is possible to bring this kind of person to wisdom."

"U.S. policymakers and analysts know that the Iranian nation would not let an invasion go without a response," Khamenei added.

[tinchote]

Here's another, maybe idiotic, question. I noticed that one of the banner ads here said "Apply for US citizenship, it's fast and easy". If the US is really the heaven on earth, why do they have to advertise it? Wouldn't there be enough applicants without advertising?

The USA does a lottery every year, where they assign 50,000 green cards. As far as I know, millions apply, and the US has no need to do that. It is enough to go to any US consulate to see the lines of people applying for visas.

I'm no lover of the USA. But the fact that many many millions are willing to go there is undeniable.

[schmenke]

...I'm no lover of the USA. But the fact that many many millions are willing to go there is undeniable.

Aw c'mon tin, wouldn't you want to live in a country where you can walk into your local corner store and purchase a gallon of vodka and a box of .38 cal. handgun ammo at the same time?

;) :D

[Eki]

Aw c'mon tin, wouldn't you want to live in a country where you can walk into your local corner store and purchase a gallon of vodka and a box of .38 cal. handgun ammo at the same time?

;) :D
Yeah, and consume them all while driving back home. Oh, you said "walk". Dude, whose car is this?

[Roamy]

Khamenei seems to have more faith in Bush being reasonable than I do:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/08/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html

"Some people say that the U.S. president is not prone to calculating the consequences of his actions," Khamenei said in remarks broadcast on state television, "but it is possible to bring this kind of person to wisdom."

"U.S. policymakers and analysts know that the Iranian nation would not let an invasion go without a response," Khamenei added.

jesus christ can't we just get on with this war. Now everyone has a aligator mouth and a paper asshole. Iran needs a good nuking and I can't understand the delays. Help me out peace people

[tinchote]

Aw c'mon tin, wouldn't you want to live in a country where you can walk into your local corner store and purchase a gallon of vodka and a box of .38 cal. handgun ammo at the same time?

;) :D

I know you know that one of my biggest imperfections is the lack of alcohol consumption :D

But maybe you're right, and that's why I don't like the USA: I'm bad at aiming too ;) :laugh:

[Eki]

This is what I've been saying too:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/10/putin.us.ap/index.html

Putin: U.S. force encouraging nuclear ambitions
POSTED: 9:10 a.m. EST, February 10, 2007

MUNICH, Germany (AP) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin blasted the United States Saturday for the "almost uncontained" use of force in the world, and for encouraging other countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

He also criticized U.S. plans for missile defense systems and NATO's expansion.

Putin told a security forum attracting top officials that "we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations" and that "one state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way.

"This is very dangerous, nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law," Putin told the gathering.

Putin did not elaborate on specifics and did not mention the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But he voiced concern about U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in eastern Europe -- likely in Poland and the Czech Republic -- and the expansion of NATO as possible challenges to Russia.

[Roamy]

screw old vodka breath- He is a no player in the world anymore and is trying to get other people to fight his battles. Russia doesn't need nukes they need AA

[EuroTroll]

Putin is no "vodka breath", but it's true that his speech in Munich caused a wave of concern and amazement among almost everyone present. Even Bush's harshest critics in Europe.

[Hondo]

This is what I've been saying too:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/10/putin.us.ap/index.html

Putin: U.S. force encouraging nuclear ambitions
POSTED: 9:10 a.m. EST, February 10, 2007

MUNICH, Germany (AP) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin blasted the United States Saturday for the "almost uncontained" use of force in the world, and for encouraging other countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

He also criticized U.S. plans for missile defense systems and NATO's expansion.

Putin told a security forum attracting top officials that "we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations" and that "one state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way.

"This is very dangerous, nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law," Putin told the gathering.

Putin did not elaborate on specifics and did not mention the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But he voiced concern about U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in eastern Europe -- likely in Poland and the Czech Republic -- and the expansion of NATO as possible challenges to Russia.

There may be a little exaggeration there but it looks like something many may have been thinking but have not chanced saying it in public.

You're right Eki. You have been saying that, but now Putin gets the paycheck and limo service. Something not fair about that. Maybe you ought to run for office.

[EuroTroll]

Concerning the NATO missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic - of course Putin forgot to mention that... Poland and the Czech Republic feel more secure. :rolleyes: Oh, how sad it is, Pootie-Poo, that everyone in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus seems to want to gravitate away from Russia, and towards the US. :rolleyes: Now why is that, I wonder? :rolleyes:

[VresiBerba]

Iran needs a good nuking and I can't understand the delays.

I couldn't agree more. I'm not afraid to die and I've grown sick and tired of USA bombing countrys left right and centre. A good nuking of Iran would more than likely result in another world war, and I support that so people finally can open their eyes for what America is doing to world stabillity.

[Roamy]

I couldn't agree more. I'm not afraid to die and I've grown sick and tired of USA bombing countrys left right and centre. A good nuking of Iran would more than likely result in another world war, and I support that so people finally can open their eyes for what America is doing to world stabillity.

right on Versi - we need to isolate. Hey I heard there is a city south of stockholm that is heavily populated by islamics and the city is no longer safe for blue eyed swedes to walk around. I also heard that in Holland muslims will soon be the majority population.

so versi in your opinion we should have left kuwiat alone and just accepted 911 and moved on - right

[Eki]

right on Versi - we need to isolate. Hey I heard there is a city south of stockholm that is heavily populated by islamics and the city is no longer safe for blue eyed swedes to walk around. I also heard that in Holland muslims will soon be the majority population.

so versi in your opinion we should have left kuwiat alone and just accepted 911 and moved on - right
Fousto, you should stop listening to those voices in your head. Besides, Iran had nothing to do with Iraq's invation in Kuwait or the 911 attacks.

[EuroTroll]

I also heard that in Holland muslims will soon be the majority population.

According to the CIA Factbook, 5.5 % of the people of the Netherlands are Muslim. I think perhaps the take-over is not yet imminent. :p :

[Eki]

Heh he. Not only Putin, but also Australia's Howard is lecturing the Americans on what they should do or not do:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251367,00.html

While Obama and Howard duke it out rhetorically, Australian Labor Party leaders appeared stunned by Howard's comments about a U.S. senator.

"It's the first time that I can recall that an Australian prime minister has engaged in American politics in such a partisan way ... actually telling American people what side of politics they should vote for," said opposition foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland.

"It's most inappropriate, it demeans the Australia-United States alliance to suggest it's a relationship between political parties rather than an enduring relationship between two people," he said.

[Roamy]

According to the CIA Factbook, 5.5 % of the people of the Netherlands are Muslim. I think perhaps the take-over is not yet imminent. :p :

whadda think couple years

[Bebee]

:rolleyes:

I'm slightly confused (due to being overworked and sleep-deprived). Either I did get Vresi's message in post #115 (which is highly likely :p : )... Or fousto got it right in post #116, and I've misunderstood post #115 (which seems really unlikely - and that's got nothing to do with the whole "I'm always right" sort of thing).

As for Howard, he's nuts yet some stupid people here keep insisting that he stays on as PM. :rolleyes: If you guys don't already know, there'll be a federal election sometime this year.

[Eki]

How the heck can a machining process be traced into any particular country?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251406,00.html

Three senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad said the "machining process" used in the construction of the deadly bombs had been traced to Iran.

[tinchote]

How the heck can a machining process be traced into any particular country?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251406,00.html

Three senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad said the "machining process" used in the construction of the deadly bombs had been traced to Iran.

I'm not sure this is the case, but armor-piercing is usually done by means of depleted uranium. Uranium from different sources has a "fingerprint" which is given by the distribution of isotopes within. If that's the case, the source can be traced with certainty.

[Eki]

I'm not sure this is the case, but armor-piercing is usually done by means of depleted uranium. Uranium from different sources has a "fingerprint" which is given by the distribution of isotopes within. If that's the case, the source can be traced with certainty.
My idea of "machining processes" are metal work processes like drilling, grinding, etc.

[Eki]

Moral of the story: If two idiots are quarrelling, you shouldn't get involved unless you want to be the third idiot:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1588147,00.html?cnn=yes

Is Iran to Blame? Iraq's Sunnis and Shi'a Don't Agree
Monday, Feb. 12, 2007 By APARISIM "BOBBY" GHOSH

The Sunnis say, "We told you so." The Shi'ites say, "Look who's talking." Iraq's leaders are divided along sectarian lines on almost every issue, big and small, so it should come as no surprise that the two sides have totally different views on the latest U.S. accusations about Iran supplying arms and know-how to Iraqi militias.

U.S. officials tag elements from Tehran but can't seem to finger their Iraqi cohorts.

The accusations were welcomed by Sunni politicians, who have long maintained that Tehran supports Shi'a death squads and militias. "We diagnosed this problem a long time ago," Salim al-Jabouri, a prominent Sunni member of Iraq's parliament, told TIME. "It was expected that the Americans would come to the same conclusion."

But Shi'a politicians, who comprise the largest block of the parliament and have close ties to Tehran, dismissed U.S. claims as propaganda by a Bush administration seeking to deflect blame for the American military's failure to curb the growing violence in Iraq. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has maintained a studied silence; Ali al-Dabbagh, his official spokesman, told TIME the government has no comment on the latest accusations. But an official in the Prime Minister's office questioned the credibility of U.S. intelligence, pointing to recent reports of evidence-fudging at the Pentagon in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. "They need a scapegoat, so they conveniently point to their old enemy, Iran," said the official, who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to talk to the media. "But these days American intelligence is a discredited commodity. Who can believe them?"

[jim mcglinchey]

I'm not sure this is the case, but armor-piercing is usually done by means of depleted uranium. Uranium from different sources has a "fingerprint" which is given by the distribution of isotopes within. If that's the case, the source can be traced with certainty.

I hadnt heard of thse IEDs before but if you read the link I think the precision machining process relates to the concave, steel dish that forms the 2000 metre/ second armour piercing projectile. Not many processors in the region could manufacture those, I'd imagine.

[Eki]

Not many processors in the region could manufacture those, I'd imagine.
And what says they have to come within "the region"? International arms dealers are happy to deliver to whom ever have the money to pay.

[Mark in Oshawa]

At least Chavez is a man who's not afraid to speak his mind and give tit for tat.

Ya we don't to wonder about Chavez, we know HE is a moron. Eki, Chavez in about 10 years will be seen as one of the worst things to ever happen to Venezuela. He wont be happy until he runs everything in that nation, and then cloak himself in the mantle of a democratically elected leader.

Meanwhile, apparently the Canadian and American embassies are swamped with Venezueleans with money and skills wanting out.

OH he speaks his mind alright, but just being forthright doesn't make you worthy of praise, being intelligent and having something constructive to add to the world's issues does. Hugo just demonizes the Americans because that is his game. You admire that of course Eki, but you like people with worthless anti-Bush platitudes...

[tinchote]

At least Chavez is a man who's not afraid to speak his mind and give tit for tat.

Neither were Hitler or Stalin. Neither is Bush. So what? :confused:

Fact is that Chavez is doing a lot of damage to Venezuela and to the rest of South America.

[tinchote]

My idea of "machining processes" are metal work processes like drilling, grinding, etc.

You are reading too much in those words. The same article says that they are not willing to give detailed information about the process used to determine the origin of the weapons. You may not believe them because of that, but to attack the truth of the investigation because of those words used is silly.

[Quattroporte]

Moral of the story: If two idiots are quarrelling, you shouldn't get involved unless you want to be the third idiot:



I heard a better one. Never argue with an idiot, they'll just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Quattroporte, that is so true....lord knows there are enough idiots to argue with around this world too...

[tinchote]

I heard a better one. Never argue with an idiot, they'll just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

That's a real good one :laugh:

[Roamy]

Hey EKI
How do you like Vodka Breath's newest use for the army???


Russian soldiers 'used for sex'

Russia's military has been tarnished by a series of scandals
The Russian military is reported to be investigating claims that army conscripts were forced to work as male prostitutes in St Petersburg.
The command of the interior ministry unit denied the claims made by the Soldiers' Mothers human rights group.

The group says it was contacted by a parent of a conscript who had been forced to work as a male prostitute.

Last year, an 18-year-old soldier was so badly beaten that he had to have his legs and genitals amputated.

The BBC's James Rodgers in Moscow says the latest claims follow a series of scandals which have damaged the Russian army's reputation.

A spokeswoman for the Soldiers' Mothers, Ella Polyakova, told the BBC that in St Petersburg there was "a network of clients" who would pay for sex with soldiers.

Older servicemen are said to have forced younger conscripts into prostitution and then taken the money for themselves.

Brutality

The Sychev bullying case drew worldwide attention to Russian army abuses.

Private Andrei Sychev was forced to squat for several hours by fellow soldiers and then tied to a chair and brutally beaten up last year.

As a result he developed gangrene in his legs and genitals, which had to be amputated.

Now permanently disabled, Pte Sychev has just announced that he is to write a book about his ordeal.

Such cases have highlighted the appalling conditions suffered by some Russian service personnel at a time when Russia is seeking a greater role on the world stage, our correspondent says.

[Eki]

Hey EKI
How do you like Vodka Breath's newest use for the army???


It's not my problem as long they keep within their own borders. I could imagine worse use for their army.

[SOD]

so the USA doesn't engage in torture???

[Eki]

so the USA doesn't engage in torture???
This was happening within the Russian army. I think a better analogy than torture would be the rape cases in the US Air Force Academy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_U.S._Air_Force_Academy_sexual_assault_scandal

[W8&C]

We can destroy the world without ever leaving home. Its exactly this possibility and this habit, that makes me shiver! And its really nothing to be proud of.


We are just trying to keep the rouge nations from doing damage in the free world.
That is true. Currently. But how will USA react, when i.e. freshwater resources become short some day in the future? Or if USA runs out of fuel? (you can imagine a lot of similar and perhaps more probable scenarios yourself). I guess you know the answer... and its an answer that´s not going to strenghten my good feelings when thinking of America and his citizens...

[Eki]

The greatest World Idiot of us all speaks again. Like Rumsfeld once said "As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns.That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.":

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/14/bush.conference/index.html

"We know [the bombs are] there, we know they're provided by the Quds force. We know the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government," he told a news conference.

"I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said 'the Quds force, go do this,' but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government. What matters is, is that we're responding."

[BrentJackson]

Eki, there was a new report out yesterday from the Telegraph in Britain about big-bore Austrian rifles sent to the Iranian national police to fight drug smugglers......that have been used by Iraqi resistance forces to kill US troops. I'm rather shocked nobody mentioned it.

I dunno how Chavez got into this, but he's a pain in the backside but harmless to the US really, and his power lust is gonna end up hurting him and Venezuela. The country's oil wells apparently are tough to keep producing and thanks to Chavez most of the country's skilled people are trying to get away as fast as they can. Hardly surprising that is, but Chavez better get people to replace them or he may be in deep trouble rather soon.

[Eki]

Has the US combined forces with al Qaeda against Iran? The Middle East is getting more and more like a soap opera:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/19/iran.hanging.ap/index.html

Iran hangs man convicted of Revolutionary Guards attack
POSTED: 7:50 p.m. EST, February 19, 2007

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran executed a defendant by hanging after a court convicted him of a bombing last week that killed 11 members of the elite Revolutionary Guards, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi was executed at the site of the attack in Zahedan, capital of Sistan-Baluchestan province in southeastern Iran, the report said. The sentence was carried out a day after a revolutionary court convicted him of the bombing.

A car loaded with explosives blew up Wednesday near a bus carrying members of the elite military corps, killing 11 and wounding 31. Zehi was arrested a few hours after the bombing.

A Sunni militant group which some believe is linked to al Qaeda claimed responsibility. Jundallah, or God's Brigade, has also been blamed for past attacks on Iranian troops.

IRNA quoted an unnamed official as saying on Friday that Zehi confessed that the attacks were part of U.S. plans to provoke ethnic and religious violence in Iran.

The report said Zehi was also convicted of separate offenses including the deaths of four policemen and two civilians and a bank robbery.

[Roamy]

This was happening within the Russian army. I think a better analogy than torture would be the rape cases in the US Air Force Academy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_U.S._Air_Force_Academy_sexual_assault_scandal

At least they aren't Gay !!

[Roamy]

Its exactly this possibility and this habit, that makes me shiver! And its really nothing to be proud of.


That is true. Currently. But how will USA react, when i.e. freshwater resources become short some day in the future? Or if USA runs out of fuel? (you can imagine a lot of similar and perhaps more probable scenarios yourself). I guess you know the answer... and its an answer that´s not going to strenghten my good feelings when thinking of America and his citizens...

the rest of the world will run out of sh!t long before we do.

[W8&C]

Hi fousto,

maybe you remember JFK´s famous speech:

„...
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.
...
not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
...
For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.“

And now look at your own statement:
the rest of the world will run out of sh!t long before we do.or listen to the tirades of George W. Bush instead. And keep in mind that your adored ideal, the Nation of Freedom and Justice, is ignoring civil laws and human rights i.e. by eavesdropping your own citizens, kidnapping people and sending them to prison without trial. Looks quite like a "vodka-breathe-behavior", doesn´t it?


All in all, as an American I´d be at least concerned and maybe sometimes even ashamed, that the current image of my country is heavily suffering in the eyes of a huge crowd of people and a steadily growing part of the world starts to dislike this nation...

[EuroTroll]

Well posted, W8&C. :up:

[Roamy]

Hi fousto,

maybe you remember JFK´s famous speech:

„...
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.
...
not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
...
For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.“

And now look at your own statement :o r listen to the tirades of George W. Bush instead. And keep in mind that your adored ideal, the Nation of Freedom and Justice, is ignoring civil laws and human rights i.e. by eavesdropping your own citizens, kidnapping people and sending them to prison without trial. Looks quite like a "vodka-breathe-behavior", doesn´t it?


All in all, as an American I´d be at least concerned and maybe sometimes even ashamed, that the current image of my country is heavily suffering in the eyes of a huge crowd of people and a steadily growing part of the world starts to dislike this nation...

In the time of JFK's famous speech we were not faced with the enemy we have today. As I have said many times - I am content to finish our job in Iraq - Come straight home - and cut out foreign aid. I don't know what is so difficult here. Bring all the weapons home and mind our own business. we don't need missiles in Europe. Cut the aid, build ethanol plants and mass transit. I don't subscribe to the theory of "Give me your Money and I will be your friend when it suits me" If you are worried about your image then get out of the spotlight. Let the rest of the world carry this backpack for a while and see how they do.

[Eki]

maybe you remember JFK´s famous speech:

„...
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.
...
not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
...
For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.“

No wonder he got shot then. There was a man about 2000 years ago who said something similar and was nailed to a tree.

[W8&C]

No wonder he got shot then. There was a man about 2000 years ago who said something similar and was nailed to a tree.

OT
Well I think its too far fetched to compare JFK with the nailed one, but although I was a kid in the early sixties I realized that JFK was something special.

And by the way: in my last posting perhaps it might sound as I´m an American. If that´s the case then sorry for that, I´m European and English isn´t my native language as everyone can easily see.
OT

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, he got shot because someone he made promises to didn't like what he was doing.

He was NOT shot however for his noble words. The strange part is, his words and the goals of the US now really are not diametrically opposed. Iraq and Saddam Hussein were the whipping boys of the left for their human rights abuses all throughout the 70's and 80's until Saddam stood up to the US. Then all the sudden, many of you made Bush the enemy....which says to me you really don't care about those people in Iraq. Well, the last time I looked, the reason Americans were going home in bags in Iraq was to try to give the Maliki government a chance to run a peaceful nation. How is THAT wrong? Ah yes, it is wrong because they are Americans, and they had no business getting rid of a man who was killing 20000 of his own people a year to hang onto power. Terrible man that Bush, getting rid of a man everyone saw as a stain on the human race....

[Eki]

Well, the last time I looked, the reason Americans were going home in bags in Iraq was to try to give the Maliki government a chance to run a peaceful nation.
So it wasn't the WMDs and the 9/11 attacks? Yep, and the real reason Stalin invaded Finland in 1939 was to liberate the Finnish working class from its oppressive capitalistic and fascistic leaders as he said it was. You can always find some "noble" cause to hide your true intentions. There were/are people in other parts of the world that were worse off than the Iraqis under Saddam, why didn't Bush do something for them instead? In Saddam's Iraq the life expectancy at birth was about 70 years, despite the sanctions, in some parts of Africa it's less than 40 years. Also according to the UN, about 35,000 Iraqis a year are now dying because of the current violence. That's worse than the 20,000 under Saddam. It's just not right to make a bad situation worse no matter how "nobel" your intentions are, especially to people in other countries who didn't even have the right to vote for you and you have no legal power over.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh Eki, do I really want to go to down this road with you again? First off, The NOBLE Cause was to get ride of a jerk. The Americans have spent billions of dollars and 3100 of their own lives to get to the point they are at now. Halliburton and the like would have made the money they make in other places if not rebuilding Iraq.

If Iraq's life expectancy at Birth was 70 plus years old, I would love to see where you dug THAT nugget up from. A lot of Western nations didn't manage that until the 60's and 70's. As for 35000 dying there now, it isn't the Americans killing them, Iraqi's of Shiite and Sunni faiths seem very happy to do that to each other. If the Americans leave, you really think this will stop? You really are naive if you believe THAT.

I would like to know how the Americans are making anything worse at this point. They are not making things better I will say, but if they don't put in the effort, change tactics and maybe find new ways to stop the violence, then that is a far greater sin isn't it? They made the mess in Iraq, so don't let them off the hook. Let them find a solution by either beating those who would kill, maim and enslave their fellow country men.

Also, when the Iranians get out of Iraq, maybe a lot of the shooting will stop, but as usual, you only have eyes for Uncle Sam. Spare me this crap about the Iranians just doing this because they don't trust the Americans. The Iranians want the US out of there, all they have to do is put a stop to the war and the Yanks will be out of there so fast it will make your head shake. The American people want an end to this but they want an end that will make sense. Walking out on a basketcase nation in a civil war is more gutless than anything. Of course, you tend to defend gutless actions I have noticed....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh one more thing. You are omitting one VERY salient fact. The Kurds are loving their freedom, they are getting on with looking for oil in the north, they are happy to just be who they are without someone trying to kill them, and they complain they don't see the Americans on the ground at all. So at least one part of Iraq appreciates the freedom they have due to the removal of Saddam Hussein. The fact that Sunni and Shiite whack jobs cant learn to understand that sharing power would be in their best interest is also not the fault of the Americans either. What is more, with Al Quaida running around helping the Sunni's, the Shiites being aided by Iranian elements, your condemnation of those two groups is sadly missing. Yet another example of you being willing to overlook the truth to bash just the Americans. Eki, your arguments are so damned one sided that they always seem to ignore glaring truths. I for one don't think America carried out the occupation of Iraq very well, and it was my only disagreement with them going to Iraq in the first place.

That said, they have gained very little by staying the last 2 years for all they have gotten is dead soldiers and scorn by the self righteous boobs in this world would tolerate almost any level of oppression as long as it was the other guy suffering.....

[Eki]

If Iraq's life expectancy at Birth was 70 plus years old, I would love to see where you dug THAT nugget up from.
I dug it up from the CIA World Fact Book DURING the invasion when we were debating if the invasion was a right thing to do. It's 69 years now, and it was about the same in 2002:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

Life expectancy at birth:

total population: 69.01 years
male: 67.76 years
female: 70.31 years (2006 est.)

[Eki]

Oh one more thing. You are omitting one VERY salient fact. The Kurds are loving their freedom, they are getting on with looking for oil in the north, they are happy to just be who they are without someone trying to kill them, and they complain they don't see the Americans on the ground at all. So at least one part of Iraq appreciates the freedom they have due to the removal of Saddam Hussein.
They were autonomous before the invasion too, since the first Gulf War in 1990. The only things they've gotten more now are mainly revenge and some seats in the Iraqi parliament.

[Eki]

An Iranian official says the US and Iran are natural allies:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/21/btsc.iran.amanpour/index.html

When the official waved the column by Friedman in my face at the start of the conversation, his point was this:

That despite disagreement over Iran's nuclear program, despite accusations that Iran is supporting anti-American killers in Iraq, despite even the 1979 hostage crisis, Iran and America are "natural allies" and the time has come to restore relations.

"We are natural allies. Why?" he said. "Because now the major threat for both Iran and the U.S.A. is al Qaeda."

He said al Qaeda had attacked the "symbol of our faith" when it struck the Golden Dome mosque -- the Al-Askariya Mosque -- in the Iraqi city of Samarra last February, setting off much of the sectarian violence that has plagued the war-torn nation over the last year. Similarly, he said, al Qaeda struck the "symbols of American power" on 9/11.

"Why is the U.S. forcing us to enter a struggle with them that is only in al Qaeda's interest?" he said.

[Malbec]

First off, The NOBLE Cause was to get ride of a jerk.

I like this comment, after the WMDs proved to be nonexistent and a link to 9/11 couldn't be found, the apologists for the invasion now say its because we had to get rid of Saddam.

Problem is of course, that 'jerk' isn't singular. There are plenty of 'jerks' around, whether it be Saddam, Mugabe, SLORC, the Kim dynasty, Turkmenistan or whatever.

I'm sure you believe the US was entirely altruistic in ridding Iraq of a most inhumane leader, but perhaps you can explain why they chose Iraq as opposed to any other country as their target of such munificience? Why has the US stopped at Iraq? Zimbabwe is pretty weak right now, I reckon only one or two US divisions could take the whole place over.

This revisionism as to why the US invaded Iraq is deplorable.

[raphael123]

I like this comment, after the WMDs proved to be nonexistent and a link to 9/11 couldn't be found, the apologists for the invasion now say its because we had to get rid of Saddam.

Problem is of course, that 'jerk' isn't singular. There are plenty of 'jerks' around, whether it be Saddam, Mugabe, SLORC, the Kim dynasty, Turkmenistan or whatever.

I'm sure you believe the US was entirely altruistic in ridding Iraq of a most inhumane leader, but perhaps you can explain why they chose Iraq as opposed to any other country as their target of such munificience? Why has the US stopped at Iraq? Zimbabwe is pretty weak right now, I reckon only one or two US divisions could take the whole place over.

This revisionism as to why the US invaded Iraq is deplorable.

Out of curiousity, do you think that the world would be a better place if Saddam was still in power, or do you think the getting rid of Saddam has made the world a better place, or even just Iraq? Cheers

[Mark in Oshawa]

I like this comment, after the WMDs proved to be nonexistent and a link to 9/11 couldn't be found, the apologists for the invasion now say its because we had to get rid of Saddam.

Problem is of course, that 'jerk' isn't singular. There are plenty of 'jerks' around, whether it be Saddam, Mugabe, SLORC, the Kim dynasty, Turkmenistan or whatever.

I'm sure you believe the US was entirely altruistic in ridding Iraq of a most inhumane leader, but perhaps you can explain why they chose Iraq as opposed to any other country as their target of such munificience? Why has the US stopped at Iraq? Zimbabwe is pretty weak right now, I reckon only one or two US divisions could take the whole place over.

This revisionism as to why the US invaded Iraq is deplorable.

Why Iraq? Well, combine the fact Saddam had started two wars in less than 25 years and would if left unchecked likely threatened Saudi Arabia or Kuwait again. Add on that the world's intelligence bodies all stated that they thought he was hiding a WMD program. I thought the premise to invade on WMD's was weak, and said so and have admitted so on many occasions. That said, Saddam did not live up to his terms of settlement with the UN under the cease fire of the first Gulf war. Remember that one? Where he brutally tried to annex Kuwait, raped and pillaged that little country, blew up the oil fields to create a great enviromental horror show that we civilized nations had to clean up. When it was clear the US could walk right up to Baghdad, they FOLLOWED their mandate from the UN, and didn't go any further, and Saddam signed off on 12 resolutions that allowed for inspections of his WMD programs by the UN under very strict rules. Saddam flouted these rules for over 8 years as the nations of the world threatened to enforce them by force if neccessary. So spare me the crocodile tears about poor ole Saddam being singled out.

This buffoon jerked the UN around early and often in their search for weapons. It wasn't just the CIA that was reporting he had the weapons, and the Kurds know damned well he had them because they were on the receiving end of them. So spare me again this argument that we are changing history because the US cant find the weapons now. In the build up to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had ample time to sell them to nearby Syria, bury them or destroy them himself. We have really no way of knowing what happened to the weapons, but if he didn't have the weapons, he sure put on a great show to the UN and the rest of the world pretending he was hiding something? THat is like going all in at a poker game with a 2-4 offsuit when the guy across the table is holding pocket aces and 3 face cards just came up on the flop. It wasn't very bright, and of course, he didn't deter anyone.

What is more, Iraq was as good a place as any to the US to invade for no other nation in that part of the world was as obvious in their distate for American foreign policy and American Influence. As obnoxious as the Iranians are, they are skilled at not pushing people into corners. Saddam, on the other hand, left the world with the choice of enforcing the UN terms by force, or for the UN to lose total relevence. Most of you think the UN has relevence, but without Bush actually holding Iraq to the terms of the 12 resolutions and the two that were passed leading up to the war, it has zero releveance.

AS for Zimbabwe, why would the US invade there? First off, you would be correct in saying there is no oil there. Damn right, it isn't altruristic to ignore this mess and I would love for the Americans to march in there and take the fool out who runs the show there, but they wont. Oil will pay for the rebuilding of Iraq, and it is the flow of oil on a free market that the US is always looking to protect. WHY? Because the world's economy would go into a complete tailspin without the free flow of oil. Letting someone like Saddam dictate terms to the rest of the world would guarntee trouble.

So in conclusion, you cynics can say the Americans are self serviing boobs who had no business invading Iraq. Us more logical people look at it this way. If Saddam Hussein was left to his own devices, would he be a ressponsbile member of the world community? Would he have stopped killing 20000 plus members of his own nation to keep power? Would he cease to be a threat to the world's oil producing nations in the Middle East? Would he cease funding terrrorist networks who would kill any one of us for no other reason than we are from the west? Would Saddam Hussein respect the resolutions of the UN? Would the UN enforce fairly and evenly these resolutions in a manner that would dictate they actually mattered?

If you seriously can answer YES to any one of those above questions, you are living in a fantasy land. History shows us Saddam Hussein was one of many threats the world has, but he was a growing threat if left unchecked, and while Eki has stated that the status quo to keep Saddam in check was working, Eki wasn't paying the billions of dollars it was costing the US and the UK to keep a military presence in the area. WE can agree that the US has botched the "peace" in Iraq, but I think for most of you, it isn't concern for the common guy on the street that Iraq that is driving this, it is an open desire to see the Yanks get humiliated and embarassed yet once again.

Well, they have bit off more than they can chew, but unlike some of you, I put the blame on this on the feet of of a leader who would enslave and kill his own people, religious zealots who would kill or maim anyone in the cause of creating an Islamic world, and naive champagne socialists who are great at telling everyone how if everyone would just listen to their enlightened arguments, we could all disarm.

The title of this thread is apt, WORLD IDIOTS seem to abound....and while I will accept that Bush may be an idiot on a lot of levels, some of you shouldn't throw stone in glass houses....

[Eki]

Why Iraq? Well, combine the fact Saddam had started two wars in less than 25 years and would if left unchecked likely threatened Saudi Arabia or Kuwait again. Add on that the world's intelligence bodies all stated that they thought he was hiding a WMD program.
He MAY have been athreat if left unchecked. I don't think mere suspicion justifies as drastic measures that were taken.



This buffoon jerked the UN around early and often in their search for weapons.
The US jerked the UN around far worse when it decided to invade despite the opposition of the UN. It has jerked the UN around also by not paying its due membership fees.


History shows us Saddam Hussein was one of many threats the world has, but he was a growing threat if left unchecked, and while Eki has stated that the status quo to keep Saddam in check was working, Eki wasn't paying the billions of dollars it was costing the US and the UK to keep a military presence in the area. .
With the money they have ALREADY spent on the invasion, they could have kept Saddam in check until Saddam and his sons died of old age.

Saddam was a threat to some in Iraq and POTENTIALLY to his neighboring countries, but he was a negligible threat to the World until the US decided to make it one. By defying the will of the UN and invading another sovereign country despite international opposition and against international laws it has created a dangerous precedent and lowered the bar to every crackpot leader who wants to flex their muscles and increase their circle of power. Now they may just say "If the US is allowed to do it, we should be also allowed to do it".

[Mark in Oshawa]

Negligible threat? Eki, the man invaded Iran and Kuwait. He was paying Hamas money to give to the families who offered up their KIDS as suicide bombers. I wont disagree that the US has spent a lot of money on this war, and that keeping Saddam under their thumb was cheaper, but it is a fallacy to say, well the US and the UK can keep Saddam in check by just keeping a lid on the sanctions. The dirty little secret is the French, Russians and Chinese were quite willing to ignore the UN sanctions and go around that great scam of "oil for food". You see Eki, unlike you, I don't expect the Americans to just pay to keep the world sane while telling them how stupid and inept they are.

As for their share of the UN, may I also remind you they put up with the presence of the UN in New York and would probably wish the UN would either gain some relevence or grow some balls and stand for something, but they wont, so why should the US keep pouring money into a hole. They do still fund a quarter of the UN's budget on paper, but for the abuse they take for it, I wonder why they belong to the UN at all.

They didn't defy the damned UN, they were enforcing UN resolutions. Saddam agreed to open access by the UN for WMD inspection. Saddam didn't give that by any real honest assessment and the US used THAT as the legal grounds to invade. Only you would use moral equivalency to say other nations would use this as a legal pretence to invade a neighbour. There is a few huge differences. One, I don't recall Saddam asking the UN's persmission when it invaded Iran or Kuwait, so it is obvious to me that most dictators do what they want when they want, and the other massive difference is that the US did it with 53 other nations, and their blessing. This was not a unilateral operation, although many of you seem to want to ignore that salient fact.

The fact that a left of center politician such as Tony Blair was in on this from the start says to me that this was not a George Bush wet dream. You continue with your fiction though that it is just American imperialism. Nothing I will say will ever change your closed mind, but I figure someone has to occasionally point out the truth.

[Malbec]

What is more, Iraq was as good a place as any to the US to invade for no other nation in that part of the world was as obvious in their distate for American foreign policy and American Influence. As obnoxious as the Iranians are, they are skilled at not pushing people into corners. Saddam, on the other hand, left the world with the choice of enforcing the UN terms by force, or for the UN to lose total relevence. Most of you think the UN has relevence, but without Bush actually holding Iraq to the terms of the 12 resolutions and the two that were passed leading up to the war, it has zero releveance.

So in conclusion, you cynics can say the Americans are self serviing boobs who had no business invading Iraq. Us more logical people look at it this way. If Saddam Hussein was left to his own devices, would he be a ressponsbile member of the world community? Would he have stopped killing 20000 plus members of his own nation to keep power? Would he cease to be a threat to the world's oil producing nations in the Middle East? Would he cease funding terrrorist networks who would kill any one of us for no other reason than we are from the west? Would Saddam Hussein respect the resolutions of the UN? Would the UN enforce fairly and evenly these resolutions in a manner that would dictate they actually mattered?

If you seriously can answer YES to any one of those above questions, you are living in a fantasy land. History shows us Saddam Hussein was one of many threats the world has, but he was a growing threat if left unchecked, and while Eki has stated that the status quo to keep Saddam in check was working, Eki wasn't paying the billions of dollars it was costing the US and the UK to keep a military presence in the area. WE can agree that the US has botched the "peace" in Iraq, but I think for most of you, it isn't concern for the common guy on the street that Iraq that is driving this, it is an open desire to see the Yanks get humiliated and embarassed yet once again.

Well, they have bit off more than they can chew, but unlike some of you, I put the blame on this on the feet of of a leader who would enslave and kill his own people, religious zealots who would kill or maim anyone in the cause of creating an Islamic world, and naive champagne socialists who are great at telling everyone how if everyone would just listen to their enlightened arguments, we could all disarm.

The title of this thread is apt, WORLD IDIOTS seem to abound....and while I will accept that Bush may be an idiot on a lot of levels, some of you shouldn't throw stone in glass houses....

Wow, you do like generalisations don't you. Since I haven't discussed this matter with you before I would like to know how you presume to know my opinions on this matter.

So you feel that Saddam was an active threat to his neighbours?

May I suggest you read the "Bush at War" series by Bob Woodward (of Watergate fame) who had access to Bush and his inner circle during the immediate aftermath of 9.11 right through to the buildup of the war on Iraq.

In it you'll find that Bush was briefed by the CIA, State Department and the military that Iraq was a neutralised threat, that his armed forces were crippled through lack of parts, and the greatest danger facing the US and her allies in the region from Iraq was through the shooting down of US/UK aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. Despite this, he chose to go ahead, seemingly because of a need to be seen to do something, anything about 'terror'.

So he killed thousands of his own civilians? Isn't it ironic that Saddam was finally executed for killings committed when he was a US ally? Where was this concern for his human rights abuses then? What about the other regimes right now that are doing the same?

BTW, please don't even try to suggest that maintaining no-fly-zones was more expensive than invading and rebuilding the country.

As for supplying terrorist groups that threaten the West, can you name the particular groups? IIRC most of the groups he funded were anti-Israel, compensating the families of suicide bombers etc, but none had conducted any attacks on US/EU targets or had shown any intention of doing so.

Your portrayal of the WMD situation is rather weak. That Saddam used it on the Kurds and Iranians and threatened to use it in Gulf War 1 is not proof that he retained it after the UN checks post war. Those UN inspections were not exhaustive, and there was obvious doubt that not all the WMD reserves had been destroyed, but neither was there any proof that the Iraqis had retained any.

The invasion of Iraq was counselled against by many of the countries you suggest Saddam was threatening, with Jordan, Syria, Saudi and Egypt lobbying US envoys that Iraq would not turn out as the US hoped, that the risk of sectarian violence was incredibly high, that the Iraqi civil service, police and army would not turn up to work the day after capitulation as the Yanks were counting on.

The end result, which is ironic given that you agree that the US invasion was partly to secure oil supplies, is that the US has lost so much face with her traditional Arab allies in the region that they are beginning to turn to the Chinese and Russians in order to hedge their bets as to who will become the next powerbroker in the region. In doing so, the US has harmed the long term aspirations of its own oil companies in the region for years to come.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Dylan, you are not wrong with some of your assertions but I wont buy into your arguments totally.

I stand by the fact that Iraq could be a threat if left unchecked. Yes, the US has a handle on Iraq but at some point, America wanted to have a solution to Iraq, and they gambled on Saddam either coughing up the WMD's, proving to the world he didn't have them, or do neither and give the Americans the pretence to invade. Saddam is the idiot, he was playing poker with an empty hand. He was bluffing and playing a game he couldn't win.

Bob Woodward's take on the Bush administration is an interesting book, but I don't buy his knowledge is total and final. It wasn't just Mr. Bush that was driving this bus, Blair, the leadership in Spain and the Italians were anxious for a resolution to the Iraq question. Something made these nations nervous and many other nations signed onto this invasion. To just blame Bush for it is too easy and too simple.

Has the US harmed their influence in the Middle East? I don't think they had that much influence with Arab nations anyhow. The Arabs do what they want for not one of those nations is governed by a leader who seems to respect democratic principles. Some of them maybe sypathetic to Americans, or in the case of Kuwait, grateful still for standing up to Saddam the first time, but for the most part, the nations in this area don't really listen to American advice and counsel anyhow. They have no problem telling the Americans that they wont enter into a true lasting respectful relationship with Israel. They wont listen to Americans on freeing up their economic systems and allowing democratic reforms either. This Iraq adventure was seen naively perhaps as a chance to put a stamp on an Arab nation for democratic freedoms and insititutions. You are not surely going to suggest people in Iraq don't deserve to be free?

America's rep will recover. They have screwed up before, they have screwed this up, but if you are to stop and think about something, realize this. Bin Laden said he made the decision to attack America because they were in the holy land during the first Gulf War. He upped the ante when America didn't have the stomach for the fight in Somalia, and when 9/11 happened, you had to know that things were going to change in the Middle East. America gambled on their Iraq adventure, and if Iraq was on the way to a true democracy now, don't think for a second most of the Arab nations that are critical of America wouldn't be standing up and taking notice. The Arab world respects two things, the strong use of force, and not backing down.

The Yanks didn't use the force to keep a lid on things but at least they aint backing down. I think they have no choice now, they have to finish the job to some sort of conclusion. Not sure how that will happen, or many more will die, but they have no choice. To leave now would be criminal.

I do know this much. It amazes me the number of people who have invested their hearts and hopes on America getting their asses kicked in Iraq....this aint some football game....

[Jaws]

Dylan, you are not wrong with some of your assertions but I wont buy into your arguments totally.

I stand by the fact that Iraq could be a threat if left unchecked. Yes, the US has a handle on Iraq but at some point, America wanted to have a solution to Iraq, and they gambled on Saddam either coughing up the WMD's, proving to the world he didn't have them, or do neither and give the Americans the pretence to invade. Saddam is the idiot, he was playing poker with an empty hand. He was bluffing and playing a game he couldn't win.

Bob Woodward's take on the Bush administration is an interesting book, but I don't buy his knowledge is total and final. It wasn't just Mr. Bush that was driving this bus, Blair, the leadership in Spain and the Italians were anxious for a resolution to the Iraq question. Something made these nations nervous and many other nations signed onto this invasion. To just blame Bush for it is too easy and too simple.

Has the US harmed their influence in the Middle East? I don't think they had that much influence with Arab nations anyhow. The Arabs do what they want for not one of those nations is governed by a leader who seems to respect democratic principles. Some of them maybe sypathetic to Americans, or in the case of Kuwait, grateful still for standing up to Saddam the first time, but for the most part, the nations in this area don't really listen to American advice and counsel anyhow. They have no problem telling the Americans that they wont enter into a true lasting respectful relationship with Israel. They wont listen to Americans on freeing up their economic systems and allowing democratic reforms either. This Iraq adventure was seen naively perhaps as a chance to put a stamp on an Arab nation for democratic freedoms and insititutions. You are not surely going to suggest people in Iraq don't deserve to be free?

America's rep will recover. They have screwed up before, they have screwed this up, but if you are to stop and think about something, realize this. Bin Laden said he made the decision to attack America because they were in the holy land during the first Gulf War. He upped the ante when America didn't have the stomach for the fight in Somalia, and when 9/11 happened, you had to know that things were going to change in the Middle East. America gambled on their Iraq adventure, and if Iraq was on the way to a true democracy now, don't think for a second most of the Arab nations that are critical of America wouldn't be standing up and taking notice. The Arab world respects two things, the strong use of force, and not backing down.

The Yanks didn't use the force to keep a lid on things but at least they aint backing down. I think they have no choice now, they have to finish the job to some sort of conclusion. Not sure how that will happen, or many more will die, but they have no choice. To leave now would be criminal.

I do know this much. It amazes me the number of people who have invested their hearts and hopes on America getting their asses kicked in Iraq....this aint some football game....

I say this with a great deal of respect to America and the many American people that I have had the pleasure of dealing with over the years in a business capacity.

My brother represents Australia at a well known Worldwide Forum that I wont name, where the USA has always had a strong presence. He recently related how things have changed at this delegation over the past few years. After 9/11 and the commencement of the Iraq War, the US delegates had a very strong presence and he said that the rest of the world had a lot of sympathy for the USA. Whenever the US delegates spoke about what was happening in the world and what the course of action should be, a certain amount of respect was given.

Fast forward to 2007 and the US representatives are now considered a ridiculous joke, representatives speak and the house erupts with laughter.

I dont know if invading Iraq was wrong or right. But I can tell you one thing, America's reputation on the World stage has been diminished to the point of it being a laughing stock. I don't know if you guys know the extent of it, or even care, but that is sad.

I do not wish this on a country that I dearly love and have so many wonderful associations, but surely, there must be a time where you sit up and say 'what have we done?"

[Roamy]

Jaws
We can handle it just fine and I appreciate you kind comments. Sometimes there is a real unpleasant tough job to do and when someone does it ridicule could be very prevelant by those who don't have the balls to stand up. We will be fine and we will come through this in good shape. I just hope we move to isolate and reduce most foregin aid. We are kinda like a wife that leaves you. Get a replacement big boy!!

[Jaws]

Jaws
We can handle it just fine and I appreciate you kind comments. Sometimes there is a real unpleasant tough job to do and when someone does it ridicule could be very prevelant by those who don't have the balls to stand up. We will be fine and we will come through this in good shape. I just hope we move to isolate and reduce most foregin aid. We are kinda like a wife that leaves you. Get a replacement big boy!!

Well I for one do hope that you guys come out OK in the end. I worry that the US has gone from a position of high respect to , well . . ..

Seriously,I am getting a little sick of everyone beating up on USA, it doesn't mean I agree with everything (or anything) they have done, but I think we need to take stock occassionally and recognise what a great country it is.

I've said before, some of the most kind hearted, generous people I have met in my life have been Americans, I have watched the whole Iraq thing the WMDs Saddam etc, I'm over it. I'm movin on.

[Eki]

This might be a little off topic, but it definitevily falls into the idiot category. Maybe the next time they'll play "Find the Nigger" so that they can wear cool white hooded robes and burn a cross in front of the university:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253902,00.html

"Find the Illegal"

The College Republicans at New York University held a "Find the Illegal Immigrant" event today.

The rules were rather simple — members of the club showed their NYU ID cards and they were deemed immigration agents for the day. Other club members wore nametags that read "illegal immigrant" and hid in a crowd. The person who successfully identifies the illegal won a free gift certificate.

The event caught the ire of college Democrats and in a press release sent out by the Democratic National Committee, they condemned the event, calling it quote "deeply offensive anti-immigrant," "racially divisive," going on to say, "College Republicans seem to have no shame in continuing to scapegoat and pinpoint immigrants for their own political gain."

Sarah Chambers, the president of the NYU Republicans denies the event is racist; rather it's a provocative attempt to spark debate on the issue of illegal immigration.

[Roamy]

great job by the college- every citizen here needs to stand up and help us become vigilant in protecting our country. Get a visa or get the hell out of here. We have to register when we go to other countries so the requirement should be the same. We get deported right away without proper document and so should they!! end of story. Americans working in Mexico are required to have at least a FM3 (working passport) and all should be required to get the same if in our country. Most Americans honor the time restrictions when visiting other countries and mutual respect should be enforced.

[Roamy]

Farrakhan in his last public speech. Happens sometime today and I can't wait. This should be a "Dooozy" I wonder if EKI is there?????