so whats every1s view on the US/Iraq situaton?

[futuro]

Originally posted by Borscht
"Conditions of a successful campaign", as defined by the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media:

First, I'll ask if you have any cites for these.

No? Ok, I'll answer them one by one.

- The war must end in a week, 10 days at the most.

I don't see any media outlets saying this. They're quite content to garner the increased ratings that things like this give them. They're actually hoping that the war goes well into May, sweeps month, so they can show high ratings to their sponsers, and get higher ad revenue. Personally, I wish it didn't start.

- There must be no U.S. casualties.

If it didn't start, there wouldn't be any US causualties, would there? Who's saying this, other than the mothers and fathers or the troops, and concerned Americans?

- There must be no capture of coalition forces.

Cite? Oh yeah, I askes you for one before. But then again, if there was no war....

- There must be no deaths from friendly fire.

- There must be no deaths from accidents.

- No Iraqi civilians can be killed in the process.

- No Iraqi schools, mosques or hospitals can be damaged.

Funny, but people who are concerned about human life, and the US's reputation in the world are concerned about this stuff, too. And just maybe, if we didn't start this war....

- Our troops must be welcomed by Iraqis waving American flags.

Wow, this sounds like somethins Bush Inc. would want too. After all, they're the ones who claim this is to "liberate" Iraq.

- We must find weapons of mass destruction.

I would think Bush would want this, too. After all, if we don't find any, isn't one of the main reasons gone? Doens't the "war for oil" stance gain much strength? At the very least, it makes our intelligende community look... unintelligent?

- We must kill or capture Saddam Hussein and his sons.

Rumsfeld said yeterday that if Saddam dies, the war is over. Sounds like that's what he wants, doesn't it?

- There can be no oil well fires or other environmental disasters.

I'm starting to believe that you're spoofing a neo-con. This is just too funny. So I guess that Chaney want oil well fires?

Oh, wait! He does! He gets cash to clean them up! I forgot... Haliburton already has a contract.

- Defense spending cannot grow beyond the current 3.5% of GDP

Too late for that, isn't it? Can defense spending grow beyond 50% of the world total? Is that ok?

I see a signpost up ahead. Next stop....the Twilight Zone

Obviously, that's where you are.

[futuro]

Originally posted by hhh
[B]futuro, nice to have a refreshing debate w/o any resort to name-calling because opinions differ isn't it ?

It's too rare lately, that's for sure. Thanks for that!

>It's funny that everybody here seems to think it fine for the US to have the weapons that we deem necessary for our defense, but other countries can't do the same.<

Following that logic, ok, maybe even we shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction. Then something like 9/11 happens to us anyway (and it would - Ill get to this further down). Shouldn't we retaliate? Or just take it and turn the other cheek?

Not at all. We are a nation of laws. A criminal organisation committed that tragic act. We should hunt down and arrest those responsible for planning it. They should be put on public trial, and evidence should be presented and hopefully they should be convicted and put away for a long time. Personally, I'm against the death penalty, and in any case, putting those people to death just creates martyrs that others can use as inspiration.

Sometimes after thinking about this, I wonder if the world itself isn't very lucky that on 9/12, 90% of the middle east wasn't a radioactive mess.

You know, I live in NJ. I used to work downtown. I personally knew about 7 people who died, and with "friends of friends", it would have to be over 40 people. I could see the smoke from my front door. I was pissed. The thought did cross my mind, and with the credible evidence that the Taliban was basically a front for Al Quada, I was all for the Afghanistan action. Than I read some stuff about how Unocal had been trying to get a pipeline across Afghanistan for several years, but the Taliban kept raising the stakes, and they finally bailed. And I read credible evidence that the Bush administration resumed talks about the pipeline in the summer of '01. Then I read about he FBI agent in Arizona (I forget his name, can look it up if you want) that was warning about Saudi immigrants acting strangely at a flight school, and other cases like this in Minessota and Florida. The agent in Arizona got so disgusted that he resigned and took the job of director of security at the WORLD TRADE CENTER!, and died in the attack. I read about Mary Jo White, the federal prosecutor for Manhattan being told to drop an investigation of the Bin Laben family and subsequently resigning. Hmm....

Now I'm not into conspiracy theories in general, but sometimes there are conspiracies. I'm not saying that Bush knew, but I'm not saying he didn't. The secrecy of the current administration troubles me also. The whole "enegy policy" conferences, that Chaney refuses to release, meetings attend by Ken Lay, and other energy company CEO's, the decision by Bush to not release Reagan's papers, even though the law states that after 12 years, a presidents papers must be released, and some other things make me wonder what they are hiding.

My wife wouldn't listen to some of the real facts I told her, because she couldn't believe that people would allow people to die simply for money. Since this war started, she's listening. She told me yesterday, that she can't believe that Bush would send US troops to die and kill Iraqi's for oil money. I said, oh, you still don't think it's true.... she said, no I just can't believe that people would do that. I don't know anyone like that and hope I never do. At my urging, she read some history, and now knows that people send people to die for money. She's disgusted.

>Being the most powerful nation in the world doesn't give us the right to dicate to the rest of the world how they should act. <

No, but with it, comes some indirect responsibilites and well, for lack of a better word, conditions.

I wonder why you think that. If you're the biggest guy on the block, is it you're responsibility to intervene in every dispute that happens on your block? Do you go and shoot the guy with the gun just because he might shoot his next door neighbor? Do you beat up the father who doesn't give his kids enough to eat, because he wants to spend the money on bulletproof walls becasue he's afraid of you?

Even the nutcase on the block who once broke into the neighbors house, but has been on probation for 12 years, and hasn't done a thing, do you beat him up because he might do something to you? Part of freedom is accepting risk that someone else will abuse their freedom. People or countries are free to act unless they infringe on other people's or country's rights.

I'm just of the opinion that going the high road and treating the rest of the world like we are supposed to treat American citizens will go a long way to show the world that freedom is the wat to go. Acting like the local bully just makes for resentment and anger.

As _THE_ superpower, you are going to be hated/envied no matter how nice you are, how much good things you do, or the nice things you do for society.

No, I disagree. I'll expand on that below....

Think about a local celebrity or something you know that is well off. If this person doesn't help or given back to the community, they are percieved as stuck up or too good for everyone. If this person does give back to the community, people think they are trying to buy themselves publicity to make oneself look good. Jealousy is something people are born one, and those that have not are going to be jealous, its natural. People will always envy/resent the United States no matter how much good/bad we do.

I currently live between Freehold and Asbury Park, New Jersey. This is Bruce Springsteen country, man. He's the local hero, that's for sure. He gives back, and he's perceived as a local hero, and always willing to help those in need. Asbury Park has been in a decline for years, and he's been working hard to restore it's old glory. There's not a soul around here that says a bad word about Bruce. Every restaurant has a picture of him, even the three local pizza places. He's been there. He supports the community, and even though he lives in several ritzy places around the country, he always comes back to help. That's one example.

For a contrasting example from my youth on Long Island, we had an enclave of ritzy houses with some wealthy people near where I lived. My father had a dry cleaners that serviced that area. Two families come to mind. One was the owners of 6 department stores all over Long Island called Seaman's. Well, Mr. and Mrs. Seaman lived in that ritzy area. One day, while hitchhiking home, Mrs. Seaman stopped and gave me a ride. She said "You're Joe the Cleaner's son, aren't you? I've seen you there" ... She went out of her way to take me right to my house. She was wonderful, chatty, and kind. She and her husband were known in our middle class area as great people, always donating to the volunteer fire department, the American Legion, and other organizations.

The other "person" was Alan Jay Lerner. If you're into musicals, you might know "Lerner and Lowe", who wrote "Brigadoon" and a couple of other big Broadway shows that were made into movies. Well, here was a nasty bastard... My friend's mother worked for him as a housekeeper. One day, my friend and a few of us were having a picinc on his property (part of about 50 acres). There was 4 of us, and my friend had to be there, since his father was working. He had permission to be there, and we were just hanging, bothering nobody on a piece of land that wasn't used for anything. He noticed us, and sent the BUTLER to tell us to leave. The next day, he fired my friend's mother. Needless to say, he wasn't looked upon as a nice person in the community. He never supported any local organizations, and made my father wait 6 months to get paid, routinely!

Now who do you think would get his house egged on Halloween?

Bottom line is, you reap what you sow.

>Why do you think that other countries should take care of their less fortunate citizens when we don't? Why do you condemn Iraq and North Korea for spending money on their militaries at the expense of their poor, starving citizens when we're doing the exact same thing? <

I think plenty is spent on such in our own country. At just above 10% I think our poverty level is less than that of the compared countries. Couple with the fact that inflation isn't 60% here. Poverty should include the type of economy (ie unemployment, do a degree and such) that a government creates for its people, and I think they are slightly neglogent. Granted Bush is leaving a lot of room for improvement for economic policy.

Well, you might think so, but the ultimate goal of the neo-cons is to strip the federal government of the ability to help people educate themselves and remove any safety blanket. They want all the money for themselves.

You know, I hypothesized once that another reasont his war was "hurried" (well, thats an incorrect term, any idiot knows that if we were going to war it had to be before the hot weather hit in the desert) -- but another whole reason was to get servicemen out of the country, for an extended period of time -- since this would artifically make unemployment seem lower than it really is, compared to if those people were here and looking for day jobs too. History shows generally war is good for economy, but when people return afterwords usually equals a slump, due to the excess labor force. I had to discredit the hypothesis due to no hard evidence since I don't operate soley on conjecture. It just did seem to fit in kind of "neatly" though.

If the shoe fits Perhaps that's not the main reason, but it sure doesn't hurt, does it?

>So how do you know that the stories they tell you aren't designed to inflame your emotions into supporting an attack on the world's second largest oil reserves?<

Again, things aren't so black and white, and the media in this country isn't solely controlled by the government, so your going to hear it "all", not just stories that would seem to make you pro-war.

No, the media isn't controlled by the government. It's controlled by corporations. And who do you think controls the government?

> And if Saddam is such a terrible guy, and wants to screw everybody anyway possible, why is he trading with France and Russia in such a way that they would want to continue? <

Ever heard of gangs? Bad guys band together? He needed an ace up the hole incase the US was going to come after him again? Afterall he tried many a time to draw Israel into the Gulf War, and we know what that would do that area. Man if Israel ever gets involved, even the US better stay out of their way. These people have fought since their existance, no one is a match for them.

Watch what you're saying. Bad guys banding together, huh? Does that apply to Reagan and his support for Saddam, and looking the other way when Saddam used chemical waepons against Kurds and Iranians? I'm failing to recall any outcry in the 80's when Saddam was actually using chemical weapons. And yes, it's true that we only get about 3% of our oil from Iraq, but did you know that 40% of Iraq's oil goes to us? Hmm....

Of all the things I've been reading lately, I really find the protests upsetting. The time for demonstations is over, that should have been done before the bombs started dropping.

It was....

Now its time to line up behind your President and support him whether you approve of what hes doing or not.

No, absolutely not! That's a sure road to dictatorship. All Bush has to do is keep invading countries that offend him. Are you going to support the invasion of Iran? Syria? Jordan? Saudi Arabia? I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler, he's not the same, but what you're espousing is exactly what the German citizens did when Hitler invaded Austira, Checkoslovakia. Poland .... I'll paraphase and old quote "They came for the jews, I didn't speak up, cause I'mnot a jew... they came for the gypsys, I didn't speak up becasue I'm not a gypsy.... when they came for me, there was noone left to speak up."

I have a ton of friends that are in Iraq now, and they know their mission is to bring a new Gov't to Iraq, and they are stoked about it. I remember in the Guilf War I was always worried about getting drafted and such. (I later found out I'm disqualified for any type of military service because of being blind in 1 eye). The opportunity to fight for your on country would be such an honor, even if you don't approve of what we are doing, it is your duty to your country. If not, Canada isn't far away because your disrepecting what this country was built on.

I hope all your friends come back healthy, and soon (today, if possible). But fighting for your country implies that there is a fight. As far as I know, Iraq has made a few empty threats, but hasn't attacked us. We have attacked them. Let me tell you something. I'm not to enamored about Bush, but if some country, or group of countries came here, right or wrong, to invade my space, I'd fight them to the death. Even if it was Bush's fault. Even if Bush was wrong. This is my home, and you don't come here and tell me what to do. If Bush is bad, I'll get rid of him, not you. I'll bet there's thousands of Iraqis that feel the same way.

And FYI, this country wasn't built on invading another country just becasue thet might someday have the remote cance of attacking us. It was built on freedom, and respecting other rights. We're losing that today.

A minister of mine once said something along the lines of "a true friend is someone that knows everything about you, and is still your friend". That said, I'd like to publically say thanks for the UK, and Tony Blair, one of the most courageous men alive today for standing shoulder to shoulder with the US amist skeptism in his own country in the name of doing the right thing. We certainly know who one true friend is.

I disagree. A true friend is someone who'll tell you that you're acting like an idiot, and still like you. Tony Blair is acting like a syncophant, just yessing along with Bush. He's like a Smithers yessing along with Mr. Burns. But even Smithers objected when Mr. Burns wanted to block the sun from shining on Springfield.

(Simpsons reference free of charge)

[futuro]

It seems I used most of my EQ time responding to posts...

Going to continue that stupid coldain shawl quest, halfway thorugh the third one now... gotta get that baking skill up!

[hhh]

Originally posted by futuro
It seems I used most of my EQ time responding to posts...

Going to continue that stupid coldain shawl quest, halfway thorugh the third one now... gotta get that baking skill up!

Only got a few minutes since I'm waiting for the market to open

But I quit eq finally a few weeks ago and cancelled my 6 accounts. Having a working showeq 2 weeks out of 3 months didn't allow it to be fun enough anymore. Now, I don't care, lol, its great

[Alwayslost]

BoardAdmin,

Can we please change the title of this thread to "Fun Stories with Futuro the Clown"?

[homer]

France, Germany, and Russia *disagreed* and wanted to give more time for inspections.

We have had 10 years of inspections. 10 years of them lying. 10 years of them hiding. When inspectors would show up unannounced at a place, they were denied entry. One of those places was that factory that we took over. Gee...

And France and Russia didn't want us to because of what they were selling Iraq, GPS Scramblers, Night vision goggles, weapons, etc. Well.. weren't all those things banned by the sanctions? Let me look... Oh, Yup. They were...

They didn't want us finding that stuff. It was shipped to Iraq IN humanitarian supply shipments.

[Borscht]

Yup. The peaceniks shout "No war for oil!", the French shout "No war, for oil!"

Those countries that threatened veto are *all* in bed with Saddam. France has sweetheart oil-deals in exchange for light-water reactor technology and parts used in enriching plutonium. Germany too.

Russia is now revealed as having sold those GPS scramblers, night vision goggles, etc.

All those suggesting continuing sanctions/inspections are those who have been violating the sanctions all along. Arming Iraq right up to the present.

But all of the former Eastern Bloc nations have been behind us since the beginning. They know what a tyrant looks like, and they appreciate the unique role America plays as the liberator and protector of liberty in the free world.

Bush's diplomacy has been stunningly brilliant. As he said in his address post-911, we're about to find out who our friends really are.

Scratch France, Germany, Canada and Russia off that list. Turkey is now suspect. The UN revealed to even the most skeptical as an irrelevant group of appeasers, dedicated to the obstruction of American efforts in every arena. NATO a limp and useless vestige of the past.

The stage is now set for moving forward. There is no political gain in supporting the UN or NATO any longer. Very little to lose in withdrawing our forces from Germany.

And America may now act in her own interests, without having to kowtow to a bunch of tin-horn dictators who seek to do us in.

On the homefront, the Democrat party has done itself in. The elites of academia and the caviar socialists of Hollywood the same. There is no respectability or power left in being a protestor of war. The 60's Woodstock crap is deflated and revealed as mere mindless reactionism.

The supposed "idiot cowboy" has played both our international and our domestic enemies like a Stradivarius. We can expect at least an entire generation relatively free of their meddling.

Absolutely brilliant, stunningly so. Reaganesque.

[Chyran]

I didn't read all this now. Just to tell some of the still reading persons what somebody from Germany thinks about this.

I have to say that I can't understand why a person that didn't even win an election can rule a country, and have as much might as he wants. He practically can do anything now. Do you know that the CIA will know about every book you buy? That, when you want to fly, your credit card history and bank account will be checked to determine if you are good enough to fly?

Also, and this is my personal view, I think that this war is all about oil. It has nothing to do with any terrorists (Saddam would be really stupid if he'd had contacts to terrorists - and he showed us that he is definitely _not_ stupid) or with that 'Saddam is a bad guy' thing. Sure he is, but Bush doesn't care about much worse guys. Hell, the US did even give him his might in the first place (as they gave to the Afghanistan regime too, when Russia fought them). Also, it's not at all about chemical, biological or *laugh* nuclear weapons. The whole world had to laugh as we were shown the 'proves' of these weapons by Rumsfeld. Northern Corea has more dangerous weapons than the Irak, why doesn't Bush attack North Corea? Because the weapons don't matter here.

Bush said (I think today) that the war will cost something along the lines of 75.000.000.000 US $ (if I remember it right). It already costed(sp?) a reasonable amount of soldiers their lives, and it will cost a much larger number of them theirs too. How can it be worth this? Why does the money not go to people in the US who really need it? As far as I know, poverty is not an unknown think in the United States.

Do you know how many international treaties the US just ignore to fight this war? This war has not been approved by the UN. The reasons for this war were all jokes. The 'proves' that were shows were to make the American people approve that war. We here ask us, what gives the US the right? This is clearly an aggressive act, a war for oil and/or money, and how could it possibly justified? Who can now prevent the US from doing just what they want, when they don't care at all about what other nations do and think?

There were pictures in our TV that the US TV stations didn't send. Pictures of wounded and captured American soldiers. They were questioned and shown in the Iraqi TV to strenghten the will if the Iraqi fighters. Of course these pictures don't appear in the US TV. Nobody would like them. But there are pictures in the US TV showing how great the war goes, to blind the masses and enable the administration to do whatever it likes. There is alway a certain form of censorship in the media, but what I have heard from the US exceeds anything I have ever feared. Do you even hear about all the people that went out onto the streets to demonstrate against that war? There were hundreds of thousands (!!!!!) in Germany, hundreds of thousands in France, in Spain, and even in Great Britain. For example, it is spoken of 10.000.000 people who demonstrated against this war on February 15/16 all over the world. 300.000 people were on the streets in London. Can you even imagine this number? 2/3 of Great Britain people are against this war, and Blair has already lost some of the people he governed with. Nobody knows what devil rides him to participate actively in this war, and the common attitude is that it will cost him at least the next elections. And then there are mass demonstrations in the US itself! Is this shown in the American TV? I doubt it.

We people here in Europe (and a reasonable part of the goverments too) are really pissed off by the way the US government spits in the faces of the other countries that believe in Freedom and Democracy, but don't approve this war. I think that, if the US government continues to ignore other countries like this in decision as important as this, it will definitely not have a good end.

Jesus, even the Pope said that he disapproves this war. How can Bush still say "God bless America"?

Do you even know where the Iraq is? Could you find Germany or France on a world map? Consider yourself well educated if you can, a huge amount of Americans can't.

If I think about all the wars that were started by the USA, with reasons as great as a ship blown up by (this was later discovered) the CIA, the politicians assassinated by the CIA, the upraisings supported or suppressed by American troops and agents, and all the other things nobody knows about yet I become sick.

Read this:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php
And if you got much time, read some of this:
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy.html

Chyran,
In deep admiration of those who try to open the eyes of all others, and deep sorrow of all the ruined destinies of everybody who was affected by War, Terrorism and political games.

(Do not look at this picture if you have a weak stomach: http://www.redglobe.info/logos/aktue...kind-basra.jpg)

[futuro]

Originally posted by Chyran
I didn't read all this now. Just to tell some of the still reading persons what somebody from Germany thinks about this.

Some of us Americans are always willing to hear opinions from our compatriots around the world. Other American might not listen, though. Others might deride you and call you names for your views. They're the people I'll talk about below.

I have to say that I can't understand why a person that didn't even win an election can rule a country,

Unlike other countries, the US has a system called the Electoral College. When we "vote for president", what we are actually doing is voting for a slate of electors pledged to that particular candidate. These electors are elected or a state by state basis, with smaller population states having a larger proportionate representation. For example, California has ~20 million people, and gets 54 electors. This is based on California's 52 representatives in the House of Reprentatives and it's 2 Senators.
Quick math yields about 370,000 people per elector. On the other extreme, Delaware has 3 electors, based on their 1 representative and 2 Senators. Delaware's population is ~800,000 people, yielding about 270,000 people per elector. What this means is that people in smaller state actually have a vote that is worth more than people in larger states. Bush was stong in these smaller states, while Gore was very strong in the larger states. Bush won a vast majority of the smaller states by small majorities, while Gore won the larger states by larger majorities. The electors are a winner-take-all proposition. When a candidate wins a state, he gets all it's electors, even if he wins by one vote.

Strange system, isn't it? See this link for an explanation of why it was created.

No matter my personal opinion of the Electoral College, I know it does protect smaller states from domination from larger states. Plus, as the link says, it would take 2/3 of the states to ratify a change, making it hardly likely that it would ever happen.

It's in the Constitution, and I accept it. It the rules we play by.

and have as much might as he wants. He practically can do anything now.

Here we have a problem. It's called "the Imperial Presidency". According to the Constitution, only Congress can decalre war. Over the last 50 years, US presidents have cajouled Congress into authorizing excursions into other countries by US troops without a formal declaration of war. The Courts haves dropped the ball big time on this subject. They've refused to even hear cases that challenged the President's actions in sending troops overseas wihtout a declaration on war. The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. This kind of thing is exactly the situation that they were trying to avoid. The president today has the power of a king when it comes military action. From the very pens of the founding fathers come this

“The President will only occasionally command the militia, only after the Congress has called it into the actual service of the nation by legislative provision.” ~Federalist #69.

Unfortunately, there are many people in this country all to eager for warfare. They support this president's war because their lives are empty of excitement and they want some without risking their own skin.

Do you know that the CIA will know about every book you buy? That, when you want to fly, your credit card history and bank account will be checked to determine if you are good enough to fly?

Americans have gotten very lazy about protecting their rights. They want "security" and "safety" and they forget that those things come at the price of their liberty. They talk about freedom of speech, but when someone speaks something they don't like, they call them "clowns" (as demonstrated quite recently right on this board). Even our president was quoted as saying "There should be limits to freedom". It's scary.

Also, and this is my personal view, I think that this war is all about oil. It has nothing to do with any terrorists (Saddam would be really stupid if he'd had contacts to terrorists - and he showed us that he is definitely _not_ stupid) or with that 'Saddam is a bad guy' thing. Sure he is, but Bush doesn't care about much worse guys. Hell, the US did even give him his might in the first place (as they gave to the Afghanistan regime too, when Russia fought them). Also, it's not at all about chemical, biological or *laugh* nuclear weapons. The whole world had to laugh as we were shown the 'proves' of these weapons by Rumsfeld. Northern Corea has more dangerous weapons than the Irak, why doesn't Bush attack North Corea? Because the weapons don't matter here.

Why do you have to go out of the US to find clear thinking people?
Thank you for saying this, some here should realize that no matter what they think, other's opinions of their actions actually matter.

Bush said (I think today) that the war will cost something along the lines of 75.000.000.000 US $ (if I remember it right). It already costed(sp?) a reasonable amount of soldiers their lives, and it will cost a much larger number of them theirs too. How can it be worth this? Why does the money not go to people in the US who really need it? As far as I know, poverty is not an unknown think in the United States.

No, it's not. I choke when I hear Rumsfeld say that Saddam is starving his people to build WMD's. I would like to invite Rumsfeld to some inner cities or rural areas of the US, and show him just who's starving their own people to build WMD's. We spend as much as the entire world combined on weapons, yet we still have a poverty rate of more than 10%. Who are we to talk?

Do you know how many international treaties the US just ignore to fight this war? This war has not been approved by the UN. The reasons for this war were all jokes. The 'proves' that were shows were to make the American people approve that war. We here ask us, what gives the US the right? This is clearly an aggressive act, a war for oil and/or money, and how could it possibly justified? Who can now prevent the US from doing just what they want, when they don't care at all about what other nations do and think?

This is where we come to the real problem. There is a substanial population in the US that is still living in the "Old West". We're a very young country, compared to most of the rest of the world. Our recent history includes exterminating the native population of our "homeland" (geez, how I hate that term). We have a very short cultural history when compared to Europe, or the rest of the world. Here in America, a building 200 years old is considered "historical". In Europe, that's new contruction. I'd bet that you can find several buildings near your home that are 500 years old or more. We have nothing like that here. You can probably trace your ancestory back to 1000CE. A fantastically long family history in America is the Mayflower Families. That's 1620. Less than 400 years. You Europeans can find dozens of examples in your own histories of ultimately failed "cowboy excursions" like the one we're engaged in now. We hardly have scrachted the surface of conquest. We don't know that it ends up screwing you in the end. Britan wnet through it, Germany did, France did, Russia did, Spain did. We're youngun's and still learning.

Also, I might point out that US citizens in general are quite suseptible to fantasy. We're the world capital of "creationism" something that you probably don't have mush experience with. I'd bet you'd be surpised that almost 1/2 of the US population thinks that some mysterious sky daddy created the world 6,000 years ago, and "destroyed" it with a flood. Yes, really, they think that's true!.... Amazing, isn't it? We're still a superstitious lot, and that's the ones that voted for Bush, and they the ones concentrated in those small states that have a larger vote for president per person than the big states like NY and CA. They tend to believe their preacher and believe their presidnet when he "prays" for things and "asks god for guidance".

They're suckers.

There were pictures in our TV that the US TV stations didn't send. Pictures of wounded and captured American soldiers. They were questioned and shown in the Iraqi TV to strenghten the will if the Iraqi fighters. Of course these pictures don't appear in the US TV. Nobody would like them. But there are pictures in the US TV showing how great the war goes, to blind the masses and enable the administration to do whatever it likes. There is alway a certain form of censorship in the media, but what I have heard from the US exceeds anything I have ever feared. Do you even hear about all the people that went out onto the streets to demonstrate against that war? There were hundreds of thousands (!!!!!) in Germany, hundreds of thousands in France, in Spain, and even in Great Britain. For example, it is spoken of 10.000.000 people who demonstrated against this war on February 15/16 all over the world. 300.000 people were on the streets in London. Can you even imagine this number? 2/3 of Great Britain people are against this war, and Blair has already lost some of the people he governed with. Nobody knows what devil rides him to participate actively in this war, and the common attitude is that it will cost him at least the next elections. And then there are mass demonstrations in the US itself! Is this shown in the American TV? I doubt it.

The US media refused to show the POW tapes. They did show the peace demonstrations, but most of the media outlets had their "commentators" deride the demonstators. The US media is in the hands of major corporations, and they show what those corporations want them to show.

We people here in Europe (and a reasonable part of the goverments too) are really pissed off by the way the US government spits in the faces of the other countries that believe in Freedom and Democracy, but don't approve this war. I think that, if the US government continues to ignore other countries like this in decision as important as this, it will definitely not have a good end.

I fear you are correct.

Jesus, even the Pope said that he disapproves this war. How can Bush still say "God bless America"?

Most of the US is Protestant. They don't care about the pope. And there is even a sizable minority than considers the pope a blasphemer and close to the anti-christ. Bush is definately a protestant.

Do you even know where the Iraq is? Could you find Germany or France on a world map? Consider yourself well educated if you can, a huge amount of Americans can't.

I can. But you are correct, many Americans can't. They don't care. All they want is US POWER!!! All they want is to think their country is NUMBER ONE. They like that.

If I think about all the wars that were started by the USA, with reasons as great as a ship blown up by (this was later discovered) the CIA, the politicians assassinated by the CIA, the upraisings supported or suppressed by American troops and agents, and all the other things nobody knows about yet I become sick.

Oh, they don't believe this stuff.

Read this:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php
And if you got much time, read some of this:
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy.html

I'm familiar with this stuff, and sickened by it. But many in the US think it's lies. Or they don't care, because whatever America does is fine with them.

[futuro]

Originally posted by Alwayslost
BoardAdmin,

Can we please change the title of this thread to "Fun Stories with Futuro the Clown"?

No, let's change it to "Asshole comments by Alwayslost, the uninformed idiot".

Uninformed idiots like you are what people like Bush, Rumsfeld, Chaney and Wolfowitz depend on. You'll support anything they want to do, just because they tell you to.

Don't start a flamewar, you'll lose. You're going in with only half a brain.

[Chyran]

futuro, I am very glad that in the US, there are people who think themselves about the things happening, too. That's why I usually try to avoid speaking of 'America', but rather of the 'US', because this term represents (at least for me) more the government than the people. So, fortunately, you don't necessarily have to go outside of the US to find clear thinking people It just seems in these times that here in Europe, they are a bit easier to find. Though you can get the opposite here too. There are quite some people here who don't think about what they hear, and who hate 'all Americans' now. Well, I don't, I only hate Bush and the administration. Yes, when he was elected, I was only sad, but not I really hate him for what he does.

Speaking of elections - were not there some problems with the way the votes were counted? And, after recounting, I thought it was determined that in reality, not Bush won these election, but Gore did? And still, Bush is president.

Here in Germany, you probably didn't hear about this, Schroeder (the current Bundeskanzler, I think it's prime minister in English, or head of state?) won the elections just barely. He is not that good in domestic policy, but in foreign policy, he is. I think that he only won the last elections because he said he is definitely against a war in the Iraq, and that German troops will never participate therein.

You are right, I won't have to drive more than half an hour to show you a building here built much more than 500, maybe 1000 years ago. The people here in Europe hat wars during thousands of years, the worst ones just in the last century. And that's where they should stay. Today, I am glad that I am able to say "I am proud to be a German", although it still has a bit of a bad taste (yes, Nazi Germany is still quite active in people's minds, even nearly 60 years after it). Germany didn't do very well in the 'colonization' thing, and maybe our ancestors tried to compensate this by trying to conquer Europe in WW1 and WW2. There are still many people who lived in this time, and they still remember too vividly how total war is spelled. Who is there in the USA who remembers how it is to be in a war? How it feels to be bombed? There are some people brave (or stupid, depends how you's see it) enough to serve in the army, who know and will know what war means. But this is such a small percentage that it doesn't really matter.

What I can't believe - I really can't! - is that 1/2 of America's people do really believe that god created the world 6000 years ago. I mean, sure, it's Religion, and quite some people believe in god and Religion, but we KNOW that THIS is just not true. There may even have been a freat flood that resulted in the stories in the bible, but there surely was not one man who saved two of each animal race in his Arche Noah. Go and ask anybody here (over 8 years old) and he will tell you this, even if he is Religious.

Most of Americans being Protestant has surely a historical reason. They were the ones not accepted by the catholics, and they were the ones to leave for a better life. But in this particular cast I have to say that I am a bit sad that the pope doesn't have any influence in the USA. I often disagree with him, but in the last time there have been more and more occasions where he jumped over his own shadow, and even the shadow of the big church in Rome (forgot the name).

Many people here ask themselves why so many Americans seem to be blinded by what their government and media tells them. There is so many evidence of horrific things done by the CIA and the US government, how can anybody possibly believe that ALL of this is lies??

I don't know who said it, but it was an American official. He said shortly before the war: "Even it Saddam would leave the country now, we will attack it nevertheless". That's how things go. This whole "Saddam, leave the country in 48 hours"-bullshit was just to blind the American people, and the rest of the world just couldn't believe how Bush could think that his own people are THAT stupid.

Also, about this quote:
Lining up behind your president and approve his action no matter what you think is exactly what the German citizens did when Hitler invaded Austira, Checkoslovakia. Poland ....

That's not really true. 1939, when Hitler invaded these countries, there was nearly no resistance left in Germany. The people lined up behind him way before these actions. The economic sutuation in the early 1930's was VERY bad, and Hitler took one minority he blamed it on: the jews. It was easy, because many jews WERE rich, because they were allowed to give credits out with interests, and protestants and catholics were not, because of their religion. We all know that you can make great profit this way. So there were they, and all poor people were angry and had no hope, so they believed Hitler. It was easy, and it was convenient. In the years from 1933 till 1939, Hitler made the people think that things got better. They really looked better. In fact, the country was going down the drain. He had to start the war, otherwise Germany would have collapsed. And by the time the war started, people were already so blinded and betrayed that they could never possibly go back.

And wow! How this war was great for the economy! After it was over, everything that was left were ruins, and the amount of people able to work to rebuild the country was way too small. Everybody got work, we even invited people from other countries and gave them money for working here. Yes, a war is really god for the economy. And Bush is even slyer: He destroys not his own country, but another country, and then sends his countries corporations to rebuild it. What a trick!

Chyran, a bit sad that he would be too peaceful to shoot if he'd stand in front of Bush with a gun in his hands.

[Borscht]

I have to say that I can't understand why a person that didn't even win an election can rule a country

Bush won the election, which is why he is President now. President's don't "rule".

The US Supreme Court's role in the election was a rare one, no doubt. However, it is the role prescribed by our laws, and therefore our President was elected within the framework of US law and election process.

Also, and this is my personal view, I think that this war is all about oil.

Yet another tired, lame refrain. If we wanted Iraqi oil, we could have taken it in the Kuwait conflict. If it was about oil, we could simply drop our economic sanctions and purchase Iraqi oil. If America needs oil, we can drill for our own.

Northern Corea has more dangerous weapons than the Irak, why doesn't Bush attack North Corea?

This is a straw man argument. That we aren't attacking Korea suggests a great number of possibilities, as any thinking person realizes. Your logic that "Not attacking Korea" = "Not really interested in weapons" is specious.

It already costed(sp?) a reasonable amount of soldiers their lives, and it will cost a much larger number of them theirs too. How can it be worth this?

You should be thankful we didn't apply your reasoning while we were contemplating saving your parents and grandparents from Hitler.

You Europeans have a dismal record when it comes to self-defense. Basically, you're incapable of defending yourselves. You should be thankful we didn't have accountants determining your liberty.

As far as I know, poverty is not an unknown think in the United States.

Actually, American "poor" average slightly more than one car and almost two televisions per household. Our defense budget consumes approximately 3.5% of our GDP. Entitlement spending in all forms in the US dwarfs that figure.

People like you don't quite understand exactly how much money we have. The state of California alone has a GDP greater than France. California + Texas generates more wealth than your entire country.

Spewing the stock leftist line won't work for you. It merely demonstrates how completely out of touch with reality you are.

[puppet]

Chyran, a bit sad that he would be too peaceful to shoot if he'd stand in front of Bush with a gun in his hands.

This is the type of guy that is on your "side" Futuro, a guy that is sad that he would not be able to assassinate the President of the United States.

I don’t agree with everything the US has ever done, and I don’t agree with everything this Administration is done but I do believe we have enough reasons to remove Saddam. And the vast majority of Americans agree with me (I think 76% at last poll)

To question the government is very American but now is the time to support our troops and our leaders.

I didn't read all this now. Just to tell some of the still reading persons what somebody from Germany thinks about this

You admit you did not even bother to read what others have wrote. You just want to come here and post your limited view. You are the very thing that you accuse many Americans of being, you are just a tool of propaganda.

People like you (and Germany) will not be allowed to decide American policy any longer. Goodbye and good riddance to the UN.

Ps. You know that nice building next to the 500 year old one, the one that was built after the War using aid from countries outside of Germany. Your welcome

[Geekylad]

written before war started.....

*** It's not about oil or Iraq. It's about the US and Europe going
head-to-head on world economic dominance. ***

by Geoffrey Heard

Summary: Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? Why does his
administration reject every positive Iraqi move? It all makes sense when you
consider the economic implications for the USA of not going to war with
Iraq.
The war in Iraq is actually the US and Europe going head to head on economic
leadership of the world.

America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies, gross
exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it trotted out its litany of
paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq. Along with its two supporters,
Britain and Australia, it has shifted its ground and reversed its position
with a barefaced contempt for its audience. It has manipulated information,
deceived by commission and omission and frantically "bought" UN votes with
billion dollar bribes.

Faced with the failure of gaining UN Security Council support for invading
Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without authorisation. It would act
in
breach of the UN's very constitution to allegedly enforced UN resolutions.

It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come from?

There are many things driving President Bush and his administration to
invade
Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. But the biggest one
is
hidden and very, very simple. It is about the currency used to trade oil and
consequently, who will dominate the world economically, in the foreseeable
future -- the USA or the European Union.

Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a
monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency, but
Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros, and
profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the EU and
its
euro back into the sea and make America's position as the dominant economic
power in the world all but impregnable.

It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times.

America's allies in the invasion, Britain and Australia, are betting America
will win and that they will get some trickle-down benefits for jumping on to
the US bandwagon.

France and Germany are the spearhead of the European force -- Russia would
like to go European but possibly can still be bought off.

Presumably, China would like to see the Europeans build a share of
international trade currency ownership at this point while it continues to
grow its international trading presence to the point where it, too, can
share
the leadership rewards.

DEBATE BUILDING ON THE INTERNET

Oddly, little or nothing is appearing in the general media about this issue,
although key people are becoming aware of it -- note the recent slide in the
value of the US dollar. Are traders afraid of war? They are more likely to
be
afraid there will not be war.

But despite the silence in the general media, a major world discussion is
developing around this issue, particularly on the internet. Among the many
articles: Henry Liu, in the 'Asia Times' last June, it has been a hot topic
on
the Feasta forum, an Irish-based group exploring sustainable economics, and
W.
Clark's "The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic
and
Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth" has been published by the
'Sierra
Times', 'Indymedia.org', and 'ratical.org'.

This debate is not about whether America would suffer from losing the US
dollar monopoly on oil trading -- that is a given -- rather it is about
exactly how hard the USA would be hit. The smart money seems to be saying
the
impact would be in the range from severe to catastrophic. The USA could
collapse economically.

OIL DOLLARS

The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil.

Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971
(after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US dollar the de
facto major international trading currency. If other nations have to hoard
dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that hoard for other trading too.
This fact gives America a huge trading advantage and helps make it the
dominant economy in the world.

As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to the USA's
economic position, and it created the euro to challenge the dollar in
international markets. However, the EU is not yet united behind the euro --
there is a lot of jingoistic national politics involved, not least in
Britain
-- and in any case, so long as nations throughout the world must hoard
dollars
to buy oil, the euro can make only very limited inroads into the dollar's
dominance.

In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to
trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq had
just
made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two years on, alarm
bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the dollar, Iraq had given
itself a huge economic free kick by switching.

Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th largest oil
producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out the dollar by
bartering
oil with several nations including America's bete noir, Cuba. Russia is
seeking to ramp up oil production with Europe (trading in euros) an obvious
market.

The greenback's grip on oil trading and consequently on world trade in
general, was under serious threat. If America did not stamp on this
immediately, this economic brushfire could rapidly be fanned into a wildfire
capable of consuming the US's economy and its dominance of world trade.

HOW DOES THE US GET ITS DOLLAR ADVANTAGE?

Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for
millions of dollars you don't have -- another luxury car, a holiday home at
the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.

Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because those
cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with the
owners
of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/gas, that they will accept only
your cheques as payment. This means everyone must hoard your cheques so they
can buy petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your cheques, they
use
them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop
owner
swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys some vegetables at the
fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys some
flour
with it, and on it goes, round and round -- but never back to the bank.

You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never reaches the
bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV free.

This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years -- it has been getting

a
free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge
subsidy
from everyone else in the world. As it debt has been growing, it has printed
more money (written more cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is an
economic
powerhouse!

Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another person's
cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If this
spreads,
people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and they will come flying
home
to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover all the
cheques,
very nasty stuff is going to hit the fan!

But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the other guy
who
can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a 'legitimate' excuse, you
can beat the tripes out of the lone gas seller and scare him and his mates
into submission.

And that, in a nutshell, is what the USA is doing right now with Iraq.

AMERICA'S PRECARIOUS ECONOMIC POSITION

America is so eager to attack Iraq now because of the speed with which the
euro fire could spread. If Iran, Venezuela and Russia join Iraq and sell
large
quantities of oil for euros, the euro would have the leverage it needs to
become a powerful force in general international trade. Other nations would
have to start swapping some of their dollars for euros.

The dollars the USA has printed, the 'cheques' it has written, would start
to
fly home, stripping away the illusion of value behind them. The USA's real
economic condition is about as bad as it could be; it is the most
debt-ridden
nation on earth, owing about US$12,000 for every single one of it's 280
million men, women and children. It is worse than the position of Indonesia
when it imploded economically a few years ago, or more recently, that of
Argentina.

Even if OPEC did not switch to euros wholesale (and that would make a very
nice non-oil profit for the OPEC countries, including minimising the various
contrived debts America has forced on some of them), the US's difficulties
would build. Even if only a small part of the oil trade went euro, that
would
do two things immediately: * Increase the attractiveness to EU members of
joining the 'eurozone', which in turn would make the euro stronger and make
it
more attractive to oil nations as a trading currency and to other nations as

a
general trading currency. * Start the US dollars flying home demanding value
when there isn't enough in the bank to cover them. * The markets would
over-react as usual and in no time, the US dollar's value would be
spiralling
down.

[Borscht]

written before war started.....

If I wanted leftist editorialism, I'd read the Times. Cut-and-paste ain't making it here, brother. Welcome to that quiet place where Jeeves and Futuro live.