Junkers Ju-87

[mamba]

Pre 9/11 we weren't engaged in any foreign conflicts... bored terrorists with nothing to do at home come to America and kill American civilians.

Post 9/11 the military is in their countries... terrorists occupied fighting the US military on foreign soil... ZERO ATTACKS ON US CIVILIANS IN AMERICA POST 9/11.

The only problem is that there is absolutely no proof that these two things are related. And even if they are, is it ok to invade another country which consists of 99,999999% average citizens to keep the 0.0000001% terrorists busy ?

It's like having a talisman to keep away burglars. There haven't been any in your house for 5 years, so it obviously must be working.

Apart from that, what is the strategy, keep the terrorists busy the next 50 years ?

Attacking Iraq imo did not achieve anything, other than to anger the people in Iraq and drive more volunteers towards the terrorist. What does keep the US safe is better screening of passengers (but even there are ridiculous safety measures mixed with sensible ones with no second thought).

 

[mamba]

i hate to sound like an "arrogant american" but as a first generation immigrant form a country who's thinking was "can't get worse than Batista" (and it certainly did) i have to shake my head in great dissapointment when i see or hear folks calling US "fascist" or saying that the military does not defend our freedoms....words are NOTHING unfortunatly, unless u can back them up

I agree, you need the military as a threat to keep others from attacking you

comparisons between us and nazis??? HOLY of HOLIES.... it's all relative right?....i mean kim or castro or saddam starve and torture their people, but that's just boyz being boys, we expect it, hey, don't mess with them...it's THEIR house, but OOOUUUUU, tap international calls coming from suspected terrorists and your a FASCIST!!!

You did NOT attack Saddam because of what he did to his people, you do NOT care about what dictators do to their people, you SUPPORT dictators if they are beneficial to your agenda ("Somoza may be a son-of-a-b*tch, but he's our son-of-a-b*tch").

You did attack Saddam for a lie, there was no reason to attack him for 9/11, something he was not related to at all, which Bush knew at that time but decided to ignore and through repeatedly telling lies pursuaded the public to fight an unnecessary war.

If the US actually were trying to spread democracy and our values (esp. human rights) irrespective of other things, I would agree with it. But you use it as an excuse to do whatever you please and ignore them most of the time.

Your reason for the war changed from Saddam supporting terrorists and possessing WMDs to liberating the Iraqis when you found no proof of the original goal (which you knew all along but used as an excuse to wage war nonetheless).

Heck, you even ignore our human rights if it suits you (Guantanamo). The US looks out for itself, yes, but spare me the crap of the US helping / liberating other peoples by declaring war on them.

 

[mamba]

Oh oh... invoking Benjamin Franklin!

You know... there was once a similar conversation (that was written-down for posterity) in the Continental Congress when the Colonies were arguing whether or not they should go to war with England... it may hold relevance to what we are discussing today... I wonder what Benjamin Franklin would have thought of it all....

I wonder too, but because I agree with one thing he said does not mean I agree with everything he said

 

[asioasioasio]

1. I don't say USA are fascist
I say this current politics reminds a little bit fascism (the state in the first place mixed with lowering human rights and freedom - i agree that current US Government and president took away more freedom, than terrorist could ever possibly take away).

I wonder where George Bush would be on this political compass

2. I don't have anything against Army - They are necessery to:
- DEFEND (bombing country every couple of years can hardly be called defending
- Helping other countries with humanitarian missions or trying to keep peace when the country asks for help

Every other usage is just agression and those kind of 'liberation' makes enemies in some parts of World. And brings only troubles. Examples?
Afghanistan - supporting Talibs with equipment in war with Soviet Union - 20 years later invasion to afghanistan to fight with Talibs.
Iraq - supporting Saddam Husain in war with Iran - later two another military invasion to stop Saddam Hussain.
Yugoslavia - supporting Kosovo in war with Serbia - now kosovians partisans are trouble for Serbia and Macedonia.
There are also some other small intervations (both made by army and cia) that brought chaos and supported dictators, made drug barrons.

3. This politics "And that means that as a nation, we could go to war with whomever we wished, but at the same time, act like we didn't want to. If we allow the people to protest what the government does, then the country will be forever blameless." got USA in current troubles. The terrorist aren't attacking USA because they are boring in own countries (In fact in Afghanistan there's permament war - so they enough in theire hands), but previous USA politics made this - simple Action/Reaction.

4. I'm glad that's USA is empire. I know how bad world was when there were another empire - Soviet Union. Poland learned hard what means 45 years of Soviet ocupation (don't bring similliar occupation to muslim world). I can imagine how bad would world look when China would be empire - those mix of totalitarianism and wild capitalism doesn't suit me).
Right now it seems that USA is the only empire. Don't destroy support and respect with stupid unnecessary wars. And don't destroy owns freedom, because "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." it's very true. It's easy to move from democracy to authoritarianism, and it's very hard to move from authoritarianism to democracy.

EDIT

I found another compass

I knew it'll be somwhere near Margaret Thatcher but closer to Hitler than more far away.

 

[Chuggi]

If that's accurate he's in the top right corner.

 

[bernie14]

I agree, you need the military as a threat to keep others from attacking you

You did NOT attack Saddam because of what he did to his people, you do NOT care about what dictators do to their people, you SUPPORT dictators if they are beneficial to your agenda ("Somoza may be a son-of-a-b*tch, but he's our son-of-a-b*tch").

You did attack Saddam for a lie, there was no reason to attack him for 9/11, something he was not related to at all, which Bush knew at that time but decided to ignore and through repeatedly telling lies pursuaded the public to fight an unnecessary war.

If the US actually were trying to spread democracy and our values (esp. human rights) irrespective of other things, I would agree with it. But you use it as an excuse to do whatever you please and ignore them most of the time.

Your reason for the war changed from Saddam supporting terrorists and possessing WMDs to liberating the Iraqis when you found no proof of the original goal (which you knew all along but used as an excuse to wage war nonetheless).

Heck, you even ignore our human rights if it suits you (Guantanamo). The US looks out for itself, yes, but spare me the crap of the US helping / liberating other peoples by declaring war on them.

sorry, havent figured out the qoutey thing, so i'll just take point by point....

there will ALWAYS be an SOB, and it is very easy to play "monday morning quarterback"...so who was the bigger SOB (at the time) hitler or stalin?, the russians or osama and the afgan "freedom fighters"? i would agree that AT TIMES, rotten "business" (i hate the fact that we r so dependant on oil and i do put part of the blame on this administration) gets in the way of ideals...but if i recall correctly, Mr. President Carter certainly did not support the SOB Somoza, leading to the Sandinistas which were WORSE (i live in Miami, where MANY more fled from the sandinistas than from Somoza )

u r saying that bush put out MISINFORMATION to fool all the other politicians, conservative, moderate and liberal who ALL voted FOR the war? one thing is really wanting to believe in bad intelligence and another is KNOWINGLY putting out misinformation...got any proof?

maybe a conspiracy theory , but i think it is much more likely that the WMDs are in syria as opposed to that 911 was an american or jewish plot... he had them at one time and he used them, as the kurds

human rights?? again, a relative term, extremists chop off the heads of people who's biggest crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, blow up children in buses and shopping centers, but OUUUUUU deny a Koran to one of them and u r a SAVAGE.....very humiliating to take pictures of detainees in there underwear ....i agree that was wrong, but that was probably more about college kids being STUPID than anything else, did the detainees get there heads chopped off, havent seen thaton the internet (oh, yeah, but the other way around)

i think we need to redefine the term HUMAN. the extremists have....if u dont believe what i do, u r not human... YOU ARE a pig or a dog!

 

[Healz]

I really do think Saddam was being foolish. He kept waving the red flag at the UN and expecting it not to act. The UN needs to say okay, we have a charter that we issue this many warnings and then Member Countries can be compelled to comply with an action against a defaulter against a UN Action or pay heavy penalties. This is the reform the UN needs to be relevant today. The UN didn't act against Saddam with all the provocation he was giving them. I think where Bush made the mistake was in linking it to WMDs when he should have said, "you annoy us majorly and muck us around for no reason and there will be consequences." That should have been the lesson of Gulf War II and Afghanistan.

 

[asioasioasio]

It's very accurate.

In fact you can make own compass - if you have time answering 6 pages of questions
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

It's what i get

Libertarian and centrist. It's far away from Bush

 

[bernie14]

This politics "And that means that as a nation, we could go to war with whomever we wished, but at the same time, act like we didn't want to. If we allow the people to protest what the government does, then the country will be forever blameless." QUOTE]

HEY!!!! this was a south park episode!!!

well, it is a matter of opinion, and maybe a little bit of history...if i recall back to 1921, the original "jihad" against the west was primarily called against the FRENCH and english for screwing the arabs out of syria/iraq, middle east, after they promised independence, then, english carve out a piece after WW2 and give it to the jews....the jews fend off all attacks, establish a democracy, US supports the democracy, HOLYCOW, we should have just stayed away from there and let them all kill each other, cuz now, THEY HATE US .....1991 (was it???), sadam hussain invades kuwait the arab government BEGS us to go over there to protect their butts... OH shouldnt have done it, should'a left osama gather his army and go over to saudi and liberate kuwait (he supposedly did request this, the saudis said NO THANKS, ands quickly got US on the phone.. HELP!!!) , he wouldent have done anything bad, like overthrow the king, not that i have great love for that regime.... OOOHHH, now osama hates us too , should have let him establish a radical islamic state in saudi

action:reaction

ps...u r still my favorite fallout scrubber


GOSH...I REALLY SUCK AT THE QUOTEY THINGS

 

[bernie14]

@ asioX3

thks for the political compass link...

i got 3.5 R/L
and -.05 A/L, so fiscally conservative centrist..

 

[Chuggi]

It's very accurate.

In fact you can make own compass - if you have time answering 6 pages of questions
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

It's what i get

Libertarian and centrist. It's far away from Bush

I did one a while ago and found myself near abbas ... perhaps I shouldn't vote next time.

 

[mamba]

su r saying that bush put out MISINFORMATION to fool all the other politicians, conservative, moderate and liberal who ALL voted FOR the war? one thing is really wanting to believe in bad intelligence and another is KNOWINGLY putting out misinformation...got any proof?

well, I do not have it next to me or anything, but I definitely remember that this was in the news over here sometime back. He and his staff changed reports to better meet their needs and quoted from them as fact even when the ones creating them (i.e. intelligence) knew they were only speculation and told him so.

Will try to see if google brings up something, but if you were to take a poll here, I'd guess the majority would say he deliberately lied. To me he definitely did, for me it was clear that he had no proof of anything and half of the stuff he said had been made up and the other pure speculation (like those mobile labs which supposedly could produce lots of gas in no time if I remember correclty).

He knew one thing though, Saddam could not prove that he does not have any WDM. How can I prove I do not own something ? You can prove I own something when you find it, but I cannot prove to you that I do not own it when I don't.

If he had said what they *knew* (instead of what he *wished*) there would not have been a war, so he had to push the boundaries. Why do you think it is beyond Bush to lie ? He has done worse things than that, like breaking laws to eavesdrop on phone conversations.

maybe a conspiracy theory , but i think it is much more likely that the WMDs are in syria as opposed to that 911 was an american or jewish plot... he had them at one time and he used them, as the kurds

No conspiracy theory, Saddam simply did not have them. He had them sometime ago, but when he lost to the US the first time around his country was searched thoroughly and anything that was found was taken away from him.

I believe the US did everything they could to find those WDM to justify their attack, but as we all know, they found nothing, or as someone put it (not sure who it was) "the amount of Botox found was so minimal that it could also belong to a cosmetic surgeon"

human rights?? again, a relative term, extremists chop off the heads of people who's biggest crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, blow up children in buses and shopping centers, but OUUUUUU deny a Koran to one of them and u r a SAVAGE.....very humiliating to take pictures of detainees in there underwear ....i agree that was wrong, but that was probably more about college kids being STUPID than anything else, did the detainees get there heads chopped off, havent seen thaton the internet (oh, yeah, but the other way around)

If you do what your opponent does to fight him, you are no better than him. Not sure what pics you saw, but in the ones I saw (Abu Ghraib or whatever it is spelled), there was no underwear.

And not calling torture by its real name doesn't make it no torture (Abu Grhaib and Guantanamo). If another country did the same thing to US citizens there would be an outcry, yet somehow you do not expect one when you do it to others.

Just because I do not consider your actions justified, does not mean I defend the actions of the terrorists / extremists. They are not justifiable as well, but that does not give you the right to invade a country, let alone one which had next to no relation to the terrorists. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[mamba]

It's very accurate.

In fact you can make own compass - if you have time answering 6 pages of questions
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Hm, I do not consider myself to be on the left, there are some left topics I agree with and there are some (more) right topics I see the same way. I never voted for the left parties over here, I did either go liberal or right But then your left wing is about as right as our right wing

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-2.88&soc=-5.54

 

[mamba]

Well, googling didn't take long. Just search for "bush weapons mass destruction lie"

Here's an excerpt from the first link it returns

* The claim that Iraq has sought uranium from Niger, in west Africa—this proved to based on forged documents and was exposed as a lie nearly a year before Bush included the charge in his 2003 State of the Union address.

* The claim that thousands of aluminum tubes imported by Iraq could be used in centrifuges to create enriched uranium—debunked by the International Atomic Energy Agency as well as by American nuclear scientists.

The other items are not proof that he knew beforehand that the claims were false, only proof that they were false as nothing has been found.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Well, googling didn't take long. Just search for "bush weapons mass destruction lie"

That's a search based on a pre-concieved notion... you're going to get skewed results.

Like searching for 2+2=5.

 

[mamba]

That's a search based on a pre-concieved notion... you're going to get skewed results.

Like searching for 2+2=5.

No, not at all like that. Do you expect news reports on that subject to not include those words ?

As for searching for 2 + 2 = 5, the first hit says "everyone knows this is false"...

I knew from our news that the atom claim was false and that the WDM claim was at best without proof and unlikely and that his intelligence advised against mentioning it due to this. It just isn't that easy to find news from 2002/2003 or so these days, so I go by memory here for the most part.

EDIT: CNN only goes back to September 2003 in their archive, so it isn't that easy to find the actual news articles by now.

One of the oldest ones is http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/01/27/sprj.nirq.bush/index.html but that is short of actually saying the president lied (just that the information what false, not that he knew it).

""They clearly tried to gin up every piece of intelligence to try to get us to go into that war," Dean said."

[...]

"We cannot take the president off the hook for an illegal war that was based on lies," Kucinich said.

Here's another http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/30/ip.pol.opinion.kay/index.html

""What happened was more than a failure of intelligence; it was the result of manipulation of the intelligence to justify a decision to go to war," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, on Wednesday."


I guess the latter is as close as you get to calling Bush a liar in an US news article. Make of it what you will, to me, he lied and knew it.

 

[dutchking]

Jesus people. I don't have time to read all this spam.

I'm in between Stalin and Gandhi on that compass by the way. Very far left and a little up on the authoritarian scale, not much though. I hate authority.

 

[dutchking]

So please tell me mr expert on the war, exactly how much time have you spent physically in Saudi Arabia or Iraq and tell me from your 1st hand knowledge exactly what you know of what's going on over there.

Or did you learn everything you know about the war from TV?

Never said I was an expert on the war at all. I was only arguing over the fact that you said my free speech comes from the military. And I know for a fact that most of the terrorists on those jets on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. I don't care if you were in the middle east, oh great one. Don't act like you're so high and mighty.

 

[dutchking]

This thread is ********.

 

[Wolfshanze]

I know for a fact that most of the terrorists on those jets on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia.

Not all terrorists are from Saudi Arabia, and believe it or not (you may find this hard to believe)... terrorists sometimes move from country to country.

It's also hard to go after a bunch of dead terrorists (the ones from the jets on 9/11 are all dead I do believe and have been for some time). However, they all have buddies who wish you and I ill, and they're not all hanging out in Saudi Arabia... and the do move around!

This thread is ********.

See... look what you started...