Taranaki, this thread is for you!

I have been aiming to ask you this question in other threads but anticipating your responsei decided it my need its own.

Why is it that you completely go against anything the US is for. You feel the need to verbally attack its policies, beliefs, plans, religion, citizens, etc.....

is there some underlying story from your childhood you want to keep ffrom surfacing by blinding your memory from these thoughts or do you actually believe that the United States is hell on Earth and our president is the devil?

Feel free to verbally attack me as you do any other red blooded american making a statement but i want to know what makes your clock tick.

P.S. by definition and reputation i AM a redneck so throw something else out there as your first insult

Also, i dont have any bad feelings toward you and i am not trying to start i war here but i just dont know why you absolutley hate the US

I dont think he hates the U.S., just it's current state of affairs, as do a lot of people around the globe and in our own country.

*peeks in, reads and now avoiding thread like the plague*

Maybe this should of been addressed via PM. I won't lock the topic since I am sure Naki will want to answer you.

i figured it would be a lengthy and time consuming PM on both parts and also would like input from others to see if i am out of line or they agree with me.
I have never had an educated discussion with any person that disagrees with anything to do with the US. I have had many but they were close minded and immature.

Sorry buddy, you have picked up the stick by completely the wrong end.I've already spelled it out in letters ten feet high, but I'll do it again for you.

I don't hate America.I dont hate the things that you have listed.Most of what happens inside the USis of little or no consequense to me.

I hate war, and I particularly hate war for financial and strategic advantage dressed up as some mixture as brave self-defence and a desire to see freedom in other parts of the world.It's a lie,and the chief liar is the thing that I despise most.

Yes sir, as far as I am concerned, your president is a lying cunt who's not fit to kiss my boots.If he were to be assassinated today, I would breathe a sigh of relief for America and the world.Not since Hitler has one man succeeded in dividing the world so effectively,and all for the same reasons....the unshakeable belief that his view is right, and only his view is right.

If Bush were to die, America would be free.You may not like my opinion, but there it is.America is a great nation being dragged backwards by a liar.

ok, that i agree with. bush should be avoided like the plaque. if you know anything about american politics, Hillary Clinton (Presidents wife, And Condelezza Rice are getting things started to run for the presidency in 08. But i do completely disagree with you where you stated how our military are more of a coward then terorists. 75% of our military is under the age of 23 and they believe in our country and their stance on certain subjects. within the country bush has the lowest rating since the depression and it drops by the day. our military as a whole does not belive in bush as they do belive in our country. thats why they are willing to sacrifice their life so another country may one day enjoy the freedoms we do such as calling our president anything we want. show me one iraqi who would hold a sign showing Saddam Hussein with devil horns. and show me one that would have done that 6 months ago.

correction buddy, condi rice will never be president, and while Mrs. clinton may very well be, i certainly hope not.

and just to jump in on a convo that i really should have no part in...

it has nothing to do with our military. they are doing their job. its something they signed up to do. the president is their commander and chief, and whether they agree with him or not, they volunteered to do his bidding.

this does have to do with that president and his administration, which has continually done things that disgrace the very things they claim they stand for (freedom, independance, conservativism etc). its shameful. every foreign exchange student at my school is simply aghast that we would reelect someone with the worst presidential record in history. but we did, and frankly, im ashamed.

to wrap it up, cuz otherwise ill ramble on and on, im going to use the wisdom of a bumber sticker:

"i dont have to like Bush to love America"

I hate war, and I particularly hate war for financial and strategic advantage dressed up as some mixture as brave self-defence and a desire to see freedom in other parts of the world.

I don't think there is one of us that likes war but do you agree that sometimes war is the only choice? I'm not talking about Iraq either if it was right or wrong. If I were Bush I would of had Sadam assassinated because it would of been better than movie the army half way around the world but that's not the point. Anyway, in WW2 the U.S. tried to stay out and the longer they stayed out the worst things got. Finally they were attacked and once they entered the war things were able to turn around and be fixed.


Yes sir, as far as I am concerned, your president is a lying cunt who's not fit to kiss my boots.If he were to be assassinated today, I would breathe a sigh of relief for America and the world.

Isn't that a little out of line? You may not like him but wishing for anybody to die is a little un-called for. What if Iraq had never of happened, would you want him dead then? He did make a mistake in Iraq that didn't make a whole lot of people happy, but is he really the spawn of satan as you say?

ok, that i agree with. bush should be avoided like the plaque. if you know anything about american politics, Hillary Clinton (Presidents wife, And Condelezza Rice are getting things started to run for the presidency in 08. But i do completely disagree with you where you stated how our military are more of a coward then terorists. 75% of our military is under the age of 23 and they believe in our country and their stance on certain subjects. within the country bush has the lowest rating since the depression and it drops by the day. our military as a whole does not belive in bush as they do belive in our country. thats why they are willing to sacrifice their life so another country may one day enjoy the freedoms we do such as calling our president anything we want. show me one iraqi who would hold a sign showing Saddam Hussein with devil horns. and show me one that would have done that 6 months ago.

I love the way that some people can turn a statement on its head, ignore specific qualifiers and come out with completely the wrong interpretation of thingsWhy do people insist on expanding things beyond what is said?
If I say that I hate Bush, you ask me why I hate America.
If I say that bombing requires less bravery than flying a plane into a building, it becomes............you stated how our military are more of a coward then terorists.

If you wish to engage me in debate,please read what I have written, and try to understand it.Don't be like some of the idiots here who think that they know my position and make up their own arguments on the basis of false assumptions.

I don't think there is one of us that likes war but do you agree that sometimes war is the only choice? I'm not talking about Iraq either if it was right or wrong. If I were Bush I would of had Sadam assassinated because it would of been better than movie the army half way around the world but that's not the point. Anyway, in WW2 the U.S. tried to stay out and the longer they stayed out the worst things got. Finally they were attacked and once they entered the war things were able to turn around and be fixed.

Your version of WW2 is somewhat twisted.The U.S. took the position that armed neutrality was the politically safe and financially advantageous way to proceed.The Government of the day didn't give a damn if the ir allies got screwed, as long as they didn't have to fight.It wouldn't have mattered if Hitler had exterminated every Jew,gypsy,and cripple in Europe, as long as he didn't interfere with the American lifestyle.

There is a time when war is the only choice.That time is when the enemy comes looking for you,or someone that you care about.Iraq never came looking for the US, neither did they have the intent or the capability.They just happen to have strategically significant oil reserves, and a leader who Bush says 'tried to kill my Daddy'.




Isn't that a little out of line? You may not like him but wishing for anybody to die is a little un-called for. What if Iraq had never of happened, would you want him dead then? He did make a mistake in Iraq that didn't make a whole lot of people happy, but is he really the spawn of satan as you say?
If Bush can send 1400 Marines to die, and slaughter countless thousands of Iraqis,knowing fullwell that the world does not believe his claims about WMD to be true, the world is better off with him being dragged through the streets behind a truck.He's scum.Iraq happened because Bush wanted it to.There were two presidents before him who could have used exactly the same strategy to steal Iraq, but fortunately they both had the good sense and the humanity not to try.

I don't think there is one of us that likes war but do you agree that sometimes war is the only choice? I'm not talking about Iraq either if it was right or wrong. If I were Bush I would of had Sadam assassinated because it would of been better than movie the army half way around the world but that's not the point. Anyway, in WW2 the U.S. tried to stay out and the longer they stayed out the worst things got. Finally they were attacked and once they entered the war things were able to turn around and be fixed.


Isn't assasination a quintessential act of terrorism?

Not to mention the fact that assasination of Saddam would have accomplished absolutely nothing. Just like assasinating Bush won't make America "free". The "leaders" such as Saddam (and Bush) are public figures who represent the interests of hundreds, and act in their interests. If the puppet is removed another would be put in place. The entire structure has to be rooted out and even then it takes several decades for a full change of government...

Your version of WW2 is somewhat twisted.

How so?

The U.S. took the position that armed neutrality was the politically safe and financially advantageous way to proceed.The Government of the day didn't give a damn if the ir allies got screwed, as long as they didn't have to fight.It wouldn't have mattered if Hitler had exterminated every Jew,gypsy,and cripple in Europe, as long as he didn't interfere with the American lifestyle.

Bingo! The U.S. government or the people didn't want anything to do with Europe because it wasn't affecting them. Hitler was Europe's, and Europe's alone problem to us and that turned out to come around and bite us in the butt.

There is a time when war is the only choice.That time is when the enemy comes looking for you,or someone that you care about.

Well if somebody bombs you and you're neutral and another country declares war on you because of that I say that's a good reason to go to war.

How so?
not necessariy twisted...but overly simplified. and the analogy to iraq is about as ridiculous as any analogy of bush and hitler.

Bingo! The U.S. government or the people didn't want anything to do with Europe because it wasn't affecting them. Hitler was Europe's, and Europe's alone problem to us and that turned out to come around and bite us in the butt.
it was japan that attacked us, no? sorry, i know what you're getting at, but i had to take the stab. our official position was to not get involved until attacked. so when we found out japan was going to attack us, we didnt do a whole lot about it, and let it happen so we could go to war. we were just biding our time, not actually trying to sit the war out. dont think politicians are that niave...if they were, they wouldnt be politicians

Well if somebody bombs you and you're neutral and another country declares war on you because of that I say that's a good reason to go to war.
i think he would too...im pretty sure getting bombed counts as the enemy coming after you.

If Bush can send 1400 Marines to die, and slaughter countless thousands of Iraqis,knowing fullwell that the world does not believe his claims about WMD to be true, the world is better off with him being dragged through the streets behind a truck.He's scumUmm as far as I know the entire world believed Saddam had weapons. Of course I was really young back then so I could be wrong.

Well if somebody bombs you and you're neutral and another country declares war on you because of that I say that's a good reason to go to war.

When and how did IRAQ bomb the US? I must have been asleep when that happened .... To my knowledge, Iraq has NEVER directly bombed the US. And do not try to say that 11 sept. was done by Iraq. There is no proof of that !!!

Bush decided to save face by starting the "armed incursion" into Iraq because he could not find and destroy Bin Laden and the Taliban. So he went after someone he knew he get find (Saddam waving and yelling "Look at me, look at me !!!").

When and how did IRAQ bomb the US? I must have been asleep when that happened .... To my knowledge, Iraq has NEVER directly bombed the US. And do not try to say that 11 sept. was done by Iraq. There is no proof of that !!!

Bush decided to save face by starting the "armed incursion" into Iraq because he could not find and destroy Bin Laden and the Taliban. So he went after someone he knew he get find (Saddam waving and yelling "Look at me, look at me !!!").

Did Muscletang mention Iraq? No he didn't.

I know how Taranaki feels. I would like to see Annan shredded by a combine for standing aside as hundreds of thousands were executed. That gutless bottom feeding coward is praised by some and that it is just sickening. Apparently those people don't give a shit for Africans being raped and killed. It was his watch when machetes were standard issue for eliminating the Tutsi. Now that crotch rot stands aside as the Sudan is pulling a repeat. But, I guess he’s waiting for the go ahead to hold more meeting from his fellow douche bag Chirac.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

out of curiosity where are you from naki?

Umm as far as I know the entire world believed Saddam had weapons.

Grossly oversimplified.The truth is, nobody knew for certain.Nobody could find any proof that they existed[poison gas had been used on the Kurds, but all indications from eyewitnesses were that it was of a type used by Iran,not Iraq],the UN inspectors could find no trace of weapons at any of the sites earmarked for them to inspect by the world's intelligence services, and Saddam had made several claims to possess them, none of which he was prepared to back up with evidence.There was much talk of 'potential', and ' could' and 'may be' in CIA reports on the matter, but when these reports were put before the public, all traces of doubt were edited out.Bush invaded using the argument that in the absence of proof of such weapons not existing, his pre-emptive defence strategy had to assume that they did.
He was wrong, of course.I could just as easily say that there was a polar bear in Tehvisseeus' house,and ask him to prove that it didn't exist.If he showed us the rooms one by one, I could argue that he could have moved the polar bear out of the basement while showing me the attic, or that he had the polar bear stashed in a concealed room........It sounds preposterous, I know, but when Bush said it, people believed him.Hopefully they will know better next time.

isnt Saddam saying "i have weapons" enough reason to believe he had them?

Grossly oversimplified.The truth is, nobody knew for certain.Nobody could find any proof that they existed[poison gas had been used on the Kurds, but all indications from eyewitnesses were that it was of a type used by Iran,not Iraq],the UN inspectors could find no trace of weapons at any of the sites earmarked for them to inspect by the world's intelligence services, and Saddam had made several claims to possess them, none of which he was prepared to back up with evidence.There was much talk of 'potential', and ' could' and 'may be' in CIA reports on the matter, but when these reports were put before the public, all traces of doubt were edited out.Bush invaded using the argument that in the absence of proof of such weapons not existing, his pre-emptive defence strategy had to assume that they did.
He was wrong, of course.I could just as easily say that there was a polar bear in Tehvisseeus' house,and ask him to prove that it didn't exist.If he showed us the rooms one by one, I could argue that he could have moved the polar bear out of the basement while showing me the attic, or that he had the polar bear stashed in a concealed room........It sounds preposterous, I know, but when Bush said it, people believed him.Hopefully they will know better next time.Notice the wording Naki. I said that everyone believed that Saddam had WMD. Not that it was a definite, but even France thought he had them. You're right that you can't just assume that he had them, but remember there was a time where it was known that he had them.

Notice the wording Naki. I said that everyone believed that Saddam had WMD. Not that it was a definite, but even France thought he had them. You're right that you can't just assume that he had them, but remember there was a time where it was known that he had them.

I'm not sure where you get your ideas from ,but you are mistaken.Not everyone believed that Saddam had WMD simply because he couldn't prove that he didn't.Those of us who are cynical about George Didn't believe that he was telling the truth simply bevcause George was unable to prove his argument.As it turns out,we were right not to believe Bush.

And do tell of these WMD that Saddam was known to have had........

It gets tiresome posting the same Hans Blix report everytime this comes up.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/14/iraq/main540681.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Iraq_war#Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/studies/2002/asept/9_wmd.html
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/blix14Febasdel.htm

Just as it gets tiresome stating that only one third of the 12,000 page report was available to anyone that wasn't a permanent member of the security council.

Just as it gets tiresome stating that only one third of the 12,000 page report was available to anyone that wasn't a permanent member of the security council.

But read the pages we were given, it speaks for itself.

It gets tiresome posting the same Hans Blix report everytime this comes up.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Iraq_war#Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction";]

Before the attack, the head UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, clearly stated that his teams had been unable to find any evidence of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in Iraq, but that there were issues that had not yet been resolved. Retrospectively, some time after the attack, he doubts they existed Former top American weapons inspector to Iraq, Scott Ritter, a long time advocate of more thorough weapons inspections previously and considered an anti-Iraq hardliner, said that he was now absolutely convinced Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction In fact, most of the international community, including the US/UK intelligence community, came to some form of this conclusion or at least were ambivalent. The Bush administration, though, said they had additional, secret intelligence they could not yet make public which proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Iraq had such weapons.

If you are going to throw quotes around, make sure they support your position.That's more or less word for word what I just said.Bush has since admitted that he had it wrong, perhaps you should do the same.

I guess you skipped over thids part!

Dr. Kay's team concluded that Iraq had the production capacity and know-how to produce a great deal more chemical and biological weaponry when international economic sanctions were lifted, a policy change which was actively being sought by France, Germany and Russia. Kay also believes that a large but undetermined amount of the former Iraqi government's WMD program had been moved to Syria shortly before the 2003 invasion

And this part
As of August, 2004 small quantities of chemically degraded mustard gas had been found in old munitions.

And this part
The current situation concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction seems similar to that portrayed by Hussein Kamel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_Kamel) in 1995 and that of Imad Khadduri (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imad_Khadduri&action=edit) [14] (http://www.iraqsnuclearmirage.com/) (http://www.iraqsnuclearmirage.com/), that Iraq had almost completely destroyed its programs, but sought to retain as much knowledge and information that, should sanctions ever end, the programs would not have to start over from scratch.

This concerning terrorism, Bin Laden and Iraq
There are, however, many al Qaeda operatives who have bolstered the current US administration's claims of collaboration between al Qaeda and the now deposed Iraqi government, as well as charges of cooperation made by the Clinton administration. Al Qaeda weapons smuggler Mohamed Mansour Shahab (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohamed_Mansour_Shahab&action=edit) said in an interview in the New Yorker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yorker) magazine that he had been directed by the Iraqi intelligence community to organize plan and carryout up to nine terrorist attacks against American targets in the Middle East, including an attack similar to the one carried out on the USS Cole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole). [25] (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0403/p01s01-wome.html) (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0403/p01s01-wome.html). The only member of the original plot to destroy the World Trade Center to escape US law enforcement officials, Abdul Rahman Yasin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Yasin), fled to Baghdad shortly after the attacks in 1993.

Abbas al-Janabi, who served for 15 years as personal assistant to Uday Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uday_Hussein) before defecting to Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) in, has spoken frequently about his knowledge of collaboration between the former Iraqi government and al Qaeda. Al-Janabi said that he had learnt that Iraqi officials had visited Afghanistan and Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan) to strengthen ties with Al-Qaeda and he also claimed he knew of a facility near Baghdad where foreign fighters were trained and instructed by members of the Republican Guard and Mukhabarat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhabarat). [26] (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-7-2002_pg4_1) (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-7-2002_pg4_1). A facility matching al-Janabi’s description was captured by US Marines in Mid April of 2003 [27] (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html)

Aside from the contentious allegations of Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda, the former government did have relationships with other militant organizations in the Middle East including Hamas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas) and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Islamic_Jihad).

So basically, the report can be read any number of ways, depending on your perspective......how very conclusive.