Turkey

It seems strategy in the middle east now hinges on Turkey. The oil fields and Kurdish rebels are in the North, and that is where the US needs to attack from. The US needs the support of Turkey, and the Turks are willing to give it to them, for a price.

Originally the US had a $26 billion "aid package", or a term we are more familiar with, bribe, prepared for Turkey. However, the Turks realize they have Washington over a barrel. If the US wants to preserve the oil fields in the north of Iraq, they must invade from Turkey, or the fields are sure to be burned by Saddam. Now Turkey is demanding more money. The US is gearing up for it's invasion in March, and needs Turkey on board as soon as possible, in order to launch the crucial second front in the north.

What are your thoughts/opinions on this?

It seems to me, if there is no concern for oil, why would the US be so keen on invading from the north? There is no clear strategic value, and it is a given that the weakened forces of Iraq can pose no threat to a 300,000 man strong force armed with the latest weaponry.

It's not about oil,he's an evil man;)

lol.....I thought this thread was summing up George Bush......Taht'll teach me for just reading the title :rolleyes:



LOL The Turks are well on the way to foiling Bush- oh wait that as done when he first announced the attack :rolleyes:

The Turks have already agreed to sell out, they're just bargaining for more money. Also, I think they want to delay the war until after the rally of Turkey ;) I know I do :D

Turkey knows they have the US over a barrel. The US needs to invade from Turkey, to secure the oilfields quickly. The Turks are holding out for more money.

The other big bribe being offered to Turkey is a part of the 'peacekeeping' process after the war....It is highly likely that Turkey will occupy a 'buffer zone' inside Northern Iraq...by pure coincidence, this buffer will coincide with Turkisk claims on Iraqi land that date back to the 1920's.included in the prize are the northern oilfields at Kirkuk and Mosul.But of course,the Turks support the U.S. because Saddam eats babies and is an evil man.

Originally posted by Jimster
lol.....I thought this thread was summing up George Bush......Taht'll teach me for just reading the title :rolleyes:

LMAO

:lol2:

w3rd brotha.

Does nobody remember the devastating impact that the last oil fires had on the environment when saddam practiced his little "scorched Earth" deal in the Gulf War? Anybody?

I don't mean to sound like a jerk but this US greed for oil thing is getting a little old. Saddam does not care for anything other than his own power and he will take whatever he can with him if he should fall. And of course Iraq is going to say that we are invading for the oil. Like I said, propoganda from both sides.....

Also, it seems a little that it makes no difference what the US does or doesn't do, it's all about oil, imperialism, control, domination, a war against Muslims/Arabs, etc, etc. Well, damned if you do, damned if you don't I suppose. And no, I don't trust my politicians but there is a line to the distrust.

26 billion ? that seems a bit much for some oil ?

is there alot?

i dunno if its worth it altogether

Originally posted by Monkey-Magic-S15-R
26 billion ? that seems a bit much for some oil ?

is there alot?

i dunno if its worth it altogether

Bush has yet to be accused of being smart:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Does nobody remember the devastating impact that the last oil fires had on the environment when saddam practiced his little "scorched Earth" deal in the Gulf War? Anybody?


Ah so now, we're attempting to justify this with the harm that Saddam did to the enviroment? How about the harm the US does every year, because they are unwilling to set reasonable pollution caps on their industry?

Every western nation has passed or is passing the Kyoto protocol, except for the US. Why? Because it would take money out of the pockets of the exceedingly wealthy, or in Bushese, be bad for the economy.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher

I don't mean to sound like a jerk but this US greed for oil thing is getting a little old. Saddam does not care for anything other than his own power and he will take whatever he can with him if he should fall. And of course Iraq is going to say that we are invading for the oil. Like I said, propoganda from both sides.....


I find it much more likely that I'm strongly influenced by US propaganda, considering I'm exposed to US media more than Canadian media. This media is attempting to sway me towards a war. It doesn't matter what Iraq says, their stance and opinion on this are largely irrelevant. The US wants to invade, and the rest of the world doesn't. It's every other nation, saying it's about oil. Why is it that the only people who don't believe it's about oil are some Americans? I'll tell you why, US propaganda.

I respect your view of propaganda from both sides, but considering teh other side is Iraq, I find it very hard to believe I'm being propagandized. Unless you mean I'm being propagandized by the Europeans, who have no means of reaching me with their media. I think it's a little more likely that the US wants to invade Iraq, and are trying to propagandize me into supporting it.

Honestly, your only opinions of Saddam Hussein are those founded on what you have been told by the media, who are intent on villafying him. I don't know the man, I think he's probably not the nicest guy, he's a dictator after all, but we really don't know what he cares about. He runs a socialist government, which takes care of it's citizens, not big business. I would say that shows more caring than Bush has. If you want to get into comparisons, Saddam seems like a much more amiable chap than Dubya.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher

Also, it seems a little that it makes no difference what the US does or doesn't do, it's all about oil, imperialism, control, domination, a war against Muslims/Arabs, etc, etc. Well, damned if you do, damned if you don't I suppose. And no, I don't trust my politicians but there is a line to the distrust.

I think the biggest reason for that would be that the US has an absolutely attrocious track record when it comes to foreign policy, protecting US foreign interests, corporate interests and generally killing anyone who gets in their way.

It seems that the Muslim fanatics are the only ones so far who have actually fought back, in the limited ways they can. If the US wants to be the world police, they must be impartial, and the US is far from impartial when US interests are involved, and at best indifferent if they are not.

More than 3000 people died on September 11th, and it's practically treason to discuss WHY they died. What does that say about the United States?

Remeber Turkey went to the UN looking for protection from Iraq, not the U.S.. When one country is afraid of another something is wrong. Not to mention that Iraq can be linked to terrorist, so wouldnt that make it like any other country, where terrorests are being found and arrested. Shouldnt Saddam be arrested for supporting terrorists, or is it O.K. for him to do it and noone else.:confused:

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
Remeber Turkey went to the UN looking for protection from Iraq, not the U.S.. When one country is afraid of another something is wrong. Not to mention that Iraq can be linked to terrorist, so wouldnt that make it like any other country, where terrorests are being found and arrested. Shouldnt Saddam be arrested for supporting terrorists, or is it O.K. for him to do it and noone else.:confused:

Sounds good.Perhaps you would also like to arrest ever member of Noraid, an American organisation that arranged funding and firearms shipments to the IRA?Or how about prosecuting Donald Rumsfeld for his part in the U.S. funding of Saddam Hussein when IRAN was Uncle Sam's favorite boogieman?Maybe you could also find and prosecute the persons responsible for equipping the Contras with firearms?Or even perhaps look to the U.S.arms industry forsupplying all manner of tinpot dictators,terrorists,anarchists,criminals and psychotic high school students with deadly weapons?

I still find it funny this is EXACTLY the same way Afganistan played out before the whole world got involved with us. It's about oil, you want to kill Muslims, you are going to kill civilians, etc, etc. It's sick.

We fought several times in the Middle East and not once did we take oil for ourselves other than what we purchase already. Afganistan was "about the oil" yet there are no more stories of oil anymore, wonder why. Oh yeah, it's because there isn't any there. "Sorry, our bad". Hmmmm, I know our intel isn't all that good at times but come on.

The only thing I am justifying is how we want to prevent oil fires from happening again. It was hell trying to put them out. I'm sure people lost thier lives doing so. So yeah, we are going to try to prevent that. So what now? We should do away with firemen/safety and such? I don't get what you are saying.

And not the entire world is against it. Several millions per gathering hardly represents the whole world composed of billions. And there are countries that are siding with us. Yet, the anti-war people still cannot grasp this. We and the world knows saddam is a threat because everyone in the UN voted to have Iraq disarmed.

That says that the whole world (at least as far as the "worldly" UN is concerned) percieves Iraq as a threat. Ok, so now they agree that he is a threat. Now what? Sit on your hands?! Come on, Iraq is not going to comply. The Resolution clearly states "FULL cooperation". Even the report that Blix gave said that they are "partially" cooperating and there is no "media influence" about this one because I watched that speech.

And Bush is not a "war-monger" who disrespects international law. Because if that was the case then he wouldn't have gone to the UN in the first place. He has made it clearly known that the US will go it alone but he is giving the UN several upon several chances to uphold the several upon several resolutions that the UN has passed on Iraq and failed EACH AND EVERY ONE utterly. Bush is like anyone else who is losing patience.

We want to talk about oil and the US "violating" sanctions or whatever. Well, let's see. The very ones that are opposing our proposed war are the very ones that are getting oil from Iraq and of course if you look at Iraq's weaponry what do you see? Primarily Russian made. What we provided were some weapons and intel in exchange for fighting a mutual enemy and to stop harboring international terrorists. Well, he certainly failed that one too (not saying he is working with al-quada.....yet).

And people who have no respect for UN sanctions? Look no further than Europe. Russia, France, and some independant people/firms (not thier actual government) in the UK broke UN sanctions and started to deal with Iraq. I know this because I stumbled upon an article years ago and did a report on it for one of my military education classes. That move right there got saddam to becoming more powerful believe it or not. So given this too, you can see how we are pushing for compliance really bad. The nations I talked about above added fuel to the fire and they aren't helping us to put it out.

And my sources are from the news yes, but about the Gulf War they are mostly from veterans of that war. My Dad being one of them. I don't think too much of the media is too far off with saddam.

Now about that Kyoto treaty b.s. If you ever go to Europe (namely the UK) you will be lucky to find an engine size not much bigger than 1.0 liter in most cases. They are restricted not to mention the high prices for "petrol" over here in the UK. Englanders, tell me if I'm wrong.

Basically what I am saying is that the Kyoto treaty would have royally screwed us over wether (in your belief) it was to save the rich or not. And we are taking our own steps (yes even Bush) to find alternate energy.

Yes, I read an actual article about how he is pushing for this research. But the anti-Bush, anti-right wing, anti-whatever won't say this. He wants to get rid of our dependancy for oil but not to the point that it will be bad for us. Think about it, a rapid change like that would be bad for us. But we do go in that direction. I mean if my Z28 back in the US can get 20 mpg in the city (yes, it really does) and is over 300 hp then what does that tell you? Granted though, we should get rid of those damn SUVs. :mad:

And a final note: I don't recall saying that you were being "propogandized" in this thread. I usually get that card played on me.

Now explain to me how it is "treason" to talk about the September 11 attacks? We talk about it very much in the states and nobody in black has abducted anyone or anything. And no, we shouldn't be impartial when are interests are at risk. Nobody with an ounce of brains would do that. We might not be the only superpower for long but we will always be a nation you do not fuck with.

Those terrorists are the brainwashed ones. You will get fucked by 70 virgins in Heaven if you become a martyr and kill as many Americans as you can. 'Nuff said. We aren't fighting the Muslims, we are fighting the extremists. And we all know that extremists are bad/evil, no propoganda and no "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s about it. We all KNOW what extremism leads too. These terrorists have no honor, yet I find that many in the world are calling them "freedom fighters". WTF?! They BLATANTLY target non-combantants. And it is not only against the US, it's YOUR COUNTRY too. But I suppose that is the US's fault too? Hell even the French suffer from it. They are sticking up for Iraq and what did they get? A bombed oil tanker. This post has dragged on long enough so I will stop here.

Sorry, I'm going on 24 hours with no sleep and I'm "high" on Red Bull. :D

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
I still find it funny this is EXACTLY the same way Afganistan played out before the whole world got involved with us. It's about oil, you want to kill Muslims, you are going to kill civilians, etc, etc. It's sick.

We fought several times in the Middle East and not once did we take oil for ourselves other than what we purchase already. Afganistan was "about the oil" yet there are no more stories of oil anymore, wonder why. Oh yeah, it's because there isn't any there. "Sorry, our bad". Hmmmm, I know our intel isn't all that good at times but come on.



There is not much oil in Afghanistan,true.But then there's not much of ANYTHING left in Afghanistan any more.Where's Osama?You guys don't have any idea.Where is Al Queda operating from now?No answers on that one yet either.When will the persons responsible for the Sept 11 bombings be brought to justice?Don't ask,Uncle Sam doesn't know.In short,the U.S. has bombed the hell out of Afghanistan with little or no result,and is now using the mysterious 'terrorists who might be coming' as a weak excuse to go rampaging around the Middle East.Iraq will only be the start.It's based on lies,it's immoral,and every decent American soldier should be ashamed to be part of it.

Originally posted by taranaki


Sounds good.Perhaps you would also like to arrest ever member of Noraid, an American organisation that arranged funding and firearms shipments to the IRA?Or how about prosecuting Donald Rumsfeld for his part in the U.S. funding of Saddam Hussein when IRAN was Uncle Sam's favorite boogieman?Maybe you could also find and prosecute the persons responsible for equipping the Contras with firearms?Or even perhaps look to the U.S.arms industry forsupplying all manner of tinpot dictators,terrorists,anarchists,criminals and psychotic high school students with deadly weapons? Great Ideas, because that is the only way there will ever be peace. It only takes one person to start a war. So if everyone has to be put in jail so a war doesnt happen, then I guess so be it. You make up this stupid list of all these people you want to blame for terrorism and war, but you dont give any other options for us to avoid war. If you dont like the idea of putting threats to a peaceful world behind bars, what do you think we should do?

Ok, so because I support the War on Terrorism and am serving my country to do my part, I'm not a decent soldier? Well, if I go to war and make it back I'll remember to shield my face from the spit like what happened in Vietnam.

ANYHOW, about Afganistan. Bush made no false statements and told the truth that it would be a long, drawn out war/process to fight and root out terrorism. You have to remember, this war is not a conventional war like in open fields or urban combat or whatever. These are people who do not wear uniforms to establish thier affilition. They can pose as a normal civilian. These people blend in with the normal populace, even in our own borders too. Thier accounts are frozen too making it difficult to fund thier operations.

bin laden is in hidding and is pressed to carry out many if any terrorist attacks. That is a step in the right direction. He has cells all over the world and the whole world is rooting them out. But it will be very hard to do that unless we jail up every single person of Arab decent and that isn't going to happen. We are literally trying to find a needle in a haystack.

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
Great Ideas, because that is the only way there will ever be peace. It only takes one person to start a war. So if everyone has to be put in jail so a war doesnt happen, then I guess so be it. You make up this stupid list of all these people you want to blame for terrorism and war, but you dont give any other options for us to avoid war. If you dont like the idea of putting threats to a peaceful world behind bars, what do you think we should do?

A stupid list?I don't think so.It quite clearly identifies Americans who have endorsed and supported terrorism,and you don't have any valid arguments to deny my point,so you choose to abuse it.

I really do like the idea of puting threats to a peaceful world behind bars.George Bush would be top of my list.However,there is no civilised juristiction on this planet that allows for pre-emptive justice.Nobody gets locked up on the basis that they might commit a crime sometime in the future.This is one of the core reasons that this war is so unpopular.If the U.S. government made a statistical analysis of serial killers and decided to detain every citizen that fitted the profile 'just in case' they turned out to be deranged,there would be an outcry.The notion that the U.S. can just invade the Middle East looking for people who might pose an unspecified threat at some unspecified place some unspecified time in the future is abhorrent to the rest of the free world.The U.S.constitution isn't worth a damn if the President won't apply its principles to ever human on the planet.

I guess you never heard of sarcasim. As for your list do any of those people have any nuclear or biological weapons that they can kill millions with by just pushing a button. I dont think so. Every person on that list, has nothing to worry about because under the constitution you have the right to bear arms. Meaning guns, not missles made for mass distruction. Not to mention those people dont go around threatening other people. So like I said its a stupid list. Who would compare any of those to Saddam, sure not me.

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
I guess you never heard of sarcasim. As for your list do any of those people have any nuclear or biological weapons that they can kill millions with by just pushing a button. I dont think so. Every person on that list, has nothing to worry about because under the constitution you have the right to bear arms. Meaning guns, not missles made for mass distruction. Not to mention those people dont go around threatening other people. So like I said its a stupid list. Who would compare any of those to Saddam, sure not me.

One point at a time.
1/Yes,Ihave heard of sarcasm,and I'm intelligent enough to spell it,too.
2/Terrorism isn't ALWAYS about nuclear weapons,as demonstrated by Sept.11
3/NOBODY has come up with any evidence that Iraq is nuclear-capable.
4/"under the constitution everybody has the right to bear arms"has absolutely no relation to providing weapons and funding to terrorists operating on the other side of the world.
5/Noraid sends weapons and money to IRA terrorists who have murdered hundreds of civilians in bomb attacks,what are they,Boy Scouts?THEY ARE CRIMINALS YOU MORON!

6/If you are not prepared to compare Saddam to the list that I supplied[which is kind of stupid,because he's actually on that list],then you are not preparedacknowledge that the groups listed have been actively engaged in terrorism.Which makes you a hypocrite.

Here we go: 1)sorry I spelled a word wrong, Im sure you are always perfect. 2)So what you are saying is it is ok if saddam kills a couple thousand people, as long as he doesnt do it using a nuke. 3) Just because he doesnt have an atomic bomb, doesnt mean he doesnt have nuclear weapons, ever heard of A DIRTY BOMB? 4)What does this have to do with this thread, Do you know what off topic means.5) How old are you because there is no need for name calling, come on grow up a little.6) Now lets get back to the topic, Turkey, the country that is afraid of saddam, but I dont think turkey really cares about anyone on your list. They are just afraid of saddam and thats why they came to the UN to ask for protection. Yes your list has some people that arnt :angel:'s , but they are small fish compared to someone like Saddam.

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
Remeber Turkey went to the UN looking for protection from Iraq, not the U.S.. When one country is afraid of another something is wrong. Not to mention that Iraq can be linked to terrorist, so wouldnt that make it like any other country, where terrorests are being found and arrested. Shouldnt Saddam be arrested for supporting terrorists, or is it O.K. for him to do it and noone else.:confused:

1) Turkey went to NATO, not the UN.

2) Turkey was bribed with a near $30 billion dollar package to help the US invade Iraq, and part of that help is to ask NATO to protect Turkey. Protect, fine, use Turkey as a launching point for a second front? That doesn't sound much like protection to me.

3) Iraq has NO links to terrorists. If there was any such link, Colin Powell would have flogged them before the UN, instead of coming up with grainy photographs that could have been taken in Texas, a facility run by the Kurds reported to be a chemical weapons training camp, whatever that is, and a dossier of decade old British student papers.

If you want to nail a country for supporting terrorism, look more closely at the United States, and their history of supporting terrorism to support foreign interests.

Please, I suppose you are going to say that the US funds the IRA too????? Think about THAT one for a minute. No links, no sources, just think about it. Why would we fund a terrorist organization that is fighting our biggest ally. If people on the internet "know" this as a "fact" then rest assured the UK knows about it. Yet, they are still our ally. Explain that one to me.

The Mujahadeen (sp?). We fought a common enemy. So what? They wanted the Russians out of thier country and we helped them out (yes, even for our own ends, it was the Cold War after all). Once again, so what? It's not like the "

yes

Please, I suppose you are going to say that the US funds the IRA too????? Think about THAT one for a minute. No links, no sources, just think about it. Why would we fund a terrorist organization that is fighting our biggest ally. If people on the internet "know" this as a "fact" then rest assured the UK knows about it. Yet, they are still our ally. Explain that one to me.

The Mujahadeen (sp?). We fought a common enemy. So what? They wanted the Russians out of thier country and we helped them out (yes, even for our own ends, it was the Cold War after all). Once again, so what? It's not like the tactic wasn't used against us a couple of times. But nobody complains about that one since the tactics were used against the US.

I know there are other examples out there but these are all I can think of now (can't stay online too long). If you have others, we can discuss it.

Now why would we stop terrorists, yet fight them? That makes no sense to me. Yeah, we have done some shady things but to support terrorism is stepping over the line.

But that's ok because from what I have seen from a lot of people lately is that the US SOMEHOW has gotten more "evil" than terrorists. SOMEHOW, we got switched from a superpower to "Imperialists" and terrorists somehow got switched to "freedom fighters". I know the US is not perfect but we are not as evil as people make us out to be.

And saddam has harbored international terrorists before. Once again, the deal we made with him was to fight Iran (our common enemy) and to stop harboring international terrorists. Yes, this is back in the 80s but still, he does deal with them. Not saying he is dealing with al-quada, not saying he isn't either. But given his track record, would you put it past him?

Sorry about the post and a half. Computer messed up.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Please, I suppose you are going to say that the US funds the IRA too????? Think about THAT one for a minute. No links, no sources, just think about it. Why would we fund a terrorist organization that is fighting our biggest ally. If people on the internet "know" this as a "fact" then rest assured the UK knows about it. Yet, they are still our ally. Explain that one to me.


No, the US government didn't fund the IRA, an organization of US citizens did, and the FBI was aware of this.
Originally posted by Darth Cypher


The Mujahadeen (sp?). We fought a common enemy. So what? They wanted the Russians out of thier country and we helped them out (yes, even for our own ends, it was the Cold War after all). Once again, so what? It's not like the tactic wasn't used against us a couple of times. But nobody complains about that one since the tactics were used against the US.


I don't think ithis is really relative to the discussion here, other than the fact that the Mujahadeen were freedom fighters against the Russians, and terrorists against the US.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher

But that's ok because from what I have seen from a lot of people lately is that the US SOMEHOW has gotten more "evil" than terrorists. SOMEHOW, we got switched from a superpower to "Imperialists" and terrorists somehow got switched to "freedom fighters". I know the US is not perfect but we are not as evil as people make us out to be.


The US has not "switched" at all, the US is the same country to the rest of the world as it ever was, it's just that suddenly, Americans are paying attention to the fact that a considerable number of people wish to see Americans die, and even greater numbers dislike the US with a passion.

Terrorists are still despised by the rest of the world, it's just that suddenly they're not that distant to Americans. It's easy to ignore terrorists when they're far away, attacking embassies in countries you couldn't find on a map, it's much more difficult when they are blowing up buildings in the centre of your country's political heartland.

I brought the Mujahadeen up because they eventually became the taliban. I have heard many times that this is a terrorist organization that we funded. Which is not the case, we never funded thier terrorist functions except to fight the Russians (and that was against military targets).

I have heard of individual contributions to the IRA but again, I hear a lot of how the gov't funds it.

I know I get irate a little in these discussions. I am not surprised that people hate us. Everyone is going to have someone for whatever reason. What surprises me is the reasons and some of them are like: :confused:

Originally posted by Cbass


If you want to nail a country for supporting terrorism, look more closely at the United States, and their history of supporting terrorism to support foreign interests. You say the US supports terrorism here but this taken from the North Korea thread, you are saying the US doesnt give out support or aid.>(The level of aid that the US provides compared to the wealth they possess is sickening. The US provided $15 billion last year in foreign aid, and most of that was supplying weaons. A full third of that figure was supporting Israel alone, a wealthy nation with no need for aid. In Canada, we are not much better, at 2.2 billion a year, but the US is a country 10 times our population, and is economicly much stronger. Canada, a smaller, poorer nation, gives 0.5% of our GNP as foreign aid. The US figure is something closer to .08%, and most of that is again, giving weapons to countries like Israel. Please stop acting as if the US is some benevolent country that goes around supporting the world, it's quite disheartening.) So which is it do they support the world and aid terrorism or do they not support the world and aid No One. You seem confused.

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
You say the US supports terrorism here but this taken from the North Korea thread, you are saying the US doesnt give out support or aid.>(The level of aid that the US provides compared to the wealth they possess is sickening. The US provided $15 billion last year in foreign aid, and most of that was supplying weaons. A full third of that figure was supporting Israel alone, a wealthy nation with no need for aid. In Canada, we are not much better, at 2.2 billion a year, but the US is a country 10 times our population, and is economicly much stronger. Canada, a smaller, poorer nation, gives 0.5% of our GNP as foreign aid. The US figure is something closer to .08%, and most of that is again, giving weapons to countries like Israel. Please stop acting as if the US is some benevolent country that goes around supporting the world, it's quite disheartening.) So which is it do they support the world and aid terrorism or do they not support the world and aid No One. You seem confused.

I would say you seem confused, much more than I. My point there is that the US gives out the least foreign relative to their population, and even moreso their economic means, and then Americans preach about how they are so generous with foreign aid. A full 1/4 of that "foreign aid" is military spending on Israel. This is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and I'm not sure WHY you brought it up.

I know you love your country, and I love mine, if my country was doing the same things that the US is, I'd have a hard time believing it myself. The fact is though, that the US has been doing these things. The US doesn't play fair, and a lot of people around the world object to that.

I am confused, because you make me confused. I dont care if you hate the U.S and are in love with Saddam, you have the right to have what ever opinion you want. I just dont get why you say one thing to back up one of your opinions, even though it may go against something you said somewhere else on the forum. :confused:

Its because he cannot prove what he's saying. He believes everything he's seen in his local schoolboy newspaper. I myself have been out on the front against tyrants. Saddam for one. Why others from countries other then the US choose to tell us how to think is beyond me. They go by their highly biased news and do not have the true facts. Time will prove that once again the US will be the one who came to a peoples rescue. Excuse me, I meant to say the US and our Allies because after the fact we'll have alot of Allies,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,again

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Its because he cannot prove what he's saying. He believes everything he's seen in his local schoolboy newspaper. I myself have been out on the front against tyrants. Saddam for one. Why others from countries other then the US choose to tell us how to think is beyond me. They go by their highly biased news and do not have the true facts. Time will prove that once again the US will be the one who came to a peoples rescue. Excuse me, I meant to say the US and our Allies because after the fact we'll have alot of Allies,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,again

It's amazing how many vets we have in this forum.Have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that the U.S. media may be the one that is biased?Most of the rest of the world favours a U.N.-brokered solution,even the last real ally of the U.S.,Britain is now backing out towards that viewpoint.


If Bush persists in his determined effort to breach international law,he will go down in history as a bad and dangerous leader.Hope he gets voted out at the next election he doesn't seem to have any idea how to conduct negotiations with other world leaders.

Oh,and by the way,spare us the deluded crap about how the U.S. is so kind and benevolent in rebuilding countries after wars....historically ,the U.S. has ALWAYS turned up late to defend its European allies.If the U.S. had had a little more backbone in supporting its friends(other than Isreal,Uncle Sam's favorite terrorists),it wouldn't have been neccesary to rebuild Europe.

This "deluded crap" happens to be fact. Look at Japan and Germany. Japan is a VERY successful nation. Germany's status is up there to veto our actions. Afganistan is looking better already.

I do not like how we were late for the wars but we were isolationist in the past. We woke up and realized that if we don't take our role in the international scene, it will find it's way onto our turf. Yes, even though we took part in world affairs since then we still got Sept. 11. But damned if you do, damned if you don't. How do you want to check out? On your feet or on your knees?

And after WW2, we basically swore that never again will another Hitler rise up. Do you all see why the US is very much like a "bully" sometimes? Yeah, we are not perfect but can I ask an honest question? Does it occur to anyone that perhaps, even by chance, that the US actually does do the right thing once in a while?

And our allies are pretty thankless it seems. France comes to mind. Did any of you a know that when we were liberating France, several times did they turn our troops over to the Germans? That's gratitude for you. :mad: You want my source? My grandfather is a WW2 vet. And I will take his word over any media source. Soldiers are "getting thier hands dirty", not so much the reporters. Though there are exeptions.

And calling Israel terrorists?! Isn't that a little.....anti-sematic? How are they terrorists when they are the ones that have to endure suicide bombings on a daily basis? I don't get that. And yeah, we support them heavily. They only have every Arab nation out to wipe them off the face of the Earth.

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Its because he cannot prove what he's saying. He believes everything he's seen in his local schoolboy newspaper. I myself have been out on the front against tyrants. Saddam for one. Why others from countries other then the US choose to tell us how to think is beyond me. They go by their highly biased news and do not have the true facts. Time will prove that once again the US will be the one who came to a peoples rescue. Excuse me, I meant to say the US and our Allies because after the fact we'll have alot of Allies,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,again

Actually, I back up my statements, and I certainly don't draw them from a limited number of sources.

Nobody is telling you how to think, unless you take into account a massive media system that influences your mind every day, a massive propaganda machine that tells you what to think and believe, but I guess you're fine with those because they're in the US, right?

So I am to suppose that the entire world has some ridiculous bias against the US, based not on the actions the US has been taking, but upon some deep intrinsic dislike of the US? That's ridiculous.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
This "deluded crap" happens to be fact. Look at Japan and Germany. Japan is a VERY successful nation. Germany's status is up there to veto our actions. Afganistan is looking better already.


Japan is economically dependent on the US. Germany was politically and economically dependent on the US, until of all people, the French helped them regain their own political and economic means, through trade.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher

I do not like how we were late for the wars but we were isolationist in the past. We woke up and realized that if we don't take our role in the international scene, it will find it's way onto our turf. Yes, even though
we took part in world affairs since then we still got Sept. 11. But damned if you do, damned if you don't. How do you want to check out? On your feet or on your knees?


It's because of the US "taking a role in the international scene" that 9/11 happened. You can't solve the problem by going around and fighting terrorists, you have to eliminate the root cause. The US does BAD things around the world, and you're finally seeing some repercussions.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher

And after WW2, we basically swore that never again will another Hitler rise up. Do you all see why the US is very much like a "bully" sometimes? Yeah, we are not perfect but can I ask an honest question? Does it occur to anyone that perhaps, even by chance, that the US actually does do the right thing once in a while?


The US always does the right thing. The right thing for US foreign interests. Sometimes that coincides with what our morale judgement of what the right thing is, often it doesn't. The problem is, I think you're seeing another Hitler rise up, and you're too busy cheering Alles Für Deutschland to see it.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher

And our allies are pretty thankless it seems. France comes to mind. Did any of you a know that when we were liberating France, several times did they turn our troops over to the Germans? That's gratitude for you. :mad: You want my source? My grandfather is a WW2 vet. And I will take his word over any media source. Soldiers are "getting thier hands dirty", not so much the reporters. Though there are exeptions.


4 years before D day, the Vichy government of France was empowered. This was the legitimate government, overseeing French policies and activities. It was put in place by the Germans, who were "rebuilding" France after the offensive of 1940. Just like how the US "rebuilt" Germany and France, in their own interests and image.
I respect your grandfather for fighting when he had to, but don't you think that the viewpoint of a soldier is somewhat limited to what he hears, and sees? It's not likely you're going to hear the other side of whats happening if you're enforcing the beliefs of your own side through military force.
[/b][/quote]

Originally posted by Darth Cypher

And calling Israel terrorists?! Isn't that a little.....anti-sematic? How are they terrorists when they are the ones that have to endure suicide bombings on a daily basis? I don't get that. And yeah, we support them heavily. They only have every Arab nation out to wipe them off the face of the Earth.

No, and that's one of the biggest problems surrounding Israel today. If you criticize the apartheid regime they run, in which only 1/5th of their Palestinian majority can vote, you are an antisemite.

In case you haven't noticed, the suicide bombings are the only way the Palestinians have to fight back against the Israelis. Hey, terror won Israel independence, why shouldn't it work for Palestine?

http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/Palestine/jewish-terrorism.htm

Originally posted by Darth Cypher


And after WW2, we basically swore that never again will another Hitler rise up. .

Some would argue that's exactly what George Bush is in danger of becoming.He has a bizarre notion that the rest of the world should conform to his vision of Utopia,at the point of a gun if neccesary.There is no satisfactory evidence that the Iraqi government is directly involved in any terrorist activities,if Bush had any genuine evidence,the U.N. WOULD back him all the way.The setting of a deadline by the U.S. confirms that they intend to attack regardless of world opinion ,and regardless of the fact that Iraq as a nation poses no immediate threat to any U.S. territory or citizens.The consequenses will be far-reaching and long term.Expect more terrorist activity on U.S. soil,and realise that George Bush will be wholly responsible for the civilian casualties that it causes.The man is a fool.

France? Give me a break, we trade more with Japan than they do. Hell, Japan owns American soil.

Yes, Sept. 11 happened because we took part in world affairs. Pearl Harbor because we didn't. You missed my point. If we are going to have attacks on us no matter what we do, then we will have it more on our terms.

Yes, the US does bad things too. But nobody else does? France's resistance to our goal in the Middle East can be viewed as sticking up for the Arabs, can it not? Well, some terrorist faction showed their thanks by bombing one of thier oil tankers off the coast of Yemen. These people hate us for what we are.

So because I am seeing someone who is taking the fight to the enemies (notice we didn't do anything until we were attacked) that makes me no better than when the Germans cheered for Hitler? Another Hitler is not rising up. The argument is ridiculous. I could say how clinton or liberals in general (in the US) are like tyrants and want to undermine what the US stands for. Anything can be twisted to fit anything.

If I am too busy cheering "Alles Für Deutschland" to see the "hitler" in my own country. Then maybe you are too busy shouting "bad, evil USA" to see how we actually help this world turn. Letting these problems in the world fester is not going to make them go away. Sweeping things under the rug doesn't make them go away. They get worse.

So this "legitimate government" that was set up in France, aka a puppet government of Germany. So the French in all thier "guts and glory" let this happen. So much for the "Viva la France" or whatever b.s. they spouted. If they like to be ruled by another country vs. helping another that is trying to liberate it from thier attackers to restore it to what is was before, well fine. Only thing we can count on France for is a knife in the back anyhow.

I am not getting into how the Israeli government is run. It's thier problem. But I suppose that still makes me an anti-semite. Sure, ok, whatever. Besides, we could go on and on about to who the land rightfully belongs to. And religion will be brought into it, and not everybody follows one. Besides, the Palestinians have a military, they are capable of carrying out a more honorable form of combat.

And thier problem is not only the Palestinians. It's the other Arabs out there who don't like thier religion or whatever. Besides, Israel got some of thier lands as spoils of a war too in which the Arabs lost (who were the instigators by the way). Besides, aren't Palestinians refugees from Arab nations that don't want them anyhow?