| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105
Comments:
<0> Null_Ptr: Then Kofi Annan states it's illegal, I mean, what does it take?
<1> ok
<2> i bet that would not even add .1 %
<3> subjaz2: but even with world peace, many of those companies would probably stay in business, because people use guns for other purposes.
<0> Null_Ptr: Not to mention that an invasion into an independent country is what the UN was founded specifically to prevent!
<4> kofi annan is selling influence thru his kids, he's not an authority on anything
<0> Sheesh. :)
<5> rond: do you have a good website to account for the historical evidence of Jesus' existence?
<0> Oh, PLEASE.
<2> No Timur but there is a very good series of books
<0> Throw out a conspiracy theory there to make it legal.
<3> rond: lol
<2> may be a web site around that
<5> rond: ok..
<0> Just come on, it was an illegal war, it goes against the FOUNDING PRINCIPLE of the United Nations, for Christ's sake!
<2> there all from a historical perspective
<2> deals with facts only
<1> the bible is not a good book, unless you view it as paranoiac fiction
<2> I will try to think of the guys name
<3> belja: "illegal" is a funny word. illegal to whom? It certainly wasn't illegal according to US laws, which are the ones that govern our president, our military, and our citizens.
<2> did I say bible subjaz
<0> It seems to me that you guys simply ***ume that anyone who opposes the war is fighting for his own damn interests, while anyone with it, is fighting for some glorified American-led peace faction around the world, enforced by war.
<0> ItsaSecrt: Granted, but according to what is normally called international laws, it was clearly illegal.
<6> medicaid/medicare/social security ends up being 14% of GDP, give or take
<5> international law doesn't really mean much
<3> belja: there is some of that, considering that there are documents indicating saddam was counting on russian and french vetoes (based on economic interest) for his protection
<4> belja that's exactly the attitude that got Europe's entire *** kicked twice in one century
<7> If america isnt after creating its own Empire then why did America name its most famous building "The Empire State Building" looks like evidence of guilt to me.
<7> hehe
<7> :)
<3> belja: but i recognize there are some honest conscientious objectors and pacifists who oppose the war based on their principles.
<6> hehehe Nemes, uhhh America didn't name that building, "The Empire State" is the name of NY state
<5> nemes: no reason we shouldn't create an empire. Actually, one already exists, so it's moot
<5> the silliness is not recognizing it
<7> :) hehe
<0> Null_Ptr: No, that was the rape of Germany and subsequent rise of fascism, which could have been prevented.
<6> and don't ask me why they call it the Empire state
<0> Null_Ptr: You see, you've got a half-point there, though. Europe knows this kind of ****.
<4> belja not by the pussies with attitudes like yours
<0> Europe is used to invasions and wars and political bull**** to justify each ****.
<6> i think it was because of the fact that NYC was the capital of the USA at one time
<6> but don't quote me
<0> We know what fascism looks like in hindsight, you don't.
<0> You think it's American principles, we only see Rome/Constantinopel/NaziGermany, YET again.
<0> Except with nuclear weapons.
<5> one doesn't have to live under a fascist regime to know what it looks like
<5> and you weren't alive anyway
<0> And that's why we're scared of you, you people just don't get that you're not alone on Earth.
<7> `426Hemi, hrmm I will let you off, I believe you but thousands wouldn't :)
<3> for Europe, war = bad, and they've got two world wars to prove it. both times, very messy, ugly, situation, no real winner, everybody died.
<4> of course we are alone on the earth, other countries are only on tv
<0> Timur-: No, but statements like that the US can both enforce its own political agenda AND be the world police at the same time, gives people the creeps.
<0> Timur-: It's the exact same rhetoric history has taught us points towards bad things.
<0> A third world war, a real possibility, by the way.
<3> for America, war = successful, not so bad, almost good. we won, saved the world, looked like the hero. we've had generally good experienecs with war, with very little cost at the homefront (they weren't our cities getting turned to rubble)
<3> so, naturally, americans think, "war will work" and europeans think "war will never work"
<0> ItsaSecrt: And you honestly don't see how naive that is? :)
<3> the truth is probably somewhere in the world.
<0> War won't work because we're used to having war in our homelands.
<5> belja: except the US isn't in any way comparable to a genocidal, racist Nazi regime looking for lebensraum, since we're not interested in colonization at all.
<3> somewhere in the middle even
<5> a different kind of empire, see
<0> Timur-: If we throw out the genocide in the discussion, nobody accuses America of that and I wouldn't believe it would do such a thing.
<7> ItsaSecrt, erm no real winner in the 2 world wars? thats quite a diversion from history, you see I and most others were taught at school that the allied forces won in those wars. Were they wrong then?
<7> did no one win?
<6> dang, the Empire state building only took a year to complete
<7> guess we were allw rond
<4> if war won't work, then tell me, is saddam still in power?
<3> belja: for america, war has brought some very good consequences.
<7> wrong -even-
<0> Timur-: But the US rationale for war with Iraq has been used over and over and over throughout history, and Europe has learned that it's 99% bull****.
<0> ItsaSecrt: Yes, because it isn't fought on your own turf.
<4> or the taliban?
<3> belja: it defeated imperialistic japan, defended the phillipines, south korea, saved europe, stopped hitler, etc.
<5> some wars are justified
<4> war works wonders when it's needed
<5> whether you particularly, or Europeans generally, agree with them or not.
<0> ItsaSecrt: That is EXACTLY the kind of argument I would expect from a Nazi, a Communist or a Roman. :)
<3> belja: and again, this war wasn't going to be fought (primarily at least) on our turf, so no real reason to think it couldn't work out favorably for us again.
<0> You just proved my point, but still, it is apparent yo me now that you have access to totally different information than I do.
<3> belja: except that we're the country that helped stop the nazis and the communists, and the romans (if you count italy's participation in WWII)
<0> I'm sure we'd have a better time agreeing in real life. Your world view just baffles me, I honestly don't know what to say. :)
<0> ItsaSecrt: Oh, and thanks for that.
<0> ItsaSecrt: But that doesn't give you the right to behave in the same way. :) (Forget the genocide, I'm talking about fascism)
<3> belja: bottom line: for americans, military force can have good application
<1> whats so good about stopping communism its a model of economic efficiency
<3> subjaz2: LMAO!
<0> ItsaSecrt: Military force always has good application for the winner, I'm not disputing that.
<4> the goal is not economic efficiency
<4> the goal is the three part plan
<0> ItsaSecrt: But it's nazi-style justification, any way you look at it. You can ignore it, but not reject it.
<4> step 1... collect underpants. step 2... step 3... profit!
<5> lol
<2> he's a genius !!!
<3> belja: what was nazi's justification for trying to conquer europe?
<0> Null_Ptr: ;) The American dream come true.
<6> New York City became the temporary capital of the newly formed United States on September 13, 1788 under the U.S. Constitutional Convention. On April 30, 1789 the first President of the United States, George Washington, was inaugurated at Federal Hall on Wall Street. New York City remained the capital of the U.S. until 1790, when the honor was transferred to Philadelphia.
<6> there you go Nemes=))
<3> belja: not being from "The Continent" I probably have less experience with nazis than most europeans.
<0> ItsaSecrt: Basically, yes, believe it or not. :) The strength of the Aryan people was justification for its use of that strength.
<0> ItsaSecrt: Anyway, I've gotta run.
<1> so they could unify europe and remove the ::::::::::"jewish problem"
<3> belja: I don't know about their justification, but their goal was conquest and occupation. that's not america's goal.
<5> it's not a 'nazi-style' justification, unless one's historical analysis is so shallow that 'any justification of use of military force' whatsoever must be equated to the Nazis, which is of course a silly analysis.
<7> `426Hemi, :)
<0> Timur-: Actually, that justification would be typical of the nazis.
<5> belja: but not say of others who have used military force?
<3> belja: in what way? you're not explaining your position very clearly for us.
<0> Timur-: A much more typical justification is that used by Bush, lies upon misinformation upon lies.
<0> ItsaSecrt: No, I'll come back to it later on, I've gotta go. :)
<3> belja: okay.
<5> belja: may I show you a website explaining pretty well the true reasons for the Iraq war, at least in the minds of many/most Americans?
<0> Timur-: By all means. :)
<4> its awfully convenient to compare everything the USA does to the nazis, and fall back on your unique european perspective to say you can see how it's equal even if we can't. that pretty much inspires the response, 'screw you' and causes nobody to listen to you anymore.
<0> I'll read it and rant when I get back. :)
<5> belja: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/
<4> timur that is not a good link
<4> oh wait my bad
<1> america never listens to anyone whose not american anyway, look at thier dealings with the un
<5> :)
<0> Null_Ptr: Somehow it doesn't occur to Americans that the Nazi-analogy is used because of the overwhelming similarities in justification of military force. Everyone hates France too, but they're not scared of France because France isn't trigger-happy. The US however is.
<0> BLAH! It's impossible to stop! ;)
<8> belja: true
<5> sometimes one isn't trigger happy enough
<6> liberals selective listening problem is what lead to the focus on WMD's, if the liberals and lefties would have listened to Bush's state of the Union they would see for themselves that WMD's was not the ONLY reason we went after Saddam
<5> maybe if Europe had balls, Rwanda could've been prevented or at least minimized
<4> france would be trigger happy is they could be, but they're too impotent
<4> s/is/if/
<2> EUnics
<5> France has had a pretty active intervention in Cote D'Ivoire, and Chad
<5> among other places
<5> sometimes the intervention is done very quietly and isn't known about widely
<6> France is in the Ivory Coast involving itself in a war, no one says **** about that though
<9> ahah... the queen visits canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HM-tablet.jpg
<3> subjaz2: the UK probably has more pull with the US than all the rest of europe combined.
<7> easily
<7> not maybe
<4> i like the uk. it's quaint.
<5> Rusty: and scores of other examples. Libyans in Chad; Rwandans in Congo; etc
<4> it's like a postcard picture of the past. (not the good past, just the past.)
<1> i think the uk has the highest average income in the world
<7> the US will listen to the english government over france/germany etc any day of the week
<1> high cost of living though
<4> that's just inflation.
<4> in real terms (ie how many loaves of bread can one person's wages buy) it's not higher.
<3> belja: if you really cower in your bed at night for fear of a US bombing mission on your hometown in iceland, you really ought to check yourself into an institution
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
laterile
#red
#windowsxp
#nhl
ozoo mahoke
#politics
#nhl
#stocks
t
#computers
|
|
