A Culture of Cover-Ups

from: The New York Times


A Culture of Cover-Ups

The president's officials have thrown a shroud of secrecy over any information that might let voters assess his performance in the war on terror. By PAUL KRUGMAN

Aides to John Kerry say that if he wins, he'll replace Porter Goss as head of the C.I.A. Let's hope so: Mr. Goss has already confirmed the fears of those who worried about his appointment by placing Republican staff members from Capitol Hill in key positions and raising fears about a partisan purge.

But the flap over Mr. Goss is only a symptom of a much broader issue: whether the Bush administration will be able to maintain its culture of cover-ups. That culture affects every branch of policy, but it's strongest when it comes to the "war on terror."

Although President Bush's campaign is based almost entirely on his self-proclaimed leadership in that war, his officials have thrown a shroud of secrecy over any information that might let voters assess his performance.

Yesterday we got two peeks under that shroud. One was The Times's report about what the International Atomic Energy Agency calls "the greatest explosives bonanza in history." Ignoring the agency's warnings, administration officials failed to secure the weapons site, Al Qaqaa, in Iraq, allowing 377 tons of deadly high explosives to be looted, presumably by insurgents.

The administration is trying to play down the importance of this loss, arguing that because Iraq was awash in munitions, a few hundred more tons don't make much difference. But aside from their potential use in nuclear weapons - the reason they were under seal before the war - these particular explosives, unlike standard munitions, are exactly what a terrorist needs.

Informed sources quoted by the influential Nelson Report say explosives from Al Qaqaa are the "primary source" of the roadside and car bombs that have killed and wounded so many U.S. soldiers. And thanks to the huge amount looted - "in a highly organized operation using heavy equipment" - the insurgents and whoever else have access to the Qaqaa material have enough explosives for tens of thousands of future bombs.

If the administration had had its way, the public would never have heard anything about this. Administration officials have known about the looting of Al Qaqaa for at least six months, and probably much longer. But they didn't let the I.A.E.A. inspect the site after the war, and pressured the Iraqis not to inform the agency about the loss. They now say that they didn't want our enemies - that is, the people who stole the stuff - to know it was missing. The real reason, obviously, was that they wanted the news kept under wraps until after Nov. 2.

The story of the looted explosives has overshadowed another report that Bush officials tried to suppress - this one about how the Bush administration let Abu Musab al-Zarqawi get away. An article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal confirmed and expanded on an "NBC Nightly News" report from March that asserted that before the Iraq war, administration officials called off a planned attack that might have killed Mr. Zarqawi, the terrorist now blamed for much of the mayhem in that country, in his camp.

Citing "military officials," the original NBC report explained that the failure to go after Mr. Zarqawi was based on domestic politics: "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq" - a part of Iraq not controlled by Saddam Hussein - "could undermine its case for war against Saddam." The Journal doesn't comment on this explanation, but it does say that when NBC reported, correctly, that Mr. Zarqawi had been targeted before the war, administration officials denied it.

What other mistakes did the administration make? If partisan appointees like Mr. Goss continue to control the intelligence agencies, we may never know.

This isn't speculation: Mr. Goss is already involved in a new cover-up. Last week Robert Scheer of The Los Angeles Times revealed the existence of a devastating but suppressed report by the C.I.A.'s inspector general on 9/11 intelligence failures. Newsweek has now confirmed the gist of Mr. Scheer's column.

The report, the magazine says, "identifies a host of current and former officials who could be candidates for possible disciplinary procedures." But although the report was completed in June, Mr. Goss has refused to release it to Congress. "Everyone feels it will be better if this hits the fan after the election," an official told the magazine. Better for whom?

What really happened on 9/11, or in Iraq? Next week's election may determine whether we ever find out.

[p.s. Cargile]

And so I guess that what we have found out is that several Saudi Arabians used hi-jacked airliners to attack economic and military centers of the US, and that after eleven long years of a prolonged cease-fire of a war that was never officially ended (because you don't impose No Fly Zones over nations you are at peace with) we decided to end that war with a regime change and the liberation of the very people acredited with giving rise to Civilization itself. Even though there is no direct link with the former dictator of Iraq to the actions of those Saudi men who hi-jacked three airliners, said dictator did reward the families of Palestinian sui-/homicide-bombers thus showing his support of Terrorist activity--as defined by the US and Israel, they being the prime targets of terrorist organization, and reserving the right to self-defence even through preemptive military action.

The War in Iraq is unique because it is one campaign in two wars. It is last battle of the orginal 1991 Gulf War, and the second battle on the War on Terrorism.

This is such arrogant bullshazbot!!
Will the USofA now march into every country just because they don´t like those in power?
Saddam was an evil dicatator - there is no doubt about it. But so is Kim Sung Ill (sp.?) and quite a few others. You will go after them next?
And really, Iraq didn´t pose a threat to the USA. Its military after the first gulf war was a joke. I don´t know why the US invaded this country.
One thing is certain: the situation in Iraq is now much worse than it was under the Saddam-regime.

Oh, one thing: the war against Germany officially ended when the country was reunited in the early 1990s. Would that mean that you could have started combat with us at any time you would have wanted to?

[p.s. Cargile]

If the cold war had gone hot, yes.

You see its not your nation that gets to decide what my nation considers a threat to itself. The US decides what its threats are and how to remove those threats. We define the threats. If Germany finds the US to be a threat, then so be it.

[moovok]

The US went to Iraq to use "friendly fire" and kill tons of Brits

(sorry, had to, just ignore this comment, just wanted to add some fun into this debate)

Originally Posted by p.s. Cargile

If the cold war had gone hot, yes.

You see its not your nation that gets to decide what my nation considers a threat to itself. The US decides what its threats are and how to remove those threats. We define the threats. If Germany finds the US to be a threat, then so be it.

And yet again you miss the point about why the rest of the world is nervous about the current US governments actions. To be perfectly honest mate we can see that the a scary number of americans thinks that us poor yokels in the rest of the world are fools. That we can't analyse whats happening for ourselves.

You see it is not the fact that you invaded those two countries that worries us. It's the justifications you make for the act that does. Using flimsy arguments like WMD amonmgst others that are being proven now to be deliberate exageration and manipulation of non -existant facts. We're seeing documentory after documentory here about that evidence and how it was twisted to fit what Bush and co wanted. Like metal tubes that Bush swore was for nuclear development but it has now been revealed that every one of your own experts who looked at the evidence reported that those tubes had nothing to do with nuclear weapons yet the government still paraded those tubes as proof of NW development.

So in other words Bush is prepared to twist the truth to get what he wants. How the hell do you think that makes the rest of the world feel ? A large world power thats prepared to lie to justify attacking another country ? A large world power which is run by a man who blatently manipulated his way into the white house. And what is to stop him from doing what ever he pleases ? The american people ? shazbot mate the rest of the whole bloody world has seen report after report of what bush did to get into power, such as striking black voters off the eligabilites lists because their names are "similair" to someone convicted of a felony. Yet what did the American people do about this ? Nothing..

America's greatest strength used to be that it's people were it's own worst critics. When you had serious racial inequalities you did not rely on world critiscm to begin changing it your own people stood up to be counted and fought and while not destroying it totally you turned the tables. And there are countless other examples where americans stood up to be counted against internal problems. Yet look at you now.... to speak against the current administration you are branded as "unamerican" ... and I've seen it several times now on different boards where a american criticises something his country is doing he is screamed down as un-american and told that if he doesn't like it leave the country... what the **** is this??? is it now wrong to speak your mind in the US ?? Is it now wrong to point out problems with the way things are being handled ??? Does not being allowed to criticise the state remind you of one or more regimes of the past ???

Now take all this on board and ask yourself were you in our shoes would you not be concerned ? The rest of the world mate thinks Bush is a threat and we are seeing evidence that the American people don't seem able or even willing to do anything about him.

[p.s. Cargile]

If I were in your shoes would I be concerned. . .Concerned about what specifically?

And I don't miss the point about why the "rest of the world" is nervous. Simply put, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks. I think the phrase is: "I don't give two good shazbots what you think of me." God knows the US better not do anything about small groups of religious fanatics that are determined to kill US citizens at all costs because they have been taught to blame and hate the US for all the troubles they suffer, because if we do, the Europeans (and others) just might not like us. O! the everliving humanity! How can the US ever face its face in the mirror without the exalted blessings of the European (and other) nations?! Woe to us for we have earned the shameful Dislike of Europeans (and others).

Get ready men, the Europeans (and others) are going to attack us with stern looks and grave disdain. I want those psych medics ready to administer counseling because its going to be a bloodless yet emotionally draining assalt! They're gonna give us everything they got. Hatred. Ire. Detestment, and the whole lot. But we can take it men. We can take a onslaught of accusations and foul-mouth name-calling. We can take it because we are Number One.

I know why you hate us. Its like that game "King of the Mountian." We have taken the mountain from the last King. And now you want to throw us from our perch and resume the title for yourselves. That's understandable. That's Life. That Survival. That's Domination. You hate US because we are Number One. We are the lone Superpower and in your eyes that is not fair. It seems a bit unbalanced doesn't it?
There are only two options you have: Raise yourself up, or knock us down. And destruction is always easier. . .

Oh, when I mentioned European nations above, I meant the Old Europe, excluding the countries that used to belong to the Soviet Bloc and Soviet Union that have learned to have a deeper appreciation for freedom, and have assisted the US in its efforts to thwart terrorism. Maybe the next time Old Europe is faced with a despot, the US should give you the Finger instead of liberation.

God you guys never cease to amaze me ... you think we envy you ??? are you really that arrogant ?? Here in Australia we have all of the same good things that you do and very few of the negatives. We can walk our streets at night with very little worry. We can buy the same luxuries you can so what on earth makes you think I envy you ?

Do you think we really care that you are the last super power ? Do you really think that we think that you are superior to us ? God what arrogance you must have.

Really mate you really need to get off your high horse and take a good look at the world. It's easier to just think the rest of world is nervous about where the US is heading due to envy than to pull your heads from the sand and face reality.

Oh and while no one thinks the terrorists are justified in their actions it constantly amazes me that you can't see that it is your own people that created them. By your (and other nations) constant interfearance over the last hundred years or so. Funding and arming one side over the other back and forth. Yes and even funding and arming Sadam to get him in power when it suited you. You put him in power pal so it is you who is ultimately responsible for what came after.

Yes I know you'll just write off my words as US bashing whenit is far from that. It is simply a citizen of this planet we share asking you to stop avoiding the truth and using weak reasons like jealousy to explain why more people on this planet think you are wrong than right.

Tell me pal, there was a time when standing up to point out the truth was a thing to be proud of. Why is it that doing it now means your a US basher?

Mind you I don't know why I'm bothering with this. I know it won't change your closed mind. Your too busy thinking up wild reasons why I must hate you for no good reason for why else would I dare to criticise you ? Much easier to do that than accept that maybe I don't hate you after all but tell you out of friendship that what you are doing is wrong.

Fortunately I do know that there are still plenty of intelligent open minded Americans in your country and with luck they will prevail in changing the course you seem delighted to be following. At least they are smart enough to know you don't stop terrorism by bombing the crap out of civilains. At least they are smart enough to know that actions like that only create thousands more. To defeat terrorism from growing you must help those in the middle east see you are reasonable decent men. What you are doing now is only making them hate you more. Surely you are not so blinkered as to fail to see that happening ?

And just so you dont think that I believe my own country to be perfect I fully accept we have many faults. As do most Australians, and we'll do our best to keep making progress to iron out those faults. Which can never be done if you don't face them.

anyhow, back to my loving family and nice home and job... which amazingly enough can be found outside the US you know .....

[p.s. Cargile]

Even Truth cannot escape the grip of Bias. You speak of one truth, I speak of another. You want the US to adopt your perception of truth, and some American's have, to which you should be happy. But there are greaters numbers of American that espouse that truth you believe to be a falsehood.

To be honest, do you really care that Islamic fanatics hate the US and pledge for its destruction? I mean if our bringing the war to them doesn't effect you, then why all the hand wringing at US policy? If our ignorance of your truth only causes the Arab Street to hate us more and increases the number of terrorists that attack the US, then why do you care?

Furthermore, if Al Gore had been elected president in 2000 and did everything that Bush has done, no one would be complaining about the US policy. And that's because Al Gore is a socialist Democrat and Bush isn't. The media would applaud and accolade a Gore promoted invasion of Iraq. Gore would have cited the same reasons for going to war and the media would have agreed with him, simply because they are on the same side of the issues.
Only if. . .but Gore would not have done that. Gore would have followed the Clinton model. Gore would have done another weak missile strike that would give the appearance of retaliation. That would have been enough to sate all liberals everywhere. It would also mean that terrorist organizations would remain powerful enough to plan and carry out more attacks in the same fashion that they did during the 90's againist US interests. Terrorist would remain on the offensive, and the world would remain reactive to their whim. I guess this is more appealing to you because it gives a pretty picture of World Peace and the only real Bad News that would run across your TV and newspapers would be that little annoyance between Israel and Palestinians, and the occasional terrorist bombing of US embassy/military housing/ship.
Your displeasure at US policy comes from the US taking the offensive and in by doing so exposing a Truth you desired to hide from. We've uncovered a truth about the world you don't want to believe. You want to believe that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. When we leave them alone, we give them an opportunity to strike at leasure without fear of reprisal. When we leave them alone, we embolden them and we make them stronger. We increase their morale. We increase their recruitment. What a great poster that would make: We Are Beating Back the Great Satan. Join Up Now To Destroy the Infidel.
The terrorist have only one means to inforce their will upon us, violence. When they set of IEDs, when they behead people, when they drive suicide vans, when they use any violent means thay can and we don't give in to their demands, we take away the effectiveness of that violent act. We make it useless. We make it an act of desperation.
We can stomach loss of life because we are not going to let thugs and murders dictate how we are going to live our lives.
That is our truth. That is our reason. We will not allow Islamic fanatics to Dominate us. That's the bottom line. Believe it or not. I don't care.

Thought Experiment:
Lets say that I do Something and you and your friends watch me do this Something. You want to know why I did that Something so you have many options to pursue in getting that information.
You can ask me straight out. I can then either tell you the Truth or Lie. No matter my answer you have to decide whether to beleive me or not.
You can try to figure out why I did the Something by using your perceptions of me and your knowledge of my behaivor. By this analysis you can reach the Truth, or you can reach a Falsehood.
You can discuss the matter with friends and arrive at a concensus on why I did the Something.
You can also collect any manner of information or evidence than can prove to you that I either Lied or told the Truth.
In the end, it is you that has to decide what is true and what is not. If you do not have all the information to make an informed judgement, then you have to go with what you have. And sometimes your judgement may be wrong. Lets say I did the Something to relsove My Problem A, but you cannot gather enough information to support my reason. Even though I tell you my reason and that reason is Truthful to me, you can still sift through all your facts, discuss all the possible reasons those facts can justify, and conclude that I did that Something because of Your Perceived Problem B. ANd you will call that Your Truth.

Perception my backside.

One: Bush goes on record saying Iraq is building nuclear weapons claiming metal tubes as proof. Claiming his advisors (Intelligence and scientific) have told him that this is the sole purpose of this tubes is malevolent.

Two: These very same intelligence and scientific advisors go public complaining that what they actually said was the exact opposite.

No "perception" needed there pal. He lied plain and simple. There are countless more examples of this yet you seemed to think it is okay to ignore it. You may try to rationalise it by saying everyone just has the wrong "preception" but the only person you are fooling is yourself. Bloody hell, your own people are telling you he's lied to start this war yet you seemed determined to ignore it.

Point two: "why should I care ?"

My friend that statement tells volumes about your ignorance. So much so that I almost didn't repy it was so stupid. You seem to think you are the only people on this planet. Are you so blinkered to think thats whats going on doesn't affect the rest of us ? That the increases in petrol prices doesn't hurt us, that the fear of terrorist actions in our own coutries doesn't worry us, that we don't bloody care that hundreds of australians were blown to little ****ing pieces in Bali ?

Open your eyes pal. You are but one country on this whole planet. What you have done affects us all and it says a lot about you that you couldn't care less about that.

Also you must think we are fools if you expect me to swallow that we are only comlaining about this because Bush is doing it. Does it matter to people who is at the wheel when a car goes out of control ? That is one lame counter to an argument.

Oh and finally I love how do your arguing. You respond to one minor point and leave alone all the real ones. I see you failed to respond to the point that you "created" this situation yourselves. Or is this just our "perception" too? Are all our history books wrong about the times you gave arms to Saddam, or to his enemies depending on what suited your purpose. Are the history books wrong that you not only funded but organised the training of Osama ?

Pal, you used the word "truth" a lot in that little speech of yours. I think it's about time you looked up what it means. Half of your own country has come to understand the truth about whats going on in the world right now .. and 95% of the rest of the world. So tell me... which side is more likely to be right ?

Originally Posted by p.s. Cargile

If the cold war had gone hot, yes.

You see its not your nation that gets to decide what my nation considers a threat to itself. The US decides what its threats are and how to remove those threats. We define the threats. If Germany finds the US to be a threat, then so be it.

I´m glad Germany didn´t need your help (and I mean you personally).

For fourty years the two Germanies were the battleground of this pissing contest the two superpowers used to find out whose dick is bigger.
But finally the people decided they would no longer accept this condition and took matters in their own hands. And in so doing they ended the Cold War and the justification for any "Superpower".
And for ten long year the US military fought for a justification to be. Until 9/11 came...

Originally Posted by p.s. Cargile

The terrorist have only one means to inforce their will upon us, violence. When they set of IEDs, when they behead people, when they drive suicide vans, when they use any violent means thay can and we don't give in to their demands, we take away the effectiveness of that violent act. We make it useless. We make it an act of desperation.
We can stomach loss of life because we are not going to let thugs and murders dictate how we are going to live our lives.
That is our truth. That is our reason. We will not allow Islamic fanatics to Dominate us. That's the bottom line. Believe it or not. I don't care.

You know, this could have come from the mouth of a terrorist leader.
You can´t fight terrorism with a gun in your hand - only with reason.
If those fundamentalist would realise that the westerners don´t want to destroy their religion and way of life (which is VERY different from ours) they would in the end stop their bloodshed. But this won´t happen when the US keeps invading the eastern countries to "bring them democracy". It doesn´t work that way. This has to be an evolution from within.

Originally Posted by ST-One

It doesn´t work that way. This has to be an evolution from within.

Absolutely correct. You can't make people change their minds by pointing guns at their heads, or by blowing up their friends, families and children.

Did you suddenly wish to convert to Islam when they bombed you ??? No ??? Then what makes you think they are going to want to change to your way of thinking when you bomb them ?

[p.s. Cargile]

You 're right, so right. I see the error of my ways. If we let them kill people, then they'll stop. Is that right? Do I understand now?

You can´t fight terrorism with a gun in your hand - only with reason.

So you are saying that terrorist are reasonable people. You do know that they commit suicide to kill others, don't you? The German media isn't covering that tidbit up is it? Let's say you wish to engage in some political change. There are lots of options before you that don't involve violence. You can petition to have bill passed into law. You can address the public through the many forms of media available. You can vote. You can run for office. These are the actions of men you can reason with. Violence is the best tool when those men that want to effect change know that what they seek will not be embraced by the public and they must resort to violence to advance their ideas. These are not reasonable men, and they must be meet with violence. Violence is what they understand. We are dealing with a cult of death.

Oh and JMartin, be a pal and highlight your major points. . .I'm too stupid to find them on my own.

Originally Posted by p.s. Cargile

Oh and JMartin, be a pal and highlight your major points. . .I'm too stupid to find them on my own.

You said it not me.......

It's ironic that you've hit the nail right on the head just when you thought you were being clever. I should learn never to argue with teenagers on the net. Too ignorant to see what anyone with any knowledge of the world can acertain. Too thick to see that everytime you gun down a terrorist you create 10 in his place. Too thick to see that fighting terrorism is an idealogical battle, not one between soldiers.

By the way. I love how you keep dodging the issue that you created these terrorists in the first place. I'd feel sorry for you except for the fact that it is not just you that is being harmed by your actions.

So you have my appologies Cargile. I shouldn't have made my arguments over your head. Next time I'll restrict my arguments with adults who can see blatently obvious points. And who responds to counters to their points with reasoned arguments backing their views. Not petulant rantings that no one above 15 would swallow.

1.) Just because someone dissagrees with you means they are stupid? and you are calling Cargile a child? You simply don't get it so let me lay it out to you.

a.) the US is a sovereign country; as such what we do is our business and not yours.
b.) yes there exists such thing as a global economy but yet that does not translate to other nations getting to tell the US what to do. I know you Europeans really wish that was the case but recent history has obviously proven that idea as false. Afterall the war with Iraq in 2003 wouldn't have happened otherwise. Yes it sucks when you are sitting on the 'otherside' of the fense but believe me when I say I really wish I could do somethying about Charak (france ldr) but I can't. I am an American not French...
b.) i) conversely I think Germany's 'vote 44' program was distasteful and insulting to America. You have a problem with how the US and USSR treated Germany as our personal playpin; and yet you have the nerve to try to play in 'our' politics? little hypocritical no?
B.) ii) More over, despite your nice little speach, if it wasn't for the immenant collapse of the USSR your little 'reuinification' would still be fantasy land. Of course, I am sure you aren't to keen on that none, patriotic view of it.
c.) Just because "95%" of the rest of the world thinks their 'opinion' is the truth doesn't make it such. It is still an 'opinion'; so how about you step down off your soap box too. ^.- Yes that means what we say is an opinion too but we are Americans and so ours are what matters most in "American" politics.
d.) someone mentioned 'documentaries' and I just know they are referring to the film Fahrenheit 9/11. Let me say something that may shock and amaze you. It was a 'fictional movie'. Michael Moore didn't have one shred of actual 'evidence' to back up his 'documentary' and so it is fictional. No matter how much you 'want' to believe otherwise this is the absolutely and completely fictional.
d.) i) 'Every' countries Intelligence Agency said that Iraq had WMD. So how is Bush lieing to us?
d.) ii) Michael Moore is a delusional meglomaniac himself; and you believe him? try learning about the state of the world by some other means that your German National T.V. We all know that EU news isn't news; its socialist propoganda.
e.) Diplomacy (a.k.a. reason) only works when 'both' sides are willing to negotiate. A prime example of that is Palestine. Clinton got the Israele to give the Palestinians everything they could ever dream of but that wasn't enough. Hamas wanted Israele to be dead/pushed into the sea; not peace. How do you reason with that? you can't... The same is true with Bin'Laden and Al'Queda. Yes we Americans realize that we created the monsters that go bump in the night. So it 'should' be us Americans killing those monsters. It's a far better thing to do than to 'run away' when the going gets tough like Europe did with its Middle East Colonies...
e.) i) If you 'truly' want to take a history lesson on 'who' created 'what'. It was your European forefathers who decided to 'teleport' out the the Middle East cause they decided they didn't have the stomach for colonialization anymore.
e.) ii) it was Brittain who decided, in their hasty departure from Israel, to split the country in half and that would solve everything.

2.) Whether you believe it or not; Europe in general 'does' envy the US and our success and has envied the US for a very long time (the prime example of this is French and their relations with the US over the past Century). You may personally not feal that way but in general that is just how things are. Yes you can find a good job and live a good life outside the US. Yet the reality is that youre 'chances' of doing that outside of the US is not as great as inside the US. This is just cold hard economic facts; so if you wish to dispute it then do so but you yourself are choosing ignorance over truth.

3.) Here are why I support us 'continueing' our war with Iraq.

a.) Saddam was a dictator of the worest variety of them.
b.) Saddam supported terrorists
c.) Saddam could have been a threat in the future.

Are you happy now that someone made a logical and reasonable statement on why to go to war with Iraq? Good; cause its been said before, maybe you weren't listening. :P

4.) Just because Kim is worest than Saddam is in all the ways that matter, doesn't mean we should treat Kim the same way we did Saddam. When dealing with an enemy you create a plan based upon that enemy. Not everyone is alike and so the US will deal with N.Korea the way we see fit. If EU has a problem with that? then go to war with N. Korea yourself. Why does the US have to be the one to fight all of EU's wars? Moving right along, the same can be said about Iran which I am sure you are up in arms about because you 'believe' they have WMDs and Nukes... buuuut I have heard this song and dance before. When the US fights your war for you you will just turn on us like you did with Iraq. Even though your own Intelligence says the Iran has nukes. It will go something like this.

- 1 year from now, US invades Iran because they have failed to comply with UN demands and are deemed a threat to world safety.
- 1.5 years from now US wins said war.
- 2 years from now No one finds any Nukes or WMDs in Iran.
- 2.5 years from now EU says 'Damn Bush and his Empire Building ways' & ' Bush Lied to Us again!'
- 3 years from now I say "I told you this was going to happen."

and why? cause we gave them a full year to move everything to Syria - AGAIN!

[edit: sorry about spelling and sentance structure ^^; typing this and playing FFXI at the same time... lol]

[skyhawk223]

Hmm, pretty good points there, despite the questionable spelling and sentence structure.
jmartin, ST-One- Your turn.
This is quite fun.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

a.) the US is a sovereign country; as such what we do is our business and not yours.

Oh, boy. Yes the US is a sovereign country. As is France, Germany, Iraq and every bloody country on this planet.
But the US are also part of the UN and NATO and as such you just can´t attack another country without being threatened. No war was declared on the US. So you had no right to invade Iraq.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

b.) yes there exists such thing as a global economy but yet that does not translate to other nations getting to tell the US what to do. I know you Europeans really wish that was the case but recent history has obviously proven that idea as false. Afterall the war with Iraq in 2003 wouldn't have happened otherwise. Yes it sucks when you are sitting on the 'otherside' of the fense but believe me when I say I really wish I could do somethying about Charak (france ldr) but I can't. I am an American not French...

His name is Chirac.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

b.) i) conversely I think Germany's 'vote 44' program was distasteful and insulting to America.

I don´t know of any "vote 44"-programme.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

You have a problem with how the US and USSR treated Germany as our personal playpin; and yet you have the nerve to try to play in 'our' politics?

In this case: OF COURSE! After all it is OUR country - in your words: "what we do is our business not yours."

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

B.) ii) More over, despite your nice little speach, if it wasn't for the immenant collapse of the USSR your little 'reuinification' would still be fantasy land. Of course, I am sure you aren't to keen on that none, patriotic view of it.

Hello, the revolution that led to the reunification took place in the GDR. The majority of the people could not have know of the real status of the USSR. Besides the collapse was a surprise to most countries. And began with the opening of the Hungarian borders and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

c.) Just because "95%" of the rest of the world thinks their 'opinion' is the truth doesn't make it such. It is still an 'opinion'; so how about you step down off your soap box too. ^.- Yes that means what we say is an opinion too but we are Americans and so ours are what matters most in "American" politics.

Only in this case "American" politics interfere whith global (UN) politics.
AND it would seem that those "95 %" of the world were right.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

d.) someone mentioned 'documentaries' and I just know they are referring to the film Fahrenheit 9/11. Let me say something that may shock and amaze you. It was a 'fictional movie'. Michael Moore didn't have one shred of actual 'evidence' to back up his 'documentary' and so it is fictional. No matter how much you 'want' to believe otherwise this is the absolutely and completely fictional.

He overstated far too much in his film.
But facts are facts. Leave out the exaggeration and you get a good view of the reality.
Sometimes you have to start to think yourself.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

d.) i) 'Every' countries Intelligence Agency said that Iraq had WMD.

That is not true.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

d.) ii) Michael Moore is a delusional meglomaniac himself; and you believe him? try learning about the state of the world by some other means that your German National T.V. We all know that EU news isn't news; its socialist propoganda.

You ****ed up moron!
I would guess that we learn more about the world in our National Televison on one evening than you in a whole year.
"Socialist propaganda"?!?!? What the ****? You obviously haven´t seen our news. But if by that you mean critical and investigative journalism you are right.
At least our news are far better than yours concerning the war in Iraq. Even the Washington Post admitted their coverage was biased.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

e.) Diplomacy (a.k.a. reason) only works when 'both' sides are willing to negotiate. A prime example of that is Palestine. Clinton got the Israele to give the Palestinians everything they could ever dream of but that wasn't enough. Hamas wanted Israele to be dead/pushed into the sea; not peace. How do you reason with that? you can't... The same is true with Bin'Laden and Al'Queda. Yes we Americans realize that we created the monsters that go bump in the night. So it 'should' be us Americans killing those monsters. It's a far better thing to do than to 'run away' when the going gets tough like Europe did with its Middle East Colonies...

The US have the full support of the world to get Bin Laden. But apparently he is not on Ws agenda anymore. Hunt him down! Kill him! He is the one responsible for 9/11 - not Iraq.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

e.) i) If you 'truly' want to take a history lesson on 'who' created 'what'. It was your European forefathers who decided to 'teleport' out the the Middle East cause they decided they didn't have the stomach for colonialization anymore.

Maybe the Europeans should reclaim their colonies in the US.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

e.) ii) it was Brittain who decided, in their hasty departure from Israel, to split the country in half and that would solve everything.

Brittain had a mandate from the League of Nations for Palestine. They split the country in 1922 leaving only 23 % for the Jews. In 1947 the UN decided to split those 23 % again to create an Arab and a Jewish state.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

2.) Whether you believe it or not; Europe in general 'does' envy the US and our success and has envied the US for a very long time (the prime example of this is French and their relations with the US over the past Century). You may personally not feal that way but in general that is just how things are. Yes you can find a good job and live a good life outside the US. Yet the reality is that youre 'chances' of doing that outside of the US is not as great as inside the US. This is just cold hard economic facts; so if you wish to dispute it then do so but you yourself are choosing ignorance over truth.

Believe it or not, Europe in general does not envie the US!
You may personally not feel that way but you are arrogant.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

3.) Here are why I support us 'continueing' our war with Iraq.

a.) Saddam was a dictator of the worest variety of them.
b.) Saddam supported terrorists
c.) Saddam could have been a threat in the future.

Are you happy now that someone made a logical and reasonable statement on why to go to war with Iraq? Good; cause its been said before, maybe you weren't listening. :P

Saddam was a dictator - very true.
Saddam supported terrorists - not quite true. He supported the families of those who commited terrorist/suicide attacks in Israel. And while I do not agree with those murderers I somehow can understand them - They are fighting for a country of their own (a ****ed up way to do this)
Saddam could have been a threat in the future - not from what those UN and US inspectors said. Besides that is not a good reason to go to war. Innocent until proven guilty - does this mean anything to you? I could say I can throw you in jail because you could commit some kind of crime in the future - that would be equaly as stupid.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

4.) Just because Kim is worest than Saddam is in all the ways that matter, doesn't mean we should treat Kim the same way we did Saddam. When dealing with an enemy you create a plan based upon that enemy. Not everyone is alike and so the US will deal with N.Korea the way we see fit. If EU has a problem with that? then go to war with N. Korea yourself. Why does the US have to be the one to fight all of EU's wars? Moving right along, the same can be said about Iran which I am sure you are up in arms about because you 'believe' they have WMDs and Nukes... buuuut I have heard this song and dance before. When the US fights your war for you you will just turn on us like you did with Iraq. Even though your own Intelligence says the Iran has nukes. It will go something like this.

- 1 year from now, US invades Iran because they have failed to comply with UN demands and are deemed a threat to world safety.
- 1.5 years from now US wins said war.
- 2 years from now No one finds any Nukes or WMDs in Iran.
- 2.5 years from now EU says 'Damn Bush and his Empire Building ways' & ' Bush Lied to Us again!'
- 3 years from now I say "I told you this was going to happen."

and why? cause we gave them a full year to move everything to Syria - AGAIN!

Well, it would seem that the negotiations between Iran and the EU are going to work.
On a side note:
VIENNA, Austria (Reuters) -- Iran on Monday froze sensitive nuclear work including uranium enrichment... from CNN.com

Oh, boy. Yes the US is a sovereign country. As is France, Germany, Iraq and every bloody country on this planet. But the US are also part of the UN and NATO and as such you just can´t attack another country without being threatened. No war was declared on the US. So you had no right to invade Iraq.

And your point? So what if Iraq was a soveriegn country? I don't mean to demean the fact that they were sovereign but rather your problem with it. "The US decides to go to war in Iraq." Where in there does the name "Germany" figure in.

Frankly, when it comes down to it. I know for a 'fact' that the majority of Iraq's love the US and that we liberated them. Some of them have problems with the fact that we are still there but soon, hopefully, we can change that and leave. You want to know why I know its a fact? My best friend served over there and my Dad went over to help with the rebuilding efforts. So I know from first hand accounting what the 'real' story is. Not what some news source said; that good enough for you? or are you going to start insulting my best friend and dad now?

As for the US being apart of UN and Nato and having no right. Ok I am going to say this simply and succently in order that you may better understand. What I am about to say is the absolutely truth.

1.) The 1991 war between the US and Iraq ended in a 'cease-fire'. As such the 'war' was never ended. I know you scoff at this but this is simply how the law works. you don't like it? try to change it.
2.) the UN and Nato does NOT control the United States of America. We can and will do whatever we choose to. and if Europe wants to try to 'reclaim' its American colonies, then you can sure as hell try. World's going to end soon anyways, might as well go out with a bang.

I don´t know of any "vote 44"-programme.

[gasp]
Your own first post

You read it at all? or did you just cut and past?

In this case: OF COURSE! After all it is OUR country - in your words: "what we do is our business not yours."

I obviously didn't use good enough english for you. So I will try to do better.

If you have a problem with how the United States and USSR treated Germany as a cold war zone and 'meddling' in German affairs; then how can you justify (without being hypocritical) the vote 44 program, that 'meddles' in US affairs. Keep in mind that war was declared on Iraq and not Germany. So using the 'it does effect us' arguement is an opinion and as such is invalid.

Only in this case "American" politics interfere whith global (UN) politics. AND it would seem that those "95 %" of the world were right.

There is no only, American politics are ruled by Americans. If you Germans have a problem with that then declare a war with us. AND again you fail to realize that there was, is, and never will be a right or wrong in opinions. Not to mention the fact that you have not supported your 'new' claim of 'superiority' on lick.

He overstated far too much in his film.
But facts are facts. Leave out the exaggeration and you get a good view of the reality.
Sometimes you have to start to think yourself.

Think for myself?... ok I will continue this into the next quote

You ****ed up moron!
I would guess that we learn more about the world in our National Televison on one evening than you in a whole year.
"Socialist propaganda"?!?!? What the ****? You obviously haven´t seen our news. But if by that you mean critical and investigative journalism you are right.
At least our news are far better than yours concerning the war in Iraq. Even the Washington Post admitted their coverage was biased.

Ok ST-One, stop and take a deap breath. If insulting me by saying that I can't think for myself and that I am a ****ed up moron is your only way of 'responding' then let me know now. I have no need to belittled by immature kids or adults, whatever the case maybe.

I haven't see your news, yes. But again my Dad has and has said as much. Maybe someday I will visit Europe and I will see it for myself. However, you seem to not grasp the concept of what Biased news reporting means. A Biased News report may have all the same facts and an impartial news report; Yet the Biased News report will twist the facts and present them in such a fashion as to make 'one conclusion' as obvious. EU is 'extremely socialistic' and if you can't see that then you yourself need to step outside your backyard and explore the world a bit; a change in perspective does wonders.

>> d.) i) 'Every' countries Intelligence Agency said that Iraq had WMD.
That is not true..

Hmmm... yes it is true. Try learning about the subject beyond your own national news. France, England, Germany, Russia, Itally, Spain, Japan, Australia, and more all said that they believed Saddam had WMDs beyond a shadow of a doubt. Maybe with this peice of information you can begin to see how your news is biased.

The US have the full support of the world to get Bin Laden. But apparently he is not on Ws agenda anymore. Hunt him down! Kill him! He is the one responsible for 9/11 - not Iraq.

ROTFLMAO!!! you do know that current intelligence says he is in Pakistan? So what do you suppose the US do? 'invade' Pakistan too? Yet Pakistan is a sovereign nation too. You can't have it both ways and still eat your cake dude. Either the US can go after terrorists and those who support terrorists or we can't.

Believe it or not, Europe in general does not envie the US!
You may personally not feel that way but you are arrogant.

Again you use childish antics of plugging your ears and repeating what I said back at me. As if that somehow defends your position. "Sometimes you have to start to think yourself." ^.- Do you honestly know what the world arrogant means? It is used to describe someone who thinks himelf above and beyond anyone else. That they are 'superior'. I ask because I really don't see how I have ever given the impression of supriority. I believe in myself and my opinions but you are the one who takes that a step further and tries to 'belittle' the otherside.

Saddam was a dictator - very true.
Saddam supported terrorists - not quite true. He supported the families of those who commited terrorist/suicide attacks in Israel. And while I do not agree with those murderers I somehow can understand them - They are fighting for a country of their own (a ****ed up way to do this)
Saddam could have been a threat in the future - not from what those UN and US inspectors said. Besides that is not a good reason to go to war. Innocent until proven guilty - does this mean anything to you? I could say I can throw you in jail because you could commit some kind of crime in the future - that would be equaly as stupid.

I am glade that you at least mostly agree with my points. Yet for the record; again you need to look beyond your National News coverage. It has been a documented that Saddam has supported terrorists beyond 'supporting suicide boomers families'. Just because your news doesn't show and/or relate those documents to you doesn't negate their existance. As for "Innocent intil proven Guilty"? Letsee here, mass murdering, genocidal, meglomaniac who dreams of more and more power. Said individual 'does' have plans to restart his nuclear weapons program once the sanctions were lifted (that's what the oil for food money was for. That was what Saddam was doing. I say this because I don't know if your news decided to cover that recent report or not.) Moving right along, said individual is deamed as a possible threat in the futurre? along with the other two points? Yes I say he does not past go and goes directly to jail.

Well, it would seem that the negotiations between Iran and the EU are going to work.

LOL... yeah if Iran decides to actually 'do' what they say they are going to do. Dude, if you know 'something' of Middle East history for the past 20 to 30 years, you then know that Arabs are netorious for lieing, double crossing, and never intending to fullfill their end of a bargin if it puts them out of sorts.



Now with all that said and done. St-One, please refrain from name calling and finger pointing. If I have left you with the idea that I think myself as morally superior then I apologize for that error. No matter how I see the situation, it is all based upon my perception and opinion; as such I can be wrong in the end. Yet if you actually want me to believe I am wrong then you are going to need to come up with something more than "you stupid moron". I personally don't know you very well but from your posts I think you are a decent enough block; even if you are a bit pig headed. ^.-

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

And your point? So what if Iraq was a soveriegn country? I don't mean to demean the fact that they were sovereign but rather your problem with it. "The US decides to go to war in Iraq." Where in there does the name "Germany" figure in.

Well, your country went to war by relying on weak information. The report of Iraqs WMD by the British for example; I read this report, and even though I´m (of course) no expert could see that those information were very well known and outdated.
And if that is all your country needs to go to war nowadays...

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

2.) the UN and Nato does NOT control the United States of America.

Of course not.
But as a partner in those organizations your country (as one of the founding members of both organizations) should at least try work with them and listen to them.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

If you have a problem with how the United States and USSR treated Germany as a cold war zone and 'meddling' in German affairs; then how can you justify (without being hypocritical) the vote 44 program, that 'meddles' in US affairs. Keep in mind that war was declared on Iraq and not Germany. So using the 'it does effect us' arguement is an opinion and as such is invalid.

Well, this "vote-44-programme" was so effective that nobody ever heard of it in Germany, that is why I even forgot that is was mentioned in the above artile.
In our world today every nations actions will affect many other. And this is not an opinion, its the reality.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

There is no only, American politics are ruled by Americans.

Americans can do whatever they want to - in their own country.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

If you Germans have a problem with that then declare a war with us.

There is the difference between the US and Germany.
My country learned that war is not the ultimate answer.
It would seem that your very young nation still has to learn that lesson.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

AND again you fail to realize that there was, is, and never will be a right or wrong in opinions. Not to mention the fact that you have not supported your 'new' claim of 'superiority' on lick.

I have no claim of superiority.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

I haven't see your news, yes. But again my Dad has and has said as much. Maybe someday I will visit Europe and I will see it for myself. However, you seem to not grasp the concept of what Biased news reporting means. A Biased News report may have all the same facts and an impartial news report; Yet the Biased News report will twist the facts and present them in such a fashion as to make 'one conclusion' as obvious. EU is 'extremely socialistic' and if you can't see that then you yourself need to step outside your backyard and explore the world a bit; a change in perspective does wonders.

You make it look like we would never ever learn anything of what really happens in the rest of the wourld. Our journalists cover every aspect of a story (you do know that there are European journalists in Iraq and the US and all over the world). We are always presented with more than one side of a news story.
Socialism has nothing to do with the coverage of any news.
But what about the American media? They now say how biased they were in their reporting. What do you say about this?

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

Hmmm... yes it is true. Try learning about the subject beyond your own national news. France, England, Germany, Russia, Itally, Spain, Japan, Australia, and more all said that they believed Saddam had WMDs beyond a shadow of a doubt. Maybe with this peice of information you can begin to see how your news is biased.

According to the government and the opposition (of Germany) the BND (our intelligence service) relied on only one very weak source with ties to the Iraqi opposition. So, they didn´t work any better than you intelligence.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

ROTFLMAO!!! you do know that current intelligence says he is in Pakistan? So what do you suppose the US do? 'invade' Pakistan too? Yet Pakistan is a sovereign nation too. You can't have it both ways and still eat your cake dude. Either the US can go after terrorists and those who support terrorists or we can't.

How convenient!
He is in Pakistan - one of your allies. OF COURSE you cannot send special forces in that country and work with Pakistani forces to find him - it surely cannot work without bombing the entire country.
Oh, come on. I looks like your government doesn´t even try anymore to get the man responsible for 9/11.
Your country had the support to go after terrorists but not to start war with nations that had nothing to do with the Washington and New York attacks.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

Again you use childish antics of plugging your ears and repeating what I said back at me. As if that somehow defends your position. "Sometimes you have to start to think yourself." ^.- Do you honestly know what the world arrogant means? It is used to describe someone who thinks himelf above and beyond anyone else. That they are 'superior'. I ask because I really don't see how I have ever given the impression of supriority. I believe in myself and my opinions but you are the one who takes that a step further and tries to 'belittle' the otherside.

Arrogant (Ar"ro*gant) (#), a.
[F. arrogant, L. arrogans, p. pr. of arrogare. See Arrogate.]

1. Making, or having the disposition to make, exorbitant claims of rank or estimation; giving one's self an undue degree of importance; assuming; haughty; -- applied to persons. "Arrogant Winchester, that haughty prelate." Shak.
2. Containing arrogance; marked with arrogance; proceeding from undue claims or self-importance; -- applied to things; as, arrogant pretensions or behavior.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

I ask because I really don't see how I have ever given the impression of supriority. I believe in myself and my opinions but you are the one who takes that a step further and tries to 'belittle' the otherside.

You answered that question yourself.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

We can and will do whatever we choose to.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

As for "Innocent intil proven Guilty"? Letsee here, mass murdering, genocidal, meglomaniac who dreams of more and more power. Said individual 'does' have plans to restart his nuclear weapons program once the sanctions were lifted (that's what the oil for food money was for. That was what Saddam was doing. I say this because I don't know if your news decided to cover that recent report or not.) Moving right along, said individual is deamed as a possible threat in the futurre? along with the other two points? Yes I say he does not past go and goes directly to jail.

Your country once had the chance to "bring him to justice". Why did the first Bush not finish the job?
From what I know Iraq could have nuclear weapons (if the programme would have been continued) not earlier than between 2007 and 2009.
Besides why can only the US have nuclear weapons?
Other countries might want to ability to defend themselves. (I think nuclear weapons should be banned from this planet)

[Kai]

ok.. question?

if the US is not interested in what NATO says... why the hell did they call on Clause 5? (An attack on a Member nation is an attack on Nato as a whole)

there have been only 2, (count them!), 2 times Clause 5 has been justified. the 2nd being 9/11. the other time was the Argintine Invasion of the Falklands. (on which the UK did not ask for help and handled it themselves).

seems to me, they want to be part of NATO when they get hurt, but not when NATO stops them from doing what they want. you can't have it both ways you know....

a fair question.

IMO this clause 5 can´t be applied to the Iraqi war because the US were not attacked by this country. It is as simple as that.

Originally Posted by ST-One

Well, your country went to war by relying on weak information. The report of Iraqs WMD by the British for example; I read this report, and even though I´m (of course) no expert could see that those information were very well known and outdated.
And if that is all your country needs to go to war nowadays...

That I will aggree with; that the information saying Iraq had WMDs was weak. What I have beend saying is that it is unfair to blame Bush for the CIA's lack of judgment

Of course not.
But as a partner in those organizations your country (as one of the founding members of both organizations) should at least try work with them and listen to them.

We did listen to them and at the time it seemed that the final resultion to 'appease' everyone would pass. Yet France decided it wanted to get bought out by saddam and the other nations that would have voted for it 'against popular support' decided why take the political hit for nothing.?. Overall I don't like the UN because the countries who don't like the US use it as a means of attacking the US politically. It's childish, IMHO.

Americans can do whatever they want to - in their own country.

hmmm... the reality is that we can do whatever we want period. That may sound arrogant to you but I am simply stating a fact. Unless the 'whole world' decides to have a problem with us in a drastic sense; there is no one or thing to stop us. The U.N. may come to your mind but then you would have to realize who's military crompises the most of it. American's aren't going to shoot at americans... we did that a century or so ago.

So my point? It would be very easy for the US to go in world conquest mode; but we aren't, despite your claims. It would very easy for us to be evil but we aren't. The simple reality is the Saddam was an evil man. So now the world is free of one evil man. Why are you complaining? Because of 'how' we did it? What did we firestorm baghdad and kill Iraq's military without concern for innocent civilians? I didn't see that.

There is the difference between the US and Germany.
My country learned that war is not the ultimate answer.
It would seem that your very young nation still has to learn that lesson.

War is an answer. Not an answer to everything but sometimes it is necessary. War is only necessary when diplomacy fails. Diplomacy only fails when one or both sides do not wish to negotiate. Saddam proved to the world for ten whole years that he had no interest in negotiating for anything. He wanted his way and was willing to do anything to get it. This isn't opinion, this is simply Saddam.

I have no claim of superiority.

The mere fact that you believe your opinion should 'control' US policy says so. In the first part of the post you said that you wanted the US to atleast listen. The reality is that the US did listen. We just saw things differently than you did. Perhaps if a plan dropped into Berlin you would see how we have a lot less sympathy and compassion for anyone who supports terrorism in general. Yet your whole point in what you write says that the US should be 'controlled' by the your opinion and that of the UN; not just 'listen' to the UN. That by definition is believing your belief is superior.

You make it look like we would never ever learn anything of what really happens in the rest of the wourld. Our journalists cover every aspect of a story (you do know that there are European journalists in Iraq and the US and all over the world). We are always presented with more than one side of a news story.
Socialism has nothing to do with the coverage of any news.
But what about the American media? They now say how biased they were in their reporting. What do you say about this?

As I said, I am sure you are given 'all' of the facts. Yet biased news reporting does not effect whether you are telling the truth/facts or not. As I said before it revolves around 'how' you present the news. Not what the News is. As for American news, yes American News is biased as well. Yet from what I have been told European news is 5 times more biased than American News ever has been. Which is not do denote supriority but to call in question your news. See I myself know my news is biased. Most of our news is biased towards socialism. You have denounced the very idea that your news is biased.

According to the government and the opposition (of Germany) the BND (our intelligence service) relied on only one very weak source with ties to the Iraqi opposition. So, they didn´t work any better than you intelligence.

obviously! but at least now we can both agree that 'everyone's intelligence was flawed.

How convenient!
He is in Pakistan - one of your allies. OF COURSE you cannot send special forces in that country and work with Pakistani forces to find him - it surely cannot work without bombing the entire country.

Pakistan is not as simple as that. Half of the country is suni if not the Taliban itself. The people in power support the US and allie themselves with the US, yes. Yet we can not send any special forces in to search for Bin Laden. This is according to 'Pakistan'; which I do not fault them over internal politics. So to answer you claims. Yes we surely can not because Pakistan won't let us. Pakistan itself is try to get Bin Laden with their own people. Yet, todate we haven't found much.

Oh, come on. I looks like your government doesn´t even try anymore to get the man responsible for 9/11. Your country had the support to go after terrorists but not to start war with nations that had nothing to do with the Washington and New York attacks.

Actually from the very beginning it has been a war on 'Terrorism' and not a war on 'Al-Queda'. Bush has 'always' made that distinction too. Europe used to agree with us that our cause was just. Yet now you have a problem with it. So we say 'so what?' and you scream that we are becoming a world threat. So we start to ignore you, and then you say we are stupid morons.


[quote]Arrogant (Ar"ro*gant) (#), a.
[F. arrogant, L. arrogans, p. pr. of arrogare. See Arrogate.]

1. Making, or having the disposition to make, exorbitant claims of rank or estimation; giving one's self an undue degree of importance; assuming; haughty; -- applied to persons. "Arrogant Winchester, that haughty prelate." Shak.
2. Containing arrogance; marked with arrogance; proceeding from undue claims or self-importance; -- applied to things; as, arrogant pretensions or behavior.

You answered that question yourself.[quote]

Again, I am not the one calling other people "stupid Morons" just for dissagreeing with you. Pscyhologists would call what you have said as 'belittling'; an attempt to demean and otherwise lower the opposing side in order to make yourself look better. I on the other hand recognize your view as valid, even though I dissagree. So there mere idea that I believe in myself and my opinions enough to hold to them despite European majority opinion, makes me arrogant? ok I will accept that. If that is how you want to define arrogance then I guess I am arrogant. next?

Your country once had the chance to "bring him to justice". Why did the first Bush not finish the job?

Why didn't we? because it was deamed as politically infeasible. The Arab community would have been 'drastically' against such action. That is why we didn't proceed further. Though we really wanted too... bad. Americans, by in large have a problem with school yard bullies.

From what I know Iraq could have nuclear weapons (if the programme would have been continued) not earlier than between 2007 and 2009.

So what you are saying is this. You would rather we have waited for Saddam to have a nuclear weapons program up and running before we invaded? Of course! that is of course a better idea; that way, Saddam can nuke us as we invade to take his toys away.

Besides why can only the US have nuclear weapons?

Using Nuclear weapons as a deterance is ok. The problem is when it is believed the people making the Nukes are willing to sell them to Terrorists and anyone in general. Iran is a prime example of this. This is why Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc can't have nukes... cause then there would be more than just a building falling down in New York.

Other countries might want to ability to defend themselves. (I think nuclear weapons should be banned from this planet)

Nuclear Weapons should not be used to defend yourself; because Nuclear weapons should not be used at all. While you may not like Nuclear weapons instituting such a ban is silly. Why? cause only people interested in following the law would follow such 'bans'. Mean while because of the ban you've taken away all your nukes. So any voilating country says 'why should I listen to you? cause you will look at me in a bad way?'.

[Kai]

The U.N. may come to your mind but then you would have to realize who's military crompises the most of it

erm.. not the US

The United Nations Charter stipulates that to assist in maintaining peace and security around the world, all Member States of the UN should make available to the Security Council necessary armed forces and facilities. Since 1948, close to 130 nations have contributed military and civilian police personnel to peace operations. While detailed records of all personnel who have served in peacekeeping missions since 1948 are not available, it is estimated that up to one million soldiers, police officers and civilians have served under the UN flag in the last 56 years. As of June 2004, 97 countries were contributing a total of more than 56,000 uniformed personnel—the highest number since 1995.

Despite the large number of contributors, the greatest burden continues to be borne by a core group of developing countries. The 10 main troop-contributing countries to UN peacekeeping operations as of June 2004 were Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ghana, India, Ethiopia, South Africa, Uruguay, Jordan and Kenya. About 10 per cent of the troops and civilian police deployed in UN peacekeeping missions come from the European Union and one per cent from the United States. (see Monthly Summary of Contributors)

The head of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Under-Secretary- General Jean-Marie Guéhenno, has reminded Member States that “the provision of well-equipped,well-trained and disciplined military and police personnel to UN peacekeeping operations is a collective responsibility of Member States. Countries from the South should not and must not be expected to shoulder this burden alone”.

As of May 2004, in addition to military and police personnel, more than 3,400 international civilian personnel, 1,500 UN Volunteers and nearly 6,500 local civilian personnel worked in UN peacekeeping missions.

from the UN website.. 1% is not "most"

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

That I will aggree with; that the information saying Iraq had WMDs was weak. What I have beend saying is that it is unfair to blame Bush for the CIA's lack of judgment

Of course it is fair. It was Bush (and is Administration) who wanted these information to be the "smoking gun", the reason to go to war. The CIA, repeatedly, said those information were overvalued.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

We did listen to them and at the time it seemed that the final resultion to 'appease' everyone would pass. Yet France decided it wanted to get bought out by saddam and the other nations that would have voted for it 'against popular support' decided why take the political hit for nothing.?. Overall I don't like the UN because the countries who don't like the US use it as a means of attacking the US politically. It's childish, IMHO.

You did not listen.
You tried to push everyone in this war.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

hmmm... the reality is that we can do whatever we want period. That may sound arrogant to you but I am simply stating a fact.

It indeed does sound arrogant!
Every time I hear such words, the 'Dritte Reich' comes to mind. The Nazis used a very similar argumentation.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

So my point? It would be very easy for the US to go in world conquest mode; but we aren't, despite your claims. It would very easy for us to be evil but we aren't. The simple reality is the Saddam was an evil man. So now the world is free of one evil man. Why are you complaining? Because of 'how' we did it? What did we firestorm baghdad and kill Iraq's military without concern for innocent civilians? I didn't see that.

Of course the "how" is important!
Again, you had no justification to go to war with Iraq. That country did not attack yours and it did not have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

War is an answer. Not an answer to everything but sometimes it is necessary. War is only necessary when diplomacy fails. Diplomacy only fails when one or both sides do not wish to negotiate. Saddam proved to the world for ten whole years that he had no interest in negotiating for anything. He wanted his way and was willing to do anything to get it. This isn't opinion, this is simply Saddam.

Well, this sound to me like you are talking about you own President.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

The mere fact that you believe your opinion should 'control' US policy says so. In the first part of the post you said that you wanted the US to atleast listen. The reality is that the US did listen. We just saw things differently than you did. Perhaps if a plan dropped into Berlin you would see how we have a lot less sympathy and compassion for anyone who supports terrorism in general. Yet your whole point in what you write says that the US should be 'controlled' by the your opinion and that of the UN; not just 'listen' to the UN. That by definition is believing your belief is superior.

You know, Berlin WAS attacked by terrorists - but not at the scale at which NY was.
And again, Iraq had nothing to do with the air plane attacks in NY and Washington D.C.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

As I said, I am sure you are given 'all' of the facts. Yet biased news reporting does not effect whether you are telling the truth/facts or not. As I said before it revolves around 'how' you present the news. Not what the News is. As for American news, yes American News is biased as well. Yet from what I have been told European news is 5 times more biased than American News ever has been.

Hearsay.
Have a look at our news yourself.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

Which is not do denote supriority but to call in question your news. See I myself know my news is biased. Most of our news is biased towards socialism. You have denounced the very idea that your news is biased.

Because of the history of my country our media wouldn´t allow itself to be biased. We know what happens if the media is uncritical to the actions of the government.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

obviously! but at least now we can both agree that 'everyone's intelligence was flawed.

With the little difference that our government saw how flawed these information were

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

Actually from the very beginning it has been a war on 'Terrorism' and not a war on 'Al-Queda'. Bush has 'always' made that distinction too. Europe used to agree with us that our cause was just. Yet now you have a problem with it. So we say 'so what?' and you scream that we are becoming a world threat. So we start to ignore you, and then you say we are stupid morons.

I can say it again: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That was is the world problem with the US war there.

[QUOTE=Merenzine Gold]
[quote]Arrogant (Ar"ro*gant) (#), a.
[F. arrogant, L. arrogans, p. pr. of arrogare. See Arrogate.]

1. Making, or having the disposition to make, exorbitant claims of rank or estimation; giving one's self an undue degree of importance; assuming; haughty; -- applied to persons. "Arrogant Winchester, that haughty prelate." Shak.
2. Containing arrogance; marked with arrogance; proceeding from undue claims or self-importance; -- applied to things; as, arrogant pretensions or behavior.

You answered that question yourself.

Again, I am not the one calling other people "stupid Morons" just for dissagreeing with you. Pscyhologists would call what you have said as 'belittling'; an attempt to demean and otherwise lower the opposing side in order to make yourself look better. I on the other hand recognize your view as valid, even though I dissagree. So there mere idea that I believe in myself and my opinions enough to hold to them despite European majority opinion, makes me arrogant? ok I will accept that. If that is how you want to define arrogance then I guess I am arrogant. next?

I was merely quoting an online dictionary.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

Why didn't we? because it was deamed as politically infeasible. The Arab community would have been 'drastically' against such action. That is why we didn't proceed further. Though we really wanted too... bad. Americans, by in large have a problem with school yard bullies.

But you would have had the support of the Iraqi opposition which was much stronger back then.
Besides, the Arab community was against the 2003 war aswell and your country gave a shazbot about it.

Originally Posted by Merenzine Gold

So what you are saying is this. You would rather we have waited for Saddam to have a nuclear weapons program up and running before we invaded? Of course! that is of course a better idea; that way, Saddam can nuke us as we invade to take his toys away.

You are not listening!
Your President said Iraq was a threat to the US and that he had developed nuclear capabilities to attack the US. That was simply not true. And the intelligence told him so.

[Kai]

The reality is that the US did listen. We just saw things differently than you did. Perhaps if a plan dropped into Berlin you would see how we have a lot less sympathy and compassion for anyone who supports terrorism in general.

like supporting the IRA during the '80's? (for those that do not know, fundraisers for those poor folk were held in the 1980's in new york which contributed to a lot of deaths. when, finally, ppl woke up and stopped them it was too late for a lot of ppl.)

where was the US when the UK was getting bombed by the IRA btw? I know it wasn't as bad as a plane. but having a nail bomb go off in the middle of a parade really does hurt. and all the other times where the UK was getting hit by terrorists? no where to be seen.. stop the ****ing whining about 9/11.

try living with the threat of being blown up every damn ****ing day as you along the street to school. or walk into a train station. or into a shopping mall.
more men women and children have been killed by the IRA. I grew up in those years. I've been there. suck it up and grow up.

where is the US on the Zimbawe issue? oh. thats right, chasing after Iraq which was no threat, while a power mad tyrant is going to stave his ppl to death this year.

[skyhawk223]

Kai, you mentioned the Zimbabwe issue. My counterpoint is where is the UN on the Sudan issue?
And one counterpoint to your comments on terrorism in the UK - The IRA is indigenous to the UK whereas the attacks of 9/11 were committed by foreigners. A more apt comparison would be the IRA to the Oklahoma City bombing several years ago. The UK didn't ask for international assistance against the IRA any more than the US asked for assistance with Tim McVeigh. The reason? Because they are internal matters, and rightly so.

This is sort of off topic and sort of on. I just thought you guys might like to know Enterprise has an interesting show tonight.

Note the type below is tinted very dark incase you don't want a spoiler. Though it isn't anything more that what you would read in the TV Guide caption. I don't give away the ending or anything really important.

The topic is that the Andorians, who the vulcans believe to be an aggressive untrustworthy adversary is now on the verge of getting a weapon of REALLY mass destruction. We are talking about the Xindi planet destroyer from last season. So the Vulcans believe the only option is to basically reguime change the Andorians before they can utilize that technology.

[p.s. Cargile]

BTW I'll be 36 by the end of December. Don't want JM thinking he's communicating with a naive teenager who hasn't participated in a war or been arond the effing world. It might cloud his vision of me.

What's that gagging sound? Why it sounds like someone choking on a foot!

LOL, I'm going by your words mate ... they show what level of maturity you have reached. Surely you don't think that I'm automatically going to think "gosh, he's 36 ... he must be right .." .. If anything I'm even more surprised at you... You'd think at your age you should know better by now. (I'm 41 by the way, not that it my age that proves I'm right either, plane logic does that...)

I should learn never to argue with teenagers on the net.

Bwahahahhahah!!!

Cargile was old seven years ago when I pretended to be a girl and tried to seduce him. (And it worked too, until it got really gay and I admitted I'd sent him a pic of Lila McCann...)

LOL, I'm going by your words mate ... they show what level of maturity you have reached. Surely you don't think that I'm automatically going to think "gosh, he's 36 ... he must be right .." .. If anything I'm even more surprised at you... You'd think at your age you should know better by now. (I'm 41 by the way, not that it my age that proves I'm right either, plane logic does that...)

Plane logic?