Welcome to the UN John Bolton

[yeahwho]

Lets give a big Beasties Boys welcome to our brand new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton (http://www.stopbolton.org/Stop_Bolton_Video.wmv)!

Good Times, Apple Pie and Mom. C'mon, Smile (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/images/20050801_p080105pm-0119jpg-515h.jpg)!

[SobaViolence]

sweet jebus... (n)

[infidel]

I s bush trying to piss off the entire world on purpose or is he just fuckin stupid?
Maybe both?

[catatonic]

This is a very sad day in my life. War with Iran here we come.

[QueenAdrock]

On The Daily Show, they had a diagram showing that Bush's balls were growing bigger and bigger with each thing that he did, and that they have just become gigantic since he's put Mr. I Hate The U.N. in the ambassador slot.

Does anyone just want to tackle him to the ground and shave off that goddamn mustache? I mean, it looks so...CREEPY. And unnatural. Looks like he's got somethin' to hide. :cool:

[SobaViolence]

Bush has already infuriated the entire world.

now he's making sure we know who's the boss and who are the bitches... (n)

[marsdaddy]

Might this actually be a sign of his weakness? I mean, he used a recess appointment because he was afraid Bolton would have been rejected otherwise...

Whatever, it's not like Bolton has his finger on the trigger. And I'm not sure what he has to do with attacking Iran -- someone can enlighten me here -- but I think Cheney and Rumsfeld have more impact there.

[QueenAdrock]

only 3 more years, guys... :o

[QueenAdrock]

Whatever, it's not like Bolton has his finger on the trigger. And I'm not sure what he has to do with attacking Iran -- someone can enlighten me here -- but I think Cheney and Rumsfeld have more impact there.

I heard somewhere he was completely all over wanting to go into Iran. I'm pretty sure he'll have some authority to do something about it now that he's ambassador to the U.N.

[sam i am]

Bush has already infuriated the entire world.

now he's making sure we know who's the boss and who are the bitches... (n)

LMAO. ROTF. :p

[sam i am]

only 3 more years, guys... :o

Then Jeb Bush..... :eek:

[sam i am]

So Bolton gets to jump the turnstyle and doesn't get shot in the head?!?

this guy has no sense of culture, hell I wonder if he knows there are other countries out there? I doubt he's made it 10 feet from his mama's front yard.

Once again, Bush is a "uniter".....uniting the world against the U.S.

Uh oh. You're all on to us.....we've been trying to unite the world against the US....for what purpose again? :confused:

Sorry to ask the tough questions when your rhetorical train of logic derails...

[sam i am]

I guess you didn't do your math sam I yam

Let's see, U.S. bases being kicked out of Germany, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia militaries training together, millions protesting U.S. "foreign policy", The world viewing the U.S. as arrogant, Venezuela taking it's oil somewhere else...the list is much longer than that, you can try a little research yourself.

A question, If Bush has United, why is the coalition of the willing shrinking? Why is he the most protected president in and out of the country? If people loOoOoOove him, why isn't he walking through crowds and being covered in flowers?

protests (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/)

protests (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/20/world/protests_040320)

The Red Threat (http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/02-03b-05.asp)

U.S. arrogant and unfriendly people? (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/77868922-0228-11da-9481-00000e2511c8.html)

The United States is the only superpower, but if the people are united we can defeat them (http://p134.news.scd.yahoo.com/s/chitribts/venezuelausesoilsalesarmybuilduptodefyus)

So...this still doesn't address my query : why would Bush do all this deliberately? What purpose does it serve? Are you implying a New World Order conspiracy? If so, he's sure doing a poor job.

I never argue that Bush is loved or that the US will be welcomed around the world for what it does. I'm sure the Italians, Japanese, Germans, Romanians, Bulgarians, etc. that were part of the Axis powers during WWII hated the US too. So what?

[sam i am]

well I thought my answer was swell enough, oh well

just watch the video of Bolton, he's an arrogant punk who only cares for one thing...Power

How can an Ambassador to the UN not even believe in the UN?

How can a US citizen not even believe in the US?

Rhetorical answers are NOT enlightened discourse.

[yeahwho]

So...this still doesn't address my query : why would Bush do all this deliberately? What purpose does it serve? Are you implying a New World Order conspiracy? If so, he's sure doing a poor job.

I never argue that Bush is loved or that the US will be welcomed around the world for what it does. I'm sure the Italians, Japanese, Germans, Romanians, Bulgarians, etc. that were part of the Axis powers during WWII hated the US too. So what?

I'm not too sure how that query has anything to do with 2005. The UN was formed after WWII in the hopes that we would welcome each others ideas. The president has made 106 recess appointments, many of them judges. Bolton is the highest-level such appointment of Bush's administration and the first U.S. ambassador to the U.N. named by a recess appointment.

I think the query has been answered, Bush is just full of shit when he says he wants to become a uniter. Some conservative republicans may be happy with his appointment, that is stretching it though, unless conservative republicans actually enjoy rewarding untruthful vindictive politicians.

below is an observation from Meet the Press, 8/1/05

Dislike of Bolton is now widespread on both sides of the Senate aisle, the Washington Post's David Broder, dean of the Washington press corps, told Tim Russert on Sunday: "If you had a secret vote in the United States, there would be a very small number of votes at this point for Mr. Bolton, Republican or Democrat."

"David Broder is exactly right," continued Wall Street Journal reporter John Harwood. "There is not very much enthusiasm among Republican senators for John Bolton."

Guaranteed, there's far less enthusiasm for the battered bully inside the UN.

[D_Raay]

I fear Bolton is a plant to piss off the UN and get the U.S. kicked out or "alienated" so they can act unilaterally in any "needed conflict" without any effective criminal scrutinization from the UN. Disassemble the UN in way for Imperialism.

more than likely I'm paranoid...but who isn't?
Quite the contrary, you may be exactly right. Insightful not paranoid.

What worries me is that they are proceeding on course without a worry it would seem from pending indictments forthcoming from the "bulldog" among which could be Bolton himself.

[QueenAdrock]

Then Jeb Bush..... :eek:

If Jeb Bush gets the nomination, then I seriously AM moving to Canada. I can't take one more term of any more goddamn Bush's.

McCain on the other hand...

[infidel]

Recent poll among foreign tourists visiting the US
Q; What impressed you the most in your visit to the US?
Most common answer: The number of hateful morons

[yeahwho]

Look Indidel,

The Demoscrats just wanted to block his nomination. They would ask for doccuments that they knew could not and would not be released.
The Republicans did not do this to Clinton's nominations.
The man deserved a vote, and the Democrats wouldn't give it. So Bush did what any president has the right to do.
Thanx for playin!

You know gmsisko, Bolton (http://www.alexross.com/CJ021.jpg) turned down BIG $$$ from Warner Bros. to take on this job.

[DroppinScience]

Bolton won't have legitimacy or support during his ambassorship because the Senate didn't confirm him.

[franscar]

Recent poll among foreign tourists visiting the US
Q; What impressed you the most in your visit to the US?
Most common answer: The number of hateful morons

Really? Damn, my answer would have been the vast amounts of cheap shit to buy.

[QueenAdrock]

Really? Damn, my answer would have been the vast amounts of cheap shit to buy.

I'd say the amount of Bible-thumping ass clowns. But I guess they'd have to visit more red states to get that idea.

meow (http://www.orangezippo.com/archives/god-kills-kitten.jpg)

[catatonic]

Kofi Annan is a hero who's saved countless lives, John Bolton can't deal with corruption right when he's corrupt himself, this is a huge eroding of our future, and you need to wake up about Iran's peaceful and legal nuclear ambitions being turned on.

Kofi Annan is a gentle, humane man who stands against corruption. Kofi Annan made a curious speech in which he called Bolton Bush's appointment and not the new US representative. Countdown/Olberman MSNBC is my reference. And what do you have against Kofi Annan anyway? I challenge any of you to name one misdeed he did.

If the UN is corrupt, do you send a corrupt man to reform it? No, Bush made clear in his complicated dialogue that the real reason is to try to destroy the independence of the UN. It's more unilateralism and going it alone in the world that we can't afford. Why don't we try to make friends? Here's what will happen if we go down this road.

In 100 years, all that matters is the environment, Constitution, and how many allies/enemies we have if they haven't decimated us yet. With a record deficit, we are lined up to wage war with China down the road. At the current spending and taxation, all our taxes will go to paying down the national debt in 40 years. At that point, it's sure to be massive war. We have a record environmental and Constitutional deficit too. We are not thinking ahead 100 years. An Iran war will surely be unaffordable.

The reason you may be confused about Iran is that they aren't doing anything illegal. Fox News is playing games with people to make them think that they are. They are not. It's perfectly legal for them to enrich uranium. The News Hour said the same. If they were going to build an atomic bomb, it would take them 10 years and we can have all the inspectors we want.

Iran is not a diversion. John Bolton's first task is to twist the arms of the United Nations that Iran is a problem. It was in the New York times. This was a horrible appointment and is a black eye in the dignity of America.

[yeahwho]

Kofi Annan is a hero who's saved countless lives, John Bolton can't deal with corruption right when he's corrupt himself, this is a huge eroding of our future, and you need to wake up about Iran's peaceful and legal nuclear ambitions being turned on.

Iran is not a diversion. John Bolton's first task is to twist the arms of the United Nations that Iran is a problem. It was in the New York times. This was a horrible appointment and is a black eye in the dignity of America.

Great Post. (y)

[D_Raay]

Yes excellent post catatonic thank you.

[D_Raay]

So here we are. Bolton has been recess appointed, which BTW, was a clause intended to be used in case of an emergency should the need arise, not to politically bitchslap Congress. He will have 18 months to do whatever it is he intends to do with absolutely no support from Congress and will be given the cold shoulder treatment by the UN. HE IS THE AMBASSADOR TO THE UN.

So, what's the deal? What is his purpose? He cannot get anything done, he is not liked at all. He was roundly booed when appearing on the streets of New York today.

What I take from all of this is:

a). Take more attention away from impending indictments from the Rove/Plame scandal

b). More importantly, at least to me, is that the president is sending a quite more lucid message to the American People... I could give two shits what you people want.

That includes all of you, sam, the unintelligent one, valvano, not just us "liberals". If you think this appointment somehow helps you conservatives out you are sorely mistaken.

am·bas·sa·dor Audio pronunciation of "ambassador" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-bs-dr, -d�r)
n.

1. A diplomatic official of the highest rank appointed and accredited as representative in residence by one government or sovereign to another, usually for a specific length of time.
2. A diplomatic official heading his or her country's permanent mission to certain international organizations, such as the United Nations.
3. An authorized messenger or representative.
4. An unofficial representative: ambassadors of goodwill.

I would feel more comfortable sending my feisty Uncle Earl who chases off Jehovah Witnesses with a broom and sucks down two gallons of Thunderbird wine a week to the UN then Bolton.

[DroppinScience]

Ha Ha,
It would have if they just would have voted! The Democrats do what ever they can to block the vote. Thanx for playin!

But it was also the Republicans who wanted more documents released, too. Y'know, like Voinovich. Democrats stopped the vote, true. But it would have been impossible if it weren't for key Republicans to side with the Dems.

Face it. Nobody on either side of the aisle wanted this man to be nominated.

THANX FOR PLAYING!

[Ali]

I heard somewhere he was completely all over wanting to go into Iran. I'm pretty sure he'll have some authority to do something about it now that he's ambassador to the U.N.Um, there's more than one country in the UN, remember? The whole point of the UN is that no one country can call the shots without the rest agreeing, that's why the GOP hates the UN so much and wants to destabilie it by sending in clowns like Bolton.

[catatonic]

Um, there's more than one country in the UN, remember? The whole point of the UN is that no one country can call the shots without the rest agreeing, that's why the GOP hates the UN so much and wants to destabilie it by sending in clowns like Bolton.

So what you're telling me is that the UN tries to play fair.

[QueenAdrock]

Um, there's more than one country in the UN, remember? The whole point of the UN is that no one country can call the shots without the rest agreeing, that's why the GOP hates the UN so much and wants to destabilie it by sending in clowns like Bolton.

He'll have more persuasive power though. And if he doesn't, then we'll use that as a starting point, saying that the UN refused to listen to what Bolton had to say and we need to take matters into our own hands because "we've tried everything" already and Iran ISN'T DISARMING/...needs democracy/ values freedom.

[yeahwho]

He's fucked and we're fucked. Thanks republicans, brilliant move.

[Ali]

He'll have more persuasive power though. And if he doesn't, then we'll use that as a starting point, saying that the UN refused to listen to what Bolton had to say and we need to take matters into our own hands because "we've tried everything" already and Iran ISN'T DISARMING/...needs democracy/ values freedom.Off you go then. Invade Iran on your own. Be my guest.

The Rest of the World will sit back and watch you try to cope with Afghanistan, Iraq AND Iran at the same time. Without the UN's approval, none of the other member states will help you, and with the debarcle that is Iraq, nobody will want to get invloved in a scrap with Iran (much better armed, supported by China, etc.) no matter how persuasive your Goon is...

...unless Israel give you a hand - which they HAVEN'T in Iraq... has anybody noticed that? The US gives Israel tons of money and military support, but when the US needs help fighting an old enemy of Israel (for Israel?:eek: )... nothing.

[sam i am]

Off you go then. Invade Iran on your own. Be my guest.

The Rest of the World will sit back and watch you try to cope with Afghanistan, Iraq AND Iran at the same time. Without the UN's approval, none of the other member states will help you, and with the debarcle that is Iraq, nobody will want to get invloved in a scrap with Iran (much better armed, supported by China, etc.) no matter how persuasive your Goon is...

...unless Israel give you a hand - which they HAVEN'T in Iraq... has anybody noticed that? The US gives Israel tons of money and military support, but when the US needs help fighting an old enemy of Israel (for Israel?:eek: )... nothing.

Ali, ESPECIALLY since you'll NEVER read this since I am on your "ignore" list, you are a complete, utter moron.

For the rest of you, who actually welcome some alternative ideas, this Ali argument is among his worst. He obviously has not seen the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq of US military forces announced yesterday. So, we'll have FAR fewer troops there, freeing them up for action in Iran if necessary.

Plus, the situation in Iran is far more like the situation in Afghanistan. Even the Europeans are getting tired of Iran's instrangience on this issue.

Finally, just wait for the next election cycle in Germany and France. Bet anyone on this board that we'll have MUCH more US-friendly administrations in both countries before the end of the year.

Any takers?

[catatonic]

I'm tired of war. I don't think it's moral in these cases, except maybe Afghanistan.

[D_Raay]

Ali, ESPECIALLY since you'll NEVER read this since I am on your "ignore" list, you are a complete, utter moron.

For the rest of you, who actually welcome some alternative ideas, this Ali argument is among his worst. He obviously has not seen the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq of US military forces announced yesterday. So, we'll have FAR fewer troops there, freeing them up for action in Iran if necessary.

Plus, the situation in Iran is far more like the situation in Afghanistan. Even the Europeans are getting tired of Iran's instrangience on this issue.

Finally, just wait for the next election cycle in Germany and France. Bet anyone on this board that we'll have MUCH more US-friendly administrations in both countries before the end of the year.

Any takers?

I'll take that bet... Are you forgetting what happened in Spain?

The real fact here is that our military is becoming less and less palatable for new recruits who expect college aid and a building block for their futures, not a perpetual war with Islam.

As was the case here, fraud would be the only way the people of Germany or France would support a Bush-friendly candidate, and that didn't go so well in the Ukraine.

[QueenAdrock]

Off you go then. Invade Iran on your own. Be my guest.

The Rest of the World will sit back and watch you try to cope with Afghanistan, Iraq AND Iran at the same time. Without the UN's approval, none of the other member states will help you, and with the debarcle that is Iraq, nobody will want to get invloved in a scrap with Iran (much better armed, supported by China, etc.) no matter how persuasive your Goon is...

Whoa, whoa. Back up a minute. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're giving off the tone as if I APPROVED of what Bolton would be doing.

You're not telling me anything I don't already know, and am already pissed off at. I'm not giving the thumbs-up to any of this horseshit, I'm just saying what's inevitably going to happen.

[Ali]

Whoa, whoa. Back up a minute. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're giving off the tone as if I APPROVED of what Bolton would be doing.

You're not telling me anything I don't already know, and am already pissed off at. I'm not giving the thumbs-up to any of this horseshit, I'm just saying what's inevitably going to happen.The 'you' was referring to the 'we' in And if he doesn't, then we'll use that as a starting point, saying that the UN refused to listen to what Bolton had to say and we need to take matters into our own hands because "we've tried everything" already and Iran ISN'T DISARMING/...needs democracy/ values freedom.I know who you meant ;)

The real fact here is that our military is becoming less and less palatable for new recruits who expect college aid and a building block for their futures, not a perpetual war with Islam.You're forgetting the Draft, aren't you? The GOP has lots of young American to feed into the meat grinder before their second term is up.

When is Israel going to give the US a hand in the Middle East? Anybody know? Doesn't Israel owe the US a hell of a lot in terms of military support? Why are there not Israeli troops in Iraq, helping the US to fight an old enemy?

They are the ones baying for war (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=israel+iran&btnG=Search+News) with Iran. Will they help when the lobbyists (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aZsEXpFdHx9c&refer=us#) finally get their way? Or will they stand back and watch US troops do all the dying?

[FearandLoathing]

For the rest of you, who actually welcome some alternative ideas, this Ali argument is among his worst. He obviously has not seen the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq of US military forces announced yesterday. So, we'll have FAR fewer troops there, freeing them up for action in Iran if necessary.

There's a timetable now? That's it, the U.S. is fucked. Not only did they start this ridiculous, unjustifiable war which has served to exacerbate things on the world sphere, they're going to fucking lose it. You can't outlast insurgents in their own country- and if you just fucking ANNOUNCE when you're leaving, you've basically thrown in the towel. To paraphrase Maher, "if you say you're gonna leave Iraq in six months, they only have to wait six months and a day."

[Ali]

Not only did they start this ridiculous, unjustifiable war which has served to exacerbate things on the world sphere, they're going to fucking lose it...... and try to start another one with a far better-equipped Iran, who's backed by China.

Some folks just never learn.

[sam i am]

You're forgetting the Draft, aren't you? The GOP has lots of young American to feed into the meat grinder before their second term is up.

When is Israel going to give the US a hand in the Middle East? Anybody know? Doesn't Israel owe the US a hell of a lot in terms of military support? Why are there not Israeli troops in Iraq, helping the US to fight an old enemy?

They are the ones baying for war (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=israel+iran&btnG=Search+News) with Iran. Will they help when the lobbyists (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aZsEXpFdHx9c&refer=us#) finally get their way? Or will they stand back and watch US troops do all the dying?

Ali, again, you are a complete, inferior, ridiculous moron. Sorry, guys, but it makes me feel better to precursor my comments with that. He's ignoring me anyways, so I might as well make myself feel better, and I do :p

OK, great idea. Throw a bunch of Jews into Iraq. Yeah, that will really make the Muslim fundamentalists give up more quickly. What an idiotic idea.

Also, let's address the draft bugaboo right here - it will NOT happen. There's no need. There's no major war happening.

Look at the actual losses in Iraq and compare those numbers to ALMOST ANY OTHER WAR EVER. The numbers confirm that US losses, and even Iraqi losses, are very minimal compared in numbers only to most other wars ever.

Now, I'm sure I'll hear - but even one death is too many. Man up! The progress of liberty and civilization will be littered with dead, but the blood of now will ensure the freedom of countless millions later.

Maybe we should never fight a war. Someone else will take care of it. Tell that to the six million dead Jews in WWII.

[D_Raay]

Ali, again, you are a complete, inferior, ridiculous moron. Sorry, guys, but it makes me feel better to precursor my comments with that. He's ignoring me anyways, so I might as well make myself feel better, and I do :p

OK, great idea. Throw a bunch of Jews into Iraq. Yeah, that will really make the Muslim fundamentalists give up more quickly. What an idiotic idea.

Also, let's address the draft bugaboo right here - it will NOT happen. There's no need. There's no major war happening.

Look at the actual losses in Iraq and compare those numbers to ALMOST ANY OTHER WAR EVER. The numbers confirm that US losses, and even Iraqi losses, are very minimal compared in numbers only to most other wars ever.

Now, I'm sure I'll hear - but even one death is too many. Man up! The progress of liberty and civilization will be littered with dead, but the blood of now will ensure the freedom of countless millions later.

Maybe we should never fight a war. Someone else will take care of it. Tell that to the six million dead Jews in WWII.

That's disingenous sam. At this point in the Vietnam war the number of deaths are quite similar. They know that a draft would be the straw that broke it within their own base, and they hang precariously by a thread as it is now with all the centrists out there.

[Ali]

That's disingenous sam. At this point in the Vietnam war the number of deaths are quite similar. They know that a draft would be the straw that broke it within their own base, and they hang precariously by a thread as it is now with all the centrists out there.'almost' doesn't include Vietnam.

[sam i am]

'almost' doesn't include Vietnam.

Really. I'd like to see the actual numbers in Vietnam from when we invaded them and took control of the country, setting up an interim government to write a constituion with free elections.

Wait....it never happened in Vietnam. Inapropos comparison - apples to oranges.

[D_Raay]

Really. I'd like to see the actual numbers in Vietnam from when we invaded them and took control of the country, setting up an interim government to write a constituion with free elections.

Wait....it never happened in Vietnam. Inapropos comparison - apples to oranges.
Hehe, you are the one that actually brought up Vietnam... :p

[QueenAdrock]

Now, I'm sure I'll hear - but even one death is too many. Man up! The progress of liberty and civilization will be littered with dead, but the blood of now will ensure the freedom of countless millions later.

Do you really think we're bringing "freedom" over there? We're breeding more insurgents, and we're losing. I hope for your sake, you don't have friends in Iraq. I do. Two very, very close friends who I love dearly, and to hear that I should "man up" is a bunch of insensitive crap in my opinion.

I'd feel better if they were over there and fighting an actual WAR, if we were over there because we were attacked by them to begin with (big fat no with that one), or if we were over there to help with genocide. I know what people are going to say, "But Queen, there was genocide lol." Yeah, and if Bush had said "We're going into Iraq to take care of the genocide that's happening up north because mass murders are fucked up," I probably would not have as big a problem with it as I do. I heard "OMG they have WMD's and everyone's going to die if we don't go in," (nice scare tactics there), so everyone freaked out and gave them the okay. Oops, there are no WMD's. So they make up some shit about how they *actually* went there for "liberation". They didn't. Freedom was merely an afterthought, another justification to go to war after they realized that the WMD-shit fell through and the public was getting angry. They'll say anything because no matter what they say, whether we're there for WMDs, or because of terrorism, or because we want to spread democracy, they're all lies. We're there for the sweet money they have waiting for us in their precious oil. If we cared about bringing democracy to the world, or getting terrorists in their homeland, we'd be going to war with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the fundamentalists in Sudan. But we're not.

Maybe we should never fight a war. Someone else will take care of it. Tell that to the six million dead Jews in WWII.

Actually, I told my Jewish boyfriend that I didn't think we should be in Iraq right now, and he agreed. Mind you, his grandfather was *literally* on the last boat out of Poland. And his grandfather's relatives and friends were not as lucky, and they were exterminated in the Holocaust. They're anti-Iraq, too. Why? Because it's NOT a Holocaust over there. We both agree that the thing today that's CLOSER to the Holocaust is Darfur. 400,000+ dead as of today, and what have we done? Brought "democracy" to Iraq. Whoopedy-dee.I think we SHOULD fight a war, and it's not in Iraq. It's where the mass-graves are located. I'm pretty sure if you actually talk to the Jewish population, they would tell you that we need to stop GENOCIDE, not going into countries for our own benefit.

[Ali]

Tell that to the six million dead Jews in WWII. :rolleyes: The Jews who died before 1942, while Prescott Bush sold steel to the Nazis (http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_Link)?

Don't try to equate WWII with Iraq! Apples and oranges, indeed! The whole world was desperately fighting the Nazis while the US stood back (and made money). Russians, Australians, Canadians, South Africans, New Zealander, Indians... all threw themselves into the battle long, long before you decided to step in and mop up after most of the fighting had been done.

Iraq is the EXACT OPPOSITE of WWII! You and the UK went it alone, while the rest of the world wanted to find a peaceful solution, or at least a valid reason for war. Your President and the UK PM lied to their people and the whole world in order to have a reason to invade.
WWII was the unification of the entire world against Hitler and his allies, Iraq is the illegal invasion and occupation of a country by the US and UK, against the wishes of the rest of the world.

See the difference?

[sam i am]

:rolleyes: The Jews who died before 1942, while Prescott Bush sold steel to the Nazis (http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_Link)?

Don't try to equate WWII with Iraq! Apples and oranges, indeed! The whole world was desperately fighting the Nazis while the US stood back (and made money). Russians, Australians, Canadians, South Africans, New Zealander, Indians... all threw themselves into the battle long, long before you decided to step in and mop up after most of the fighting had been done.

Iraq is the EXACT OPPOSITE of WWII! You and the UK went it alone, while the rest of the world wanted to find a peaceful solution, or at least a valid reason for war. Your President and the UK PM lied to their people and the whole world in order to have a reason to invade.
WWII was the unification of the entire world against Hitler and his allies, Iraq is the illegal invasion and occupation of a country by the US and UK, against the wishes of the rest of the world.

See the difference?

Oh. So I'm NOT on your ignore list, eh? I'll debate WWII all day with you. Here goes in my next post....

[sam i am]

Hehe, you are the one that actually brought up Vietnam... :p

Nope....you were. Don't be "disingenuous," D_Raay. Reread the thread above. You brought it up, not I.

[franscar]

Nope....you were. Don't be "disingenuous," D_Raay. Reread the thread above. You brought it up, not I.

You said "ALMOST ANY OTHER WAR EVER" though, and I read that to mean Vietnam, guess the others did as well.

[sam i am]

:rolleyes: The Jews who died before 1942, while Prescott Bush sold steel to the Nazis (http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_Link)?

Don't try to equate WWII with Iraq! Apples and oranges, indeed! The whole world was desperately fighting the Nazis while the US stood back (and made money). Russians, Australians, Canadians, South Africans, New Zealander, Indians... all threw themselves into the battle long, long before you decided to step in and mop up after most of the fighting had been done.

Iraq is the EXACT OPPOSITE of WWII! You and the UK went it alone, while the rest of the world wanted to find a peaceful solution, or at least a valid reason for war. Your President and the UK PM lied to their people and the whole world in order to have a reason to invade.
WWII was the unification of the entire world against Hitler and his allies, Iraq is the illegal invasion and occupation of a country by the US and UK, against the wishes of the rest of the world.

See the difference?

There are so many fallacies in your paragraphs above, I scarcely know where to start.

First, you link is inoperable, so I can't see whatever "evidence" you think you have against the Bushes. Did the Reagans sell to the Nazis? Did anybody, anywhere, ever sell to the Nazis? OK, we MUST think they are all tainted as well, eh? What about Rashid Ali in Iraq circa 1941? Is his whole family and descendants also painted with the same traitorous brush? Get real, Ali.

Second, the US had a little problem called JAPAN. Remember them? Pearl Harbor and all that. Guess that didn't count in your little book of who's fighting who, eh Ali? Guess a completely peacetime economy and Armed Forces numbering in the 100,000 range should have stormed right off and conquered Germany, eh Ali? You have so little fact on your side, it's pathetic.

Besides, the US wasn't even at war with Germany until they declared war on US. Not we on them. Are you advocating preemption now, Ali? Should we have declared war against Germany and gone after them in 1940 or '41? Fine by me, but it would undermine your whole "we shouldn't fight until we're attacked" general rhetoric.

The countries you cited above, namely Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, and India were all part of the BRITISH COMMONWEALTH, which declared war on Germany, not vice versa. The British and French (and their proxies) all launched war on Germany. They were "preempting" an attack on themselves. Germany was ONLY at war with Poland at the time. Were those countries correct to preemptively declare war? Hell, yes. But make sure you have your history CORRECT.

Also, as far as Russia was concerned, they signed a Non-Agression Treaty with Germany that ALLOWED the partition of Poland and FREED the Nazis to go after France and Britain with their backside secure from attack. Stalin and Molotov, in their calculation, had good cause to have the Nazis turn on the Western capitalists - long term communist victory and the securing of finished materials from the Nazis to upgrade their armies and economy.

Third, the "entire world" rhetoric you employ above sure sounds nice and grandiose, but do you know how many countries were in the Axis alliance? Besides Germany, Vichy France, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Thailand, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, and nearly Iraq, to name a few? Do you realize there were huge segments of the British and US populations that adamantly OPPOSED war with the Axis (ever heard of Charles Lindbergh and America First? How about the Duke of Windsor in England?)?

There were opposing ideologies in WWII, but one ideology subscribed to the subjugation and death of an entore cultre and religion, namely the Nazis with Judaism.

So, the US went to war when the time was right. And, your trashing of the sacrifices made in Normandy, Kasserine Pass, Italy, etc. by US troops solely in the European theater, is tantamount to saying the victims of 9/11 or 7/7 were inconsequential in the war on terror. Shame on you.

Finally, if the rest of the world jumped off a cliff, would you follow them? Must every country always ascribe to the "wishes of the rest of the world?" Great. Maybe we can allow tinpot despots throughout the world to run the foreign affairs of the large economies and countries. Maybe we should completely abrogate any responsibility for the rest of the world to the UN, who could very well then vote to have YOUR country be the next to be occupied due to some perceived "slight" against the wishes of the rest of the world. Hope you're ready to take it up the rear then, Ali, because you GAVE UP the right to have any say over your future to the "wishes of the rest of the world."

Oh, what's that? YOu DON'T want that? Well, then, sorry for you. YOu already advocated it, so you can't go back now.

Good luck. :rolleyes:

[sam i am]

You said "ALMOST ANY OTHER WAR EVER" though, and I read that to mean Vietnam, guess the others did as well.

There have been so many wars that I've lost count. I was more thinking of wars like the Spanish-American war of 1898, the War of 1812, etc. But, IF you want to analogize about Vietnam, I'd be truly interested in the data that correlates current losses in Iraq to losses in Vietnam at the same stage.

[franscar]

There have been so many wars that I've lost count. I was more thinking of wars like the Spanish-American war of 1898, the War of 1812, etc. But, IF you want to analogize about Vietnam, I'd be truly interested in the data that correlates current losses in Iraq to losses in Vietnam at the same stage.

I don't particularly want to get into a debate about Vietnam seeing as Platoon is about the extent of what I know about it, actually no, add Good Morning Vietnam to that as well, and Born on the Fourth of July, but I didn't like that much because Tom Cruise just annoys me.

Anyway, 1898, 1812, come on, devices for destroying human lives have improved a fair bit since then, you don't even need to be in the same country as someone anymore to blow them to buggery, so it's always going to be pretty hard for the Americans to lose as many men.

[sam i am]

I don't particularly want to get into a debate about Vietnam seeing as Platoon is about the extent of what I know about it, actually no, add Good Morning Vietnam to that as well, and Born on the Fourth of July, but I didn't like that much because Tom Cruise just annoys me.

Anyway, 1898, 1812, come on, devices for destroying human lives have improved a fair bit since then, you don't even need to be in the same country as someone anymore to blow them to buggery, so it's always going to be pretty hard for the Americans to lose as many men.

That's kind of my point, though. We have technology and advanced ways of mitigating combat losses that most of the rest of the world don't have. This is why we are the preeminent power in the world right now.

It sickens me that we have US soldiers dying, but I'd much rather have them dying with a fighting chance than innocently entering a building to go to work one day and have a plane smack into it and kill thousands in one fell swoop. We're engaging and killing the enemy where he/she lives instead of having them here, in the US, killing off non-armed citizens. I'll take that deal for the safety of my children, etc.

[franscar]

It sickens me that we have US soldiers dying, but I'd much rather have them dying with a fighting chance than innocently entering a building to go to work one day and have a plane smack into it and kill thousands in one fell swoop. We're engaging and killing the enemy where he/she lives instead of having them here, in the US, killing off non-armed citizens. I'll take that deal for the safety of my children, etc.

But that completely goes back to the reasons behind this war. It was never about terrorists flying planes into buildings, that was the whole point of Afghanistan. I've still never seen a single thing that points to an Iraqi government, or any Iraqi civilians, having any intention of commiting acts of terrorism on U.S. soil, whereas there is plenty of evidence surrounding Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and of course, Afghanistan.

That's what I'm guessing the majority of the anti-war people don't comprehend, we don't understand how invading Iraq has made the U.S.A. any safer for your children.

[sam i am]

But that completely goes back to the reasons behind this war. It was never about terrorists flying planes into buildings, that was the whole point of Afghanistan. I've still never seen a single thing that points to an Iraqi government, or any Iraqi civilians, having any intention of commiting acts of terrorism on U.S. soil, whereas there is plenty of evidence surrounding Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and of course, Afghanistan.

That's what I'm guessing the majority of the anti-war people don't comprehend, we don't understand how invading Iraq has made the U.S.A. any safer for your children.

The terrorists go to Iraq. We kill them there. We don't have those suicide bombers and fighters plotting and planning to kill us here because they are so intent on TRYING to kill our well-armed military THERE.

It's really very simple logic if you think about it.

[franscar]

The terrorists go to Iraq. We kill them there. We don't have those suicide bombers and fighters plotting and planning to kill us here because they are so intent on TRYING to kill our well-armed military THERE.

It's really very simple logic if you think about it.

But the actions of the U.S. and the U.K. are creating terrorists in the west that are just as willing to kill themselves and anyone they can take with them as those in the middle-east are. They've already succeeded here, there is nothing to suggest that they cannot succeed in the U.S. as well.

It's an upside down logic. And the innocent people of Iraq are the ones who are paying for it.

EDIT: Just while I'm thinking about it, these terrorists were sophisticated enough to, ignoring conspiracy theories, hijack four planes at the same time, fly three of them into pre-determined targets and kill thousands of people, are they really going to be stupid enough to fall for a plan using the military in Iraq as "bait" for them to go and attack?

[sam i am]

But the actions of the U.S. and the U.K. are creating terrorists in the west that are just as willing to kill themselves and anyone they can take with them as those in the middle-east are. They've already succeeded here, there is nothing to suggest that they cannot succeed in the U.S. as well.

It's an upside down logic. And the innocent people of Iraq are the ones who are paying for it.

OK. You're saying we're CREATING terrorists? Where did the original terrorists come from then? Your logic is upside-down as well.

So, maybe we're both wrong or right, but I think the vote in Iraq shows most Iraqis are pretty content with what we did to Sadaam and that they want us around to finish putting the country right before we leave.

[franscar]

OK. You're saying we're CREATING terrorists? Where did the original terrorists come from then? Your logic is upside-down as well.

Well, not really. There weren't any suicide bombers in London before the war began. I'm well aware of their existence elsewhere in the world before then, but when it's practically on your own doorstep you do take more notice.

Religious fanatics have been taking shots at one another across the centuries, the creation of the original terrorist is quite simply the best part of a millennium ago. Throwing the blame on Islam or Christianity isn't going to solve anything, so I'm not going to. But for as long as there has been religious disagreement there have been people willing to die for what they believe. The U.S. and the U.K.'s actions are unfortunately hardening the focus of those willing to die against both the soldiers and the civilians of these countries. And that is why I don't believe for a second that this war has made either of our countries any safer.

[sam i am]

Well, not really. There weren't any suicide bombers in London before the war began. I'm well aware of their existence elsewhere in the world before then, but when it's practically on your own doorstep you do take more notice.

Religious fanatics have been taking shots at one another across the centuries, the creation of the original terrorist is quite simply the best part of a millennium ago. Throwing the blame on Islam or Christianity isn't going to solve anything, so I'm not going to. But for as long as there has been religious disagreement there have been people willing to die for what they believe. The U.S. and the U.K.'s actions are unfortunately hardening the focus of those willing to die against both the soldiers and the civilians of these countries. And that is why I don't believe for a second that this war has made either of our countries any safer.

Fair enough. Your point of view differs from mine, but I respect that you have a well-thought logic behind your system of belief.

Bottom line : I hope we don't have ANY more major terrorist attacks in the world.....forlorn hope, I know, but a man can wish.... :(

[Ali]

I'll take that deal for the safety of my children, etc.They won't be very safe if they get drafted, etc. will they?

because they are so intent on TRYING to kill our well-armed military THERE your soldiers are not the only ones dying... lots of non-combatants being killed over 'there' to keep you safe

[sam i am]

They won't be very safe if they get drafted, etc. will they?

your soldiers are not the only ones dying... lots of non-combatants being killed over 'there' to keep you safe

True. But who is killing the non-combatants? The terrorists. NOT the US military. The US military has GONE OUT OF ITS WAY to minimize civilian casualties, unlike most militaries throughout history, who have often deliberately gone after civilian targets.

That's the BIG difference between the US and most other countries throughout history.

[synch]

It's a disgrace that the Iraqi people don't have some sort of celebration in the honour of the us army or at a thank you note or something. They have gone out of their way not to kill too many of them for christs sake!

Although I must say that a bunch of Americans in the middle east with guns are pretty far out of their way in the first place...

[sam i am]

It's a disgrace that the Iraqi people don't have some sort of celebration in the honour of the us army or at a thank you note or something. They have gone out of their way not to kill too many of them for christs sake!

Although I must say that a bunch of Americans in the middle east with guns are pretty far out of their way in the first place...

Is this sarcasm? Hmmmmm.....wasn't sure. You effectively hid it behind SUCH wonderful wordsmithery :rolleyes:

Give me a break. We're not looking for parades or honors, we're looking for victory and freedom and security. Sorry those are such DISHONORABLE words in your lexicon. Maybe you have something better to offer?

[franscar]

You effectively hid it behind SUCH wonderful wordsmithery :rolleyes:

The guy is using his third language.

[sam i am]

The guy is using his third language.

And your point is?


That he can't communicate effectively because he's employing his third language? What a sham.

[franscar]

And your point is?


That he can't communicate effectively because he's employing his third language? What a sham.

Wow, your acting like a dick tonight. Kudos on that one.

[sam i am]

Wow, your acting like a dick tonight. Kudos on that one.

Sorry. I'm particularly ornery today (it's only 12:30pm here).

Apologies for acting like a dick. I've had a crappy week and my wick is short (no puns please.)

[synch]

Is this sarcasm? Hmmmmm.....wasn't sure. You effectively hid it behind SUCH wonderful wordsmithery :rolleyes:Now I'm not sure whether this means that you don't grasp the english language well or that I have trouble with it. I re-read it a couple of times and in my humble opinion the sarcasm was layed on very thick.

Give me a break. We're not looking for parades or honors, we're looking for victory and freedom and security. Sorry those are such DISHONORABLE words in your lexicon.There is no such thing as a victory in war.

Your freedom was never at stake and the freedom that was at stake hasn't been achieved.

Security is worse than it has ever been. Not just for you but for the entire planet.

The words aren't dishonourable, they are words that only have meaning when you take the context into account. The context of an invasion of Iraq for oil and money is dishonourable in my opinion.

Maybe you have something better to offer?
Perhaps.

I ate the last two eggs but I have a pizza in the freezer. With tuna.

[franscar]

I ate the last two eggs but I have a pizza in the freezer. With tuna.

If it's Pepperoni I'll take it.

[synch]

Just tuna man. Sorry :(

[sam i am]

They won't be very safe if they get drafted, etc. will they?

your soldiers are not the only ones dying... lots of non-combatants being killed over 'there' to keep you safe

The draft is a straw man. Won't happen.

non-combatants are almost entirely being killed by suicide bombers and the terrorists. After the initial days of the "invasion," casualties from US forces has dropped precipitously close to zero.

Get your facts straight, Ali.

[sam i am]

There is no such thing as a victory in war.

Really?

OK, guess all the blacks that were freed by the American Civil War should go back into slavery then?

Maybe Hitler and Mussolini should have been allowed to continue ridding Europe, then the world, of Jews?

Maybe every free country in the world liked it better when they were under repressive regimes?

Irresponsible pontificating, synch.

[sam i am]

Just tuna man. Sorry :(

tuna pizza. yummy ;)

[D_Raay]

Really?

OK, guess all the blacks that were freed by the American Civil War should go back into slavery then?

Maybe Hitler and Mussolini should have been allowed to continue ridding Europe, then the world, of Jews?

Maybe every free country in the world liked it better when they were under repressive regimes?

Irresponsible pontificating, synch.
The dead don't get an opinion...

[synch]

Really?

OK, guess all the blacks that were freed by the American Civil War should go back into slavery then?

Maybe Hitler and Mussolini should have been allowed to continue ridding Europe, then the world, of Jews?

Maybe every free country in the world liked it better when they were under repressive regimes?

Irresponsible pontificating, synch.
I didn't say there weren't people that lost wars, just that nobody really wins them either.

[Ali]

I didn't say there weren't people that lost wars, just that nobody really wins them either.The Americans always win the Hollywood version. :p

[synch]

Only in the movies sponsored by the Pentagon ;)

(read: Black Hawk Down)

[sam i am]

The Americans always win the Hollywood version. :p

Guess you never saw The Best Years of Our Lives. Worth a look-see.

[Ali]

Only in the movies sponsored by the Pentagon ;)

(read: Black Hawk Down)I heard that they, like did a survey of, like American teenagers once and, like a very high percentage, like thought that, like the US, like WON the Vietnam war!

[synch]

Well they did didn't they. Are you a commie or something??

[sam i am]

Well they did didn't they. Are you a commie or something??

Are you and Ali just talking to hear each others' voices? :rolleyes:

[synch]

Shhhh sam, I'm so about to score.

[sam i am]

Shhhh sam, I'm so about to score.

LMAO. WTG, synch. :eek:

[Ali]

Well they did didn't they. Are you a commie or something??Hell yeah!

[sam i am]

Hell yeah!

Good to know. Your credibility has just skyrocketed! Way to ascribe to a COMPLETELY failed and discredited philosophy. :rolleyes: