It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should the U.S be stop?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 06:00 AM
link   
That's right Majic.

I believe no one party should blame each other on how war junkie each other are.Everyone are capable of intiating war on others it's only the matter of wanting to do so or not.Though in war,I think every single country that takes part are the ones that should be blame.The ones that started it or the aggressor commenced the war and the so called victims only prolonged the war by fighting back hence,both at fault.




posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   
I Beg Your Pardon?


Originally posted by Heartagram
The ones that started it or the aggressor commenced the war and the so called victims only prolonged the war by fighting back hence,both at fault.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying.

You're saying that a country that defends itself against an attack should share blame for the resulting war?

Please reassure me that what you wrote is not what you meant to write, because that is an extremely disturbing thing to say for a lot of different reasons.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
I Beg Your Pardon?


Originally posted by Heartagram
The ones that started it or the aggressor commenced the war and the so called victims only prolonged the war by fighting back hence,both at fault.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying.

You're saying that a country that defends itself against an attack should share blame for the resulting war?

Please reassure me that what you wrote is not what you meant to write, because that is an extremely disturbing thing to say for a lot of different reasons.


What I'm trying to imply is there should be no war in the first place.Yes,it is your right to defend yourself against any aggression.Rules of war are to kill as many of your opponent/aggressor to win the war.That's just plain brutal and senseless.Any man that participate/initiates war is seen as barbaric to me.Say what you want,war and generals ordering their men to kill each other are a game for fools and barbarians.

I believe every country should at least adopt a neutrality policy.The only country I heard of really putting this policy into action is Switzerland.Note that it's Switzerland's neutrality policy that prevents her from being invaded by Germany in WWII.I wonder why none beside the Swiss want to adopt this brilliant policy?



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Where To Begin?


Originally posted by Heartagram
Note that it's Switzerland's neutrality policy that prevents her from being invaded by Germany in WWII.

No, it's the fact that Switzerland had and has one of the best armies in the world, and is situated in one of the most easily-defended places in the world.

Politics had nothing to do with it. Every country Germany conquered could have declared itself neutral, and it wouldn't have changed anything.

Your arguments express a tangle of ideologies that I cannot sort out.

But I am left with the impression that you are mixing idealism and factual distortions up in a big philosophical hairball.

Please don't take that personally -- I'm sure I have rationalized myself into tighter corners than you have.

But I am truly unable to agree with you on some very fundamental points regarding the nature of war.

Perhaps that's why we still have wars.


Be at peace.

Majic



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Here are the results of a recent poll conducted in Australia:

Friday January 21 2005: Is it the US government's role to fight tyranny around the world?
Yes: 11483 (26%)
No: 33329 (74%)

link - news.ninemsn.com.au...

It appears the majority of Aussies agree that the US needs to back off however it does not say that we hate Americans. Many Aussies like the US but they need to be able to accept critisism of the Bush Administration. The above poll was conducted because of rumours of the US planning to invade Iran and I think that the Australian citizens will not be prepared to let our troops join the US in their next war.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Swiss didn't really have a strong military in that matter.They SHOWED military readiness by protecting their border the moment Hitler went on his invasion spree.Furthermore,it is known that the Swiss Army would definitely retreat if German Troops are to storm Swiss borders but Swiss Army would only defend through Geurilla tactics.Retreating first and having Geurilla battle tactics later?Is that a mark of a strong military?I doubt so.


This assessment was shared (but not declared publicly) by a broad majority of leading Swiss Army officers. As a consequence Switzerland's commander in chief General Henri Guisan developed his famous "Reduit Concept" in summer 1940, according to which the Swiss Army would have retreated into the alps relatively soon if attacked, but would have kept up resistance based on some sort of guerilla tactics from there.


Source:
history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch...

Dude,at least we're talking out our disagreements
.What I don't understand is why the hell they should use guns and bayonets to settle their disagreements.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Good On Ya, Mates


Originally posted by Jubilee
It appears the majority of Aussies agree that the US needs to back off however it does not say that we hate Americans.

Let's see: I agree with the majority of Aussies on that question, am an American, and don't hate Americans either, so your story checks out.


One of the problems with the ongoing war in the Middle East is that the real reasons for it have not been publicized.

They haven't really been hidden, either, but between the tight-lipped and selective behavior of the White House and the chorus of ever-willing critics, the real nature of this war is obscured.

But it is nonetheless a very real war, and the stakes are very, very high.

The U.S. is committed to ensuring that we and our allies don't come out on the losing end of this very real global struggle.

I'm on board with that.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Jubilee,thanks for the info.


Certainly everyone knows that if every other country in the world were to have polls on U.S and U.S invasions,most of the polls will be against U.S invasions.Even in Iraq war,the U.N which is made up of hundreds of countries,together disagree with U.S invasion of Iraq.If you ask me,I never hated any Americans.It's the way their leader think that's unjust and wrong.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
It Only Takes One Bad Guy To Spoil The Party


Originally posted by Heartagram
Dude,at least we're talking out our disagreements
.What I don't understand is why the hell they should use guns and bayonets to settle their disagreements.

Because it's hard to talk to someone when they're shooting you to death.

People have tried this approach. The track record is pretty dismal.

We can indeed talk here, and I thoroughly enjoy doing so, but no matter how neutral you want to think of yourself as being, I can guarantee that your neutrality would disappear immediately the moment some rat bastard stuck a bayonet in your gut.

And perhaps that is where we are tending to disagree: idealism versus pragmatism.

I love to philosophize, but the bottom line is that I am free to do so only because some of the best and brightest of my countrymen are willing to die to protect my right to do so.

Unlike some of my fellows, I never forget this, and am forever grateful for it.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I won't be happy if a rat stucks a bayonet into my gut.However,I don't see much of talking happening.More threats and boasts of each other's strength than really talking it out on a table.Take the U.S for example,talks with Iran any time soon?Yes,but limited.

Source:
(U.S and Iran talks are limited)
news.bbc.co.uk...

Furthermore,Iran is changing it's speaker to a more moderate and non-clerical type of speaker.Hopefully,tensions between the two would descend but I highly doubt the nuclear ambition issue would be resolve without any armed conflict.

Source:
(Iran to get non-clerical speaker)
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
"Again, it's not "Europe", but the trendy citizens there who are the ones with the problems."

What exactly do you mean by trendy citizens? You mean the upperclass europeans?

" France is the only country, and to a lesser extent Germany, in which the governments have offered any protest,"

Theyre the only ones that expresses their problems, but neither you or me know whats going on with the governments in europe so neither of us can say anything about that.

"But neither of those countries will do anything but let their feelings be known politically. "

Obviously what could they do by themselves apart from kamikaze themselves.

"You think there could possibly be a worldwide plan to attack America on the table right now, witout us being aware of it?"

A military attack i doubt it but they could pull off a terrorist attack, im not saying the U.S wouldnt see it coming but they wouldnt have any knowledge of it being planned.

"So no names? That's kinda what I figured. "

I said nobody is happy with what americas done in iraq, you want me to give name? id be naming half of the world.

"I'm not happy happy with the Iraq war, but I'm no enemy of my own country."

Im no enemy of america either but ive got a problem with the fact that they think they can invade any country they want and not even have a good reason for doing so.

"Again, only the trendy citizens there, following like sheep (as blindly as the sheep here that worship Bush) the "fad" of America bashing"

Well if it makes you feel better to think its only a trend or a fashion and its only a bunch of european sheep that have a problem with america go ahead.
Im not european and im no sheep but i have problem with what americas doing lately.

"with their fantasies of the world destroying us, then having a big party afterward on the new Earth without the evil and oppressive America as peace reigns forever after, are our enemies."

Anybody who thinks that has to be either mentally handicapped or blind because everyone knows americas not the center of the world only theyve attracted attention to themselves.

"regardless of sheeplike citizens doing the "in" thing by hating our country based on a president who will be gone in a few years."

How is it sheeplike to have a problem with a country that act like they run the world? Was it sheeplike to hate the nazis? Im not making any comparison there.

"work on hating our new one, whomever he/she may be, or find a new country to hate. Maybe Europeans need a world leader to hate at any given time or something."

Maybe your right about that but americas the best example of that, america will always have some country, culture to hate.

"Invade China? Why would we do that?"

Just an example

"The war in which the whole world seeks to destroy us? Absolutely, and Russia would do the same in our position."

That just shows how selfish america really is, theyre gonna get destroyed so they take the whole world down with them.

"No strategy required except a few psychos with cell phones. But it hasn't happened when it very easily could."

Yea i suppose your right about that but the question is why hasnt it happened?

"a country who really has sponsored attacks against the U.S."

I didnt know about that

"and one who really is trying to obtain nuclear weapons."

And what gives america the right to have nuclear weapons but iraq and iran not?



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
"an honest examination of the track record shows why any European army should at least have a healthy respect for the U.S. Army. "

And whys that?

"The biggest, cruelest and bloodiest wars in human history did not originate in the United States, but Europe. "

Unlike the U.S, Europe has thousands of years of history, but obviously U.S.A is no more warlike than France,U.K,Germany and a few other european countries.

"We didn't start them but we're sure as hell experienced at ending them"

What wars are you referring to there?

"I recommend exercising that aquatic noggin"

When you say noggin do you mean brain if so why did you use the adjective aquatic? If you mean a small mug or cup then do you mean my small cup of knowledge?

"to cultivate more informed opinions and improved posting quality. "

Agreed



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by fishbrain
What exactly do you mean by trendy citizens? You mean the upperclass europeans?


I meant exactly what I said, trendy, those follwing a trend, regardless how stupid it is. Kind of like back in the early 90's here, people wore their clothes backwards. And their economic class has nothing to do with it. I meant trendy citizens as in the ones who find it fashionable to hate America these days. The ones who have absolutely nothing to fear from America, yet say they are afraid of us and compare us to nazi Germany. In the same respect, I disagree with Bill O'Reilly and his "boycott France" crap, if France doesn't want to participate that's perfectly alright by me, it doesn't mean we have to cut off ties or stop trading with them.



Theyre the only ones that expresses their problems, but neither you or me know whats going on with the governments in europe so neither of us can say anything about that.


No, but we can speculate, and my speculation is they are trying to figure out how best to balance their important relationship with the U.S. while also addressing the concerns of their citizens.



A military attack i doubt it but they could pull off a terrorist attack, im not saying the U.S wouldnt see it coming but they wouldnt have any knowledge of it being planned.


Please tell me you don't mean to imply the governments of the free world are planning a terrorist attack on the U.S. I must have misunderstood somehow.



I said nobody is happy with what americas done in iraq, you want me to give name? id be naming half of the world.


When has the rest of the world ever been happy when America uses military force? Remember Yugoslavia? I can remember many countries protesting that, and I believe we came to the rescue of muslims there. Nobody remembers that.



Im no enemy of america either but ive got a problem with the fact that they think they can invade any country they want and not even have a good reason for doing so.


That's the type of irrational, trendy thought I'm speaking of. Any country? No good reason? So, you think we are just gonna invade say, Belgium perhaps, maybe in a couple months, we'll say it's because their waffles are so delicious they could be used as WMD's. Any time we've used military force, we've gone to the U.N. security council first, we don't just invade countries whenever we want and for no good reason. The U.N had passed how many resolutions with the threat of force before we finally said enough is enough? Saddam could still be enjoying the brutalization of his people right now, if he had been completely and totally forthcoming in allowing inspectors 100% access without any restrictions to all facilities. If that was the case, Bush would have had no ground to stand on. Saddam made it easy for him, Saddam convinced the world he had WMD's more than Bush did, by his actions. If a police officer tells you to put your hands up, and you keep acting like you're going for a weapon, he tells you twelve times to stop but you keep doing it, he finally shoots you, but you didn't really have a gun. Blame the police officer, right?



Well if it makes you feel better to think its only a trend or a fashion and its only a bunch of european sheep that have a problem with america go ahead.


No, it doesn't make me feel better. I feel disappointed that our former friends have turned on us, in favor of regimes that , if America were gone, would preach hatred for them in schools and mosques, just as readily as they did for America. Our former European friends are being used, and will be discarded the instant they are no longer needed, unless they change their entire culture.



Im not european and im no sheep but i have problem with what americas doing lately.


Where then? Canada? If you say Australia then be mad at your own government, because they are allies that have stood by us.



Anybody who thinks that has to be either mentally handicapped or blind because everyone knows americas not the center of the world only theyve attracted attention to themselves.


By following through on what we say we're going to do? As the sole superpower, we automatically attract attention, and blame for everything that goes wrong in the world. There's really no way we can win.



How is it sheeplike to have a problem with a country that act like they run the world?


How do we act like we run the world? We are only enforcing U.N. decisions, because nobody else will. I wish more countries would step up to the plate, and give us a break now and again.



Was it sheeplike to hate the nazis? Im not making any comparison there.


If you weren't making a comparison, why did you ask that? How many U.N. resolutions was Hitler enforcing? Of course it was not sheeplike to hate the Nazis, they, like terrorists, intentionally murdered non-combatants, in staggering numbers. The ironic thing is, we are being compared to Nazis (not knowingly by you I guess), but hatred for Jews is up significantly by the same folks comparing us to Nazis. Go figure.



Maybe your right about that but americas the best example of that, america will always have some country, culture to hate.


Maybe it's just human nature or something.



That just shows how selfish america really is, theyre gonna get destroyed so they take the whole world down with them.


Just like I said, Russia would do the same, so would your country if it had the ability. More of that pesky human nature again. Please don't be so biased by saying how selfish America really is, everybody is in this for their own survival.



Yea i suppose your right about that but the question is why hasnt it happened?


Maybe our homeland security has just been successful to this point, you don't hear of the successes, only the failures. Or maybe the terrorists find out we're not as bad as they were taught once they get here, and choose to stay and open a drive-thru liquor store, I don't know.



I didnt know about that


Numerous occasions, which answers your next question:



And what gives america the right to have nuclear weapons but iraq and iran not?




[edit on 20-2-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   

my speculation is they are trying to figure out how best to balance their important relationship with the U.S. while also addressing the concerns of their citizens.


That would be my speculation too but its not gonna be easy, in order to make an even balance they will have to make sure U.S never does anything like Iraq again but if U.S was to start a war with another country what could europe do to stop them? America didnt seem to give a sh** about France having an objection with them going to Iraq.


Please tell me you don't mean to imply the governments of the free world are planning a terrorist attack on the U.S. I must have misunderstood somehow.


Sorry i got mixed up when you said worldwide i forgot we were talking about EU, China and Russia


When has the rest of the world ever been happy when America uses military force?


Probably never but america could at least try and stop things from getting worse which is what is happening every day.


Remember Yugoslavia? I can remember many countries protesting that, and I believe we came to the rescue of muslims there. Nobody remembers that.


Yes i remember Yugoslavia, a bit of good came out of alot of bad, U.S saved some muslims but nearly wiped out all the serbs. I dont know much about what happened in Yugoslavia so im not going to talk about it, i could be wrong about what i said just above about U.S saving muslims but wiping out the serbs, thats just what ive heard about it.


That's the type of irrational, trendy thought I'm speaking of.


I agree that was a bit of an overstatement when i said "U.S invades any country they want for no good reason" but it wasnt that far off.


No good reason? So, you think we are just gonna invade say, Belgium perhaps,


No because first of all Belgium has no oil and probably not much the U.S want and second of all Belgium isnt a third world country so U.S knows it cant get away with invading an EU country very easily. But we found out Belgium had oil i wouldnt be surprised if U.S made up some halfass excuse to invade them.


Any time we've used military force, we've gone to the U.N. security council first,


Yea america goes to the UN and asks for permission but if they arent granted permission they go to war anyway.


Saddam could still be enjoying the brutalization of his people right now


Im not sticking up for Saddam here, in fact my opinion of Saddam was close to that of Hitler but Saddams followers were happy under his rule, but Saddam and his followers were only a minority (40% of Iraq) from what ive gathered.


if he had been completely and totally forthcoming in allowing inspectors 100% access without any restrictions to all facilities.


As far as I know he did give inspectors access, maybe not 100%.


If a police officer tells you to put your hands up, and you keep acting like you're going for a weapon, he tells you twelve times to stop but you keep doing it, he finally shoots you, but you didn't really have a gun. Blame the police officer, right?


Thats a completely exaggerated example, when did Iraq ever reach for button that would set off a nuke that america knows about?


Our former European friends are being used, and will be discarded the instant they are no longer needed, unless they change their entire culture.


You act like Europe is totally dependant on the U.S, it would be a disaster if they were to cut off all trading ties with america but then again it would be a disaster for the U.S too but im pretty sure Europe can manage without U.S.A.


Where then? Canada?


Good guess. Im actually European but i moved to Canada before any of this crap with Iraq started.


and blame for everything that goes wrong in the world


I think your exaggerating a bit there, americas not taking the blame for everything that goes wrong in the world only the part they contibute.


We are only enforcing U.N. decisions


I suppose U.S was only enforcing U.N. decisions when they invaded Iraq.


they, like terrorists, intentionally murdered non-combatants, in staggering numbers


U.S military unintentionally killed hundreds of Iraqi women and children, it wasnt intentional but they could have done a hell of alot more to prevent. How would you feel if it was the other way around and america was invaded and the war was fought in Washington D.C and your people had to go around picking up body parts of your relatives, women and little kids.


but hatred for Jews is up significantly by the same folks comparing us to Nazis


And who might those folks be?


Maybe it's just human nature or something.


I suppose so, where i come from the people are racist against people from other cities in the country let alone other countries.


Just like I said, Russia would do the same


Oh and that makes it alright? Because Russia would do it then its okay for us to do it.


so would your country if it had the ability


I wouldnt be so sure about that.


everybody is in this for their own survival.


Yea but just because theres a chance of one race not surviving they dont have to make sure nobody survives, thats pure selfishness.


Maybe our homeland security has just been successful to this point, you don't hear of the successes, only the failures.


True


Numerous occasions, which answers your next question:


I dont know about Iran but I never heard a single thread to the U.S ever come out of Iraq but they were invaded.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by fishbrain
America didnt seem to give a sh** about France having an objection with them going to Iraq.


Why would Bush have wasted his time this week with that whole feel good meeting with Chirac? I think now that whatever personal agenda Bush had in Iraq is complete, we will see alot more diplomacy.



Yes i remember Yugoslavia, a bit of good came out of alot of bad, U.S saved some muslims but nearly wiped out all the serbs. I dont know much about what happened in Yugoslavia so im not going to talk about it, i could be wrong about what i said just above about U.S saving muslims but wiping out the serbs, thats just what ive heard about it.


We didn't wipe out the Serbs, it was a short conflict, and most of the Serbs moved to my city, I'm friends with a few, which is how I know they still exist.




I agree that was a bit of an overstatement when i said "U.S invades any country they want for no good reason" but it wasnt that far off.


I think it is a tad off. We invaded one country with no good reason. One. It was wrong. But I don't think that will be our standard operating procedure in the future.



No because first of all Belgium has no oil and probably not much the U.S want and second of all Belgium isnt a third world country so U.S knows it cant get away with invading an EU country very easily. But we found out Belgium had oil i wouldnt be surprised if U.S made up some halfass excuse to invade them.


Obviously, I was kidding about Belgium. But see how you say if we found out they had oil we would find a way to invade? That's the type of irrational demonization I was talking about before.





As far as I know he did give inspectors access, maybe not 100%.


Far from 100%.



Thats a completely exaggerated example, when did Iraq ever reach for button that would set off a nuke that america knows about?


Maybe so. I don't believe Saddam would be that stupid. And he wasn't driven by religious fanatacism, but self-preservation. I personally don't think he was a threat. Nowhere near the threat posed by Iran's leaders. Here's a better example on Saddam, say the police come to search your house, but you try and tell them where and when they can search. Not gonna fly. Is that better?



You act like Europe is totally dependant on the U.S, it would be a disaster if they were to cut off all trading ties with america but then again it would be a disaster for the U.S too but im pretty sure Europe can manage without U.S.A.


I meant they were being used by Iran. If the US and Israel were destroyed tomorrow, Europe would be promoted to "Great Satan" status.


Good guess. Im actually European but i moved to Canada before any of this crap with Iraq started.


My dad's from Canada, along with half my family who still lives there.



I suppose U.S was only enforcing U.N. decisions when they invaded Iraq.


12 UN decisions if I am correct.



U.S military unintentionally killed hundreds of Iraqi women and children, it wasnt intentional but they could have done a hell of alot more to prevent.


How is that? I'm no military expert, but I think it's wrong to say they didn't do all they could to prevent it. How do you think they could've done more?



How would you feel if it was the other way around and america was invaded and the war was fought in Washington D.C and your people had to go around picking up body parts of your relatives, women and little kids.


If the invading country gave warning after warning, and outright said they were going to commence an attack, I would get my family to shelter. If they were killed, I would be pissed, just like the Iraqis are, it's just human nature.



And who might those folks be?


Look it up, anti-semitism has been dramatically rising in Europe, and probably Canada too.




Oh and that makes it alright? Because Russia would do it then its okay for us to do it.


Why should we be held to a higher standard?



I wouldnt be so sure about that.


I am.



Yea but just because theres a chance of one race not surviving they dont have to make sure nobody survives, thats pure selfishness.


That's the only way to ensure ours will survive, MAD.



I dont know about Iran but I never heard a single thread to the U.S ever come out of Iraq but they were invaded.


I agree about Iraq. As for Iran, look into it, you'll see.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
quote: Why would Bush have wasted his time this week with that whole feel good meeting with Chirac? I think now that whatever personal agenda Bush had in Iraq is complete, we will see alot more diplomacy.

Well its a bit late now, he attacks the country then when he gets what he wants he apologizes and expects everything to be alright.

quote: We didn't wipe out the Serbs, it was a short conflict, and most of the Serbs moved to my city, I'm friends with a few, which is how I know they still exist.

Like I said I dont know much about what went down in Yugoslavia and I cant say the Serbs didnt have it coming but I did say "nearly" wiped them out, I doubt you will find to many Serbs in Yugoslavia these days.

quote: I think it is a tad off. We invaded one country with no good reason. One. It was wrong. But I don't think that will be our standard operating procedure in the future.

I hope not for americas sake.

quote: But see how you say if we found out they had oil we would find a way to invade? That's the type of irrational demonization I was talking about before.

I was joking too i said i wouldnt be surprised but obviously i would be alot more than surprised if that happened.

quote: Far from 100%.

I wasnt there when the inspectors arrived so i cant say for sure.

quote: Nowhere near the threat posed by Iran's leaders.

So your saying Iran actually threatened to attack the U.S? Im not saying they didnt but i never heard about any of those threats.

quote: Here's a better example on Saddam, say the police come to search your house, but you try and tell them where and when they can search. Not gonna fly. Is that better?

Much better example but it doesnt mean the police are going to raid your house and kill your whole family while trying to find what they "think" you have.

quote: I meant they were being used by Iran. If the US and Israel were destroyed tomorrow, Europe would be promoted to "Great Satan" status.

I agree with you when you say Europe will be the next Great Satan, the muslims are against the "western world" which includes Europe.

quote: 12 UN decisions if I am correct.

I didnt know about that, why would the U.N give orders to invade Iraq then have such a big problem with Bush for doing it?

quote: How is that? I'm no military expert, but I think it's wrong to say they didn't do all they could to prevent it. How do you think they could've done more?

Im no expert either but I think they couldnt have prevented killing so many civilians maybe if they didnt bomb half the city and if they took my time identifying the soldiers rather than shooting everything that moves.

quote: If the invading country gave warning after warning, and outright said they were going to commence an attack, I would get my family to shelter. If they were killed, I would be pissed, just like the Iraqis are, it's just human nature.

Your privileged enough to be able to hide the Iraqis had nowhere to hide.

quote: Look it up, anti-semitism has been dramatically rising in Europe, and probably Canada too.

And why do you leave out U.S, even if its not on the rise theres been alot of it there for a long time.

quote: I am.

Youve never seen my country in the same situation so theres no way you can be sure about it.

quote: That's the only way to ensure ours will survive, MAD.

I suppose so.

quote: I agree about Iraq. As for Iran, look into it, you'll see.

Im gonna look into that, if its true would you say Irans next on the list?

Theres no point going on about this forever, you have your views and i have mine, neither of us can predict the future whatever happens happens.
I think we can all agree on one thing, Bush should be locked up for killing thousands of americans and iraqis.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by fishbrain
Well its a bit late now, he attacks the country then when he gets what he wants he apologizes and expects everything to be alright.


He need not apologize to France.



Like I said I dont know much about what went down in Yugoslavia and I cant say the Serbs didnt have it coming but I did say "nearly" wiped them out, I doubt you will find to many Serbs in Yugoslavia these days.


Like I said, they all live in the US now.



I hope not for americas sake.


For the world's sake.



So your saying Iran actually threatened to attack the U.S? Im not saying they didnt but i never heard about any of those threats.


Iran and the US have been at war since the late 70's. They have made so many threats to destroy the US and Israel it would be impossible to count. And they have provided explosives and support for almost every terror attack against the US and Israel. I provided a link to you on previously on this thread.



I didnt know about that, why would the U.N give orders to invade Iraq then have such a big problem with Bush for doing it?


That's why they have become so irrelevant in the eyes of many, you can't make threats and not follow through.



Im no expert either but I think they couldnt have prevented killing so many civilians maybe if they didnt bomb half the city and if they took my time identifying the soldiers rather than shooting everything that moves.


They select targets as carefully as possible. Think of the adrenaline and confusion in a war. It's probably pretty hard to make the right choice every time.



Your privileged enough to be able to hide the Iraqis had nowhere to hide.


How do you know?



And why do you leave out U.S, even if its not on the rise theres been alot of it there for a long time.


There's not alot of it that I'm aware of, most of the rascism here is based on skin color.



Youve never seen my country in the same situation so theres no way you can be sure about it.


If you were in the same situation, you would have enough nukes to destroy the world, but you would never use them? Ever? Then why even have them? I say I can be sure because being half Canadian, I know they are human also.



if its true would you say Irans next on the list?


I truly hope not. I hope the EU can reign them in.



Theres no point going on about this forever, you have your views and i have mine, neither of us can predict the future whatever happens happens.
I think we can all agree on one thing, Bush should be locked up for killing thousands of americans and iraqis.


I agree on both points.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram

What makes you think the U.S is so invicible my friend?Or is it the U.S has just impress you with the wars they undergo and showed you that they're god-like and unstoppable?

I feel sorry for you for thinking that way.


Well we could look at the Gulf War 1 against the 4th largest army in the world that was handed the most lopsided lost in the history of warfare. But I digress the real factor is WMDs.

Even if some grand coalition managed to win a covential war they would lose the nuclear war as everyone is a loser then. Its like trying to bring down the USSR with NATO using force both sides and the whole world lose if it was tried. There can be no winners when your fighting a enemy that have nuclear and BIO weapon arsenals like the US and Russia. If either of those countries are back into a wall and feel they are losing they will launch their WMDs.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram
Swiss didn't really have a strong military in that matter.They SHOWED military readiness by protecting their border the moment Hitler went on his invasion spree.


no, they easily couldve been invaded but swiss factories helped with german military production and they were more useful being a hostage giving germany what they needed, they had 3 choices, resource loss, war or neutrality.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram
Swiss didn't really have a strong military in that matter.They SHOWED military readiness by protecting their border the moment Hitler went on his invasion spree.


no, they easily couldve been invaded but swiss factories helped with german military production and they were more useful being a hostage giving germany what they needed, they had 3 choices, resource loss, war or neutrality.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join