well said bandit! i entirely agree.

and UP, for the umpteenth f*cking time, will you stop trying to slate myself, bandit, lupe and people with similar views by implying that we only speak out against US policy. "Of course, these 2 great democrats and peace lovers will not explain us why they don't shout against a third world nation..." bollocks, utter bollocks. i myself spoke out against the taliban regime long before sep11th. i've spoken out against the iraqi treatment of the kurds prior to the gulf war. your attempts to demonise us by implying that we just want to "bash america" is tidieous and out-right wrong.

please stop it.

- qo.

It seems that the only use the Scud's could possibly have would be as a carrier of some type of WMD. 15 Scud's with conventional warheads pack almost no punch and their accuracy is woefully inadequate One US bomber could drop 15 bombs of the same weight more accurately than the Scud's.

"why the hell is an poor nation, with a failing economy spending shed loads of money on new weapons?!?"

One suspects lots of reasons, but one might be that Military spending tends to be good for the economy.

QO, the reason UP and others give you the stones on your posts, is that you DO always take the "Anti-USA" tact on everything. That is not to say that you don't have the right to say it, or that you never speak out on other subjects. It's just that mostly, the discussions here involve those with differing viewpoints. Others will voice their opinions, and they will not always be the same as yours. Thatís what this is all about!

Where I have a problem with the posts that many write here is the bashing, misquoting and out and out lying that takes place. Hereís a quote or two from Estragon to prove the point:

"It's worth remembering that, while we occasionally reflect upon GWB as the leader of a nation in economic decline, two-thirds of whose voters didn't vote for him, the entirely mad Kim is the leader of a nation in its economic death-throes where no one freely voted for him."

First part, a ìnation in economic declineî, simply a lie. 5.1% growth in the last quarter, and you say we are a ìnation in economic declineî? Sorry, not true. You can't base a countries economic growth or decline by the stock market.

The second part about GWB is true, but entirely misleading. Yes, almost two thirds of the people in the country did not vote for him, but lets break that down and get to the truth. Half the people in the country did not vote at all! Of the remaining half, slightly more than half DID vote for GWB, making him the duly and legally elected President, despite the attempted theft of the election by Al Gore and the Democratic party. So, while the statement is true as taken, it is, in my humble opinion, a lie by exclusion of fact.

The third part of the sentence, the portion about ìPresidentî Kim, is the only part that is factual. Well, I guess one out of three isnít badÖ

Bottom line is, if you present things in a logical sequence without clouding the issue with misinformation, the discussions will be much more enjoyable, and not break down into the insult fests that even I have stooped to on occasion. Of course, some people just beg to be slammed, and that will always happen as long as this board exists, I believe. But it also ads some spice and laughter to my day!!! Take it with a grain of salt, and just have a good time. We arenít going to effect any change in our governments from here, so donít take it personally! Cheers!

Originally posted by Lupe_101
"why the hell is an poor nation, with a failing economy spending shed loads of money on new weapons?!?"

One suspects lots of reasons, but one might be that Military spending tends to be good for the economy.

Military spending is only "good for the economy" if you spend it in your own country. Buying goods of ANY type from outside your own boarders is bad for your econemy.

Originally posted by Lupe_101
yeah, or maybe the whole gung-ho nature of the US military at the moment caused them to massively screw up.

Another example of someone who only takes the anti US side.

Loopy, the US military did not initiate the stoppage and boarding of the Korean vessle. They only assisted the Spaniards AFTER they had boarded and found the SCUDS, and only after the Spanish Navy had requested their assistance.


Wow, you really make it easy some times...

your statement is true AR, but consider that the US had been tracking the ship since it left port. i think its reasonable to assume that the spanish intercepted the ship at the request of the US. of course i can't prove that, but why does a spanish ship stop another ship in international waters, then systematically searches it, when the only obvious reason is that they painted over their own name plate?
doesn't add up.

- qo.

Sorry AR I don't actually read your posts any more.
If your going to address somthing to me which it looks like you have, can you write it in capitals, that way I might get the jist as I scan down the thread.

Cheers.

I think the problem here is that we just don't take a pro-US side. I wager that the majority of the people with different views about America are not FROM America (Bandit, Lupe, etc) . I'm sorry that we all can't just say the pledge of allegiance and bow down to the only remaining super-power in the world. I bet if you were to take a worldwide poll on America right now regarding their foreign policies, you'd find yourself in a ginormus minority. That IS what we are talking about here, specifically their foreign policy regarding Iraq. I'm surprised more people aren't harassing you for your Pro-American Pro-War Pro-Kicking-Ass attitude.

There always must be a balance, I assume.

I agree.

what surprises me however is that the pro-a$$kicking lobby seem to be massively and disproportionately prevelant on the web.

the web also seems to house a disproportionate number of people with right wing attitudes.

Its an interesting social phenomenon... Think I might start a thread in the general area to discuss it.

Personally I think America coped with Sep 11 through a massive and outspoken show of unity and solidarity, this was transformed into action through foreign policy, a sort of "now its our turn" kind of attitude.

This must have been a great comfort to a nation who'd never suffered an incident like Sep 11, however now, a year and a bit down the line, one cannot be seen to object to any action taken in the name of sep 11 because it negates the original desire for unity and solidarity, almost negates it. hence those opposed to the war have for the sake of social stability, quietened down.

least thats one theory.

Originally posted by quiet one
your statement is true AR, but consider that the US had been tracking the ship since it left port. i think its reasonable to assume that the spanish intercepted the ship at the request of the US. of course i can't prove that, but why does a spanish ship stop another ship in international waters, then systematically searches it, when the only obvious reason is that they painted over their own name plate?
doesn't add up.

- qo.

I must say that it is entirely possible that the US notified the Spaniards about the ship, and even possibly requested they intercept. Stranger things have happened. But the multi-national forces that are patrolling the area now often stop, board, and inspect ships of all nationalities. Itís been going on for some time now, and has turned up many violations of international law. Itís just that this one was highly visible. Also, the painted out name and registration number was not the only reason for stopping the ship. As was stated previously many times, they also refused to identify themselves, and lied about the cargo they were carrying. When the Spaniards inspected the ship, they found the missiles hidden underneath bags of dry cement. Now, if the crew knew what they were doing and carrying was totally legal, why would they try to deceive everybody? Probable cause. Good on the Spaniards for catching them, good on the US for determining the facts, and getting the cargo where it needed to goÖ

I profess that you are both wrong. The reason there seem to be more "right-wingers" then you care to believe is that there are just more of us. The Anti-everything people are simply in the minority. By your standards, there are more ìright-wingersî on the internet. I doubt it. My opinion on the ìKick-azzî phenom you describe is that there are more people who want terrorism wiped out in this world than people who want us to just buckle under. I guarantee, if the terrorists had hit YOUR country, killed thousands of your innocent countrymen, you would be singing a different tune. There is a time for laying low, and there is a time to stand up and be counted. The tongue lashings you two take have no bearing on whether you are pro or anti American. Itís that you take the Anti stance on EVERY topic that involves the USA or the war on terrorism. Show me one post where you took the Pro-USA side. I havenít seen one from either of you. Also, you need to back up your statements with fact, and stop twisting facts and otherís words to suit your taste. It is uncouth, and so easily flamed that it makes you look foolish.

[Edited on 12-12-2002 by Affirmative Reaction]

yeah, the Korean things a little worrying.
Guess we'll have to see how that one plays out.

I'd love to get solid evidence for exactly why we're attacking Iraq, I simply can't see a reason for it that makes economic or political sense.

More worryingly, if it is just because saddam is a "bad person" does the US intend to continue on to other trouble spots after Iraq?

There was talk early on of going after any country that harboured terrorists, are we going to see a continued campaign against other dictators and politicians after this?

Originally posted by Lupe_101
yeah, the Korean things a little worrying.
Guess we'll have to see how that one plays out.

I'd love to get solid evidence for exactly why we're attacking Iraq, I simply can't see a reason for it that makes economic or political sense.

I thought that you have been arguing the last couple of months that the econimc and political motivations was the oil.
So now you acknowledge that Bush's war on terrorism is authentic otherwise why risk the political and economic fallout. Not that the political fallout will last for long.

"I thought that you have been arguing the last couple of months that the econimc and political motivations was the oil."

not me. I'm on the "why on earth are we doing this" side, Simply can't see a valid reason. oils a possibility but I believe people have pointed out that you have enough oil in Canada.

another possibility would be oil "control" Iraq would allow you to limit oil to middle eastern countrys and funnily enough Russia, but that seems all a bit moustache-twirling-evil-bond-villian-like

The best I could think of so far is psychological. The US went to war after sep 11 and you haven't really had a discernable victory yet, failing to get Bin Ladan etc. Iraq could provide that victory. But its a flimsy reason at best.

"So now you acknowledge that Bush's war on terrorism is authentic otherwise why risk the political and economic fallout. Not that the political fallout will last for long. "

this war doesn't really risk political fall out, as I said, psychologically it could give the people the victory they want and that'll boost bush no end, it'll also be a walk over.

I am on the side of the fence however that is against it because I simply can't see a good reason to be for it.

and we'd still be doin it if it hadn't been for you pesky kids ;P