Oppositions to Arabs

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by Traelin
But why do people have discontent toward us because we can handle our own problems? Sometimes I just get frustrated with all the U.S. bashing. I mean it's not my fault we have the clout. Nor is it my fault that other countries gut their militaries to the point that they are impotent against evil.

Do you really think that other countries DEPEND on US military? Yes, other countries have weak militaries but it isn't going to hurt them. The probability of these weaker countries being attacked by terrorists is very small. In fact, I would argue that the probability of these other countries, like Canada, Germany, Sweden, France (ignoring Algerian problems), etc being specifically targetted is next to zero. Besides, large militaries don't prevent terrorism.

I think other countries mistake an American individualist mentality for American arrogance.

I think you are mistaken. The problem is not American individualism. Some people criticize that but that is really up to Americans. It makes little sense for foreigners to make a statement on how much money USA should give to others, or whether it should defend other countries, etc. So what's the issue? Well, the problem is that USA is a BULLY. It tramples all over human rights, invades countries, installs proxies, overthrows governments, etc. This has been happening for many decades, ever since neoconservatives "defeated" traditional conservatives in USA. If you want some examples, here are some: Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua, Colombia, Chile, Iran, Indonesia, Iraq, and so on. Let's also not forget that you purposely block(ed) democratic revolutions in countries like Panama, Egypt, etc.

If you guys want to stay out of world issues, that is fine. I would have no problem whatsoever with that. You wouldn't help the world as much as you do now (USA donates al ot of money now) but you wouldn't cause as much harm either.

Your founding fathers will be rolling in their graves right now. USA has turned into something that they would never have agreed with. It is neither a liberal progressive country nor does it espouse conservative views of the founders. For example, you don't act in favour of liberty and freedom when it comes to foreign entities; at the same time, you ended up with a huge military and started dictating other countries. People like Thomas Jefferson would be weeping right now. You have become what you never wanted to be!

NOTE: Everything I say is from a world perspective. So when I say you are not liberal I am speaking about your external actions.

KoalaBear33

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by Traelin
That's not really true. Great Britain, Australia, and Canada are definitely behind us. Australia got shaken up by the Bali incident (10/12), but I think they are especially clear now on the situation.

How many countries do you think are TRULY supporting the US position? And how many are simply doing it to safe face and to crack down on dissidents? For example, nearly every country is actually behind the US "war" on terrorism. The question is how many will actually sacrifice their soldiers and resources for it. So far, I think there is only two supporters of USA. Britain and Isreal. Isreal because USA is its main ally; and I'm not sure why Britain is behind USA--probably because of oil (Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world and British companies wouldn't mind getting a piece of that).

Oh... WoMD=weapons of mass destruction... usually it is abbreviated as WMD (not WoMD)...

KoalaBear33

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Traelin
What's WoMD?

"WoMD" = "WMD" = "Weapons Of Mass Destruction" = what, during the cold war used to be called "NBC" weapons ("Nuclear / Biological / Chemical") although I can understand certain television network executives taking umbrage at that BTW before "NBC" it was called "ABC" with the "A" for "Atomic" ...

Now -- irrespective of pro/con military action against Iraq -- too many of us here in the West dismiss Sadam Hussein as a "madman", i.e., one prone to irrational decisions and therefore geopolitical mistakes.

He's not -- he's a sociopath, certainly, but coldly and rigorously logical. Although he's not made himself into the "new Arab Saladin" (his goal, despite my earlier mention that Saladin was a Kurd in service to the Turks) he's the geopolitical equivalent of a brilliant chess player.

I state all this to pose a thought question --

If a sociopath dictator like him (knowing, as one wag put it, that the retirement plans for dictators are notoriously poor) had only ONE say, nuclear bomb, would he:

(A) float it into New York harbor on a barge,

(B) sell it on the black market,

(C) give it to a bunch of looney tunes outside his control like Al Qaeda,

-OR-

(D) keep it in Baghdad, just in case the 101st et. al. did come a-calling ... and then threaten to wait until there were oh, I dunno, 50,000 or so US and/or allied troops banging at his bunker door, and THEN set it off, or threaten to ... ?

Nope, folks, John Wayne never faced a conundrum quite like that one.

-- In Civ, if you're a nuclear power playing against another who takes your capitol, and there's even a thin chance that it'll do some good, do you nuke the place, preferably with a lot of conquering troops inside?


--Just curious.


-Oz.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
[b]

Do you really think that other countries DEPEND on US military? Yes, other countries have weak militaries but it isn't going to hurt them. The probability of these weaker countries being attacked by terrorists is very small. In fact, I would argue that the probability of these other countries, like Canada, Germany, Sweden, France (ignoring Algerian problems), etc being specifically targetted is next to zero. Besides, large militaries don't prevent terrorism.

[b]

Hehe please tell me you're joking. Canada could not have such a small military unless the U.S. has a large one. If the tables were turned, do you honestly think Canada wouldn't be a target?? Come on, think about this for a second.

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
I think you are mistaken. The problem is not American individualism. Some people criticize that but that is really up to Americans. It makes little sense for foreigners to make a statement on how much money USA should give to others, or whether it should defend other countries, etc. So what's the issue? Well, the problem is that USA is a BULLY. It tramples all over human rights, invades countries, installs proxies, overthrows governments, etc. This has been happening for many decades, ever since neoconservatives "defeated" traditional conservatives in USA. If you want some examples, here are some: Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua, Colombia, Chile, Iran, Indonesia, Iraq, and so on. Let's also not forget that you purposely block(ed) democratic revolutions in countries like Panama, Egypt, etc.

Yeah, the U.S. is a bully that doesn't support human rights. Like the numerous times we have spoken out against China and the numerous countries in the Mideast. Every single country you listed has been a political nightmare from day one.

S. America: generally equals a political nightmare.
Panama: Noriega.
Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia: contain so many radical Muslims that my head will spin continually talking about this one.
Nicaragua: umm, the Sandanistas?

Those are awful examples in support of your argument. In fact, they bolster my argument that we have covertly and overtly supported democracy worldwide.

BTW, the poly science definition of neoconservative is one who is less conservative than, well, a conservative. But since I classify myself as a centrist, I don't really care either way.

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
If you guys want to stay out of world issues, that is fine. I would have no problem whatsoever with that. You wouldn't help the world as much as you do now (USA donates al ot of money now) but you wouldn't cause as much harm either.

Hrm, you mean the harm we caused by aiding South Korea in its fight against a brutal communist regime? Or the aid we've given to Israel? Or the fact that, even though we completely botched Vietnam, we attempted to thwart another brutal regime? Or the fact that we assisted in WW2 to overthrow the Japanese empire and Hitler? Or the fact that we provided significant military and financial assistance to Britain in WW1? Or the fact that we attempted to overthrow Castro? Or the fact that we have time and time again attempted to rebuild Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere?

We have made mistakes, let that be known. But we as Americans are generally good people. When's the last time you have personally done anything on the same level as this? Have you voted for politicians that would back such grand plans?

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
Your founding fathers will be rolling in their graves right now. USA has turned into something that they would never have agreed with. It is neither a liberal progressive country nor does it espouse conservative views of the founders. For example, you don't act in favour of liberty and freedom when it comes to foreign entities; at the same time, you ended up with a huge military and started dictating other countries. People like Thomas Jefferson would be weeping right now. You have become what you never wanted to be!

You know nothing about Thomas Jefferson if you would say such things. Oz and others know a lot more about history than I do, and have gained my utmost respect for their fact-stating. However, I will challenge you on anything regarding T.J. I have inherited a vast knowledge of him from my father, a UVA alum.

But in a way you're right. T.J. would never have supported anything beyond the Monroe Doctrine. The only allegiance to a country outside the W. Hemisphere that he would have supported was France, mostly due to his strong friendship with Marquis de Lafayette. But he was also smart enough to know that times change and people change, ergo we have such things as amendments to the Constitution and checks and balances in the govt.

He also wouldn't have supported our ridiculous immigration policies, but then again, neither do I.

KoalaBear33 [/QUOTE]

[KoalaBear33]

Iraq does not have nuclear weapons so that scenario is out of the question. But they do have crude chemical weapons. Personally I don't think this will have any noticeable impact because chemical weapons can be easily defended against (just wear suits and masks--of course, I'm talking about crude weapons).

The biggest threat to USA will come from other spontaneous events. If Saddam attacks Israel and causes casulties then USA will have a hard time controlling anything. For instance, USA will likely have to rely on indigenous forces (they are courting the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam British based group right now) and if Israel enters the fray, even these forces may not listen to USA. In addition, USA will have to occupy Iraq by itself and can't rely on proxy forces. This can result in casulties which will occur over a long period of time (sort of like Aghanistan now, where at least 10 peopel are killed every week but they are not Western troops because they are limited to a small area).

Another problem is the Kurds. If they form Kurdistan, it will cause a war in Turkey for sure. It's not clear to me who the Kurds will align themselves with. Will it be USA/Britain? Russia? Iran?

Of course, there is always the case that Saddam may escape. USA has only managed to kill one senior Al-Qaeda person and they are totally clueless on the whereabouts of Usama bin Laden and Al-Zaheri(sp?). What if Saddam just takes off (although the chances of him escaping are low since he is hated by everyone, unlike Al-Qaeda)?

KoalaBear33

[redstar1]

Originally posted by Traelin


Could you show me specific evidence of this? I'm not doubting that some businessmen probably had ties to terrorists, but many businessmen in many countries do this all the time. It's wrong and it sux, but it's life. Plus I guarantee that we dumped more money in Britain's lap to fight terrorism and for other things over the years than any American businessmen has for the IRA. Not that that excuses it. But I'm just curious, why does everyone remember the $1 that went to a corrupt terrorist, and not the $1 million that goes to fight him?

Look on Google...

Half of the reason for what is not called a peace process in Northern Ireland stems from the IRA calling a 'ceasefire' (quite how a ceasefire still allows you to shoot people is beyond me). The IRA called this because funding began to dry up as a result of UK pressure on Bill Clinton to clean up this avenue of funds.

There are countless other episodes of US sympathy for the IRA but they are neither here nor there. Americans can do what they like but the US govt have only moved to proscribe the IRA as a terrorist organisation AFTER 9/11.

The US still harbours many IRA fugitives wanted for the murder of many people.

I doubt the US has given military aid to the UK in the fight against the IRA but nevertheless the $1 is spent on killing innocent people.

How much did 4 airliners cost and how much have the US spent on not capturing the man behind it and not stopping other terrorist acts?

This is kinda what I mean about the discontent toward America. I should be the one that's annoyed, because my taxpayer dollars go to some cheeseball dictator in South America who says he's gonna fight against cartels, for example. But when it comes to repaying those favors is when you can tell who your true friends are. Much like our individual acquaintances IRL. IMHO we should stop giving foreign aid to every country except Britain, Australia, Canada, Israel, Russia, and Japan. Let the rest of the world deal with its own problems, and we'll deal with ours. At least until we as the taxpayers see some visible sign of appreciation.

Its not discontent, its a matter of method. The US, UK, Germany etc pay a good deal of money to keep South American and African dictatorships in power because a dictatorship is easier to control. Why do you think Cuba still exists? Its there because the alternative is much worse. Iraq is a threat but what is the alternative? Depose Saddam and hold elections? No chance, the British know all too well that this doesn't work.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


"WoMD" = "WMD" = "Weapons Of Mass Destruction" = what, during the cold war used to be called "NBC" weapons ("Nuclear / Biological / Chemical") although I can understand certain television network executives taking umbrage at that BTW before "NBC" it was called "ABC" with the "A" for "Atomic" ...

Now -- irrespective of pro/con military action against Iraq -- too many of us here in the West dismiss Sadam Hussein as a "madman", i.e., one prone to irrational decisions and therefore geopolitical mistakes.

He's not -- he's a sociopath, certainly, but coldly and rigorously logical. Although he's not made himself into the "new Arab Saladin" (his goal, despite my earlier mention that Saladin was a Kurd in service to the Turks) he's the geopolitical equivalent of a brilliant chess player.

I state all this to pose a thought question --

If a sociopath dictator like him (knowing, as one wag put it, that the retirement plans for dictators are notoriously poor) had only ONE say, nuclear bomb, would he:

(A) float it into New York harbor on a barge,

(B) sell it on the black market,

(C) give it to a bunch of looney tunes outside his control like Al Qaeda,

-OR-

(D) keep it in Baghdad, just in case the 101st et. al. did come a-calling ... and then threaten to wait until there were oh, I dunno, 50,000 or so US and/or allied troops banging at his bunker door, and THEN set it off, or threaten to ... ?

Nope, folks, John Wayne never faced a conundrum quite like that one.

-- In Civ, if you're a nuclear power playing against another who takes your capitol, and there's even a thin chance that it'll do some good, do you nuke the place, preferably with a lot of conquering troops inside?


--Just curious.


-Oz.

Yeah Hussein is certainly a wily one. He would definitely not give the nuke to another group. He's too hell-bent on taking 100% of the credit for its destruction. I'd say he'd hold off using it until our troops are on the doorsteps of one of his palaces. Then he'd either:

A) Use it without warning on his own city to wipe us out; or

B) Threaten to launch it at NY or DC if we come any closer.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by redstar1


Look on Google...

Half of the reason for what is not called a peace process in Northern Ireland stems from the IRA calling a 'ceasefire' (quite how a ceasefire still allows you to shoot people is beyond me). The IRA called this because funding began to dry up as a result of UK pressure on Bill Clinton to clean up this avenue of funds.

There are countless other episodes of US sympathy for the IRA but they are neither here nor there. Americans can do what they like but the US govt have only moved to proscribe the IRA as a terrorist organisation AFTER 9/11.

The US still harbours many IRA fugitives wanted for the murder of many people.

I doubt the US has given military aid to the UK in the fight against the IRA but nevertheless the $1 is spent on killing innocent people.

How much did 4 airliners cost and how much have the US spent on not capturing the man behind it and not stopping other terrorist acts?




Its not discontent, its a matter of method. The US, UK, Germany etc pay a good deal of money to keep South American and African dictatorships in power because a dictatorship is easier to control. Why do you think Cuba still exists? Its there because the alternative is much worse. Iraq is a threat but what is the alternative? Depose Saddam and hold elections? No chance, the British know all too well that this doesn't work.

As I said before, no govt. is perfect. I do not espouse what the IRA did, even though I'm an Irish Catholic. I think it's sick to target innocents. But understand that you and I have only so much influence. All govts. have done bad things, but I think the evidence shows the good outweighs the bad by far WRT America.

I can't really say I disagree with you on the Africa and S. America arguments. That's likely true, and it frustrates me to no end, especially when I foot the bill for it. But you're definitely wrong WRT Cuba. One of the reasons we worry about doing anything to them is because we still fear they have nukes left over from the USSR's presence there. And that's another reason why we have to tread lightly WRT N. Korea.

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by Traelin
Canada could not have such a small military unless the U.S. has a large one. If the tables were turned, do you honestly think Canada wouldn't be a target?? Come on, think about this for a second.

Even if the tables were turned and Canada stuck to its present policy, it won't be targetted at all. I mean it! You fail to realize that the reason people dislike or hate USA is partly because of your actions. A country like Japan is similar to USA (in terms of economy) yet few people threaten it. That's how Canada would be.

Oh, do you think USA protects Canada as a charity service? It does it for its OWN interests. During the cold war, Canada was one of your most important "properties". The shortest path to USA is through Canada. My guess is that USA will shift away from Canada in the coming decades since we aren't as important to you anymore.

Yeah, the U.S. is a bully that doesn't support human rights. Like the numerous times we have spoken out against China and the numerous countries in the Mideast. Every single country you listed has been a political nightmare from day one.
S. America: generally equals a political nightmare.
Panama: Noriega.
Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia: contain so many radical Muslims that my head will spin continually talking about this one.
Nicaragua: umm, the Sandanistas?

USA is a hypocrite; most countries are, but USA is one of the worst Western countries. You criticize China's human rights because it is in your interest. How come you don't criticize them anymore? Could it be becaus it suits your "war" on terrorism? How come you never say a thing about human rights violations in Africa? Or South AMerica?

As far as the examples I listed above, you started all the problems. It seems that you have been brainwashed by the govt. For example, did you know that Noriega was a PAID CIA agent? In fact, Bush Sr. exempted him from many investigations. Same thing with all the others. I'll let you do the research yourself. Just search the internet for those topics.

Those are awful examples in support of your argument. In fact, they bolster my argument that we have covertly and overtly supported democracy worldwide.

How do you support democracy by overthrowing democratically elected governments? How do you support democracy by aligning yourself with right wing militias that kill and torture INNOCENT people? How do you support democracy by supporting (rather, protecting) autocratic leaders?

BTW, the poly science definition of neoconservative is one who is less conservative than, well, a conservative. But since I classify myself as a centrist, I don't really care either way.

Here is how I look at it (roughly):

neoconservative: e.g. ABC (Ashcroft, Bush, Cheney); support for large military; controlling and playing a large role in the world, often for selfish purposes; more liberal than traditional conservatives; strong govt;

traditional conservative: e.g. Buchanan; do not support large militaries or large governments; not in favour of strong federal entities (like CIA, FBI, etc); more conservative than neoconservatives; not in favour getting involved in world affairs; very individualistic

Both share the conservative traits of pro-market, pro-capitalist, pro-religious, etc. Being a far leftist, I hate both of them but I think traditional conservatives will be better for the world. The way the neoconservatives are going, they will convert USA into an imperial power (I actually argue that USA is already an imperial power).

Hrm, you mean the harm we caused by aiding South Korea in its fight against a brutal communist regime? Or the aid we've given to Israel? Or the fact that, even though we completely botched Vietnam, we attempted to thwart another brutal regime? Or the fact that we assisted in WW2 to overthrow the Japanese empire and Hitler? Or the fact that we provided significant military and financial assistance to Britain in WW1? Or the fact that we attempted to overthrow Castro? Or the fact that we have time and time again attempted to rebuild Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere?

How many of these things are being done for improving the world, and how many for your own interests? Brutal communist regime? lol How come you didn't go into China? Help Vietnam? By killing 2 million people? Overthrowing Castro is a good thing? Tried to help Haiti? How? By sheltering a criminal?

We have made mistakes, let that be known. But we as Americans are generally good people.

My view is not of the American people; I'm talking about the American government. This may or may not refer to the people (depends on how you interpret a citizen within a particular econopolitical system, such as capitalism; eg. are Americans responsible for their corporations or not?).

When's the last time you have personally done anything on the same level as this? Have you voted for politicians that would back such grand plans?

Grand plans? I think the world will be better off without them!

But in a way you're right. T.J. would never have supported anything beyond the Monroe Doctrine. The only allegiance to a country outside the W. Hemisphere that he would have supported was France, mostly due to his strong friendship with Marquis de Lafayette.

You are not reading the signals. People support each other because they share the same vision, thoughts and ideas. Jefferson only supported France because it was/is a liberal country. France's vision and his matched. The French revolution was similar to the American revolution. He didn't support France because he, meaning USA, gained resources or whatever. As far as people changing, I don't think ideologies can change much especially if you are talking about idealists like Jefferson.

BTW, you are not a centrist... maybe by US standards... but according to European/Canadian standards you are on the right...

KoalaBear33

[Buster13]

I have to say I respectfully disagree on what Saddam's actions might be if he had a nuclear weapon. If he were to use it in a manner that you suggest it would have to include his own destruction, since any ties to a nuclear weapon launch that he might have would bring the ENTIRE international community down on him, probably including other Arab states.

If he is to inflict damage via any nuclear device upon the United States or his other enemies, he would have to give it to someone or a group that couldn't be tied to him, but could be controlled...

[gsmoove23]

I think the problem here is that while the US does spend an awful lot on foreign aid that foreign aid can be a mixed bag, so can all of our so called righteous military operations. Korea and Vietnam we were thwarting one brutal regime and supporting another, so-called democratic one.

Chile on the other hand was a wonderfully stable country coping at the time with a strong proletarian movement til Pinochet, don't be so quick to label it for being S American. Your statement that there was a real mess there could not be further from the truth. The real difficulty for the US gov of the time was the newly ELECTED leader was socialist. Same thing with the recent failed coup in, shoot I forgot, Brazil or Argentina, where the US gov stayed amazingly quiet as military leaders tried to unseat a newly ELECTED socialist. US involvement in that one is arguable but we certainly weren't speaking up loud to defend democratic principals in our hemisphere. Don't kid yourself, much (by no means all) of our aid has separate motives and aims from what we would wish them to be. Protecting US corporate interests abroad is a big one (we owe alot of people in S America BIG for the messes previous administrations have caused). So we have a country that certainly does have some idealistic lawmakers supporting democracy and security in foreign nations but we also have a large amount of corporate interest involved.

As for your statement of valuing a US citizen's opinion 100 times more then a Saudi's, it makes me cringe. Since the everyday Saudi's opinion of us, and the everday MidEasterner's opinion has alot to do with whether terrorism will continue in the future. If you believe US military intervention alone will snuff out terrorism I got a brick that will stop your roach problem as well. Its opinions like these that perhaps allow a greater number of Afghani civilians to die from "collateral damage" then US civilians who died in the Trade Center, with little more then a peep coming from the American public. The invasion of Iraq will be worse undoubtedly, there will be little outcry for the thousands who will die there, much of them from "smart" weapons I suppose. IMO their is little discussion in the US on the morality and the human effect of our actions. We're too wrapped up in revenge and military reactions with little in the way of intelligent approaches.

BTW I did here the news of the assassination allegedly carried out by the CIA in Yemen and I was quite upset about it, I don't know about anyone else but I am very leary about the use of assassination by my country. Whats more, currently living in Britain I can tell you that a large part of the population is quite unhappy with actions like these and the idea that they will be dragged into war in the very near future, support isn't as strong as you might think and its trickling away each day.

[gsmoove23]

Other interventions

Iran? at the time of our disastrous intervention Iran was undergoing a moderate revolution. This one though was also done with the help of British intelligence I believe.

Nicaragua? This one is confusing for me, since most of my information comes from watching the news as a kid. The one thing I managed to glean from it was there were no good guys. The idea of the US protecting democracy and liberty here is a little laughable.

Cuba- Sure he's bad, his predecessor was no better except he took American instead of Soviet support.

Panama- Nobody even bothered to tabulate the colateral damage, some say hundreds some say above a thousand, certainly above a thousand were left homeless, but Noriega was another ally who had lost his usefulness. Seems like an awful waste of life to bring the guy to justice, he didn't even have a WoMD!

You're right, we have made mistakes, we just seem to keep making em.

[vmxa1]

Re: Tying It All Together

Originally posted by Ozymandias

"However, I AM very curious as to what you define "might" and "right" as -- if you are merely observing that the strongest usually wins -- then perhaps you are too young to recall Buddhist monks burning themselves to death. Or never read how the Russian winter is notorious for overcoming military power -- or, out of curiosity, are you including weather patterns in your assessment of "might"?"

I am not quite 57. The monks were laughable. Anyone who kills themself is not going to be missed by me. I have zero respect for the act or the pepole who would do it.
Russia was bigger than Germany and if I recall Germany had a few other irons in the fire, while Russia had aid from USA.

"On 9/11, hijacked airliners were mighty -- You getting my drift here?"
They were not mighty, the people on the other flight shows that.


"1. My point vis-a-vis Europe was that, after a century or so of hot and cold war in which millions perished, there has been even more effort made to agree upon basic human freedoms, no matter how weak the human, or group of humans, is."

I think the 2 WW europe gave us is quite enough of their leadership and enlightenment thank you very much.

"2. Likewise, in America, we have a Constitution (just curious -- have you ever read it?) and laws enacted and enforced, derived from it, whose entire purpose is to mitigate (as an attorney might put it) "Might v. Right". Why do you think we have a bicameral legislature wherein the Senate guarantees that "mighty" states don't overpower "lesser" ones, thanks to the Senate?"

No laws are being broken, but they will be if it means protecting ourselfs. Irrespective of the laws, my points if it someone shoots you in the head, you are dead and it does not matter about who is right or wrong in the eyes of the law.

"-- Or how about Gore getting 300,000 more votes than Bush? Which was right and which was might?"

You might want to look at the constitution again. It provides for an electorial college, the pop vote is not relevant.

"3. My POINT is that we are, NOMINALLY, a nation of laws, in a community of nations tied together by agreements with the force of laws. My comments (which you presumably deem "anti-American") are about adhering to law and treaty."

Thats fine, but you bashed the president and I do not think your point of view is widely shared here, look at the results of yesterday. My point is that regardless of what europe thinks we will defend ourself the best way we can.

"Now, I've loved people who have done wrong, and loved them after. Just because I disagree with a guy who "won" an election by NEGATIVE 300,000 votes -- and who floated his candy-ass through the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war -- AND (worst of all!) seems intent upon shredding the Constitution for kitty litter -- DOESN'T mean I don't love America -- AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT MEANS QUITE THE OPPOSITE!"

This just what I am talking about anyway this stuff does not belong here.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33


Why do conservatives always revert to namecalling instead of actually making a valid point. Is it because you don't have a valid poitn? Anti-American? LOL As Noam Chomsky says, the concept of anti-nationalism is a concept unheard of in democratic progressive socieites. The Soviets used to label any criticism as anti-Soviet (not anti-Communist) because it appeals to nationalist senses. Ever wonder why no one ever says "anti-Canadian", "anti-German", "anti-Italian", "anti-Chinese" or whatever?

As far as might making right... well, soon that is going to be an antiquated concept... warmongers like yourself are a dying breed...

KoalaBear33

Chomsky is a true American hater. If you like him I can dismiss you now.

[roalan]

Saddam

Don't assume Saddam will not use Chem or nukes because we will retaliate in kind. Yiu never know what goes through the mind of a dictator. If they feel they can not survive the they will take all they can with them . See Hitler for example.