Bush or Kerry?

[Marc]

and it doesnt matter who wins really cos the rest of the world will still hate america.

 

[Jardar]

and it doesnt matter who wins really cos the rest of the world will still hate america.

Thats true. After what Bush did to it.

 

[Marc]

Thats true. After what Bush did to it.

Let me guess, u are from some where like Belgium arent you?

 

[Gorre]

Let me guess, u are from some where like Belgium arent you?

lol so all belgians r supposed to hate america?

american democraty is just failing, not the polical backgrounds but marketing, populism, corruption and friend politics are of importance
abuse of media etc
democraty is a nice theoretical system but it aint working anymore these days imho

 

[Marczje]

I'm not a standard anti-american, but seriously, that bush didnt make it any better.

 

[Marc]

lol so all belgians r supposed to hate america?

american democraty is just failing, not the polical backgrounds but marketing, populism, corruption and friend politics are of importance
abuse of media etc
democraty is a nice theoretical system but it aint working anymore these days imho

True, was a bit low of me to say that.

 

[Lumikki]

Neither. Place US under strict lead of a commitee formed partly from their guys, and partly from representatives of the most powerful countries in the world. And have Bush charged for genocide.

Omg, couldn't have said it better my self!

x

 

[tierk]

wtf u on about??

I didnt get $7billion from anywhere. Here is a tip for you, before you post, actually read the whole thread first ok.

Well u commented on it like u accept its a fact, so felt it needed to be pointed out. Think also your comment about balls of steel show just how little u know about anything (the man is a draft dodger ffs). Maybe if we were talking about Kennedy i would agree with ya but in this case u r wrong from first post to last.

 

[Marc]

Well u commented on it like u accept its a fact, so felt it needed to be pointed out. Think also your comment about balls of steel show just how little u know about anything (the man is a draft dodger ffs). Maybe if we were talking about Kennedy i would agree with ya but in this case u r wrong from first post to last.

lol have you actually read this thread? I was discounting that figure not accepting it and yes Bush has got balls of steel. He has to have to be president of the most hated country in the world.

 

[prodical]

anti american?

so by wat i just read mate ur completly anti american? firstly u can't justify sayin 'americas economy is crap' , there's no logic behind the statement. secondly i think ur beating down on a point there about israel?.....stop and think........who really runs america?? the jews......hence israel.....and everything else that goes with it......it goes way beyond wat we can comprehend i think.
finally y would peeps say nither? u not think they need a new leader in kerry? or we all holding out for bill and hillary in four years tim but wait let me guess u don't like him or her either! sorry for being against most of wat ur sayin mate but if it wasn't for them most of europe would be in the third world or being run by the third riech or even the communist!
i'm not american in case ur wondering....i'm irish but i don't agree with alot of things they do...but hey noones perfect!

 

[Driwen]

sorry for being against most of wat ur sayin mate but if it wasn't for them most of europe would be in the third world or being run by the third riech or even the communist!
i'm not american in case ur wondering....i'm irish but i don't agree with alot of things they do...but hey noones perfect!

USA did help europe in WW2 and after it, but if they hadnt helped europe in WW2 they would have probably been captured by the japs or germans or communists a few years later or the only capatalistic country around. Also if they hadnt helped europe with money after WW2 than most of europe countries would have had communistic revolutions and that would mean that USA would be again in a worse position.
Yes the USA helped us, but mostly because it was also in their own best interest.

Also things done earlier doesnt mean you have to be skeptical about what they do now and I doubt that the goverment Bush attacked Iraq either to protect US or to protect the Iraqi's. As Saddam wasnt a threat to US and the war and mostly the things directly after the war are not planned well to point that they wanted to help the Iraqis.

Ow and the fact that business finance political candidates so heavily (allthough not directly) points that it is profitable to do so and to me that doesnt seem to democratic.

 

[Marc]

LOL AMerica only helped the rest of the world because they would gain.

Ok, i can just about bare the crap about the Iraq war being all about oil (if it was, then why were there other countries taking part in it who had nothing to gain from these Oil fields?)

But saying that America only helped to gain in the 2nd world war lol. You anti american people really need to take your heads out of your arses and stop listening to the spinless c**** in brussels.

 

[Driwen]

LOL AMerica only helped the rest of the world because they would gain.

Ok, i can just about bare the crap about the Iraq war being all about oil (if it was, then why were there other countries taking part in it who had nothing to gain from these Oil fields?)

But saying that America only helped to gain in the 2nd world war lol. You anti american people really need to take your heads out of your arses and stop listening to the spinless c**** in brussels.

the USA didnt only helped for own benefit (which doesnt always mean gain, can also mean to preserve allies so you have trade partners and less enemies), there was also a partion to help europe. However mostly it was indeed to defend their own country and to help defend allies so they had countries with which they could still trade and less hostile armies against them. Yes Europe should be glad for USA's help, but the US didnt just do it to be noble.

and americans and the US parlement might have gone to "war" with Iraq for noble reasons or to defend their own country. However for I doubt that for Bush goverment it was like that, as they knew(or should have known) that the claim of wmd was weak and that there was no threat for the US or any west european countries. The claim that Iraq has anything to do with al qaeda is laughable as al qaeda likes Saddam as much as France likes the US and al qaeda are even less likely to have anything to do with Saddam than France does with the US(France/US just meant as simple comparison).
For Bush the reasons could have been to find something so he could get re elected as a shadowwar with terrorism wouldnt, but taking out Saddam and making Iraq democratic would. It doesnt have to be about the oil, but the amount of things that have gone wrong since the war ended points that either it was really clumsy done or that they hadnt truly thought about what to do with Iraq after Saddam is gone (which means imo that it wasnt done for the Iraqi people).
I am not saying that the war in itself was bad, but I doubt the bush goverments reason weren't meant to benefit themself either through oil or (other?) political purposes (like re-election).

 

[Marc]

the USA didnt only helped for own benefit (which doesnt always mean gain, can also mean to preserve allies so you have trade partners and less enemies), there was also a partion to help europe. However mostly it was indeed to defend their own country and to help defend allies so they had countries with which they could still trade and less hostile armies against them. Yes Europe should be glad for USA's help, but the US didnt just do it to be noble.

and americans and the US parlement might have gone to "war" with Iraq for noble reasons or to defend their own country. However for I doubt that for Bush goverment it was like that, as they knew(or should have known) that the claim of wmd was weak and that there was no threat for the US or any west european countries. The claim that Iraq has anything to do with al qaeda is laughable as al qaeda likes Saddam as much as France likes the US and al qaeda are even less likely to have anything to do with Saddam than France does with the US(France/US just meant as simple comparison).
For Bush the reasons could have been to find something so he could get re elected as a shadowwar with terrorism wouldnt, but taking out Saddam and making Iraq democratic would. It doesnt have to be about the oil, but the amount of things that have gone wrong since the war ended points that either it was really clumsy done or that they hadnt truly thought about what to do with Iraq after Saddam is gone (which means imo that it wasnt done for the Iraqi people).
I am not saying that the war in itself was bad, but I doubt the bush goverments reason weren't meant to benefit themself either through oil or (other?) political purposes (like re-election).

Ahh i do apologise, i thought you meant that america only helped as there would be some tangible gain for them, ie, money, land etc and thus being greedy. USA did what it had to do in my opinion. Lets leave the conspiracy theory's out for a minute.

WMD Havent been found yet.....FACT
Finding them is like finding a needle in a haystack..FACT
Saddam was warned from the last war not to have a nuclear/biological programme...FACT
Saddam had a nuclear/biological programme...FACT
Over 100 long range missles unaccounted for...FACT
Saddam says these were destroyed......CRAP
Saddam wouldnt let weapon inspectors in....FACT

Ok, so why wouldnt saddam let them in if he had no weapons to hide? Because hes a lying get thats why. He would move the goal posts every time by saying "yes you can come" then at the last minute "no you cant". He could of bought enough time to do whatever he had to do with his WMD. Now its common sense that i man like saddam should be removed from Power. Yes, there are other dictators in the world, but AT THE MOMENT these are not a threat to world peace. Wether you believe it or not

SADDAM WAS A THREAT TO WORLD PEACE

 

[Aiteal]

"Saddam wouldnt let weapon inspectors in....FACT"

not a fact, they were withdrawn.

Besides, to rid the world of a brutal dictator (who we armed to the teeth when he was warring with those nasty Iranians we didnt like, for the horrible crime of ridding themselves of a puppet ruler we installed by force overthrowing their democratically elected government) we ally ourselves with Islam Karimov, a lovely man who boils people alive.

Iraq aint that far froma country that DOES have nuclear weapons, WILL NOT allow inspections, and WILL NOT sign up to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

I'm all for getting rid of dictators, but lets have a little consistancy here.
A brutal dictator who kills his own people is no worse than a brutal dictator who kills his own people and just happens to be an Ally.

 

[judas]

i vote for the Gonventator Arnold for next president.
atleast he has played enough with guns to stop killing innocent civilians.
oh or put Clinton back on, atleast hes human...

 

[Jardar]

Yeah, Clinton back as President imo.

 

[Ning]

USA did help europe in WW2 and after it, but if they hadnt helped europe in WW2 they would have probably been captured by the japs or germans or communists a few years later or the only capatalistic country around. Also if they hadnt helped europe with money after WW2 than most of europe countries would have had communistic revolutions and that would mean that USA would be again in a worse position.
Yes the USA helped us, but mostly because it was also in their own best interest.

I fully agree.
If the USA cared about Europe why did they wait 2 years (1939-1941) ? I'm sure they wouldn't have fought in WWII if the Japs hadn't attacked them.


Moreover I don't think Bush has got balls of steel. Attacking a 3th world country after checking they have no WMD isn't that hard.

 

[prodical]

short sighted!!

reverse the herse!! how some of ye are caught up on the whole aspect of gain......let me give a brief refresh ere

u ever hear of the aztecs? u know the peeps there....wait they dont exist anymore.......france,spain and also the uk help wipe them out.....self gain! ah u say but thats history its irrelevant not so. its all about self gain. remember the once mighty french and english empires? achevied by how.....large armies at the time i do believe? now question.....how do u justify wat they did and dont say its any different too todays situation! iraq was for oil i admit also they removed someone who needed too be removed, and the glories empires were used for gold,spices and so on? so talk too me plz?

also did i mention i'm irish. lived with terroists less than 200km away from me. just think the amout of weapons they had hidden in this small country, yet out cia, mi6 peeps can't seen too find these weapons? so put it in perspective, iraq is one big sand pit? u think not?

:worthy:

 

[Buffer]

I fully agree.
If the USA cared about Europe why did they wait 2 years (1939-1941) ? I'm sure they wouldn't have fought in WWII if the Japs hadn't attacked them.


Moreover I don't think Bush has got balls of steel. Attacking a 3th world country after checking they have no WMD isn't that hard.

I may be wrong here, but didnt the USA only directly intervene in the European conflict beacuse a german U-Boat attacked an American ship in the Atlantic? (or was that WW1, cant be arsed to check).
Plus they also felt threatened by the rise of communism/Russia. I believe it was Patton who wanted to continue the war, after the Germans had surrendered and attack Russia, to remove the threat.

As fot the Gulf confilicts:-
First gulf conflict. If Kuwait had been a cabbage producing country instead of oil, do you really think America would of done anything about Iraq's invasion? America's goal there was to ensure oil supplies as they are one of the biggest consumers of oil.

Second gulf conflict. The events of 9/11(as the Americans call it) has been used as excuse to allow America to secure Middle Eastern oil supply. The world oil supply has usually been traded with US dollars, this has provided the US economy a secure financial trading base.
With the advent of the Euro the US dollar is under threat, as another currency widely used comes into play, essentially a rival to the dollar. Now if the Midldle East oil states decided that the Euro was a more viable currency to trade in then the US dollar, then that would cause financial problems in the USA. maybe even a US market collapse.

So if the Americans decided to liberate Iraq/Afghanistan and pump money into the countries Infrastructure then these countries/Middle East will look favourably on the USA etc. Incidentally America has always wanted to lay an oil pipeline across Afghanistan, to accquire new oil reserves from surrounding areas.

Secures US dollar, market and oil.

Call me cynical if u must

 

[Driwen]

Something being wrong 200 years ago doesnt make something now right? It was wrong, but it was in a different world. However even if US just took Iraq for the oil that might not be so bad itself, except that the US is shouting that they are doing it to protect their own country and the rest of the world.

And about not finding the weapons. At times it is actually harder to find something in a 16 sqaure mile civilized area than in a 2000 sqaure mile desert as if people use the place for storage in a desert you can see them travel in a city it will be one of the million people travelling. Off course if the weapons are just hidden underneath the earth and people have just hide them there and dont come back for them, it might be hard to find it.
However I dont think you can just duh a hole and throw in your wmd weapons in it and expect them to be useful after you get them out, atleast not the missiles. And than there is the reason if Saddam had wmd's why didnt he use them then? He did in the first Gulfwar and he most likely knew that if the forces reached bagdad it was over.

WMD Havent been found yet.....FACT
Finding them is like finding a needle in a haystack..FACT
Saddam was warned from the last war not to have a nuclear/biological programme...FACT
Saddam had a nuclear/biological programme...FACT
Over 100 long range missles unaccounted for...FACT
Saddam says these were destroyed......CRAP
Saddam wouldnt let weapon inspectors in....FACT

you wont just bury high tech weapons in the sand, but a bunker in the middle of nowhere could, but you would find that sooner or later. But bigger question why would Saddam not have used them or have let the terrorist use them after Americans had taken bagdad.

The missiles were count exactly when, as 10 years might mean the missiles have been sold to other countries or have broken down and Saddam rather wanted to let the world think he might have the possibility of wmd's (or he just hid them to achieve this).

Weapon inspectors were in Iraq just months before the US attacked and could have stayed longer. Saddam however wasnt exactly completly cooperative, but when asked about something and then forced he did cooperate with the inspectors requests. So he hardly refused them. Ow and the inspectors didnt believe Iraq had wmd's.

edit: buffer the USA attacked germany because germany declared war on the USA after pearl habor. And patton was a bit of a nutcase, a "good" general but hardly someone the US goverment would listen to for political advice (atleast thats what I remember).

 

[Buffer]

reverse

also did i mention i'm irish. lived with terroists less than 200km away from me. just think the amout of weapons they had hidden in this small country, yet out cia, mi6 peeps can't seen too find these weapons? so put it in perspective, iraq is one big sand pit? u think not?

Big difference in that situation is NI has never had a massive influx of British armed forces come steam rolling in. Its a police action rather than a war. The IRA have always claimed its a war, but they have fought like terroists.
They have inflicted civilain casualties, to try and force the Government to withdraw its troops from NI. They also hide behind what could be termed civilains.

Im not saying that the British army hasnt made mistakes and civilians been killed. But its a total different perspective really. How long do you think the IRA would last if a joint NATO force decided to come in and sort it? The whole thing is on a different scale.

Thankfully for all it now seems to be fighting over the discussion table.
Im not flaming you, I just thought your post was out of context a bit

 

[Buffer]

edit: buffer the USA attacked germany because germany declared war on the USA after pearl habor. And patton was a bit of a nutcase, a "good" general but hardly someone the US goverment would listen to for political advice (atleast thats what I remember).

I stand corrected
lusitania incident was WW1, just checked and it wasnt striclty an American ship.

 

[Jardar]

reverse the herse!! how some of ye are caught up on the whole aspect of gain......let me give a brief refresh ere

u ever hear of the aztecs? u know the peeps there....wait they dont exist anymore.......france,spain and also the uk help wipe them out.....self gain! ah u say but thats history its irrelevant not so. its all about self gain. remember the once mighty french and english empires? achevied by how.....large armies at the time i do believe? now question.....how do u justify wat they did and dont say its any different too todays situation! iraq was for oil i admit also they removed someone who needed too be removed, and the glories empires were used for gold,spices and so on? so talk too me plz?

also did i mention i'm irish. lived with terroists less than 200km away from me. just think the amout of weapons they had hidden in this small country, yet out cia, mi6 peeps can't seen too find these weapons? so put it in perspective, iraq is one big sand pit? u think not?

:worthy:

Well duh mate, ofcourse Bush is gaining billions on this raid. Else he wouldnt do this. Its all about money, and power. It always will be.

Anyway, ive read all the threads, and there are many ways to see this, and probably none of them are correct. But in general, i think Bush is doing a really bad job as a president.

 

[prodical]

stats....

well this was a good one i thought, posted by buffer...

''Big difference in that situation is NI has never had a massive influx of British armed forces come steam rolling in. Its a police action rather than a war. The IRA have always claimed its a war, but they have fought like terroists.
They have inflicted civilain casualties, to try and force the Government to withdraw its troops from NI. They also hide behind what could be termed civilains''

are u english or irish mate? firstly too call it a 'police action' is a bit far? how u ask? this is a fact: ''15000 british army troops in NI'' how many in iraq? half that? and how big is iraq?

also this one,
''How long do you think the IRA would last if a joint NATO force decided to come in and sort it? The whole thing is on a different scale''. eh mate remember we did come with five feet of killing the british pm...dear old maggy? u can be guarenteed that the brits had spies crawlling all over this country? oh and i can bet that the cia,and interpole were prob on the case aswell?

mate don't get me worng i'm not tryin too create and arguement just a debate. so plz do reply? looking forward too it.

 

[Buffer]

well this was a good one i thought, posted by buffer...

are u english or irish mate? firstly too call it a 'police action' is a bit far? how u ask? this is a fact: ''15000 british army troops in NI'' how many in iraq? half that? and how big is iraq?

Well even tho it makes no difference I am English. From what I have seen, read, experienced the actions in NI by the British armed forces was generally restrained to contain and control, ie a Police Action. As I said before things have happened where the British armed forces may have been at fault or in error. Never have the British used a pub bombing or a bomb in a civilian target such as London. Sure they may have conducted raids on suspected areas to clear/arrest people.

For your quoted number of 15000 troops in NI, is that current forces or in the height of the conflict? So you are saying 7500 British troops were involved in the last gulf war? There the British army served as part of a much larger multi-national task force in Iraq.

eh mate remember we did come with five feet of killing the british pm...dear old maggy? u can be guarenteed that the brits had spies crawlling all over this country? oh and i can bet that the cia,and interpole were prob on the case aswell?

I find the use of WE(as in you) here disturbing. Im sure the IRA and splinter groups were/are infiltrated by insiders/spies. There is a big difference in that Iraq was more of an invasion once war happens politics matter less, NI is a poltical/religious nightmare. and has been for decades.

mate don't get me worng i'm not tryin too create and arguement just a debate. so plz do reply? looking forward too it.

No problem

 

[HerculesPluto]

Death to all

i demand Nixons head becomes master of teh whole verrrrrrld! either that or Arnie

 

[Ala]

cba reading all that..

Americas economy is crap, and the crime rate is high. Why the heck is he trying to take over other countries and wasting money?

One word for ya m8, oil.

An if you're an American reading this, enrol to vote and get rid of Bush N O W!!

 

[Buffer]

For those that post "snappy" one liners, please dont, you are the reason this off-topic forum was almost closed. If you want to post try creating a discussion rather than just having a dig at someone. Far better to say "I think USA/UK(Insert country) has made a mistake because of reasons xxxx" then posting "USA sux it was about oil" for example

 

[Ning]

America is evil.