Sept. 11th

[Durzel]

Now I honestly don't know a thing about engines, but I reckon its the tappets.

 

[throdgrain]

Nar it's the cam chain mate .

 

[legendario]

It's neither. Its the altenator.

 

[doh_boy]

You're both wrong, its the Donkey Flange.

 

[Shocko]

The big endD) has gone, i reckon

 

[doh_boy]

Originally posted by Shocko
The big endD) has gone, i reckon

nah she's round the back sulking

 

[prime1]

Originally posted by Shocko
You are one retarded fuckwit. You are clearly American, which i can be sure of due to your spelling of certain countrys names.

First of all, to do with the list of countrys that the US has illegally intervened in. Instead of waffling on about history, i'll just point out that you included Vietnam in your list of justified aggression receivers. A bunch of peasants, fighting for their freedom after rebelling against colonial french rule, a threat to the world? What bollocks.

The US makes up 33% of the UN's funding, due to the fact that the US controls over 25% of the world's wealth - Go look at the combined funding for all EU nations(who together equal the wealth of the US), and you'll see that the US is only paying what it should. You point to Afghanistan in the 80s as an example of good US involvement. Wtf is that? Russia invaded Afghanistan, because it wanted to, just like the US invaded Vietnam because it wanted to, and is now to invade Iraq(so it seems). If you are against the Soviet agression of the past, how can you be for the American agression of the past, and especially the present?

Yes, the US is the most evil state in the world, yes, the US is an evil empire, and yes, i vote yes, for the whole general board jointly flaming you for daring to justify the actions of the US so blatantly, whilst spewing such utter BS!

Im not American, I'm English, i just type stuff out quickly, and cuase i dont give a fuck about who im talking to here, and there are no ramifications on me, i dont bother spellchecking or grammarchecking, i type as quick as possible and dont bother proof reading it - whats the point? In fact looking through what i personally wrote in my last few posts, i fail to see any conistent mispellings of country names, most of the names i copied and pasted from someone else's post.

The US did not INVADE Vietnam u idiot. The north Vietnamese held a soviet *sponsored* uprising to take over the country. The South Vietnamese did not want this.. civil war. The US intervened cause if the North succeeded the US's *sworn enemy* would have gained another puppet state and moved further into Asia - ever noticed how those peasants were fighting with Russian weapons?

To go back to war with Iraq would be legal, because the original UN mandate for war allowed regime change as the possibility for ending the conflict. Saddam simply brokered a deal to stop the war before this happened. This mandate is still in effect, a new Gulf War would not be Gulf War2, it would be Gulf War 1b. If Iraq was not violiating the peace treaty, and the US went in, THEN it would be illegal.

Judging from the amount of pollitcal strife that followed and went on during the Vietnam war, and the secrecy involving the early years of teh war - its safe to say that the US were not overly keen to get involved, and neither were its citizens, but that its governemtn felt what was happening there was significant enough to warrent intervention. France had already relinquished control or was in the process of relinquishing control of Vietnam at that stage, so your "freedom fighter" argument is shite.

You use freedom and human rights among your arguments to try and justify the actions of regimes that would enitrely deny them to its people and to poor scorn on other nation states trying to protect themsevles indirectly trhrough trying to initiate or preserve democracy within these states. Why dont you go live in North Korea/Iraq etc now and then see how "unjstufied" the US is in trying to stop these kinds of regimes.

To be honest there isnt much point arguing with you either as you are clearly one of these fucking idiots that will beleive any anti-american conspiracy theory(regardless of the lack of evidence or how thing and scraped the evidence is) thrown your way. Keep to searching the web for alien abductions and US coverups etc etc and stop bothering those who are routed in the real world. I bet you are one of these morons that believes the US attacked themselves on September 11th.

 

[Shocko]

Originally posted by prime1
The US did not INVADE Vietnam u idiot. The north Vietnamese held a soviet *sponsored* uprising to take over the country. The South Vietnamese did not want this.. civil war. The US intervened cause if the North succeeded the US's *sworn enemy* would have gained another puppet state and moved further into Asia - ever noticed how those peasants were fighting with Russian weapons?

Go read some history books, because you look well stupid calling me a fool

The Vietnamese, as a people, rose up against the colonial French rule, of French Indo-China. The US stepped in, and brokered a deal:
The North was to be controlled by the people's party, at the head of the revolt, and headed by Ho Chi Min.
The South was to be controlled by a US sponsered regime - Nothing more than a puppet leader.
There was going to be a free refferendum, organised by the US, to see what the Vietnamese people wanted. This was to key to the end of the revolt - The people's party were promised that the people of Vietnam would decide their own fate. Several years later, the time frame for the refferendum been and gone, the North realised that there was going to be no refferendum, hence they restarted the rebellion/war. Put it this way - Promising a free refferendum, but then buggering off leaving a puppet leader in control, simply because you know what the Vietnamese people want, and you don't like them, is bad enough; Let alone invading the country when they realise what you've done and take action.

No, i don't believe any of the conspiracy theories about 11Sept, or at least any of the current ones - 11Sept, aside from being my sister's birthday, was the day when the US payed the price for its viscious and agressive recent history. Now, i must go to college, which is surely more worthwhile then staying here and "debating" with such an uninformed fucktard

 

[stu]

Originally posted by prime1
To go back to war with Iraq would be legal, because the original UN mandate for war allowed regime change as the possibility for ending the conflict. Saddam simply brokered a deal to stop the war before this happened. This mandate is still in effect, a new Gulf War would not be Gulf War2, it would be Gulf War 1b. If Iraq was not violiating the peace treaty, and the US went in, THEN it would be illegal.

*sigh*

I'm not offering opinion. I'm presenting fact.

In January, when Bush began talking about "regime change" in Iraq, he signed an intelligence order directing the CIA to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. This violates US law.

So feel free to witter on about peace treaties as much as you like. It has nothing to do with the illegality of US action.

You also totally misunderstand the concept of the "Cold War". The USSR was the *sworn enemy* of the US? Why didn't they declare war then?

And if you want to talk about puppet states - your hated Iraq was a puppet state of the US. As was Taliban-led Afghanistan. Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were indigenous operatives funded by the USA. Saddam's chemical weapons were provided to him by the USA to fight Iran. The Republican Guard were trained in weapons, tactics, and interrogation by the USA. Not to mention the current puppet-government in Afghanistan - Karzai has absolutely no mandate from the Afghani people, and his government is infested with tribal warlords and ex Al-Qaeda. All sponsored by the democracy-loving United States.

Oh, also, there has already been a second Gulf War - it was called Operation Desert Fox.

Apart from these minor points, your post makes perfect sense.

 

[prime1]

Originally posted by Shocko

Go read some history books, because you look well stupid calling me a fool

The Vietnamese, as a people, rose up against the colonial French rule, of French Indo-China. The US stepped in, and brokered a deal:
The North was to be controlled by the people's party, at the head of the revolt, and headed by Ho Chi Min.
The South was to be controlled by a US sponsered regime - Nothing more than a puppet leader.
There was going to be a free refferendum, organised by the US, to see what the Vietnamese people wanted. This was to key to the end of the revolt - The people's party were promised that the people of Vietnam would decide their own fate. Several years later, the time frame for the refferendum been and gone, the North realised that there was going to be no refferendum, hence they restarted the rebellion/war. Put it this way - Promising a free refferendum, but then buggering off leaving a puppet leader in control, simply because you know what the Vietnamese people want, and you don't like them, is bad enough; Let alone invading the country when they realise what you've done and take action.

No, i don't believe any of the conspiracy theories about 11Sept, or at least any of the current ones - 11Sept, aside from being my sister's birthday, was the day when the US payed the price for its viscious and agressive recent history. Now, i must go to college, which is surely more worthwhile then staying here and "debating" with such an uninformed fucktard

The ability to *read* books and the ability to *understand* what they are describing are too very different skills, and sadly you lack the latter. I myself have not read a great deal on the specific vietnam conflict. I have however looked at reasonable detail at the history of the pollitics between russia/China and the US/NATO in the Asian arena. When looking at Vietnam you should look at Korea, and the reasons and results of the conflict that took place there shortly before Vietnam - this was another Soviet/China attempt to foster a revolution within a country in order that they can take control.

You seem to be conveniently ignoring Russias involvement in the whole affair and its subsequent threat to the West, a peasant revolt on its own means nothing to the US. A peasant revolt sponsored by the Soviet Union resulting in an extension of communist rule and power within Asia, would have had imediate and severe ramifications for all of the "West" . Subsequently this simple "peasant revolt" was neither simple, nor were the real people in charge "peasants".

You claim the US cares nothing for people of other countries, and is only interested in its own economics and oil etc

Well last i checked there wasnt a whole lot of oil in vietnam, and vietnam was hardly a major trading partner with the US either. The US went in to stop the spread of communism, in its attempt to bring "freedom" IE "democracy" the rest of the world. I do not know the exact reasons why this *promised* election never took place, however looking at other similar and current events throughout history it was probably a stalling tactic in the hope of avoiding a full scale war, or the US never believed that the North or South would actually accept the result of an election - and do u seriosuly think the communist rebels would then accept handing back thier newly won powerbase in the North, or the democrat south would then convert to communism on the result of a highly dubious election?

Ultiamtely if it wasnt for the US's attempts to defend and maintain democracy wed all be pretty fucked right now, the Soviet Union would not have collapsed and would have been able march unchcecked across the whole globe, going back even further (and regardless of the mroal questions regarding the US's late entry etc) the outcome of WW1 and 2 could ahve been very difficult without them as well.

What they do is in our interests as well as theres and as such attempts to stop what they are doing plays directly in to the hands of those that would oppose the "free" world. I say again, go live in these states that you think the US should not have intervened in, i suspect it may change your some what immature and sensationalist view of the US.

 

[legendario]

No..you've got it all wrong.

George Bush is the Devil and Saddam Husein's bitch. They fell out over kenny and now they want a fight/war.

Have you not seen south park ffs.

Ignorance scares me.

 

[stu]

You're so dense prime :/

 

[xane]

Its pointless discussing Vietnam in relation with the current situation, US policy has changed dramatically since and people are wiser, also the "cold war" between USA and USSR is dead and gone.

Vietnam was 30-40 years ago, you may as well be discussing WWII or Napoleonic strategies.

 

[prime1]

Originally posted by stu


*sigh*

I'm not offering opinion. I'm presenting fact.

In January, when Bush began talking about "regime change" in Iraq, he signed an intelligence order directing the CIA to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. This violates US law.

So feel free to witter on about peace treaties as much as you like. It has nothing to do with the illegality of US action.

You also totally misunderstand the concept of the "Cold War". The USSR was the *sworn enemy* of the US? Why didn't they declare war then?

And if you want to talk about puppet states - your hated Iraq was a puppet state of the US. As was Taliban-led Afghanistan. Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were indigenous operatives funded by the USA. Saddam's chemical weapons were provided to him by the USA to fight Iran. The Republican Guard were trained in weapons, tactics, and interrogation by the USA. Not to mention the current puppet-government in Afghanistan - Karzai has absolutely no mandate from the Afghani people, and his government is infested with tribal warlords and ex Al-Qaeda. All sponsored by the democracy-loving United States.

Oh, also, there has already been a second Gulf War - it was called Operation Desert Fox.

Apart from these minor points, your post makes perfect sense.

Yes .. but Bush signed that mandate in response to Iraq not agreeing to thier side of the peace treaty. Operation Desert Fox was not a war, it was a miltiary operation, theres a very large difference.

You dont seem to understand the concept of a Cold War, when 2 enemies hate each other, but know that open hostilities will result in both of then being annihilated, they therefore oppose each other wherever they can, without thier forces ever actually exchanging fire, because to do so could start an actual war that neither could win. Rest assured that if 1 or the other thought it could actually take out the other without ramifactions, it would have. The arsenal of several thousand nuclear warheads was the reason war was never officially declared. They both referred to each other as enemies regularily.

Iraq was not a puppet state, if it was a puppet state it would not have gone against the US's wishes and invaded Kuwait. They develop their own weapons of mass destruction, whatever (if any) the US and Russia supplied them would be insignifant compared to what they have, and what they seek now. Neither were their soldiers trained by the US so that they could be used on thier own people like that, it was done to help Iraq deal with hostile threates from Iran, a nation openly hostile to the US.

Yes, it backfired on them in a big way, but the Iran/Iraq situation was beyond Americas control anyway and Iraq is capable and has developed its own WOMD, it did not need the US for this.

The taliban were not sponsored by the US, EVER. The mujahadeen (however u spell it) was sponsored by the US. The Taliban came from Pakistan and took control later, because the pollitical and economic climate in the region made it easy for them to do so, the Taleban was an ilegal uprising - that is why they were not recognised as a government by the UN.

Karzai was orginally setup by the US, that is true, however he now has a mandate from the people as his original 6 month term is long gone, and the loya jurga (the Afghan version of parliament) re elected him as leader - an offical mandate from the people. There are no al'qaeda in his government, id like to know how you are aware of this, being that the US authorities clearly arn't, perhaps you should tell them so that they can arrest them before they do some harm.

The tribal warlords in power in afghanistan is the same as its always been, and the tirbal system is the system the Afghan people want. You are trying to apply western government and pollitcal values to a system totaly alien to us. The closest comparrison is that the Tribes are like our counties and the warlords are the mayors - its the way afghanistan has always been, and to get rid of this system (as by your comments you seem to think would be best) would deffinitely be imposing something on them they didnt want.

The system may receed over time, as afghanistan stabilises and the current leaders pass away/step down, but in the mean time, there simply is no other way. If the US tried to stop it, war would have broken out again anyway.

 

[prime1]

Originally posted by stu
You're so dense prime :/

o dear god, i cant be fucked with you and your incredibly superior intelligence anymore. Fucking school kid and you think you know it all.

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

Originally posted by stu
You're so dense prime :/

I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[Sar]

Originally posted by prime1


Yes .. but Bush signed that mandate in response to Iraq not agreeing to thier side of the peace treaty. Operation Desert Fox was not a war, it was a miltiary operation, theres a very large difference.

Yeah both sides are meant to fight back in one.

 

[doh_boy]

Iraq doesn't, afaik, make there own weapons. They get component parts and assemble them. Colin(ffs coal-in my arse) Powell said one of the reasons they were interested in the war on iraq is because they could have the component parts for WOMD, he refused to say they had them, only that they could make them (considering Saddams track record... :/)

Also I didn't realise Yeltsin was anything to do with america, I just thought that the russian people got pissed with the current government and decided have a nice friendly coup.

During the cold-war both sides acted as irresponsibly as each other. Both thought that their way of government was better than the other and tried to stop the spread of the opposing doctrine. Neither had more noble aspirations other than to stop the "Evil" spread of Communism\Capitalism. Since we now live, fairly peacefully, beside china, Cuba and north Korea(?) you can safely assume that communism isn't evil.

The reason why you seem to be getting a rather cold reception is that the bombastic view you seem to hold is the exact view that has given the us the reputation is has. No lone country has the right to go around and boss everyone about, even if they can. The whole reason the UN exists is so that the world can police itself without one country having the choice.

The reason why I am not "for" a war against Iraq is, partly, for the good it'll do. If we do manage to topple sadam, and the whole regime, we will put someone we choose in place. Then iraq, and likely (the now not as friendly) saudi people will just think that the government is just a "puppet" of "the west" and will not be trusted. I do not think waging war now will have any postive effect, in the long run, in the area. All it will do is further alienate the region against any and all western governments.

 

[stu]

don't bother doh_boy, your logical argument is clearly just pinko liberalism to prime

 

[doh_boy]

*shrugs* I kinda thought I'd say something because I don't totally agree with you so I figured he'd be a bit calmer with the suggestions I made. I nearly did have a big go at him about the whole "You would be speaking German if it wasn't for the US" thing until I re-read his post!!

 

[prime1]

Originally posted by doh_boy
*shrugs* I kinda thought I'd say something because I don't totally agree with you so I figured he'd be a bit calmer with the suggestions I made. I nearly did have a big go at him about the whole "You would be speaking German if it wasn't for the US" thing until I re-read his post!!

I dont mind your comments, you sound more open to changes and you dont sound like you have the "we hate the US no matter what" mentality. I do agree with a lot of your comments on whether removing him will do any good, following on that the other arab states wont trust the "new" iraq. Its a dilema. In this case I am for the war on Iraq for 2 reasons only. I do not agree with any one country telling everyone else how to live, i find this aspect of western foreign policy, dofficult to stomach (exploitative trade in Africa for example) . What I have been talking about though are actions that have taken place or are intended to take place to protect a country or group of countries.

There has to be a point where intervention is necassary. If a country is sitting there, being openly hostile to another country, buidling up its arsenal of weaponry and making threatening actions - and having a history of aggressive manouvres and a shown brutality towards its own people as well as those of other countries, i see no problem in the other country taking action to protect itself - why wait for the other country to attack, if there is a very real risk of them doing so, stop them before it happens.

The other reason is that I do find regimes like Iraqs to be offensive and insulting to mankind and would like to see all such governments wiped from the face of the earth for all eternity.

With the german ww2 comment, i was very careful in how i worded that, as i believe we could have won without american *military* intervention, it just would have taken a lot longer - we had commonwealth manpower to callup to the tune of more than a million soldiers, but it would have taken time to assemble those. It was Americas supplies to us that kept us going and it was Germany's agression towards Russia that lost them the war though, as they couldnt fight us and them.

 

[prime1]

Oh and communism per se isnt evil.. however communism is flawed at its very routes as it is implemented by men. Men are easily corrutped and will always abuse thier power. It was the flagrant abuse of power within the communist states that led to teh shocking human rights violations and death tolls. For this reason, I view the spread of *that* communism as wrong.

I however am a "capitalist democrat" and as such i would not like to live under a communist government - even if it was the perfect inception of communism as it was intended.

 

[tris-]

Originally posted by doh_boy
*shrugs* I kinda thought I'd say something because I don't totally agree with you so I figured he'd be a bit calmer with the suggestions I made. I nearly did have a big go at him about the whole "You would be speaking German if it wasn't for the US" thing until I re-read his post!!

I also agree thats bollox to, US didnt end the war, the war ended because Hitler commited suicide and so they give up (i think) so why is the US thes ones to congratulate for that? do we know for certain he wouldnt of done it if the US played no part at all? we know nothing like that for certain so why should the US always take the credit?

 

[Daffeh]

so you'd rather live in a society where we must compete against each other, not caring about others, over a society where everyone is equal?


although i agree that communism is destined to failure, simply because it is performed by mankind

 

[doh_boy]

My point was that I dislike the fact that we are going to war on america's say so. They are acting like they own the place (the world) and I would much rather them act as if they were a part of the UN not the UN is a part of america.

As for Communism I agree that the system was let down by the implementation but it will always appear favourable to countries where there is a lot of poverty. I was trying to make the point that the ussr did not need to foster pro-communist feeling, it was more-than likely there already. oh an by the way I'm more of a Liberal Socialistrolleyes: ) but I also have formed a POV along the lines of a saying coined by Socrates which says basically the worst person to put in a position of power is the person that wants it. Just like the pursuit of money is evil so is the pursuit of power both corrupt in the same way (and in capitalist society invaribaly go hand in hand).

I admit, I dislike the idea of pre-emptive strikes but I do think the US is "spoiling for a fight" and has decided it is going to get one no matter what.

 

[SLiC3R-]

interesting posts and disputes.

keep it up my homi's.

 

[xenon2000]

Intellectual ownage.

(...carry on...)

 

[stu]

"Yes .. but Bush signed that mandate in response to Iraq not agreeing to thier side of the peace treaty."

Really? It was signed this January. What has suddenly changed that has made Iraq a threat since January, but not for years before? The very crux of the issue, and the reason I'm a sceptic - 'why now?' Surely it couldn't be the US Administration exploiting the tragedy of September 11th in the very worst way to wage all its petty wars and restrict freedoms in all the ways it couldn't get away with before the catch all excuse of 'war against terror', could it?

"Operation Desert Fox was not a war, it was a miltiary operation, theres a very large difference."

Yes. In a war both sides fight. Just like the recent Afghanistan campaign wasn't a war - the US never actually declared war. Funny how you can bomb a country, invade and overthrow its ruling system and implement your own, without ever going to war.

"Iraq was not a puppet state, if it was a puppet state it would not have gone against the US's wishes and invaded Kuwait."

The dog turned upon its master. Same as the Muhajedin. The USA is the fool for thinking it could control them in the first place.

"They develop their own weapons of mass destruction, whatever (if any) the US and Russia supplied them would be insignifant compared to what they have, and what they seek now."

Proof? UNSCOM says they have no stockpile of NBC weaponry, and no real means to deliver it. Bush and Blair prattle on and on about the threat, but they have presented NO proof whatsoever.

"Neither were their soldiers trained by the US so that they could be used on thier own people like that, it was done to help Iraq deal with hostile threates from Iran, a nation openly hostile to the US."

And again, what was the US interfering in the Iran/Iraq war for? And don't give me any bullshit about Iran was a threat to the US - the war was entirely local.

"Yes, it backfired on them in a big way, but the Iran/Iraq situation was beyond Americas control anyway"

Exactly. Yet you propose to do the same again.

"Iraq is capable and has developed its own WOMD, it did not need the US for this."

Proof? Hello? That's all us 'liberals' are asking for. Show us PROOF that Iraq is a threat to the West, and I'll pull the arming pins from the bombs myself. Try and con us with half-assed rhetoric about terror, and we remain unimpressed. Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

"The taliban were not sponsored by the US, EVER. The mujahadeen (however u spell it) was sponsored by the US. The Taliban came from Pakistan and took control later, because the pollitical and economic climate in the region made it easy for them to do so, the Taleban was an ilegal uprising - that is why they were not recognised as a government by the UN."

The Taliban evolved from the Pakistani secret police/intelligence service. Who were funded and trained by the CIA in the 70s. Again, the dog turned upon its master. Glad to see you admit that the US sponsored a group of guerilla terrorists to perform an illegal and bloody coup against a liberal but (and here's the key point) communist regime though.

"Karzai was orginally setup by the US, that is true, however he now has a mandate from the people as his original 6 month term is long gone, and the loya jurga (the Afghan version of parliament) re elected him as leader"

Who elected the parliament? No one. It's an arbitrary organisation of Northern Alliance commanders and warlords. The Northern Alliance has/had no real representation of the Afghani people. Kabul bears virtually no relation to the rest of the country. There is a growing and substantial discontent 'on the ground' in Afghanistan against US presence and (consequently) Karzai's administration, as he is seen by the Afghani people as a puppet of the US. Read any respected journalist's work (here's a piece by Fisk to get you started)

"There are no al'qaeda in his government, id like to know how you are aware of this, being that the US authorities clearly arn't, perhaps you should tell them so that they can arrest them before they do some harm."

How very facetious. Again, read some independent journalists' reports. You might want to start with the story of the sacking of Hirjibit.

"The tribal warlords in power in afghanistan is the same as its always been, and the tirbal system is the system the Afghan people want. You are trying to apply western government and pollitcal values to a system totaly alien to us."

And of course, you're not trying to do that by proposing to invade and overthrow the regime at all... The point I was making was OF COURSE tribal leadership was the system the people want. What they DONT want is an arbitrarily decided group of warlords being given total control over the country and using their new "legitimate" state powers to further their typical expansionist activity.

"The closest comparrison is that the Tribes are like our counties and the warlords are the mayors - its the way afghanistan has always been, and to get rid of this system (as by your comments you seem to think would be best) would deffinitely be imposing something on them they didnt want."

You've just dropped a thousand pound bomb on your own argument.

I'll leave you with this quote:

"Those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel."

Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, CNN military consultant (Aug. 20)

 

[S-Gray]

Originally posted by n3wbie


I also agree thats bollox to, US didnt end the war, the war ended because Hitler commited suicide and so they give up (i think) so why is the US thes ones to congratulate for that? do we know for certain he wouldnt of done it if the US played no part at all? we know nothing like that for certain so why should the US always take the credit?

Didnt Hitler kill himself after the war ended?? Not done history in years or read up on him personally, but i swear he died afterwards

 

[old.Kez]

Originally posted by stu
Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

Heh, cunningly thrown in amongst all that fact malarky, that made me laugh hard.

:/