President Bush - about bush

dickbill · 2003-02-12 18:09:48

France, Russia, and China are a******s. We have provided clear evidence that Iraq has not disarmed, and yet they sit there with their vetos and oppose us still. Just because the nations still oppose our action doesn't mean Iraq hasn't really disarmed.
I have two jokes:
Why doesn't EuroDisney in Paris use fireworks during the grand finale at the end of the day?
*The French keep surrendering!
!

How do you call 100.000 french with their hands up ?
The french army !

very funny, OK, I am french and I'm going to explain the french side a little bit. I am not into politic but I think I undertstand what's happening. There is two big things.

First, this has nothing to do with the proofs of mass destruction. Everybody knows that if Sadam could, it would make mass destruction weapons and he probably has some, as stated by Powell.
Everybody knows also that he is a bad guy, namely a dictator, while not much worst than other dictators in the world. He governs probably with a bunch of bad guys like him. Everybody would like to see him and his gang leaving for Irak to become a democracy, France and Germany included. China I am less sure.
The problem is that the all Iraki's population is taken in hostage. That's your fault guys ! CNN and other american channels don't stop to show the mighty US army and it's 100 years of technological advancement and how useless it is to fight the US army. Like for the borgs, resistance is futile. Example: missiles going through 100 feet of concrete etc. So the Iraki's army commanders just watch the show and decide that the safest place to place an antiaircraft battery is on top of a kid school or of an hospital for elderly. What a surprise.
American and British say it's allright to go through the hostages with the entire US army. They call it war casualties.

The french and german say don't shot through the hostages.

Personnaly, I support the idea of commandos targeting Sadam and not the entire population. But of course, that's a bit late now. The show must go on. If you endorse the incomming massacrers of civilian, good. I don't.

The second point, why all that mess happens, is just because it is a reaction against the american imperialism, globally. An imperialist country, like the empire of star wars, try to impose its decisions to other countries by force. About Irak, Bush perfectly fits that definition. I am glad to be a rebel I tell you.

I also want to say that if the US were so sure to be in their good right, they would probably already be in bussiness. But they don't, instead, they try to get international support, like if they wanted to dilute the incoming civilian casualty responsabilty and the associated guiltyness. When you are right, you are not afraid to act of your own and you don't care if other people are wrong in their opinion.
Maybe the french are wrong after all, Maybe they are all fags wetting their pants when they see an iraky soldier. That's might be the only reason why they don't want to go to war. So, go ahead, take full responsability of your action and of the governement that you have elected and lets go !
Or maybe the french are your only good friends, because they don't want you to make the first biggest mistake of this century, while other "real only friends" push you blindly or just don't care of you and what you do.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 21:06:51

soph, the US could freaking bribe other countries for the money we throw at our military. And it wouldn't require blowing stuff up only to rebuild it again!

Just imagine how many lives (and how much money), the North Korean nuclear initiatives saved.

No, the only people who really benefit from our military, is the US itself, since millions of civilians work for the military in one way or another. Cutting it back would be exactly like cutting back any other bureaucratic crap we have. Europe depends on our military very very little.

Anyway, like I said, if we got rid of the Cold War Relic spending, we would have lots of money left over. And that's just the tip of the iceburg.

Mark Friedenbach · 2003-02-12 21:20:42

Well said dickbill. If only the American media would do what you just did.

soph · 2003-02-12 21:23:43

No, the only people who really benefit from our military, is the US itself, since millions of civilians work for the military in one way or another. Cutting it back would be exactly like cutting back any other bureaucratic crap we have. Europe depends on our military very very little.

That's REALLY wishful thinking. Our trade partners need our military just as much as the US does. Don't be so naive Josh. How many troops have come from European nations in UN operations lately? Germany doesn't have a military, France...I'll leave that be, Blair does whatever America says, and Russia, up until recently, couldn't pay its own workers. There's nobody in Europe who has any means of self-defense should the Arab nations choose to invade, or China, for that matter. We are really the only thing that can ensure Europe's security, since World War 2.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 21:44:37

soph, they can handle themselves. The US hasn't done anything for Europe since WW2, and then, when the US did get involved, they only quickened the end of the war, they weren't required for it to end.

It's really silly to think that anyone has any reason to invade one another at this point in time, especially since most aggression with the means of war in the last five decades has been on behalf of the US.

The US isn't protecting anyone, as shown by Europe stance at the UN against attacks against Iraq (if Europe really ?needed? our military, you think they'd take such a stance?). Nope, Europe sees that the US is beginning to become less of a player in the world community than the US would think that it is.

I see no point where I'm being ?naive.? Like I said, the US is the most aggressive war nation on the planet, so it's no wonder the US has more troops. China would happily suppliment troops if asked to do so (by the UN), though.

soph · 2003-02-12 21:49:58

I haven't seen Germany ask us to stop giving them Patriot missles.

Fine, then let's pull out. They don't want us, they can have fun raising their own military. While we're at it, let's establish true equality in the UN, and have a parity in terms of forces committed to UN operations. Whoops, can't have that-half of Europe has no military!

Actually, our presence in Western Europe after World War 2 probably saved West Germany, and much of Western Europe, from a Soviet land invasion. Without American presence there, nothing could have stopped a Soviet invasion.

And if you had to choose between America and China, who would you choose? A brutal dictatorship or a government that allows freedom?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 22:14:56

I would chose diplomacy over any other. Who cares if Russia may have invaded Germany? At least then, perhaps, Isreal may not have been created, since the German Jews wouldn't have been relocated by the US. You know, perhaps I would have rather had that bit of history pan out.

Countries which buy weapons from us are obviously adding to our war economy, and in fact, are paying for the civilians I mentioned. Hell, the US sold anthrax to Iraq when Bush Sr. was in office, and now we're hypocritcally saying that they are evil and shit. I guess we need to chose who we sell weapons crap to, huh?

I am confident that Europe has enough economic and military power to hold their own (especially in an information age where certain things aren't going to happen as easily, like invasions and so on). I guess we could consult the UN factbook if you wanted, but the fact still remains, the US does spend way too much money in her military.

Oh, and BTW, this crap about the Arab world or China invading Europe is just your typical FUD. It gave me a good laugh.

Euler · 2003-02-13 00:36:59

That's REALLY wishful thinking. Our trade partners need our military just as much as the US does. Don't be so naive Josh. How many troops have come from European nations in UN operations lately? Germany doesn't have a military, France...I'll leave that be, Blair does whatever America says, and Russia, up until recently, couldn't pay its own workers. There's nobody in Europe who has any means of self-defense should the Arab nations choose to invade, or China, for that matter. We are really the only thing that can ensure Europe's security, since World War 2.

Whatever gave you the idea that the European countries had no militaries? Their militaries aren't as strong as ours, but they are powerhouses compared with the rest of the world.

Top 10 yearly military expenditures (based mainly on 2000 figures):
1. US $343 billion
2. Russia $56 billion
3. Japan $45 billion
4. China $39.5 billion
5. UK $34.5 billion
6. France $27 billion
7. Germany $23.3 billion
8. India $15.9 billion
9/10 South Korea and Taiwan 12.8 Billion each
Other NATO: $62.3 billion
All rouge nations(Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, and Sudan): $14.4 billion

Top 5 nuclear powers:
1. US 7519 warheads
2.Russia 6860 warheads
3.France 384 warheads
4.UK 185 warheads
5.China 20 warheads

Saying that Europe has to worry about being invaded by Arab countries is a little like saying that the US should worry about being invaded by Canada. Except that Canada actually has a border with the US. China poses a more credible threat, though again the European countries don't border China, and our NATO allies probably have a combined strength greater than that of China anyway.

soph · 2003-02-13 05:34:20

Do you know how much of that is simply maintenance? How much of that is actual manpower? I would doubt they have anything capable of defending themselves from an invasion.

And then we have South Korea, and Japan (which is only allowed a tiny, defensive force, which is why we have troops in the region), and other countries.

I would chose diplomacy over any other. Who cares if Russia may have invaded Germany? At least then, perhaps, Isreal may not have been created, since the German Jews wouldn't have been relocated by the US. You know, perhaps I would have rather had that bit of history pan out.

WHAT? There were no German Jews left, for one thing, or very few. Second, I wouldn't be here. Third, Soviet rule over Germany was brutal, perhaps you should look into it. East Germany ended up decades behind West Germany by the time the country was reunited.

And that bit of history might have seen Stalin take all the land that Hitler took, along with his own country of Russia.

Ah, so much better,

And you throw the FUD word at me. In this time, it's fashionable to take all credit away from America for anything.

Saying that Europe has to worry about being invaded by Arab countries is a little like saying that the US should worry about being invaded by Canada.

Except that America's military is huge compared to Canada's. And we gave them most of their capabilities. Arab nations have a good number of missiles, planes, tanks, and troops to deploy. A border is meaningless if your military is matched against someone who won't shy from using WMDs. .

Oh, and Josh, without the American economy's stability, the European economy would collapse. America continues to do for Europe, even economically, now. They rely on our economy much more than vice versa.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-02-13 06:39:26

Josh writes:-

I would choose diplomacy over any other. Who cares if Russia may have invaded Germany? At least then, perhaps, Israel may not have been created, since the German Jews wouldn't have been relocated by the US. You know, perhaps I would have rather had that bit of history pan out.

Diplomacy is something I think we would all prefer, if the choice were available.
By May 1945, the Red Army was an awesome entity. It comprised literally millions of battle-hardened troops and over 40,000 front-line battle tanks. In addition, it represented a vengeful country which had been brutally invaded and had suffered unimaginable hardships during nearly 4 years of a titanic life-and-death struggle. To cap it all, it was led by a totally amoral tyrant, bereft of any shred of human compassion.
It's not a question, Josh, of whether Soviet Russia "may have invaded Germany", as you put it. They were already in control of half of Germany by the time Hitler killed himself in his bunker.
Without the combined British/US military in the western half of what was left of the Reich (and the US Army in particular), there is virtually no doubt that our Russian comrades would have added western Germany, Scandinavia, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy to the ranks of the glorious socialist proletariat! Thus, Western Europe would have traded the jackboot of National Socialist Nazi Germany for the hammer and sickle of the Soviet Socialist Russians ... some trade!!

Israel wasn't created until May 1948 when the British Mandate in Palestine expired, three years after VE Day. In the 'Greater Soviet Europe' scenario above, as Josh suggests, the remnants of European Jewry would have been left to the tender mercies of the communist Russians. According to Amos Lahat, head of the Jewish Agency's Former Soviet Union Department : "Anti Semitic views were fostered by the Soviet regime until the end of the 1980s."
How many would have been permitted to leave for a new life in Israel? How many would have died in unofficial anti-jewish pogroms? (Anti-semitism has been rife in Russia since at least the 19th century, though less overtly after 1917.)

And what of the years of suffering by non-jewish Europeans, which would have ensued under Stalin and his successors?

I'm quite sure Josh couldn't have realised what he was saying when he suggested this as an alternative history he would rather have had "pan out".
And, when he said the US "only quickened the end of the war, they weren't required for it to end", again I'm sure he can't comprehend what a staggering oversimplification and misrepresentation of world history is encapsulated in that statement. The US certainly wasn't required for the war to end - Russia would have won eventually. But the US very definitely was required to give Western Europe the last half century of freedom, democracy, and prosperity it has enjoyed.
Just as they were needed in Bosnia to save the local muslims from Serbian 'ethnic cleansing' and, utimately, to help bring the butcher Slobodan Milosevic to justice.

That's all I wanted to say - just tidying up a little bit of history!
Now Josh and Soph can go back to their ideological jousting ... and may the best man win!!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 12:02:51

Hmm, I guess my words were somewhat harsh.

But I was under the impression that Soviet Russia had very very many losses in WW2 (some 20+ million compared to Germany's 2.5 or whatever). And I never had any impression that they were ?reluctant? to pull out of Germany. Russia was really crippled, guys. Stalin had no idea how to run a war. He was just a propagandist. Hell, Hitler almost had Russia, had he played his cards right and entered Moscow when she was undefended.

I wasn't saying that I didn't care if Soviet Russia would have taken over Germany, I was passing it off as not possible. But if you guys think it was, then I totally retract my statements.

I just think that the suggestion that current day Israel was created diplomatically is just not fair (which is why I made the comment in a paragraph about diplomacy). I wouldn't have minded that current day Israel was created under more peaceful accord.

I find it hard to believe that huge war machine like the US has is a good thing, especially since (and I can show you if you like), the US was been the aggressor in most ocassions. Even if I were to accept that the our war machine kept trade safe, I would be more inclined to believe it wouldn't have to even be half as big as it is now, assuming it was used explicitly for foreign trade relations and not a local war economy.

Phobos · 2003-02-13 12:39:32

According to Amos Lahat, head of the Jewish Agency's Former Soviet Union Department : "Anti Semitic views were fostered by the Soviet regime until the end of the 1980s."
How many would have been permitted to leave for a new life in Israel? How many would have died in unofficial anti-jewish pogroms? (Anti-semitism has been rife in Russia since at least the 19th century, though less overtly after 1917.)

I just don't get these people who think the Soviet Union was some kind of socialist paradise. Both Lenin and Stalin hunted down the anarchists and Social Democrats as enemies of the state and pretty much everyone else for that matter even though those people were instrumental in the Revolution. You could be sentenced to ten years in a Soviet concentration camp under article 58 of the Soviet criminal code just for saying you didn't like the roads! Prosecutors could interpret just about any act or speech as being anti-state. Of course the whole point to those types of laws was to insure that Stalin and his evil ilk had plenty of slave labor for their cruel camps.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 12:42:26

Hey, don't misconstrue what I was saying, will you? Again, I wasn't suggesting that a Russian invasion was a good thing, I was passing it off as not possible.

clark · 2003-02-13 13:41:18

I posted earlier that March 3rd is the next new moon, which is probably the start date for the war in Iraq.

Some related information today indicates that March 3rd is once again more likely (I post this for the Americans in the group, our media dosen't always report what it should).

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 3053-8205r

The article concerns Tony Blair setting a date for those involved with the North Ireland crisis. He set March 3rd for a conclusion of talks for North Ireland, the reason being the war with Iraq will put the issue on the politcal back-burner...

From the article:

"In the wake of a meeting with his Irish counterpart, Bertie Ahern, in Belfast, Blair set a deadline of March 3 to resolve the deadlock that has plagued the process since the suspension of the province's assembly four months ago over discovery of an alleged spy ring involving the Irish Republican Army."

Brace yourself.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 13:56:01

Why the New Moon, any reason in particular? I almost accused you in that other thread of practicing irrelevant astrology.

My brother says it's likely to happen early next month.

Saturday the world is going to have a lot of anti-War marches. Millions of people around the world are expected to march in 400 cities in 60 countries.

clark · 2003-02-13 14:00:48

Why the New Moon, any reason in particular? I almost accused you in that other thread of practicing irrelevant astrology.

The "new moon" means that the moon is at its darkest point in the lunar cycle. I guess I shouldn't be surprised a Mars nut would totally miss a Lunar refrence...

The military likes to bomb things when it is really dark.

My brother says it's likely to happen early next month.

He is right. It has to, or it can't happen at all.

I also notice over on the BBC web they are reporting that the UN is making preperations for the Humanitarian crisis that will ensue from the US war on Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2756771.stm

Bill White · 2003-02-13 14:20:01

I posted earlier that March 3rd is the next new moon, which is probably the start date for the war in Iraq.

I saw a report that in Gulf War I US pilots were very grateful that the Iraqis chose to "black-out" Bahgdad. Seems night vision goggles work way better when there are very few strong light sources. Today on CNN I saw video of the 101st Airborne boarding ships in Jacksonville. The announcer said it will take about three weeks for the division to deploy to an "undisclosed" location.

More support for clark's predicted date of 3 March. A few days of air campaign and then the 101st Airborne goes into Iraq 3 weeks from today. No "bets" however.

For the record, getting rid of Saddam is a good idea - IMHO. However, I also have this sinking feeling that the USA is doing exactly what bin Laden wants us to do and that by attacking Iraq right now we are following al Queda's script, a script written by bin Laden before September 11th. bin Laden's last tape seems to me to be pretty much a taunt intended to provoke the US attack. It will be far easier to reconstitute Iraq as a Islamic fundamentalist state once Saddam is dead and we westerners start setting up "free" elections.

If radical Muslims win the first post invasion "free" elections I predict the US military will be in Iraq for many, many years to come.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 14:28:59

I agree that getting rid of Saddam is a good thing, but I think that the costs are just too much, in both lives and real money, than the benefits.

I think that for it to be at all successful, the US has to set up a permanent presence in Iraq. Will the US do that?

clark · 2003-02-13 14:48:00

I think that for it to be at all successful, the US has to set up a permanent presence in Iraq. Will the US do that?

Yes. They are preparing for at the minimum, 2 years before any type of elections can be considered. Military rule will be instutited to keep the arab neighbors appeased (they aren't to happy about the prospect of a democracy next door to their autocrasy).

I believe the military is planning on a 10 day air campaign, then the troops roll in.

Your assesment regarding Bin Laden is pretty accurate (in my opinion) Bill. That is one of the reasons why democracy will not come quickly to Iraq (fear of a theocratic regime coming to power)

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 14:48:31

Have you guys duct taped your windows with plastic yet? ??? :laugh:

Palomar · 2003-02-13 15:12:13

*No duct tape/plastic in our home. However, if I lived on or near the East Coast, I might consider it:

I'm surprised no one has brought this little matter up (or perhaps my memory fails me and it has been brought up); human shields going to Iraq:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....raq_574

--Cindy

clark · 2003-02-13 15:19:06

Their actions are symbolic and largely meaningless as well, consider this report:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030213-69206024.htm

"The officers said the plan, as of a few weeks ago, would largely spare infrastructure targets, such as bridges, and most, if not all, telephone..."

I believe the military will do everything in its power to minimize damage to the capital, since any and all damages will have to be paid for during reconstruction- and the greater the damage, the harder it will be on the Iraq citizens.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-13 15:30:35

I'm sure that depends on the ammount of resistance they get. If they get very little resistance, as suggested by the Bush admin, then sure, they won't do much damage. But obviously if the people take to arms, and everyone starts fighting us, it's going to be quite bloody.

There are a lot of rebels from last time who haven't forgotten what we did to them. They may be quite pissed, and may stage an American uprising.

What happens if we lose a couple of thousand of our own guys and the Iraqi's lose millions? Will we then consider it a ?success??

PaganToris · 2003-02-13 16:47:02

damn! when i started this topic i didnt thnx it would have 584 post LOL

Euler · 2003-02-13 16:51:44

Do you know how much of that is simply maintenance? How much of that is actual manpower? I would doubt they have anything capable of defending themselves from an invasion.
And then we have South Korea, and Japan (which is only allowed a tiny, defensive force, which is why we have troops in the region), and other countries.
Saying that Europe has to worry about being invaded by Arab countries is a little like saying that the US should worry about being invaded by Canada.
Except that America's military is huge compared to Canada's. And we gave them most of their capabilities. Arab nations have a good number of missiles, planes, tanks, and troops to deploy. A border is meaningless if your military is matched against someone who won't shy from using WMDs. .

The European countries would slaughter the Arab countries in a war. It is true that the largest Arab countries have armies about the same size as a European country, but the Arabs have poorly trained troops and obsolete technology, while the Europeans have highly trained troops and technology that rivals America's. If Israel can defeat the combined armies of the Arab world in a week, what do you think Britain or France could do? And think of what would happen it the combined Arab "fleet" of about 10 miniaturized gunships ran into hundreds of British and French ships led by aircraft carriers? Even if we ignore the fact that Arab countries don't have missiles capable of reaching Europe, the Britain and France could respond to a chemical weapon attack with submarine-launched nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles that would destroy all of the Arab's major population centers. And in case you haven?t noticed, Japan is remilitarizing. They are the #3 military spender in the world, behind only the US and Russia. In addition, Japan is an island, and their military capability is quite sufficient to prevent China's small navy from being too much of a threat. The truth is, our allies are much stronger than our potential enemies, and most of them would remain quite safe without our military.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#526 2003-02-12 18:09:48

Re: President Bush - about bush

#527 2003-02-12 21:06:51

Re: President Bush - about bush

#528 2003-02-12 21:20:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#529 2003-02-12 21:23:43

Re: President Bush - about bush

#530 2003-02-12 21:44:37

Re: President Bush - about bush

#531 2003-02-12 21:49:58

Re: President Bush - about bush

#532 2003-02-12 22:14:56

Re: President Bush - about bush

#533 2003-02-13 00:36:59

Re: President Bush - about bush

#534 2003-02-13 05:34:20

Re: President Bush - about bush

#535 2003-02-13 06:39:26

Re: President Bush - about bush

#536 2003-02-13 12:02:51

Re: President Bush - about bush

#537 2003-02-13 12:39:32

Re: President Bush - about bush

#538 2003-02-13 12:42:26

Re: President Bush - about bush

#539 2003-02-13 13:41:18

Re: President Bush - about bush

#540 2003-02-13 13:56:01

Re: President Bush - about bush

#541 2003-02-13 14:00:48

Re: President Bush - about bush

#542 2003-02-13 14:20:01

Re: President Bush - about bush

#543 2003-02-13 14:28:59

Re: President Bush - about bush

#544 2003-02-13 14:48:00

Re: President Bush - about bush

#545 2003-02-13 14:48:31

Re: President Bush - about bush

#546 2003-02-13 15:12:13

Re: President Bush - about bush

#547 2003-02-13 15:19:06

Re: President Bush - about bush

#548 2003-02-13 15:30:35

Re: President Bush - about bush

#549 2003-02-13 16:47:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

#550 2003-02-13 16:51:44

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer