Push those tears nancy

[nikimcbee]

OMG, what a @#$%%$ hypocrite. You know when you roll out jimmuh to launch the racism accusation, you're totally desperate:stare:, but this... is plain silly, now you get infront of the camera and push those tears "because you fear violence"

:har::har::har::har:

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8603009

Kali-fornia, how long are you going to keep voting for this drip?

Where were you when they were making movies about killing Bush?:stare::nope:

Are you guys (the hardcore commie~lefties) wishing for violence? All this is getting old:shifty:

[GoldenRivet]

I hate her with every element of my being. physical. mental. spiritual.

I HATE that stupid cow.

I wish Christmas Critters would piss aids into her gouged out eyes.

:har:

[Dowly]

I wish Christmas Critters would piss aids into her gouged out eyes.

:haha::har::har::haha:

[Reece]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1174296#post1174296)
I wish Christmas Critters would piss aids into her gouged out eyes.
OMG is she really that bad? Sounds like your talking about Satan!!:eek:

[GoldenRivet]

Sounds like your talking about Satan!!:eek:

i am

[Skybird]

If only I could see the evil in what she said in that video. It seems to me she gets attacked for pointing out the very obvious in that video.

It also seems to me that once again people not agreeing with her political camp just want to reserve the right to continue the hostile, destructive row the past weeks have shown, and mistake that kind of behavior with "free speech".
One can voice one's free opinion and pactice one'S right to speak freely - even without the kind of aggressive and destructive behaviour the media reports since weeks now. Much of what is to be seen in those noisy events, is incitement and is dripping with hate, nothing else it is.

Come back to your senses, guys. This constant demonising of anything that does not fit your views becomes boring. That video sounds healthy reason, not more, not less. And what she says - is true to the deepest level of American civilisational heritage - a heritage you claim to be proud of - but violate constantly by behaving like that.

[OneToughHerring]

I thought you're all talking about Nancy Reagan. Then I'd understand the vitriol. :)

[SteamWake]

If only I could see the evil in what she said in that video. It seems to me she gets attacked for pointing out the very obvious in that video.

Therein lies the evil you just dont see it.

This woman is not sincere. Not one bit.

[Tribesman]

This woman is not sincere. Not one bit.
What do you expect?
She is a politician after all.
You must abandon the fantasy about politicians with sincerity as it is a silly myth.

[SteamWake]

What do you expect?
She is a politician after all.
You must abandon the fantasy about politicians with sincerity as it is a silly myth.

Quite true however most of them dont put up a stage show.

Ms Pelosi takes hypocrisy to new heights. I agree with the others she really needs to go she is helping no one.

[AVGWarhawk]

If only I could see the evil in what she said in that video. It seems to me she gets attacked for pointing out the very obvious in that video.


Do you really buy into the BS Skybird. As of late I'm beginning to think that you believe Charles Mason was just misunderstood and a great injustic has been imposed on him. :doh: You were taken hook, line and sinker on the race card with Jimmy Carter and now you feel Pelosi is correct in her fears. Come one man, here is a women who is dilusional and on the edge of a mental breakdown. She is completely out of control and reality. She is looking for sympathy from the blight she help create.

[Tribesman]

Quite true however most of them dont put up a stage show.
All the worlds a stage and politicians like the spotlight....unless of course the spotlight falls on their corruption or sexual shenanigans.

I agree with the others she really needs to go she is helping no one.
she is from the government and she is there to help you:rotfl2:

[SteamWake]

she is from the government and she is there to help you:rotfl2:


Eeeeek I run and hide. Scary words indeed.

[Skybird]

Do you really buy into the BS Skybird. As of late I'm beginning to think that you believe Charles Mason was just misunderstood and a great injustic has been imposed on him. :doh: You were taken hook, line and sinker on the race card with Jimmy Carter and now you feel Pelosi is correct in her fears. Come one man, here is a women who is dilusional and on the edge of a mental breakdown. She is completely out of control and reality. She is looking for sympathy from the blight she help create.
Honestly said, I think reactions like yours are the far greater problem here, compared to what Pelosi said in that video.

Get some ground back under your feet, guys. There is a life inbetween polarised extremes. Reason is not exactly to be found in rethorics.

Obama getting compared to Hitler and Stalin. Health insurance getting compared to Nazi death camps. And me now getting compared to sympathisers of Charles Manson. Okay, I am convinced - now I see the pattern.

[AVGWarhawk]

Honestly said, I think reactions like yours are the far greater problem here, compared to what Pelosi said in that video.

Get some ground back under your feet, guys. There is a life inbetween polarised extremes.

So tell me, what is the far greater problem here? I'm really interested in what an individual on the other side of the world has diagnosed as the far greater problem here, specifically my reactions to a withered old bag who is out of her league.

[August]

Crocodile tears from a woman who bears a major share of the responsibility for the political strife we face today.

[Skybird]

So tell me, what is the far greater problem here? I'm really interested in what an individual on the other side of the world has diagnosed as the far greater problem here, specifically my reactions to a withered old bag who is out of her league.
If you want to see the problem, just listen to your language and rethorics. ;) and then take into account that this tone has been taken to the House, and the streets. If you remember the video, you will see that this problem is excactly what Pelosi has diagnosed with total precision .

[AVGWarhawk]

If you want to see the problem, just listen to your language and rethorics. ;) and then take into account that this tone has taken to the House, and the streets. If you remember the video, you will see that this problem is excactly what Pelosi has diagnosed with great precison and total accuratesse.


Yeah, it is called politics. The same rhetoric and language heard through 8 years of Bush. The same tone displayed. So really, what is the difference here? Why there is none I can see. She demonstrated nothing but a women who is under a great deal of stress. Really, Obama has been running her like a philly on race day. During the Bush administration she had no worries. Hell, did not even bother to attend CIA meetings. I guess the easy living center (Capitol Hill) is now closed since Obama is running the place.

She like Bush is a total failure.

[Aramike]

I find it amusing how people always try to act as though a negative phenomenom is new to their generation.

Can someone please tell me when politics in America were NOT abrasive, rude, and disrespectful?

[AVGWarhawk]

I find it amusing how people always try to act as though a negative phenomenom is new to their generation.

Can someone please tell me when politics in America were NOT abrasive, rude, and disrespectful?

Pelosi spent the better part of the Bush years name calling and with help from her buds right up there on Capitol Hill. Simple case of can dish it out but can't take it when dished back. It is beyond me why most seem to forget what happened during the Bush years. Granted he will go down as the most incompetent but I think history will treat Pelosi much worse than Bush.

"Hurry up fellas I have a plane to catch to Greece" et al Pelosi on signing the stimulus bill and TARP. Note the total precision on the that nice snapshot of what we are dealing with here.

[Aramike]

Pelosi spent the better part of the Bush years name calling and with help from her buds right up there on Capitol Hill. Simple case of can dish it out but can't take it when dished back. It is beyond me why most seem to forget what happened during the Bush years. Granted he will go down as the most incompetent but I think history will treat Pelosi much worse than Bush.

"Hurry up fellas I have a plane to catch to Greece" et al Pelosi on signing the stimulus bill and TARP. Note the total precision on the that nice snapshot of what we are dealing with here.No doubt that Pelosi is a raging, moronic hypocrite.

But like I said, this kind if rhetoric is nothing new. We saw it during Reagan. We saw it during Carter. We saw it reach a peak during Vietnam.

Hell, political disagreements led us into one civil war, and, in fact, made us into a country.

But lefties are all over Pelosi's attempt to build up a straw man only to earn the sympathy card. It's sad.

[AVGWarhawk]

Hell, political disagreements led us into one civil war, and, in fact, made us into a country.


That is what some are afraid of. I guess when you see a bunch of wingnuts rushing the Capitol it won't be long before they come out of hugging their guns and religion with a vengence to use them....well, that is what Pelosi is thinking. Well, as things go the teaparty whatever in DC that just past was quiet and relatively calm. No gun play. Go figure.

[Skybird]

Yeah, it is called politics. The same rhetoric and language heard through 8 years of Bush. The same tone displayed. So really, what is the difference here? Why there is none I can see. She demonstrated nothing but a women who is under a great deal of stress. Really, Obama has been running her like a philly on race day. During the Bush administration she had no worries. Hell, did not even bother to attend CIA meetings. I guess the easy living center (Capitol Hill) is now closed since Obama is running the place.

She like Bush is a total failure.

If you want to attack her over these things you just described in the above, start a thread on these things. This thread has been done over a certain short video where she said something, and over this short video she got attacked. And I say: got attacked wrongly, over staged allegations. And I said in my first reply that I strictly refer to the video in this thread. It is the basis for this thread.

Bush was not attacked by distorting his intentions just to get rid of him. He was attacked for a record as miserable as a record of an administration could be, he was attacked for the countable, checkable miserable results of his policies. He was not attacked because people imagined he would mess some things up, but because he actually had messed things up.

And you have to give to me that I did not lower myself to just ripplefiring slangwords at him, but that I attacked the consequences caused by his policies. Never I left it to just calling him a Hitler, or a monster. I explained why I called him a lobbyist of certain industrial circles, and called him stupid and short-sigthed in his "visions" for foreign policy and the Iraq war. and looking at Afghanistan today, and Iraq today and the forseeable future of it, the growing corruption, the breeding ethnic tensions again, I have been correct, all in all.

I find it bewildering that Obama gets called a propagator of death camps because he wants health insurance protection for one sixth of American citizens - while Bush has to accept responsibility for torture prisons in East Europe and the Middle East, the Abu Ghraib camp, the death of over 3000 american soldiers in a 10-years-preplanned war over false statements, and the forming of a situation where a not precisely defined 6 digit number of foreign people alltogether got killed so far, and many more have been suffering in diverse ways.

Debating death camps, anyone?

It has a long tradition, it seems, to make big fuss about perceived or real smaller missteps of Democeats in an attempt to make them appear as massive in their faults and failures as have the big scandals of Republicans been. It is an attempt to minimise the guilt of the one by demonising the other's faults. And that gets called a "question of fairness". That is as if a court decides a sentence for a murder on a basis of "the last case I decided guilty, so this case I decide as not guilty, then I have a fine balance between both, that'S just fair."

That is not fair - that is absurd.

Opposing other poltical assessements and disagreeing with other policies you can. But as Pelosi said - if we express our opinions in ways that border incitement and as I use to say: spike irrational emotions and turn them into destructive hostility, then this is a climate where violent words sooner or later will be followed by matching deeds. Everybody is respnsibole for the conseqeunces he triggers when behaving like this or that, or saying this in this or that way. So chose your means wisely, and with regard to the upheated atmosphere right now: with self-restraint. That is opportune, that is pragmatic, that is reasonable, that is according to what the founding father's idealistic heritage was meant to be in cultural value for coming generations.

Or in other words: that is fair.

[AVGWarhawk]

I was going to be long winded as you but to what end? I will be the last guy to comment on your countries leaders as I'm on the other side of the world. My view one hour from Washington DC is much different than yours.

[Aramike]

explained why I called him a lobbyist of certain industrial circles, and called him stupid and short-sigthed in his "visions" for foreign policy and the Iraq war. and looking at Afghanistan today, and Iraq today and the forseeable future of it, the growing corruption, the breeding ethnic tensions again, I have been correct, all in all. Actually I think that you were quite wrong in many of your assessments of Bush. Not that I'm a Bush apologist - not at all. I think he dropped the ball on many issues, especially domestically. But I do think that people often attempt to take the easy way out by blaming ongoing international problems on a supposed Bush's bumbling foreign policy. There is a difference between short term turmoil and long term stability, and I would suggest that the former is acceptible of it helps lead to the latter.

[GoldenRivet]

http://images.southparkstudios.com/img/content/characters/172a.jpg

They're watching you cry Nancy.

[Skybird]

I was going to be long winded as you but to what end? I will be the last guy to comment on your countries leaders as I'm on the other side of the world. My view one hour from Washington DC is much different than yours.

Whom do you expect to buy this new rethoric of "one hour away?" We people in europe economically get effected and pay for what you call your domestic and foreign policies, and without our and the Russians' and Asians' good will to buy worthless American bonds anylonger you country would be screwed VERY BIG time. If you think that people in Europe cannot update themselves on events in America because that big water is between us and Washington while you "live just one car hour away from it, then I wonder if you want to say by that that you are involved as an official in internal policy making in Washington...? Or do you simply underestimate the availability and power of press, global media, internet and classic old-fashioned - books over here?

I certainly do not comment, or form an opinion, on regional domestic things that only affect you in america, but not us outside america. And in principle I must not care for health sastem reforms yes or not. But if a political culture and climate in your country breaks way like the unforgiving hostility towards Obama , and if we must pay bills due to your lacking financial discipline and economic reason, then we end up with wasting our money for your reasons and agenerally messed up situation like in the past 8 years, and then we are effected, and then we have all right there is to be concerned about what is going on.

You just can't stick to the point with your comments, and instead need to always return to rethorics - like again in your latest.

[Skybird]

But I do think that people often attempt to take the easy way out by blaming ongoing international problems on a supposed Bush's bumbling foreign policy. There is a difference between short term turmoil and long term stability, and I would suggest that the former is acceptible of it helps lead to the latter.

If you consider the Iraq that now is there and that will change and form up in the forseeable future, to be of greater strategic and longterm stability in the region, then nobody can help you, and you have not learned muczh from the past years. The country is anything but stable and predictable now, and i can'T see that it will become that. In fact it is destabilising on ethnic and relgious grounds, and the integrity of it's formal structure and state authorities is very corrupted and becomes even more corrupted every week.

Bet your money on that place, and cry.

If you wanted stability and predictability in the region - you should have left Saddam where he was - in control. That's sad, and not fair - but true.

[AVGWarhawk]

Whom do you expect to buy this new rethoric of "one hour away?" We people in europe economically get effected and pay for what you call your domestic and foreign policies, and without our and the Russians' and Asians' good will to buy worthless American bonds anylonger you country would be screwed VERY BIG time. If you think that people in Europe cannot update themselves on events in America because that big water is between us and Washington while you "live just one car hour away from it, then I wonder if you want to say by that that you are involved as an official in internal policy making in Washington...? Or do you simply underestimate the availability and power of press, global media, internet and classic old-fashioned - books over here?

I certainly do not comment, or form an opinion, on regional domestic things that only affect you in america, but not us outside america. And in principle I must not care for health sastem reforms yes or not. But if a political culture and climate in your country breaks way like the unforgiving hostility towards Obama , and if we must pay bills due to your lacking financial discipline and economic reason, then we end up with wasting our money for your reasons and agenerally messed up situation like in the past 8 years, and then we are effected, and then we have all right there is to be concerned about what is going on.

You just can't stick to the point with your comments, and instead need to always return to rethorics - like again in your latest.

If you do not like the US foreign policy then elect someone in you country to see about making a change to it. This is not the first time I have heard how much you(personally) are affected by US policy in your country. Move then to somewhere it will not affect you. As far has having any rights because what happens here affects you over there is shear nonsense. A year ago America started talking isolationism....the world cried and said this was foal play. Well if that is the case then you just have to grin and bare it. So you see, the policy to keep you happy or attempt to affects me. Personally I would like to isolate and call it a day on being the world police. Go figure it out for yourself. Also, when you start paying taxes into the US government I really do not believe you have a leg to stand on. But hey, you go ahead and hang Germany's future on people like Pelosi who are corrupt as the next concerning foreign policy. Best of luck to you.

[Skybird]

If you do not like the US foreign policy then elect someone in you country to see about making a change to it.

Oh, why haven't I thought of that myself.

This is not the first time I have heard how much you(personally) are affected by US policy in your country.

No, I talked of "us", here and in the past, the collective meaning of "us", meaning Europe and effectively most of the non-American world. Did you really think we would care about you that much if you wouldn't be of so much consequence to us? Honestly said, most likely we would not.

Move then to somewhere it will not affect you.

And what planet would you suggest?

Personally I would like to isolate and call it a day on being the world police. Go figure it out for yourself. Also, when you start paying taxes into the US government I really do not believe you have a leg to stand on.

Oh, feel free to go for isolationism, if you think you can economically survive that. We can certainly live without inadequately fought Afghanistan wars, and criminal Iraq wars.

But before you leave, first you find ways to withdraw from your mutual economic dependencies with practically all the rest of the globe, find replacement for the special items you cannot produce yourself anymore and the rare ores and minerals you do not have, and buy yourself out of the many trillions of debts foreign investors and banking systems have gotten locked in your internal markets.

And then we can start talking about the survivability of your tax system. ;)


Okay, stopping the lobbying of light shells here. You can't be that disconnected from Earthly realities that you mean serious what you said, can you. ;) There is globalisation, there is a globalised economical and financial system, there are political interdependencies that even tie sharpest rivals and competitors close together. that exactly is the problem. you can't escape it, sicne there is no country not being affected by the global game.

And we both know that you know that. ;) It was just another rethoric manouver you tried.

And since it is late over here, and this game leads nowhere anymore, I now fold my cards. It was fun to play.

[Sea Demon]

Personally I would like to isolate and call it a day on being the world police. Go figure it out for yourself.

We've isolated ourselves and done that twice before. And Skybird's country started two world wars that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions.

[Tribesman]

We've isolated ourselves and done that twice before. And Skybird's country started two world wars that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions.
Be fair, Germany didn't start WW I, they just got a lot of the blame for it.

[Sea Demon]

Be fair, Germany didn't start WW I, they just got a lot of the blame for it.

OK. But the issue remains, America has isolated itself before, and people in your neck of the woods and Asia started two world wars that killed tens of millions of people. As much as I wish the USA could isolate itself, history doesn't support our isolation. And I can guarantee you, we won't.

[Skybird]

We've isolated ourselves and done that twice before. And Skybird's country started two world wars that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions. Be fair, Germany didn't start WW I, they just got a lot of the blame for it.

How many stupid and/or egocentric wars and military campaigns have the US launched since Nazi-Germany's black era 70 years ago? How many police states and dictators and tyrannies killing and torturing their own people have been installed, supported, equipped and financed by the United States in South and Middle America, South-East Asia, and last but not least: Iraq's Saddam?

One who sits in a glass house should not throw with stones, they say. Germans have learned their lessons. Not a few Americans have not.

[Aramike]

If you consider the Iraq that now is there and that will change and form up in the forseeable future, to be of greater strategic and longterm stability in the region, then nobody can help you, and you have not learned muczh from the past years. The country is anything but stable and predictable now, and i can'T see that it will become that. In fact it is destabilising on ethnic and relgious grounds, and the integrity of it's formal structure and state authorities is very corrupted and becomes even more corrupted every week.

Bet your money on that place, and cry.

If you wanted stability and predictability in the region - you should have left Saddam where he was - in control. That's sad, and not fair - but true.I'm readying myself for bed, but I'll preview my upcoming response with this simple question: do you honestly believe what you just wrote and can you not see one step beyond that?

[Freiwillige]

The united states is just an imperialist evil empire full of decadence and malice.

Now that we are done America bashing seriously American greed has caused pain it is true but just as much if not more American charity has rebuilt Europe after the last major war there. Rebuilt Japan after the last major war there. Given billions in aid to suffering nations and did the majority of the work defending democracy the last 50 years.

Do we always make the right choices? Hell know we don't and our politicians are as greedy and corrupt as any of them out there, That is how we got into this Globalization fiasco in the first place. But no nation has a perfect record and even the victims among nations usually have a bit of guilt somewhere in there past.

The U.S.A. is a good country even if misguided by bad leadership.

[GoldenRivet]

Skybird... the fundamental flaw with any democracy is the politicians.

you see... a politician has two faces.

the one he wears while he is being elected.

and the one he wears when he is elected.

they often run on one agenda, and rule with another.

I dont think you can blame the average American for a presidents foreign policy or a congressional decision to declare war... any more than you could blame the average German for world war two.

the fact is that people dont declare wars... governments do.

and i dont think the average Joes of Nation A have anything against the average Joes of nation B, C, D or E.

these governments in power - more often than not - do their own thing whenever they feel like it.

[Tribesman]

OK. But the issue remains, America has isolated itself before, and people in your neck of the woods and Asia started two world wars that killed tens of millions of people.
Wasn't American expansion across the Pacific with the Spanish war and Phillipine war one of the things Kaiser Bill was pissed at, though of course he was happy with it as far as the eight nation alliance was concerned.
Actually since that brings up China how can Americas activities during the Sino-japanese war of 37-45 be squared with isolationism?
Isolationism is something that can be sold to he population and be talked of by the politicians, but it doesn't really exist

[Skybird]

I'm readying myself for bed, but I'll preview my upcoming response with this simple question: do you honestly believe what you just wrote and can you not see one step beyond that?
It is me asking you in the first 12-18 months after your troops have left Iraq. the signs are already there to be seen. Stability never have been anywhere near of being coinvincing in the past years. Growing corruption in already very corrput and-self-centred government, and administrative structures. Growing ethnic tension in the corrupt security apparatus. Lacking loyalty among police and army memebers. US experts and insiders concluding the quality of security apparatus and army to be a total mess. Ethnic tensions between the groups mounting pressure under the surface. Iran waiting for the US withdrawal. Al Sadr waiting for the US withdrawel, and using the time to boost his religious authority.

Irak already is a failed state. It's written in big letters across the wall. wishful thinking just means to practice like one practiced under biush - to delay the assessement of the question whether or not it was worth it until the end of time to escape the damning verdict that way.

[Skybird]

Skybird... the fundamental flaw with any democracy is the politicians.

you see... a politician has two faces.

the one he wears while he is being elected.

and the one he wears when he is elected.

they often run on one agenda, and rule with another.

I dont think you can blame the average American for a presidents foreign policy or a congressional decision to declare war... any more than you could blame the average German for world war two.

the fact is that people dont declare wars... governments do.

and i dont think the average Joes of Nation A have anything against the average Joes of nation B, C, D or E.

these governments in power - more often than not - do their own thing whenever they feel like it.
I think you can give to me that I do not blame the average american for everything, not here, and not before. I specified target groups and target figures of my criticism or at least divided the total ammount of population into different "subgroups" with differeing opinions and views. I certainly see a general problom with the contemporary American culture (=way of living) in general, but that is the same set of problems I see with all the Western nation including Germany. Many of these are just reaching higher peaks in the example of america, than in other Western nations, for example, per-head consummation of ressources, garbage production and wasting energy. In these examples, American society plays for the global top ranks.

It's just that I get pissed by braindead Stammtisch-paroles like the contribution by Sea Demon that Tribesman quoted. ;)

If you understand German a bit, here is a very good piece I found yesterday, on the installation of a "status-quo-dictatorship" in democratic germany, caused by the intended and planned absence of real choices.

http://www.welt.de/politik/bundestagswahl/article4565626/Die-deutsche-Status-quo-Diktatur.html (http://www.welt.de/politik/bundestagswahl/article4565626/Die-deutsche-Status-quo-Diktatur.html)

I was surprised to find it, even more in that newspaper which usually is not so good. It's a variation of my own argument that democracies in the West are no longer democracies anymore.

[SteamWake]

So... uhhh... yea how aout that Pelosi thing :doh:

[AVGWarhawk]

We've isolated ourselves and done that twice before. And Skybird's country started two world wars that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions.

For someone like skybird who constantly refers to history somehow let this one slip by. But all in all Skybird seems to have a soft spot in his heart for Pelosi. He really feels for her and her self implosed plight of conjured political violence. It is a growing phenomenon...year sure...growing phenomenon....

http://www.mansueact.com/imgs/reagan_shot_dc_hilton.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/160000/images/_162143_impeach_clinton.jpg

http://www.manlyrash.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/bush_hitler.jpg

It has been a growing phenomenon since Washtington. There is nothing special going on here. Twist it how you like it is politics as usual.

[Skybird]

For someone like skybird who constantly refers to history somehow let this one slip by. But all in all Skybird seems to have a soft spot in his heart for Pelosi. He really feels for her and her self implosed plight of conjured political violence. It is a growing phenomenon...year sure...growing phenomenon...

You could as well accuse me of eventually liking the sound of her name if spoken out loud. That would be the same kind of quality argument like what you say in the above.

The day you can give your arguments without all those theatre FX of yours , and just give your toughts in a logical order, that will be the day we can talk much better with each other even if disagreeing.

Right now I have to adress more your rethorical arrows thrown at me, than with your "arguments". And that defines a situation where any adressing of your replies - is simply pointless.

See that video. Transcribe what she says, print it out. and then show me where she is wrong and what is so evil in what she says. Stop the eggdance of yours. Get down to the nitty-gritty. This thread is about that video and what it says, this is what the thread has been launched over. Prove your point that what it says is so laughable.

BTW, you have no idea about what I think of Pelosi in general. Because I have never told you or nayone else, as far as I remember. and that is becasue the simple truth is that I do not care for her, because I have not enough valid impressions of her and her political positions to form a robust impression of her that I could defend in any political debate. All I say is that what she says in the video that you guys laugh about - is simple, natural, healthy reason. Not more, not less.

Enough of this thread. This is no rethorics lesson.

[August]

One who sits in a glass house should not throw with stones, they say. Germans have learned their lessons. Not a few Americans have not.

So says the forums number one German stone thrower.

[longam]

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1057547886170&id=3f168d2d2c727c0ac4003cbb396f8cd9&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.christianitytoday.com%2fmovie s%2fimg%2freviews%2fmasterandcommander-2.jpg

The lesser of two weevils.. now what exactly did he mean buy that?

[Sea Demon]

Right now I have to adress more your rethorical arrows thrown at me, than with your "arguments". And that defines a situation where any adressing of your replies - is simply pointless.



Smells like surrender to me. :up: .

BTW, you have no idea about what I think of Pelosi in general. Because I have never told you or nayone else, as far as I remember. and that is becasue the simple truth is that I do not care for her, because I have not enough valid impressions of her and her political positions to form a robust impression of her that I could defend in any political debate. All I say is that what she says in the video that you guys laugh about - is simple, natural, healthy reason.

Actually Skybird, you're very easy to figure out. Even in regards to Pelosi. Your words in the past kind of give it away. But on a sidenote, the funny thing is you say here you "don't have enough info to form an opinion of her", and obviously you have no clue about many Republicans you rail against(as I see glaring misinformation from you about them).....and yet you post such strong opinions about all of it. Seriously, do you know what you're talking about or not? You send mixed messages here. You can't have it both ways.

[nikimcbee]

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1057547886170&id=3f168d2d2c727c0ac4003cbb396f8cd9&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.christianitytoday.com%2fmovie s%2fimg%2freviews%2fmasterandcommander-2.jpg

The lesser of two weevils.. now what exactly did he mean buy that?
:haha::yeah:
we have a winner.

[Aramike]

It is me asking you in the first 12-18 months after your troops have left Iraq. the signs are already there to be seen. Stability never have been anywhere near of being coinvincing in the past years. Growing corruption in already very corrput and-self-centred government, and administrative structures. Growing ethnic tension in the corrupt security apparatus. Lacking loyalty among police and army memebers. US experts and insiders concluding the quality of security apparatus and army to be a total mess. Ethnic tensions between the groups mounting pressure under the surface. Iran waiting for the US withdrawal. Al Sadr waiting for the US withdrawel, and using the time to boost his religious authority.

Irak already is a failed state. It's written in big letters across the wall. wishful thinking just means to practice like one practiced under biush - to delay the assessement of the question whether or not it was worth it until the end of time to escape the damning verdict that way.Again, not much time, but I have to ask: Do you believe there would have been stability in the transfer of power when Saddam was removed from the picture without US involvement?

[nikimcbee]

http://ddunleavy.typepad.com/the_big_picture/images/2008/02/13/hillarycrying_2.jpg


More examples of political crocodile tears

http://www.lindasog.com/Israel/crycindy.gif

I just thought I'd throw this in there too::haha:
http://top-fantasy-football.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Favre-Crying-260x260.jpg





Pleez, you must vote for socialism, or a hundred kitties a day will die at the hands of halliburtoncheneyrumsfeldbush.
http://images.art.com/images/products/large/10123000/10123744.jpg




I rest my case:
http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4000000/Puppy-dog-eyes-house-md-4049559-596-439.jpg

vs
http://www.donkeydish.com/images/gallery/nancy-pelosi.jpg

[Freiwillige]

Again, not much time, but I have to ask: Do you believe there would have been stability in the transfer of power when Saddam was removed from the picture without US involvement?

I have to say that it is unlikely that Saddam would have ever been removed from power without U.S. involvement. Saddam's Ba'ath party held an iron grip in Iraq and after Saddam passed one of his sons would have taken the reigns.
Actually it was beautiful how Iran and Iraq held each other in check mate.
All that's ruined now.

[Rip]

I think you can give to me that I do not blame the average american for everything, not here, and not before. I specified target groups and target figures of my criticism or at least divided the total ammount of population into different "subgroups" with differeing opinions and views. I certainly see a general problom with the contemporary American culture (=way of living) in general, but that is the same set of problems I see with all the Western nation including Germany. Many of these are just reaching higher peaks in the example of america, than in other Western nations, for example, per-head consummation of ressources, garbage production and wasting energy. In these examples, American society plays for the global top ranks.

It's just that I get pissed by braindead Stammtisch-paroles like the contribution by Sea Demon that Tribesman quoted. ;)

If you understand German a bit, here is a very good piece I found yesterday, on the installation of a "status-quo-dictatorship" in democratic germany, caused by the intended and planned absence of real choices.

http://www.welt.de/politik/bundestagswahl/article4565626/Die-deutsche-Status-quo-Diktatur.html (http://www.welt.de/politik/bundestagswahl/article4565626/Die-deutsche-Status-quo-Diktatur.html)

I was surprised to find it, even more in that newspaper which usually is not so good. It's a variation of my own argument that democracies in the West are no longer democracies anymore.

and Germany is only a moment of American disinterest away from being another puppet of Mr. Putin. Hope you like Vodka.

[OneToughHerring]

and Germany is only a moment of American disinterest away from being another puppet of Mr. Putin. Hope you like Vodka.

Instead of being an American puppet?

Actually I think it's possible for Germany to be puppet of both America and Russia. This is what Germany has been for the last 65 years or so. It's not like the two are (or have been) enemies of each other. When was the last time an American shot a Russian or vice versa?

[Aramike]

I have to say that it is unlikely that Saddam would have ever been removed from power without U.S. involvement. Saddam's Ba'ath party held an iron grip in Iraq and after Saddam passed one of his sons would have taken the reigns.
Actually it was beautiful how Iran and Iraq held each other in check mate.
All that's ruined now.Yeah, except that he was a 70 year-old man, who's hold on the country became increasingly tenuous over the years. His sons were likely acting quite independantly, and rebellion could only be put down through the use of the most brutal methods.

And, when he inevitably fell from power, what do you think would have happened then?

[Skybird]

Again, not much time, but I have to ask: Do you believe there would have been stability in the transfer of power when Saddam was removed from the picture without US involvement?
He prepared one of his sons to take over power. And since these sons were thugs like their father, if not even worse maybe, one internally strong and brutal man would have been replaced with another. And maybe one of the brothers would have killed the other, I am not sure aboiut their mutual relation. I know they used to go around the blocks arm in arm and terrorised civilians hand together, so that "maybe" indeed is a "maybe".

Internal control of the religious would have been maintained, I'm sure. The teeth to set up an external threat to the region had been drawn in the war 1991.

I always have seen the Iraq thing in the strategic longterm perspective. And in that perspective, it is a stratgeic failure second to none since WWII. In Vietnam, only "face" was lost, the stratgeic fallout was very minor, and the main damage was indeed just internally (American soceity, redefinition of the army). But Iraq has made the balance of power shifting to the huge disadvantage of the West and America. One never should have launched it, instead should have maximised engagement in Afghanistan - which was more or less "abanodned" and by that just a few years later has turned into a mission impossible for the sake of having the Iraq war. The problems in Afghanistan are home-made, and a direct result of the Iraq war.

On Iraq, I again remind of Colonel Reese' memo that I linked to some weeks ago. It says anything about Iraq's perpsective one needs to know. It fits into the general picture of Iraq that I form by other input as well.

[Skybird]

and Germany is only a moment of American disinterest away from being another puppet of Mr. Putin. Hope you like Vodka.
How pathetic! :haha:

[heartc]

Whom do you expect to buy this new rethoric of "one hour away?" We people in europe economically get effected and pay for what you call your domestic and foreign policies [...]

Oh God, please stfu.

Doesn't it get a bit old AT SOME POINT to blame the Americans all the time - the ones who
a) brought working freedom and a working Republic to the Western part of this country after the second WORLD WAR - when many other nations would have prefered to see our utter destruction - and

b) stood with us against the communist threat in the east and carried the biggest burden of it, here and overseas, thus enabling us to live in a dream world for decades because we had no obligations to stand up to this very real threat by ourselves, other than paying some money behind the scenes, but having ZERO costs in BLOOD, while they did?

People here in our country are very adept at shouting "War, never again". That's what we say is what we learned. I say, if we did, that is a very simplified and even wrong lesson. Instead I say "Bull****, never again". With people talking the **** you do, though, I see nothing along these lines was learned. Blame other people for your own problems and thus demand you have a saying in how they run their own damn country. Awesome approach, really. Hey, let's invade Poland while we're at it, shall we?

Hey, guess what? If we BUILT our whole economy on the concept of export, while we neglected our domestic market and hammered down on the middle class business with a fiery tax burden and what not - well, then MAYBE, while this might work for a while, once you get a world financial crisis, you just MIGHT run into trouble with that concept. But don't blame the WORLD for it, or America. Because as long as the money came into our economy from that same world, and from America, we didn't complain either. So suck it up now. It was our choice to build an export economy and have a weak domestic self sustaining economy. And we didn't give a damn how our foreign customers financed their acquisitions either as long as they paid us. We didn't care if they took out some foul credit plan to buy our cars after they bought their houses.
To whine and complain now when our export oriented economy suffers from a global financial crises is just completely dishonest, childish and hypocritical bickering that rather fits to a time 70 years ago. You can't just play along as long as it works in your favor, and as soon as it doesn't, you cry "foul!". If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

And in either case - this wasn't some "new rhetoric" he played on you. He just asked you in a quite friendly manner to maybe not play the knows-it-all Oberlehrer on *their* business, just as he doesn't have the arrogance to do on ours.

[heartc]

Instead of being an American puppet?

Actually I think it's possible for Germany to be puppet of both America and Russia. This is what Germany has been for the last 65 years or so.

Wrong, pal. At least the Western part of Germany has been a Free Republic for "the last 65 years or so", allied under an umbrella of other free nations - a Republic many good Germans who were murdered by Hitler would have been proud of if they had seen it in their life time.
And we can do without the evaluations of an angry nationalist Finn, thank you.

[OneToughHerring]

Wrong, pal. At least the Western part of Germany has been a Free Republic for "the last 65 years or so", allied under an umbrella of other free nations - a Republic many good Germans who were murdered by Hitler would have been proud of if they had seen it in their life time.
And we can do without the evaluations of an angry nationalist Finn, thank you.

If by "freedom" you mean having, for example, ex-nazis in places of power and US corporations pulling the strings then yea I suppose the western part had it. No matter what you say, the western recipe for success hasn't worked in the eastern part of Germany.

I don't really think of myself as a nationalist, plenty of things that are wrong with Finland. I don't think I live in the worst country in the world but it certainly isn't the best either, in this respect I greatly differ from some of the US subsimmers. I am also able to be critical of the foreign politics of Finland.

[Tribesman]

I am also able to be critical of the foreign politics of Finland
Wow Finland has foriegn politics, you learn something new every day.

[OneToughHerring]

Wow Finland has foriegn politics, you learn something new every day.

Yes, does Ireland have any? Minus the USA - IRA - connection.

[Aramike]

He prepared one of his sons to take over power. And since these sons were thugs like their father, if not even worse maybe, one internally strong and brutal man would have been replaced with another. And maybe one of the brothers would have killed the other, I am not sure aboiut their mutual relation. I know they used to go around the blocks arm in arm and terrorised civilians hand together, so that "maybe" indeed is a "maybe".

Internal control of the religious would have been maintained, I'm sure. The teeth to set up an external threat to the region had been drawn in the war 1991.That's a huge assumption. Considering the loose cannon activities of the sons in the years leading up to Saddam's ouster, its far more likely that the country would splinter with some elements loyal to either son while some would remain loyal to neither. In fact, to some degree it already had and Saddam's control was becoming more limited in lieu of his son's.

More likely there would have been an instability similar to now but with far-reaching human rights violations.

But more importantly, it doesn't take a genious to deduce that Iran is envious of Iraq's natural resources, and as a nation of religious leadership, it would likely only face Middle Eastern lip service in an invasion of an unstable, and unprotected Iraq. Tom Clancy even wrote a book about this potential called Executive Orders, which fictionalized an account of an Iranian invasion of Iraq, and it has no doubt been the subject of many a NIE in the White House.

There is nothing but wishful thinking to support the idea that one of Saddam's sons would have been able to wrest control of a post-Saddam Iraq.

[Skybird]

Spare me Tom clancy. It is fictional writing, and politically very biased. I admit I have read most of his earlier novels, including Executive Orders. Red Storm Rising I ewven red repeatedly, 15 years ago or longer, but I wouldn'T read it again today. But I will never agree Clancy to by a military or political authority. He is not. He is more a propagandist or lobbyist.

Your ideas about how Iraq would be after the sons started fighting each other, is also highly speculative. And even if they wanted to start trouble: wanting something, is one thing, acutally being able to carry it out, is something different, and the Iraqi army'S backbone for posing a serious threat beyond Iraqi borders had been broken in 1991. even Saudi Arabia and Kuwait all alone would have been capable to throw back any new Iraqi invasion. Not to mention Turkey or Iran.

The level opf crime, brutality and killings going on under Saddam'S terror, has been lower than it has been in the post-war order and american occupation. Human rights hardly is an argument here. Torture again is in wide use in Iraqi security structures again, based on ethnic and religious hostilities.

[Aramike]

Spare me Tom clancy. It is fictional writing, and politically very biased. My assessment had little to do with Tom Clancy, and more to do with my professional experience. It just so happened that he had a novel in the 90's that illustrated a PART (only a part) of my point.

So please, spare me the "spare me" comments and stick to the facts.But I will never agree Clancy to by a military or political authority. He is not. He is more a propagandist or lobbyist.Obviously your familiarity with the man is limited.Your ideas about how Iraq would be after the sons started fighting each other, is also highly speculative. And even if they wanted to start trouble: wanting something, is one thing, acutally being able to carry it out, is something different, and the Iraqi army'S backbone for posing a serious threat beyond Iraqi borders had been broken in 1991. even Saudi Arabia and Kuwait all alone would have been capable to throw back any new Iraqi invasion. Not to mention Turkey or Iran. Okay, so? My point was concerning Iranian aggression, not Iraqi.The level opf crime, brutality and killings going on under Saddam'S terror, has been lower than it has been in the post-war order and american occupation. And you call Tom Clancy a propagandist?

Where do you get numbers to back that up? Oh, and lawlessness is not the same as officially sanctioned human rights offenses.Torture again is in wide use in Iraqi security structures again, based on ethnic and religious hostilities. Again, this is nothing but speculation.

But besides, I see nothing in this response that in any way even really addresses my prediction on the stability and, ultimately, vulnerability of a post-Saddam Iraq. In fact, your argument is neither here nor there, as there is little doubt that such lawlessness would occur regardless of who's in charge, post Saddam.

That being said, there are innumerable advantages to having a military presence in the area.

The bottom line is that I really don't give a damn about the peace and stability of the region, as it's pointless to fret about a conglomeration of cultures BASED upon intolerence. What I DO care about is not allowing such conflict to spill openly into the rest of the world. Iraq, despite having a largely impotent military, was still a threat. It was a secular nation bordering a country led by a religious fanatic, and were still considered Iranian enemies.

Furthermore, the current ME climate is shifting further towards the abyss, with a defiant Ahmadinejad openly attempting the construction of nuclear weapons all the while politically blasting Israel at every opportunity. As of now, we have forces standing at Iran's door, and could poise them on the border with relative ease. So long as Obama isn't stupid enough to completely pull out of Iraq, odds are we'll maintain bases there, which will surely act as a deterrent to any aggressive Iranian designs.

And with an aggressive nation clearly attempting to build nuclear weapons, that US posturing becomes quite necessary. But, without the Iraq War, that US posturing would be nearly impossible to achieve.

[geetrue]

If real men like us :yeah: can see the truth about NP ...

Why can't everyone?

What kind of man would try to get into her panties anyway? :salute:

Seriously! :o

[Skybird]

Aramike,

I doubt we live oin the same planet and thus we mean two different places when saying "Iraq".

And did you just say that the Iraq war in 2003 was launched in order to get military bases for a war against Iran ten years later? That would mean to justify the Iraq invasion "in reverse", six years later, by an argument that did not appear earlier than in the latest stage of the occupation (because I remember very clearly that Bush officially claimed different - nevertheless flawed - reasons in 2003) and is motivated by the war itself, while the original reasons given in advance for the war have collapsed. All that has a bit too much the scent of arbitrariness on it as if I would spend time with discussing this alternate reality scenario of reasons for the Iraq war. A reason given before a war is a reason, and may show to be wrong or true (wrong in case of Iraq 2003). A reason given after the war - is just a foul excuse.

Whether military forces present in the ME and Gulf region, including those of Israel, are sufficient to destroy an Iran program by an air war alone, or not, is in perfect doubt, and that they are sufficient to have a successful land campaign, belongs to the realm of extremely dangerous self-deceptions. right now not even Afghanistan is controllable - and the Iranians are much better organised and armed, they also can afford high losses in military personell. Iran is unavailable for a land invasion with today's force structures of the West. Better believe it. On the other hand neither Wetsern nor american public is in a supportive mood for an Iranian war.

And since it is sometimes said that Israel would act on its own, I repeatedly read that practically every Israeli intelligence and military authority has no illusions about that, and sees the chances of a war of Israel all alone as a guaranteed failure. In other words: it will not happen. It's forces do not have the necessary size, the targets are defined too unprecise, and the ranges are too long.

The use of nuclear arms currently is not willed by any wetsern nation inclduing the US and israel. but it is the only realistic option to mount a realsistic chance to crush the Iranian program for sure. That does not mean I call for a nuclear wai there, and now, and hurray. I just remind of what I consider to be a simple truth.

And I give it a greater than 50% chance that in case of an attack against Iran, even your trustworthy usual vasall, Britain, this time would refuse to follow you.

[Aramike]

I doubt we live oin the same planet and thus we mean two different places when saying "Iraq". Not really. You're just not used to your constant "US bad" assumptions being challenged with actual likelihoods, I suppose.

Typically, I give you more credit. You seem to typically take your own view based upon your own experiences. In this case however, you've seem to marry yourself to the typical leftist assumptions, primarily that of "no WMDs, Iraq bad". Actually I'm kind of surprise consider that your typical view on the middle east and its dominant religion would seem to beg for a powerful western presence.

But alas, the call of "hate Bush" must be too inviting.And did you just say that the Iraq war in 2003 was launched in order to get military bases for a war against Iran ten years later? That would mean to justify the Iraq invasion "in reverse", six years later, by an argument that did not appear earlier than in the latest stage of the occupation (because I remember very clearly that Bush officially claimed different - nevertheless flawed - reasons in 2003) and is motivated by the war itself, while the original reasons given in advance for the war have collapsed.Actually I was just giving benefits to the current situation (which Bush created). I suspect that Bush and his national security team foresaw the same benefits, but it certainly wouldn't have been politically expedient to include "take over terrority for eventual military bases" in the public equation.

Also, regarding Bush, I have a hard time faulting the man for three reasons:

We know that Saddam, at one point had WMDs.
We know that Saddam, at one point used WMDs.
We know that Saddam was decidedly anti-western.
One would have to be a complete idiot with 3 inch wool over their eyes to believe that it would be difficult to transport WMDs out of the country prior to the invasion. (Oh, and by the way, Tom Clancy was opposed to the Iraq War. Funny little footnote).

Did Bush make mistakes with regard to the war? You bet your ass. He never framed the war properly, and didn't plan for what would occur afte the war was concluded (seriously, how dense are the people that consider the last few years of Iraq a "war"?) But was the invasion a mistake with long term, dire consequences?

Yep - for the enemy.

Bush sent a very powerful message to the region - we COULD dominate you if we so choose to. In other words, you exist in your present state at our pleasure. This is a message that such a violent, religiously dominated region needed to hear.

Just think, man: if the US wanted to, it could EASILY claim Iraqi natural resources (oil) as our own. The only resistance would be token and originate from allies who we'd simply give a little oil to in return for their overall cold shoulder.

And do you think that any Iraqi insurgency would be able to prevent this?

Of course it couldn't! The only reason the insurgency has ever reached the level of "effectiveness" it has is because of the PACIFISTIC rules of engagement imposed upon our troops.

The last three paragraphs are what I call "earning the moral highground".

In any case, the problem comes in with people like you. You and your ilk have been so busy trying to invalidate the work of anything related to Bush that you've abandoned any concept of realism. If the world stood up and said, "you brought that upon yourself" a message would be sent out. Instead, the world in all its glorious pacifism (I will comment on pacifism later) has attempted to distant itself, in effect saying that such dictators need only deal with the one-armed beast of diplomacy, which ultimately fails with only pacifist teeth behind it.

In fact, I suggest that Saddam miscalculated Bush. He assumed that Bush was like the rest of the world (read: you) it his diplomacy, and therefore was only posturing. Now, with the world essentially condemning REAL action, they've sent the signal out to every other tyrant that we won't do a damned thing about your aggression.

Since then, North Korea has detonated a nuclear device and Iran is well on its way towards constructing a multi-stage bomb.

Skybird, I can't deny - I expected better from you, as you typically think more openly than this.

As far as pacifism goes, I find myself to be similar in feeling. I despise war. However, I acknowledge one very simple fact - when dealing with militant leaders, nothing can be accomplished without the THREAT of a war that said leaders would lose.

Thanks to the idiot pacifists in power throughout the world today, that particular, most important, brand of diplomatic persuasion no longer exists.

And, to be quite honest, I can think of no greater failure of the international community.

It's one thing to disagree with the Iraq War. It's another, really stupid, thing to handicap yourself as a result of a disagreement in policy.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Aramike and Sky, if you don't mind I'd like to weigh in on this discussion concerning the Iraq war and its' implications on a future war with Iran.

Firstly, I would like to say that I fall in on Sky's side of the line when it comes to interventionist U.S policy. By that I mean that as a U.S. citizen, I don't give a flying ******* about what happens to the Middle East or Europe or western Asia or anywhere else for that matter. I realize that this view sounds simplistic and narrowminded to some, but look at the appreciation we have recieved for intervening in foreign affairs.

So what if a few million Armenians or Kurds get massacred by Muslims? Why the hell should we even care? That's Europe's backyard, not ours.
Let them deal with it. They have been dealing with Islamic aggression for nearly 1500 years now. Why is it suddenly our responsibility?

The United States, as a nation, has no place intervening in foreign affairs, and the founding fathers cautioned us against this. As Thomas Jefferson said "free trade with all nations, alliances with none." As a nation, we stand to benefit more from trading with conflicting nations than we do from participating in the conflict itself. The only exception to this rule is the employment of private military corporations (PMCs) that operate without U.S. state funding.

Why should we be responsible for ******* ups like the creation of Yugoslavia or Iraq or Czechoslovakia or anywhere else? We didn't make those nations, the British did. Let us assume for a moment that all of Europe itself was overrun by Communist invasion after WW2 because the U.S. wasn't there to stop it. So what? Let us assume that we hadn't gotten involved in the Pacific affairs of the Japanes prior to WW2. What would be lost? The psuedo-sovereignty of a few European colonies? Who cares? Why should we care? Weak centralis, nations are easy to exploit economically, and we should have pursued a policy to that end. We should pursue a policy to that end now! And we shouldn't feel any remorse for it either. The "allies" were more than happy to ignore Wilson's Fourteen Points at the conclusion of the Great War, thus leading to the travesty known as the Treaty of Versailles, which led to the most destructive conflict in recorded history.

Instead we have opted for an interventionist policy which no-one wants. Europe doesn't appreciate our meddling and neither do the middle or far east nations. We should withdraw now and benefit from the resultant conflict, no sarcasm intended. Let Europe feel the unrelentant pressure of the east yet again and see how quickly they come scurrying to us for troops and arms. We cannot attempt to impart reason on such an unresonable world, so we should take a lesson from history and stop trying to influence those who will not learn from it. There is profit to be made in the meantime, and private industry is what this nation was founded upon.
Let the old world destroy itself again and again, we have better things to do.

[OneToughHerring]

Finland would have welcomed US and British troops and weapons when we would have needed them and they were promised to us during WW 2. Alas, no troops and no weapons arrived. Oh well, turned out we could kick the Soviet and Nazi ass by ourselves so better this way. But based on past and present experience we just don't trust you guys to help us in any way.

So you can take your Nato, your weapons and your troops, wrap em all up and stick em up your keister. Because they are not wanted.

[Aramike]

Glad you're back, Undersea, interesting stuff. But, I disagree with a few points:Firstly, I would like to say that I fall in on Sky's side of the line when it comes to interventionist U.S policy. By that I mean that as a U.S. citizen, I don't give a flying ******* about what happens to the Middle East or Europe or western Asia or anywhere else for that matter. I realize that this view sounds simplistic and narrowminded to some, but look at the appreciation we have recieved for intervening in foreign affairs.

So what if a few million Armenians or Kurds get massacred by Muslims? Why the hell should we even care? That's Europe's backyard, not ours.
Let them deal with it. They have been dealing with Islamic aggression for nearly 1500 years now. Why is it suddenly our responsibility?I wouldn't disagree with this, except that it becomes an all-or-nothing stance. We've become dependant upon the region for resources. As such, it is in our interest to maintain a level of stability, or shall we say, upper hand over the region.

Now, should that economic reality change, things would be different. But, like it or not, that IS the reality of current US economics.

Also, consider that our economics are impacted by the rest of the world, considering the amount of trade with engage in. In other words, should oil prices skyrocket in China, American consumers will surely help pick up the tab.

As such, like it or not, our interests in the region are tangible. So what? Let us assume that we hadn't gotten involved in the Pacific affairs of the Japanes prior to WW2. What would be lost? The psuedo-sovereignty of a few European colonies? Who cares? Why should we care? Weak centralis, nations are easy to exploit economically, and we should have pursued a policy to that end. We should pursue a policy to that end now! And we shouldn't feel any remorse for it either. The "allies" were more than happy to ignore Wilson's Fourteen Points at the conclusion of the Great War, thus leading to the travesty known as the Treaty of Versailles, which led to the most destructive conflict in recorded history. Two words: cultural domination. Instead we have opted for an interventionist policy which no-one wants. Europe doesn't appreciate our meddling and neither do the middle or far east nations. We should withdraw now and benefit from the resultant conflict, no sarcasm intended. Let Europe feel the unrelentant pressure of the east yet again and see how quickly they come scurrying to us for troops and arms.While honestly, I wouldn't object to watching some of the Europeans squirm, we can't afford to allow that so-called pressure to materialize unchecked. The bottom line is that we've moved into a global economy and WAY too many of our politicians at home seem to cherish that very thing, which certainly reflect the views of their constituents.

Like it or not, we play in a global market. Stability must be maintained. Wait - scratch that, dominance must be fought for.There is profit to be made in the meantime, and private industry is what this nation was founded upon.
Let the old world destroy itself again and again, we have better things to do. See, here's where I disagree wholeheartedly. We don't have better things to do. Global competition is good for any economy that is geared to compete. Should we go isolationist, we'll ultimately be opening the doors to union domination (as if they are not open already). The labor market would ultimately dominate our economy, grinding it to a halt, or at the minimum, socialism. Labor does only so much to feed the masses - you need the goods as well.

[Aramike]

Finland would have welcomed US and British troops and weapons when we would have needed them and they were promised to us during WW 2. Alas, no troops and no weapons arrived. So based on past and present experience we just don't trust you guys.

So you can take your Nato, your weapons and your troops, wrap em all up and stick em up your keister. Because they are not wanted.That explains a whole lot about you. :up:

[OneToughHerring]

That explains a whole lot about you. :up:

Yea, both my grandfathers fought in WW 2, against Soviets and Nazis. In one of the last fights of the war the Nazis were driven out of Lapland. In the town that I'm from there were bodies of German and Finnish soldiers all over the place, kind of like after the battle of Waterloo or something.

So we went through that and survived and triumphed. What the **** for should we start to pay Americans for overpriced crap weapons by joining the Nato?

[Skybird]

Not really. You're just not used to your constant "US bad" assumptions being challenged with actual likelihoods, I suppose.

I am critical of the rality of America today. I do not buy it that the contemporary america and the america as it was planned and intended in the foundign documents, are the same anymore. they are lightyears apart. your "argument" above actually works two ways. Becasue I could tell you that maybe you only need to be too biased in favour of the US so that you call any criticism and anything questioning your positive image of it falls into the "US bad-propaganda" category

Typically, I give you more credit. You seem to typically take your own view based upon your own experiences. In this case however, you've seem to marry yourself to the typical leftist assumptions, primarily that of "no WMDs, Iraq bad".

:06:

Actually I'm kind of surprise consider that your typical view on the middle east and its dominant religion would seem to beg for a powerful western presence.

Maybe that seems to you. But it is not what I think and say.

[quote]But alas, the call of "hate Bush" must be too inviting. Actually I was just giving benefits to the current situation (which Bush created). I suspect that Bush and his national security team foresaw the same benefits, but it certainly wouldn't have been politically expedient to include "take over terrority for eventual military bases" in the public equation.

The plan to go to war with Iraq derives from the early 90s, rotting in a desk durting the Clinton years, and wai9tng to be put on the table once a neocon-supporting government would return to the WH. The Iraq war was decided the day Bush made it into the WH. Any reasons they gave for the Iraq war - were lies.


Also, regarding Bush, I have a hard time faulting the man for three reasons:
We know that Saddam, at one point had WMDs.
We know that Saddam, at one point used WMDs.
We know that Saddam was decidedly anti-western.
One would have to be a complete idiot with 3 inch wool over their eyes to believe that it would be difficult to transport WMDs out of the country prior to the invasion. (Oh, and by the way, Tom Clancy was opposed to the Iraq War. Funny little footnote).

That si simply all a drivel the consevatoves are trying to give as an excuse for the war over and over and over again. Before the war, I want to remind you, they said loud and clear: "We know saddams has WMD and we know where they are." Nothing less they said and they meant by that - and said that - chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The claim was that in 2003 Iraq had a stock of WMDs ready to use, in quantities that would pose a threat to the stretegic balance in the region. This was the cliamed reason to go to war. Nobody ever denied that Iraq has had chemical weapons in teh 80s and early 90s. I never denied that. Nobody else ever denied that. the point is that nothing ever was fou8nd after 2003 that indicated that they still possessed stockpiled WMDs after the early or mid-90s. They found tracers and hints for such weapons having existed in Iraq in the 80s and 90s - but nothing cinvincing any serious expert that they still had these weapons in 2002, 2003.

when it had become clear that no WMDs were to be found to verfiy the claim over which one sold the war to the public, one chnaged the reasons for warl. One now said that there were links between Saddam and Al Quaeda that made Iraq a supporter of Al Quaeda and a complice int he attacks on 9/11. This was even bigger a nobrainer than the claims over WMDs before. Al Quaeda and Saddam were natural enemies, becasue Saddam represwented exactly the kind of corrupted and perverted Islamic ideal that Osama is pissed of, that'S why he is hostile to many of the Islamic establishments, anmely the house of Saud, and of course Saddam as well.

All claims I have read or heared after 2004 about WMDs being found in Iraq, showed to be hilariously exaggertated consoiracy theories, from empty alloy tubes over hangars showing traces of chemical agents (from the 80s and 90s maybe when nobody denied that Saddam had stocks of chemical wepaons?) to mibile factories for biologic weapons. Add to this the famous london missile memorandum claiming that Iraqi nuclear missiles are ready to reach euro9pe in less than 25 minutes, and you have the cream on top of the pie.

Did Bush make mistakes with regard to the war? You bet your ass. He never framed the war properly, and didn't plan for what would occur afte the war was concluded (seriously, how dense are the people that consider the last few years of Iraq a "war"?) But was the invasion a mistake with long term, dire consequences?

Yep - for the enemy.

No, for the people of Iraq. they payed a blood toll several times as high than it has been under Saddam, with their coutnries future today being in doubt, and torture and ethnic hate having become dominant in the security structures again, some Iraqis even say it is worse than it was under Saddam regarding these latter things. Washington had very illusory idas about how the Iraq wqar would run. Victory in the field battle, of course only applauding people, no insuirgents, no old bills trying to get settled, no ethnic hate, no religious hate. But everybody knowing a bit aboiut Iraq saw these things coming, and wanred of these things coming, and I certainly did as well. And we were right. nothing in the Iraqi status today is a surprise. It couild have been forseen if only oje wanted to see it. But Washington systematically crippled it's expert'S ability to voice advise if it was critical of the official line, and that way stumbled into a war that initially was planned in the early nineties and was meant to give the American oil industry and supporting contractors a dominating position in the Iraqi oil business which was designed to kicik out the French which had somewhat talen over the business a bit. From the the American armouries over Halliburton to the oil corproations: the war was meant to be over profits, profits, and nothing but profits, with the additional value of being able to control and redirect the flow of Iraqi oil to foreign customers, namely China.

For an insiders competent description of the discouraging status of the Iraqi state'S developement, I again refer to Col. Reese unwelcomed memo that I had linked to here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=154850

For a revealing eye-opener on the way a bunch of selfish incompetent planned and stumbled into the Iraq war, I refer to the documentary movie "No End in sight", which I had linked one or one and a half year ago. Back then it was free downloadable on the web, but it now is a payware DVD, I think. Maybe it is still available on youtube. Beware, it was around two hours, I think. There, the real epxerts of the early phase spoke out about how professional advise was falsified or ignored, professional got thrpowjn out, and the dilletants were left to play war although they did not understand the rules. the German trabslated version of the film was entitled "Invasion of the amateurs". No better title there could be. The film won the Sundance festival, and won an academy award as best documentary feature.

http://www.noendinsightmovie.com/


Bush sent a very powerful message to the region - we COULD dominate you if we so choose to. In other words, you exist in your present state at our pleasure. This is a message that such a violent, religiously dominated region needed to hear.

Just think, man: if the US wanted to, it could EASILY claim Iraqi natural resources (oil) as our own. The only resistance would be token and originate from allies who we'd simply give a little oil to in return for their overall cold shoulder.

Stealing their oil does not mean that you fill it in bottles and carry it out of the country under your lohng coat. It means to get a word in their oiol minsitry, and getting a foot in the door regarding the legislation regulating the rules for trading oil in the internal Iraqi oil business. And this is what was planned for. you can alrready see it when the first troops entered Baghdad. They ignored calls for help by hpsitals, museums, porvate perosns, but imediately raced to the opil minsitry and took control over it. It was the absolute and the only priority. Even after days and with many more trops having netered the city and no fighting tking place, orders focused on the oil ministry almost exclusively. - you must not believe me saying that. Believe it the people who have been there and have been givne the boot when suggesting to Washington that they should do more than just grabbing control of the oil insutry. See that damn film and then argue with them.

And do you think that any Iraqi insurgency would be able to prevent this?

They are still there, and they will still be there once you have gone out. It runs a bit like in Vietnam. On the ground the US won every battle. But the war still was a strategic defeat. The porblem in asymmetrical war is that the weaker side must not win by own effort. It wins by denying the claim of victory the the other. And if you claim Iraq to be a victory, then I claim to be the emperor of China.

Of course it couldn't! The only reason the insurgency has ever reached the level of "effectiveness" it has is because of the PACIFISTIC rules of engagement imposed upon our troops.
Live with it. the basic design of the ROE have been known from the very beginning. the ppooint is - you underesitmated the level of hostility that would mount, and you wiped any warning off the table that you did not want to hear.

The last three paragraphs are what I call "earning the moral highground".

In any case, the problem comes in with people like you. You and your ilk have been so busy trying to invalidate the work of anything related to Bush that you've abandoned any concept of realism. If the world stood up and said, "you brought that upon yourself" a message would be sent out.

So says you, which is no spurrpise since oyu represent a poltical opinion that nevertheless is supportive to Bush. But the ahame and failire of bush's ölegacy have been mamnged by the man himself. not by me or people of my opinion. You supported the wrong man from the beginning, and you failed. And now you accuse others to be responsible for it. That is cheap. We did not hide to you that we do not support Bush's questionable visions. And we warned of the dangers that later materialised. But you did not wish to take that into account. It was not what he wanted. And what you did was not what we wanted. You wrote your own story, so do not complain about the end. You could have known. But your leaders were blinded by the prospect of cheap profits, and incompetence. That'S what brought you to where you are.

and that is nobody else's guilt than your own's. so save the world you accusations that you woild have been right if only the others would have seen it and would have supported you and if... and if... and if...

Instead, the world in all its glorious pacifism (I will comment on pacifism later) has attempted to distant itself, in effect saying that such dictators need only deal with the one-armed beast of diplomacy, which ultimately fails with only pacifist teeth behind it.

Yes, some leaders opppsihng to Bush said something like that, but not all. And certainly have I never said something like that. I just did and do a simple mathemtical calculation on the medium and lpongterm strategic consequences of the war, I summarise the claimed or real gains and positive assets and from these I substract the already evident, obvious and to be expected negative costs, and I end up with a deeply red number with a big minus in front of it. Both when seeing it non-national, and when seeing it through pro-US glasses. the Iraq adventure has costed your nation and the world as well much more then what has been gained by it.

In fact, I suggest that Saddam miscalculated Bush. He assumed that Bush was like the rest of the world (read: you) it his diplomacy, and therefore was only posturing. Now, with the world essentially condemning REAL action, they've sent the signal out to every other tyrant that we won't do a damned thing about your aggression.

Since then, North Korea has detonated a nuclear device and Iran is well on its way towards constructing a multi-stage bomb.

Skybird, I can't deny - I expected better from you, as you typically think more openly than this.

As far as pacifism goes, I find myself to be similar in feeling. I despise war. However, I acknowledge one very simple fact - when dealing with militant leaders, nothing can be accomplished without the THREAT of a war that said leaders would lose.

Thanks to the idiot pacifists in power throughout the world today, that particular, most important, brand of diplomatic persuasion no longer exists.

And, to be quite honest, I can think of no greater failure of the international community.

It's one thing to disagree with the Iraq War. It's another, really stupid, thing to handicap yourself as a result of a disagreement in policy.

Okay, this is just the usual rethoric and pathetic posturing, so I save myself from spending time to reply.

[Skybird]

Lance,

somebody else just two or three days ago also took a stand in favour of isolationsim. And like him you simply ignore the multitude of economic and financial interdependencies your country is entangled in. this would make your withdrwing fromt he world sdtage much more hurting to your nation than it would be to the world. I would even question your natiopn'S ability to economically survive anymore if just staying for itself. the simple unwelcomed truth is that as the dying empire's heart, america vitally dpeends on the flow of goods and fincances and ressources into it and in no way is capable anymore to keep up it'S living style if the suppoort from the outside would come to an end. Even a signficant drop in these flow of goods and ressoruces and fiances already would be life-threatening.

You should know, since you invented it. ;) Globalisation had been launched as an American think project. And interestingly, those who once propagated it the loudest have become the most silent about it.

Forget isolationsim. That's like threatening to poke your own eye with a pencil. and there are still reasonable minds in american politics who understand this.

[Skybird]

P.S. The German edition of "No end in sight" is still available at youtube, in six parts óf 10 minutes (which means it has been cut), under the German title "Invasion der Amateure".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8WN7rgcqu8