iraq a just war?

[Kapitan]

do you think america should have got involved in iraq ?

did they make lies to get oil?

was it all worth it?

what will america and her allies gain?

whats your total opinion on the matter

[Sea Demon]

Troublemaker! :stare: :-j :-j :-j

[Kapitan]

acctualy this topic is totaly 100% no trouble what i hope to gain is every ones feelings emotions and thoughts on the situation and what they hope will happen in the future.

i refuse to comment at this stage i await people to tell me thier views so i can wiegh up my own

[TteFAboB]

Run to the hills!!!

The detonation process cannot be reverted! It is too late! Leave the old and sick behind! Take your women and children!

May god be with us.

INCOMING!!!!!!!

[Sharkstooth]

wat.....no poll???????
my choice would be........yes, you are a lil troublemaker. :cool:

[bradclark1]

Here we go again. :doh: All you have to do is read the numerous threads that have already taken place. I'll be suprised if you get any takers.

Brad

[Kapitan]

ok then il ask drebble to delete it !

[Skybird]

Have you noticed it? Skybird has been upgraded. He's a Stealthfighter now! :-j :lol:

[Takeda Shingen]

whats your total opinion on the matter

My total opinion on matter is that it constitutes the entirety of the known universe.

[CCIP]

whats your total opinion on the matter

My total opinion on matter is that it constitutes the entirety of the known universe.

What about energy? :hmm:

[Onkel Neal]

ok then il ask drebble to delete it !

No, no, they are legitimate questions, this topic is open for discussion. We just need to keep in mind our replies and rebuttals and keep them from being too provacative (this applies to me, too).

[Iceman]

do you think america should have got involved in iraq ? = How could we not eventually...and wern't they under the microscope before any personal attack on America 'per say' for other reasons...U..hum...Kuwait.

did they make lies to get oil? = Who's They? The entire U.N. or American allies? the ones who all went merrily along down the rose path. That hindsight sure is good.

was it all worth it? = To Whom...? People who like laws and rules and a stable , government that doesnt kill them...I'd say yes...probably....
People who like kaos,death,and do bad things..probably not.

what will america and her allies gain? = Hum....well personally I still am waiting on my free life supply of black gold or Texas Tea as Neal may say...Maybe we are just gluttons for punishment...and reap what we sow...maybe the force of Good will really win out in the longgggggg.......run.

whats your total opinion on the matter = I think the matter is so complex and complicated that even Skybird himself would fall asleep at the keyboard trying to make his points on the matter to you....JK Sky...your turn ..get em. :up:

[Abraham]

Are you already in Holland, Neal?
Just because I see our National Banner behind you.
Then we could discuss the legitimate questions of Kapitain in full 'off thread' without upsetting Skybird... :D

Just to answer Kapitain:
Q. 1: Yes, because it was already for a long time.
Q. 2: No, not to get the oil but to get influence in the ME.
Q. 3: We won't know for many years.
Q. 4: idem.

P.S.: I agree with Sharktooth yes, you are a lil troublemaker.
:rotfl:

[August]

1. Yes

2. No

3. Only time will tell

4. The gain, no more Saddam, has already been made. Whether we can keep that gain, ie prevent a re-emergence of another Saddam in Iraq, again, only time will tell but i think it's very possible.

[Kapitan]

lets keep it on track :up: going good so far keep em coming

[Type941]

No
Yes
With time will know
What they gain seems to be outweighed by what they lose, thus far anyway. ..


Being naive about it is ever worse.


---

and yes, trouble maker you are! :88)

[Skybird]

Pragmatically, it all comes down to this: are they (the Iraqis) better off now or worst? - watching at what is going on there day by day, I doubt the answer can be "yes, they are better off." It's worse.

Theoretically, it all comes down to this: has any of the major pre-war assumptions and declarations of the war-wanting authorities in the West and in the US beeing found to be true? - Quite the opposite.

Historically, it all comes down to this: will the outcome of the war and the post-war history of Iraq and the kind of nation it will become reflect the results (amongst others) that the war had intended to cause? - The difference cannot be bigger.

What it all means? It means that it is too late now to ask the right questions. The messup is done.

[Type941]

You ask if it's a JUST war, which is a loaded question. Bush certainly thinks what he's doing is for a just cause... Some memorable qoutes from the Man himself.

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

[August]

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

Bush never said that. Are you making this stuff up as you go along?

[Kapitan]

i give 77% support for the war in iraq but i can say i dont like the idea of us being there for the next tten years or so

[August]

Pragmatically, it all comes down to this: are they (the Iraqis) better off now or worst? - watching at what is going on there day by day, I doubt the answer can be "yes".

Depends on your viewpoint I guess. The Sunnis might not have it as good as they did under Saddam, but what about the Kurds? Are they still being gassed and shot in wholesale lots? Are Shiites still being given starved, tortured and executed in wholesale lots?

Theoretically, it all comes down to this: has any of the major pre-war assumptions and declarations of the war-wanting authorities in the West and in the US beeing found to be true? - Quite the opposite.

The main pre-war assumption was that Saddam was a threat to us. Given his history and his oil money i'd say that assumption was and is an accurate one.

Historically, it all comes down to this: will the outcome of the war and the post-war history of Iraq and the kind of nation it will become reflect the results (amongst others) that the war had intended to cause? - The difference cannot be bigger.

What it all means? It means that it is too late now to ask the right questions. The messup is done.

The jury is still out on that, but I must say it's disturbing to see how many of our so called allies are hoping it won't.

[Gizzmoe]

Bush never said that. Are you making this stuff up as you go along?

Type "and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam" (including the quotes) into Google. 18800 hits. He reportedly said that to the Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. I of course don´t know if it is right, but it wouldn´t surprise me... :)

[August]

Bush never said that. Are you making this stuff up as you go along?

Type "and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam" (including the quotes) into Google. 10300 hits. He reportedly said that to the Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. I of course don´t know if it is right, but it wouldn´t surprise me... :)

Ok i did and "according to Abbas" is how the statement is described. Maybe something was garbled in translation, maybe Abbas had an agenda of his own by claiming he said it, but either way all it boils down to is pure hearsay.

[Type941]

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

Bush never said that. Are you making this stuff up as you go along?

Do you blindly belief that you can know for 100% what Bush did and did not say?

http://www.reandev.com/taliban/


Baaaa. :) (sheep/sheepdogs/wolfs)

[August]

Do you blindly belief that you can know for 100% what Bush did and did not say?

http://www.reandev.com/taliban/


Baaaa. :) (sheep/sheepdogs/wolfs)

Talk about sheep! FWIW using a propaganda page as a reference does not in any way support your point. Shame on you.

[Type941]

Do you blindly belief that you can know for 100% what Bush did and did not say?

http://www.reandev.com/taliban/


Baaaa. :) (sheep/sheepdogs/wolfs)

Talk about sheep! FWIW using a propaganda page as a reference does not in any way support your point. Shame on you.

Woof. So is it bollocks or you just don't like it? Cool Aid for you, sir? :yep: :up:

What's a FWIW? ..From what I ...?

[Hitman]

No it wasn't a just war, because it was a preventive war, i.e. not a response to a previous attack but instead a war initiated based on vague supositions and inexact informations.

BUT

it was a necessary war for US and EU, because we largely depend on the oil and on the stability of those countries, and we could not tolerate that a dictator SOB like Saddam had the key to inflict the war another oil crisis like the one in the 70s or sell his oil only to China, making that country grow fast and ruining europe when retiring all that iraqui oil from the world's market (Something Iran has done, BTW).

It would be unfair to pretend to measure and evaluate the benefits of the war just by looking at what the iraquians have gained after it. They have gained democracy, and currently have a worser way of life, but that war has helped all us in EU and the US to start stabilizing an area that will be a key in the near future whe the oil peak crisis starts.

We all know that a transition to other energies must be done, and we know the world is not and will not be ready for that in the inmediate future. So when a crisis starts I honestly prefer that it is the US who can control a scarce resource like oil instead of Saddam.

Another entirely different matter is that the "american way of life" means a stupid and innecesary waste of energy, and that the US could -and should- learn to live in the same confort but with less waste of resources.


My 2 cents

[Gizzmoe]

What's a FWIW? ..From what I ...?

"For what it´s worth".

[August]

Do you blindly belief that you can know for 100% what Bush did and did not say?

http://www.reandev.com/taliban/


Baaaa. :) (sheep/sheepdogs/wolfs)

Talk about sheep! FWIW using a propaganda page as a reference does not in any way support your point. Shame on you.

Woof. So is it bollocks or you just don't like it? Cool Aid for you, sir? :yep: :up:

What's a FWIW? ..From what I ...?

It's bollocks, either a mistranslation or a deliberate political smear.

FWIW = For What It's Worth.

Again shame on you for using a propaganda page as a reference.

Oh yeah i almost forgot:

hearsay

1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

[Skybird]

Depends on your viewpoint I guess. The Sunnis might not have it as good as they did under Saddam, but what about the Kurds? Are they still being gassed and shot in wholesale lots? Are Shiites still being given starved, tortured and executed in wholesale lots? [\quote]

Violance and terror is spreading both towards North and South. the silence in Basra and British sector seem to be over. Since months Kurdish cities has been attacked, not as often as in the centre of the country, but to say Kurdish territory is pacified is false. Britsh troops oin the south are on higher state of alerts than before. Some months ago there was a discussion if we already have a civil war in Iraq, or if it is close to that. No matter what - a war zone it is - years after Bushs premature victory parade on that carrier. Today violance and death toll in Iraq is higher than it ever were under Saddam, war with Iran excluded. In fact I fail to see the diffrences between between back then and now. Look at the detoriating supply situation with water. Food. Electricity. Living conditionas for many, many people definetly are not better than before - but the opposite.

[quote="August"]The main pre-war assumption was that Saddam was a threat to us. Given his history and his oil money i'd say that assumption was and is an accurate one.[\quote]

Wrong. The assumptions that had been voiced where worded much more precisely, and I'm sure you know that. "Clear and immediate danger". Wrong. " "Possession of B-C-wepaons" Wrong. "Close to A-wepaons". Wrong. "niger deal". Wrong. Mobile wepaoin laboratories. Wrong. "Mases of WMD stored." Wrong. "Missiles reaching london in 30 minutes". Wrong. "Direct links to Al Quaeda". Wrong.

[quote=August]The jury is still out on that, but I must say it's disturbing to see how many of our so called allies are hoping it won't.

The usual attempt to discredit anyone who is against you because he is not with you by insisting on his bad intentions and bad wishings for the worse. It needs a blind man to see a psoitve developement in Iraq for the next years to come. I do not wish for failure, I see failure. I do hope that this way of unilaterlly acting is preveted from becoming a precedence case, therefor I wish the best for the Ireaquis now - but hope that america will gain zero benefit from what it has done, strategically, economically, else-wise. If it would have rewards that come up for the costs in money and lifes it will be tempted to do it again. And this I do not want and do not support. Only a painful conclusion on Iraq will prevent America to prematurely attack another country it does not like the next time. Unfortunately the major part of the pain is not suffered by america, but the Iraqi people.

Ties between Iran and Iraq are rapidly strenghtening. Iraq today is the world's center of terrosit's activity and training. There are more men willing to commit terroristic acts than before 2003, for a multitude of different reasons. religious ultra-orthodoxy is very popular in Iraq now. Western ideals are not. A conservative Mullahcracy-like government having to deal with a state of constant civil war-like violance for the next years is - by far - the most probable outcome. Greed, hate and wishes for revenge between the three major ethnic groups is heating up constantly. The level of violance is not declining, it is not constant - it is growing since two years. Right now there is country-wide torturing taking place - in the name of the government. A network of torture centres had been described since the beginning of these year. Barbarism is the only way to counter barbarism, it is said. Saddam may have gone. In the hidden the old basic rules have come back. I wonder why Saddam has been kicked out?

Is this what private John Smith and Sergeant Jim Sixpack had been told they should risk their lifes for?

Playing the time card "let'S see how it turns out" often is just an attempt to avoid beeing blamed for something, hoping that the short memory of people will forget it before one could be held responsible for what one has done. But reasonable assumptions and projections based on observations in the present are something that everyone of us is buidling his everyday-life upon, always.

Plenty of voices have told your country in advance that it will come to the results we now see. The warnings of attacking Iraq had been numerous, and liud, and clear. The bad news today is no news at all -it is a consequence that had been forseen by many. So don't complain, and do not shoot the messenger. Start shooting those that brought you into this.

[Type941]

August - all I can say is that the truth will set you free. :up: (how can you mistranslate Bush into english???)

Anyway, the guy has ZERO credibility. Who cares where the source comes from. The bottom line is Bush said at least 2 of those things for sure, and one is may be a speculation, may be not. You my friend, on the other hand just focus one 1 thing, declare it bollocks because you can't believe it, and why do you think you are correct? I think you are misguided on Bush. Which brings me back to my original point. The truth will set ya free. :yep: :|\

[Abraham]

August - all I can say is that the truth will set you free. :up: (how can you mistranslate Bush into english???)

Anyway, the guy has ZERO credibility. Who cares where the source comes from...
I like that combination, Type941: "The truth will set you free" and "Who cares where the source comes from".
I always thought the more you reach for the truth, the more you doubt your sources.
But I have to admit it's much more simple the other way around:
"Bush is the best President the US could have at this very moment", some source told me the other day. And the majority of US citizens agreed last year: "The guy got more votes than any other US President in the history of mankind", another source told me.

[Type941]

But I have to admit it's much more simple the other way around:
"Bush is the best President the US could have at this very moment", some source told me the other day. And the majority of US citizens agreed last year: "The guy got more votes than any other US President in the history of mankind", another source told me.

OK, who ever added the "mankind" bit is obviously having a little bit of 'america is the greatest nation in the world' drink.

But jokes aside, I'm amazed how people still defend this monster after what he's done to the middle east and safety of the mankind (without qoutation marks).

I like America, but I think it's administration is a threat to the world, big time.

[CCIP]

I like America, but I think it's administration is a threat to the world, big time.

I'll subscribe to that view also. The more in depth I look at the american conservative agenda, the more worried I get about the world. And the more I have contact with americans, the more I realize that they don't realize how messed up things are, or why others see it that way.

[Fish]

Found this when looking for PNAC.

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/cheney_s_secrets.html

And this one.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow.html

[Type941]

Has anyone read 'the emperror's new clothes' article which goes into greaet detail and research, and has a lot of paper proof what the top brass of the us did in Sept 11? it's quite a read.

It's as true as the government's own offical reports are. If someone is interested, i'll try to find it again (although google can do it for you just as well). Seen it disucussed on Fox, and O'Reily was particularly poor when dealing with the author...

[Takeda Shingen]

What about energy? :hmm:

Energy does not hold space. Rather, it is a force that directs and influences matter and, therefore does not take physical place (eg. light is weightless).

[CCIP]

What about energy? :hmm:

Energy does not hold space. Rather, it is a force that directs and influences matter and, therefore does not take physical place (eg. light is weightless).

...aaaaand THAT's why I'm a few months away from getting my diploma in linguistics. :know:

[Iceman]

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."


You been consulting the wizard again haven't you.

http://www.cyberallies.com/nostro.gif

LMAO...Dang where the heck was I when that statment was made...you'd think the press would have never let that one die.

I didn't inhale...really... :|\

[Type941]

The american press closes their eyes on a lot of things when it comes to Bush.... :|\

[Skybird]

... or is straight forward requested not to report (if not prohibited) on certain aspects of events that might sow opposition, unrest or doubt. The reporting about the nasty sides of the NO desaster is somewhat cleaned and polished. That FEMA requested the broadcasting stations not to show or tell about the many bodies being scattered around in the streets reminds one of the censorship of reporting about american casualties in Iraq - pics form opinions, what they see on TV is people's reality, if it is not on TV it is not real for many, so no pics, please - thank you for beeing a patriot, Sir, thank you for supporting the president.

Leader and country is not the same.

[bradclark1]

The news shows the bodies Skybird.

[Skybird]

If so my sources were wrong, I apologize. I was told by former colleagues - and it is reported in the medias (print and TV) as well - that the reporting is heavily pressed by FEMA not to broadcast pictures of mounting heaps of dead people, and from inside halls were the bodies are collected.

Not that it is necessary to show such material again and again. It just should not be supressed or prohibited.

[Type941]

I heard the death toll at least 10000 (as in number of bodies floating).

All they did on TV is to show a few victims from distance, on still frames, and said there's many more.

The assesment of FEMA and others requisting cencorship is 100% accurate - they have always done it. That's the freedom of the press for you. See it's there - but it's only selected. Whenever Bush and CO don't like something, they play the 'patriot' card. It'd very disgusting as they only show what they want people to show and control the press as much as possible, yet allow some negativity, otherwise they'd be in USSR territory with propoganda. But essentially, the media in the us is controlled very heavily.

I'm sure these researches were done, and people like the owner of FOX, etc are all on first name basis in the white house with the Chenynies and Bushes. Why our american friends here can't seem to accept that fact is a strange and worrying. Your press is SELECTIVE on when it's free and when it's not.

But what you don't hear is things like death toll official of civilians killed in Iraq. Why? Is it because it's so horryfying that some Africa leader will be sent to the Hague for it? Milocevic type of thing. But anyone who would say such a thing would be a damned liberal nutjob. And it would be unpariotic, because if the arab world finds out that there's like 100000 Iraqi civilian casulties... well, they'd be outraged (not sure anywhere esle it would cause much more than a raised eyebrow, especially the likes of Russians, French and British probably know this number as well.)

[Type941]

'this just in'.

Apparently CNN just filed a lawsuit against the government because the government told them not to show victims' bodies floating in the water. So. Good on them for doing that.

[August]

Skybird,

The usual attempt to discredit anyone who is against you because he is not with you by insisting on his bad intentions and bad wishings for the worse.

Please don't trot out this phony indignation ploy with me. Besides not being aimed at *you* personally, what i said is nothing compared to the arrogance you display in nearly every post here. Perhaps you think i've forgotten your little German language Disneyland slam when i first came here or your consistant negative stance in all things American. Well, i haven't and you're certainly not doing anything to help it.

You like to call the American people blind and ignorant to the failings to our leaders, yet what you fail to realize is that many of us see people like yourself in the exact same light. Like Bob Marleys Sheriff John Brown, you're far to ready to believe anything that reinforces your preconcieved reality and far too quick to discount as lies and propaganda anything that might challenge it.

Wrong. The assumptions that had been voiced where worded much more precisely, and I'm sure you know that. "Clear and immediate danger". Wrong. " "Possession of B-C-wepaons" Wrong. "Close to A-wepaons". Wrong. "niger deal". Wrong. Mobile wepaoin laboratories. Wrong. "Mases of WMD stored." Wrong. "Missiles reaching london in 30 minutes". Wrong. "Direct links to Al Quaeda". Wrong.

Every one of these issues has an equally strong argument for the opposite viewpoint, (well nearly every one since i've never heard about the London missile thing - meh), so i'm not going to expend the effort to refute your way overly simplistic "Wrong" judgements, item by item. Suffice to say that i disagree with your opinions as much as i disagree with your amazing idea that allowing Saddam to remain in power was better for the Iraqis in the long run.

Violance and terror is spreading both towards North and South. the silence in Basra and British sector seem to be over. Since months Kurdish cities has been attacked, not as often as in the centre of the country, but to say Kurdish territory is pacified is false. Britsh troops oin the south are on higher state of alerts than before. Some months ago there was a discussion if we already have a civil war in Iraq, or if it is close to that. No matter what - a war zone it is - years after Bushs premature victory parade on that carrier. Today violance and death toll in Iraq is higher than it ever were under Saddam, war with Iran excluded. In fact I fail to see the diffrences between between back then and now. Look at the detoriating supply situation with water. Food. Electricity. Living conditionas for many, many people definetly are not better than before - but the opposite.

I will agree that the forces of those who want a divided Iraq, are still both present and active in the country, but from what i hear, mostly from real life guys like the "Sergeant Jim Sixpack" in your example are mostly irritated at what they see as overly negative reporting that distorts the true situation in the country and worry that because of it they'll be pulled out before they can finish the job.

Plenty of voices have told your country in advance that it will come to the results we now see. The warnings of attacking Iraq had been numerous, and liud, and clear. The bad news today is no news at all -it is a consequence that had been forseen by many. So don't complain, and do not shoot the messenger. Start shooting those that brought you into this.

Well thank you very much for your unsolicited opinion. Be assured we won't shoot you for giving it, but don't hold your breath waiting for us to follow your recommendation that we shoot our leaders. We're not going to do it.

Here's an unsolicited bit of advice in return: In America, leader and country had better be one or "we the people" will toss them out on their ears. We're very critical of our leaders and hold their every action up to the public microscope, which may seem odd to an outsider such as yourself, but don't mistake our internal self critique for the idea that we'd ever accept our leaders doing anything but representing the best interests of our nation.

[Type941]

We're very critical of our leaders and hold their every action up to the public microscope,

Oh yes, you are good at that when it comes to certain interns doing blow jobs (should this be ****?) for your president, but when it comes to examening the failures of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies, things just don't go that far. It seems like that to an outsider anyway.

That whole 911 comission was a joke. Especially when it came questioning the key people involved: Oh we do it behind close doors, and only if they agree. haha.

YOU might get an impression people are trying to just put down america, but it's not true - it's just you defending every single thing that Bush did is what keeps bringing me back to this. You refuse to deny his failures. Which are obvious.

[August]

'this just in'.

Apparently CNN just filed a lawsuit against the government because the government told them not to show victims' bodies floating in the water. So. Good on them for doing that.

The entire gulf is crowded with news teams both on the ground and in the air. Even with just basic cable i've got 5 channels of 24 hour non stop images (CNN included) from the disaster area, and on top of that every regular news program on the network channels devotes a significant amount of every broadcast in covering the story. Believe me when i say "Bush and CO" or anyone else for that matter could ever conceal the true death toll even if they wanted to, which of course they do not.

I have to ask, why is it so important to you to have closeup images of the victims? Are you keeping a personal count or something? Did you ever think that the families of the victims may not want to see their the bodies of their loved ones plastered on the nightly news and the internet over and over? Don't you have any respect for the dead man?

As for your 10,000 figure you do realize this was basicly a wild guess by the mayor of NO and totally unsupported by any hard data, right? Don't get me wrong, i'm not dismissing his gut feelings given during a very tense time, but so far it looks to be highly exaggerated, and thank God for that.

Make no mistake though. There will eventually be an extremely accurate body count, whatever that number turns out to be.

[August]

YOU might get an impression people are trying to just put down america, but it's not true - it's just you defending every single thing that Bush did is what keeps bringing me back to this. You refuse to deny his failures. Which are obvious.

That's not true, you have not asked, nor have i said, what i think Bushes failures are. For one thing I believe his public speaking skills are much too inadequate for a President whose job sometimes requires eloquence.

For another i feel he's far to agreeable to Congressional porkbarrel spending.

On the other hand do i feel he's, to use your word, a "monster"? No i don't and i don't think how you and othersrealize that using similar verbage hurts your whatever valid arguments you might have.

[August]

BTW it never was about what Bill Clinton did to Monica Lewinski, it was that he deliberately lied about it under oath in a court of law. I can forgive the occasional peccadillo, although doing it in the oval office was kind of insulting to it's owners, but i will not stand for him self righteously wagging his finger on national TV while lying to our faces.

[Skybird]

Typed a longer reply and deleted it again. It's hopeless, and ignorrant self-justification and blaming the others for one's own blindness has become part of American national self-perception, I'm sorry to say. I think america never saw any need to question itself, and it never has, if I think of it. I just wished we wouldn't be effected by this country so much. For the time beeing I keep my memories of American friends that I knew, and perception of the country's reality now strictly separate, to avoid doing unjustice to those that I knew. Although you gave the impression to the world that I think of all Americans as idiots, I do not.

Simple fact is, August, you will never be willing to see how far your nation's political status and procedures have fallen apart from what your founding fathers wanted it to be. You, like many of your countrymen, still think that the ideals of the past and the status of the present are still one and the same. But in the times since WWII ended a growing part of mankind happens to disagree with that assessement more and more. Some people even fell victim to the more obvious acts of perversion of american ideals, like Vietnam, or now Iraq. The ideas from over twohundred years ago (prepared by French forethinkers that were discussed in the salons on the eastcoast, leading to the american revolution, that in some strange kind of a feedback thanked France's philosophers by igniting the revolution in France) were great, and worth to be an example for others - as they actually have been for a long time. If it still would be like in those days, I even would think to live in your country myself. But with time they were hollowed out, financial elites have taken over and are the the prime determinant of your nation'S policies now, and the vocabulary of these ideals is only a tool that since long has lost most of it's original meaning. You, like many of your countrymen, refuse to open your eyes to that as long as you have a good life by the status quo and your hunger for ideals is feeded with word-shelling by your leaders. It could be of zero interest for us, if we were not so massvely effected by even your "innerpolitical" events, unfortunately. For that reason I dare say the average European knows more about American inner politics than the average American knows about inner politics in let's say Germany, or Luthenia, or Denmark ("exceptions just proove the general rule"). America is like a huge tree that still looks healthy from outside, but under the skin is rotten.

Not much different with European democracies, at least that I admit.

BTW, in Europe we have had our experiences with making "leader" and "country" one and the same. And they were not good. A soldier making a vow on his people and country is one thing. Swear him in on one single person is something very different. L'etat c'est moi - not with me, if this would happen in Germany, I would be willing to think about no longer unarmed resistance. And if "putting your leaders under the microscope of your public" leads to such formidable results as the phenomenon Bush, than you must excuse that the vast majority of the rest of the world has massive doubts in the convincing power of this statement you made so proudly.

[August]

Think what you like Skybird. Our troops do not, and never have throughout our history, sworn allegience to any single man. Unlike your nation i might mention, who only recently have stopped doing exactly that like they have since Germania was run by the Romans.

If, as you say, the rest of the world doubts America, then i'll just respond by saying that this is certainly nothing new. The rest of the world has been forecasting our nations imminent demise and underestimating our people since 1776. You'll forgive us if we tend to take your advice on how to run our country with at least a little tiny grain of salt.

After all, in spite of all those oh so reasoned prognostications of doom y'all have been thowing our way for the past 230 years or so, we're still here, and i'm betting we will be long after you and i are dust.

[Onkel Neal]

BTW it never was about what Bill Clinton did to Monica Lewinski, it was that he deliberately lied about it under oath in a court of law. I can forgive the occasional peccadillo, although doing it in the oval office was kind of insulting to it's owners, but i will not stand for him self righteously wagging his finger on national TV while lying to our faces.

I agree with that.

[Iceman]

Typed a longer reply and deleted it again. It's hopeless, and ignorrant self-justification and blaming the others for one's own blindness has become part of American national self-perception, I'm sorry to say. I think america never saw any need to question itself, and it never has, if I think of it. I just wished we wouldn't be effected by this country so much. For the time beeing I keep my memories of American friends that I knew, and perception of the country's reality now strictly separate, to avoid doing unjustice to those that I knew. Although you gave the impression to the world that I think of all Americans as idiots, I do not.

Simple fact is, August, you will never be willing to see how far your nation's political status and procedures have fallen apart from what your founding fathers wanted it to be. You, like many of your countrymen, still think that the ideals of the past and the status of the present are still one and the same. But in the times since WWII ended a growing part of mankind happens to disagree with that assessement more and more. Some people even fell victim to the more obvious acts of perversion of american ideals, like Vietnam, or now Iraq. The ideas from over twohundred years ago (prepared by French forethinkers that were discussed in the salons on the eastcoast, leading to the american revolution, that in some strange kind of a feedback thanked France's philosophers by igniting the revolution in France) were great, and worth to be an example for others - as they actually have been for a long time. If it still would be like in those days, I even would think to live in your country myself. But with time they were hollowed out, financial elites have taken over and are the the prime determinant of your nation'S policies now, and the vocabulary of these ideals is only a tool that since long has lost most of it's original meaning. You, like many of your countrymen, refuse to open your eyes to that as long as you have a good life by the status quo and your hunger for ideals is feeded with word-shelling by your leaders. It could be of zero interest for us, if we were not so massvely effected by even your "innerpolitical" events, unfortunately. For that reason I dare say the average European knows more about American inner politics than the average American knows about inner politics in let's say Germany, or Luthenia, or Denmark ("exceptions just proove the general rule"). America is like a huge tree that still looks healthy from outside, but under the skin is rotten.

Not much different with European democracies, at least that I admit.

BTW, in Europe we have had our experiences with making "leader" and "country" one and the same. And they were not good. A soldier making a vow on his people and country is one thing. Swear him in on one single person is something very different. L'etat c'est moi - not with me, if this would happen in Germany, I would be willing to think about no longer unarmed resistance. And if "putting your leaders under the microscope of your public" leads to such formidable results as the phenomenon Bush, than you must excuse that the vast majority of the rest of the world has massive doubts in the convincing power of this statement you made so proudly.

Someday we will achive nothingness as taught by Master Sky. LMAO....Yeeeeeeeeeeep. Haughty lunatic is the words that come to mind when I think of you Skybird.You really believe in your own moral and intellectual superiority...and That's what cracks me up.

Pride cometh before a fall....hope ya got a chute.

[Fish]

We're very critical of our leaders and hold their every action up to the public microscope,

Oh yes, you are good at that when it comes to certain interns doing blow jobs (should this be ****?) for your president, but when it comes to examening the failures of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies, things just don't go that far. It seems like that to an outsider anyway.

That whole 911 comission was a joke. Especially when it came questioning the key people involved: Oh we do it behind close doors, and only if they agree. haha.


EDITED

August, can you give us your opinion on this, please?

[Type941]

We're very critical of our leaders and hold their every action up to the public microscope,

Oh yes, you are good at that when it comes to certain interns doing blow jobs (should this be ****?) for your president, but when it comes to examening the failures of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies, things just don't go that far. It seems like that to an outsider anyway.

That whole 911 comission was a joke. Especially when it came questioning the key people involved: Oh we do it behind close doors, and only if they agree. haha.

YOU might get an impression people are trying to just put down america, but it's not true - it's just you defending every single thing that Bush did is what keeps bringing me back to this. You refuse to deny his failures. Which are obvious.

August, can you give us your opinion on this, please?

Care to read what he said or you want him to qoute HIMSELF again? See previous page.. ;)


I've seen everyone putting down skybird for what he said. Eh, everyone from america thus far. Go figure. Such negative responses he gets only means that he's right about something. OK, for him being Germany you want to be skeptical and start throwing the Nazi past mud at him, but that's so unfair and wrong.

Indeed there is a problem. It's a phenomena in general - that americans believe their country is the greatest in the world.

And since indeed all of Europe is unfortunately so greately affected by the US, we have to follow what they say or do because it affects us. Unfortunately, because when things are bad, it affects us, when things are great - it really doesn't do too much good.


BTW, isn't it wierd how russia and germany get along just fine and do a lot of business, regardless of the past? You'd think we should hate each other's guts after ww2.

[Abraham]

We're very critical of our leaders and hold their every action up to the public microscope,

Oh yes, you are good at that when it comes to certain interns doing blow jobs (should this be ****?) for your president, but when it comes to examening the failures of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies, things just don't go that far. It seems like that to an outsider anyway.

That whole 911 comission was a joke. Especially when it came questioning the key people involved: Oh we do it behind close doors, and only if they agree. haha...
To be honest, there was a very sound reason for the President not to appear before the Congress.
The US Constitution builds "checks & balances" in the US government. At the highest level the three forces that provide the check & balances are the Supreme Court, the Presidency and the Congress. All of these forces try to maintain their power and if possible gain some on the expense of others.
The Congressional committee had no right to interrogate the President, but was happy to create a precedent.
In the end a compromise was found that did not infringe on the constitutional powers of the President, but gave the Congressional committee all the information it wanted.

[Abraham]

Amougst AAs* it is a well know fact that Bush is responsable for 9/11, if only because otherwise he would have had no reason to start his 'War against Islam', which in turn was only started to enhance the production of Halliburton and the arms industry - but that is a different subject.
The Great Debate is that some AAs believe Bush requested Osama (trained by the CIA!) to send some devote Arabs on a tourist trip to New York and Washington. Other AAs claim that this is far beyond the intellectual capacities of Bush and maintain it was Cheney who dunnit.
Quite an interesting bedate to follow (if you're sick & tired of the violence in SHIII).
History will tell... that it is very difficult to find the truth when you're looking in the wrong direction with drak glasses and both eyes closed!

By the way: one strong argument that is never used by AAs up till now (as far as I know):
President Bush has never openly denied having ordered the 9/11 attacks!
Isn't that suspicious?


* AAs = Anti Americans

[Type941]

** AAs and sane people are not different things all the time.

[Skybird]

'this just in'.

Apparently CNN just filed a lawsuit against the government because the government told them not to show victims' bodies floating in the water. So. Good on them for doing that.

If so, my sources apparently were not so wrong at all.

[August]

If so, my sources apparently were not so wrong at all.

So far the only place i see it mentioned is here:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1047235.php/CNN_sues_over_FEMA_dead_body_request__1st_Update_

What may be of interest to you (or not) is that, if true, the article says FEMA wasn't asking them not to take pictures, just not to show them. Big difference.

As i said on the last page, I see no good purpose to forcing families of the victims to see images of their poor dead Aunt Tillys corpse tied to a lamp post every time they turn on the TV.

[Onkel Neal]

Indeed there is a problem. It's a phenomena in general - that americans believe their country is the greatest in the world.



Well, of course we think our country is the greatest, isn't that natural for people? We are a patriotic and proud people and putting this down won't change it. Speaking for myself, I like to see people who are proud of their country.

And since indeed all of Europe is unfortunately so greately affected by the US, we have to follow what they say or do because it affects us. Unfortunately, because when things are bad, it affects us, when things are great - it really doesn't do too much good.

I've heard that frequently from non-Americans, and some have tried to explain it to me...I'm still not sure I get it. When has the US done things that turned out great that should have affected Europe greatly???

[Abraham]

** AAs and sane people are not different things all the time.
You could be right, perhaps not all of them, perhaps not all the time. But some of them go to extremes to give a different impression...

Mind you; AAs are not people criticizing America - everybody has the right and often enough reason to do so.
AAs are biased and prejudiced people who have an almost doctrinairian vision upon US policies, especially foreign policy. Not hampered by reasonable doubt or global responsabilities themselves they are incapable to see anything positive in US policy. They turn one - if necessairy two - blind eyes towards facts that don't comply with their line of reasoning and are completely naïve amoungst themselves.
A typical example is the (in)famous Bush quote: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."
It is a known fact that Bush himself never said this and there are no records of this so-called "quote". It seems to come from Palestinean prime minister Mahmoud Abbas. That is disturbing news for any serious critic of Bush. AAs take these quote's on face value and happily quote each other as sources. On person exclaimed yesterday during an anti-Bush jam session: "Who needs sources!"
For AAs facts can indeed be annoying...

One of their characteristics is that AAs themselves are extremely picky to criticism.
Selfcriticism is a complete taboo (imagine Moore doubting if he is right on all facts in 'Farenheit 911' :rotfl: ) and criticism is seen as a constant stream flowing like a river towards the U.S. Criticism upon AAs is as annoying to them as water flowing upstream to Newton.

AAs don't mix with 'normal' US critics.
'Normal' critics who point out that America is a great country that has done a lot for the world, but has some serious flaws here and there, are attacked as ferocious as America itself. Even if you agree on one or two points with AAs, you won't be safe. The reason is that such 'normal' criticism is often too factual and lacks an ideological frame work.
An example:
Are you criticising the US when you say: the preparations for hurricane Kathrina in Louisiana were poorly executed?
Some would say yes. AAs would point out that the ideological dimension is completely lacking and that this criticism sounds too much like human incompetence.
Such criticism is only valid is you first point out that the US is the worlds biggest energy consumer, refuses to sigm the Kyoto protocol, is therefor one of the causes of global warming and as such to blame for hurricanes. Then you should put all the blame on the federal gouvernment instead on local authorities, because some of them are black. You have to point out that Bush first send the National Guard of Louisiana to Iraq and then didn't give much thought about search and rescue operations in New Orleans because two third of the population was black.
If somebody should point out that Bush declared an emergency two days before the hurricane struck most AAs wouldn't believe you. Faced with the facts they would probably say that he did so to cover his ass. Never will they admit that Bush - or any US President for that matter, made a correct decision, because that doesn't fit with their doctrine.

[Type941]

Neal, when your president tells on TV to international audience that his country is the greatest, I think it's BS. Who is he to decide that, and what has the US done overall that warrants it such a term? Patriotism blind leads in the end to nazionalism hardcore. BUt i know I'm asking for the impossible, i.e. being realistic, hence I accept that each country thinks it's the greatest - just that I find it sad when 1000 iraqies die in one week it's a report in the news in the morning, but when 1000 americans perish in the flood, it is 'served' as a much greater tragedy - all in all which are quite equal. Hard to say it exactly, but I think you understand what I mean. All nations are equal, but some are more equal than others. Which is absurd.

Europe is affected by the US because Europe finances the US national debt along with Asia. So it's obvious that the creditors are worried when the US is going into any sort of crisis. US in the past in time of crisis have told the world to stuff it. That's why it's important to watch what happens when the country goes through crisis - and in turn how it affects europe.

The US abandoned BrettonWoods treaty when it came to return of post WW2 aid (France almost collapsed the dollar when asked for gold instead of borrowed dollars, that lead to france later quitting Nato once the US said 'no', and on came the Oil crisis 3-4 years later). Actually, it's fascinating story one on which i did my Business school bachelor thesis, which covered the inflation export by the US via the Marshall plan. When I say fascinating it's not only to those who have finance degrees, it's just general politics and how clever the US played the post war inflation that it HAD to face after printing money for 4 years. BrettonWood treaty was about 1dollar carrying a value of gold backed by the national reserve. IN other words if you had a greenbak you can just ask for gold in return. Needless to say that when the US lent money, it never wanted them back. in the 90s, and perhaps still, like 2/3rds of american currency was outside of the US. Anyway, tht's off topic. :D sorry.

[Onkel Neal]

Neal, when your president tells on TV to international audience that his country is the greatest, I think it's BS. Who is he to decide that, and what has the US done overall that warrants it such a term? Patriotism blind leads in the end to nazionalism hardcore.



Not always. The US has been fairly patriotic for centuries (almost three of them :-j ) and we opposed nazionalism, we didn't side with it. And it cost us plenty.

As for Bush saying to an international audience that his country is the greatest, other US Presidents have probably done the same. I know they have said that to US audiences. That really bothers you, huh? Well, don't sweat it, it's just an opinion.

Europe is affected by the US because Europe finances the US national debt along with Asia

Why do Europe and Aisa finance the US national debt? Tell me that. Why? Becuase they make reams of profit from it with relative low risk, that's why. And I have nothing against that, but don't make it sound like a humanitarian effort :)

Thanks for the example, I know only a little about the Bretton Woods treaty (and corresponding Marshall Plan). From what I remember they were efforts by the US to help Europe, both to rebuild and to stave off your new Soviet Overlords. It would have been a terrible thing for Europe to collapse into anarchy and poverty after WWII and to be absobed by Stalin. Terrible for Europe and not good for us, either.


I did a quick check for more info, and from reading this, I don't see how the US was a bad guy, we just exhausted our ability to continue support.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/2001/braithwa.htm


It is an exaggeration to say that the whole Bretton Woods system broke down. What did break down was the rules of cooperation for the convertibility of the dollar into gold and the exchange rates regime. After the war, the US dollar became the international reserve currency. The US also went from being in surplus to running trade deficits. States at first wanted US dollars to meet their trade obligations. They were also happy to let the US run deficits since this provided liquidity in the international monetary system. This situation led, however, to a crisis first anticipated by the economist Triffin in 1960 (R. Triffin, Gold and the Dollar Crisis, New Haven CT, 1960). The problem was that if the US attempted to correct its balance of payments deficit it would cause a liquidity crisis. If it allowed its deficit to continue, other states would lose confidence in the dollar as a reserve currency and seek to convert their dollars into gold. US deficits continued to increase, partly because the US had to pay for its war in Vietnam. Confidence in the dollar started to slide. States began to seek, as the gold standard allowed them to, the conversion of their dollars into gold. The US reacted by announcing in August 1971 that it was going to abandon the convertibility of the dollar.



Anyway, good discussion :up:

[Catfish]

Hello there,

oops, what a thread !

Well, i guess it really depends on what you know - or what you think you know. The news shown in the media in Europe seem to differ from those the US media presents to the inhabitants of the US. It is not about the pictures of a third world, USA - natural disasters can strike everywhere. Europe is simply wondering why sending help took so long. Talk in the US media about help and loads of resources being transported to Louisiana were obviously wrong, there was no delivery of medicaments, food, water and whatever until the fourth day after the disaster started. The mayor who dared to criticize the non-existant help and delivery of food, water etc. which is talked about all the time in the media is now called a whiner and a**hole, at the same time Bush is the man of the day. Sweden is still wondering why their ships and aircraft are not being requested by the US for help, they made the proposal a week ago.

If Europe dares to shyly ask why and what has happened, we are instantly called unpatriotic, AA (sic!) and worse. I have no problem with people loving their country, or being patriotic. But if obvious things happen, i will not shut my mouth and be political correct. People come first, before patriotism and political correctness. If people suffer or die because of mistakes being made you call a spade a spade. People that defend their party's or leader's actions against better knowledge are the a**holes in my opinion.

Additionally you have to see that excessive patriotism (or chauvinism) somehow came out of fashion since 1945 in Germany, and for some obvious reasons. We have some north american friends that visit us every two years, kindest ones i know and good friends, but i was dumbfounded what they said as soon as the talk turned to politics :dead: .
The American people should bear with us, we are most probably not properly informed over here.

Back to the original poll:

do you think america should have got involved in iraq ?
Yes, but for removing Saddam as a criminal and dictator. Unfortunately the USA were not considered credible for this special action. The rest of the world outside the US thinks of an imperial blow to secure resources.

did they make lies to get oil?
Yes, but some politicians have obviously been fooled. Powell himself just stated he had not been properly informed by his own intelligence and presented lies or at least some faked or made-up material to the UN. Wolfowitz certainly is another case... It is not so difficult, just imagine who benefits from a certain situation, or action. Even some good US friends of mine at Baker-Hughes and Halliburton have their own view about this. No, they are not "AA".

was it all worth it?
I hope the Iraqi people will somehow benefit in the long run. But with their own people partly supporting Al Quaida it will be tough. It sure did not help to keep the oil price/barrel down. The removal of Saddam was worth it.

what will america and her allies gain?
The US have unfortunately lost some reputation and credability by linking the Iraq to 9/11. As for the declaration of war towards international terrorism i wonder what has been said to the US training Al Quaida as long as they fought against the USSR in Afghanistan. Or supporting Saddam with weapons (what about Noriega, Pinochet and other dictators). There remains a problem: How do you want to kill one terrorist who lives in a 12 floor building somewhere in New York with helicopters and stealth fighters (i refer to this "terrorists are doomed" video where hundreds of ships, subs and planes shoot ammunition in a rate that compares with the gross national product of India).

whats your total opinion on the matter
You think you already know my opinion ? You are wrong. I think it was right to invade Iraq, if not for the sake of a 9/11 revenge. I am no leftist and not "revolutional", but politicians and secret agencies do not gain trust or conviction by telling bull**** to their people. Call a spade a spade and tell why you really do it. Some truth does not hurt.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Fish]

Two interviews regarding this thread.

German secretary Andreas von Buelow.

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/articles/buelow.html

And UK secretary Michael Meacher .

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

[Skybird]

Nice findings, Fish. How comes you remind those links so well? Profession of yours, maybe? are you a journalist in these matters? I usually do not remmeber links that are two years old. We could have needed you in the archives wehre I once worked :)

I'm just curious, that's all.

[Type941]

Neal, from what I researched a while back, the nutshell of the Marshal plan was this.

First, it was money along with goods. LOTS of money. And all in US Dollars. It was given as a GIFT. Not a loan. The thing with loans is they have to be repaid. Gifts or grants - not so much. Now, it's all honkydory but when you have a lot of dollars,and the US economy struggles - what you do with dollars is you sell them off. Or lend somehwere else - i.e. Russia in late 80s and early 90s. On the same token, you have millions of dollars that was carried by the US military during the WW2 that was left in europe (remember all them little sports car they brought back home, the alfas, etc..) Now, that money stays in Europe, but it MUST come back tot he US. And when you have the BrettonWoods that says that in foreign exchange the US dollar is an equivalent of gold - you want to return them sooner or later. When France did exactly that, the US ended up cancelling the system, and for the first time we ended up with world currency that was ...paper. It was not money. Around that time we started to descend into the use of derivatives of creating wealth, and by 80s it was the Wall Street time when everyone wanted to Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas (j/k). But actually that time was very crucial in mid 70s because instead of creating wealth by means of production and real assests, we switched to using financial instruments to creat wealth. And to make the long story short, that's why we no longer have the prospering economies - because we live in debt, because the rules of capitalism do not apply to 'fake' wealth creating and borrowing from future to sustain our own growth. If you can't afford a car in 60s - may be you don't buy it. YET, today many own one despite not being able to really afford it. You see these people switch to bikes when an oil crisis comes. ;)

Anyway, it's much much big subject to discuss, but Marshall Plan was good and it was also a great scheme that the US used to export all the extra money it printed during the WW2 to finance the war effort. But the economy didn't have to observe the huge money supply - because it was 'exported' as a Marshall Plan to the nations that recieved it.

When the dollar collapsed back in the early 70s, guess which European countries DID NOT suffer from it? That's right, the ones who didn't accept the plan. One such country was Finland (and when I say did not accept i mean the gigantic monetary gifts). When Stalin forbid Warsaw pact countries from accepting it, this was one of the reasons it's argued - he didn't want the us dollar to be poured into those economies (or perhaps his advisors didn't want to). Of course the Marshall Plan is credited for rebuilding Europe. But it should also be credited for preventing a hyper post war inflation in the United States. :yep:


Which actually is connected to the Iraq and USA war. One of the things Iraq did in 2002 was to switch to Euro in all of its oil transactions, one of the first if not THE first arab oil exporter. That in long run would have hurt the US Dollar, as other arab countries might have followed suit. Europe trades a lot with arab countries. It is argued that it was one of many little reasons that added up to the Iraq war (argued more in Finance and Economics classes probably, and not so much in the Media. WMD are more interesting to the regular Joe than some foreign transaction currency mambojumbo).

[Sharkstooth]

Talk in the US media about help and loads of resources being transported to Louisiana were obviously wrong, there was no delivery of medicaments, food, water and whatever until the fourth day after the disaster started. The mayor who dared to criticize the non-existant help and delivery of food, water etc. which is talked about all the time in the media is now called a whiner and a**hole, at the same time Bush is the man of the day. Sweden is still wondering why their ships and aircraft are not being requested by the US for help, they made the proposal a week ago.

I truly hope you know more about your country than you do about mine. The hurricane hit on Monday--they thought they bit the bullet, survived it as they did most hurricanes. The levees broke Tuesday. Food was coming in on Wednesday.

The MAYOR, whom is the first line of defense when his city is in trouble, and the GOVENOR, whom is the 2nd, did nothing cept whine. The school buses which were supposed to be used to transport ppl out, are STILL sitting parked at their orginal location.
The govenor didn't request the National Guard until Thursday or Friday.

There is no comparison between this and the 9/11 disaster that hit NY city, except for one thing. NY had a mayor and a govenor that knew what to do in an ermergency instead of expecting everyone else to handle it for them.

[Skybird]

If so, my sources apparently were not so wrong at all.

So far the only place i see it mentioned is here:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1047235.php/CNN_sues_over_FEMA_dead_body_request__1st_Update_

What may be of interest to you (or not) is that, if true, the article says FEMA wasn't asking them not to take pictures, just not to show them. Big difference.

As i said on the last page, I see no good purpose to forcing families of the victims to see images of their poor dead Aunt Tillys corpse tied to a lamp post every time they turn on the TV.

2nd channel TV news, some minutes ago: reporters now are officially prohibited to join expeditions into the to-be-searched areas of the flooded cities. They are prohibited to board boates with officials, or take boats by themselves.

And on page 2 I wrote: "Not that it is necessary to show such material again and again. It just should not be supressed or prohibited."

The more bodies beeing shown on TV, the worse the impression people have about the ammount of failure of the leadership - and the worse for the administration. That simple censorship can be explained. No images - no public awerness.

Ouch, and Bush's personal buddy, head of FEMA, was ordered back to Washington. yesterday they said he was replaced by some coastguard man. If he was pulled out due to his incompetence I wonder why he is still allowed to continue as head of FEMA (status of this news: yesterday). seems it helps to be a friend of the president. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4231648.stm
I think he will serve dual purpose now: ending his inexperience and incompetence, and turning him into a pawn to be sacrificed in order to bring some relief from critizism of Bush's handling of this crisis.

The American system did nor really shine in glory and honour in all this. Observation this is, no malicious joy.

Again - much more written - and then deleted. Hey Neal, your recipe works! :)

[Catfish]

Hello Sharkstooth,
you wrote:

"I truly hope you know more about your country than you do about mine. The hurricane hit on Monday--they thought they bit the bullet, survived it as they did most hurricanes. The levees broke Tuesday. Food was coming in on Wednesday."

Is there any need for this ? Obviously the media here tell something else than you saw. People were told to leave the city before monday as far as i know. Food did not arrive on wednesday.

"The MAYOR, whom is the first line of defense when his city is in trouble, and the GOVENOR, whom is the 2nd, did nothing cept whine. The school buses which were supposed to be used to transport ppl out, are STILL sitting parked at their orginal location.
The govenor didn't request the National Guard until Thursday or Friday."

I really do not get it. The information i saw on TV here was that mayor and governor told the people to leave the city, but there were too few cars and transports available, not all had a car and some did not want to leave. The mayor already called for help before the levees broke, the answer was "they overestimated the hurricane". Next thing was politicians talking about "Louisiana being helped by trucks and helicopters" in the media, which led to the mayor saying something like "Stop talking nonsense, there is no one here helping".
So despite talking in the media CNN said there was no material even headed for Louisiana at this point. First assistance arrived on thursday, but it did not get to the center where it was needed.

I did not say there is any relation between 9/11 and the hurricane, there is none. I just wanted to explain to Neal why patriotism does not have the same influence here as it had before 1945. The first part of the posting was a reaction to some postings just before this one, the end was related to the original topic by Kapitein.

Greetings,
Catfish

[bradclark1]

I'm willing to say that Bush with the republicans is the closest thing to dictatorship the U.S. has probably ever had.
Just my opinion.

Brad

[Onkel Neal]

Additionally you have to see that excessive patriotism (or chauvinism) somehow came out of fashion since 1945 in Germany, and for some obvious reasons. We have some north american friends that visit us every two years, kindest ones i know and good friends, but i was dumbfounded what they said as soon as the talk turned to politics :dead: .

It went out of style where it caused WWII :) Not here, of course.

I guess you know that when you talk politics to your north american friends, they are probably equally as dumbfounded, right? :arrgh!:

[Onkel Neal]

I'm willing to say that Bush with the republicans is the closest thing to dictatorship the U.S. has probably ever had.
Just my opinion.

Brad

More than FDR?

[Onkel Neal]

Ouch, and Bush's personal buddy, head of FEMA, was ordered back to Washington. yesterday they said he was replaced by some coastguard man. If he was pulled out due to his incompetence I wonder why he is still allowed to continue as head of FEMA (status of this news: yesterday). seems it helps to be a friend of the president. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4231648.stm
I think he will serve dual purpose now: ending his inexperience and incompetence, and turning him into a pawn to be sacrificed in order to bring some relief from critizism of Bush's handling of this crisis.

The American system did nor really shine in glory and honour in all this. Observation this is, no malicious joy.

Again - much more written - and then deleted. Hey Neal, your recipe works! :)

Lol, I hear you, same here a lot of times ;)

In my opinion, there's no question that FEMA did not respond very quicky or impressively. And yes, Bush should be held responsible for appointing a political hack to an important post. (Not that other presidents haven't done the same thing). I find it hard to accept that only 4 years after 9/11, the federal govt could not respond better after a major crisis. What if it had been a viral outbreak instead of a hurricane? :nope:



I still maintain that the lion's share of the "fault" lies with the people who chose to live right on the coast and those in New Orleans who did not evacuate. They just make bad choices and don't think things through. Case in point: for more than 8 hours CNN.com has featured this story:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/09/katrina.survivors/index.html


3 days of death, despair and survival

Before Katrina hit the Gulf Coast on Sunday, August 28, Debbie said she hadn't paid much attention to the warnings and didn't want to evacuate without the family's pets. "I never once dreamed ... I just thought it would be a little wind and rain and then it would just blow over."

The family had lived in the three-bedroom house on Arts Street for 13 years. Melissa Harold, the grandmother, moved in several years ago after Debbie's husband died. They lived with three dogs, a cat, a guinea pig, a gerbil, six hamsters and a parakeet.

"My mom told us we weren't leaving because wherever we went, we couldn't bring our animals with us," said Tiffany, who wants to be a veterinarian and mourned leaving behind the pets, including those buried in the back yard.


As a result, they had to watch the grandmother die of exposure and thirst. They didn't even have a hammer or crowbar to break a hole through the roof.

[micky1up]

just remeber guys who was taking the oil before the war funny enough france and germany where in there taking oil i wonder who was against the war?

[bradclark1]

More than FDR?

Actually I was going to say JFK.

Brad

[August]

just remeber guys who was taking the oil before the war funny enough france and germany where in there taking oil i wonder who was against the war?

It ain't quite that simple Micky. The US was also importing Iraqi oil thru the oil for food program.

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4550859.stm

[August]

Since the thread topic and Hurricane Katrina have become related:

TAJI, Iraq, Sept. 9, 2005 — Iraqi soldiers serving at Taji military base collected 1,000,000 Iraqi dinars for victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Iraqi Col. Abbas Fadhil, Iraqi base commander, presented the money to U.S. Col. Paul D. Linkenhoker, Taji Coalition base commander, at a Sept. 5 staff meeting.

We are all brothers,” said Abbas. “When one suffers tragedy, we all suffer their pain.”

The amount of money is small in American dollars - roughly $680 - but it represents a huge act of compassion from Iraqi soldiers to their American counterparts, said U.S. Army Maj. Michael Goyne.


“I was overwhelmed by the amount of their generosity,” Goyne said. “I was proud and happy to know Col. Abbas, his officers, NCOs and fellow soldiers. That amount represents a month’s salary for most of those soldiers.”

Abbas read a letter he wrote after giving the envelope to Linkenhoker.

"I am Colonel Abbas Fadhil; Tadji Military Base Commander,” Abbas wrote. “On behalf of myself and all the People of Tadji Military Base; I would like to console the American People and Government for getting this horrible disaster. So we would like to donate 1.000.000 Iraqi Dinars to help the government and the People also I would like to console all the ASTs who helped us rebuilding our country and our Army. We appreciate the American's help and support. Thank you."

http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sep2005/a090905ms2.html

[SUBMAN1]

America had to. Nothing more, nothing less.

If not - this is how you win a war with America:

Start the war, America takes you on, you agree to a cease fire, and then kick America out after a brief time. Almost worked for Sadaam.

-S

[Iceman]

If so, my sources apparently were not so wrong at all.

So far the only place i see it mentioned is here:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1047235.php/CNN_sues_over_FEMA_dead_body_request__1st_Update_

What may be of interest to you (or not) is that, if true, the article says FEMA wasn't asking them not to take pictures, just not to show them. Big difference.

As i said on the last page, I see no good purpose to forcing families of the victims to see images of their poor dead Aunt Tillys corpse tied to a lamp post every time they turn on the TV.

2nd channel TV news, some minutes ago: reporters now are officially prohibited to join expeditions into the to-be-searched areas of the flooded cities. They are prohibited to board boates with officials, or take boats by themselves.

And on page 2 I wrote: "Not that it is necessary to show such material again and again. It just should not be supressed or prohibited."

The more bodies beeing shown on TV, the worse the impression people have about the ammount of failure of the leadership - and the worse for the administration. That simple censorship can be explained. No images - no public awerness.

Ouch, and Bush's personal buddy, head of FEMA, was ordered back to Washington. yesterday they said he was replaced by some coastguard man. If he was pulled out due to his incompetence I wonder why he is still allowed to continue as head of FEMA (status of this news: yesterday). seems it helps to be a friend of the president. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4231648.stm
I think he will serve dual purpose now: ending his inexperience and incompetence, and turning him into a pawn to be sacrificed in order to bring some relief from critizism of Bush's handling of this crisis.

The American system did nor really shine in glory and honour in all this. Observation this is, no malicious joy.

Again - much more written - and then deleted. Hey Neal, your recipe works! :)
http://www.cyberallies.com/nostro.gif
The Wizard Strikes again.

What the hell is your point in all this about the bodies...you are such a Dirty Laundry boy it is amazing...who wants to see bodies...you guys act like Americans are oblivious to what goes on in the world.Have you guys heard of an invention called the Computer or the Internet? I can read Al Jazera daily BS or watch terrorist traing videos on how to cut off a head properly.What you put in is what you get out Skybird and what constantly spews from your mouth is garbage.STFU already.


We Do Not Want To See Dead Bodies Skybird.
We Already Know They Are There.
Do You Understand This?
Do You Want See Death?
Look In The Mirror

BTW this thread was about Iraq and GWB's evil American Empire stick to topic.

[Abraham]

...Obviously the media here tell something else than you saw. People were told to leave the city before monday as far as i know. Food did not arrive on wednesday.

"The MAYOR, whom is the first line of defense when his city is in trouble, and the GOVENOR, whom is the 2nd, did nothing cept whine. The school buses which were supposed to be used to transport ppl out, are STILL sitting parked at their orginal location.
The govenor didn't request the National Guard until Thursday or Friday."

I really do not get it. The information i saw on TV here was that mayor and governor told the people to leave the city, but there were too few cars and transports available, not all had a car and some did not want to leave. The mayor already called for help before the levees broke, the answer was "they overestimated the hurricane". Next thing was politicians talking about "Louisiana being helped by trucks and helicopters" in the media, which led to the mayor saying something like "Stop talking nonsense, there is no one here helping".
So despite talking in the media CNN said there was no material even headed for Louisiana at this point. First assistance arrived on thursday, but it did not get to the center where it was needed...
I understood that the President declared an emergency two days before the hurricane hit the coast, which I heard was quite exceptional. It seems that neither FEMA, nor the State nor the local authorities in New Orleans responded well. The evacuation of New Orleans was ordered by the mayor only one day later, thus curring the available time in halve. Schoolbusses were not used to move people out of the city, peole were directed towards the Convention Center and the Sports Stadium without any proper preparations for a prolonged stay.
That New Orleans was not well prepared for a disaster shows from the fact that one third of the police force deserted and some policemen participated in lootings and robberies.
But whether these facts are correct will be discussed the coming months in Presidential committees, Congressional committees, State committees and local committees.
I feel just slightly irritated when in a complex situation where Federal government agencies, four State governments and many local governments are involved people blame President Bush without the benefit of any investigation in the real facts and causes. That's just too simple, but then, many people are like that...
:hmm:

[Takeda Shingen]

Abraham, your insight into the American political and organizational structure is better than many Americans. A lot of people could take a lesson from you.

[Sharkstooth]

I second that.

[Abraham]

Thanks Takeda Shingen & Sharktooth.
It's really nice to get a compliment on this forum.
:rotfl:
I must admit that I did a Summer course of Colombia University on US Constitutional law about 25 years ago and some reading afterwards. That helped me understand the complex US system of State and Federal law collusions and the checks & balances interwoven at all levels of the system.
:lol:

[Onkel Neal]

More than FDR?

Actually I was going to say JFK.

Brad

Yeah, but I guess I was thinking in terms of longevity and major govt actions and programs. FDR was in office much longer than any Pres before and he instituted some serious social changes (some of which may have been necessary in light of the Depression).

Lincoln may be a candidate, his actions during the Civil War were often extreme and unprecedented. :hmm:

[Kapitan]

wow im glad this thread has stayed civil keep it up please people

[Abraham]

wow im glad this thread has stayed civil keep it up please people
You mean that?
I read a lot of ugly Anti-Americanism and some personal attacks from both sides of the corridor...

[Kapitan]

so do i i was meaning glad its kept civil from both side not isisting on just one :88)

[Damo1977]

I read a lot of ugly Anti-Americanism and some personal attacks from both sides of the corridor...

On that Anti-Americanism note......The biggest joke of an anti-American rally I have seen was held in Japan when Japan sent troops over to Iraq. The demanstrators where holding placards of the American flag with the swastika in the place of the stars, and comparing USA with the nazis. I was thinking at the time, "Hello, the nazis were your allies and you weren't much better than them, if at all!!"

and to cap it off, who had to look after the Japanese in Iraq?, Us Aussies.
:rotfl:

[Abraham]

AAs will cut any corner to rerach their goal: criticising America, usually crying crocodile tears in the process about how the US suddenly changed since:
o the Clinton Presidency;
o the Carter Presidency;
o the late Sixties;
o the Marshall Plan;
o the Second World War;
o the Roosevelt Presidency;
o the Founding Fathers;
o any other acceptable happening they can come up with.
ANYTHING GOES!

Pointing their binoculars towards the U.S. they see a corrupt regime, an almost dictatorial Leader, a government in shambles, a military without ethics, a people losing faith and a nation rotten to the bone.
Most of them observe the U.S. from a position of freedom that is - at least partially - gained with U.S. blood.
Next time something goes seriously wrong in the world people - including those AAs - will point the same binoculars towards the U.S. to see if help is on the way.
And the U.S. will comply.

Criticising America? Fine with me. Big country, great responsabilities, lots to criticise! You can even learn it from Americans themselves.
But please not with this hardly hidden pleasure of 'holier than thou', with the attitude of 'good for nothing' and the complete lack of historic accuracy that AAs are known for.

[Rip]

Yes the Iraq conflict was needed. It should have been finished by the first Bush but like idiots we listened to all the naysayers in the coalition. We new that Iraq would not meet the obligations they made to keep us from going to Baghdad the first time.

When this one is complete we should continue right on to dealing with Iran, Syria, and then North Korea. Add to the list anyone else who supports terrorism and/or threatens our national security.

:yep:

[Onkel Neal]

:up: You've got my vote.

[Skybird]

It should have been finished by the first Bush

My vote, too.

[Damo1977]

Yes the Iraq conflict was needed. It should have been finished by the first Bush but like idiots we listened to all the naysayers in the coalition. We new that Iraq would not meet the obligations they made to keep us from going to Baghdad the first time.

When this one is complete we should continue right on to dealing with Iran, Syria, and then North Korea. Add to the list anyone else who supports terrorism and/or threatens our national security.

:yep:

Considering the mess in Iraq, supporting the Afghans who want help and the hurricane disaster.How do you propose the USA could physically and economically be able to do this? Obviously you don't mind an increase in taxes and massive increase of US war dead. Do you honestly believe that North Korea and Iran will be a pushover like Iraq could and should have been? Especially Iran, they have a free live firing training ground next door to train and battleharden every fanatical muslim.

IMHO the 'Coalition of the willing' should have done away with Iran first and foremost. That was and is the home of the fanatical muslim.

and NO :nope: I am not anti-American, so DON'T even call me that.