Anti-NA attitude ? (split from some discussion about BioAssault)

[kooma]

every war is about money yes but that was not our main reason. our main reason was cause of terror. incase u forgot we coudl have got rid of saddam in the early 90's but we were held back.

i already told u it was the cia's fault because their information they gave to bush was incorrect.

yes but no one build companies in iraq thus there was no "free" labor.

Ever stopped to think why the CIA gave that false information to Bush? Getting money from oil isn't the issue, it would take YEARS until anyone would get any profit from oil because the war cost so much. The issue is that the whole infrastructure of the US is based on OIL. Your nation can not survive without oil and you need to quarantee that you will get it. Guess where the second biggest oil reserves in the world are? Yep, that's right, Iraq. They've got 10% of the world's oil deposits.

i didn't say iraq was powerful but they had terrorist camps. the people who blew up wtc.

Pfffft. Where is the proof that the Iraqis had ANYTHING to do with the WTC incident?! That's right, nowhere. The Americans are just DESPERATELY looking for excuses why they had to invade Iraq. There were no WOMD, no terrorist links. Nothing, zip, nada. It's all about getting your hands on oil and getting a US friendly government to Iraq, neatly in the close proximity of Iran which just happens to be the second biggest oil producer in the world.

 

[Bart]

Im just saying most euro countries are just as bad.

sure EVERY european country make and made faults in the past, but saying that the european countries did as much crap as the usa in the last years isn't fair.
I didn't only mean the war (were Spain, UK and Poland agreed). I also see the broken contracts (i.e. Kyoto) and the threatment of the complete world community by the administration Bush.

IMO peeps learn not enough about history (i blame the german schools 2)

Well the problem ain't the amount of history lessons, the problem is the quality of education.
I have no idea how the history education in the USA is, but if they look on the history of the USA only and nothing about the history of other countries, then it's not very suprisingly why they think they are the greatest.

There is a nice sentence in german: "You've to watch over ur own dish border" ("Man muss auch über den eigenen Tellerrand schauen ).

 

[Menace]

doesnt that happen in every war?

Does the fact that it happen in every war justify it? do you even REALISE how much pain and suffering it caused? in Vietnam in particular! Think of those people as if they were your family and you should be able to come to a much more sensible thought than that, it's disgusting.

People in a war aren't just some faceless or mindless bunch in a country far away you know, but you make it sound as if you really don´t give a toss :/

 

[Durnik]

Alomst everything have already been said so I post 3 quotes instead

"There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending."
-Abraham Lincoln
'The Savage Curtain'
stardate 5906.5

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-John F. Kennedy

"No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats are -- approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less."
-Lazlo's Chinese Relativity Axiom

 

[Woodah]

Ever stopped to think why the CIA gave that false information to Bush? Getting money from oil isn't the issue, it would take YEARS until anyone would get any profit from oil because the war cost so much. The issue is that the whole infrastructure of the US is based on OIL. Your nation can not survive without oil and you need to quarantee that you will get it. Guess where the second biggest oil reserves in the world are? Yep, that's right, Iraq. They've got 10% of the world's oil deposits.

incase u didn't know we get our almost all of our oil from kuwait and saudi arabia.

Pfffft. Where is the proof that the Iraqis had ANYTHING to do with the WTC incident?!

did i say the iraqi's did the wtc? no i said the terrorists involved were in their country doing their camps.

I didn't only mean the war (were Spain, UK and Poland agreed). I also see the broken contracts (i.e. Kyoto) and the threatment of the complete world community by the administration Bush.

if that means the threat of the Bush admin u need to pull ur head out. all three brances of the gov't have to agree to go to war not only bush.

Well the problem ain't the amount of history lessons, the problem is the quality of education.
I have no idea how the history education in the USA is, but if they look on the history of the USA only and nothing about the history of other countries, then it's not very suprisingly why they think they are the greatest.

history classes in USA are a variety like american history world history, eastern history, etc.

Does the fact that it happen in every war justify it? do you even REALISE how much pain and suffering it caused? in Vietnam in particular! Think of those people as if they were your family and you should be able to come to a much more sensible thought than that, it's disgusting.

People in a war aren't just some faceless or mindless bunch in a country far away you know, but you make it sound as if you really don´t give a toss :/

if it happens in every war that means ur country has done it too.

i hhave one quote for u durnik. "you can't have peace without war" i dunno who said it but props to them.

 

[-CrackKing-]

the quote you want to use

Try doing this

 

[«)Fîrë$±ørm(»]

Woodah proves himself having a good historic backround knowledge - at least thats how i see it as well^^

in WW2 russia had one enemy and one front. if hitler could have focused on just russia he could have used germany's airforce and navy to bomb russian major cities such as leningrad, stalingrad, and moscow. both were bound by the british & americans. additionally hitler was all over europe and even in africa with his forces. furthermore germany was lacking resources such as oil which it could have easily imported but they were cut off by the us & british navy i.e.
glad hitler lost the war which might not have been the case without the usa

sadly im quite sure that the usa wouldnt have joined the war if the japanese hadnt attacked pearl habor. 2 days later or so hitler declared war on usa because he was speculating and hoping japan would declare war on russia

i myself critize the the us administration's imperialistic attitude towards war... to them war seems to be a legal way to do (make) diplomacy...
the US territory has never been struck by modern warfare (pearl habor & 9/11 r no examples of modern warfare to me)
if they had been their foreign affairs might look a bit different nowdays
america did not have the very expensive lesson of being involved into two world wars with civilian casualties in million figures.

as for vietnam: i dont think they were beaten really - they lost almost 60.000 soldiers - they pulled out because it was getting expensive and the war was unpopular all over the world.

the iraq war was a complete mistake: tbh i was certain it would destabilize the whole region - fortuantely it stayed quite calm except that the US has created a battlefield for the terrorists to attack them

might be OT but i dislike the american election-campaigns as there r sooo flat

i agree with euros having prejudices against americans but its hard not have if u look at US policies and US media - i think bart and sauron pointed them out quite well

 

[Menace]

if it happens in every war that means ur country has done it too.

Are you even getting my point? or are you too mindless to realise what war does? yes my country has been in wars (mind you, we've never started a war since fuck knows when) so? does that make war less horrible?
of course not! you just don't get it do you? war KILLS people, people like you and me, people like your family, your neighbours, the fat bitch next door that's always drunk on saturdays; it kills PEOPLE. I can't believe I'm trying to tell a guy that killing is bad, and that it causes suffering.

It seems to me like you really and honestly don't give a flying fuck about people that die in wars.
It's not about bloody countries killing people, why they do it and if it's justified. it's about people GETTING killed.

 

[Woodah]

sadly im quite sure that the usa wouldnt have joined the war if the japanese hadnt attacked pearl habor. 2 days later or so hitler declared war on usa because he was speculating and hoping japan would declare war on russia

i thought i said that earlier but maybe i didn't but i definetly agree with u. we can be seflish pricks. but thats the human race for u.

the US territory has never been struck by modern warfare (pearl habor & 9/11 r no examples of modern warfare to me)

i agree its not modern warfare, but modern warfare definetly kills less civilians. (not ww2 modern warfare but today's modern warfare)

as for vietnam: i dont think they were beaten really - they lost almost 60.000 soldiers - they pulled out because it was getting expensive and the war was unpopular all over the world.

very true

the iraq war was a complete mistake: tbh i was certain it would destabilize the whole region - fortuantely it stayed quite calm except that the US has created a battlefield for the terrorists to attack them

tbh im not sure my views on the iraq war. nonetheless we did open up terrorist attacks on us but at the same time we took care of 3 major terrorist camps in iraq.

Are you even getting my point? or are you too mindless to realise what war does? yes my country has been in wars (mind you, we've never started a war since fuck knows when) so? does that make war less horrible?
of course not! you just don't get it do you? war KILLS people, people like you and me, people like your family, your neighbours, the fat bitch next door that's always drunk on saturdays; it kills PEOPLE. I can't believe I'm trying to tell a guy that killing is bad, and that it causes suffering.

It seems to me like you really and honestly don't give a flying fuck about people that die in wars.
It's not about bloody countries killing people, why they do it and if it's justified. it's about people GETTING killed.

i gess im not getting ur point or ur not getting mine. i have said this a few times already but U CAN'T HAVE PEACE WITHOUT WAR. which means people must die to keep peace. yes the iraq war probably wasn't needed but many more americans may have died had the terrorist camps in iraq not been taken out. (imo)

 

[kooma]

incase u didn't know we get our almost all of our oil from kuwait and saudi arabia.

Yes I know where your oil is coming from. But have you considered the fact that the 85% of Iraqi area has not yet even been surveyed for oil yet and it already has the 10% of the world's oil reserves? Chances are that it will turn out to be the biggest reserve there is. Furthermore, the oil wells in Iraq are not deep like in Saudi-Arabia thus making it much more cheaper to pump and maintain.

did i say the iraqi's did the wtc? no i said the terrorists involved were in their country doing their camps.

Saddam might have been harboring terrorists and even if the WTC terrorists had built camps in Iraq, Iraq as a nation didn't have anything to do with WTC so an attack on their nation can only be described as unjustified. If your argument is that whichever country harbors terrorists should be attacked, the US should be attacking most of the Middle Eastern countries including your allies, Saudi-Arabia and Israel. The invasion as a way to clear of a terrorist threat would be the same as killing a mosquito with a cannon.

if that means the threat of the Bush admin u need to pull ur head out. all three brances of the gov't have to agree to go to war not only bush.

Be it one, two or seventyeight branches doesn't change the fact that the US government blatantly goes on breaking international treaties as it sees fit for its own gain. By invading Iraq, you've diminished the strength of the UN and made it impossible for it to gain back the status it had before the war in Iraq. Have you even thought what it means? You've sent out a message that the UN is too weak to be regarded as something whose rulings should be accepted. It's possible you've damaged the image of UN so much that it will eventually lose its meaning when everyone just goes on doing whatever they feel like because you've set the example that you don't give a fuck what the general opinion is.

history classes in USA are a variety like american history world history, eastern history, etc.

Well it seems the level of education is rather poor if you're actually taught all that when some of you don't even know your own history too well.

 

[Nanko]

i have said this a few times already but U CAN'T HAVE PEACE WITHOUT WAR. which means people must die to keep peace.

depends on how you describe peace isn't it. I see peace as all ppl from different races and religion living in harmony together. I don't know if we'll ever get there, or how we should get there. I do know bombing the fuck out of each other probably wouldnt help.

 

[kooma]

i agree its not modern warfare, but modern warfare definetly kills less civilians. (not ww2 modern warfare but today's modern warfare)

What?! It's the absolute opposite! Modern warfare kills MORE civilians than military. In WW2, the military bodycount was higher if we don't count in the holocaust which can not be contributed to military action. In Iraq, twice the amount of civilians have been killed compared to military.

 

[Snuggs]

depends on how you describe peace isn't it. I see peace as all ppl from different races and religion living in harmony together. I don't know if we'll ever get there, or how we should get there. I do know bombing the fuck out of each other probably wouldnt help.

there will never be peace

-as long as we have nations and religions on this planet

 

[Cutter]

This is complete bollocks, ppl are so easy to blame America these days. Don't get me wrong im not trying to defend anybody here. Im just saying most euro countries are just as bad.

America and europe have all the wealth and luxery they want, and they'll defend that whatever the cost.

I have to agree with Nanko here. Its interesting to see all the anti-American prejudice coming out in this thread. Rather than adopting a "holier than thou" attitude, why don't people try to do something constructive. Engage the Americans in dialogue, petition your MP or whatever?

Oh, and btw, contrary to popular belief, America does not get most of its oil from the middle east. It actually gets more oil from Mexico and Canada...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html


"People should at the very least use google to do their own research before mindlessly repeating the words of others' prejudice..."

 

[ProPain]

Oh and btw, america did not much to help europe in ww2, at least canada joined war before they decided, and dont speak about russian soldiers, they did more shit in poland than german soldiers.

My point of view .

What a load of utter bullshit, the usa funded the allied european countries, they trained our troops and they supplied us with materials. they had 10 times the production capacity of all the allied countries.

I also strongly doubt the fact that russia could have beaten germany hands down, without the allied landings in france (which wouldnt be possible without america) the germans would have fought a battle on 1 front, also if the war took longer then it did it gave the germans the time to finish their a-bomb project , and i am sure we all know adolf mad enough to use it.

I am fine with all the points made about america, in fact i strongly agree. but without america we would have had a lot of problems beating the germans. Controversial as it is, without the nukes on japan the war in europe would have taken a lot longer since they only started major troop deployments after the war in the pacific.

 

[ProPain]

have to agree with kooma and thur here, kinda funny pointing the finger to the usa, we have a lot of shit in europe we should be fixing before we can start condemning america

 

[Joko]

Comparing civilian casualties in WW2 and Iraq is a bit irrelevant imo because the way in which wars are fought has totally changed over the last 50 years. You cant compare a war fought with hi-tech jet aircraft and ships capable of launching missles from hundreds of miles away to one fought mainly with inventory troops and the most basic combat planes ever seen. Why cant the holocaust be attributed to military action either?

 

[Gazzy]

lots of interesting view points in here

Personally i think the US practically kept Britain alive during the early parts of WW2. Fair enough they didnt actually fight at this point but without their supplies and finacial support we were finished. Germany was raping our merchant ships and we couldnt do shit to stop it tbh. As someone said, we were lucky to win the Battle of Britain as well. Had Hitler not decided to concentrate on demoralising our nation (which was never gonna happen in a million years, something he didnt realise) by bombing london and taken out the rest of our airfields, we would have been in the shit big time. We were fortunate we had so many totally heroic ppl to defend our country when it needed it most!

It is disrespectful to assume that America didnt "do that much". Sure they only entered the war after Japan bombed Pearl Harbour, but thousands of Americans still died in Europe and u forget they played a major role in the D-Day landings (exagerrated by "Saving Private Ryan"). It is probably true that Germany would have lost in the end, mainly due to Russia, but it would have taken a lot longer and many more lives, if the Americans had not helped.

At the end of the day, Germany was the daddy, it had the best army the best equipment and the best tactics. However it all went wrong because Hitler was too greedy and tried to fight battles on too many fronts at the same time. Had Hitler not tried to capture Stalingrad, Russia would probably had fallen as it was a fucking mess at this point. If he simply encircled Stalingrad and continued to take Moscow, the whole country would have fallen. Since Stalingrad bore the name of Stalin himself, Hitler seemed to make it a personal mission to take it out, and that ultimately backfired when the winter set in.

I think the post by McNeill on behalf of the American guy shows that we should not assume that every American is like this Atma wotever hes called guy, who doesnt really have a clue.

America isnt perfect by any means and this Iraq fiasco shows how flawed the Bush adminstration is, but its unfair to slag them off all the time for every little thing, since they have also contributed for the greater good when it was needed.

 

[ProPain]

very true Gaz ( you fartknocker) germany was the daddio, d-day partly succeeded because the commanding officers didnt get permission to use the panzer reserves located only a few 100 miles away. They didnt get permission cos adolf hitler was asleep and nobody dared to wake him.

These type of things cost germany the war, adolf was stupid to believe that he knew more about war than its generals. Because adolf made some mindnumbingly stupid decisions they lost their advantage. a great example is stalingrad, all advisors and generals were opposed to it but he made a mistake that would partially cost him the war.

 

[kooma]

Controversial as it is, without the nukes on japan the war in europe would have taken a lot longer since they only started major troop deployments after the war in the pacific.

Err.. no. First of all let's agree they were a-bombs and not nukes. Secondly, the war in Europe had ended before the US dropped the bombs in Japan. Germany surrendered on May 7th, 1945. Hiroshima was bombed on August 6th, Nagasaki on the 9th and Japan surrendered September 2nd.