Anti-NA attitude ? (split from some discussion about BioAssault)
- Thread starter SX
- Start date
-
Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
AtmaDragon said:
You seem to be under the impression that the only way to stop you on your murderous rampage would be to kill you?
i missed to reply for some pages so i have to quote quite a lot.
to believe that Bush went into the war because the CIA gave wrong information is just credulous. the CIA delivered Bush the wrong info he needed and wanted. then after the war when it became obvious that the american governement used false information to deceive the american public they needed a scapegoat and fired CIA chief Tennet. some time later when the public still wasnt pacified and more and more proof turned up that Bush had infact betrayed the public they even used Rumsfeld as a scapegoat. i een remember seeing his hearing in front of the Senate where he stated that still 1 year after the war no proof for WOMD were found and that iraq probably never had any. also i have never seen proof that there were terrorist camps. what your troops found in big numbers were training camps of the feedayin, saddams elite guard which were trained in probably any kinda warfare including guerilla warfare. those camps are assumingly pretty similar to terrorist camps in afghanistan so it wouldnt be too hard to sell to the american public as actual terrorist camps. and the situation would have not gotten worse, or bad in the first place, for anybody except the iraqi people. but the USA didnt really change anyhtign about that, the only infrastructure the USA secured were the oil pipelines and pumps, not water or electricity. i remember a report on TV showing that one whole cityblock of bagdad was flooded with sewage because the canalisation was destroyed, you can imagine the sanitary catastrophy this caused, yet the US forces didnt care to solve the problem, which seems kinda weird when one of the official reasons for the invasion was to "free the iraqi people from tyranny and misery".
your statement also pretty perfectly shows the american attitude. "theres nothign really going on but lets do something anyways just to prevent that anything even could happen. just because some americans might die you dont have the right to do pre-emptive strikes. you have to adjust your foreign politics and your appearance as a nation so that no one has a reason to attack you, not be as selfish as you can and then kill everyone who dares to oppose.
just today i read an article about a book (Imperial Hubris) an employee of the CIA published recently, that man was from 1996 to 1999 the head of the task force which was supposed to catch bin laden. this man writes that, other than the bush administration wants to make believe, Osama doesnt hate the USA for their democracy and freedom, he doesnt hate them for what they are but for what they do; their politics in the near and middle-east. his goal is not to destroy america but simply to get rid of all american influence in the arabic area and to get all american soldiers out of the region. he explains that al qaida understand themselves as defensive against the american agression, not neccesarily in military but in political and economial form, and of course in form of support for israel.
so as you can see, its not simple hate, its wanting to get rid of your injustified influence.
[QUOTEProPain=]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[/QUOTE]
as in? europe does not ignore UNO resolutions and invade other countries, apart from UK, spain and poland, altho u can forget the latter two as they sent like 2 soldiers each. the major problems in europe are unemployement, which is just as prominent in the USA, and the integration of the huge numbers of foreigners and asylum seekers, a problem the USA dont have to that extent as they simply dont let anyone in, they send refugee ships back to where they came from and they built an actual wall on the boarder to mexico so no one can pass. on the other hand the USA have a huge percentage of their own people living in poorness.
also if we dont comment on what the USA does, who should? eruope is the most propsperous region in the world, you wont find many countries with less internal problems than here.
this american attitude also made it pretty easy to mute the few opponents of Bush's rampage by simply calling them unpatriotic and demanding them to support the governement in this hard time of terrorist attacks and such. btw this isnt a new method, i found this picture somewhere on the net a while ago.
the USA controls almost the whole world thru the power of its economy. every so often when a country didnt cooperate with the USA they simply empowered an embargo and thru that forced the country into cooperation. this is a very strong political instrument, also for international law suits for example. if you take the example of the swiss banks which were accused for keeping nazigold originally stolen from the jewish population. untill today i havent seen a single valid reason why this case had to be settled in an american court, if anythign it should have been in a european court, but if the swiss banks would have refused to cooperate and negotiate on american soil they would have simply been cut out of the american market, which would have caused them more loss than the actuall fee they had to pay later. btw of those who knows how many billions of dollars, most went into the pockets of the attorney ed fagan and some few wealthy jewish families who really didnt need the money. the ten thousands of jews who still live in eastern europe today and who had the same rights on the money as the jews in america, and who other than those were not wealthy at all but rather poor, didnt see one penny of all the money. so much for justice.
or another example, the USA demand a free world market and globalisation, on the other hand they have huge protectionary import tolls on agricultural products, steel and other products to protect the local industry. its totally against the principal of the free market and its unfair towards other countries but they do it anyways because it helps them. its part of the whole "america first" policy of which Bush happened to be the first to name it what it is.
also the USA's refusal to submit its people to the power of the international court of justice like every other country is quite an affront. maybe it makes some sense from Bush's point of view, but for everyone else the situation presents more the way that the world community tries to unite itself by putting up something like a "world-court" to which everyone has to submit, just the americans take themselves out because they only feel responsible to themselves. what message does this deliver to everyone else dear american members of this board? why should anyone else submit to this court then? what is the use to found such an institution in the first place then if you take yourselves out, even tho you were involved in the creation of it. quite absurd isnt it.
things like that are what makes the USA so unpopular in the world and what nurtures an anti american attitude.
so to state my own position, i certainly do have a strong anti american attitude. but mainly directed against the governement and Bush. i do not know the american people so i cant judge them as a whole, but it isnt too hard find out that they are too faithfull towards their leaders, they tend to elect the wrong ones and then believe all their shit and follow them blindly which is dangerous when your the one single superpower left.
i think if the US people would try to take more political influence, like we do in europe, by questioning the governement and holding it responsible for what it does, the nation would have a lot less problems.
i dont think the USA could have done anything more than they did once they entered the war, they stroke with full force and certainly shortened the war by quite a couple of years, for this the USA of the 1940ies have my full respect (it has changed far too strong as to be still the same tho, when todays USA claim that they safed europe its just ridiculous, its not the same nation anymore) . however the russians alone would have won this war in less than a decade aswell. their country simply has far more resources and soldiers at its disposal than germany, plus their dictator actually was smart enough to listen to his military advisors. their probably biggest advantage was the sheer width of the country tho. the german was spread so extremely thin once it went into russia, the further they would have advanced the bigger that problem woul dhave gotten, anyways after stalingrad the war was decided on eastern front, it was only a question of time.Woodah said:
first off, 1 week after the southern city basra was occupied the licences to exploit the local oil fields were already given away to american oil companies, of which some are owned by the families Bush and Cheney.Woodah said:
to believe that Bush went into the war because the CIA gave wrong information is just credulous. the CIA delivered Bush the wrong info he needed and wanted. then after the war when it became obvious that the american governement used false information to deceive the american public they needed a scapegoat and fired CIA chief Tennet. some time later when the public still wasnt pacified and more and more proof turned up that Bush had infact betrayed the public they even used Rumsfeld as a scapegoat. i een remember seeing his hearing in front of the Senate where he stated that still 1 year after the war no proof for WOMD were found and that iraq probably never had any. also i have never seen proof that there were terrorist camps. what your troops found in big numbers were training camps of the feedayin, saddams elite guard which were trained in probably any kinda warfare including guerilla warfare. those camps are assumingly pretty similar to terrorist camps in afghanistan so it wouldnt be too hard to sell to the american public as actual terrorist camps. and the situation would have not gotten worse, or bad in the first place, for anybody except the iraqi people. but the USA didnt really change anyhtign about that, the only infrastructure the USA secured were the oil pipelines and pumps, not water or electricity. i remember a report on TV showing that one whole cityblock of bagdad was flooded with sewage because the canalisation was destroyed, you can imagine the sanitary catastrophy this caused, yet the US forces didnt care to solve the problem, which seems kinda weird when one of the official reasons for the invasion was to "free the iraqi people from tyranny and misery".
Bart said:
even if it was so, it should still not be accepted as normal. while i do not suppose that you would find it ok you do clearly not find it axtraordinary, while it is. i ask you to understand the meaning of the matter and to understand that it must not happen, most of all not from the people of, quote Bush: "god's own country" which also claim to be the moral instance in the world and which officially only invade other countries to free its people and to pacify the world.Woodah said:
that is not quite so.europe, as opposed to the USA, does not act aggressiveley on the political stage. also europe pays tremendous amounts of foreign aids into the 3rd world, someting the USA does not do to this extent, at least not unconditional. american money usually only comes in exchange for something, like pollution permits so they can bypass environment protocols.Nanko said:
who says that you cant have peace without war? europe does quite well since ww2, and its not like there werent any differences, they were simply settled in conference rooms. of course if you have a situation like in ex-yugoslavia you have to send troops in, but those troops who were sent didnt actually fight the serbs and the croatians down, they just went in and pacified the situation. That is a situation where you have to go to war to have peace, but thats not atacking a country, its going in between 2 combatants. other than iraq and afghanistan where you simply attacked 1 single country without former agression.Woodah said:
your statement also pretty perfectly shows the american attitude. "theres nothign really going on but lets do something anyways just to prevent that anything even could happen. just because some americans might die you dont have the right to do pre-emptive strikes. you have to adjust your foreign politics and your appearance as a nation so that no one has a reason to attack you, not be as selfish as you can and then kill everyone who dares to oppose.
just today i read an article about a book (Imperial Hubris) an employee of the CIA published recently, that man was from 1996 to 1999 the head of the task force which was supposed to catch bin laden. this man writes that, other than the bush administration wants to make believe, Osama doesnt hate the USA for their democracy and freedom, he doesnt hate them for what they are but for what they do; their politics in the near and middle-east. his goal is not to destroy america but simply to get rid of all american influence in the arabic area and to get all american soldiers out of the region. he explains that al qaida understand themselves as defensive against the american agression, not neccesarily in military but in political and economial form, and of course in form of support for israel.
so as you can see, its not simple hate, its wanting to get rid of your injustified influence.
what do you think we are doing here? we are dialogueing and reasoning like mad here, i didnt see any "holier than you" posts in this thread.Thruingwethil said:
[QUOTEProPain=]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[/QUOTE]
as in? europe does not ignore UNO resolutions and invade other countries, apart from UK, spain and poland, altho u can forget the latter two as they sent like 2 soldiers each. the major problems in europe are unemployement, which is just as prominent in the USA, and the integration of the huge numbers of foreigners and asylum seekers, a problem the USA dont have to that extent as they simply dont let anyone in, they send refugee ships back to where they came from and they built an actual wall on the boarder to mexico so no one can pass. on the other hand the USA have a huge percentage of their own people living in poorness.
also if we dont comment on what the USA does, who should? eruope is the most propsperous region in the world, you wont find many countries with less internal problems than here.
you mention something quite remarkable about your country there. the fact that once there is a situation in which you feel attacked politicaly, economicaly or militarily you blindly stand behind whoever happens to be your leader. that creates quite a momentum and is sure a good thing if your country was actually attacked, but its easily exploited which so happened with the whole anti terrorism thing. Bush's foreign policy provoced the whole thing, yet after 911 everybody supported him. when Blair enagaged into Bush's war the british didnt blindly support him they asked questions and criticised him, imo a far better way to go.Woodah said:
this american attitude also made it pretty easy to mute the few opponents of Bush's rampage by simply calling them unpatriotic and demanding them to support the governement in this hard time of terrorist attacks and such. btw this isnt a new method, i found this picture somewhere on the net a while ago.
the figures of civilian deaths were awfully high, even your precision bombs dont prevent that when you "accidentaly" bomb wedding parties, schools, busses, family houses and hospitals. which so happened in both iraq and afghanistan.Woodah said:
the USA controls almost the whole world thru the power of its economy. every so often when a country didnt cooperate with the USA they simply empowered an embargo and thru that forced the country into cooperation. this is a very strong political instrument, also for international law suits for example. if you take the example of the swiss banks which were accused for keeping nazigold originally stolen from the jewish population. untill today i havent seen a single valid reason why this case had to be settled in an american court, if anythign it should have been in a european court, but if the swiss banks would have refused to cooperate and negotiate on american soil they would have simply been cut out of the american market, which would have caused them more loss than the actuall fee they had to pay later. btw of those who knows how many billions of dollars, most went into the pockets of the attorney ed fagan and some few wealthy jewish families who really didnt need the money. the ten thousands of jews who still live in eastern europe today and who had the same rights on the money as the jews in america, and who other than those were not wealthy at all but rather poor, didnt see one penny of all the money. so much for justice.
or another example, the USA demand a free world market and globalisation, on the other hand they have huge protectionary import tolls on agricultural products, steel and other products to protect the local industry. its totally against the principal of the free market and its unfair towards other countries but they do it anyways because it helps them. its part of the whole "america first" policy of which Bush happened to be the first to name it what it is.
also the USA's refusal to submit its people to the power of the international court of justice like every other country is quite an affront. maybe it makes some sense from Bush's point of view, but for everyone else the situation presents more the way that the world community tries to unite itself by putting up something like a "world-court" to which everyone has to submit, just the americans take themselves out because they only feel responsible to themselves. what message does this deliver to everyone else dear american members of this board? why should anyone else submit to this court then? what is the use to found such an institution in the first place then if you take yourselves out, even tho you were involved in the creation of it. quite absurd isnt it.
things like that are what makes the USA so unpopular in the world and what nurtures an anti american attitude.
so to state my own position, i certainly do have a strong anti american attitude. but mainly directed against the governement and Bush. i do not know the american people so i cant judge them as a whole, but it isnt too hard find out that they are too faithfull towards their leaders, they tend to elect the wrong ones and then believe all their shit and follow them blindly which is dangerous when your the one single superpower left.
i think if the US people would try to take more political influence, like we do in europe, by questioning the governement and holding it responsible for what it does, the nation would have a lot less problems.
Woodah said:
Woodah as long as we settle our differences with weapons there will never be peace
Thats 2 subjects:AtmaDragon said:
Revenge murder
Obviously if someone kills someone you love or care about, then you are going to want retribution. That doesn't mean you are allowed to do so, or the law permits you to do so. It's just that someone has given you justification to want to kill someone.
Serial murder
You murder many people in a spree, and don't stop. Society needs to stop you to protect themselves and other people. If they kill a serial murderer mid spree, they have saved lives.
How does this apply to any goverment? It doesn't. They do not decide who is guilty of a crime. That is for the courts and the justice system. They can assign punishments to a crime in the event that someone is convicted.
But where was the justice system for going to war on Iraq? Which is what this thread was talking about 3-4 pages ago.
There was no court.
There was no jury.
There was no evidence that Iraq threatened the US, UK, Spain, Australia, Germany
There was bloody murder of 1000's of people across Iraq by the US goverment in the name of Freedom for both Iraqi and Coalition.
But lets not forget that Al Qaeda hijacked 4 planes and killed over 3000 people on US soil in the worst atrocity in recent times.
And also do not forget that this had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq.
Saddam has done some gruesome things in the past. So has the US, the UK, and most of Europe at some time or another in it's history.
But just because your President stands infront of you, tells you that Osama Bid Laden is guilty of terrorism in the US.. do we believe him? Going back.. there has been no justice system implemented to prove that he is responsible.
People held by the US in Guantanamo have no rights to the First Ammendment - the right to speech without restriction from the goverment, and they don't have the right to a fair trial.
- Are Muslims being persecuted? Indirectly, yes: anyone who claims to wage a holy war is our enemy.
- Is Bush a Christian fanatic? Apposition of Gay Marriage isnt a bad first place to start
- Are the press censored? Yes most certainly. 17th in the world isn't great for a free country, is it?
- Are protesters being silenced? I think so.
- Is anyone (i.e. Michael Moore) branded unpatriotic for criticising the goverment? All the time, by many different people and sites. All funded by Bush?
On another notes, I do realise that the minority of people on this forum are not from the US. So it is unfair for us all to gang up on. I'm not trying to. But for people to respect your opinion, you have to at least show you respect theirs.
Martz said:
Lets also not forget a very high percentage of those killed by USA, were infact military forces loyal to Saddam, so its shot or be shot for the Invading troops if you think about it. USA dont deliberately kill civilians (afaik anyways
).Al Qaeda Murdered For no reason, 3000 innocent civilians. Big difference. But then im not sure if you mean't the same as me or not but ill write this anyways
. /nick
sobo said:a quick mind game: imagine the germans won the war. europe would be called something like US of Germany
Hmm. Not a valid comparison. Germany at the time was under the control of an insane military dictator and a vast secret police network. America is a democracy, and presidents are prevented from ever serving more than 2 terms of 4 years back to back.
So, the thing is, if people despise Bush so much, they have the opportunity to vote him out at the coming elections. The same was not true for decent German citizens under Hitler, it was not possible for decent Iraqis under Hussein, it is not possible (currently) to remove the House of Saud democratically in Saudi Arabia, etc.
What frightens me is the number of people opposed to America and its ways, who are not fanatics of one sort or another, but who you might think are decent, thinking, liberal people, who seem to be quite prepared to use illegal means to stop/oust/remove Bush.
Our civilisations have been down that dark road before. Adopting the ways and means of tyrants is the quickest way into the abyss.
Sauron said:
Terribly, terribly wrong actually. Try doing a quick google search on "Stalin + Purge + Russian Army Officers", or check here:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSpurge.htm
Part of the main reason that the German Army reached the very gates of Moscow was:
1. The USSR had a treaty of mutual help & non-aggression with Nazi Germany. Stalin wasn't expecting his buddy Adolf to attack him.
2. Stalin had "purged" most of the best military commanders in the Russian Army during the 1930's, seeing them as a possible threat to his own power base. He only started listening to his military advisers once faced by the very real prospect that he might be captured and hauled off by German troops.
I didn't read whole thread but just overflew some of the posts and I here I have to mention that the USA delivers a lot of corn for example to Northern Corea (otherwise many ppl would prolly starve there cause there own government spends most of the budget for military) for free (maybe just to get rid of the overproduction). Just thought this should be mentioned cause they don't get anything in exchange for it and you all know Northern Coreas attitude.
Sauron said:
Hmm:
1. French exploits in Algeria?
2. French military support for Sadam Hussein in exchange for oil exploration/drilling rights?
3. French nuclear testing in defiance of world condemnation recently?
4. EU food mountains being left to rot rather than sent to places it could be used?
5. EU "tied aid" to the third world? i.e. We'll lend you this money to build these nice airports/dams/roads provided you buy the equipment from us and employ our companies to do the work?
"Europe" is every bit as bad as America in doing things for its own advantage. The only difference is that Europe can't put as many troops on the ground, ships in the sea or planes in the air as the USA. (That may of course be changing with this proposed "European Army" they keep talking about...)
Europe has however mastered the art of getting American troops to die instead of its own, America to spend the money and provide the equipment etc, and then being able to adopt a "clean hands" approach and blame the Americans for any problems. See in this context Bosnia, Kosovo etc...
Sauron said:
1. "You must use Google before posting stupid stuff"
UNO resolutions not ignored by Europe? Please, please just do a little more research there before saying that again.2. Poland and Spain actually sent several thousand troops to Iraq this time.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030731-100008-9335r.htm - 2,000 polish troops sent to Iraq...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3756359.stm - Polish Trrops face abuse claims...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3512144.stm - At least 1,300 Spanish Troops were in Iraq...
3. America doesn't let immigrants in???? WHAT??? Where did you get that gem from? I mean, America is comprised of immigrants. It doesn't have English as an official language because it is the first language of less than half the actual population. (I think Spanish is the most spoken language there?) OK, they turn some people away, but show me a country that doesn't? The Netherlands, or France closing its refugee camps and shipping them all to the UK?
I mean, no offence mate, but please do a bit of research before you start making some of these comments.
Last edited:
im 99% sure that this isnt free, and if it still is than to show that they were on the "wrong" side in the past.
@Thur: vote Bush out?
1. Americans follow him blindly as i think it was Sauron stated pretty well. why? because there brainwashed, such a strong nationalism doesnt come from heart.
2. I dont know whether its rumours or facts but hes said to have faked the election statistics in his favor (prolly not himself but some powerful instrument owned by him)
@Thur: WW2 and russia
as i said earlier i dont think this thread is about debating whether the USA made the nazis lose the war or not. THE USA at that time is by all means not the same USA we see today, as we have a slightly defferent germany and a slightly different russia today, too.
I dont despise the USA for their action in ww2, actually theyve been help to their allies and with shortening the war they prevented some suffering. but up to today they cant cope with this role as the world saving hero of ww2.
@Thur: vote Bush out?
1. Americans follow him blindly as i think it was Sauron stated pretty well. why? because there brainwashed, such a strong nationalism doesnt come from heart.
2. I dont know whether its rumours or facts but hes said to have faked the election statistics in his favor (prolly not himself but some powerful instrument owned by him)
@Thur: WW2 and russia
as i said earlier i dont think this thread is about debating whether the USA made the nazis lose the war or not. THE USA at that time is by all means not the same USA we see today, as we have a slightly defferent germany and a slightly different russia today, too.
I dont despise the USA for their action in ww2, actually theyve been help to their allies and with shortening the war they prevented some suffering. but up to today they cant cope with this role as the world saving hero of ww2.
thats what the EU did for some time but now they know its wrong as they destroy the 3rd world's "agriculture economy" - how could they possibly compete with food that comes in for free every first of the month? as a result those 3rd world countries become dependent on those supplies
too easy imo - if u believe this way theres no way to prove the opposite - personally i dont feel that the german i.e. gov't follows such policy that u described
y would opposing countries risk upsetting mad man bush?
didnt read him denying that fact (he excluded some euro nations iirc)
hehe some?
y r there so many illegal immigrants in the usa then?spanish population is the biggest minority in the usa - its slightly bigger than the afro-american population afaik
certainly the US is composed of immigrants but those immigrants came before the 1950s (mainly english, french, germans, chinese, irish, jewish and some other - who adopted the english language)
many irish were sent back though (dont remember dates - about 1900(?))