The USA/9-11/Iraq/bin Laden abroad

[prberk]

Maria, I may be wrong but I would guess that Talsonic is not against any "race" or people but perhaps the government and administration of Mexico, since most of what he talked about (weather balloons and rescue missions) are generally government or quasi-government actions here.

Anyway, thanks for the continued and international responses to my initial question, especially as this situation has evolved recently.

I must say I do not understand why Germany is not more sensitive to Saddam's known threat and to the USA's needs, since they suffered so much after WWII and benefited directly for years from US and British aid and support after the war.

And overall, I believe that the world should be concerned that Saddam has continually flouted the UN resolutions that he pledged at surrender. I know that the world is complex in its relationships, but this seems clear. And 9/11 only seemed to underscore the need to prevent known dangers from flowering....

 

[Maria]

Originally posted by prberk
Maria, I may be wrong but I would guess that Talsonic is not against any "race" or people but perhaps the government and administration of Mexico, since most of what he talked about (weather balloons and rescue missions) are generally government or quasi-government actions here.

I understood it that way, but if you are attacking my country or my people (the cheap labor), I consider it an offense. I am refraining to post my opinion about anyone´s government for respect to the people who post here and might be under that government.

We all have our ideas of what is good or wrong with our own government. Nobody doubts the US are powerful and have a lot of technology at the service of humanity, but don´t even think that I will bow to you or any other country. I respect them and their people, but I´m still very proud to be Mexican. That said, I´m leaving this thread and hopefully will not have to come back to it.

 

[Tramp]

Originally posted by Maria


I understood it that way, but if you are attacking my country or my people (the cheap labor), I consider it an offense. I am refraining to post my opinion about anyone´s government for respect to the people who post here and might be under that government.

We all have our ideas of what is good or wrong with our own government. Nobody doubts the US are powerful and have a lot of technology at the service of humanity, but don´t even think that I will bow to you or any other country. I respect them and their people, but I´m still very proud to be Mexican. That said, I´m leaving this thread and hopefully will not have to come back to it.

I agree Maria....Talsonic's sarcastic message was a slap in your face and totally uncalled for and, as usual, off topic.
If I didn't swear off ever talking to that moron again, I would tell him so myself ...I think he needs to stop drinking before he signs on...
...no matter what our governments do or have done, we are ALL international friends here and need to be just a little more sensitive about how we belittle or criticize someone else's governments cuz it's often interpreted as insulting the people of that country. The internet and this forum has brought a lot of us closer together than we could've ever imagined just 10 years ago and, as we can see, we have a lot more in common than we have differences.

Talsonic, you need to get a check up from the neck up!

 

[Fievel]

Originally posted by Tramp

...I think he needs to stop drinking before he signs on...

Well there goes my plans for tonight......:lol:

 

[Tramp]

Originally posted by Fievel


Well there goes my plans for tonight......:lol:

LMAO....:lol:


hey Brad...welcome home...hope you had a GREAT time!

 

[MKCustodial]

Originally posted by Maria
We all have our ideas of what is good or wrong with our own government. Nobody doubts the US are powerful and have a lot of technology at the service of humanity, but don´t even think that I will bow to you or any other country. I respect them and their people, but I´m still very proud to be Mexican. That said, I´m leaving this thread and hopefully will not have to come back to it.

Well said, Maria! It's hard to post an international view when everything you say is interpreted as high treason...

 

[Fievel]

I think the fact of the matter is that we are all very proud of our countries, and will defend them to the death if necessary. This is where the problems begin, however. We have such a high opinion about our country that we refuse to think that any other country thinks differently.

Every country does the best it can every day to make themselves as good as they can be. I'm not saying there isn't a fair bit of corruption out there, as there is.

I think a thread like this can be good for discussion, but can be very volatile if the wrong people - who have no tact whatsoever - get involved. It's one thing to be proud of what your own country has done, but quite another to show no respect and consideration when expressing their opinions and beliefs about other countries.

Americans (including myself) are very uneducated (for the most part) about the governments of most other countries. This almost begins in school when we have years of american history, and very little is said about anybody else. If we are to move on as a planet instead of a country, I believe we have to teach about as many different societies as we can in order to futher progress on a planetary scale.

I guess, in short, a little consideration goes a long way. It's one thing to have an opinion, quite another to shove it down someone's throat. Especially when that opinion is unfounded and rude.

 

[CmdrTostada]

Sorry to bring this post back, but I want this to be one of my first post in a long time. Since you guys stopped posting Saddam has not agreed to the UN inspections, even if he did it wouldnt matter, he's hiding the weapons in his palaces. This is not a war for oil, and even if it was it would be a war worth fighting for. MKcustodial, could you live your life the way you are now without oil? Saddam is a madman something needs to be done about him. For someone to kill his own people, would he think twice about killing you or me? I agree that Britian should take care of Northern Ireland, but they should also help out the world.

One thing about the UN is that it can't do anything. The reason why is because it is so communist, that they kicked the US off the human rights board, and a country like red china is still on there. It is nothing more than an international debate commitee.

And also why are people calling Bush gung-ho when Clinton bombed serbian CIVILIANS for eighty straight days. On a side note I personally think that Clinton was the worst president that the US ever had.

And for you people criticizing Bush for wanting to go to war with Iraq, why dont you get some facts from the right side of the media, try going tohttp://www.worldnetdaily.com

P.S. I agree with Maria that some of the illegal immigrants from mexico do help out the US, but 30% of Illegal immigrants from mexico are in prison, are they helping the US?

No offense in any way was meant by this post

 

[darthdarrel]

The Congress,which I might add is majority democrat,just gave Presidant Bush full authority to attack Iraq. I agree he has his nuclear bombs hidden in his palaces! That`s why he has obstructed investigators again. It`s time for some action Sadam insane needs to go!

 

[TURKEY]

Originally posted by Turbogames
Sorry to bring this post back, but I want this to be one of my first post in a long time. Since you guys stopped posting Saddam has not agreed to the UN inspections, even if he did it wouldnt matter, he's hiding the weapons in his palaces. This is not a war for oil, and even if it was it would be a war worth fighting for. MKcustodial, could you live your life the way you are now without oil? Saddam is a madman something needs to be done about him. For someone to kill his own people, would he think twice about killing you or me? I agree that Britian should take care of Northern Ireland, but they should also help out the world.

One thing about the UN is that it can't do anything. The reason why is because it is so communist, that they kicked the US off the human rights board, and a country like red china is still on there. It is nothing more than an international debate commitee.

And also why are people calling Bush gung-ho when Clinton bombed serbian CIVILIANS for eighty straight days. On a side note I personally think that Clinton was the worst president that the US ever had.

And for you people criticizing Bush for wanting to go to war with Iraq, why dont you get some facts from the right side of the media, try going tohttp://www.worldnetdaily.com

P.S. I agree with Maria that some of the illegal immigrants from mexico do help out the US, but 30% of Illegal immigrants from mexico are in prison, are they helping the US?

No offense in any way was meant by this post

I agree that the inspection won't make much difference. Inspectors won't be anywhere near where any weapons are.

Brazil and most other countries could make it without Iraq's oil. I think that the only way any UN country gets oil from Iraq is through the Oil for Food programs. I'm not positive this is the only time they can get oil, but I think it is.

The U.S. has a large surplus of oil plus a good bit that could be drilled for in the Arctic. They could make it without Iraq's on.

Not to mention that without this supply of oil, countries would have to develop more environmentally friendly energy and sources of it.


I blame a lot of the problems on Iraq on the elder Bush. He could have finished off Suddam back during the Gulf War.

 

[CmdrTostada]

Actually many, many, people told older Bush to not go in and get rid of Saddam. People criticize young Bush early on for not getting support from the senate, and yet they go right back and criticize older Bush for listening to the sneate and house.

 

[TURKEY]

Originally posted by darthdarrel
The Congress,which I might add is majority democrat,just gave Presidant Bush full authority to attack Iraq. I agree he has his nuclear bombs hidden in his palaces! That`s why he has obstructed investigators again. It`s time for some action Sadam insane needs to go!

My facts say that there are more republicans than democrats.


The House is 221 republicans, 212, democrats, and 2 independants.

The Senate is 50 democrats, 49 republicans, and 1 independant (thanks to Vermont senator that became independant and caucuses with Democrat).

 

[CmdrTostada]

I think he was only reffering to the senate. Which hopefully will become republican after the elections this year.

 

[tenchu]

Originally posted by turkey leg boy



I blame a lot of the problems on Iraq on the elder Bush. He could have finished off Suddam back during the Gulf War.

But does that mean that the son is just making up for the father's mistake?

 

[Tramp]

I hate to be part of keeping this thread going....

...ya have to remember what the UN mandate was during the gulf war in 1991. It was ONLY to remove Iraq from Kuwait, it wasn't to change the Iraqi regime. Bush 41 came under a crap load of pressure to stop the carnage and sue for peace, not only from the UN, but from members of his own administration. YES, this was a mistake in retrospect but it made perfect sense at the time in light of the huge coalition of nations massed against Iraq. (Can you imagine leaving Hitler in charge of Germany post WW2?)

It's the UN that dropped the ball following an unconditional surrender by Sadaam. Year after year, the UN allowed the weapons inspectors to be pushed around, deceived, cheated, delayed, etc etc, instead of putting a gun to Sadaam's forehead to force compliance.

I've heard all the OIL arguments too and, in a big way, these arguments have some validity. So many of us love to be cavalier about the importance of keeping an open and free supply of oil from the Middle East....can you imagine the negative impact on world economies if a dictator were to control the oil fields of the mideast? I lived thru the gas lines of the 70s, waiting for 2 hours at the pumps to get 10 gallons of gas.

While the OIL argument may be valid, the 'control' of the oil fields or the occupation of Iraq by US and British troops is total nonsense. History has shown that not only have we NOT permanently occupied countries we have defeated in war, but we rebuilt them into strong democracies at our expense. The US has no interest in occupying territory in the Mideast but it does have an interest in assuring the free flow of the world's oil and that a brutal dictator is not allowed to acquire nukes that can be used to blackmail or extort the West or his neighbors. I ask if you think it would have been easy to extract Iraq from Kuwait if Sadaam had his finger on a button to launch a nuclear tipped scud?

Do we need a wake-up call? Today we learned that North Korea has admitted having a secret nuke program...this in spite of a 1994 agreement signed with them by Clinton. Bush included North Korea in the controversial 'axis of evil' comment. I guess he was right about that! What do you think the chances are of him being correct about Iraq too?...and are you willing to bet your children's lives that he's wrong?

 

[tenchu]

Originally posted by Tramp
I hate to be part of keeping this thread going....

...ya have to remember what the UN mandate was during the gulf war in 1991. It was ONLY to remove Iraq from Kuwait, it wasn't to change the Iraqi regime. Bush 41 came under a crap load of pressure to stop the carnage and sue for peace, not only from the UN, but from members of his own administration. YES, this was a mistake in retrospect but it made perfect sense at the time in light of the huge coalition of nations massed against Iraq. (Can you imagine leaving Hitler in charge of Germany post WW2?)

It's the UN that dropped the ball following an unconditional surrender by Sadaam. Year after year, the UN allowed the weapons inspectors to be pushed around, deceived, cheated, delayed, etc etc, instead of putting a gun to Sadaam's forehead to force compliance.

I've heard all the OIL arguments too and, in a big way, these arguments have some validity. So many of us love to be cavalier about the importance of keeping an open and free supply of oil from the Middle East....can you imagine the negative impact on world economies if a dictator were to control the oil fields of the mideast? I lived thru the gas lines of the 70s, waiting for 2 hours at the pumps to get 10 gallons of gas.

While the OIL argument may be valid, the 'control' of the oil fields or the occupation of Iraq by US and British troops is total nonsense. History has shown that not only have we NOT permanently occupied countries we have defeated in war, but we rebuilt them into strong democracies at our expense. The US has no interest in occupying territory in the Mideast but it does have an interest in assuring the free flow of the world's oil and that a brutal dictator is not allowed to acquire nukes that can be used to blackmail or extort the West or his neighbors. I ask if you think it would have been easy to extract Iraq from Kuwait if Sadaam had his finger on a button to launch a nuclear tipped scud?

Do we need a wake-up call? Today we learned that North Korea has admitted having a secret nuke program...this in spite of a 1994 agreement signed with them by Clinton. Bush included North Korea in the controversial 'axis of evil' comment. I guess he was right about that! What do you think the chances are of him being correct about Iraq too?...and are you willing to bet your children's lives that he's wrong?

I agree that it is the UN's fault that Iraq has been allowed to mess the inspectors around so much.

If the rules that they set out at the beginning had been properly enforced, we would not be having this problem. (Although Saddam would still have found somewhere to build his weapons.)

As for the oil front, were all the oil in the middle east to become locked up due to any conflict, the US (and the rest of the western world) would be hit very hard. Yes there may be oil reserves in the US, but most of their oil is imported at present. World oil prices are constantly being driven up as it is. They would skyrocket without middle-east oil.

And as for Korea having nuclear weapons, while i think this is wrong, you can see their point of view, in that the US, russia, most of Europe, India and Pakistan all have nuclear capabilities, so why shouldn't they?

I'm sure most other countries with these capabilities have gone back on any treaties they have signed.

Do you honestly believe the US and Russia really have as many warheads as they are telling each other?

 

[ACE]

Please excuse me while I sit quietly and bite my tongue.:lol:

:wave: ACE

 

[MKCustodial]

I know I was mentioned directly here, but I had already decided I'd stop posting on this thread, since it's no use, politics and nationalism are the kinds of things that have no end, we cannot all agree.

 

[tenchu]

Originally posted by MKCustodial
I know I was mentioned directly here, but I had already decided I'd stop posting on this thread, since it's no use, politics and nationalism are the kinds of things that have no end, we cannot all agree.

I agree that we will never all agree on this subject, but it's nice to see a thread on here which is being discussed like adults.

Everyone has a valid point to make.

Come on Ace, join in, you know you want to!

 

[ACE]

ACE

Originally posted by tenchu


I agree that we will never all agree on this subject, but it's nice to see a thread on here which is being discussed like adults.

Everyone has a valid point to make.

Come on Ace, join in, you know you want to!

No...no...I will not give in to the darkside.

:wave: