So that makes it ok for us (the usa) to do the same? And not ok for a british citizen to say its wrong?

Hey Sixpack.. Did you visit Prague?

Still funny how 12clicks abandoned his own thread after i asked him if he was a chicken hawk. These tough talking types are so predictable.........

Son, if I don't respond to a post, its because I'm not around our your post is too childish to respond to. You post happends to be both but I'll answer it anyway just for fun.

If "tens of thousands of people support saddam, then they die. its that simple.

Flimsy evidence? only if you're a euro-pansie. Any thoughtful person would see colin powell's evidence as proof plenty.



General schwarzkoff is in the private sector and 1. not privy to intel. and 2. needing to be provacative to earn speaking money.l

This is a lie you can't support with even a shed of evidence. Don't come at me with lies, idiot.


Running out of false facts moron?

stupid, do you even know who you are quoting or what war he fought in?
I'll bet not.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Quote:

Like they said before me, 200 years compared to the entire British Empire. LOL. We changed this world so fast, in such little time it's pathetic. The Brits have nothing to szay to America about going into other countries. The British Empire was brutal. They did some fucked up shit, and into the 80s too.

---------------------

The US has a long long way to go before it's power is anything like that of the British Empire at it's height relatively speaking. The US also has a long long way to go before it's as brutal as the British Empire. Thats not to say this Iraq thing doesn't read exactly like a chapter out of British history, save you'll almost certainly kill more innocent civilians due to more modern bomb/missile weapons.

You just keep backpacking around the world and be happy and carefree. The USA will always be here to protect you and your way of life regardless of how you feel about us.

Please. I don't answer every irrelevant assclown.
You and your country don't matter. Even if you scream otherwise.:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Been there twice. In October 1998 and in December 2002.

I love Prague. It's amazing... and CHEAP!

Thank you I will.

Cool I was born there.. I love that city. Cheap? I dont know about that.

Half a litre of beer for 22 crowns (if you're smart) is cheap. And Czech beer is GOOD. I lived very well there for very little.

What? You paid 22 crowns for a beer? That's really expensive.
If you know where to go, you pay about 10 crowns for a beer.

Well obviously I never ventured too far from the centre of the city... a tram stop or two. I only had four days this time. In some places on Wenceslas Square it can be 60-90 crowns for a beer.

So anyway, so you're telling me that paying 35c (US), if that's what you can get it for, isn't cheap?

Prague is cheap.

Wenceslas Square is for tourists, yes. And also somewhere they charge you more if you dont speak czech. If you leave Prague it's much cheaper. Last spring I paid 50 crowns for a good dinner and a beer in Neratovice. Small town about 20 km north of Prague

Slovakia is cheaper still... but not as interesting.

and BTW about expensive I didnt mean beer or food. Like renting a car can be quite expensive. Usually I fly to Munich and rent a car
there and drive to Prague, it's cheaper. Also living there is not too cheap for normal czech people.

I've never been there.

I travel by train. I get a Eurail pass. It's much more convenient.

Yes if you go from one major city to another one, it's OK. But I have a family members all over Czech republic. Plus I have my 4 year old son with me, so car is more convenient in my case.

Monkie my man ... I was unaware of the article you linked to regarding the possibility that the Kurds were killed by Iranians, and thank you for pointing them out to me.

Regarding the beginnings of the Iranian chemical/biological programs, however, if you read my post you will see that I said As far as a stinger missle - it is a surface to air missle originally designed to be used by ground troops against hostile aircraft, although terrorists have put it to other uses. It is not nuclear, biological, or chemical, and is no more a 'WMD" than a fully automatic weapon or an artillery piece.

The British SAS bailing out the US?

I cannot recall any instance when British SAS, who are damn good soldiers bailed us out. We trained with them, they are fine soldiers, as I said.

while I was never part of the delta force version of special forces, some friends of mine from Special forces were graduated to that unit...those fellas are as effective and brutal as they get...bar none.

Seal Team six is no slouch either. We had some joint exercises with them, pretty bad men.

It seems to me that Special Forces pretty did a number on the Taliban, they were in there three months before anyone and were not detected and then coordinated the bombing effort.

What is your experience with special ops that has given you the idea that British SAS was bailing us out?

Your are a fucking idiot.
Those "innocent people" will do anything for their leader which they blindly support(because Saddam as any leader of a fucked up muslim country has procalaimed himself defender of islam). Wake the fuck up and stop being such a pussy

"As far as a stinger missle - it is a surface to air missle originally designed to be used by ground troops against hostile aircraft, although terrorists have put it to other uses. It is not nuclear, biological, or chemical, and is no more a 'WMD" than a fully automatic weapon or an artillery piece."

Not to good against modern helicopters, show your face to a blackhawk chopper, and it's going to light up the heads up array the pilot uses...and you are going to eat metal.

The Taliban couldn't get them off...too much technology...especially on night ops, when chopper pilots are out hunting...the infrared signature of a body stands out like a bright light.

Ok papa, i like to have fun too. And i notice you still havent answered my question; are you a chicken hawk?


So thats how you rationalize the slaughter. You really think most of those people support such a tyrant? If they do its only because of the typical dictator style propaganda from saddam (which the usa is making easy) or their fear of him. Which brings to mind the question of who created such a powerful tyrant? WE created him and now will literally slaughter thousands (dumb as they may or may not be) to clean up the mess. Then we will install a puppet govt and millions of americans will sit around scratching their heads wondering why so many people around the world dont like us. Get ready for more loss of freedom
to protect us from the coming increase in terrorism. Bush will get to play his tough talking chickenhawk role to the hilt, it will be interesting to see how many people continue to fall for it. But the real question is, are YOU a chickenhawk?


The only "thoughtfulness" involved in seeing those aerial pictures and dubious recordings as real evidence would be a vivid imagination. And/or just wanting to believe. Umm, are you a chickenhawk?


Mmm, how much? I have lived in georgia and have personally seen many of the places where sherman heard some of those shrieks and groans. The point is that he is talking about chickenhawks like so many of the tough talkers that are pushing this slaughter/occupation of iraq.
So are you a chickenhawk or not?

A definition fron the chickenhawk database; "bellicosity (a warlike manner or temperament), public prominence, and a curious lack of wartime service when others their age had no trouble finding the fight."

Wow, that was a nice reply.. guess you missed out when they handed out sense of humour eh?

Well go fuck yourself halfwit. :321GFY

Well actually what I said was britsh armed forces bailing you out, not the SAS specifically, I did however say the SAS get called in to do the serious stuff and I know this coz I saw it in a movie with harrison ford.. I assumed that those words combined with the smilies made it pretty damn clear that I was fucking joking!!!

WTF is wrong with GFY these days?! Everyone is all serious and can't understand a joke?!

Shit, now I need to find a good anti israel thread to burn off some steam.. :winkwink:

American artifacts?

You speak BULLSHIT!

Its not worth the energy to even respond to 12clicks. The guy is a msg board troll, and nothing more.

I'd be missing out on too many laughs if I put him on ignore, but that idea has crossed my mind a few times.

Quit pulling my finger :1orglaugh

Just remember that the Europeans settled in America, if we didn't do that you people wouldn't have invested the wheel just yet.

Holland ruled during the 16th,17th, and 18th century, we actually settled New York, but first it was called New-Amersterdam

but then we fucked up a bit cause of those Spanish, Brittish and Portuguese

Joe Six-pack's statement above was referring to Americans. Keep smoking your reefer in Amsterdam buddy. It has affected your judgment. lol And you wonder why we think Europeans are pompous?

By far the most ignorant statement on this board to date.

What a dumb ass.

someone say "usa"? :Graucho

http://www.kicken.com/images/kicken.....bin.laden.gif


:321GFY islam :321GFY

keep going back to an irrelevant question. I guess thats called debating in georgia. ]:1orglaugh


how many were "slaughtered" last time dopey?
keep shouting "slaughter" and thousands of inoccents will die" you'll be popular in france.

can we get another "slaughter thousands" out of you? come on, its so scary!

Yeah, some assclown from georgia knows so much more than our current government. You're the smart one, the government doesn't know anything.:1orglaugh

The real question? you think this war revolves around your non-sensical question about a bird? thank god you have nothing to do with anything important.


ahhhhh. I see. I suggest you ask the rest of the world about the evidence. france and germany are afraid to go to war but the only people who don't believe colin powell's evidence are you and the iraqi mouthpieces. (good company you keep)

back to the non-sensical question. you really know how to drive a point home. hahahaha


wow! that gives you so much more relevance! I had no idea.
Well, I've seen where they signed the declaration of independence, I've seen where washington crossed the delaware, I've seen where he captured trenton. I've been to gettysburg (where soooo many shrieked and moaned)

what's your point? that your tourist ass is right about anything?
I couldn't really sift through the horseshit and find where you were right.

really? could you please point out where he says "chickenhawk" cause I can't find it. I'm thinking that this is just some term you and your buddies throw around at the trailer park.
oh, you said "slaughter" again too! now you've got us all really, really, scared.
Oh no! not your big relevant question again! drive home the pointless big guy!
Gee, that's not what the dictionary says. I guess this *is* just trailer park slang.

I guess what your trying to say in your twisted back woods way, is that if you didn't serve in the military, you really can't direct our nation (as the president has) or have an opinion on war (as I have)
That's kinda like what they do in iraq and korea. But please, keep talking. you're brilliant.:thumbsup

Translation: 12clicks put me in my place. I have no way to dispute what he said so I'll pretend he'ws "not worth my energy" yeah, that's it.

Translation: dopey chick that I am, I HAD to say something.









-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
have fun guys. I'll be back later to look in on your rants.:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Last time I checked I was still a bloke...

Chap - give it up and stick to porn-slinging :glugglug

they are not pansies

they are smart, and they just trying to live and enjoy their life

they had enough wars in their history

Didnt say you couldnt have an opinion or that you had to serve, but when you start calling other people pansies its interesting to know if you were so gung ho about fighting YOURSELF. As shermans quote illustrates, often the people who clamor for war the most are those who have never experienced it themselves. What i see now is the usa being "led" by a bunch of war hungry people who avoided it like the cowards they are when they had their chance. Most if not all of the chickenhawks in the bush administration were all in favor of vietnam and other wars, as long as someone else did the dying. As for bush directing our nation, you dont find it illuminating that a guy who wants war so much is himself a draft dodger and DESERTER?

Well, the defense intelligence agency estimates 100,000 and the un has estimated about 150,000, and thats without an occupation. But since the military doesnt want anyone to know such things, especially civilian deaths, the true number will never be known. Go here to see how defense secretary dick cheney had someone fired in 1992 for talking about such things.

No sane person could buy what you are saying here because there is doubt all over the world about their "evidence". I can see why others say its useless responding to you.

From your (lack of) response to my question its obvious that you are indeed a chickenhawk. But then, we knew it all along.

Actually it was Spain that intercepted the boat load of Scuds that were headed to Yemin.

The arguement that the US is "affraid" to fight N. Korea is niether true or an intellegent argument. If the US went in and bombed the N. Korean reactors they could wipe out Soeul, and hit the Japanese main land. How would that make everyone feel? The backlash toward America would be even worse then it is now.

Leave Saddam alone and in a year or two he will be in the same boat as Kim Jong Ill with nukes and dictating to the world.

France has more deals with Iraq then any country in the world. It's about oil alright. Why do you think France doesn't want any action? OIL

You either beleive the US, or you beleive Saddam. It's your choice.

Not true. I believe neither.

I wish people would stop criticizing every move the US makes and come up with a better solution rather than just shooting off their arrogant mouths when they probably know less than 10% of the real facts of what's going on in Iraq.

Let's here it. Solution time folks.


1) Leaving Saddam alone is not an option.

2) Diplomatic avenues are all but exhausted.


Knowing that..... go ahead, spill your big ideas. WHAT'S THE SOLUTION?



If you can't come up with a better workable solution, why not shaddap? Thanks.

Maybe you people think the US should send Saddam over a few of it's hottest women to suck his dick? Yeah, that might get him to be reasonable.



Seriously.

Everyone that has been criticizing and shouting down the US and Bush's decisions etc..... should really be doing all that to Iraq, the Iraqi gov't and Saddam himself. Why? Simple, because this crisis can be averted by a few actions on THEIR part. They are the ones in the wrong here, they are the ones who pose a threat to world peace, and it is they who support and foster terrorism in the world. Don't beleive it? Saddam has publicly announced large monetary rewards for anyone who commits certain acts of terrorism against certain targets, it's a matter of public record.

When will you peacenicks wake up? This saddam bullshit isn't gonna just go away, until someone does something about it. The US is doing that, and I for one applaud and support them. Once Hussein is gone we can all say good riddance, unless of course you're brain-dead and miss him.

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

I'm in favor of removing Saddam from power. I don't believe a word he says, believe he is a grave danger to the peace and security to the region, and think that it must be done by force because we have already exhausted every possible diplomatic solution. I feel very, very sorry for people still wrapped up in the "peace at any price, everything the U.S. does is bad, stop the imperialst war machine" rhetoric of the Vietnam-era peace movement. They have just about as little touch with reality as the sort of moron who would pose a question like "Euro-Pansies. spineless or just gutless?" There are idealogues on both sides of this question - they make funny comments but should be ignored where possible.

Like I said, I support the idea of removing Saddam from power, and agree that it will have to be by force. While I support the idea of disarming Saddam by force, I disagree most strongly with the idea of unilateral action by my country whenever and where ever it feels it should. I DO NOT operate from the assumption that the U.S. has the right to decide which governments can stand and fall on its own, just because we have the might. That flies in the face of America's historical positions on this sort of activity (yes, I know. we've been very hypocritical about it particularly in the Western Hemisphere).

That the Bush administration finds itself trying to convince American public opinion that France and Germany are "irrelevant" (if Mexico and Canada agree with something when the U.S. does not agree, does it make the U.S. irrelevant in North America?) shows just what morons they are - because skillful use of diplomacy probably would have brought them on board, whereas this "you are for us or against us" is probably causing nations to dig in their heels.

Defending GW is a really sucky place for me to find myself, but that is a stupid post. I feel no different about this post than I do about the years of Clinton-bashing over his opposition to the Vietnam debacle.

I don't know how old you are, Little Chimp, but the world was very, very different back then. The sons of privledge went into the Guard (first choice) or Reserves (second choice). Many of the rest went to school (you'd be suprised how many men in their 50s have two degrees, 500 college credits, useless graduate degrees, ect.). The standing military was far larger then than it is now, and there were political considerations that prevented large-scale callups of the Reserves, let alone the Guard. There were some Reserve and Guard callups during 'Nam, but not that many - so they were safe havens. And all but a few did their damnest not to get sent there - not out of cowardice, not out of fear, and certainly not out of lack of patriotism. The damn war just didn't make any sense.

I do think it would be kind of funny to see how many "hawks" there would be on this board if it was routine to see your 18- and 19- year old neighbors, cousins, brothers, etc. called away for two years these days; it would be even funnier if it was the pre-lottery system, where college graduates got called up after their student deferments ran out. Might just be hearing a very different tune from a lot of people.

Quote:
Let's here it. Solution time folks.

1) Leaving Saddam alone is not an option.

2) Diplomatic avenues are all but exhausted.

Knowing that..... go ahead, spill your big ideas. WHAT'S THE SOLUTION?
--------

Part of the problem is most of the world do not agree with number 2. Since its 10 odd years since the Gulf War I and Saddam has actually done nothing of note in that time, I don't think it's an unreasonable viewpoint. Particularly as the US/UK has come up with Jack-Shit intelligence wise to backup their claims.

I do not have the technical knowledge, but I can't believe that despite Saddams dodging around, the US does not have the technology to track him down and assassinate the bastard. Otherwise WTF is the trillion dollar spy satellites etc. etc. for ?

Due to Saddams dodging around, you might have to blow up 4 cars as they leave a palace to get the one he's in. Better than killing 1/2 mil innocents or whatever the latest death toll forecast is.

No, its bush who needs a bj.


Its not just they, its us too. You and many others conveniently forget that we created people like saddam and osama. The same people from the reagan/bush days are in charge now. What makes you think that whoever they install this time will end up being any better?

So you think its really that simple? We create the problem, then invade and occupy an islamic country, install a puppet govt, and everybody lives happily forever after? You honestly think this will make things better and not worse regarding terrorism? If you do, i got a bridge to sell you...........

Why not? Has he not been contained for the past dozen years? Do you think he is going to do something knowing that it will be his end? Why was mutually assured destruction good for russia, china etc but no good for saddam?

How is this? Blix and his inspectors say they need many months. Can you not see that bush has long ago decided he wants to invade and is grasping for any reason to sell it to people? Why is he in such a hurry? Oil? Waging the dog to draw attention away from domestic problems? Billions for his daddys friends in the military industrial complex? I dunno the real agenda, but it seems obvious its not for the reasons he says.

for all those who think N.Korea should be attacked,
Korea doesn't have enough Oil !! so stop asking
:Graucho

Its funny how you talk like europe is one single nation. If you do a little research you'll find that there are european countries who are actually pro war.