I like US even that I'm European. I like every person who treats me nice.

I don't understand the bashing on US and EU. You should be attacking goverments and not the people. If your sorry excuse of a brain took time to check polls you would probaly change your mind about us.

US surfers and fine horny english guys pays me $35000 every month for doing nearly nothing, plus I do some designs and run some fine webmaster sites. For what I care you can call me a pussy, a dork or whatever you like. Just keep sending my money from US, Germany and England.

I have lots of american friends and we always have fun. I bought 50% of a new project based in US today. I don't judge that person because he's american. I judge his actions against me and so far he has been fair and nice to work with. If I can make him the same amount as I make every month I'll be more than happy. Same goes for everyone else. If they treat me nice and don't cheat I don't give a fuck about where they are from.

Best regards,
Mike

Note:

Digi is right. I'm danish and Denmark signed the political agreement about standing side by side with US. So 12clicks... do your homework or fuck off if you can't get things straight. Apparently you get your knowledge from TV and that REALLY don't help you much.

People like you who keep chirping out this point sadly miss the fact that that was then, this is now. So what if 10 or 15 years ago circumstances in the world indicated that it was in the west's best interest to "back" certain groups? Who gives a fuck. Times change.


That point is useless and time-wasting. It's done. Over. Try to move on.

But heres the difference pd. Clinton dodged the draft, but he opposed the vietnam war. Dubya and his entire family, as well as most other conservatives supported and believed in the vietnam war. Hence the term "chickenhawks", they are gung ho for war but only if its not their own asses at risk.
You think its stupid to point out how so many people push war but arent willing to fight themselves? And why is it stupid to point out that the tough talking gung ho for war bush dodged the draft for a war he supported and may very well be a deserter? Why is it stupid to ask those kind of questions?

@headless

headless wrote: Germany and France are pussys


Hey man, think 2 times, before you write down such a bullshit. You think really its cool, to butch thousands of people, just to kill ONE MAN???? am i a pussy because i think this is wrong?
You talk here with a big mouth...are you there to fight??? I dont think so....
did you ever see children, mothers in front of their childs etc dying, because of ONE MAN????

There should be a specialforce or something else to fuck up this sadam asshole..... I am german and i think, this freak is a dangerous piece of shit for the whole world.....but there must be another way, to bring him down....

So dont talk a shit, that the germans and the french fries are pussys.

Bush? I agree in some cases with bush, but he shouldnt open his mouth too much, because with such people, the united states get more and more enemys....and if you think, that you are sooo very safe there because of military and technologie etc..., i can tell you : YOU ARE 100% NOT !!!! The 11.th september a fucking day, for the whole world was showing the best example.

:eek7

I said nothing to indicate any of what you're saying here. All I said was "once Saddam is gone we can all say good riddance", nothing more.

Of course it will be uphill from there, but I'm telling you, doing nothing is not an option either. The rat infestation in Iraq needs to be cleaned out, period. You obviously don't like it, but that's really your tough shit now isn't it?

And only an idiot would think that the big bad terrorists will leave us alone if the US were to back off and "mind their own business" as it were. Right. If you believe that, then I am the one that has some nice land to sell you. Lovely view of the Everglades I'm told, you'll love it.

Sorry, but I don't happen to know much about the Bush family support for the war in Vietnam. Yes, most conservatives supported it - but George H. Bush hadn't started sucking up to the conservatives yet and was widely regarded as a moderate back then. There are plenty of reasons to disagree with Bush. This happens to be a very dead-end road that may have a certain emotional appeal to the choir in the left-hand pews - but does very little good pursuing, that's all I'm saying.

You are correct in assuming that who helped Saddam get to where he is today is not relevant to the discussion of what to do about him. Me personally, I believe the U.S. has the responsiblity to take him out because we helped to build him up. People like you either can't understand the fact - or wish to obscure the fact - that Saddam is a case of the chickens coming home to roost.

I agree - it's time to move on. So when we capture Baghdad and get our hands on the documents, let's make public ALL the sources that Saddam got his WMD support from. That way we can prevent it from every happening again.

You want to know why that won't happen? Because in the insane twisted fucked up world of Reagan/Bush I, their determination of what "was in the west's best interest to "back" certain groups" took on a quality that defied common sense (not to mention any number of U.S. laws). In all likelyhood the U.S. overtly or covertly, through direct assistance or "benign" (malignent) negelect, may have aided Saddam in obtaining information and materials that helped him begin his chemical and biological weapons programs. If true, it would have been done in direct violation of U.S. law, not to mention in violation of any number of treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory power - including, perhaps, one we are thumping on the N. Koreans for violating right now.

So - when it comes to an arguement about what to do about Saddam, you are completely correct - it's irrelevant. When it comes to the future, however, it is of enormous importance, and only the truly short-sited can conclude otherwise.

Well well. What an intellectual thread we have here :-)

I have to say that a thread which starts out with bashing Europeans - calling them Euro-trash and spineless don't really inspire a serious discussion.

For me though, the truth is that most people don't filter. It's pretty easy starting name-calling, when you should at least base it on something relevant and constructive.

The US haven't actually produced hard evidence that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. And don't you find it just a little weird that the whole Osama Bin Laden issue sort of vanished with all the war talk?

The US-Government is doing their very best to rally all Americans into believing that the Europeans are gutless and not taking responsibility. That's a very old an well-known strategy for avoiding internal fuges in a time of a huge ressession - do you really by into it still?

In terms of "being rescued by the US" - how many crisis world wide haven't been started by the US as a super-power country?

It IS infact a huge country with a financial influence world wide - unfortunately it seems to be lobbied and ruled by 5% of the population.

I think the remaining 95% need to get a grip - watch some serious news, get real inside info, and filter the information properly.

Try to look at the big picture - and bring some valid arguments to the table.

It seems - since we're all 18+ - that namecalling is a little banale and not very constructive.

Ehm, actually that's not true. Giovanni da Verrazano was the first one to see "new york" about 500 years ago. At that time the Algonquins where the natives in NY. The Dutch fur hunters where here in 1621 made a trading station in 1624 but didn't buy it til 1626 (Peter Minuit) However, they already lost it to the English
without battle in 1664. That's hardly 3 centuries....

It was called "Nieuw Amsterdam" though...

haha, what world do you live in?
Fact: Iraq *had* weapons of mass destruction.
Fact: All those weapons have now gone missing with no explaination.
Fact: Iraq attacked kuwait without provocation
Fact: Saddam tried to assasinate President bush Sr.

Listen, I know why you're in love with Saddam and hate the US but why don't you tell the rest of us?


I'm watching the at. General right now talk about the Osama issue (but I guess that doesn't help your wacky position does it?)

No, the french and germans are doing their very best to rally all Americans into believing that the Europeans are gutless and not taking responsibility. funny how you call the truth "strategy"

Lets see, there was the crisis of ending the soviet strangle hold on the eastern block. There was the freeing of afghanistan from the taliban (or were you ok with their treatment of women?)
oh, or are we talking about a crisis that europe had to come save us over?
That number would be zero.

yeah, this is the goofy stance that you people who hate america always spew. Gee, if 95% of the people don't believe what the "MiaSimonsens" of the world believe, they must be unaware.

you mean the big picture where the US spends more money on the rest of the worlds well being than any other 10 countries combined? that picture?

you confuse name calling with identifying a spade as a spade.:1orglaugh

Well, I guess first and foremost - I don't hate America - the US at all. On the contrary. I like the country, I like the people, I do believe that there are strong ties between the US and Europe in terms of immigrants, etc.

I do not "love" Saddam Hussein, and if you read that from my thread then I guess I am more aware of the level of your filtering.

I have absolutely no respect for tyranni in any shape or form.

I am not pro dictatorships and I don't believe in robbing anyone of the freedom to choose.

However, since we are infact talking about invading a different country - I think it is important that evidence is clear.

Forget about the shit about oil. The US has enough oil to support themselves in Alaska. Europe has oil in the North sea and don't will be able to support a lot.

However, I do think you are being very naive and black & white in your views - and adding name-calling/the truth (according to you) - to including me isn't really helping out much.

Do what you need to do.

"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. "


Yes -- he has done nothing but ignore the cease-fire he agreed to....

You either beleive Powells address to the UN, or you beleive that he lied. There is no grey area.

As for the Germans I think that Schroder put them in a hole with his anti-American campaign.

As for France. It's ALL ABOUT OIL. They have the most to gain/lose in this.

For God's sake, all we've heard about in the last week is how the Germans, along with their stinking French pals, don't want to get into an armed conflict with Iraq. Everyone know the real reason why: both countries have large investments in that hell-hole, and they don't want to lose their jack. But, that's the interesting contradiction here: the Germans, a nation run by a bunch of socialist environmentalist flower children, have investment capital tied up in a very dangerous area. Now, they're protesting possible war, not because they give a crap about the Iraqui people or peace or stability or the frickin' environment. They're worried about losing their money. Remember, always follow the money.

Fort Baghdad

Put things in perspective within a 100 year timeline and you will see the importance of a US military base in the middle east, what better location than Iraq - next to Iran, Kuwait, Saudi 'friends', Jordanian and turkish allies, plenty food, plenty oil, you will notice how oil becomes secondary motive.

If things go Bush's way you will see Iraq become headquarters for Us military operations in the region for the next century or until the threat (which is 'fueled' by oil - no pun intended and let's not kid ourselves) is eliminated or the oil whichever comes first they are interconnected.

Additionally the region of Iraq has always been aggressively militant and is, was and will always be a liability from that perspective. Add to this impending Iraqi domination in the world crude oil production by 2030 and you can bet a few senators and their investor relations are squirming a little bit. As they should, there is no current energy replacement for oil, most of the war machine of all nations, and this includes industry required for production, most of this is dependent on oil and swithcing to an alternative that doesn't yet exist is talking about decades maybe generation or two.

But tossing uneducated personal insults I'm not sure if that helps too much and is very irrelevant.