Germany now a rogue state? - GoFuckYourself.com

PornMeister · 02-06-2003, 07:17 AM

Rumsfeld compared Germany to countries like Lybia and Cuba yesterday.

The US ambassedor to Germany Daniel Coats threatened economic consequences should Germany not support to US in the security council.

Is germany a rogue state now?
When can we expect Germany to be invaded?

Captain Evil · 02-06-2003, 07:19 AM

Stupidity will prevail!

ControlThy · 02-06-2003, 07:31 AM

Who cares what Rumsfeld says?
He should already have retired by now.

PornMeister · 02-06-2003, 07:40 AM

When the german justice minister compared the rhetoric the bush adminsitration uses to the one that hitler used in the 30's she had to resign.
If the US was a country that cared about how it is seen in the world he'd stepped down by now.
This is the 3rd or 4th time that he made similar remarks.

Hopefully Germany will take the opportunity and won't allow the US to use it's bases in Germany for a war in iraq and also forbid use of german airspace.

Germany has been one of the closest US supporters in the past and in the war on terror.
Now Germany disagrees with the US on one issue and all of the sudden it is compared to rogue states.

And then americans wonder why there is growing anti american sentiment in the world

Rochard · 02-06-2003, 07:43 AM

Invade them again? That would be the third time in less than 100 years.

PornMeister · 02-06-2003, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RocHard
Invade them again? That would be the third time in less than 100 years.

maybe we can make it a tradition?

Wizzo · 02-06-2003, 07:46 AM

Germany are the dumbasses that put Hitler into power, if I remember right... lol

You would think they would be leading the charge against Saddam... but I guess once a sucker always a sucker...

Captain Evil · 02-06-2003, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo
Germany are the dumbasses that put Hitler into power, if I remember right... lol

You would think they would be leading the charge against Saddam... but I guess once a sucker always a sucker...

You are talking about Germans older than 80 now. Hardly representative, don't you think?

Mutt · 02-06-2003, 07:49 AM

good idea. first France, then Germany. Britain for its steadfast loyalty to the United States can once again be an empire, they will be like a regional manager for the United States franchise system. They will pay the U.S. a royalty each year for running France and Germany.

Each American citizen will receive a Mercedez Benz built by the conquered.

Mutt · 02-06-2003, 07:51 AM

nah.............it's in the German blood to be assholes. And no doubt they'll be on the wrong side in World War III.

Wizzo · 02-06-2003, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Evil

You are talking about Germans older than 80 now. Hardly representative, don't you think?

You would think, but the seem steadfast in allowing Saddam to over run the Middle East....

PornMeister · 02-06-2003, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo
Germany are the dumbasses that put Hitler into power, if I remember right... lol

You would think they would be leading the charge against Saddam... but I guess once a sucker always a sucker...

aren't you one of the dumbasses that allowed your freedoms to be taken away?

Captain Evil · 02-06-2003, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo

You would think, but the seem steadfast in allowing Saddam to over run the Middle East....

Saddam "overrunning" the middle east?
Even the CIA said he poses no threat.

Tipsy · 02-06-2003, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mutt
good idea. first France, then Germany. Britain for its steadfast loyalty to the United States can once again be an empire, they will be like a regional manager for the United States franchise system. They will pay the U.S. a royalty each year for running France and Germany.

Each American citizen will receive a Mercedez Benz built by the conquered.

ControlThy · 02-06-2003, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo
Germany are the dumbasses that put Hitler into power, if I remember right... lol

How simplistic.

Wizzo · 02-06-2003, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Evil

Saddam "overrunning" the middle east?
Even the CIA said he poses no threat.

Right... I'm sure the Kuwait people said the same thing...

Wizzo · 02-06-2003, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PornMeister

aren't you one of the dumbasses that allowed your freedoms to be taken away?

What are you talking about?

PornMeister · 02-06-2003, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo

What are you talking about?

The Patriot Act is not something that would happen in a democratic country

ForcerSoftware · 02-06-2003, 08:06 AM

The fucking americans now fight against those weapons and countries they created years ago.

they are so stupid.

first they have givven money and weapons and now they will be fight against them

not very intelligent

Wizzo · 02-06-2003, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PornMeister

The Patriot Act is not something that would happen in a democratic country

That I would totally agree with... It was the worst thing congress ever did...period....

Why did you assume that I would support that?

PornMeister · 02-06-2003, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo

That I would totally agree with... It was the worst thing congress ever did...period....

but noone really complained.
That's how it started in the late 20's in Germany

PornMeister · 02-06-2003, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo

Why did you assume that I would support that?

you were pointing the finger at the germany for letting hitler rise to power.
There were many people that didn't agree with him. But many kept quiet.

Captain Evil · 02-06-2003, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo

Right... I'm sure the Kuwait people said the same thing...

That was 10 years ago. Big difference.

Wizzo · 02-06-2003, 08:17 AM

Agreed it may have some serious nasty repercussions, but I don't see how that ties into Iraq?

The US is not the only nation that wants Saddam removed and it's not because he's just dictator, if that were the case why wouldn't attack Cuba. It's because he feels that he is "rightful" leader of the entire Middle East and left to his own divices that could become a reality.... Then we would have a real world problem....

Wizzo · 02-06-2003, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Evil

That was 10 years ago. Big difference.

Not really, If we were to pull out of Kuwait... Iraq could take it over again in a matter of days, if not hours...

Captain Evil · 02-06-2003, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo

Not really, If we were to pull out of Kuwait... Iraq could take it over again in a matter of days, if not hours...

So they could get their ass kicked again?

PornMeister · 02-06-2003, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo
Agreed it may have some serious nasty repercussions, but I don't see how that ties into Iraq?

The US is not the only nation that wants Saddam removed and it's not because he's just dictator, if that were the case why wouldn't attack Cuba. It's because he feels that he is "rightful" leader of the entire Middle East and left to his own divices that could become a reality.... Then we would have a real world problem....

many countries in the middle east have WMDs. Iran has them. Syria has them and nobody cares. Who do you think is most likely to give WMDs to Al-Quaida? A country like Iran where the mullahs are still in power or Saddam who has spent a lot of time fighting the religious extreme in the past because he considers them a big thread to his?
Would he support bin Laden after he called Saddam a traitor to islam?
Does the fact that a al-quaida official received traitment in Baghdad prove ties to Saddam? Should Bush bomb Florida because the terrorists learned how to fly there? I think that proves that his brother has ties to Al-Quaida. Don't you think?

Wizzo · 02-06-2003, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Evil
So they could get their ass kicked again?

That sounds like a good plan... Lets pull out let him move into Kuwait, hell why not let him go ahead and take over Saudi as well... Then once he does that we can go back and kick his ass....

That's the point, we don't want to have to do that again...

PornMeister · 02-06-2003, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo

That sounds like a good plan... Lets pull out let him move into Kuwait, hell why not let him go ahead and take over Saudi as well... Then once he does that we can go back and kick his ass....

That's the point, we don't want to have to do that again...

Do you really think that he would attack Kuwait again after what happened to him last time?

Wizzo · 02-06-2003, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PornMeister

many countries in the middle east have WMDs. Iran has them. Syria has them and nobody cares. Who do you think is most likely to give WMDs to Al-Quaida? A country like Iran where the mullahs are still in power or Saddam who has spent a lot of time fighting the religious extreme in the past because he considers them a big thread to his?
Would he support bin Laden after he called Saddam a traitor to islam?
Does the fact that a al-quaida official received traitment in Baghdad prove ties to Saddam? Should Bush bomb Florida because the terrorists learned how to fly there? I think that proves that his brother has ties to Al-Quaida. Don't you think?

I don't think this has anything to do with WMDs other than that's a "reason" to give to masses, it's really about trying to stablize the region... I would agree Iran is much bigger player in the terrorist game than Iraq, but the expert belief is that if Iraq is democrotized, that the power that be in Iran will be overthown in a very short period of time... Now, I can't say I believe that will happen, but I think that's what many people are betting on...

Wizzo · 02-06-2003, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PornMeister

Do you really think that he would attack Kuwait again after what happened to him last time?

Now we are talking about Saddam? The guy who often reffers to himself as Rasul al-Arab, or "prophet of the Arabs," and Seif al-Arab, or "sword of the Arabs." He calls his enemies Mongol raiders, and thinks he is the modern King Nebuchadnezzar. Your right he would never do that...lol

PornMeister · 02-06-2003, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo

I don't think this has anything to do with WMDs other than that's a "reason" to give to masses, it's really about trying to stablize the region... I would agree Iran is much bigger player in the terrorist game than Iraq, but the expert belief is that if Iraq is democrotized, that the power that be in Iran will be overthown in a very short period of time... Now, I can't say I believe that will happen, but I think that's what many people are betting on...

do you really think Iraq is ever gonna be a democracy? I think the US needs to learn the difference between democracy and hegemony.
After the US won the war they will just install a new dictator like they did in Chile and Nicaragua.
I don't think that the masses in Iraq want democracy - they don't even know what this is. Many in Iraq might hate Saddam but they hate the US even more because they 'know' that the US is reponsible for their poverty.
I agree that it would be nice to see democratic countries in the middle east. But it's never gonna happen

Groove · 02-06-2003, 08:43 AM

Where did Iraq get anthrax technology from?

The USA

They gave anthrax to Sadam to kill the evil Iranians.

Who armed/trained the Taliban?

The USA

They were helping the Afghanis kill Russians.

NoCarrier · 02-06-2003, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo
Germany are the dumbasses that put Hitler into power, if I remember right... lol

You would think they would be leading the charge against Saddam... but I guess once a sucker always a sucker...

Such idiot comments prove that people didn't learn a thing about history. German people voted for Hitler because they thought it was the only way out of a bad economic period. He promised huge employment, And not everyone voted for Hitler. It's like saying that all germans were nazis. Get your facts straight.

extreme · 02-06-2003, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo

Right... I'm sure the Kuwait people said the same thing...

The US is VERY unpopular even in Kuwait today.
They see the US as a bigger threat than Iraq strangely enough.

Wizzo · 02-06-2003, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PornMeister

do you really think Iraq is ever gonna be a democracy? I think the US needs to learn the difference between democracy and hegemony.
After the US won the war they will just install a new dictator like they did in Chile and Nicaragua.
I don't think that the masses in Iraq want democracy - they don't even know what this is. Many in Iraq might hate Saddam but they hate the US even more because they 'know' that the US is reponsible for their poverty.
I agree that it would be nice to see democratic countries in the middle east. But it's never gonna happen

I don't know what it's going to be, I imagine it will at some point be a dictatorship again.. That seems the prefered govt. of the Middle east...lol But I have to agree with the Majority of govts. out there, that Saddam is wacked and doesn't need to be in power, find someone that doesn't have delusions that include concurring the entire region and somone who doesn't think they are a biblical ruler...

NoCarrier · 02-06-2003, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by extreme

The US is VERY unpopular even in Kuwait today.
They see the US as a bigger threat than Iraq strangely enough.

??? Those people feel safe because we are there. I don't know who told you that the US were unpopular, on the contrary. Hussein fucking raped their country and we liberated them. I've seen interviews and polls and they are VERY happy that we are helping them.

Wizzo · 02-06-2003, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Groove
Where did Iraq get anthrax technology from?

The USA

They gave anthrax to Sadam to kill the evil Iranians.

Who armed/trained the Taliban?

The USA

They were helping the Afghanis kill Russians.

True... Your point?

Serge_Oprano · 02-06-2003, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo

True... Your point?

probably the point is...
WE are the ones who create our own monsters most of the time...

stocktrader23 · 02-06-2003, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NoCarrier

??? Those people feel safe because we are there. I don't know who told you that the US were unpopular, on the contrary. Hussein fucking raped their country and we liberated them. I've seen interviews and polls and they are VERY happy that we are helping them.

By whom were these polls reported?

Bush puts out polls that show he is way more popular than he actually is. Have we even seen a poll on this we could trust?

Wizzo · 02-06-2003, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano
probably the point is...
WE are the ones who create our own monsters most of the time...

Kinda like starting a piss on GFY, something to keep us busy?

extreme · 02-06-2003, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NoCarrier

??? Those people feel safe because we are there. I don't know who told you that the US were unpopular, on the contrary. Hussein fucking raped their country and we liberated them. I've seen interviews and polls and they are VERY happy that we are helping them.

Uhm right?

Your source is CNN I Guess?

They are very happy for the liberation. They are very unhappy with what has happened to the country after the "liberation".

The US has support from the Governement. This is why there are currently jeeps with machine guns in every major intersection. No public opposition is tolerated.

One example from the Washigton Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jan21.html

Groove · 02-06-2003, 09:14 AM

Wizzo, My point is that the USA has a long and sad history of creating and/or supporting monstrous regimes. And often those monsters come back and bite the US on the ass! The Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts are a direct result of bungled US foreign policy/aggression. And the primary reason why the Arab World hates the US is that the US is busy propping-up despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt (and no I won't mention Israel -- oops I gues I just did!).

The US preaches freedom and democracy to the World, but when it comes to actions the US has a history of supporting whichever regime offers the best economic and/or political dividends. The US Government (note I'm not saying the US people) cares very little about the impact of its actions on the citizens of other countries. It only cares about the US "national interest" (trade, oil, defeating enemies, etc). So it often supports regimes which are "EVIL" and it often it gets more "interest" on its foreign policy investments than it had counted on

The US is presently fighting (or about to fight) wars against foes that the US created. That's my point

NoCarrier · 02-06-2003, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by extreme

Uhm right?

Your source is CNN I Guess?

They are very happy for the liberation. They are very unhappy with what has happened to the country after the "liberation".

The US has support from the Governement. This is why there are currently jeeps with machine guns in every major intersection. No public opposition is tolerated.

One example from the Washigton Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Jan21.html

Are you kidding me? CNN? Yes, I watch CNN, but I read newspapers from around the world, editorials... What I am telling you, was not based on CNN.

Wizzo · 02-06-2003, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by extreme

The US is VERY unpopular even in Kuwait today.
They see the US as a bigger threat than Iraq strangely enough.

They are very happy for the liberation. They are very unhappy with what has happened to the country after the "liberation".

I beg to differ, here's a quick article found on the Kuwait News Agancy site:

http://www.kuna.net.kw/Story.asp?DSNO=491389

KUN0051 4 GEN 0292 KUWAIT /KUNA-MYA7
POL-KUWAIT-LEBANON-IRAQ
Kuwait well-prepared for potential war on Iraq, says Kuwaiti official

BEIRUT, Feb 5 (KUNA) -- Kuwait is well-poised to handle any after-effects of a potential war on Iraq, said Wednesday Sheikh Mubarak Al-Sabah, Assistant Undersecretary for External Media at the Kuwaiti Ministry of Information. "While Kuwait is sympathetic with the Iraqi people, it stands firmly against the Iraqi regime ," he told reporters here after he met with Lebanese Foreign Minister Mahmoud Hammoud. Responding to the notion of the possibility of Saddam Hussein's stepping down and going on exile, Sheikh Mubarak said "If that were to happen, it would be Saddam's business." Affirming that Kuwait did not relish any harm to the Iraqi people, he said that in the event of a war in the region "Kuwait would be deeply affected if any harm befell the Iraqi people." To a question on Kuwait's preparedness to receive displaced Iraqis heading to the Kuwaiti border if war broke out, he said "Kuwait will take care of them at the border but they will not be allowed entry into the country." On the recent assault on a number of Americans in Kuwait, Sheikh Mubarak pointed out that they were isolated, individual acts of terror, totally unreflective of the feelings and sentiments of the Kuwait government or people" toward the American military presence in Kuwait. "Kuwaitis of all walks of life and of various political persuasions condemned these acts and described them as inhuman and terrorist." He described his talks here with Lebanese officials as mutually beneficial and expressed satisfaction at Lebanon's support and understanding of Kuwaiti issues of national concern. Sheikh Mubarak's visit here ends today. (end)
ah.ajs

El Pres · 02-06-2003, 09:40 AM

The U.S and the U.K have not had a war in their homelands for over 100 years.
Most of the countries that are weary of war are countries that have, and its not pretty, maybe they remember ir firsthand.

Serge_Oprano · 02-06-2003, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo

Kinda like starting a piss on GFY, something to keep us busy?

piss is good...
;-))))

ADL Colin · 02-06-2003, 09:45 AM

Hitler was not elected.

Hindenburg twice beat Hitler in elections in 1932 (There was a run-off after the first election as Hindenburg just missed gaining a majority share).

Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor in 1933.

SquarePants · 02-06-2003, 09:47 AM

Quote:

You are talking about Germans older than 80 now. Hardly representative, don't you think?

Why this is the same crap wonton is preaching.

Our fathers did this so we are guilty.

Captain Evil · 02-06-2003, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
Hitler was not elected.

Hindenburg twice beat Hitler in elections in 1932 (There was a run-off after the first election as Hindenburg just missed gaining a majority share).

Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor in 1933.

I believe Hitler had 35% of the votes. The conservative politicians thought that if they'd give him some power, he'd quickly prove himself to be a moron and would ruin his chances of getting any votes ever again.

02-06-2003, 07:17 AM	#1
PornMeister Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 158	Germany a rogue state now? Rumsfeld compared Germany to countries like Lybia and Cuba yesterday. The US ambassedor to Germany Daniel Coats threatened economic consequences should Germany not support to US in the security council. Is germany a rogue state now? When can we expect Germany to be invaded? Last edited by PornMeister; 02-06-2003 at 07:27 AM..

02-06-2003, 07:43 AM	#5
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 74,314	Invade them again? That would be the third time in less than 100 years. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

02-06-2003, 07:46 AM	#7
Wizzo 2011 GFY Hall of Fame! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Back in Texas! Posts: 15,224	Germany are the dumbasses that put Hitler into power, if I remember right... lol You would think they would be leading the charge against Saddam... but I guess once a sucker always a sucker... __________________ Looking for Opportunity!

02-06-2003, 07:49 AM	#9
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	good idea. first France, then Germany. Britain for its steadfast loyalty to the United States can once again be an empire, they will be like a regional manager for the United States franchise system. They will pay the U.S. a royalty each year for running France and Germany. Each American citizen will receive a Mercedez Benz built by the conquered. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

02-06-2003, 07:51 AM	#10
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	nah.............it's in the German blood to be assholes. And no doubt they'll be on the wrong side in World War III. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

02-06-2003, 07:19 AM	#2
Captain Evil Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 164	Stupidity will prevail!

02-06-2003, 07:31 AM	#3
ControlThy Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,909	Who cares what Rumsfeld says? He should already have retired by now.

02-06-2003, 07:40 AM	#4
PornMeister Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 158	When the german justice minister compared the rhetoric the bush adminsitration uses to the one that hitler used in the 30's she had to resign. If the US was a country that cared about how it is seen in the world he'd stepped down by now. This is the 3rd or 4th time that he made similar remarks. Hopefully Germany will take the opportunity and won't allow the US to use it's bases in Germany for a war in iraq and also forbid use of german airspace. Germany has been one of the closest US supporters in the past and in the war on terror. Now Germany disagrees with the US on one issue and all of the sudden it is compared to rogue states. And then americans wonder why there is growing anti american sentiment in the world

02-06-2003, 08:06 AM	#19
ForcerSoftware Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1	The fucking americans now fight against those weapons and countries they created years ago. they are so stupid. first they have givven money and weapons and now they will be fight against them not very intelligent

02-06-2003, 08:17 AM	#24
Wizzo 2011 GFY Hall of Fame! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Back in Texas! Posts: 15,224	Agreed it may have some serious nasty repercussions, but I don't see how that ties into Iraq? The US is not the only nation that wants Saddam removed and it's not because he's just dictator, if that were the case why wouldn't attack Cuba. It's because he feels that he is "rightful" leader of the entire Middle East and left to his own divices that could become a reality.... Then we would have a real world problem.... __________________ Looking for Opportunity!

02-06-2003, 08:43 AM	#33
Groove Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 3,852	Where did Iraq get anthrax technology from? The USA They gave anthrax to Sadam to kill the evil Iranians. Who armed/trained the Taliban? The USA They were helping the Afghanis kill Russians.

02-06-2003, 09:14 AM	#43
Groove Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 3,852	Wizzo, My point is that the USA has a long and sad history of creating and/or supporting monstrous regimes. And often those monsters come back and bite the US on the ass! The Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts are a direct result of bungled US foreign policy/aggression. And the primary reason why the Arab World hates the US is that the US is busy propping-up despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt (and no I won't mention Israel -- oops I gues I just did!). The US preaches freedom and democracy to the World, but when it comes to actions the US has a history of supporting whichever regime offers the best economic and/or political dividends. The US Government (note I'm not saying the US people) cares very little about the impact of its actions on the citizens of other countries. It only cares about the US "national interest" (trade, oil, defeating enemies, etc). So it often supports regimes which are "EVIL" and it often it gets more "interest" on its foreign policy investments than it had counted on The US is presently fighting (or about to fight) wars against foes that the US created. That's my point

02-06-2003, 09:40 AM	#46
El Pres Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Alicante, Spain Posts: 382	The U.S and the U.K have not had a war in their homelands for over 100 years. Most of the countries that are weary of war are countries that have, and its not pretty, maybe they remember ir firsthand.

02-06-2003, 09:45 AM	#48
ADL Colin Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Tube Titans, USA Posts: 11,929	Hitler was not elected. Hindenburg twice beat Hitler in elections in 1932 (There was a run-off after the first election as Hindenburg just missed gaining a majority share). Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor in 1933. __________________ Adult Date Link - $50 PPS starting NOW! -- good and JUICY! skype = "adultdatelink"