Is anyone concerned about the effect the imminant attack on Iraq is going to have on their business? With the stock market falling like a lead balloon already, this isn't really what the doctor ordered.

And if the unthinkable were to happen again, and we were caught up in another September 11 situation how would the corporate world cope? Are these valid concerns or am I just being paranoid?

These are valid concerns. Work dried up considerably for us after the sept11 attack.

Things are starting to get better now but that is worrying! :eek:

If you have a solid profit making business i dont see anything to worry about.

Wars are supposed to improve business...but usually just for the defense industry. :rolleyes:

With all due respect, there were plenty of companies who are solid and profitable before the unfortunate events of last year who now cease to exist. Those that survived are hardly what they used to be. You have to take into account the increase in oil prices which will indirectly effect this area of the market. An internet prescence is, essentially, a luxury for most companies and if the fat cats are struggling to keep the company afloat, it will be the last thing on their mind.

Has there been a recent oil price incresse? Seems like it stayed under 2 bucks for the summer. THats pretty good here

Originally posted by SplashHost.com
If you have a solid profit making business i dont see anything to worry about.
Simplistic reasoning but not accurate. :) All our businesses are subject to the various variables that surrond us. No man is an island. We're all connected in the great game of life. If a nuke drops in the USA, we're all effected. It doesn't matter if your business is profitable or not. You'll still feel the effect as the ripples [timeline variables] work their way around the world.

No man is an island

:D yes you are right ... John Donne (1572-1631), 'No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main...'

:D

Another question? Should the US and it's allies attack Iraq if so why? If not why?

yes, if they drop a nuke and it kills ALOT of people that is ALOT of people that Cant ever buy from you. Plus the other people are spending there money on trying to prevent thereselves from dieing. So the chance of thme buying from you after a MAJOR attack like that would be very slim.

LOL an attack on fellow man is not good.. but people do need to be kept under control.... I don't think I signed up anybody from Iraq this year so I'm not that worried either way......

I don't think honestly I'd host an Iraq site now.... what are your thoughts?

rm -rf binladen

Wait Steve your in NZ the only country with an undefense minister:D

Wait Steve your in NZ the only country with an undefense minister

LOL.... we are safe because we are so far away from everyone. that's the nz defence policy I'm sure... :D

Simplistic reasoning but not accurate. All our businesses are subject to the various variables that surrond us. No man is an island. We're all connected in the great game of life. If a nuke drops in the USA, we're all effected. It doesn't matter if your business is profitable or not. You'll still feel the effect as the ripples [timeline variables] work their way around the world.

Yeah, a nuke goes off and busts a big pipe...... that serves your DC.. now that would affect you :D

Originally posted by Dotcomsnz


LOL.... we are safe because we are so far away from everyone. that's the nz defence policy I'm sure... :D

I don't know Steve :confused: You sure you can trust these Aussies? They are pretty close and still pissed over Ansett:D

I suggest we just Format the whole country, reboot it and install it again fresh.

I suggest we install them with the human equivalent of DOS, its implistic and does what you tell it to do ;)

:D

Originally posted by Monte

They are pretty close and still pissed over Ansett:D

Beh, Ansett was the worst airline I've ever flown with (although I've only ever flown with 5 so I'm not that experienced).

Their planes were old, ricketty and all you could smell in flight were the nauseating fumes from the fuel. Once when I flew, take off was delayed by 3 hours because of "mechanical difficulties".

Impulse Airlines - the best "budget" airline (until it got swallowed up by Qantas). Nice new planes that always smelt so fresh. I only got to fly Impulse twice which was a shame.

Qantas - okay food, decent service, nice planes but not as nice as Impulse. Impulse's planes are in the Qantas fleet, but I've never been on one of them since.

Virgin Blue - alright airline. Terminal is too small though and an absolute nightmare in holiday season. I flew with them once.

Air Niugini - the last flight I took was with them in December last year. This airline had great service - nice staff, etc. I was originally supposed to fly Qantas but I found out I was the only one booked on the flight so it was cancelled (damn... I wanted a private plane :D). I wasn't about to make my way back to the domestic terminal to get a Qantas flight there so I kicked up a stink and Qantas put me on the Air Niugini flight at the International terminal (they paid of course) :)

However... I've always preferred airlines that use Boeing planes. I don't really like Airbus planes; during take-off they always feel like they don't have enough "grunt" to get off the ground :stickout.

Anyway, now that my airline overview is finished - I'll get back on topic. You'll generally find that I'm totally against any act of war... you strike them, they'll just strike back and then we'll have a ping-pong type match of attacks.

--Shaun

ROFL!!!

LOLOL thanks for the review. If you really want a airline review someday just ask I have flown them all with over 2 million miles under my belt.

I am still wondering tho why do we need to attack Iraq, sure they are a pain in the butt, but we are going to lose allot of good men for what? Is it really worth it? Will the world be a safer place because of it or worse off with more people wanting to see us hurt anyway possible.

I am still waiting for Bush to show a reason.

If we go into Iraq, we have to do it properly, not like we did in '91. Stay there afterwards and install a stable government, help the repressed Kurds etc.

An attack on Iraq will crash the stock market though... the Israeli situation isn't helping at present, and I daresay September 10th would be a good time to buy some stock.

I did not read all the posts and this is kind of one of those topics where everyone will always disagree.. I think it is time we did something and do it soon, while we are waiting around they are just getting more and more time to get ready.. Remember these weapons that we are worried about them having affect the safety of everyone you, me your family and everyone you know.. I say it is time to quit worrying about all the "political correctness" and go kick some ass and ask questions later. I truely think that alot of the reason why we have what we have is because we stick up for ourselves and never let people push us around.. and by trying to make everyone happy I feel we are going to end up loosing more than if we just went in a did it the way it should be done.. On Sept 11 we basically go sucker punched while we were not even looking and we were stunned for a while and now its time to show them who is the big dog.. I know people will die but people (including myself) know its worth it to protect what we have and what our next generations will have.. That my 0.02 god bless.

Originally posted by Dotcomsnz
LOL an attack on fellow man is not good.. but people do need to be kept under control.... I don't think I signed up anybody from Iraq this year so I'm not that worried either way......

I don't think honestly I'd host an Iraq site now.... what are your thoughts?

rm -rf binladen

well..if you host an iraq company, then their company get bombed and go out of business, then you got paid for the hosting (hopefully paid annually), but now dont have to host them anymore or at least leave their site hanging, which free you up with bandwidth. :uhh: :uhh: :smokin: :pimp:

If they do attack the iraq then we wiill have little oil being imported from the middle each which will cause us all to suffer. Its also going to cost the taxpayer alot of money for the cost of going to war with someone. Iraq also apparently has alot of biological weapons and it could end up escalating into a very large war. And is likely to have little effect after all we wnt to war with them in the Gulf War which didnt make much difference as we are looking to go to war with them again.

alan your in scotland :) slightly different then being in the us, even if your customers are there. here in the uk business is booming for some reason. i dont know what your split on usa \ uk \ rest of world customers is, but we do moderate with the us and lots from the uk, and a suprising amount from canada and australia.
war on iraq doesnt bother me one but, im the same as you, proffitable business and no signs of change even with sept 11 thrown in. i have no problems with war on iraq. im not happy with the idea of mad men who hate us having nasty weapons.

hahaha..........

Iraq has always been used as a scape goat by the U.S government..

When Clinton had a sex scandal... what did he do? Bomb Iraq! so the media changed the topic..

Why didn't they remove saddam in 91? Because its benefits the United States, because with saddam intact arab countries where willing to sell cheap cheap cheap oil in return for protection from the United States, now if saddam goes, those arabs will not need protection anymore, so they will kick U.S out and no cheap oil :P

Do you have any proof that they are mad men and hate you and have nasty weapons?

Or is that just the propaganda being spread around where you live?

haha sad..

Originally posted by richy
alan your in scotland :) slightly different then being in the us, even if your customers are there. here in the uk business is booming for some reason. i dont know what your split on usa \ uk \ rest of world customers is, but we do moderate with the us and lots from the uk, and a suprising amount from canada and australia.
war on iraq doesnt bother me one but, im the same as you, proffitable business and no signs of change even with sept 11 thrown in. i have no problems with war on iraq. im not happy with the idea of mad men who hate us having nasty weapons.

I am the minester of Peace - the most hated job on Earth these days, everyone prefers to nuke, kill and murder. Every war has been "the war to end all wars" since the last 1,000 years - Good luck with your wars - hope it makes you a few more millions/billions - never mind human misery ;)

The Kurds are likely to be hiding Al Qaeda, and Mr. Hussein hates the kurds. We are protecting the kurds with the no fly zone

Eugene so true... :)

Mr Hussein also hates Bin Laden & Al Qaeda, because if you look at it in 1991, Bin Laden made such remarks as "who needs the U.S, we can take care of Iraq ourselves" etc...

Also Hussein is not a radical muslim, he has been keeping the radicals in south iraq under control for some time now.

Originally posted by voxtreme-matt
...and I daresay September 10th would be a good time to buy some stock.
Ahhhhh, the markets will be so spooked on Sep 11 [they should close for the day] that decliners [sellers] will have it all over advancers [buyers], thus forcing the prices down [supply/demand is a dog]. :D

Maybe Sep 11 will be the day to go bottom fishing * for a dead cat bounce ** on Sep 12-13 when the media rolls out the usual positive BS with their usual flag waving propaganda.

BAH :rolleyes: the system don't work!! :D :stickout

* get some so called bargins :rolleyes: NOT!!

** if you drop a dead cat out the window - it will still bounce. Stocks that take a hammering by 20% of more will usually bounce the next day, no matter how much of a dog they are. ;)

Ok, I'm done rambling on here....:D:agree:

I think Bush is trying to play Saddam's bluff. It looks more like they are playing chicken with each other. Either Bush is waiting for Saddam to flinch or he is out to get rid of the dictator - to finish off what his daddy started. Geez they were a few KM's away from Saddam in '91 and they let him go. I'll bet ya Bush Sr. is still kickin himself over that one. :D j/k there were other reasons for the withdrawal.
The Iraqi gov't would have really been screwed up if he were eliminated. There wasn't anyone "worthy" that could take his place (The US didn't like his possible predecessors)

This whole thing with the Arab states and the US is just over oil. There is no grudge match, its just who has the bigger guns to control the most sought after commodity in the world. Who in turn pretty much controls the world economy. I wouldn't be surprised if %40 of North America's economy came from oil. (Especially Canada).

If you've watched the news neither George Dubya, or Tony Blair are getting much support for this action. I really think Bush is getting himself into much more than he bargained for. It just a matter of time before someone fires a shot, and then we quite possibly have another world war on our hands. I think a lot of countries are tired of the US policing them. The only reason they do it is because they have vested interest. If hypothetically, communism suddenly broke out on a remote island you wouldn't see American troops move in to crush the system. They have no interest in it, and thus theres no point in going in.

I believe that the only reason the U.S. still has a bouyant economy is because of war. Since WW2 there hasn't been a time where America didn't have troops out fighting somewhere. The defense business is huge! Think of how much money is poured into the automobile, firearm, and steel business. And now we have computer technology guiding our unmanned aircraft. No wonder the US hasn't remained stagnant. Look at Canada for instance, we have a miniscule army and navy. If we were ever attacked, God help us! Our defense budget is 2 - 3 times smaller than the US, and that was before September 11th. Think of the spending now.

If bush goes through with this war I think he's going to lose his credibility. Granted he pulled the people through 9/11, although I believe we saw more of Guiliani than him. Bush is just as trigger happy as his father if not more and I pray for the sake of everyone that he makes certain there won't be a missile pointed in his direction that has his name on it. Hey! We live next to you.

If Bush wants to go to war so be it. Just don't look for us Canadians up north to be backin you up this time.

There, i've said my piece. :cool:

edude, for a start grow the **** up. do i have proof? personally no. progandna? i dont what what country you hail from but here in england some of our press still maintain a little credability as do some of the politicians. dont judge other countries by your own countries low standards.
I've seen a few independant (thats totally reliable with credability) documentaries about some of the facilities in iraq after the last incursion and he certainly had the capability then to produce a lot of biological and chemical weapons, there were factories and labs dedicated to it, with proof they had been used for this. There was also strong evidence they had been developing nuclear weapons. I know a little about biology and chemistry, enough from working as a research scientist to know what the setup i saw could be used for.
I may have picked my words for a humourous approach but my meaning was clear, sadam is insane, he believes his own crap and is dragging his country into hell to service his own ego. He has weapons that he has no right to possess. The americans and russians came very close to all our war, but they were responsible enough not to use all the power they had. Just because you can doesnt mean you should. Do you trust old Madas Hussain to do the same, or to throw his people to martyrdom and cause as much death as possible to his enemies.
In summary yes i want to see the madman go down. preferably without any loss of his countrymen. They shouldnt be punished for his actions.

What country i am from? Iraq :D

Explain how Scott Ritter, previously 10 years weapon inspector in Iraq, is now saying that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction...

Do you have to kill more people? innocent people, the reason september 11 happened, is because the U.S should not try and act like the worlds police, iraq has no capability or range for any of its skuds to reach the U.S, so butt out.

For a start, if someone does not agree with your opinions you insult them? just shows whats wrong with the west :)

Also show me some proof!

The media says it but no proof!

I thought its part of the law in the west, not guilty until proven guilty or something similar..

Who put iraq years behind? The U.S and U.K, saddam asked the U.S if he could take kuwait they said yes, dont you remember the U.S put saddam in power, you destroyed iraq and its people by putting him in power first to suit your own needs...

Because with saddam in power you get cheap oil from other arab countries, all that matters to your governments is oil.

Originally posted by richy
edude, for a start grow the **** up. do i have proof? personally no. progandna? i dont what what country you hail from but here in england some of our press still maintain a little credability as do some of the politicians. dont judge other countries by your own countries low standards.
I've seen a few independant (thats totally reliable with credability) documentaries about some of the facilities in iraq after the last incursion and he certainly had the capability then to produce a lot of biological and chemical weapons, there were factories and labs dedicated to it, with proof they had been used for this. There was also strong evidence they had been developing nuclear weapons. I know a little about biology and chemistry, enough from working as a research scientist to know what the setup i saw could be used for.
I may have picked my words for a humourous approach but my meaning was clear, sadam is insane, he believes his own crap and is dragging his country into hell to service his own ego. He has weapons that he has no right to possess. The americans and russians came very close to all our war, but they were responsible enough not to use all the power they had. Just because you can doesnt mean you should. Do you trust old Madas Hussain to do the same, or to throw his people to martyrdom and cause as much death as possible to his enemies.
In summary yes i want to see the madman go down. preferably without any loss of his countrymen. They shouldnt be punished for his actions. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

No loss to his country men?

Explain how the coalition killed 100,000 plus iraqi soldiers retreating with no weapons?

They had families etc.. or is it that they are worthless?



Originally posted by richy
edude, for a start grow the **** up. do i have proof? personally no. progandna? i dont what what country you hail from but here in england some of our press still maintain a little credability as do some of the politicians. dont judge other countries by your own countries low standards.
I've seen a few independant (thats totally reliable with credability) documentaries about some of the facilities in iraq after the last incursion and he certainly had the capability then to produce a lot of biological and chemical weapons, there were factories and labs dedicated to it, with proof they had been used for this. There was also strong evidence they had been developing nuclear weapons. I know a little about biology and chemistry, enough from working as a research scientist to know what the setup i saw could be used for.
I may have picked my words for a humourous approach but my meaning was clear, sadam is insane, he believes his own crap and is dragging his country into hell to service his own ego. He has weapons that he has no right to possess. The americans and russians came very close to all our war, but they were responsible enough not to use all the power they had. Just because you can doesnt mean you should. Do you trust old Madas Hussain to do the same, or to throw his people to martyrdom and cause as much death as possible to his enemies.
In summary yes i want to see the madman go down. preferably without any loss of his countrymen. They shouldnt be punished for his actions.

When has saddam used the power he has? when the U.S provoked him into a war with iran to benefit their own needs...

His missles do not have the range to harm your countries, why not just leave him alone before you cause more harm..

I think the west has done enough.

Originally posted by richy
edude, for a start grow the **** up. do i have proof? personally no. progandna? i dont what what country you hail from but here in england some of our press still maintain a little credability as do some of the politicians. dont judge other countries by your own countries low standards.
I've seen a few independant (thats totally reliable with credability) documentaries about some of the facilities in iraq after the last incursion and he certainly had the capability then to produce a lot of biological and chemical weapons, there were factories and labs dedicated to it, with proof they had been used for this. There was also strong evidence they had been developing nuclear weapons. I know a little about biology and chemistry, enough from working as a research scientist to know what the setup i saw could be used for.
I may have picked my words for a humourous approach but my meaning was clear, sadam is insane, he believes his own crap and is dragging his country into hell to service his own ego. He has weapons that he has no right to possess. The americans and russians came very close to all our war, but they were responsible enough not to use all the power they had. Just because you can doesnt mean you should. Do you trust old Madas Hussain to do the same, or to throw his people to martyrdom and cause as much death as possible to his enemies.
In summary yes i want to see the madman go down. preferably without any loss of his countrymen. They shouldnt be punished for his actions.

Also i am disgusted at reading some posts in this forum, is all you think about business? yeh whocares if they die, as long as i dont lose my business, ignorant...

shows why so many people hate the west.

Originally posted by edude
Also i am disgusted at reading some posts in this forum, is all you think about business? yeh whocares if they die, as long as i dont lose my business, ignorant...

shows why so many people hate the west.
I couldn't agree more with you.

tsk... tsk... if it weren't for "the west" the world would be filled with communist.

1- so one weapons inspector against the rest and documented evidence?
2- if he had none they why not let the inspectors back?
3- why shoot at planes enforcing the no fly zone?
4- why let him flagrantly violate the terms of his surrender?
5- who needs missiles to use his nbc weapons? no missiles were used in the sept 11th attack, no missiles were used to post anthrax to targets.

now i as much as anyone despise war, i dont like seeing men die to sell politics, i really dispise the loss of innocent life, i ve lost too many good friends myself, wars pointless in comparrison. BUT i sure as hell will not sit back and let the madman carry on. He keeps his country in poverty, he keeps his people suffering to fullfil his ego. Lets be honest, theres every likelihood he has the weapons, if i was him and shooting my mouth off about how great the sept 11th attack was id have myself armed to the teeth. You dont poke a giant with a stick unless you have a nuke behind your back. Basically, he needs to be ousted, for our safety and for his peoples benefit. Thats a resource rich country, the people could live a lot better.
I said i would like to see no loss of life, this is a pipe dream though. thats never going to happen, were going to kill enough of our own troops being smart arses with hi tech weapons for that not to happen. As for 100k retreating soldiers killed without weapons, thats certainly news to me, it may be true, it may be not. some evidence would be welcome. It would be very unlike the allies to commit something approaching genocide in blatant contravention of the geneva and hague conventions. Remeber we recognise and comply to those conventions, Iraq does not. What about the torture of our soldiers? Name rank and number, thats it. Nothing about electrocution, starvation, beatings and the rest of it. You dont want to get shot in the back, respect the rules of law or have the balls to stand your ground and be captured. A retreating soldier is a soldier going to fallback position to fire at you again. Not a surrendering soldier.

odd edude, you say inspectors say iraq doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction. Yet, right here in this article more than one inspector says sadaam has long range scud missles and can/has easily make biological/chemical weapons. Those, I believe would be considered weapons of mass destruction. They make not cause a lot of structural damage, but they do to humans/other life forms. I personally don't want my skin peeling off me.

BTW Richy, you're from the UK, right?

Oh yeah here's the link to the article. http://rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/world/iraq/news_stories/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020907/ap_wo_en_po/saddam_s_weapons_2

Scott Ritter addresses Iraqi parliament


Mr Ritter had a reputation for toughness as a weapons inspector

Scott Ritter, a former senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq, has addressed a special session of the Iraqi National Assembly's Arab and Foreign Relations Committee in Baghdad.

The following are excerpts from his speech, which was carried by Iraqi Satellite Channel Television:

"I understand that I appear before you today not only as the first American citizen to address your body, but also as the first non-governmental speaker as well. And I thank you for providing me with this opportunity..."



I feel I cannot stand by idly, while my country behaves in such a fashion

"My country seems on the verge of making an historic mistake, one that will forever change the political dynamic which has governed the world since the end of the Second World War; namely, the foundation of international law as set forth in the United Nations Charter, which calls for the peaceful resolution of problems between nations...

"As someone who counts himself as a fervent patriot and a good citizen of the United States of America, I feel I cannot stand by idly, while my country behaves in such a fashion...

"A case for war"

"My government is making a case for war against Iraq that is built upon fear and ignorance, as opposed to the reality of truth and fact.

"We, the people of the United States, are told repeatedly that we face a grave and imminent risk to our national security from a combination of past irresponsible behaviour on the part of Iraq and ongoing efforts by Iraq to re-acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic weapons ... which have been banned since 1991 by a Security Council resolution...


Mr Ritter is 40-years-old

"The truth of the matter is that Iraq is not a sponsor of the kind of terror perpetrated against the United States on 11 September, and in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamentalist extremism that characterises those who attacked the United States on that horrible day.

"This is the truth, and once the American people become familiar with and accept this truth, the politics of fear will be defeated and the prospect of war between our two countries greatly diminished...

No threat

"The truth of the matter is that Iraq today is not a threat to its neighbours and is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside of its own borders.



Iraq has not been shown to possess weapons of mass destruction

When speaking of international law as set forth by the United Nations Charter, it is impossible to come up with any scenario today that would justify military action against Iraq based upon its current behaviour.

"The truth of the matter is that Iraq has not been shown to possess weapons of mass destruction, either in terms of having retained prohibited capability from the past, or by seeking to re-acquire such capability today...

"Iraq, during nearly seven years of continuous inspection activity by the United Nations, had been certified as being disarmed to a 90-95% level - a figure which includes all the factories used by Iraq to produce weapons of mass destruction, together with the associated production equipment, as well as the vast majority of the products produced by these factories...

"Iraq must loudly reject any intention of possessing these weapons and then work within the framework of international law to demonstrate this a reality.

The only way that Iraq can achieve this is with the unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors, allowing such inspectors unfettered access to sites inside Iraq in order to complete the disarmament tasks as set forth in Security Council resolutions...

BBC Monitoring, based in Caversham in southern England, selects and translates information from radio, television, press, news agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages.

Pentagon War Crimes Exposed:
Massacre Of Retreating Iraqi Soldiers

By Sarah Sloan

A new report by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh
confirms that U.S. troops massacred Iraqi soldiers on March
2, 1991, after the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War.
Hersh's report is carried in the May 22 New Yorker
magazine.

The massacre was cited in war crimes hearings held by
anti-war groups shortly after the war.

According to the transcript of the May 11, 1991,
Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes
Tribunal:

"A division of the Republican Guard withdrawing on a long,
unprotected causeway, high above a swamp, on Highway 8, was
attacked. The footage tells us what happened: the U.S.
assembled attack helicopters, tanks, artillery, and opened
fire with laser-guided weapons. The footage shows, and the
commander describes: `We went right up the column like a
turkey shoot, we really waxed them.' That's on tape!
Thousands of Iraqi soldiers were killed; not one U.S.
soldier died."

This was part of the summary of charges presented by Sara
Flounders, now co-director of the International Action
Center.

The massacre was ordered by Gen. Barry McCaffrey, now the
"drug control officer" for the Clinton administration, a
cabinet-level position. That means that the "retired" four-
star general is part of the White House's inner circle. So
much for the claim of civilian control over the U.S.
military; it appears that it is the generals who are
setting policy.

McCaffrey is also the architect of the current U.S.
military buildup in Colombia. McCaffrey's plan, including
the $1.7-billion "aid" package recently passed by Congress,
is widely described as setting the stage for the next
Vietnam-like war by the Pentagon.

Hersh's report adds details to what was cited in the 1991
war crimes hearings, particularly on the role played by
Gen. McCaffrey. According to Hersh, McCaffrey's operations
officer, Patrick Lamar, said that the alleged firing by
Iraqi troops used by Gen. McCaffrey to justify the attack
was "a giant hoax. The Iraqis were doing absolutely
nothing. I told McCaffrey I was having trouble confirming
the incoming'' fire.

Retired Lt. Gen. John J. Yeosock said, "what Barry
[McCaffrey] ended up doing was fighting sand dunes and
moving rapidly.'' He said that McCaffrey was "looking for a
battle.''

Maj. Gen. Ronald Griffith said McCaffrey "made it a battle
when it was never one.''

Since the beginning, the Pentagon has had documentary
evidence, including hours of videotape, of the deadly
assault on a defenseless unit. The May 8, 1991, New York
Newsday carried a report on the massacre based on this Army
footage.

The Army opened an investigation in August 1991 into
charges of war crimes, including the massacre of retreating
soldiers and an earlier incident involving the murder of
unarmed Iraqi prisoners. According to Hersh, McCaffrey's
unit fired high-powered machine guns into a group of more
than 350 disarmed Iraqi prisoners. The official
investigation confirmed that McCaffrey had ordered the
killing of the retreating Iraqi troops, but concluded that
it was justified and not a war crime. It was a decision
that can be compared to the official justification of four
New York cops shooting 41 bullets and killing unarmed
Amadou Diallo last year.

The May 15 New York Times reports that "allegations about
the March 2 attack did not apparently cloud General
McCaffrey's career."

IT WAS ALL WAR CRIMES

The massacre of retreating Iraqi soldiers was also
described in the 1992 book "The Fire This Time," written by
Ramsey Clark, former attorney general and founder of the
International Action Center. In it, Clark also describes
other crimes committed by the U.S. military during the
ground war, including the slaughter of unarmed Iraqi
soldiers as they walked towards U.S. soldiers with their
arms raised in an attempt to surrender. Clark also writes
about Iraqi troops who were buried alive during the first
two days of the ground offensive. Plows were mounted onto
tanks to carry this out.

The book, however, focuses on another war crime that has
become a mainstay of U.S. imperialism since the Iraq war:
the systematic destruction of the civilian infrastructure
of the country. "The Fire This Time" quotes a June 23,
1991, Washington Post article based on interviews with some
of the Gulf War's top planners.

Reporter Barton Gellman wrote: "Many of the targets were
chosen only secondarily to contribute to the military
defeat of [Iraq]. . Military planners hoped the bombing
would amplify the economic and psychological impact of
international sanctions on Iraqi society. . Because of
these goals, damage to civilian structures and interests,
invariably described by briefers during the war as
`collateral' and unintended, was sometimes neither. . They
deliberately did great harm to Iraq's ability to support
itself as an industrial society."

This same strategy was used again eight years later in the
U.S.-NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. A new war crimes hearing
into this war has been initiated by the International
Action Center. A Commission of Inquiry into U.S.-NATO War
Crimes in Yugoslavia opened on July 31, 1999. Ramsey Clark
brought 19 counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity
and crimes against peace against the leaders of the U.S.
and NATO countries.

On June 10 in New York City, the International Action
Center will hold a World Tribunal on U.S./NATO War Crimes
Against the People of Yugoslavia. Sara Flounders, a co-
coordinator of this Commission of Inquiry, said: "While we
are not now holding the named criminals under lock and key,
we see the tribunal process as a challenge to arrogant and
arbitrary power. We are confident that it is the first step
in a process that will continue to resonate throughout the
NATO countries and among all the peoples targeted by the
New World Order.

Oh really?

Iraq was never communist, arab countries are not communist...

Japan isn't communist list goes on and on and on and on and on........

Originally posted by inogenius
tsk... tsk... if it weren't for "the west" the world would be filled with communist.

Did I ever mention Iraq? This goes back long before there was ever conflict with Iraq.

Well who? which mid east countries where communist? please.. tell me..

Some people here forget the fact that the U.S. gave Saddam all the power he has right now. The U.S. will never care to make war against Iraq just to save the Iraqi people.

If you believe that the U.S. has the right to protect itself by making war against Iraq, they don't have the right to kill any innocent people. Saddam, as a problem, is something they created. They have to deal with it themselves. They can't just "nuke something"!

You don't know why people hate the west? Because when they miss everything up, they want everybody to cover for them.

Mulla Omar was trained by the CIA, and worked for them for years. Al-Qaeda got a lot of support from the U.S. in their fight against Russia.

Then the U.S. president appears on the news and force all countries in his war .. if you are not with us you are against us :eek:

Originally posted by inogenius
tsk... tsk... if it weren't for "the west" the world would be filled with communist.

If it weren't for the U.S., the world would be filled with socialist.

Once again, did I ever mention any place? I just said if it weren't for "the west" the world would be filled with communist. You assumed I was talking about the mid east. You know what happens when you assume things?

:agree: ahmad, the U.S is just in the Middle East for cheap oil and their own prospects, not to "help" anyone.

Thanks to the U.S., the world is full of capitalist, materialist, racist, crime .. what else?

Yes edude.

I hope that one day all the people at the west will learn this. Now all they know is what they hear from the news and their politicians.

The US created Racism? Racism existed long before the US was even around or discovered. Racism was around in the 17th century, and that wasn't even with humans.

The US created capitalist? Isn't that the goal of everyone to make money? You can't tell my the US created that.

Materialist? Maybe, but you're digging Deep

Crime? Gimme a freakin break

Originally posted by Ahmad
Thanks to the U.S., the world is full of capitalist, materialist, racist, crime .. what else?

Hold up Ahmad, i'm not defending the possible US actions in any way. I'm very against it. But don't make such a sweeping conclusion... the US is not the reason for this. Would you rather the US be a communist faction under a tyrannical dictator?? Damn wouldn't that be scary.

I will make one generalization - Politics are business. Plain and Simple. Edude has that one down perfectly. The only reason why the middle east is a hotbed of tension is because it touches 3 continents! It connects them. Do you know how much power that is! You have access to all ground trade routes. Not only that but you possess %60 of the world petrolium reserves! So don't go around saying oh ya its all the US they were the inventors of this capitalist monster. The middle east is just as capitalist. If they had the resources as the US does they'd be out there trying to make sure their investments weren't going down the drain. That is one of the simple reasons why countries go to war. They have business to gain from it. Its not because of ethnic backgrouds, "oh I hate you for your religion". It has nothing to do with that. When one country goes to war against another its because there is something financial to gain.

Putting that aside Bush is an idiot! If he wants a war, well then he has one. Its all about power politics, who has the bigger gun, or in this case who has the deadlier pestilence to spray upon the enemy. Saddam is an idiot too, lets not miss that either. He likes to thumb his nose at the most powerful country in the world. Bush will shoot himself in the foot for this. Should he attack the US is going to burn financially. And its all because of the little black magic potion we call OIL.

Putting that aside Bush is an idiot!
I do agree with that. His facial expressions crack me up though. However I do think sooner or later something has to be done with Sadaam. Why wait until he invades another country, like he did to Kuwait?

The U.S gave permission to Saddam to attack kuwait!

WHAT?!? The US defended Kuwait. That's what started the Gulf War.

Originally posted by edude
The U.S gave permission to Saddam to attack kuwait!

WHAT!!???? They Did Not!!!

Where is that proof? Edude you've gone off the deep end with this one! :eek:

Please explain for all of us! I'm interested

Don't get me wrong. I wasn't trying to be literal.

What you said, inogenius, sounded very much like everbody except the west is communist. I was trying to say that because of something good the west did doesn't justify all their actions.

I can go back more than a 1000 years ago, and tell you we never had racist the way it was in the U.S. for black vs. white people.

Originally posted by inogenius
WHAT?!? The US defended Kuwait. That's what started the Gulf War.

Saddam implied that he was going to invade Kuwait, and the U.S. implied it's non of their business. After months of distruction, the U.S. make some air strikes and Saddam's troops go back to Iraq.

Kuwait is still paying lots of money to the U.S. for protection, and the U.S. got paid presence in the gulf region.

Edude the way i've researched the gulf war - Iraq attacked Kuwait because Saddam had caught the Kuwaitis red handed for over producing oil according to the OPEC policies. Saddam tried to to intimidate Kuwait into paying Iraq an indemnification for the low oil prices of over producing. When Kuwait didn't flinch they decided to invade. Before the invasion the US had no opinion on the whole matter. After however the US had to move in to make sure their oil reserves were secured.

There is no evidence that i've ever come accross that suggests the US gave Saddam permission to attack Kuwait?? Why on earth would they do that? And then for the US to put soldiers in the line of fire if there wasn't a need for it.

The US mopped up the invasion because had Saddam gained control of Kuwait he would have had a significant more amount of oil and thus money to throw around as well as power within OPEC. Had he been successful he could have cut oil production off to North America successfully halting all operations in the US. Talk about being caught with your pants down. :stickout

:agree: Ahmad.

Hostkookster, CIA was very active in Iraq, U.S and saddam were good friends, he asked U.S if they would stop him from attacking kuwait they said no go ahead.

Originally posted by Ahmad


Saddam implied that he was going to invade Kuwait, and the U.S. implied it's non of their business. After months of distruction, the U.S. make some air strikes and Saddam's troops go back to Iraq.

Kuwait is still paying lots of money to the U.S. for protection, and the U.S. got paid presence in the gulf region.

I think the US was waiting for Saddam to back down. They didn't think he would actually attack a small helpless country and then face the wrath of the UN. But low and belhold he did.

heh, you wont believe how much friends saddam was with the U.S, they exchanged alot of info in the iran - iraq war, on top of that, U.S also helped iran which made saddam angry, U.S has caused so many problems...

to weaken other countries, they have hurt so many lifes......

It's not really like the US had much time to prepare for Iraq attacking Kuwait. Sadaam had moved his forces to the Kuwait border a week before he attacked Kuwait. You can't just send planes, and people into a country without doing research. Not to mention George Bush Sr. had to gather up a coalition of countries to help with the fight against Iraq. Also the United Nations really didn't want the US attacking Iraq spontaneously, they gave sadaam a deadline for him to get his troops out of Kuwait, the day the deadline ended, Air Forces were already bombing Iraq.

Yes the US was very actively involved with Iraq during the Iraqi-Iranian war. After which however there was a fallout between Iraq and the US. Saddam actively protested against the Jewish homeland in Isreal. That is where tensions between the two countries surfaced.

Originally posted by inogenius
It's not really like the US had much time to prepare for Iraq attacking Kuwait. Sadaam had moved his forces to the Kuwait border a week before he attacked Kuwait. You can't just send planes, and people into a country without doing research. Not to mention George Bush Sr. had to gather up a coalition of countries to help with the fight against Iraq. Also the United Nations really didn't want the US attacking Iraq spontaneously, they gave sadaam a deadline for him to get his troops out of Kuwait, the day the deadline ended, Air Forces were already bombing Iraq.
Yes true true

Originally posted by Hostkookster
Yes the US was very actively involved with Iraq during the Iraqi-Iranian war. After which however there was a fallout between Iraq and the US. Saddam actively protested against the Jewish homeland in Isreal. That is where tensions between the two countries surfaced.

When Saddam mentioned he had created a nuclear weapons program in his country, that is when all hell broke loose. The US was politically pressured by the their own people at home to make sure Saddam didn't create a colalition forece of Arab states that would attack Israel with scud missiles and nuclear weapons.

Ofcourse they didnt want to show that they were preparing, has to look legitmate you know :D

DUH

Also saddam doesnt care about israel.....

Iraq never had the capability to create nuclear weapons, and U.S out of all people knew this because everything iraq had was approved and or given by the U.S

Originally posted by Hostkookster


When Saddam mentioned he had created a nuclear weapons program in his country, that is when all hell broke loose. The US was politically pressured by the their own people at home to make sure Saddam didn't create a colalition forece of Arab states that would attack Israel with scud missiles and nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by edude
Iraq never had the capability to create nuclear weapons, and U.S out of all people knew this because everything iraq had was approved and or given by the U.S

Also saddam doesnt care about israel.....


No Iraq never did make nuclear weapons, but the potential was there though.

How do you know that he didn't care about israel? Were you his personal assistant.
Every political figure has their own agenda, and they don't share much of it with the public.

Yes he cares! Why would he send scud missiles into Israel? For fun??? :rolleyes:

Before the fall of the Shah, Iran was America's closest ally in the middle east. However, after the revolution, Iran turned against America after having bought a lot of American military hardware.

America then befriended Saddam in the 80's, but his excursions against the Kurds were too extreme for the Americans, so they dropped their support for him.

I can go back more than a 1000 years ago, and tell you we never had racist the way it was in the U.S. for black vs. white people.

Sure, it wasn't what it was back in the 1800's up the 1960's. But racism has existed since 15th - 16th century when explorers would explore africa and come back with blacks, who would then be used as Slaves. Just a fact, a country in SouthEast Africa (I think SE) had slavery up until 1991. Something I found very amazing.

Because the only reason he attacks israel is for arab support, propaganda.........

Originally posted by Hostkookster


No Iraq never did make nuclear weapons, but the potential was there though.

How do you know that he didn't care about israel? Were you his personal assistant.
Every political figure has their own agenda, and they don't share much of it with the public.

Yes he cares! Why would he send scud missiles into Israel? For fun??? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by edude
Because the only reason he attacks israel is for arab support, propaganda.........



Exactly!! That is why he stays in power! He does care!

god what propaganda some people have been fed. the cia are active in most countries lol. thats what theyre there for. as are our (UK) secret service. theyre always active everywhere. the us and sadam werent ever that close, the two wrongs do not make a right, sadams current stance is blatantly in contravention of his terms of surrender, which means war. thats pure and simple.
as for the attacks, i await the outcome and verdict. if its true then they should be tried and punished. thats also very simple. i certainly wouldnt condone that. and as soon as they punished ill have half the iraqi army (all 2 of them) up for the punishment they put our troops through. Iraq commited some atrocious violations of human rights and i dont see them in court. I wont defend the USA if they did what you reported. Neither will i stand by and see them prosecuted and yet Iraqi war criminals go free. Live by the sword die by the sword, its not one rule for iraq and another for the rest of the world.
remember the old addage, people in glass houses shouldnt walk about nude!

hmm go ahead and attack iraq, in that case i hope for every iraqi soldier that dies one of your own people dies and for every iraqi civilian dies one of your own people dies, i hope that he will unleash chemical weapons the moment you walk into iraq. (but he doesnt have any)

Originally posted by richy
god what propaganda some people have been fed. the cia are active in most countries lol. thats what theyre there for. as are our (UK) secret service. theyre always active everywhere. the us and sadam werent ever that close, the two wrongs do not make a right, sadams current stance is blatantly in contravention of his terms of surrender, which means war. thats pure and simple.
as for the attacks, i await the outcome and verdict. if its true then they should be tried and punished. thats also very simple. i certainly wouldnt condone that. and as soon as they punished ill have half the iraqi army (all 2 of them) up for the punishment they put our troops through. Iraq commited some atrocious violations of human rights and i dont see them in court. I wont defend the USA if they did what you reported. Neither will i stand by and see them prosecuted and yet Iraqi war criminals go free. Live by the sword die by the sword, its not one rule for iraq and another for the rest of the world.
remember the old addage, people in glass houses shouldnt walk about nude!

Yes, middle east propaganda is rampant - A lot of the news in the middle east is cencsored. many people don't realize this.
And you could also say - people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. :)

Al Jazeera is not censored, and it gives the real view out, maybe you should stop watching your censored western news services?

I mean't he doesnt care about israel's home land etc..

he just wants arab support......

Originally posted by Hostkookster


Exactly!! That is why he stays in power! He does care!

I mean't he doesnt care about israel's home land etc..
he just wants arab support......

Exactly like Hostkookster. He get's arab support; he stays in power.

He shouldn't have to go off and bomb other countries to get support from arab countries.

Originally posted by edude
Al Jazeera is not censored, and it gives the real view out, maybe you should stop watching your censored western news services?

Wanna bet! ok, so if Al Jazeera is the only uncensored media that you have in your country. What keeps them from taking censored propaganda from others?

The west has sooo many media outlets that you couldn't possibly censor them. I've even found several websites located in your country that offer internet censoring services.

Yes people augment the truth, they make things bigger than they seem but living beside the US, and not being an American makes me as well as our news stations and television magazine specials impartial. We have nothing to gain by kissing up to the US, they've already screwed us over. :D (I mean that in the nicest way possible)

Yes, so he doesnt care about israelis killing palestinians like people think he does, and that was no why iraq and U.S broke up :D

don't forget like matt mentioned what the U.S did in iran, they loved their leader, until he nationlized the oil company, the U.S and brits removed him!

LET PEOPLE HAVE THEIR FREEDOM STOP BUTTING INTO OTHER COUNTRIES AFFAIRS!!!

Hostkookster, you don't live in the US then?

So, please show me those sites?

Want news on iraq, official site: www.uruklink.net no propaganda on the site!

We have uncensored internet access in iraq aswell etc......


Originally posted by Hostkookster


Wanna bet! ok, so if Al Jazeera is the only uncensored media that you have in your country. What keeps them from taking censored propaganda from others?

The west has sooo many media outlets that you couldn't possibly censor them. I've even found several websites located in your country that offer internet censoring services.

Yes people augment the truth, they make things bigger than they seem but living beside the US, and not being an American makes me as well as our news stations and television magazine specials impartial. We have nothing to gain by kissing up to the US, they've already screwed us over. :D

LET PEOPLE HAVE THEIR FREEDOM STOP BUTTING INTO OTHER COUNTRIES AFFAIRS!!!

Ya know, I'd love to see what it would be like if that happened.

Originally posted by inogenius
Hostkookster, you don't live in the US then? \

Nope I'm a Canadian. =)

dang that site is slow.

Ofcourse its slow, its hosted in iraq :D

And with the huge amount of nerds from the U.S running DOS attacks trying to hack it and take it down..

http://www.uruklink.net/iraqnews/

Originally posted by edude
So, please show me those sites?

Want news on iraq, official site: www.uruklink.net no propaganda on the site!

We have uncensored internet access in iraq aswell etc......




I don't bookmark these sites. :) I've come accross them accidentally.

So how many people actually have access to the internet in iraq?

Judging by the speed of the site - Dang!

Wow, I have to say that so far reading the news on that site there isn't really any censorship. However many of the articles are biased against the US and make it look like Iraq is innocent.

Originally posted by inogenius
Wow, I have to say that so far reading the news on that site there isn't really any censorship. However many of the articles are biased against the US and make it look like Iraq is innocent.

Ya but look at yours and my articles as well. It all depends on the perception.

Yes, in my view it seems biased. In someone else's view it may not.

Originally posted by edude
Yes, so he doesnt care about israelis killing palestinians like people think he does, and that was no why iraq and U.S broke up :D

don't forget like matt mentioned what the U.S did in iran, they loved their leader, until he nationlized the oil company, the U.S and brits removed him!

LET PEOPLE HAVE THEIR FREEDOM STOP BUTTING INTO OTHER COUNTRIES AFFAIRS!!!

This quote is from the Man himself, Saddam.

"It is but an American attempt to isolate Iraq's capabilities from those of the nation, an attempt to turn Iraq from the call for jihad for the liberation of Palestine."

So he really does care, not just for support.

al jahwhatever sorry but i couldnt remember the exact spelling, is cencorsed as is all press just about everywhere, including here in the uk, d notices are issued to prevent sensitive info leaking. but as for facts, facts here are reported, we have bbc news 24, itv news 24, sky news 24 and cnn \ cnbc and even al jah* on satellite. the bbc and itn are very very unbiased in comparrison to the others. ITN is the most unbiased news agency on the planet. Ok some of their stuff is censored, but only current affairs like oh we got some news the SBS are storming the iranian embacy tonite type news, i.e. they arent allowed to leak news that would end in our country getting stuffed. The news papers tend to have political bias (the tabloids are complete shyte but the broadsheets are readable) and they tend to be good at giving a decent picture of whats going on. Plus in the uk we have a major advantage, outside news isnt cencored, i can see your news, can you see mine? also the bias where it occurs over here is well known. you can account for it. usually as theres another source with an opposite bias.

War is very unHoly - just people "forget" that God is Peace.
True Peace is not big bucks, nor as atractive - so war always wins.

Peace.

War sucks. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by inogenius
Wow, I have to say that so far reading the news on that site there isn't really any censorship. However many of the articles are biased against the US and make it look like Iraq is innocent.

So, Iraq its evil and USA innocent?

Originally posted by Jedito


So, Iraq its evil and USA innocent?

That’s what they try to make it out to be, every other country USA attacks are EVIL and they are so saint and innocent.

Jees, how many more innocent civilians do they want to kill?

The attack on Afghanistan was well coordinated by the USA/UK, they wanted to get into the middle-east so they could work there way to IRAQ and get there hands on the wealth which the middle-east posses of gold and OIL!!! (they will lie and kill as many innocent lives as they need, to accomplish this)..

The USA public is as innocent as those civilians in other countries, shame you haven’t realized what your governments evil plans are...

Until someone doesn’t face up to them, this is going to be a continuous thing which will become nothing more than the daily news.

I hate to call myself BRITISH at times; Tony Blair is just a following DOG of the USA.

Just my 2 cents, some will agree and there are those that will disagree. That’s life!

-Shazad

So, Iraq its evil and USA innocent?

No No. Just some of the stories make it look like Iraq is saying they did nothing to deserve this and were just bullied around by other countries.

They did nothing to deserve it, they just have oil and USA want it, should that be punished?

Originally posted by Jedito
They did nothing to deserve it, they just have oil and USA want it, should that be punished?

WOHOOOO I am not alone, others out there have also clicked onto what the USA and UK have been trying to accomplish....

Talk about getting greedy :bawling:.

Its time the arab countries formed an alliance. Oh i forgot the USA/UK then do what they done with Iraq and Kuwait, Iraq and Iran, Siria with Lebanon ... make them fight against each other using US weapons with Russian communications (only because its better than american)... :(

-Shazad

I agree...

Im sic of hearing all this US/UK propaganda... Were every you look even in Australia they follow the United States...

US says jump Australia says how high and the Brits say were already up there.

All the news channel this and that are US friendly and i dont see it as right.

When i was on holidays in Cyprus i got to hear the other version of the story!

Not really a story at all just that in Australia ( not sure about other countries )It was reported that the united states just started bombing a few days ago. And it was officially announced a few days ago also i think.

Now in Cyprus i was there for 5 weeks. this was back 2 weeks ago. And from the first day i got there - on the news they had live coverage of the US / UK bombings of IRAQ backed up by newspaper headlines etc.

Just think that the US and UK government keeps to much from there people and in turn fills them with false information.

Anyway.. if the arab nations do unite America and Uk will not stand a chance. IMO

Regards

:agree:

I'm also sick of hearing all this US and UK propaganda.

WAR SUCKS !

I'm sick of hearing propaganda. Period. Regardless of where it comes from.

Jedito, cabal :agree:

At last more people who agree with me!

Its all about oil, if saddam had weapons of mass destruction he would've used them by now, anyway i am iraq and recently been to Iraq to visit some relatives, i can really see the suffering caused by DU (Depleted Uranium).

Err...he did use them against his own people.

Originally posted by edude
Jedito, cabal :agree:

At last more people who agree with me!

Its all about oil, if saddam had weapons of mass destruction he would've used them by now, anyway i am iraq and recently been to Iraq to visit some relatives, i can really see the suffering caused by DU (Depleted Uranium).

In my opinion nobody wins in war. There is all destruction and loss of valuable lives.
the suffering caused by DU (Depleted Uranium).
DU is used to make Nuke bombs. Was that used?

Nope, never DU...

Get your facts correct, again your media giving you lies.....

WHO studies depleted uranium in Iraq

A team from the World Health Organisation (WHO) is to start a study of the links between depleted uranium (DU) and the high incidence of certain diseases in the Iraqi population.
An eight-member WHO delegation will visit Baghdad between 27 and 31 of August next week to investigate what Iraq says are steep rises in cancer and birth defects among inhabitants of regions bombed by allied forces in the 1991 Gulf war.


Iraq reports higher levels of birth defects

In April, the WHO announced it had agreed a framework with Iraq for collaboration in health projects.

The framework includes checking levels of diseases, measuring the effects of DU and research.

Radioactive dust

The team arriving next week will work to elaborate on these proposals.

Preliminary studies have shown no links between the use of DU shells and cancer or birth defects.

DU is what is left over after ordinary uranium has been enriched for use either in nuclear weapons or in reactors.

It is used in shells and projectiles to enhance their armour-piercing capacity.

When a depleted uranium round strikes a solid object like a tank, it bursts into a burning spray of radioactive dust.

This dust can remain on site for years, and is claimed to have caused disease in both soldiers using the munitions and in the local populations affected.

The Iraqis claim US and British troops fired more than 940,000 depleted uranium projectiles during the 1991 conflict.

They were also used against Yugoslav tanks and other targets in Kosovo.



Originally posted by Woody
Err...he did use them against his own people.

Don't forget the gulf war syndrome, when so many of your service men/women died..

It was caused by DU :D

You killed your own people :stickout :stickout

Now - Now, this is just for the sake of convsation. But makes you so sure that it's our media that is lying to us. Couldn't your media be lying to you, by saying that our's is a bunch of liars?

Because i heard it from your media aswell as mine :stickout

Originally posted by inogenius
Now - Now, this is just for the sake of convsation. But makes you so sure that it's our media that is lying to us. Couldn't your media be lying to you, by saying that our's is a bunch of liars?

Ya we already covered this. :) Everyone has propaganda. Ever since Vietnam the US government has been a little more cautious over what they release to the public.

Edude you should take a look at the propaganda fed to you. No one has any clue as to what caused or causes gulf war syndrome. Saddam killed his own people as well. Although that could have just been American propaganda right?... See my point. It may just be conversation, and you many not be serious :D but don't talk about things that you have done no study on yourself outside of you own propaganda. Its pure ignorance.

Originally posted by inogenius
Now - Now, this is just for the sake of convsation. But makes you so sure that it's our media that is lying to us. Couldn't your media be lying to you, by saying that our's is a bunch of liars?

Ok, tell me something, has been the USA citizen informed about what USA did in South America in the 70s/80s? If you want, I have first hand information, because I live in South America, and I know what the USA goverment did here.

BTW, do not forget that Saddam has been imposed, armed, financed and supported by the USA when Iran decided to break relationship with USA, same with Osama in Afghanistan and in the Balcans recently.

Did you see the movie "Primary Colors" with Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta? don't that remind you something?

Do USA intervene military in Africa when two country enter in a war? guess why not? because Africa its poor.

Originally posted by Jedito


Ok, tell me something, has been the USA citizen informed about what USA did in South America in the 70s/80s? If you want, I have first hand information, because I live in South America, and I know what the USA goverment did here.

BTW, do not forget that Saddam has been imposed, armed, financed and supported by the USA when Iran decided to break relationship with USA, same with Osama in Afghanistan and in the Balcans recently.

Did you see the movie "Primary Colors" with Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta? don't that remind you something?

Do USA intervene military in Africa when two country enter in a war? guess why not? because Africa its poor.

I'm a Canadian and i know a lot of things happened down there. Whenever the US didn't like what was "going down" they sent in their marines. Some times we know more about Americans than Americans know about themselves.:D

BTW, do not forget that Saddam has been imposed, armed, financed and supported by the USA when Iran decided to break relationship with USA, same with Osama in Afghanistan and in the Balcans recently.

Is this the best argument you can offer? The US and SEVERAL other countries funded Iraq when the middle east was extremely unstable. Iran was full of militants and Iraq was seen as some stability in the region.

The US actually didn't fund Osama directly. It was offered but it is said he turned it down. He is wealthy enough not to need the US to help him and he actually hated the US just as much as he does now.

Things however do change and the USA has to accept the consequences.

Do USA intervene military in Africa when two country enter in a war? guess why not? because Africa its poor.

Did the war cause any danger to the USA? Was there any reason that the USA should have been involved? The US isn't the global police force. Iraq is a threat to the region, our allies, and us.

haha and how is iraq a threat you? a skud missle is going to reach the U.S? comon is that the best argument you can offer?

<<Post edited: Trolling is NOT permitted and if you continue to troll you won't be able to log into the forum>>

Originally posted by Woody

The US isn't the global police force.

But that is the guise that they operate under. :D

Originally posted by edude
haha and how is iraq a threat you? a skud missle is going to reach the U.S? comon is that the best argument you can offer?
<removed>

No Edude the US isn't afraid of Iraqi scud missiles reaching the North American shore. They are afraid for Israel. There is enourmous pressure in the US from Jewish groups to keep that area safe. That is the only reason why they still arm the israelis. Well that and political pressure. If Bush ever took a stand and said no we aren't going to support them any longer Bush would as useless as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Man he'd be impeached. Thats the magnitude of this whole thing, and consider this....This whole Israel, Palestine debacle was created by the UK??

Originally posted by Woody


Is this the best argument you can offer? The US and SEVERAL other countries funded Iraq when the middle east was extremely unstable. Iran was full of militants and Iraq was seen as some stability in the region.
Several other? Iran-Gate? that happened in several other countries? for one side USA armored Iran, and for other to Iraq, of course, its simpliest to subdue two countries if they hate each other and if they are in war.

Even taking what you said its real (and its not), now tell me why US impossed dictatorships all over Latin America in the 70s and 80s, as I said several times, 30.000 persons died just in my country because that dictatorships.

And that didn't finished, USA supported to the militars who tried to overthrow to Chaves in Venezuela resently.



The US actually didn't fund Osama directly. It was offered but it is said he turned it down. He is wealthy enough not to need the US to help him and he actually hated the US just as much as he does now.

Two Words. BS.

Things however do change and the USA has to accept the consequences.
Yes, we did a mistake, now we have to give them arms to fight in the balcans


Did the war cause any danger to the USA? Was there any reason that the USA should have been involved? The US isn't the global police force. Iraq is a threat to the region, our allies, and us.

What allies? Saudi Arab? Kuwait? USA imposed in those countries the tyrant on turn. Give me a break.

Thats right, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait wouldn't be your allies, they hate your guts, the only reason they are your allies is because you force them to be your allies...

Originally posted by Woody

The US actually didn't fund Osama directly. It was offered but it is said he turned it down.

Yes they did. The US trained and funded those associated with Osama and Afghanis, just so they could do their dirty work in Afghanistan and halt another communistic/imperialistic advance by Russia. They did this so 1. they didn't sacrifice their own soldiers, 2. So the US wouldn't fight Russia directly thus creating cold war tensions. Detente had been reached and sending in US troops would have destroyed that peace. Although Russia was in no shape to be fighting a war:)

The US is doing it again in Israel, instead of directly fighting the Palestinians they fund the israelis. It keeps the economy going and its no skin off their back. They don't fight them directly thus avoiding an American-Palestinian/Arab war.

Originally posted by edude
Thats right, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait wouldn't be your allies, they hate your guts, the only reason they are your allies is because you force them to be your allies...

Yes Kuwait is forced, - but rightly so. The US kicked out the Iraqi's. Saudi Arabia does so because the US is the global police force. Sure the people may not like the US, but diplomatically the US is like an insurance policy against war. You f*** with us and you'll hear from our friend. :)

Originally posted by Hostkookster


Yes Kuwait is forced, - but rightly so. The US kicked out the Iraqi's. Saudi Arabia does so because the US is the global police force. Sure the people may not like the US, but diplomatically the US is like an insurance policy against war. You f*** with us and you'll hear from our friend. :)

Sorry, but I don't fully agree with you in the last statement.

Kuwait has been forced, but before than the Iraq/Kuwait war, same happened with Saudi Arabia, the interest of USA in Saudi Arabia, its not the country, less the Saudi's citizen, its only the oil, that's the reason of why they has been forced.

Yes if the arabs where to unite and sell their oil to all countries other than the UK and U.S they would still be making alot of $$, but you put saddam in power to threaten them. So you would be left out in the dark.. To prove your government only cares about the oil, is recently alot of saudi men have married american women, kicked the american women outa the country (saudi) and kept the kids but your gov wont go and ask for the kids cause they dont want to harm relations, money and oil speaks..

Originally posted by Jedito


Sorry, but I don't fully agree with you in the last statement.

Kuwait has been forced, but before than the Iraq/Kuwait war, same happened with Saudi Arabia, the interest of USA in Saudi Arabia, its not the country, less the Saudi's citizen, its only the oil, that's the reason of why they has been forced.

Yes i agree with that. ITS ALL ABOUT THE OIL!
US politics is more like, Give us this and we won't find an excuse to blow you up. :D j/k

What a political nightmare it is around the world:stickout No wonder politicians are all srewed up??!!

[Edit]
Yes if the arabs where to unite and sell their oil to all countries other than the UK and U.S they would still be making alot of $$

No they wouldn't, a lot of oil goes to the US, they depend on it. If OPEC suddenly halted all oil to the US and UK the countries of OPEC would economically desintegrate. [Edit]

Originally posted by edude
To prove your government only cares about the oil, is recently alot of saudi men have married american women, kicked the american women outa the country (saudi) and kept the kids but your gov wont go and ask for the kids cause they dont want to harm relations, money and oil speaks..

HAHA What?? That is a little bit of a stretch.... I'm not an American (i've stated that before right?) and i find that to be a little farfetched. Not your story but your claim.

A fight for legal custody of kids is not going to embroil a Saudi oil embargo on the US. The US gov't can't do anything because of the Saudi foreign policy - what ever it may be.

Originally posted by edude
Yes if the arabs where to unite and sell their oil to all countries other than the UK and U.S they would still be making alot of $$, but you put saddam in power to threaten them. So you would be left out in the dark.. To prove your government only cares about the oil, is recently alot of saudi men have married american women, kicked the american women outa the country (saudi) and kept the kids but your gov wont go and ask for the kids cause they dont want to harm relations, money and oil speaks..

That reasoning is silly. First if the Arabs did not sell the oil to the US and UK there would be a world wide recession and they would not be able to sell oil to anyone. Face it DUDE the US and UK account for more than 50% of the worlds economy.

What does kids custody battles have to do with anything, you read the state dept rules you will see that the US policy on that is the child is subject to the laws of the country they are in and the US federal govt does not and never has taken action in a custody battle involving another country.

As far as Iraq goes if Saddam is your hero why did you leave, stay there and fight for him.

Saudi Foreign policy? more like saudi oil policy, i seen this story on fox news btw, and the o'reily factor agreed!

Please show me where i said saddam is my hero?

I have relatives there so i have the right to care about them, i have had enough of war mongers, i have been in Australia for a long long time, i am no refugee and i came from the UK on points basis.. (i know you didnt ask, but just making sure you dont get the wrong picture)..


Originally posted by Monte


That reasoning is silly. First if the Arabs did not sell the oil to the US and UK there would be a world wide recession and they would not be able to sell oil to anyone. Face it DUDE the US and UK account for more than 50% of the worlds economy.

What does kids custody battles have to do with anything, you read the state dept rules you will see that the US policy on that is the child is subject to the laws of the country they are in and the US federal govt does not and never has taken action in a custody battle involving another country.

As far as Iraq goes if Saddam is your hero why did you leave, stay there and fight for him.

Originally posted by edude
Saudi Foreign policy? more like saudi oil policy, i seen this story on fox news btw, and the o'reily factor agreed!

Fox news?? Hahaha Whats the ?o'reily factor?

If you had seen this on CNN or the BBC i'd have believed you.

Originally posted by Monte


That reasoning is silly. First if the Arabs did not sell the oil to the US and UK there would be a world wide recession and they would not be able to sell oil to anyone. Face it DUDE the US and UK account for more than 50% of the worlds economy.

What does kids custody battles have to do with anything, you read the state dept rules you will see that the US policy on that is the child is subject to the laws of the country they are in and the US federal govt does not and never has taken action in a custody battle involving another country.

As far as Iraq goes if Saddam is your hero why did you leave, stay there and fight for him.

Ya, totally agree! We're in the same headpsace here. Edude is a little out to lunch right now. Where do you live Monte? :D

ABC NEWS EXCLUSIVE: SADDAM SEX, USES VIAGRA, SAYS MISTRESS! (http://www.drudgereport.com/cs.htm)

Lampsos says she saw Hussein on almost a daily basis for years and is able to provide unique insight into what the dictator was saying, thinking and feeling behind closed doors.

Not to mention his physical prowess in bed.

Claire Shipman goes where few network reporters have gone before -- and zeros in on Saddam's sexual appetites.

On Saddam's use of Viagra:

LAMPSOS:

He took sometime.

SHIPMAN:

He took Viagra.

LAMPSOS:

Yeah, sometimes, yes.

SHIPMAN:

And did it help? Did he think it helped him?

LAMPSOS:

Yes, of course...

SHIPMAN:

Was he affectionate?

LAMPSOS:

Yeah. He was tender, he was warm, he was nice.

SHIPMAN:

Did he force you to have sex with him?

LAMPSOS:

Saddam, he don't need to force anybody. Because...you are afraid, you are afraid to say no.... I was with him because I was afraid of him...

SHIPMAN:

What is Saddam Hussein's favorite drink?

LAMPSOS:

Whiskey...on the rocks with ice.

Lampsos claims Saddam uses an herbal relaxation mask to try to reduce wrinkles, dyes his hair and likes to wear suits by Pierre Cardin.

Lampsos now wears a veil to disguise herself on the street because she fears retribution for telling her story, which will air Thursday on ABC's PRIMETIME [10 PM ET/9 PM CT].

Shipman tells Howard Kurtz in Monday's WASHINGTON POST: "This may be the hardest interview I've ever done."

Her interview is more than Sex Journalism.

Lampsos, 54, who left Iraq a year ago, not only offers stories of the Iraqi dictator's personal life that she says few others know, but tells of his alleged effort to have his oldest son killed, his take on President George W. Bush, his extreme vanity and love of American films and music.

Lampsos tells Shipman how Saddam's favorite movie is the GODFATHER. And his favorite song is "Strangers in the Night."

SHIPMAN:

He likes Frank Sinatra?

LAMPSOS:

Yeah

SHIPMAN:

And would he play it, would he dance to that?

LAMPSOS:

Sometimes.

Lampsos says Saddam swims almost every day, drinks milk and honey in the morning and his favorite food for dinner is fresh gazelle. She says he raises and nurtures the gazelles -- and then handpicks each one to be slaughtered for his meal.

Hussein met Osama bin Laden on two occasions and gave money to the al Qaeda leader in 1996, Lampos explains to the cameras.

Shocking!!!!!!! lol

Out to lunch? i'm here, just had a quarter pounder with some fries and chocolate thickshake...

Whats worng with foxnews? isn't it the real deal? i'm down under so i dont know how you react to foxnews in the states, but from down under it looks like its the official news everyone watches and loves in the U.S

Originally posted by edude
Out to lunch? i'm here, just had a quarter pounder with some fries and chocolate thickshake...

Whats worng with foxnews? isn't it the real deal? i'm down under so i dont know how you react to foxnews in the states, but from down under it looks like its the official news everyone watches and loves in the U.S

Edude its an expression, you know - you're way out in left field.:stickout

Fox news is a joke. I don't know how many people in the US watch that station for news, use it more for sitcoms. I'm tuned into CNN or BBC.

LOL, i'm going for nap now :)

I think ill watch some more fox news :D

That Comes guy is funny :stickout

Hendry and comes is it?

Originally posted by edude
LOL, i'm going for nap now :)

I think ill watch some more fox news :D

That Comes guy is funny :stickout

Hendry and comes is it?

I got no idea :D I don't watch it.

Alright, been good talking. Some emotional forum sparring. :D Until tomorrow.:D I'm going to bed.

Its been fun, good to see other peoples opinion once in a while and i like your opinion, since your against Bush and his policies :D

/ZzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Well for the record I think G W Bush is a putz and has no idea what he is doing. Is it all about oil hell yes some of it is. Would we have attacked Iraq had they invaded a small country without oil? Heck no! But the US economy runs on oil if you think they are going to let Iraq take control of the major oil supply in the world and stand back and do nothing you are wrong, it may not be our oil but the US is not going to stand back and watch the supply be cut off by a mad man.

I do not think the current threat has to do with oil but more to do with a Bush's small penis syndrom and wanting to repair his daddy's legacy.

On the other hand there has been 2 ships intercepted carrying supplies to Iraq in the last 2 years that include special pipe that is made for only use in factories making nukes. Now the question is do we wait and see if he gets a bomb built? Or do we take him out before he does.

Tell me edude how do the people of Iraq really feel about Saddam? Do they like him, hate him, too busy hating the US?

I really would like to know how the people there feel about him, and I know they hate the US no doubt and with some good reason from their point of view, so you do not have to tell me that.

The people in Iraq don't like saddam, but they can't do anything about it, and they would rather not another war and more of their innocent sons die fighting for no cause.

http://www.bushwatch.net/

http://www.antiwar.com/

http://www.commondreams.org/

edude, what on gods earth brings you to the conclusion that your news isnt censored or biast and yet ours in the UK is???

secondly DU was used on hardened tips of CONVENTIONAL weapons by the allied forces.

thirdly, shoudl the arab nations unite, it will take more then their god to help them. theyd be facing europe inc uk \ usa \ china \ russia combined, with no real source of armaments. thats one very quick war.

fourth and final point? are we worried about scuds, hell no. not about them hitting us. are we worried about other means available for attacking us , yes. why do you blatantly ignore his ability to use terrorist style attacks?

Originally posted by richy
thirdly, shoudl the arab nations unite, it will take more then their god to help them. theyd be facing europe inc uk \ usa \ china \ russia combined, with no real source of armaments. thats one very quick war.

LOL mate, count China and Russia out of there, what makes you think they would help the USA and UK ....

No way in the world would Russia help UK and USA when they are supplying IRAQ with there weapons. Infact Russia would love to see them unite ...

The fact is it isn't going to have happen unless they seriously notice what benifits the UK and USA are getting out of it, because America has already worked on that, in getting them to fight against each other...

Either way, WAR SUCKS! and it dosen't surprise you that UK and USA are always in the middle out it.

-Shazad

Bored with this - war is so much favored over Peace.
Not my place to ask why.

china and russia may HAVE supplied weapons, but russia is far less friendly with the entire gulf region and the entire area surrounding afghanistan since the terrorist attacks on moscow. china isnt daft. it knows where the real money is. it wants commerce and stability and thats coming from the dollar.

and yes id love to see peace. id love to live in a world where no one at all has to worry about their safety.

That ignoramus Bush just wants to payback the lobbyists that he has under his desk.

Richy,
Funny you say that.

I really cannot see no evidence nor any proof of your claims.
You really think CHINA will be the one loosing out if they don’t back America? LOL no mate the UK and USA would be the ones loosing out...

Any country which has Nuclear Power will NOT back USA and UK in they new plan they have of trying to get into the Middle East and get there hands on the OIL

How many countries have made the USA do a live public apology to another country? China did and even kept the SPY plain USA sent over there which China shot down!

Who are the strongest allies to China, Pakistan… So why hasn’t India (another following DOG of the USA) which is like 3+ times larger than Pakistan never managed to get into there despite there attempts??? Because China backs Pakistan up with everything and USA and India know of there capabilities….

Who were the FIRST country and the ONLY country to use a nuclear weapon? USA in the Second World War against Japan...

Why in the world are they being hypocrites when in fact they are the ONLY ones to have used them... Getting scared are we???

Just to finish this off, those who boast about there abilities are those who are afraid of another, ever heard of China trying to show off communications/technology/weapons they have? (Without a doubt they are the leaders in electronics, what’s to stop them having the best weaponry on the world??? (The reason the USA spy plane was there)

Funny how the UN Inspector from 4 years ago said last night on live video feed, he would be ashamed of calling himself American, if they did attack Iraq cause there is no evidence of them creating anything….

Just a few more than 2 cents this time …: D

-Shazad

i had this argument with some other idiot on irc the other night. the usa used two h bombs once. once only. never again, even through the cold war etc, theyve proven they wont use them when pushed. russia \ china \ usa and europe i trust not to let loose with weapons. the gulf states i trust about as far as i could pick em up and throw them. as for china being advanced, sure they are probably close to the usa these days, as for being better forget it. not a chance.
the usa can realise its own oil reserves inside 12 months, should the gulf states block supply, its an even better fraction, just harder to get to, and id love to see how the gulf states manage when we cut off north sea oil. what ya gonna use for your plastics then, your own oil? its pathetic for plastics. thats why we export more oil then we import for petrol.

as for my points and proof, your in the uk, are you seriously telling me you didnt hear about our planes getting shot down. or the treatment of our troops etc when caught. ok here we are my friend
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1537128.stm
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2001/msg00783.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1286111.stm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+site:news.bbc.co.uk+bbc+iraq+shot+plane+down

as for treatment of prisoners, go get bravo 2 zero out of the library, or read chris ryans version of the same mission.

proof enough or do i need to continue?

getting scarred? if that maniac has weapons and a grude , hell yes. sept 11th showed major weaknesses against a new breed of warfare. you think madas is going to sit there and ignore us if we ignore him.

ok now shall we continue.
breaking his terms of surrender. now since i dont have a copy to hand, this may be a little harder. but how about the fact he had to let weapons inspectors in? that was a term of the surrender. hes kicked them out. hes shot at planes enforcing the no fly zone, this would be a fairly obvious breach of terms.

so is this proof enough?

China has built iraq's infastructure, including communications to anti aircraft. China and Russia have very good relations with the arab world, including Iran, also France. They would never never never side with UK/USA.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by richy
[B]i had this argument with some other idiot on irc the other night. the usa used two h bombs once. once only. never again, even through the cold war etc, theyve proven they wont use them when pushed.
Thats as much as i read, its already got boring and has a lot of bull**** in it[QUOTE]

You make me laugh and nothing more, take this bull**** somewhere else where they don’t know anything... Your head is filled with the UK propaganda....

Get the facts before trying to anger this UK media h y p e to others...

Did you watch the conference in Blackpool today? Where Tony Blair got the piss taken out of him by hundreds of UK people, WHY??? Cause they don’t listen to the media hype, they have there own brains they use....

I didn’t even bother reading your thread, don’t have time to waste on it….

-Shazad

so when faced with proof you decided to ignore it. whats the point of debating if you wont acknowledge the faults on your own side? UK proganda not at all, i fully admit that if what was said about the troops commiting those atrocacities is true then they should be punished for that. Being american or british doesnt exclude them from the law. However you seem totally unwilling to accept fault in your argument. which negates any further reason to continue.
take a look at your own post as ask yourself whos the one believing the propaganda? your the one ignoring facts as they dont suit your argument. thats the sort of behavior i would expect from a child not an adult.
any facts you dont like = bull lol, grow up and come back when you can debate like an adult.

edit: infact dont bother. i really cannot be bothered debating with someone who refuses to acklnowledge facts and believes their own bs so much they think that ignoring the other persons argument is a valid technique.

LOL....

First tell me this, WHAT were US SPY PLAINS doing over there anyway? They deserve to be shot down...

Would our country the UK allow other countries to send SPY PLAINS, and let them go without them taking actions...

Get serious and to the point, I asked for evidence and proof regarding China and Russia backing USA and UK attacks against Iraq, not what you showed...

Read the thread, aren’t you feeling a little left out, trying to backup the wrong side

Propaganda, how am I doing propaganda I get both sides of the story, you are the one filled with the propaganda..Then again hundreds of people from the public were kids at the Blackpool Conference earlier today ..hahaha…..... Jeez.....

-Shazad

China did and even kept the SPY plain USA sent over there which China shot down!

It wasn't shot down. A China jet hit the ran into the front of it. Or the US plane ran into it, however you prefer to state it. The plane was returned to the US after many weeks of deliberations.

First tell me this, WHAT were US SPY PLAINS doing over there anyway?

Spying on China's military infrastructure. It's a routinely done process by most countries with the capabilities to do so. You can't tell me that China or any other country hasn't done it to the US or any other country.

So what, being the world police U.S should set a good example and mind their own business.

Originally posted by inogenius


It wasn't shot down. A China jet hit the ran into the front of it. Or the US plane ran into it, however you prefer to state it. The plane was returned to the US after many weeks of deliberations.

Sorry my fault, wasn’t it quite a coincidence, or did China do this on purpose?

Anyway the plane may have been returned I am not 100% positive but the electrical equipment including the technology China kept... And there was nothing the USA could do about it either....

Originally posted by inogenius


Spying on China's military infrastructure. It's a routinely done process by most countries with the capabilities to do so. You can't tell me that China or any other country hasn't done it to the US or any other country.

I was referring to the Iraq post, anyway to the point, if it happened to the UK the consequences would be the same ... they would be shot down....

Sorry my fault, wasn’t it quite a coincidence, or did China do this on purpose?

Doubt it was on purpose, considering China lost a pilot in the process. From what I've seen it seems like the planes just collided. As to who caused the collision, that's up to you to decide.


Anyway the plane may have been returned I am not 100% positive but the electrical equipment including the technology China kept... And there was nothing the USA could do about it either....


Yeah I'm pretty sure they sent the plane back, however there was nothing the US could do about China studying/keeping the electrical equipment in that plane.

The chinese should've shot the plane down, its their right to do so.

The chinese should've shot the plane down, its their right to do so.

It is there right to do so, however do you realize how much turmoil it would have caused between the US and China? The relationship was already stressed enough as it was. Not to mention the spy plane didn't do anything viotale to cause them to be shot down. It was supposed to be escorted by Chineese pilots to an air base, up until the collision occurred, then the plane was forced to make an emergency landing.

thats why we export more oil then we import for petrol.

Ahh Richy, no you don't...

If the middle east cut off oil to the US, the country would be screwed!

If the US has sooo much oil then why have they been passionately interested with the middle east ever since the oil scare back in the 70's. 12 month's?? Ya they have enough to run the necessary functions of the country to create a war machine so they can bulldoze their way into getting oil from anywhere. I don't think they'll be using their precious 12 month supply so people can drive their cars. :D

Anyway, all in all my main opinion is, America boasts of its great security services, CIA etc..

Well use your CIA and get rid of saddam the same way you put him in power without a war......

enough killings.......

enough widows......

enough sadness

etc.......

Feed a cold, starve a fever!

It's all about Bush senior's old fraternity.
heh, no, but this is an interesting theory.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/secret068.html

If you aren't familiar with Skull & Bones, read http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/secret020.html

uum, my country is the UK, and last year we exported more oil from the north sea then we imported. Im not sure how familiar you are with the petrochemicals business but basically, oil comes in different types, gulf oil makes more petrol per drum, then north sea oil. north sea oil has more hydrocarbons suited for use in plastics then gulf oil has per drum. so it makes sense at the moment for the world to use gulf oil for petroleum and north sea oil for plastics. the crunch comes when you realise that the north sea oil is the only decent oil for plastics in the world. where as both russia and the us can extract their own reserves which are suited to petroleum. at the moment its not economically feasibile to extract them, should the need arrive then the investment will be made, leaving the gulf very short on plastics.

edude, i would totally agree with your sentiments about not having a war, id much prefer sadam being taken out by the SAS then by a land war. I as much as anyone dont want to see innocent people or even soilders killed for this. But if its the way it has to be, then i would grudingly back it.

Originally posted by richy
uum, my country is the UK, and last year we exported more oil from the north sea then we imported. Im not sure how familiar you are with the petrochemicals business but basically, oil comes in different types, gulf oil makes more petrol per drum, then north sea oil. north sea oil has more hydrocarbons suited for use in plastics then gulf oil has per drum. so it makes sense at the moment for the world to use gulf oil for petroleum and north sea oil for plastics. the crunch comes when you realise that the north sea oil is the only decent oil for plastics in the world. where as both russia and the us can extract their own reserves which are suited to petroleum. at the moment its not economically feasibile to extract them, should the need arrive then the investment will be made, leaving the gulf very short on plastics.

edude, i would totally agree with your sentiments about not having a war, id much prefer sadam being taken out by the SAS then by a land war. I as much as anyone dont want to see innocent people or even soilders killed for this. But if its the way it has to be, then i would grudingly back it.

Richy, feel free do beat me over the head, I reneg my last post. Damn i gotta learn to read. :D

:smash:

hehe its fine :) i tend to assume most people here abouts are american , entirely understandable :) while the usa imports the vast majority of its oil, it could use its own reserves if it HAD to. plus the new russian deal shows great promise. basically there have been some tentative shipments of oil from russia greatly strengthening usa \ russia bonds. the cost of shipping is higher but that will fall.
plus american oil is very versatile. gulf oil is pretty much only useful for petrol before it needs to go to a cracker to be refractioned etc. heh my dad manages a cracker so i tend to know a little about the oil business:) not as much as id like, as i headed away from chemistry to biology, but i can find may way round an atd or mass spec if i have to:)
you are correct though, suspension of oil shipments would leave the usa stranded for a while.

Very interesting the way world politics are shaping up. A Russian invasion of Israel is getting closer all the time...

hell that would put the cat among the pidgeons. since theyre doing their best to suck up to the americans and build strong trade links. as are the chinese. strange damn world at times. shaking hands with one hand and wielding a knife in the other.

Originally posted by richy
shaking hands with one hand and wielding a knife in the other.
exactly

the excrement would really hit the ventilation if that happened. this is how ww2 started. allies being obliged to defend allies from attack. wonder if this is what 1939 felt like?

Russia/China are not U.S allies and never will be for one reason they will always support iraq over U.S, is Iraq owes them alot of money.......

Main reason they want sanctions removed so saddam can pay them their money back, also saddam's son uday, owns a large chunk of France's economy.

france hasnt the greatest economy, if it was germany or the uk then i might be concerned. theyre europes current powerhouses with a few exceptions.
as for russia and china and the usa, not that im saying your wrong, but why are the so actively seeking setting up two way trade routes with the usa etc? if russia wanted its debts back REALLLY badly theres not much to stop it walking into iraq and taking it. im sure the usa wouldnt oppose too much if they were invited to help.

The reason the US economy is having problems is because it has nothing to thrive on and it has created an economic vaccum that needs to be filled (+ the large debt we are in). War would increase government spending which would more than likely help the economy if anything (im guessing). The United States is the only world power left in the world and as such has a duty to protect other nations including itself. Iraq already has weapons of mass destruction. That is a fact and if you want proof all it requires is a little research. Albert Einstein intrusted the US to build nuclear weapons because it was a nation he thought responsible enough to not use them carelessly. Iraq is also researching nuclear weaponary though nobody can say for sure how long it will take them. It is obvious that they will adventually have the most powerful weapon known to man. If we go into Iraq Sadam has no doubt we will kill him and he is not afraid to use everything he has on us (infact thats prolly the reason hes still alive). As a result we will use our most powerful weapons against him in return. So if we are going to invade we had better do it ASAP before he gets more powerful weapons. We could simply let him build these weapons and take no action against this corrupt nation, but one thing about weapons is they can only be used for two things: Fear and violence. And I personally don't want to see them used for either purpose. But I have no doubts he will use what he has...

yes, go into iraq, lets kill more innocent people, lets make more innocent people hate the U.S, and you wonder why terrorist attacks occur and why people hate the U.S so much, look dont you think if the people of iraq wanted saddam moved, they could do it themselves, like milosevic in yugoslavia.

Originally posted by edude
yes, go into iraq, lets kill more innocent people, lets make more innocent people hate the U.S, and you wonder why terrorist attacks occur and why people hate the U.S so much, look dont you think if the people of iraq wanted saddam moved, they could do it themselves, like milosevic in yugoslavia.
Yep i think Edude thinks right.

Originally posted by Radix
The United States is the only world power left in the world and as such has a duty to protect other nations including itself.

Who name USA the "protector of the free world" I guess that USA itself.


We could simply let him build these weapons and take no action against this corrupt nation, but one thing about weapons is they can only be used for two things: Fear and violence. And I personally don't want to see them used for either purpose. But I have no doubts he will use what he has...

Are you talking to invade USA? because I don't know a most correpted nation, what another country kill people for oil? what other country make children starve for economical reasons?

Probably you don't know, but yesterday 9/11 was the 29th anniversary of the overthrow of Salvador Allende, in hand of the CIA and imposing in Chile one of the most horrible man of the history, Augusto Pinochet.
Pinochet tortured and killed near 10.000 person, only to overthrow and insurgence of the communism party in Chile, all this was supported, armed and economical financed by USA.

Just to let you know, Salvador Allende won in fair ellections in Chile, and Pinochet was a dictator, let to the countries trace their own destinity. Remember what happened with all the Imperiums on the world history.

So, please, don't tell me about the corruption in other countries, solve the problem that USA have in their own, and then, we can start to speak of how to save another countries.

So, please, don't tell me about the corruption in other countries, solve the problem that USA have in their own, and then, we can start to speak of how to save another countries.

I agree with you.

:agree: Jedito

i think youll find the usa isnt the only country that has to protect others, minor point but the united kingdon also has many responsibilities outside its shores still. not quite as many as in the days of the empire admittedly. who names the usa the protector of the free world. helli wouldntmind being undertheir missile shield thanks. they can protect europe all they want. id rather be on the winning side when it hits the fan. yes the usa is corrupt, but predictably corrupt like many nations.


jedito : = what another country kill people for oil?

IRAQ! practically any country. the gulf has had many conflicts over oil.many many countries have been involved. men are greedy thats just a fact.


the people dont want rid of sadam as hes told them all its the worlds fault not his that iraq is in the state it is. if he wasnt a madman iraq could be a rich and prosperus country. hell i could run it better. the problem is the people are so blinded its worse the england in the 1100's.

Then don't talk me to remove that corrupted Gov. from Iraq, when the one who tried to remove it its equal or more corrupted.

What would be the change? Oh, I know, cheaper Oil for Bush's family and friends.

BTW, hopefully Argentina its not under the missile shield, that's why the economy in my country and in Brasil its going down latelly.

USA put pression in our countries to force us to sign up to the ALCA, and Argentina, Brasil, Uruguay, Paraguay and other countries has a commercial agreement called Mercosur, to disarm the MercoSur, USA its hurting our economies, punishing to Argentina and other MercoSur countries.

you have my deepest sympathy regarding your countries current situation. i know my country, the uk, and yours have not always got on well but i dont like to see any countries population suffer such misfortune, esp if its been deliberately caused.
i would say however that hating one country is not a good reason to side with its enemies. i dont doubt the usa has done a lot of bad in its time and will continue to. no one and no where is perfect.
whilst were on the subject of doing wrong, can we go back a second to the usa warcrimes. it took me a little while to get enough time to get to see some archives as ive been busy the past few days. now ive seen some pictures ans statements from the attack. it was an ambush on unprepared troops that much is certain. now i wont say your not entitled to your opinion on what happened and i ask you at least read what i have seen from what ive read.
the attack was not upon troops that had surrenered. it was upon troops with armaments in the midst of a tactical withdrawl. they were 'retreating' in as much as they were withdrawing to a fallback position to attack \ defend from. any combatant is perfectly entitled to fire upon an enemy collumn unless it has surrendered. now as for arms etc, theres one picture of the apache copters firing on armoured guns being towed by vehicles. thats not un armed. thats an armoured collumn of troops in tactical withdrawl. remember they were at war. unless theyre surrendering theryre legitimate targets.
now i respect you might not agree with that, or that you think ive been corrupted by propaganda etc, but im more then happy to see it go to a united nations court and be judged on the evidence there and let the truth speak. if they are truly guilty then yes they should be punished, but if the troops had not surrendered then quite simply no crime had been committed. they clearly had weapons. otherwise what were those guns the apaches were taking out?

I don't have USA at all, neither to the UK, but I don't like their/yours gov. Specially that muppet called G. Bush, that guy has proved to be an ignorant, arrogant and soulless.

Also, I hate when the USA gov, say that they are the defender of the human right, why don't they tell what are they doing in Guantanamo with all the afghans captured?, they are violating the most elemental human right, I hope that you can understand what I mean, I hate hypocrisy

Look, if the U.S does take Iraq, i personally hope saddam destroys anything of value to the U.S, especially the oil, than you can build my country and show you are really the world police and care about human rights.

ahh , i must admit yes guantanamo is a grey area. their exploiting a loophole in effect, you could say prolly jusifiably for bad reasons, i think theres a little bit of spite in there. it was an underhanded attack , and theyre using that as payback. the way the attack was made meant that the prisoners arent afforded the same rights under the geneva \ hague conventions. they did however let the red cross etc monitor the prisoners and their basic human rights were not being compromised.
but yes i certainly understand what you mean about quantanamo. im a reasonable person and can see where theres fault. bazra as far as i can see was legitimate. guantanamo, whilst being very immoral, to the word of the law isnt illegal, unfortuately.

Originally posted by richy

if he wasnt a madman iraq could be a rich and prosperus country. hell i could run it better. the problem is the people are so blinded its worse the england in the 1100's.

Been gone for a coule days, I missed this thread. :)

Exactly Right richy.

The only reason Saddam is still in power is because the Iraqi government is basically a military regime. Now I know Saddam didn't come into power from a military coup - but he has run the country militarily.
Saddam has been able to keep his position because he's kept control of the country and fed people propaganda IN THE PAST! Because of this and the current events in the middle east people believe what he says, "The US is Evil". There is another reason as well why he has stayed in power. He's a military leader, Saddam is not living in poverty with the rest of his people, he still has his lavish lifestyle, and he provides this to his top government officials, thus there is no reason to overtake him. Edude the people don't have the means to take him over nor the resources. Those who want him out are so poor they can't do anything. And those who want to keep him are obviously being taken care of, or they would be complaining. yet Another reason is there hasn't been much opposition government wise to Saddam. He has no rivals. Edude I'm not intirely familiar with Iraqi government but do they have "democratic" elections?...

The US is not the only "bully" in this situation - yes they instigated it but look at the other nations that supported the actions of the US over the last 10 years since the Gulf War. They haven't been vocal about it, they've sat on the sidelines and quietly said - "yes were going to join the country that will definately win any war in the middle east." Jaques Chirac even said today following Bush's speech to the UN that they "may help out the US." You don't see Britain instigating this. Tony Blair has been riding the coat tails of the US ever since the Wecond World War. They are their #1 ally however they would never stick their neck out, and neither would Russia or China or Germany...etc.

The US from resolutions past by the UN had every right to order embargoes on Iraq. They were seriously counting on the people to oust him from power but that didn't happen because of the reasons mentioned above. Bush even mentioned those unresolved resolutions in his speech today. Saddam is a stubborn man and rightly so he's a military politician. The US goes to many lengths to ensure they are being backed by the UN before they take action. The attack on Afghanistan was UN backed, The Gulf war was UN backed. The US is a police force and they took it upon themselves. No one asked them to. It was a direct result of the 2 World Wars. Because the US didn't become involved in world affairs things got out of control. Following WW2 the US finally was forced into the position of the global police because of the Cold War. They being the only capitalistic Super Power, needed to make sure they protected Europe to keep their economic status and rebuild Europe to fight the Red Menace. In that time of building however the US got themselves mixed up in too many world affairs which has hindered them, however it has also created for the most part a much more peaceful world. Had the US not intervened on behalf of the oppressed and invaded countries the world would be a very different place. Its more of the lesser of 2 evils.
1. The US doesn't intervene in the middle east - wide scale war and imperialism sparked by religious struggles which last over 400 years.
or...
2. The US does intervene and takes it upon themselves to go in and do something, most of the time its in their best interests however they have a catch 22. How do they keep peace there, (so they as well as the people living in that part of the world can live without fear and opression,) without sparking a North American / Arab war?? They walk a fine line all the time. I'll bet if the US had a choice and it were possible they would start the middle east from scratch. Not take out the people but the governements. They were extremely successful with Japan. Another nation that was very religiously oriented before the American occupation. The US did get some heavy baggage from this intervening. They got the Israeli - Palestinian crisis, Saddam, Osama bin Laden, and Other reknowed terrorist groups knocking at their door. I'm pretty sure they didn't expect this much to be on their back or they would have never done anything about it.

Opinions are set by what people see, and what people are fed for propaganda. No where in the Arab world do people hear about the wonderful things the US has done. And if there is mention of it, the information is brushed off because people have their opinion, their belief and nothing you say or do will change that especially if it is political/war related.

If the US invades WITH UN SUPPORT, I am all for it. However if Bush takes things into his own hands then he's a blood thirsty war mongerer thats just out to get Saddam and follow his daddy's legacy. Bush is going into Iraq because it is unfinished business, and he is going in whether he has UN support or not, that is as clear as day.

When the US invades Iraq and successfully does so I can see them trying to create a democratic society which will benefit all those involved. If Saddam destroys everything that may be of use to the US - he will only be hurting his people just as he has been for over 2 decades.

richy At this point the middle east is back where Europe was in the 1200's. This was the beginning of the crusades, holy wars, which is what the Palestinians and Israelis are fighting over. Its all about religion in that part of the country. If we go back to 1200 AD Europe, there was thousands of battles fought and it was because of Religion - specifically the Roman Catholic Church, against the Christians. The "middle ages" ended with the "Peace of Westphalia" in the 1600's and the agreement that "you had your religion and I had mine, and in that country and only that country did I have juresdiction to order a certain religion be practised." If we look at this the turmoil against religion in the middle east has yet another 400 years to continue through before the the state has completely separated from the "church" or "temple". That is unless someone steps in. As far as Israel goes these people agr going to beat each other into submission and eventually religious prejudices will be cast aside and people will realize that to impose your religion forcefully on others is futile. People have their beliefs and nothing can possibly change that unless you are able to irradicate everyone through genocide. If they can do it in Europe peacefully, why not in the middle east??

I'm jumping on the bandwagon - Saddam has to go, he's volatile to his people. Even UN General Secretary Kofi Anan told Saddam to let in the UN weapons inspectors.

The only thing i'm afraid of from Saddam is his madman mentality and the fear that one day he will order a nuclear attack on someone when he is on his deathbed so he doesn't have to deal with the consequences. Kinda Hitler like I think.
But thats just my opinion, you don't have to take it seriously.

AHH Good to be back again....:D

Originally posted by Jedito
I don't have USA at all, neither to the UK, but I don't like their/yours gov. Specially that muppet called G. Bush, that guy has proved to be an ignorant, arrogant and soulless.

Also, I hate when the USA gov, say that they are the defender of the human right, why don't they tell what are they doing in Guantanamo with all the afghans captured?, they are violating the most elemental human right, I hope that you can understand what I mean, I hate hypocrisy

Jedito, not defending the US position in Guantanamo bay but there is hypocrisy in every political system, every country.

Are you talking to invade USA? because I don't know a most corrupted nation, what another country kill people for oil? what other country make children starve for economical reasons?

Once again the US is not corrupted - they are looking out for their best interests, and if other countries had a choice to do so they would too and they have. However the US is the only country with the means to do so at the moment. You don't see Canada going out and doing this?? Neither do you see Britain.
Argentina after the mid 1980's has radically changed into a civil and somewhat democratic society where before it was a totalitarian/authoritarian state with absolute rule. I think the US has done a great job in South America aside from a few insurections and Argentina is an excellent example. The US is your missile sheild, and quite frankly there is nothing you can do about it. Hell if I was in your position i'd be happy they were watchin out. We do here in Canada. Ya we're a bunch of freeloaders :D Foreign Governments like to blame the US for many things, some they deserve others they don't, its just easier to blame someone than to take responsibility. If you blame somebody you have a common enemy, and thus people can place their hardships and excuses upon them. Hitler did a number on this one. :)

You want other countries that make children starve?? hmm lets see well China, Russia, Iraq, do i go on?

If you try and police the world you're bound to run into those who will try and challenge your authority. The US has bit off may more than they can chew in the world, and they are suffering, on a foreign relations level. But as i said in a previous post they had no choice. :)

To set the record straight on my position with the US, yes they are both bad and good. Canada has been screwed by them, but their support for us has been more than enough to overshadow that. Yes they make mistakes - you're bound to when you police the world. You can't make everyone happy especially when you enter cultures that are opposite to yours. I stand in my position to defend what the US has done so far in the world. Not what they may or may not do in the future because the power they have in the world is a great responsibility and there is always a chance that it could be neglected.

Originally posted by Hostkookster


Jedito, not defending the US position in Guantanamo bay but there is hypocrisy in every political system, every country.



Once again the US is not corrupted - they are looking out for their best interests, and if other countries had a choice to do so they would too and they have. However the US is the only country with the means to do so at the moment. You don't see Canada going out and doing this?? Neither do you see Britain.
Argentina after the mid 1980's has radically changed into a civil and somewhat democratic society where before it was a totalitarian/authoritarian state with absolute rule. I think the US has done a great job in South America aside from a few insurections and Argentina is an excellent example. The US is your missile sheild, and quite frankly there is nothing you can do about it. Hell if I was in your position i'd be happy they were watchin out. We do here in Canada. Ya we're a bunch of freeloaders :D


I have to guess that you don't know who impossed to the dictators in Argentina, guess who was? Yes, USA, like they did it in ALL latin america, and not only in the 70/80s, USA supported the military insurrection in Venezuela a few month ago, because Chavez (The Venezuela's DEMOCRATIC president) have good relationship with Fidel Castro.

You think that the US has done a great job in South America, because you don't live here, and you have NO idea of what happened here and what's happening right now.

About the missile Shield, no thanks, I prefer to live in a free country, where argentinians can decided the future of our country, and not USA do it for us.

BTW, do you say that USA its not corrupted? LOL, now tell me a polish joke, that was a good one.

Rusia, Iraq, or whatever make their child starving? if yes, so what? its their country, they don't make USA child starving, that make a difference, don't you think?

I wonder why so many americans surprise of why so many people around the world were happy on 9/11. (I want to clarify that I condemn any kind of terrorism and dead of inocent people).
I want to show you an example, do you remember when you were child, and there were a guy of your age, but a lot bigger than you who punch you and your friends and stole your candies?, wasent you happy when you saw that somebody finally won him a fight?

Well, imagine you, in the same situation, but that guy killed directly or indirectly your parents, family, friends and make you live in an horror movie?

BTW, do you say that USA its not corrupted?

No they aren't corrupted, a corrupted government is one where the governing body is underhandedly stealing money and wealth from people to use for their own purposes. You may recognize this name, Juan Peron. That was a corrupt government, he sent the country into bankruptcy. Now if you wanna say the US is imposing, yes they are. hypocritical, yes. But not corrupt.

Originally posted by Jedito

I wonder why so many americans surprise of why so many people around the world were happy on 9/11. (I want to clarify that I condemn any kind of terrorism and dead of inocent people).
I want to show you an example, do you remember when you were child, and there were a guy of your age, but a lot bigger than you who punch you and your friends and stole your candies?, wasent you happy when you saw that somebody finally won him a fight?

Well, imagine you, in the same situation, but that guy killed directly or indirectly your parents, family, friends and make you live in an horror movie?

The problem here is ethnocentrism. Everyone has it, my culture, my government is better than yours, and for the world to be a happy place they should all be like us. Like I said in my other posts yes the US imposes itself on people, I don't defend that. They impose themselves on my Country too, and we don't like it. But we gotta live next to them. Honestly would your country have been a better place if the US hadn't intervened. And if so how??

Do you have any idea who was Juan Domingo Peron?

LOL, I guess that you don't, you must be reading only amercian books, the Peronismo (the Peron party), its still the biggest party in Argentina, even after 30 years of his death.


corrupted government is one where the governing body is underhandedly stealing money and wealth from people to use for their own purposes

Do I have to tell you again why USA impossed dictatorships all over Latin America on the 70/80s?

You said "USA invades WITH UN SUPPORT", of course, who is the most powerfull country in the world? What that ***** called G. W. Bush said? "if you're not with us, you're against us", who will try to defiance to the USA power? only a mad man or an idiot.

Originally posted by Hostkookster


The problem here is ethnocentrism. Everyone has it, my culture, my government is better than yours, and for the world to be a happy place they should all be like us. Like I said in my other posts yes the US imposes itself on people, I don't defend that. They impose themselves on my Country too, and we don't like it. But we gotta live next to them. Honestly would your country have been a better place if the US hadn't intervened. And if so how??

Sure that it would be a better country, you know, at least, I could have some of my parents alive, and not killed for the Military Junta impossed for USA who killed 30.000 persons and tortured thousands more in 6 years, and I can't remember to anybody in USA saying that in Argentina there were a goverment violation the human rights, probably, because economically it were viable to USA.

Originally posted by Jedito
Do you have any idea who was Juan Domingo Peron?

LOL, I guess that you don't, you must be reading only amercian books, the Peronismo (the Peron party), its still the biggest party in Argentina, even after 30 years of his death.



Do I have to tell you again why USA impossed dictatorships all over Latin America on the 70/80s?

You said "USA invades WITH UN SUPPORT", of course, who is the most powerfull country in the world? What that ***** called G. W. Bush said? "if you're not with us, you're against us", who will try to defiance to the USA power? only a mad man or an idiot.

Yes i know who juan peron is, I did a study on him in history. He sent the country into bankruptcy. He ran a corrupt government when he was in power. He did transform Argentina into a nation, why wouldn't the party be popular today. I was talking about the person not the party.

That was all G W Bush rhetoric. No one took that seriously, they didn't receive calls from all of the countries in the world saying "yes we're on your side". Most of them stayed on the fence. And the ones who said 'ya we're here for ya" were America's closest allies. If that rhetoric were true today Bush would have a huge war on his hands, having to attack all the countries who didn't side with him. A lot of politics is just rhetoric, you can't believe all that is said.

.

Its not necesary to have in war with a lot of country, you can put economical preasure with other countries, like happend in argentina, because the goverment didn't wanted to conden to Cuba.

If you study Peron history, I suggest (with all respect) to get your books and read them again, because you're showing a lack of knowledge, ask in Spain, Italy and France how was he considered, Argentina sent ships full of aliments to those countries in the post-world era in exchange of nothing, USA didn't do the same, it created the Marshall plan, were if you wanted to receive any help, those countries were forced to buy USA articles when their economy get well.

Peron was the most popular president in the whole history of Argentina, he defended to the workers, and all the Aristocracy, with economical power raised against him, because he was difending the workers rights.

Originally posted by Jedito
Its not necesary to have in war with a lot of country, you can put economical preasure with other countries, like happend in argentina, because the goverment didn't wanted to conden to Cuba.

If you study Peron history, I suggest (with all respect) to get your books and read them again, because you're showing a lack of knowledge, ask in Spain, Italy and France how was he considered, Argentina sent ships full of aliments to those countries in the post-world era in exchange of nothing, USA didn't do the same, it created the Marshall plan, were if you wanted to receive any help, those countries were forced to buy USA articles when their economy get well.

Peron was the most popular president in the whole history of Argentina, he defended to the workers, and all the Aristocracy, with economical power raised against him, because he was difending the workers rights.

Yes the US created the Marshall plan, the only way to boost an economy is through trade. And the only open market at the time was the US as Europe recovered from the war. So naturally to avoid the Soviets from taking over Europe where do you think the countries went for trade?? Thay had no choise.

Juan was commendable, He did wonders for Argentina however he didn't run a tightly knit government and it sent Argentina back several decades just as the society started to get ahead.

Sorry, but you're wrong, Peron ran the best goverment in the Argentina history.

He make live like persons to all the people on the country, the Aristocracy were angrey with him, because after his goverment, the workers have the right of pay vacations, saturday and sunday started to be non-working days, the work journaly was stablished of 8 hours per day, and a lot of more things, of course, the people with money, didn't like that, to hire a worker it would be a lot expensive, and they can't treat to them anymore as slave.

What he did, its distribute the money of the country with all the people, and not only between the people with money, also, he stoped some opresive contracts that Argentina had with UK, that's why Churchill said, that the overthrow of J.D. Peron was the biggest event after the fall if the 3rd. Reich in the XX century, and that's why mostly NON-Argentinian books try to make him look like a dictator, even if he won 2 democratics ellections.

I didn't say he was a dictator, and no it doesn't he say he was one. I also didn't say he did that the things he did were bad. You are telling me this from inside your country, you lived it however, this is me talking from outside the country, in clear hindsight. Its always easier to see something when you're removed from the "drama" of it all.

Like I said Peron did an excellent job to transform Argentina. I'm not calling him an awful person. But the way he governed, which was spactacular, put the country into debt and eventually made it bankrupt. Many of the people involved in Peron's overthrow were from the military. All three military factions were involved. The guy who succeeded him Lonardi was gone within 2 months in yet another coup d'etat. This happened because the country was in turmoil. The people of the country saw what Peron had done and it was wonderful, however Peron's advisors saw the ecnonomic whirlpool Peron had created and staged a coup d'etat. Lonardi was out in 2 months because he refused to give up Peronism. This led to another coup d'etat. The US actually loaned Argentina $1 Billion to stabalize the economy. However pollitically it was a blood bath. Peronism never died however the effects Peron had on the economy were very damaging. I'm sure if he were alive today he would have done things a little differently.

No way! when Peron was overthrow the archs of the Banco Central were filled of Gold, Argentina were the 7th best economical country on the world when he was kicked out.

BTW, I didn't live that era, I'm only 29 years old, but I read a lot, as you may noticied, I'm very political, my parents tell me what they live, my grandfather told me as well.

All what happened after 1955, its part of the sad history of Argentina, where the first democratic goverment that finished their mandate was in 1989, the peronismo was banned in all the elections until 1974, of course, that he wasent perfect, nobody its, but surelly it wasent a corrupted goverment, indeed, it was the best goverment that Argentina live.

Just to let you know, when I born, my father was kidnaped by the security force because he was an student involved in the Juventud Peronista (my father its psychiatrist, and very educated, he is not and he wasent a violent person).

Originally posted by Jedito
No way! when Peron was overthrow the archs of the Banco Central were filled of Gold, Argentina were the 7th best economical country on the world when he was kicked out.

BTW, I didn't live that era, I'm only 29 years old, but I read a lot, as you may noticied, I'm very political, my parents tell me what they live, my grandfather told me as well.

All what happened after 1955, its part of the sad history of Argentina, where the first democratic goverment that finished their mandate was in 1989, the peronismo was banned in all the elections until 1974, of course, that he wasent perfect, nobody its, but surelly it wasent a corrupted goverment, indeed, it was the best goverment that Argentina live.

I'm a second year history student right now actaully. i've read a ton too. The information expressed here is partly from books and what i've learned in class lectures.

Yes they were the 7th best economical country in the world, but that means nothing. It looked good on paper. That didn't mean it was a sustainable and viable economy. Look at the stock market crash in 1929. Everyone thought that the stock market was sustainable but within a day it came crashing down. Yes Peron ran a corrupted government, he had to keep the Aristocrats off his back. And when he couldn't offer them anymore they revolted and incited the army. He made "backroom deals." Peron made so many sweeping changes that he should have been ousted from power by the Aristocrats much earlier however he was able to avoid this by "paying them off" in one way or another. But only for a certain amount of time. This is very hard to see when you're in the country. I've read several books and they all show the same thing. Peron innocently led the country to bankruptcy. I don't think he realized the state of the economy. And when he did the damage had been done.

Latin America has a love/hate relationship with the US. :D

Sorry, but again, I have to disagree with you.
Eva Peron was directly fighting against the Aristocracy, and in the eyes of the world, she was more or less a whore, that's why when "Evita" was filmed in Argentina, Madonna has to have HUGE security measures, because the people can't stand that kind of lies. Peron wasen't be look with good eyes from UK, or USA, because he tried to create a third moviment, he said, "We are not Yankees (that's how we call to the US citizen), neither Marxist, we are Argentinian". He tried to make aliances with Italy and Spain, but Franco first and I can't remember who was in the power in Italy at that time, both gave him the back, Argentina was in path to be a powerfull country, but our rivals (and I don't say the internal rivals) were too strong to him.

Argentina its a country where the aristocracy its "vende patria" and "cipaya" (sorry, I couldn't find a transaltion for that word, but more or less it mean that its not nationalist, and they sell theirself to the best bidder, servile to the foreigners).
Unfortunatelly, you wont get access to some information, like the UK goverment corrupting to the Argentinian goverment, or recently the US goverment making change our law, yes, you read it well, because the preasure imposed by the US, our congres changed some law to benefit US banks, I have to say, that all our congresman are a bunch of idiots, corrupted, and mother****ers (sorry for that word, but I can't describe them in a best way)

Also, please don't tell me that I can't see the things when I'm here, I can see it better than you, because I live every day in Argentina, and I was doing it for 29 years.

BTW, if you still think that USA its not corrupted, let me suggest you to read this book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1592090265/qid=1031901255/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-9420556-8147811?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It talk about the "attack" to the pentagon, please read it, and then, get back to this thread, also, please don't tell me after read it that are all lies.

BTW, the relationship with US its hate/hate, but we don't hate to the US citizen, we hate the US goverment, who systematically has hurt our people., you'll see here more T-Shirt with the Che Guevara face on it than with the Reagan face :D, also, I have to say that the "Che" was argentinian, that's why its called "Che" which its an argentinian word.

Would the U.S remove saddam if iraq had no oil?

Would they rebuild the country if iraq had no oil?

Originally posted by edude
Would the U.S remove saddam if iraq had no oil?

Would they rebuild the country if iraq had no oil?

No-No :)

Take a look to Africa, there are a lot of countries with worst dictators than Saddam, but as I previously said, Africa its poor.

I'm still wondering why Bush leave to Saddam in Iraq in 91, when the US Army entered to Bagdad :rolleyes:, has the oil price something to be there?, don't forget that the Bush familly its a oilman family (I don't know if "oilman" its the correct word), they won with the rise and low of the oil price, and has been proved that Bush its a corrupt.

I also, wonder, why the Bush familly have allways to appeal to war when an election its near or when their popularity its low.

The reason they left saddam in power in 91' is to threaten arab gulf countries with him, that way they gave troops to guard them in return for cheap/free oil from kuwait, saudi etc......

Just a quick word about Argentina - you can't claim they are a perfect country, as one word will quickly show that they too have acted badly in the past: Falklands

Falklands? do you mean Islas Malvinas?

If you don't know those islands are Argentinians, has been invaded by the UK in 1853, so, please don't talk about something that you don't know.

BTW, I NEVER, said that Argentina its perfect.

Originally posted by Jedito
Falklands? do you mean Islas Malvinas?

If you don't know those islands are Argentinians, has been invaded by the UK in 1853, so, please don't talk about something that you don't know.

BTW, I NEVER, said that Argentina its perfect.
Falklands became British in the 1800s like you say along with many other places around the world over time. These things happened then - why do you think half the world speaks English? And even you people in South America predominantly speak Spanish/Portugeuse or a language that has descended from them due to colonisation in the past. You can't say that every invasion in the past was wrong.

When Argentina invaded the Falklands, however, it was in modern times where there are no empires to expand, so there was no 'excuse' to invade another country with a view to taking rulership of it. None of the inhabitants wanted to become Argentinian, and Britain rightfully won them back. Had Argentina not invaded, then the Belgrano and other ships that sank would never have done so, and all those lives wouldn't have been lost.

BTW, I NEVER, said that Argentina its perfect.

Nowhere is perfect.. just live and let live.. :D

If only.. Too much analysis going on.. If everyone thought like those on these boards then I am sure that there would be no need for any of these heated discussions.. Easy.. :D

When Argentina invaded the Falklands, however, it was in modern times where there are no empires to expand, so there was no 'excuse' to invade another country with a view to taking rulership of it. None of the inhabitants wanted to become Argentinian, and Britain rightfully won them back. Had Argentina not invaded, then the Belgrano and other ships that sank would never have done so, and all those lives wouldn't have been lost.

Never a truer word said.. spot on :D

Originally posted by benoire

Falklands became British in the 1800s like you say along with many other places around the world over time. These things happened then - why do you think half the world speaks English? And even you people in South America predominantly speak Spanish/Portugeuse or a language that has descended from them due to colonisation in the past. You can't say that every invasion in the past was wrong.

When Argentina invaded the Falklands, however, it was in modern times where there are no empires to expand, so there was no 'excuse' to invade another country with a view to taking rulership of it. None of the inhabitants wanted to become Argentinian, and Britain rightfully won them back. Had Argentina not invaded, then the Belgrano and other ships that sank would never have done so, and all those lives wouldn't have been lost.

Sorry, but do you know something about internationals law? do you know the 200 milles law? Argentina didn't invaded nothing, Malvinas its Argentinian territory, if you don't want to see it in that way, its up to you.
I give a F* to when they were invaded, still are Argentinian, Or do you mean, because they were ILLEGALLY invaded in 1853 UK have now eternal rights over it?
Tell that to the indians, that liberated India in 1948, or that are old times as well? Or to the cambodians or vietnamese. Or if you want another example, tell that to the Palestinians, tell them that the State of Isreal was created in old time, that they have to forget it. What a joke.

The example that you put about the American colonialism its BS, America were almost and deserted continent, there wasent any "legal" country here when UK, Spain, France, and Portugal colonized it, but, when UK invaded Malvinas, it did invaded an Argentinian territory, Argentina already was a country at that time.

BTW, of course that none of the Malvinas inhabitants wanted to be Argentininan, they are UK citizen, well, they are now, before of 1982 they were second class UK citizen, there is a sentence that the Kelpers say "Argentina put in the UK map the Malvinas in 1982"

And you're far away of the reallity, english its the 3rd or 4th language, not even close half the world speaks English.

Originally posted by edude
The reason they left saddam in power in 91' is to threaten arab gulf countries with him, that way they gave troops to guard them in return for cheap/free oil from kuwait, saudi etc......

Thats a little bit of a stretch Edude, the US left Saddam in power because they couldn't find anyone to replace him. If they had killed Saddam then Iraq would have crumbled in a semi-anarchist kind of state. This was not a good situation for the US because they needed oil. If you ask anyone from the Bush Sr. administration, leaving Saddam alone was one of the worst mistakes the US made in the 20th Century.

BTW, if you still think that USA its not corrupted, let me suggest you to read this book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846

Jedito, this book received a lot of criticism in North America. I have not read this book however according to several reviews (not all american) there were a lot of connections made that weren't completely backed up.

It was like the accusation that the Jews were behind the attacks and that all the Jewish people that worked in the World Trade Ceter didn't bother to go to work that day knowing what was about to happen. That was a completely unsubstantiated claim.

There are a lot of things in that book that should be questionable however they are vague and obscure, and many conclusions could be made from them. Just as the book points out the fallacies of the FBI investigation so does the author miss some very important facts about that day. This from what i've heard.

Originally posted by Jedito


Sorry, but do you know something about internationals law? do you know the 200 milles law?
No, I'm not a law expert, I'm speaking from the point of view of an average person, and dare say that many think the same as me. I'm not going to get too involved in a discussion on this as I don't have the necessary knowledge of laws etc to quote from.

Or if you want another example, tell that to the Palestinians, tell them that the State of Isreal was created in old time, that they have to forget it. What a joke.
With respect, this is an area I feel confident in saying I understand a lot more than you. Israel is the rightful home of the Jews, and was there's long before the Palestinians laid any claim to it. The Palestinians have no right to live there.


And you're far away of the reallity, english its the 3rd or 4th language, not even close half the world speaks English.
Again, with respect, that's utter rubbish. Whether you like it or not, English is the predominant language throughout the world - maybe not within individual territories (ie more people speak French in France than English), but English is the 'International Language'. Which language are we talking in right now? Which language is predominantly used at international conferences such as yesterday's UN one? Which language is used more times than any other as a common language to communiate in between two parties of different nationalities?

Originally posted by benoire

No, I'm not a law expert, I'm speaking from the point of view of an average person, and dare say that many think the same as me. I'm not going to get too involved in a discussion on this as I don't have the necessary knowledge of laws etc to quote from.


With respect, this is an area I feel confident in saying I understand a lot more than you. Israel is the rightful home of the Jews, and was there's long before the Palestinians laid any claim to it. The Palestinians have no right to live there.


Again, with respect, that's utter rubbish. Whether you like it or not, English is the predominant language throughout the world - maybe not within individual territories (ie more people speak French in France than English), but English is the 'International Language'. Which language are we talking in right now? Which language is predominantly used at international conferences such as yesterday's UN one? Which language is used more times than any other as a common language to communiate in between two parties of different nationalities?

Exactly Right! English is the universal language. As far as people speaking it population wise - well then you have a case. More people speak Chinese, because the have 1/6th the world population.

With respect, this is an area I feel confident in saying I understand a lot more than you. Israel is the rightful home of the Jews, and was there's long before the Palestinians laid any claim to it. The Palestinians have no right to live there.

Benoire, can you please tell me why this is the case? Why is "Israel the rightful home of the jews?"

If you're refering to the biblical times, that was thousands of years ago and therefore with the same reasoning we can also say that the USA is the rightful home of the Native American Indians and "Americans" have no right to live there.

You can't pick and chose whatever situation suits you the best.

Take Care

Originally posted by zuby84


Benoire, can you please tell me why this is the case? Why is "Israel the rightful home of the jews?"

If you're refering to the biblical times, that was thousands of years ago and therefore with the same reasoning we can also say that the USA is the rightful home of the Native American Indians and "Americans" have no right to live there.

You can't pick and chose whatever situation suits you the best.

Take Care
In AD70, the Romans overthew Jerusalem, destroying it to the extent that you could run a plough over it, and removed all Jews from the land, scattering them around the world. When the USA was first colonised, the native Indians were not rounded up and forced out to other countries in the way that the Jews were.

The fact is that Israel had the land *first*, and the Palestinians took it upon themselves to inhabit the land whilst it was desolate. Once Israel regained possession of it (since when it has prospered a billion times more than it did whilst the Palestinians lived in it), it was back in their hands and now the Palestinians are trying to get back in - if you were to say that any attempt for the Indians to regain their land is futile, then why condone the Palestinians trying to regain theirs (or so they believe)? Especially considering the fact that Israel had it in the first place.

American's have America, Israelis have Israel, why should it be acceptable for Israel to have their right challenged and not America?

It's always been my understanding that after WWII Israel was founded on Arab land because lots of Jews emigrated there. What right did Israel have to just set up a country where and when they please?

Even about 50 years ago, it just wasn't/isn't right to set up a new country on someones elses land, no matter what the land is like, be it desoltae or prosperous.

I don't know much about US history, but I would find it very surprising if Native Americans were not forced from their homes/land at any stage.

You simple cannot use the "we had it first" excuse for everything because times change and you just have to deal with it.

Take care

Ok, so we should dump weapons on the Kurds and let them deal with it.

The whole problem with Israel and the Palestinians is they both got screwed by the British.

During WW2 Britain promised a homeland for the Jews and thus Israel was born. However at the same time Britain promised the Palestinians that is they joined the war they would be rewarded with land and the land given to them just so happened to be part of Israel. The two countries could have lived peacefully together however...

The conflict heats up when suddenly a mass amount of Jews following the second world war immigrate to Israel and begin out outnumber the Palestinians 3 to 1. As the Jews grow in number they have no where to live, and begin pushing the Palestinians out of Israel. But this was not done forcefully. It was through commerce, and simple population demographics. The Israeli Palestinian conflict is still a product of the cold war. Israel was backed by the US. The Palestinians were backed by the Soviets. And now that the cold war is over the Israelis and Palestinians still hold a hatred for each other, both because of land, and religion.

hi, with reference to the pentagon attack. ive seen much of the evidence that book is based upon, and i can say categorically, that its complete fairy tail material.
a plane (boeing 757 loaded with aviation fuel) could easily have caused that damage in that pattern .
1- no reckage of the plane was found
2- damage was limited to a specific area
3- the imact area was less then the wingspan.

right first off lets look at the pentagon itself. its a heavily built and fortified building. nice thick concrete and stone walls and good seperation of roomsby strong walls.
the reason for no wreckage is simple. you fly a plane into concrete box, the pressure generated by containing 5 sides of that explosion is so immense that it quite simply vapourises the plane. planes are not made of the most flame retardent material. these days there little more then thick metal foil over an aluminium or similar endoskeleton. that metal will have vapousides by the energy generated from exploading a plane full of aviation fuel. thats why you didnt see a large amount of debris. the towers werent construted of such strong material and consequently did not contain the explosion as well (as noted by the fire ball) so there was more debris.
as for the wingspan issue, thats simple, wings are meant to take a certain type of force in a certain direction, like the wishbones on a formula one car. when it hit the building they were already under serious stress from pulling up from the dive, they will have simply folded against the body of the plane.
i respect that there are circumstances which are less the simple to comprehend regarding the crash and that it may seem that there was more to it then that. the evidence presented in that book and on some websites isnt strong enough to stand up in court, its merely a set of observations taken out of context by people who arent educated enough to be making these statements. if there was conclusive proof then i would happily believe something else happened. but no such proof exists and certainly not in that book.
its sensationalism aimed at the tabloid press readers.

asfor the faulklands, they became british a long time ago, back when countries were moving borders. the attack by argentina was somewhat less then wise (from a whose the most likely to win a conflict viewpoint only), i wont debate whether it was correct, but the inhabitants didnt want to ceed their land to argentina. i think on this matter its probably best we all agree that the morality around that conflict is a grey area. i personally dont see a clear right and wrong and we could argue in circles for a long time. its an incident i think we all wish hadnt happened.

Dotcomznz I don't think honestly I'd host an Iraq site now.... what are your thoughts?

in the US we can't host them.

Originally posted by richy
hi, with reference to the pentagon attack. ive seen much of the evidence that book is based upon, and i can say categorically, that its complete fairy tail material.
a plane (boeing 757 loaded with aviation fuel) could easily have caused that damage in that pattern .
1- no reckage of the plane was found
2- damage was limited to a specific area
3- the imact area was less then the wingspan.

right first off lets look at the pentagon itself. its a heavily built and fortified building. nice thick concrete and stone walls and good seperation of roomsby strong walls.
the reason for no wreckage is simple. you fly a plane into concrete box, the pressure generated by containing 5 sides of that explosion is so immense that it quite simply vapourises the plane. planes are not made of the most flame retardent material. these days there little more then thick metal foil over an aluminium or similar endoskeleton. that metal will have vapousides by the energy generated from exploading a plane full of aviation fuel. thats why you didnt see a large amount of debris. the towers werent construted of such strong material and consequently did not contain the explosion as well (as noted by the fire ball) so there was more debris.
as for the wingspan issue, thats simple, wings are meant to take a certain type of force in a certain direction, like the wishbones on a formula one car. when it hit the building they were already under serious stress from pulling up from the dive, they will have simply folded against the body of the plane.
i respect that there are circumstances which are less the simple to comprehend regarding the crash and that it may seem that there was more to it then that. the evidence presented in that book and on some websites isnt strong enough to stand up in court, its merely a set of observations taken out of context by people who arent educated enough to be making these statements. if there was conclusive proof then i would happily believe something else happened. but no such proof exists and certainly not in that book.
its sensationalism aimed at the tabloid press readers.


Exactly right richy - Its just a big conspiracy theory by 1 man. Now if there were several people claiming this there may be reason to believe there is proof. Jedito does this person actually give "credible" sources to this information. Or is he doing this strictly on speculation and what he saw on TV and read in the newspapers.

Jedito do you really think that it was an American jet fighter that purposely crashed into the pentagon?? Do you have any idea how incredibly large that building is?? You ever stood near it?? The plane that hit it destoryed the outer ring of the building. The Pentagon is shaped like it is to withstand an arial attack. I think it lived up to its design. Do you really believe the things discussed in the book? Or is this just your prejudices showing through?? I don't want to say I don't have prejudice. I do. but seriously, this book is destined to be thrown into a burning book pile.

Ohhh come on, it couldn't been find any piece of the plain, but they found a thumb?

BTW, yes, I think that the USA its capable to do it, didn't the CIA killed to J.F.K.?, ohh, yes, it wasent been proved, you need any prove? really? Ok, now, tell me if you need any prove, WHY, USA couldn't make a case against Saddam or Bin Laden, and even if they can't prove anything they attacked to Afghanistan and they will attack Iraq?.

BTW, if you didn't read the book, please don't talk about it, you're talking about something that you don't know.

I'm out of here, I can't stand anymore.

Originally posted by benoire

No, I'm not a law expert, I'm speaking from the point of view of an average person, and dare say that many think the same as me. I'm not going to get too involved in a discussion on this as I don't have the necessary knowledge of laws etc to quote from.
Sorry, get a book and read about it, its not that hard.


With respect, this is an area I feel confident in saying I understand a lot more than you. Israel is the rightful home of the Jews, and was there's long before the Palestinians laid any claim to it. The Palestinians have no right to live there.
Really? were the state of Isreael was created? in "modern times" or "old times"? how about Vietnam, Cambodia or India? are they in the same situation?, please teach me, I'm a donkey.:rolleyes:


Again, with respect, that's utter rubbish. Whether you like it or not, English is the predominant language throughout the world - maybe not within individual territories (ie more people speak French in France than English), but English is the 'International Language'. Which language are we talking in right now? Which language is predominantly used at international conferences such as yesterday's UN one? Which language is used more times than any other as a common language to communiate in between two parties of different nationalities?

Can you be coherent at least 1 time? wasent you talking about the english language its spoke in half world because the colonization?
Now, you change your argument?, I never said that's not the international language, and the diplomatic language its french, so what? what that have to be here?

BTW, yes, the first language its chinese, 2nd spanish

*sigh*

Originally posted by Jedito
Sorry, get a book and read about it, its not that hard.

One day. Maybe.


Really? were the state of Isreael was created? in "modern times" or "old times"? how about Vietnam, Cambodia or India? are they in the same situation?, please teach me, I'm a donkey.:rolleyes:

If you're asking was Israel created in modern or ancient times, then the answer is the latter. Don't see what it has to do with your argument though...


Can you be coherent at least 1 time? wasent you talking about the english language its spoke in half world because the colonization?
Now, you change your argument?, I never said that's not the international language, and the diplomatic language its french, so what? what that have to be here?

BTW, yes, the first language its chinese, 2nd spanish
Me be coherent? *cough* kettle *cough* pot *cough* black *cough* :rolleyes:

My initial point was drawing attention to the fact that the days of the colonisation were greatly significant as they pushed the UK, in particular the English language, to the forefront of world politics, thereby showing that this wasn't some underhand attack we did but an important part of world history. Seeing as you like pointing out what you didn't say and what I did say, perhaps you'd like to point out where I said that English was the most commonly spoken language (as opposed to the language used most internationally).

As for which is spoken by most people, that's irrelevant, when you have a country with a population the size of Russia or China you expect to have more people speak that language than another. Except of course when you take second languages into consideration, the numbers change yet again...

Originally posted by benoire
*sigh*


One day. Maybe.


If you're asking was Israel created in modern or ancient times, then the answer is the latter. Don't see what it has to do with your argument though...


Then when the state of Israel was created in the "modern times" was incorrect? or was correct because it were israel before? with that argument, you're telling me that Argentina was right, because Malvinas were originally Argentinians.


Me be coherent? *cough* kettle *cough* pot *cough* black *cough* :rolleyes:

My initial point was drawing attention to the fact that the days of the colonisation were greatly significant as they pushed the UK, in particular the English language, to the forefront of world politics, thereby showing that this wasn't some underhand attack we did but an important part of world history. Seeing as you like pointing out what you didn't say and what I did say, perhaps you'd like to point out where I said that English was the most commonly spoken language (as opposed to the language used most internationally).

As for which is spoken by most people, that's irrelevant, when you have a country with a population the size of Russia or China you expect to have more people speak that language than another. Except of course when you take second languages into consideration, the numbers change yet again...

Sure.

Originally posted by benoire

Falklands became British in the 1800s like you say along with many other places around the world over time. These things happened then - why do you think half the world speaks English? And even you people in South America predominantly speak Spanish/Portugeuse or a language that has descended from them due to colonisation in the past.

What you were talking about then?

A WWF grunge match between Dubyah and Hussein should settle things once and for all. The proceeds from pay-per-view could be used to help Iraq rebuild from the sancions after Hussein loses. :stickout

Originally posted by Jedito
Ohhh come on, it couldn't been find any piece of the plain, but they found a thumb?

BTW, yes, I think that the USA its capable to do it, didn't the CIA killed to J.F.K.?, ohh, yes, it wasent been proved, you need any prove? really? Ok, now, tell me if you need any prove, WHY, USA couldn't make a case against Saddam or Bin Laden, and even if they can't prove anything they attacked to Afghanistan and they will attack Iraq?.

BTW, if you didn't read the book, please don't talk about it, you're talking about something that you don't know.

I'm out of here, I can't stand anymore.

Ok i'll buy the book, I'll humor you and i'll make these judgements myself.

After read it, please explain me why the Anti-Air defences on the Pentagon didn't shut it down the plane.

Originally posted by Jedito
After read it, please explain me why the Anti-Air defences on the Pentagon didn't shut it down the plane.

Because before Sept 11th there were none.

Believe fantasy land all you want, and when you get thru buying into the BS in that book send me an email, I have some tin foil hats to sell you that will protect you from UFOs.

Sorry, but it were Anti-Air defences in the pentagon and in the white house, it has been there for a long time.

BTW, thanks for the hat, but use it yourself, beware, the sun its strong this days, and may fry your brain.

Originally posted by Jedito
After read it, please explain me why the Anti-Air defences on the Pentagon didn't shut it down the plane.

Spot on, what a coincidence "they were not turned on" LOL....

Jeez Americans and British need to remove those blind folds you have on your eyes and think for yourselves.... ( I have )

End to End mate, the entire Sept 11th was all planned by America and the Jews....

Your dreaming buddy, it was a long time rumor that there were anti air defense missles at the the White House but after Sept 11th it was admited there were none.
There are now and there are stinger shoulder fired missles also now, but before Sept 11th there were none. How do you think the Cessina crashed on the White House lawn 4 years ago.

Originally posted by Monte
I have some tin foil hats to sell you that will protect you from UFOs.
Can I order a box of them, Monte. One can never be too careful. ;) :D

Originally posted by Monte
Your dreaming buddy, it was a long time rumor that there were anti air defense missles at the the White House but after Sept 11th it was admited there were none.
There are now and there are stinger shoulder fired missles also now, but before Sept 11th there were none. How do you think the Cessina crashed on the White House lawn 4 years ago.

Jeez, everything on CNN, BBC etc.. etc.. are rumors now-a-days, if they were rumors why was it never denied ?... HAHA

Talk about security, if you cant secure your own base, don’t try going around acting like the world police.

Originally posted by Jedito
Then when the state of Israel was created in the "modern times" was incorrect? or was correct because it were israel before? with that argument, you're telling me that Argentina was right, because Malvinas were originally Argentinians.

Israel was established thousands of years ago. During a long period of time in which it was uninhabited, Palestinians moved into the area, without establishing an official state. The Israelis simply moved back into their land in May 1948.

With the Falklands, this was a properly executed invasion (without unnecessary bloodshed or suicide bombers etc), as part of the expansion of the British Empire. Different situation altogether.

What you were talking about then?
To save rewriting it, I'll paste the explanation again for you in case you couldn't read it the first time:

My initial point was drawing attention to the fact that the days of the colonisation were greatly significant as they pushed the UK, in particular the English language, to the forefront of world politics, thereby showing that this wasn't some underhand attack we did but an important part of world history.

Originally posted by s.h.a.z.y.


Spot on, what a coincidence "they were not turned on" LOL....

Jeez Americans and British need to remove those blind folds you have on your eyes and think for yourselves.... ( I have )

End to End mate, the entire Sept 11th was all planned by America and the Jews....

I think that Myth was blown all to hell after the reading of the names on Sept 11th, if you listened you heard quite a few Jewish and Arab names.

What kind of nut would think that the US would blow up it's own buildings and kill thousands of people, destroy their own economy as an excuse to start a war.

Dream on, if we want to start a war we can do it with out the drama.

Originally posted by Jedito
After read it, please explain me why the Anti-Air defences on the Pentagon didn't shut it down the plane.

i too wondered this, and have seen no answer so ive been left to figure out my own.
your left with a few options

1- there was no plane
2- the defenses were suprised and couldnt respond
3- the defenses were'nt suited to attacking that kind of plane
4- the defenses were'nt used as a plane of that size would have caused too much devastation over local housing or something similar???
5- they were distracted by the towers?
6- they didnt think it would actually hit

theoretically it could be any of them.

i havent read that book but ive read many websites based on the same style of evidence.
personally i dont believe his conclusion, but i think there are a lot of questions to be answered. but then again, thats always a tactic used by intelligence agencies. the double bluff, make people think theres a conspiracy on something where there isnt one to detract from a real one elsewhere. the fbi are probably running around multilating cattle and making pretty patterns in crops so the freaks spend all the time looking there while all the time bill was getting hummers off aliens. theres always peope with conspiracy theories, the trick to a good secret service is to have those people convinced that theres something hidden in something thats totally legitimate in reality to keep them from finding what your really up too.

Originally posted by s.h.a.z.y.
End to End mate, the entire Sept 11th was all planned by America and the Jews....
ROFLMAO !!!!!! :D :D :D

And the Man in the Moon played an important role too I believe...

Originally posted by Monte


I think that Myth was blown all to hell after the reading of the names on Sept 11th, if you listened you heard quite a few Jewish and Arab names.

What kind of nut would think that the US would blow up it's own buildings and kill thousands of people, destroy their on economy as an excuse to start a war.

Dream on, if we want to start a war we can do it with out the drama.

Why? Because it was the only way they could get into the Middle East with backup from other countries..... GOD gave you a brain, use it....

Also America is clever than that, they would have left some poor souls in there to die (which they did) .. After all they aren’t that stupid.... Then again!

Originally posted by Monte
Your dreaming buddy, it was a long time rumor that there were anti air defense missles at the the White House but after Sept 11th it was admited there were none.
There are now and there are stinger shoulder fired missles also now, but before Sept 11th there were none. How do you think the Cessina crashed on the White House lawn 4 years ago.

I could be wrong here, because my memory do not help me.
But I think that the WH said that the cessna wasent detected by the radars, another history its a 115 tons airplane, how couldn't be detected by the radars? even if it wasent any Anti-Air defense, nobody detected it? the plain flight 500 Miles! for 40 min after the first airplane crashed in the 1st Tower, and nobody were aware of this plane?

I wonder how can't be found "any" peace of the airplane, but they found a thumb were a passanger was indentified by the "digital tracks" (I don't know if this its the correct translation), oh yes, after that the book were launched, the FBI found a lantern, surprising, 6 month after :rolleyes:

Originally posted by s.h.a.z.y.


Jeez, everything on CNN, BBC etc.. etc.. are rumors now-a-days, if they were rumors why was it never denied ?... HAHA

Talk about security, if you cant secure your own base, don’t try going around acting like the world police.

hehe thats real funny, the bbc only broadcast rumours. the second most independant news network in the world behind itn. there may be a small political bias in the bbc, but not itn. just because you dont agree doesnt mean theyre biased or broadcast rumours or lies. it just means your wrong.

and as for your comments about it being the americans and jews. whatever drugs your on, ask for double next time.

Originally posted by benoire

Israel was established thousands of years ago. During a long period of time in which it was uninhabited, Palestinians moved into the area, without establishing an official state. The Israelis simply moved back into their land in May 1948.

With the Falklands, this was a properly executed invasion (without unnecessary bloodshed or suicide bombers etc), as part of the expansion of the British Empire. Different situation altogether.



I explain you again just in case that you don't remember.

The Malvinas were INVADED in 1853, you understand that? because it has been done 150 years ago, that do not make it correct, and wont make it correct.

Originally posted by richy


hehe thats real funny, the bbc only broadcast rumours. the second most independant news network in the world behind itn. there may be a small political bias in the bbc, but not itn. just because you dont agree doesnt mean theyre biased or broadcast rumours or lies. it just means your wrong.

and as for your comments about it being the americans and jews. whatever drugs your on, ask for double next time.

Then again, yours always right and everyone that disagrees is wrong ... LOL your hypercritic

Originally posted by s.h.a.z.y.


Why? Because it was the only way they could get into the Middle East with backup from other countries..... GOD gave you a brain, use it....

Also America is clever than that, they would have left some poor souls in there to die (which they did) .. After all they aren’t that stupid.... Then again!

Yes GOD gave me a brain some others posting here I am not to sure about.

Fact is if the US wanted to attack any country in the world we are strong enough to do it alone. We do not need to create a BS reason and destroy our own country to get others to go along with us.

Originally posted by Jedito
The Malvinas were INVADED in 1853, you understand that? because it has been done 150 years ago, that do not make it correct, and wont make it correct.

Originally posted by benoire
With the Falklands, this was a properly executed invasion (without unnecessary bloodshed or suicide bombers etc), as part of the expansion of the British Empire. Different situation altogether. :rolleyes:

So you admit then that Argentina invading the Falklands in the 70s was wrong then, right? Because they were INVADED in 1982, you understand that?

No, The Malvinas its ARGENTINIAN territory, Argentina reclamed malvinas since the UN creation (it has another name before, that I can't remember).
It's OUR territory, and will be our, because we don't have the political or armored force to kick the invaders out from there that do not make the malvinas english.

BTW, when the Malvinas were invaded in 1853 there were people living there, and some were killed and some others expelled from there, the Governor of the Island were Luis Vernet, you can search about it if you want.

And invasion its an invasion, to try to get your territory backs, I don't see it like an invasion.

Originally posted by Monte


Yes GOD gave me a brain some others posting here I am not to sure about.

Fact is if the US wanted to attack any country in the world we are strong enough to do it alone. We do not need to create a BS reason and destroy our own country to get others to go along with us.

Its about time you Americans realized that you are not immortal...

HAHA go and do it on your own, whatever!!!!!
There was no way in the world you could have got rid of the Al Qeda Network (still haven’t) without the help of Pakistan and Afghanistan...

Remember the Bully’s time will always come..
And Still wearing them blind folds are we......

And the FACT, nothing is fact without proof, something you Americans and British have a problem understanding...

Originally posted by Monte


Fact is if the US wanted to attack any country in the world we are strong enough to do it alone. We do not need to create a BS reason and destroy our own country to get others to go along with us.

Sorry, but I disagree with you here, US want the world aprovation, that's what Bush its asking now in the UN to attack Iraq, even that it wasent be proved that Saddam have any quimical weapon, neither was proved that Bin Laden was the intellectual author of the WTC attack, an USA accusation make it a prove latelly, and I don't see that right.