What happened to the WMDs?

[delirious]

What's safer in terms of WMDs?

1. Letting Saddam have his WMDs (which might not have existed according to Daid Kay, the coalition WMD finder)

OR

2. Letting his so-called "nuclear sites" be lootedby vigilates and having those weapons shipped to other countries?

I'm not for Saddam having WMDs but this invasion has NOT been the way to contain them. If the US was really for disarming Iraq safely, they would've put more troops on the ground to guard against this happening.

Saying "Let's topple Saddam" is all very good but doing it properly is something completely different... Something that Bush & Co have failed miserably at doing.

I'm all for liberating the Iraqis but letting Bush (a failed oil businessman), Cheney (an ultra-conservative oil dealer who voted against Mandela's release), and Rumsfeld (a former defence company director) do it is asking for trouble.

[mylexicon]

I'm all for liberating the Iraqis but letting Bush (a failed oil businessman), Cheney (an ultra-conservative oil dealer who voted against Mandela's release), and Rumsfeld (a former defence company director) do it is asking for trouble.

This insolent spouting damn near ruined the other interesting points you
made earlier. The oil dried up in west Texas, Madnela was a criminal
whether benevolent freedom fighter or not and whats wrong with being a defense contractor??

Anyway, its nice that the security counsel would help explain to the rest of the
world that Iraq probably did have WMD EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT 1 FUCKING
YEAR LATE. The damage to our reputation has already been done, the U.N.
can fuck off for the rest of eternity.....a bunch of ingrateful turncoats. We have
made our U.N. payments with American blood, and then the one time we need
them to stand by us they help lead the biggest media circus ever known to
man. Do people not fucking realize yet that leaders of other countries, whether
friend or foe have a vested interest in seeing America weakened. Why do
you think they love dems so much???? They are submissive and insolent and
therefore make perfect patsies.

[delirious]

Do people not fucking realize yet that leaders of other countries, whether friend or foe have a vested interest in seeing America weakened.

So when Mandela and Desmond Tutu critisise Bush, they're only doing it because they want him weakened? What would be their motive?

[brakada]

Anyway, its nice that the security counsel would help explain to the rest of the
world that Iraq probably did have WMD EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT 1 FUCKING
YEAR LATE. The damage to our reputation has already been done, the U.N.
can fuck off for the rest of eternity.....a bunch of ingrateful turncoats. We have
made our U.N. payments with American blood, and then the one time we need
them to stand by us they help lead the biggest media circus ever known to
man. Do people not fucking realize yet that leaders of other countries, whether
friend or foe have a vested interest in seeing America weakened. Why do
you think they love dems so much???? They are submissive and insolent and
therefore make perfect patsies.

Well, it's a kind of a paradox here. You claim that the UN are worthless and that they never do shit, yet were they the ones who are trying to proove now, that there were WMDs in Iraq, even after the Americans started claiming that Sadam probably didn't have them. Something stinks here, and I won't believe a thing until they find the damn WMDs. If everybody "knows" or claims to know where they are, why doesn't somebody finally find something (even American intelligence had satellite shots of blablabla, but didn't proove shit in the end). But if this is true. It's another big fuck up by the Americans. If Bush administration motives were truly to disarm Iraq, a lot of heads should fly in the military and intelligence, because the mission was a disaster. If I understood correctly, the weapons were supposed to be smuggled during the war. As I repeated this many times on the old ms, the States should first get the control of Iraq borders, and monitor all suspicious activities. But obviously they didn't (prooven by the number of foreign fighters in Iraq). Somebody should be held responsible for this definitely.

As for the international support (security council's support), I think USA could have gotten it if they would really want it. They would have to try a bit harder, and be a little more patient, but they would have gotten it through. IMO Bush just tried to show the world he can act on his own, but as the result was a bit unexpected, he failed (not entirely, though, but still failed) No world power can act alone. There have been many attemptsin the past, but all of them failed in the longterm... Well, that's just my opinion.

[mylexicon]

Well, it's a kind of a paradox here. You claim that the UN are worthless and that they never do shit, yet were they the ones who are trying to proove now, that there were WMDs in Iraq, even after the Americans started claiming that Sadam probably didn't have them.Something stinks here, and I won't believe a thing until they find the damn WMDs.

Of course there is something stinks.....two things actually. First the American
press lied for political reasons about the severity of Iraq's non-compliance
with U.N. resolutions. Secondly, there is evidence to suggest that the oil-for
food program is corrupt. So now the inspectors are working to try to make
our actions in Iraq look justified so we don't torch the oil-for-food cash-cow.

No world power can act alone.

Yes. World powers can act alone whenever they want. The U.S. will continue
to do so as long as our allies fail to look out for our security. And besides
Europeans need to realize that Americans and other nationalities do
whatever they want because they have no respect for Europeans. You have 400
million people who don't work, you have politicians who won't stfu and solve
their own problems, you have a bomb you'll never use and a military you'll
never deploy. What exactly is supposed to inspire us to believe that
Europe is a place worth listening to? Whether or not you choose to realize it,
outside of the socialist paradise you are working so hard to construct life is
evolving at a rapid pace, and its not evolving towards socialistic control. Why
do you think there is a resurgence of struggle between capitalism and totalitarianism
in the Middle East and Asia???? Hint: It's not because capitalism/democracy is shrinking.
Around the world new frontiers are being pioneered and there are 4-5 billion
people waiting to be able to pull themselves out of poverty for the first time and
enjoy pursuing freedoms that we Westerners take for granted.

The only person in the whole of Europe who fucking understands that is
"George Bush's personal fluffer", Tony Blair. He knows that life outside of
Europe is evolving and that Europe is just sitting on the bench, looking at
themselves in a fucking vanity mirror, while bitching at everyone on the field
when they aren't even in the goddamn game.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it. BTW even though that sounds like a
really pissed of rant, it is actually a challenge to everyone. If you want to
have a say in what goes on in this world, you have to be powerful, important and
respected. Whiney and beautiful just won't cut it these days.

[delirious]

If you want to have a say in what goes on in this world, you have to be powerful, important and respected. Whiney and beautiful just won't cut it these days.

Very well said.

US 'needs image makeover'

The United States could use an image consultant.

A global survey found 19 of 27 countries tracked had falling levels of approval for the US.

The Bush administration has launched several new initiatives over the past year to improve the country's image especially in the Middle East.

But foreign policy experts say the US must do more or terror groups will find it increasingly easy to find new recruits.

'Propaganda machine'

The Pew Research Centre for the People & the Press conducted the study and found that the image of the US was suffering across the globe.

The author's of the study said: "True dislike, if not hatred, of America is concentrated in Muslim nations of the Middle East and Central Asia."

But they also found favourable opinion slipping amongst Nato allies, in developing countries and in Eastern Europe.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer challenged reporters to go back and look at the raw data of the report and pay less attention to some interpretations of the study's findings.

"This is one of the most stark examples of a poll whose data showed one thing and whose instant analysis showed another," Mr Fleischer said.

President Bush continued his efforts to reach out to Muslims by attending Eid observances at a Muslim centre in Washington.

Earlier, President Bush blamed Muslims increasing distrust of the US on "propaganda machines (that) are cranked up in the international community that paints our country in a bad light."

"I hope the message that we fight not a religion, but a group of fanatics which have hijacked a religion, is getting through," he said.

More than image problem

But that message will only get through if the US narrows its war on terror, according to Ivan Eland, director of defence policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

"We can dampen this if we conduct a narrow war against al-Qaeda," he said.

He criticised the Bush administration for making "expansive threats" and expanding the war on terror to include the so-called Axis of Evil nations and other groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

And he said that the US should be concerned about its image abroad and "not just because we want to be liked."

It is the view of the US Defence Department and the national security community that America is not using its informational power to best effect, said Daniel Kuehl, a professor at the National Defence University.

He attributes poor attitudes to the US to several factors including upset over US policies abroad including support of Israel, the growing perception that the US is acting unilaterally and "natural fear of the big guy on the block."

Ric Stoll, a professor of political science at Rice University, said, anti-American sentiment impacts the United States' ability to conduct policy abroad.

"There are any number of governments near Iraq that don't like Saddam Hussein and like to see him removed from power," Mr Stoll said, but they fear the domestic consequences of cooperation with the US.

He said the US could do a few things to greatly improve its image abroad, especially in the Middle East.

"We need to allow Saddam or Iraq to be seen as defying the UN, not just the US, and that is something Saddam will do if given enough time," Mr Stoll said.

And he added that the United States needs to address the impression that it is acting more even-handedly with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The administration needs to push proposals and concessions that are seen as more even-handed.

For instance, Mr Stoll said the US should call on the Palestinians to pursue basic, fundamental democratic reforms instead of calling for the ouster of Yasser Arafat.

And he said the Bush administration needs to combat impressions of unilateralism.

In the short term, it might tie our hands, Mr Stoll said, but added, "If we are seen as doing what we want, when we want, we will have serious, serious problems."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/2548269.stm

[davetlv]

The fact that the UN has announced that WMD's were shipped out of Iraq prior the war comes as no surprise - Israel's intel. services said that at the time and no one listened! The prime location for those WMD's has got to be Syria.

As for the BBC report. . . I'm getting a little bit sick and tired of hearing the standard mantra that the US would be better respected if they showed "that it is acting more even-handedly with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Why is it only the US gets blamed for not being even handed when the vast majority of this planet, through its inept mouth piece the UN, fail time and time again to take an even handed approcach to the Israel-Palestinian confilict.

As the old saying goes, those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

[delirious]

I'm getting a little bit sick and tired of hearing the standard mantra that the US would be better respected if they showed "that it is acting more even-handedly with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Why is it only the US gets blamed for not being even handed

List of U.S. Vetos at the U.N Security Council related to the Middle East

1. 10 Sep. 1972 Condemned Israel's attacks against southern Lebanon and Syria. Vote: 13 to 1 with 1 abstention
2. 26 Jul. 1973 Affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self determination, statehood and equal protections. Vote: 13 to 1 with China absent
3. 08 Dec. 1975 Condemned Israel air strike and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians. Vote: 13 to 1 with 1 abstention
4. 26 Jan. 1976 Called for self-determination of Palestinian People. Vote: 9 to 1 with 3 abstentions
5. 25 Mar. 1976 Deplored Israel's alteration of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city by most of world nations and the United Nations. Vote 14 to 1
6. 29 Jun. 1976 Affirmed the Inalienable rights of the Palestinian People. Vote 10 to 1 with 4 abstention
7. 30 Apr. 1980 Endorsed self-determination of Palestinian People. Vote 10 to 1 with 4 abstention
8. 20 Jan. 1982 Demands Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Vote 10 to 1 with 4 abstention
9. 01 Apr. 1982 Condemned Israel mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva Conventions Protocols of civilized nations. Vote: 14 to 1
10. 02 Apr. 1982 Condemned an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Moslem worshipers in the Haram al Sharif near Al Aqsa mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem. Vote: 14 to 1
11. 08 Jun. 1982 Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1
12. 26 Jun. 1982 Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut, Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1
13. 06 Aug. 1982 Urged cut-off economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon. Vote: 11 to 1 with 3 abstention
14. 02 Aug. 1983 Condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace. Vote: 13 to 1 with 3 abstention
15. 06 Sep. 1984 Deplored Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urged its withdrawal. Vote: 14 to 1
16. 12 Mar. 1985 Condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounces Israeli "Iron Fist" policy of repression. Vote: 11 to 1 with 3 abstentions
17. 13 Sep. 1985 Denounced Israel's violations of human rights in the occupied territories. Vote 10 to 1 with 4 abstentions
18. 17 Jan. 1986 Strongly deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon.Vote: 11 to 1 with 3 abstentions
19. 30 Jan. 1986 Deplored Israel's activities in the occupied Arab East Jerusalem, which threaten the sanctity of Muslim holy sites. Vote: 13 to 1 with 1 abstention
20. 06 Feb. 1986 Condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan airplane on Feb. 4, Vote: 10 to 1 with 1 abstention
21. 18 Jan. 1988 Strongly deplored Israeli attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon. Vote: 13 to 1 with 1 abstention
22. 01 Feb. 1988 Called on Israel to abandon its policies against Palestinian uprising that violate the rights of occupied Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalize a leading role for the U.N. in future peace negotiations. Vote: 14 to 1
23. 15 Apr. 1988 Urged Israel to accept deported Palestinians, condemned Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and called for a peace settlement under U.N. auspices. Vote: 14 to 1
24. 10 May 1988 Condemned Israel's May 2 incursion into Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1
25. 14 Dec. 1988 Strongly deplored Israel's Dec. 9 commando raids on Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1
26. 17 Feb 19.89 Strongly deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian uprising and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians. Vote: 14 to 1
27. 09 Jun. 1989 Strongly deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians. Vote: 14 to 1
28. 07 Nov. 1989 Demanded Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact finding mission to observe Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian uprising. Vote 14 to 1
29. 31 May 1990 Called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli occupied lands. Vote 14 to 1 . United States casts the lone veto to block a Security Council fact-finding mission to report on abuses of Palestinians in land Israel captured in war.
30. 04 Apr. 1992 Condemned Israel for the killing of four Palestinians and injuring 50 more, 10 of them seriously, in Rafah. Vote: 14 to 1.
31. 04 Dec. 1993 Urges Israel to allow the return of 101 Palestinian Deportees. Vote: 14 to 1.
32. 17 May 1995 Condemning Israel's intention of confiscating 134 Acres of land in East Jerusalem. Vote: 14 to 1. United States blocks a resolution that declared invalid Israel's expropriation of Arab-owned land in east Jerusalem.
33. 15 Apr. 1996 Condemns Israel's closure of the occupied territories. Vote: 14 to 1.
34. 25 Apr. 1996 Condemned Israel for bombing UN quarters in Qana, South Lebanon, and the continuous Israeli attacks.
Vote: 14 to 1.
35. 28 Sep. 1996 Condemned Israeli settlements in Ras Al Amud in Jerusalem. Vote: 14 to 1.
36. 07 Mar. 1997 Called for Israel to stop plans to build settlements in Jabal Abu Ghuneim (Har Homa) in Jerusalem.
Vote: 14 to 1. United States vetoes resolution calling on Israel to refrain from east Jerusalem settlement activity.
37. 21- 22 Mar. 97 Condemned Israeli settlement in Jabal Abu Ghuneim.
Vote: 14 to 1. United States blocks resolution demanding Israel's immediate cessation of construction at an east Jerusalem settlement.
38. March 27, 2001: United States vetoes resolution backing a U.N. observer force to protect Palestinian civilians.

[davetlv]

And now list all the times other countires have continued to vote against Israel, regardless of the debate. List all the General Assembly votes against Israel by the same countires time and time again.

My point is why do you condem the US for supporting Israel constantly and not 85% of the world for always voting against.

Last year Israel submitted a motion to the UN General Assembly, its first ever, about safe guarding children in this region. This motion talked about safe guarding both Israeli and Palestinian children from harm. This motion was withdrawn after pressure from the Arab league ensured that it would not get passed. They only like motions supporting their children and not ours.

If there is a double standard here it certainly isn't being caused by the US.

[delirious]

And now list all the times other countires have continued to vote against Israel, regardless of the debate. List all the General Assembly votes against Israel by the same countires time and time again.

Maybe it's because only the U.S, Israel and a couple of other allies actually support their policies!

My point is why do you condem the US for supporting Israel constantly and not 85% of the world for always voting against.

Because 85% of the world (think the Middle East, Africa, Asia and most of the developing nations) don't support Israeli policies.

Last year Israel submitted a motion to the UN General Assembly, its first ever, about safe guarding children in this region. This motion talked about safe guarding both Israeli and Palestinian children from harm. This motion was withdrawn after pressure from the Arab league ensured that it would not get passed. They only like motions supporting their children and not ours.

If there is a double standard here it certainly isn't being caused by the US.

Really?

Israel proposes first UN resolution

UNITED NATIONS - Israel is proposing its first motion at the United Nations, calling on the world body to protect Israeli children from Palestinian terrorism.

Israel, which has been a frequent target of UN resolutions condemning the country, says the motion will test whether the organization is balanced when dealing with Middle East issues.

The resolution calls for "Israeli children to live a normal life free from terrorism, destruction and fear." The motion is similar to one submitted by Egypt last week condemning Israel for the plight of Palestinian children.

"The test will be if they pass the Palestinian one but not ours,'' deputy Israeli Ambassador Arye Meckel told the Associated Press.

Israeli diplomats said they'd be happy if the General Assembly decided to drop or adopt both resolutions.

Israel has ignored hundreds of UN resolutions condemning the country for its treatment of the Palestinians.

The General Assembly passed twenty resolutions condemning Israel in 2002. The United States vetoed most, saying they are unbalanced and make no mention of Palestinian suicide bombings against Israelis.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/11/05/israel031105

Oh, and by the way, they dropped both resolutions.

[brakada]

Of course there is something stinks.....two things actually. First the American
press lied for political reasons about the severity of Iraq's non-compliance
with U.N. resolutions. Secondly, there is evidence to suggest that the oil-for
food program is corrupt. So now the inspectors are working to try to make
our actions in Iraq look justified so we don't torch the oil-for-food cash-cow.

Yeah, wishful thinking and a nice theory, but I think not. And did you mean the American press or the American pres.? I think the evidence of corruption was already uncovered, so I'd have to disagree with you on that one.

Yes. World powers can act alone whenever they want. The U.S. will continue
to do so as long as our allies fail to look out for our security.

That's a funny one. When the US invaded Afganistan, a lot o countries offered their support and help (they could have done better, I agree) and the campaign had a lot more international support. But on the other hand most of the world doesn't see the connection between American safety and the war in Iraq, which is IMO ought only because of strategic and "imperialistic" reasons and world dominacy. It has no connection with American safety or security.

And besides
Europeans need to realize that Americans and other nationalities do
whatever they want because they have no respect for Europeans. You have 400
million people who don't work, you have politicians who won't stfu and solve
their own problems, you have a bomb you'll never use and a military you'll
never deploy.

Gosh! I sure wish we had American politicians in Europe. Yeah, Arnold for president of the EU. He's ours, we want him back...
...yeah, right. Keep him.

You definitely have an interesting opinion on Europe. Well, I think your thoughts on the hardworking American people are definitely overrated by far. Why do most american companies move or have moved their production facilities to Asia? It's probably not, because the American people work that hard. The Americans probably do make the most money though, but that doesn't mean they are the most hard-working people in the world.
Far from it.

Well, here's what I think: America owes a lot of its economic success to both WW. Europe, Japan, China and Russia and a couple of other countries had to fight these wars on their own territory (Pearl Harbor doesn't count), and a lot if not most of their industrial and economy infrastructure was destroyed during the wars, thus in most cases they had to start from a scratch. (The Americans offeres a lot of help in those times, for which I appreciate them, but they probably didn't do it for "free". You keep forgetting that a lot of scientist and rich people moved to the states because of opposing to Nazi regimes (so yes, I think American economy and science should be kind of thankul to Hitler :wink: ) and they remained in the States after the war. Even after the war a lot of scientists were brought (or forced) to come to the US (rocket scientist, weapon engineers,...). And the people who came to the States were hard working Europeans... Even after the war the USA "imported" a lot of scientists and workers from all around the world while the average American rednecks kept getting fat and scratched their asses.

What exactly is supposed to inspire us to believe that
Europe is a place worth listening to? Whether or not you choose to realize it,
outside of the socialist paradise you are working so hard to construct life is
evolving at a rapid pace, and its not evolving towards socialistic control. Why
do you think there is a resurgence of struggle between capitalism and totalitarianism
in the Middle East and Asia???? Hint: It's not because capitalism/democracy is shrinking.
Around the world new frontiers are being pioneered and there are 4-5 billion
people waiting to be able to pull themselves out of poverty for the first time and
enjoy pursuing freedoms that we Westerners take for granted.

Noone claims that Europe is a place worth listening to. At least I have heard of noone. If you hadn't noticed, Europe doesn't even have its own opinion regarding international politics. I am sick of people who think that Europeans are opposing the US because of their jealousy of the American "success". It is simply not true. Maybe with France that is the case (since France always wanted to be looked upon as a world super power), but other countries are IMO definitely jealous. In the past century we have learned that nothing good can come out of wars, and that the peaceful solution is always better, yet difficult to achieve. Can't the US learn nothing on the mistakes learnt by others. Must they find out everything the hard way. I have millions of problems with the EU (including their foreign politics) and I DO NOT regard the EU as an ideallistic community of "happy" peaceful countries.

I agree that capitalism is the future, but I do not see anything "capitalistic" in the War on Terrorism. Connect the two for me, as I am sure you will be able to. :wink: And there is a difference between capitalism and imperialism or world domination.

The only person in the whole of Europe who fucking understands that is
"George Bush's personal fluffer", Tony Blair. He knows that life outside of
Europe is evolving and that Europe is just sitting on the bench, looking at
themselves in a fucking vanity mirror, while bitching at everyone on the field
when they aren't even in the goddamn game.

You put that well "the only person"... Oh wait, there are a couple more (spain's ex prime minister, Poland's president, Slovenian foreign minister, and probably a couple of other sad US ass-kissing individuals ). Can you explain why European countries were not targeted by Al quaeda before the war in Iraq began. The first Al-quaeda (european) attack took place in Madrid, this year. And why did Bin Laden offer peace to Europeans and not Americans (as much as it was worth :wink: ).

So put that in your pipe and smoke it. BTW even though that sounds like a
really pissed of rant, it is actually a challenge to everyone. If you want to
have a say in what goes on in this world, you have to be powerful, important and
respected. Whiney and beautiful just won't cut it these days.

My pipe is already smokin'. As delirious said, you have to be respected, which isn't the case with the US today. It also can't be, when having such double standards. Co-operating with Saudi Arabia, whose citizens probably support a lot more terrorism than Sadam ever was, just doesn't make sense. And how come Pakistan is not on the Axis of evil: a country with nuclear weapons and a shaky dictatorship, which can crumble almost at any time (Alah only knows who will have the control of the red button when that happens, but he/she will probably not be a great American friend as the current president "is" or pretends to be).

So, now you go and stuff your pipe... :wink:

[delirious]

. Co-operating with Saudi Arabia, whose citizens probably support a lot more terrorism than Sadam ever was, just doesn't make sense. And how come Pakistan is not on the Axis of evil: a country with nuclear weapons and a shaky dictatorship, which can crumble almost at any time (Alah only knows who will have the control of the red button when that happens, but he/she will probably not be a great American friend as the current president "is" or pretends to be).

So, now you go and stuff your pipe... :wink:

The chairman of the Sept. 11 commission said yesterday that Al Qaeda had much more interaction with Iran and Pakistan than it did with Iraq, underscoring a controversy over the Bush administration's insistence that there was collaboration between the terrorist organization and Saddam Hussein.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/06/21/sept_11_chair_defines_iraq_qaeda_contact/

[mylexicon]

That's a funny one. When the US invaded Afganistan, a lot o countries offered their support and help (they could have done better, I agree) and the campaign had a lot more international support. But on the other hand most of the world doesn't see the connection between American safety and the war in Iraq, which is IMO ought only because of strategic and "imperialistic" reasons and world dominacy. It has no connection with American safety or security.

Rome did whatever it wanted to for over 400 years. Egypt did whatever it
wanted to for 1000+ years; the Chinese for 500+; the British for 50 years.
And all of them were stopped either by some else becoming more powerful
or from internal corruption and insolence.

Well, I think your thoughts on the hardworking American people are definitely overrated by far. Why do most american companies move or have moved their production facilities to Asia? It's probably not, because the American people work that hard.

Where the hell did you go to school? The reason Americans are moving
production overseas is because of wage competition. In the United States
we have raised minimum wage continually in order to compensate workers
for the rise in cost of living. During this time we have helped bring minimum
wage workers out of poverty but we have also cause millions of jobs to be
exported to India and China, etc. because we can pay them far less, get the
same productivity, and the money we give them will buy them even more
than it could in the states. It has nothing to do with how hard the average
American works.

I am sick of people who think that Europeans are opposing the US because of their jealousy of the American "success". It is simply not true. Maybe with France that is the case (since France always wanted to be looked upon as a world super power), but other countries are IMO definitely jealous.

I agree completely, I don't like it when people say that Europe is
jealous, because people who have learned about the ways of Europe know
they are proud and happy to be different than we are. That's fine
by me.

Can you explain why European countries were not targeted by Al quaeda before the war in Iraq began. The first Al-quaeda (european) attack took place in Madrid, this year. And why did Bin Laden offer peace to Europeans and not Americans (as much as it was worth ).

Thank you for proving my point. Europe has been sitting on the sidelines
refusing to participate in any of the controversy occuring overseas. Obviously,
if Al-Qaeda is trying to stop the West they are not going to attack the bench
warmer before they attack the players on the field. You should be
both flattered and appalled that the terrorists offered you peace. You should
be flattered because they see you sitting on the bench and they know that
you are the key to their destruction. As long as they keep you on the sidelines
it hurts America more, which is what they want. You should be appalled
becuase it shows that they don't see you as a current threat to their cause.
They don't think that Europe poses any current/immediate threat as long as
they just sit there idle.

Look the entire world is like one giant nuclear family, okay? The U.S. is the dad, the
EU is the mom, and all the other nations are the children. At some point
neither of us will be on top of the heap, but we have a responsiblity to
teach (not indoctrinate) what we have learned about creating the most powerful
and wealthiest nations on earth; and obviously we are obliged to learn from
our children.

Here is a little skit to illustrate our roles:

Dad: China, i thought i told you to take a fucking bath and stop being so
goddamn dirty.

China: Mom said i didn't have to.

EU: Yeah, i told him he doesn't have to tonight, besides you are dirty than
he is why should he have to take a bath?



Or here's another classic.

[pakistan and india are fighting in the back seat of the car]

EU: India! Pakistan! Stop fighting right now, someone is going to get hurt.

[India and Pakistan crack up and keep punching one another]

U.S.: Goddammit you two! Stop hitting one another right now or i'm going to
pull this car over and spank you both, right here on the side of the road.

[fighting stops and Mom, India and Pakistan all turn their angry sentiments
towards dad for making a big scene]

Dad makes the bacon, Dad busts his ass without any thanks from the wife
or kids, but he does it because he knows he has to. Mom plays a very important
role, she takes care of everyone and protects them from "evil" dad
Of course, the mom is much better liked by the children.....thats the way it
was meant to be.....but the dad is still respected.

The problem is, in this day and age we have got a bunch of rebellious
teenagers running around who are telling the mom to stfu and are picking
fights with their syblings and with dad. We have to teach them our ways and
let them develop their own opinions so this globe will reamain in one piece
even when we aren't running the show.

The kids are growing up and their isn't much need for an old nagging bitch
anymore. The kids don't need nuturing they need direction and they need
financial help to get on their feet. The EU can either put their
maternity clothes in the trash and put the business suit back on, or they can
sit there, eating ice cream in their stupid moo-moo dresses while dreaming
about the days when they were young, beautiful, and powerful.

The choice is yours. I hope you put your suit back on and start kicking some
ass so that we can be equals again, and enjoy the rest of the time we have
left as leaders of the globe. :wink:

If you actually read this whole thing i'm gonna give you some karma, when
we get it back

[MJDub]

mylexicon, that just made my day. The family analogy is great, and it fits perfectly.

So STFU EU and just give big daddy some sugar. :P

[mylexicon]

mylexicon, that just made my day. The family analogy is great, and it fits perfectly.

So STFU EU and just give big daddy some sugar. :P

LoL, i was waiting for the sexual remarks to start BTW everyone who
reads that post should take the analogy with a grain of salt :wink: