Good thing we invaded Iraq

[PhillyKev 0]

I've seen the Somalia issue brought up several times. Just a little FYI for you guys. Somalia was a UN operation, not US. US troops went into an area and when they got ambushed they called for UN reinforcements who did not respond. They were too busy trying to figure out the chain of command and what they were permitted to do.

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

Quote

They were too busy trying to figure out the chain of command and what they were permitted to do.

...Because the US took action in the first place without consulting the rest of their UN buddies.

[juanesky 0]

Hey Jason,

I agree with you 100% in this matter. This so called EU people, not for the fact of the European union, but coming from the old continent, I guess they need an explanation about who has starter both world wars. They seem not to understand, that thanks to all the european countries involved in the first one, was not called world war until US got involved in 1917, I guess Russia is part of Europe based on a some new map that is too complex for us to understand.

World War II, started with a liason of Italy, JAPAN, and Germany, having the japanese take over some parts of CHina, and even though the war was declared much after Germany (Europe?), was able to take over the now Check- slovakia republics, while the French and Britons thought about things, and sat around, waiting for them to get stronger and find things worse, and made up their inds after Germany invaded Polland.

So Mikkey, don't get mad, and don't negate that ALL the COUNTRIES that started both World Wars were not EUROPEAN in nature. Got it? comprende?

US started to create opposition to Japan advances in indochina. So now, I guess this was a really bad thing to our friends now. Gee I wonder if I really want this type of friendship.....

You may want to describe us as ignoring your friends, and that the US does not understand the complexities of the world, The US has allways in some form or another has provided help with those less fortunate, perhaps not sufficient enough, but on major disasters, they have always provided with some relief, they helped relieved and rebuild Europe, with their own money, yet when the shit has hit the fan here, no one is willing to help over here.

So don't patronize about selfishness, please back your words with action before you are even willing to discuss something with TRUE FACTS.

and I'm not angry at all, I just love to hear when people think that they are right by all means, I still think that there is no good solution either way, if you try to advocate peace, it won't work, I guess I would prefer protecting my own first.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Tonto 1]

"So, unless you are Jesus, I am sure they are not coming back. "

LMFAO

Sorry. Been watching too much "JAG"

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

[teachers hat on]
The EU and Europe are not the same thing.
The EU was not around during either of the first 2 World Wars.
It had not been formed.
[teachers hat off]

comprende?

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

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Tonto 1]

"Because the US took action in the first place without consulting the rest of their UN buddies. "

Think there's a trend there?

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Think there's a trend there? "

Nah, they were late for the last two parties, so they've been trying the next one early ever since.

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

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[PhillyKev 0]

Exactly...I think its kind of hypocritical to get all pissy that the US does things without consulting Europeans first and then getting mad that the US wants to be consulted when Europeans do something.

Not defending or condemning our actions with this post. But a lot of the criticism I hear from Europeans can be equally applied to them as well. But some have a them vs. us attitude and are always willing to blame one side or the other. It's bias, pure and simple.

If you want to discuss specific issues and how things were handled wrong, that's one thing. But to make blanket statements like "the US always does this", etc. You're just being biased and not rational.

[juanesky 0]

If you read my post before this one, you will find the reference when I'm stating the EU stands corrected for the old continent. I know that this union did not ocurred but until 1992, and recently with the adopted Euro Dollar as common currency, as well as the ongoing debate on a cosntitution for them.

It is not anything I got against this at all, I think this was a major achievement for mankind, and somewhat reassuring that the conflicts of the past, which has dragged world wide war, will hardly occur at least on the old continent.

What I don't agree with is the fact that when most people try to advocate peace, tend to finger point to the US as a sole creator of problems, they tend to forget what history has taught us AD and on. I'm not saying that US is perfect, for it is not and no one will ever be, but we have a serious problem world wide and the emphasis should be to put the foot down and solve the issues at hand, and stop bickering about the petty things. We should unite in sending a strong message to rogue nations, who intend to arm themselves when they don't want to follow UN guidelines, or just as they see fit. I was very concerned by the UN when for example, they went through endless rethoric and time wasting for just the fact that they would not allow the Swiss flag just because the form was different. Can you imagine the credibility of an institution that should care for greater problems than that wasting countless time and money for such a little matter?

I don't, but if you can explain this let me know.

Thanks for your correction by the way.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Scratch 0]

Quote

Nah, they were late for the last two parties

Bwhahahahahaha.

Arrived late. Drank the only sixpack remaining and cannot figure out why the rest of the partiers still have a hangover.

[billvon 2,425]

>We don't have anyone any better to replace him.

Powell.

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

Quote

Powell.

OK I agree completely! Only problem is, he won't run against gw, so I have to remember to write him in.

And will he even run after bush?

[billvon 2,425]

>And will he even run after bush?

Nope, he wants out of politics at these levels. Which is the problem with smart people - they realize they don't want such a difficult and thankless job.

[kallend 1,643]

Quote

You should ad that the old EU was the only sponsor of both WW that I know of, and then asked US for HELP

Not sure exactly what you mean by that, but historically it was Hitler that declared war on the US, not the other way around. Generally speaking a country goes to war when war is declared on it. Until then, the US did not provide a great deal of help beyond normal trade, and thanks to Joe Kennedy and Prescott Bush the US also did a whole lot of trade with Nazi Germany.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,643]

Quote

"This can never be a debate, for WWII started Sept 1, 1939."

Actually, it can be debated.

Russia and Germany's attack on Poland started on 01 Sept 1939.

WW2 started when Britain declared war on Germany on 03 September 1939.

t

Britain AND FRANCE.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,425]

>Just because they are kids, doesn't mean that they are not as/more
> dangerous as the adults.

So why was freeing those children one of the reasons we went to war?

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

Quote

>Just because they are kids, doesn't mean that they are not as/more
> dangerous as the adults.

So why was freeing those children one of the reasons we went to war?

I think you are confused on this. My statement was in response to your complaint that Iraqis as young as 11 were being arrested by US Forces. I, in no way, claimed this to be a reason for going to war.

[billvon 2,425]

>There is no actual proof of this, of course, but the two of them,
> (saddam and bin laden) were at the very least in contact with each
> other before and directly after the bombing.

Hmm. Perhaps we could also claim that Hussein did not allow inspectors into Iraq a few months before we attacked him. I mean, there's no proof of that either, but it makes him sound bad.

[billvon 2,425]

>I, in no way, claimed this to be a reason for going to war.

OK, sorry. I had just heard the "But we freed the children from that evil dictator!" line so often that I forgot who-all had been saying it.

[juanesky 0]

Not sure exactly what you mean by that, but historically it was Hitler that declared war on the US, not the other way around 1941 . Generally speaking a country goes to war when war is declared on it.

And I guess Hitler is Russian?


Until then, the US did not provide a great deal of help beyond normal trade, and what about the flying tigers? I thought they wer helping china combat japs before 12/07/41. Maybe you got a book I don't got.

and thanks to Joe Kennedy and Prescott Bush the US also did a whole lot of trade with Nazi Germany.

[nigel99 144]

well definetaly not aimed personally at any american individuals ut I think Mikkey has a valid point. Especially that large percentage of the world feels threatened by America and not protected by it. One just has to look at the string of international laws that the US is breaking (Malawi suspects, G Bay, even the Iraq issue looks seriously unlawfull as time goes on). Added to this the US refuses to sign up to the international war crimes court.
I get the real feeling that US and to lesser extent the UK are in the process of actively creating a 2nd cold war error (specifically with the Islamic world). I get fed up of daily broadcasts of "most dangerous times in history" yada yada. Especially UK who have knee jerked reaction to 9/11 after sitting and living with the IRA on their door step for god knows how long?
Well end of rant

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Just as a reminder look at what happened in the Human Rights chamber....Hhhmmmm Libya, syria? and US out?

Since 1990, only six countries have executed people for crimes they committed as children: Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, and the United States. The U.S. has executed more children than any of the other countries, despite the fact that every major international human rights treaty expressly prohibits execution for crimes committed before the age of 18.

Quote

SO yes I guess US is very famous of treating the POW they retain, when they give them the food they eat, let them pray, etc, etc.

Does "etc" include not telling anyone who we've got or allowing the Red Cross access to them? Continuing to hold them after we've toppled their government and replaced it with another?

Quote

Oh sure, just ask the germans and Japs that were over here when WWII happened and get them together with those of the allies and exchange stories.

Are you referring to the U.S. citizens of Japanese descent that we put into "relocation" camps solely because of their heritage? Yeah, there's a great testament to our respect for human rights.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Jib 0]

Quote

Added to this the US refuses to sign up to the international war crimes court.

Why would the US want to submit itself to that? It has no advantage for us.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[freakydiver 0]

Too bad NO ONE knows the truth Bill.

Although I'm with you, it still begs the question - maybe the world is a safer place because of what we did? Just maybe.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Why would the US want to submit itself to that? It has no advantage for us.

Well, that's kind of the point. We want and expect others to be tried for war crimes, but don't want to be subjected to it ourselves. It kind of insinuates that we want everyone to be accountable for their actions except us.