Found!

[WithStamin]

Click (http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickabilit y.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expire=-1&urlID=6729313&fb=Y&partnerID=2006)
About time... now was the war still the wrong thing to do?

I realize that it's not a "smoking gun", but it's certainly a good find.

[charly horse]

put that in zachs face

[evil zach]

I'm guessing you both missed this
U.S. officials: Find is not smoking gun
but anyway, I still say the war was wrong. All along I had been saying that even if the weapons do exists, whats the problem? Bu$hie has them, and I can give you a 100% garuntee that has no plans to get rid of them any time soon. The U$ alone has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over. Now throw the UK, France, Isreal, India, China, Russia, several former soviet republics, Pakistan, and North Korea into the mix. Aside from north korea, none of these countries have been recently called upon by the U$ to disarm. Seeing as all or most of the nations have the means to deliver these weapons, and Iraq dosn't I still belive that Bu$h was either a)going to war over oil, b)trying to create a distraction from the fact he has been unable to capture Osama, c)Trying to create a distraction from how much he's fucked up the economy, or d)he's pulling enemies out of his ass.
Once agian I would like to remined you that, this isn't a smokeing gun, but even if the weapons do exists, thats irrelevent as far as I'm concerned. As a result of this war, up to 7042 innocent iraqi's have died, unemployment rates are as high as 60%, many people are still without power or water, and anti american sentiments are higher then ever. To put it simply, war=more terrorist attacks against americans. The invasion of Iraq was the best thing that could have possibly happend to Osama bin Laden after September 11th. Osama started Al Queda becuase of the first gulf war, so comon logic would state that a second gulf war would only fuel his hatred for America, as well as many others', creating the perfect atmosphere for him to gain some new recuits. So much for fighting terrorism.
What I find most ironic about all of this, is that the main justification for the war was that if (and untill it is 100% proven that weapons existed or he had an operating weapons program it will remain an if)he had weapons it was a violation of international law. That is true. However, international law also states that inorder for a country to attack another it must be either a)in defence of a direct attack or b)aproved by the UN. This was neither. Therfor, it was also a violation of international law. Now you could say that the US is a foregn nation who shouldn't have to answer to a higher power, but if thats your logic, then why should saddam have to answer to a higher power? You could also say that US should not have even been in the UN to begin with, but the fact of the matter is they are. That makes them bound by UN charter, and if they break it, they must be punished (although I doubt that will happen). You could also say that it was never really about the weapons, but to oust a corrupt regiem. If thats the case, then start a letter writing campaig requesting the bush bombs the following nations:Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, China, Belerus, Columbia, Isreal, Palestine, Syria, Iran, Cuba, the continent of Africa, Indoniesia, South and North Korea (both have gross human rights violations) Laos, Burma, Singapore, and many other countries, but If I were to list them all I'd be here all night.

Essentally, Saddam could have opend "Crazy Saddam's WMD Emporium And Coffee Shop" in down town Baghdad, and I'd still be against the war

[yeat182]

Originally posted by evil zach
. The U$ alone has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over. Now throw the UK, France, Isreal, India, China, Russia, several former soviet republics, Pakistan, and North Korea into the mix. Aside from north korea, none of these countries have been recently called upon by the U$ to disarm.


Iraq wasn't recently called upon to get rid of their WMD's they agreed to under the terms of the ceasefire agreement that THEY signed 12 years ago. Also, the Ukraine, and South Africa were asked by the UN to get rid of their WMD's and both countries did so quickly, voluntarily and with out any problems, Iraq did not.

As a result of this war, up to 7042 innocent iraqi's have died, unemployment rates are as high as 60%, many people are still without power or water, and anti american sentiments are higher then ever.

65% of Iraqis were in favor of the american presence as of last week...

To put it simply, war=more terrorist attacks against americans. The invasion of Iraq was the best thing that could have possibly happend to Osama bin Laden after September 11th. Osama started Al Queda becuase of the first gulf war, so comon logic would state that a second gulf war would only fuel his hatred for America, as well as many others', creating the perfect atmosphere for him to gain some new recuits. So much for fighting terrorism. [/qoute]

doing nothing isn't going to decrease the number of terrorist attacks, ignoring the problems of the world won't make us any safer. muslim fanatics already want to kill americans, we shouldn't be afraid to act because we might make them mad, they are already mad, and running our country with the idea as to not upset the fundamentalists is a stupid idea.


[quote]What I find most ironic about all of this, is that the main justification for the war was that if (and untill it is 100% proven that weapons existed or he had an operating weapons program it will remain an if)he had weapons it was a violation of international law. That is true. However, international law also states that inorder for a country to attack another it must be either a)in defence of a direct attack or b)aproved by the UN. This was neither. Therfor, it was also a violation of international law. Now you could say that the US is a foregn nation who shouldn't have to answer to a higher power, but if thats your logic, then why should saddam have to answer to a higher power?

yes, but Iraq had signed a cease fire agreement with the US, not the UN, and they broke that agreement, and that, under international law, is justification for war

[BrandNewRock05]

Sure you throw out a number like 7000 iraqis died to make people feel guilty. Typical liberal tactic. But how many of those were killed by the Iraqis dressed up as American soldiers in order to give the US a bad name? How many of those were slaughtered by the Republican Guard for supporting the US? You conviniently forget to mention that. As well as the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people killed by Saddam prior to the war. We have PETA complaining about us eating a chicken wing when we have a MASS MURDER going on across the world. I think GENOCIDE is much worse than a McNugget. Even if there are no WMD's, which I highly doubt, I would still be for the war. I am for the removal of any leader who kills their own in Holocaust-like fashion. And you people keep saying that the US isnt the world's police, and I wish you were right, but no matter what the US does, we get the blame. If we dont help out, we are bitched at for not helping, and if we do help we are bitched at for stickin our nose in others business. So despite what people say, the US is the world's police, like it or not. People have come to expect the US to be a helping hand, and that will not change for a while.

[evil zach]

Sure you throw out a number like 7000 iraqis died to make people feel guilty. Typical liberal tactic. But how many of those were killed by the Iraqis dressed up as American soldiers in order to give the US a bad name? How many of those were slaughtered by the Republican Guard for supporting the US? You conviniently forget to mention that.
then I'll mention it now. 0
As well as the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people killed by Saddam prior to the war.
Typical conservative tactic. At what point have I ever tried to justify Saddam Hussiens actions? Never. With that out of the way, It would be greatly apreciated if you would stop making those implications.
We have PETA complaining about us eating a chicken wing when we have a MASS MURDER going on across the world.
PETA is completly irrelevent to this conversation
I think GENOCIDE is much worse than a McNugget.
Then I guess you were protesting the U$ backed genocide of the east timorese (I think thats right) by Indonesian General Suharto since the 60's? I suppose your also protesting the US standing idly by while the turks persecute the kurds.
I would still be for the war. I am for the removal of any leader who kills their own in Holocaust-like fashion.
Then as soon as your 18, you can back up your words with action and join the military, and remove the governments that I mentioned in my previous post, and then some.
If we dont help out, we are bitched at for not helping,
maybe that wouldn't happen if it wasn't for the blatent hypocracy of the U$ government in terms of who needs help and who dosn't.
and if we do help we are bitched at for stickin our nose in others business.
There is a general distrust in the world around U$ motives for involvement. And allowing private coroporations, and the Vice President to profit from the war, arn't doing much to help fix that

[Matthew]

Bush is alair, he has lost all face with me already. No matter what we find in Iraq, it will never amount to the immenent war-justifying threat that was presented to the AMerican people. He palyed on the fears of the citizens, creating night-mare scenarios of chemical and biological and nuclear terrorism that could not have been pulled off. He lied in saying that he was told by nuclear power authoritues that iraq could go nuclearl; they are all firm that it could not. intellignece has revealed that they were pressured to lie; the US's only defense: they ONLY pressured intellgience to lie about cuba.

we have been lied to, exploited, and misled. clintonlied to our legal system about his personal affairs, and an action was taken. bush has conciously misled every american citizen for the promotion of his own agenda. i think an impeachment is more than in order.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Matthew
Bush is alair, he has lost all face with me already. No matter what we find in Iraq, it will never amount to the immenent war-justifying threat that was presented to the AMerican people. He palyed on the fears of the citizens, creating night-mare scenarios of chemical and biological and nuclear terrorism that could not have been pulled off.


they also said that they could never pull off hijacking 4 planes simultaniously, and they could never pull off nearly sinking a US destroyer with a rubber raft...but they were proven wrong.

[MestNFG]

Hell yeah, YEAT182....well said.

[evil zach]

they also said that the 9/11 attacks were conducted simply out of hatred for freedom. Either they were lieing or just very naive

[WithStamin]

Wow... today I got a real look at liberal media bias in action. I expected this to be on the front page of the paper this morning. After all, it's the proof that everyone's been asking for. I get the paper, and the headlines talk about a water shortage and some biking accident. I scour the paper. Nothing. I'm now convinced that The Oregonian just wants to make Bush look bad. Anyone see anything about the nuke part in their paper?

[evil zach]

I dont really pay attention to the papers but I would imagine nothing was said about it beacuse
U.S. officials: Find is not smoking gun

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by evil zach
then I'll mention it now. 0
How do you know? Dont you recall those dickheads dressed up as Americans who would make civilians put their hands up, and then they would slaughter them? I doubt that the liberal news source that you got this from subtracted these deaths. I'm not going to bullshit you, the US accidently killed some civilians, but it wasnt the 7000 that you threw out.

Originally posted by evil zach
Typical conservative tactic. At what point have I ever tried to justify Saddam Hussiens actions? Never. With that out of the way, It would be greatly apreciated if you would stop making those implications. I know you dont justify his actions, I am just saying that with Saddam still in power, who knows how many more would have died. With Saddam out, those innocents who would have been murdered for no reason will not have died. The war may have saved lives.

Originally posted by evil zach
PETA is completly irrelevent to this conversation.
I know. I just find it hilarious that people from the same side of the spectrum find troubles in chickens being killed, but not in humans being killed

Originally posted by evil zach
Then I guess you were protesting the U$ backed genocide of the east timorese (I think thats right) by Indonesian General Suharto since the 60's? I suppose your also protesting the US standing idly by while the turks persecute the kurds.. I dont know what you are talking about with East Timorese, but I dont believe that the US is innocent. I think any sort of mass murdering leader should be shot in the forehead and have his dead body dragged around town on a shitting donkey. Its terrible. So if what you say is going on in Timorese, which I have no clue about, I would definentaly be against it. And in the 60's all presidents were liberals. Not that really has anything to do with it, but just wanted to bring that up. LBJ has got to be the worst president ever. And as far as te turks and the kurds go, I dont support either side, the Turks are wrong for what they are doing, as well as the Kurds. Unfortunentaly peace is VERY hard to come by, and you have to pick your battles. Such as the Israel/Palestine fued. There will never be peace. Thats just the truth, I sure as hell wish there would be, but it wont happen. Pick your battles.

Originally posted by evil zach
Then as soon as your 18, you can back up your words with action and join the military, and remove the governments that I mentioned in my previous post, and then some.
I plan on trying to get into the Navy Academy in Annapolis. And if I dont get in, I am going to college and then joining the military. I believe the military is the best thing this country has going for it, and I feel obligated to join the military. As far back as I know, every generation of men in my family have been military personel. I would be honored to join the military.

Originally posted by evil zach
maybe that wouldn't happen if it wasn't for the blatent hypocracy of the U$ government in terms of who needs help and who dosn't. explain this hypocracy to me

Originally posted by evil zach
There is a general distrust in the world around U$ motives for involvement. And allowing private coroporations, and the Vice President to profit from the war, arn't doing much to help fix that
Thanks to Liberal Europe the world does hate the US. And as far as I know, nobody has profited from the war, but I am not sure about that, so correct me if I am wrong.

[evil zach]

How do you know? Dont you recall those dickheads dressed up as Americans who would make civilians put their hands up, and then they would slaughter them? I doubt that the liberal news source that you got this from subtracted these deaths. I'm not going to bullshit you, the US accidently killed some civilians, but it wasnt the 7000 that you threw out.
here is my source. www.iraqbodycount.net. They provide a case by case data base here (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm)
Before you go on a rant about how it it isn;t credible enough, you can look at their sources here (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#methods)
dont know what you are talking about with East Timorese, .... So if what you say is going on in Timorese, which I have no clue about, I would definentaly be against it. And in the 60's all presidents were liberals. Not that really has anything to do with it, but just wanted to bring that up.
The U$ governments support of of General Suharto untill the late 90's. In fact it was the Clinton administartion the stoped supporting him. I'll see if I can find a link so you can see what I'm talking about
explain this hypocracy to me
saudi arabia, china, etc.
enough said
Thanks to Liberal Europe the world does hate the US. And as far as I know, nobody has profited from the war, but I am not sure about that, so correct me if I am wrong.
Why don't you just balme cancer on "Liberal Europe" while your at it?

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by evil zach
I dont really pay attention to the papers but I would imagine nothing was said about it beacuse


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. officials: Find is not smoking gun
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then what is a smoking gun? Do you want them to blow up a nuke in NYC first? If they had a part for a nuclear weapon, do you think that might show some of their intentions?

[yeat182]

this may not be a "smoking gun", but it is a step in the right direction. it proves that it is worth taking the time to search iraq...remember how everyone thought that the Iraqi national museum was looted, when in fact it took them about two weeks to realize that everything had been moved to a secure bunker years before? if something as simple as misplacing artifacts takes that long to sort out, it will take time to find any WMD's, and this is a good first step.

[MestNFG]

Originally posted by evil zach
here is my source. www.iraqbodycount.net. They provide a case by case data base [


LMFAO......THAT"S your "source." Jesus Christ........

[MestNFG]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Then what is a smoking gun? Do you want them to blow up a nuke in NYC first? If they had a part for a nuclear weapon, do you think that might show some of their intentions?

Sadly...that's the proof that some people will need.:mad:

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by MestNFG
Sadly...that's the proof that some people will need.:mad: Dude you gotta fix your sig, its "motherfucking po-lice" you gotta say it like "poh" as in pope. Po-lice. Ha ha

[evil zach]

Originally posted by MestNFG
LMFAO......THAT"S your "source." Jesus Christ........
I realy love the way you left out the part where I left a link for the CASE BY CASE data base, and their sources. Did you even click on the click, or just pass judgement upon reading the name?
I'll give the links one more time so you can actully go through the site, and see for your self the soucres they use (New York Times, Christian Science Moniter, CNN, FOX News, etc.) and you can see each incedent where innocent Iraqi's have died. If you still don't belive it then you can takeout your caluculator and do the math your self.
www.iraqbodycount.net

[MestNFG]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Dude you gotta fix your sig, its "motherfucking po-lice" you gotta say it like "poh" as in pope. Po-lice. Ha ha

hahaha...gotcha dude. i forgot!

[DevilMayCare]

Originally posted by cal1082
How's the Vice President profiting from the war? Obviously private corporations are going to profit from rebuilding Iraq. It's our job to rebuild Iraq, and we choose American companies to do this. What is wrong with this?
Ever heard of a little company called Haliburton? its owned by none other than cheney. this company a small number of other corporations were given contracts to "rebuild" iraq, therefore making them money. that's how the VP of this wonderful country is profiting from this war

[papathomas]

Originally posted by evil zach
then I'll mention it now. 0 i thought at the beggining of the war when we were bombing Baghdad and civilians were fleeing the Republican Guard would shoot people who were fleeing. i may be wrong.

[BustaNutz]

Ok wait, you find a twelve year old piece of nuclear technology that was buried and it helps justify this war? Wait a minute what was twelve years ago? The Gulf War, and we ordered Saddam to get rid of his weapons, so he buried some, and now we find it and it justifies us going in again? Haha, no! If anything that proves Saddam did comply to what we asked. This is another example of the US grasping at straws.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by DevilMayCare
Ever heard of a little company called Haliburton? its owned by none other than cheney. this company a small number of other corporations were given contracts to "rebuild" iraq, therefore making them money. that's how the VP of this wonderful country is profiting from this war

it isn't owned by cheney

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
The Gulf War, and we ordered Saddam to get rid of his weapons, so he buried some, and now we find it and it justifies us going in again? Haha, no! If anything that proves Saddam did comply to what we asked.

not complying after 12 years and breaking 17 UN resolutions is cause for war.

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by yeat182
not complying after 12 years and breaking 17 UN resolutions is cause for war.

Do me a favor, I want you to go online, and search for how many resolutions the US is broken and pulled out of or just never signed to begin with. Then I want you to come back and look me in the face and repeat what you've just said and not feel like a hypocrite. Because we've broken quite a few. And if they buried weapons technology twelve years ago, guess what, that means in some part they complied.

[evil zach]

Originally posted by yeat182
it isn't owned by cheney
he is a major share holder though

[BustaNutz]

In fact let me give you a list of things we have and haven't done, here are some resolutions the US was the sole "no" vote on:

-a resolution for aid in underdeveloped nations
-a resolution for for the promotion of developing nation's exports
-a resolution versus multinational corporate operations in South Africa
-a resolution for protecting developing nations in trade agreements
-a resolution versus naval arms races
-a resolution for an anti-apartheid convention
-a resolution for a nuclear test ban treaty (multiple times)
-a resolution for world charter to protect ecology
-a resolution for the right to food
-a resolution for UN response mechanism for natural disasters
-a resolution for industrial development decade in Africa
-a resolution versus manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction
-a resolution versus chemical and biological weapons (mulitiple times)

I stop here for a moment, read those last two again. Read it well, we're going into Iraq to disarm them of weapons we didn't vote to ban and didn't vote to oppose manufacturing of. It's ok for us to do it, but not Iraq, Hypocrisy? Hmmmm... maybe.

-a resolution for development as a human right
-a resolution for improved UN response to human rights abuses

Once again, we use this as an excuse to justify our war, yet it didn't seem too important when it was a resolution on the floor.

Other notables, we were one of two of three countries which opposed:
-a resolution versus israeli nuclear weapons
-a resolution versus foreign intervention into other countries

Hmmm, that makes some sense...

-a resolution for the non-use of nuclear weapons vs. non-nuclear states.
-a resolution versus Israeli human rights abuses (Numerous times)
-a resolution versus South African apartheid (Numerous times)
-a resolution for an embargo on apartheid in South Africa
-a resolution for a middle east peace conference

Also the US has refused to renew the AMB (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty), refused to sign the Anti-Biological Weapons Convention, refused to sign the UN covenant on Economic and Social rights and has repeatedly refused to sign anything that would better the living conditions/rights of Palestinians.

So yeah, about this war, we're definitely the moral favorites here aren't we? This was totally justified wasn't it?

P.S. If you'd like my sources, just go to the UN website and lok through the treaty votes and check, each and everyone of these is true. This information was compiled by Robert Elias, a Professor of Political Science at the University of San Francisco, California. The link is: http://www.tanbou.com/2001/fall/USForeignPolicyElias.htm

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
And if they buried weapons technology twelve years ago, guess what, that means in some part they complied.

they didn't bury it because they were complying, they buried so that once the UN lifted sanctions, they could re-start their programs...

[yeat182]

Originally posted by evil zach
he is a major share holder though

true.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
In fact let me give you a list of things we have and haven't done, here are some resolutions the US was the sole "no" vote on:

-a resolution for aid in underdeveloped nations
-a resolution for for the promotion of developing nation's exports
-a resolution versus multinational corporate operations in South Africa
-a resolution for protecting developing nations in trade agreements
-a resolution versus naval arms races
-a resolution for an anti-apartheid convention
-a resolution for a nuclear test ban treaty (multiple times)
-a resolution for world charter to protect ecology
-a resolution for the right to food
-a resolution for UN response mechanism for natural disasters
-a resolution for industrial development decade in Africa
-a resolution versus manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction
-a resolution versus chemical and biological weapons (mulitiple times)

I stop here for a moment, read those last two again. Read it well, we're going into Iraq to disarm them of weapons we didn't vote to ban and didn't vote to oppose manufacturing of. It's ok for us to do it, but not Iraq, Hypocrisy? Hmmmm... maybe.

-a resolution for development as a human right
-a resolution for improved UN response to human rights abuses

Once again, we use this as an excuse to justify our war, yet it didn't seem too important when it was a resolution on the floor.

Other notables, we were one of two of three countries which opposed:
-a resolution versus israeli nuclear weapons
-a resolution versus foreign intervention into other countries

Hmmm, that makes some sense...

-a resolution for the non-use of nuclear weapons vs. non-nuclear states.
-a resolution versus Israeli human rights abuses (Numerous times)
-a resolution versus South African apartheid (Numerous times)
-a resolution for an embargo on apartheid in South Africa
-a resolution for a middle east peace conference

Also the US has refused to renew the AMB (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty), refused to sign the Anti-Biological Weapons Convention, refused to sign the UN covenant on Economic and Social rights and has repeatedly refused to sign anything that would better the living conditions/rights of Palestinians.

So yeah, about this war, we're definitely the moral favorites here aren't we? This was totally justified wasn't it?

http://www.tanbou.com/2001/fall/USForeignPolicyElias.htm[/url]

first of all, when we were talking about how france stabbed us in the back when they threatened to use their veto, many people said that it was their right to veto...how is it any different now for the US...talk about hypocrisy, its alright for france to do it but not us?

as for the US being allowed to have WMD's and not Iraq, i will first remind you that Iraq lost a war that they started, and agreed to disarm completely as part of the cease fire agreement. the US never agreed to disarm, therefor, there is no reason to even draw a comparison between the two. also, i will remind you that the US is not the only country with WMD's, England, France, Germany, Israel, Russia, China, N. Korea, India and Pakistan, just to name a few, still posses their weapons, and yet, America is being hypocritical? We are not asking for everyone to disarm, only those that have agreed to do so ie. Iraq. And finally, i will remind you that other nations that were ordered to comply and destroy their WMD programs, specifically the Ukraine and South Africa, did so quickly and without any problems...

finally, there is much more to your list than simply the US being an asshole and refusing to pass any of those resolutions, as always there is more to the story and you chose only to show that part which best portrays the US as being "evil"

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by yeat182
first of all, when we were talking about how france stabbed us in the back when they threatened to use their veto, many people said that it was their right to veto...how is it any different now for the US...talk about hypocrisy, its alright for france to do it but not us?

as for the US being allowed to have WMD's and not Iraq, i will first remind you that Iraq lost a war that they started, and agreed to disarm completely as part of the cease fire agreement. the US never agreed to disarm, therefor, there is no reason to even draw a comparison between the two. also, i will remind you that the US is not the only country with WMD's, England, France, Germany, Israel, Russia, China, N. Korea, India and Pakistan, just to name a few, still posses their weapons, and yet, America is being hypocritical? We are not asking for everyone to disarm, only those that have agreed to do so ie. Iraq. And finally, i will remind you that other nations that were ordered to comply and destroy their WMD programs, specifically the Ukraine and South Africa, did so quickly and without any problems...

finally, there is much more to your list than simply the US being an asshole and refusing to pass any of those resolutions, as always there is more to the story and you chose only to show that part which best portrays the US as being "evil"

France's veto was to go to war. That's not backstabbing, that's simply vetoing. When we vote "no" to a resolution that is different. Quite different. Voting no on a resolution to provide aid after natural disasters, and France vetos a war resolution those are very different. As for the backstabbing, France was never on our side so it wasn't betrayal.

As for the evil bit, we're not evil. But we're also not moral. We're simply in it for ourselves, and no one else. So is France, so is Russia, so is pretty much everyone. Don't even attempt to tell me we give a shit about any other country unless it benefits us. Everything we do benefits us in some way.

As for the weapons bit. We are the only nation still developing the weapons. Were not signed to any treaties involving the weapons either. France, Russia, England, all the countries you named are all signed to the ABM (except NK). We are not. We spend more money on our military per year than any other nation, and we spend some of the highest percent of our budget on military as well (3rd in percentage in the world).

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
France's veto was to go to war. That's not backstabbing, that's simply vetoing. When we vote "no" to a resolution that is different. Quite different. Voting no on a resolution to provide aid after natural disasters, and France vetos a war resolution those are very different. As for the backstabbing, France was never on our side so it wasn't betrayal.

As for the evil bit, we're not evil. But we're also not moral. We're simply in it for ourselves, and no one else. So is France, so is Russia, so is pretty much everyone. Don't even attempt to tell me we give a shit about any other country unless it benefits us. Everything we do benefits us in some way.

As for the weapons bit. We are the only nation still developing the weapons. Were not signed to any treaties involving the weapons either. France, Russia, England, all the countries you named are all signed to the ABM (except NK). We are not. We spend more money on our military per year than any other nation, and we spend some of the highest percent of our budget on military as well (3rd in percentage in the world).


if every nation does what is in their own best interests, how can you say that we are hypocritical? how can you say that what we do is wrong, when every other nation is doing the same thing? france does care about anyone other than france, but you only bash the US...

as for the weapons, the US has signed treaties (START, START II) that limit its own WMD's, and countries like England, Russia, and France have signed those treaties as well. And just because we spend more money on our military than any other country does not make us a "bad" country, we have to most high tech military in the world and that is very expensive, we also have the best trained military in the world, and that too cost money. just because we spend money to protect ourselves doesn't make us some sinister nation. any other nation in the world that had the resources/money to create and maintain a military like ours, would do so in a heartbeat.

[Patrick]

war sucks and just cause 80 percent of u live in canada the other 20 hear or the cool 20 should be like im bad ass and war sucks

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by mrs.skibahaha
war sucks and just cause 80 percent of u live in canada the other 20 hear or the cool 20 should be like im bad ass and war sucks In English, please?

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by yeat182
if every nation does what is in their own best interests, how can you say that we are hypocritical? how can you say that what we do is wrong, when every other nation is doing the same thing? france does care about anyone other than france, but you only bash the US...

as for the weapons, the US has signed treaties (START, START II) that limit its own WMD's, and countries like England, Russia, and France have signed those treaties as well. And just because we spend more money on our military than any other country does not make us a "bad" country, we have to most high tech military in the world and that is very expensive, we also have the best trained military in the world, and that too cost money. just because we spend money to protect ourselves doesn't make us some sinister nation. any other nation in the world that had the resources/money to create and maintain a military like ours, would do so in a heartbeat.

I bash the US because it is hypocritical in its statements. We claim to be doing this for selfless reasons, bullshit. We're doing it because it's in our best interest. If we said that I would be accepting of it (at least moreso than I am now) but when we lie about it, that's being hypocritical. France doesn't lie so much and they more or less admit that they are looking after France. The US has signed treaties, but it's treaties say only that they must reduce their stockpiles. Anything banning the production of more powerful more destructive missiles, the US won't touch. In fact anything we feel limits our ability to blow the world the stone-age we won't touch. As for military spending, what are we spending for? It's like penis envy at this point, we're spending just to say we have the biggest. There is no country that could beat us in war. Yet we continue to spend more and more. I agree that we have the best military, hands down. If you read reports from NATO from conflicts as recently as Kosovo, you'll here other nations complaining that due to the advanced technology used by our military, it's difficult to work with us because everyone else's miliatry is so far behind. And I understand it costs money to maintain such a powerful military. The keyword, however, is maintain. We're doing a little bit more than maintaining at this point, we're expanding.

[Charlito Cafe]

Originally posted by yeat182
it isn't owned by cheney

Yeah, it was. In the 90s Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton and only left to campaign in 2000. I'm sure once he's done ruining the world, he'll go back to being an evil, blood-sucking oil-monger sitting in his Halliburton tower, living like a fat cat off the profits from the war.

Or will there even be profits?

After all, one of Lord Bush's goals was to "liberate" Iraq into a U.S. friendly, oil trading nation, but now that it's liberated, things are looking pretty bleak. The "oppresed religious minorities" are pushing for a fundamentalist Islamic republic, which will be far worse than Hussein. At least he had separation of church and state. I have a feeling the quality of life of Iraqi citizens will plummet once they have set up their own government.