George “Dub-ya” Bush said yesterday:

QUOTE: ”We made the decision to go into Iraq. Many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction …… much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong ….. ”

”Many intelligence agencies around the world”??? The lies just keep on coming. Bush refuses to admit that he himself lied to begin with and that it is his administration that continues initiating an illegal war based upon deliberate, false pretences.

Before long he’ll be claiming that he and the CIA are innocent victims, duped by evil, foreign opportunists or demonic pixies that crept into his head while he slept!

It’ll certainly be the most plausible explanation so far: “I never wanted to invade Iraq but they made me do it!”

You won't find much argument on these boards that Bush didn't lie and cheat his way into the war. What you will find is justifications for that action. Well, that's if you can get past the reactionary, "BUSH BASHING!!!! Is that all you fuxxors can come up with!!11" or "As if Clinton never lied, hahahaha!!!"

Here's a cluebag, right-wingers. We bash him because he deserves it. Bush is an absolutely horrible president, for every reason under the sun. His track record on privacy rights, environmental issues, energy policy, foreign policy and just about every other issue that matters is almost comically off-base. It isn't quite a tragedy yet, the sun isn't going to fall out the sky because Bush won a second term, but that doesn't make him any less of a bad pres. The current administration just cannot seem to do anything right.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
You won't find much argument on these boards that Bush didn't lie and cheat his way into the war. What you will find is justifications for that action. Well, that's if you can get past the reactionary, "BUSH BASHING!!!! Is that all you fuxxors can come up with!!11" or "As if Clinton never lied, hahahaha!!!"

Here's a cluebag, right-wingers. We bash him because he deserves it. Bush is an absolutely horrible president, for every reason under the sun. His track record on privacy rights, environmental issues, energy policy, foreign policy and just about every other issue that matters is almost comically off-base. It isn't quite a tragedy yet, the sun isn't going to fall out the sky because Bush won a second term, but that doesn't make him any less of a bad pres. The current administration just cannot seem to do anything right.
I tell you, it is so frightening that it sometimes makes me clench my fist in anger and at the same time weep for the innocent Americans who have to live beneath his shadow of doom.

I guess that in your desire to spew hatred of the president you are willing to ignore the facts catch3. Many intelligence agencies in the world DID believe Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. GWB has made mistakes but lets not make up crap just to take another jab at him.

Originally posted by Frogger
Many intelligence agencies in the world DID believe Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

How many of them were relying on our bad intelligence, and how many of them felt the intelligence was good enough to base a war on?

Vilepagan

You know, or should know that countries such as Germany, Great Britain and France have their own intelligence agencies and do not simply rely on the United States to tell them what is going on in the world.

Originally posted by Frogger
Vilepagan

You know, or should know that countries such as Germany, Great Britain and France have their own intelligence agencies and do not simply rely on the United States to tell them what is going on in the world.

Of course. Your point?

Originally posted by Catch 3
”Many intelligence agencies around the world”??? The lies just keep on coming. Bush refuses to admit that he himself lied to begin with and that it is his administration that continues initiating an illegal war based upon deliberate, false pretences.

But, that is not a lie. And it was not "illegal".

Before long he’ll be claiming that he and the CIA are innocent victims, duped by evil, foreign opportunists or demonic pixies that crept into his head while he slept!

He's admitted to intelligence failures, even taking personal responsibility, and has been looking for making reforms, as said in a speech yesterday.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
You won't find much argument on these boards that Bush didn't lie and cheat his way into the war.

Yes you will.

What you will find is justifications for that action. Well, that's if you can get past the reactionary, "BUSH BASHING!!!! Is that all you fuxxors can come up with!!11" or "As if Clinton never lied, hahahaha!!!"

Are we talking about trolls or regular members?

We bash him because he deserves it. Bush is an absolutely horrible president, for every reason under the sun.

"Here's a cluebag" Napsterbater, right-wingers don't have that opinion.

The current administration just cannot seem to do anything right.

It is that kind of thinking that admits you've very biased views, and with that it is hard to take what you say with a tone of seriousness.

Vilepagan

My point was a refutation of this from your post: How many of them were relying on our bad intelligence

Originally posted by Vilepagan
How many of them were relying on our bad intelligence, and how many of them felt the intelligence was good enough to base a war on?

An excellent point.

Originally posted by Frogger
You know, or should know that countries such as Germany, Great Britain and France have their own intelligence agencies and do not simply rely on the United States to tell them what is going on in the world.

How many of them had solid evidence of WMDs that felt merited invasion and overthrow of the regime?
How did they work in tandem with our intelligence organizations to make absolutes like the decisions we've made on our own?
I did not see French and German troops parading about Iraq with US troops.
Germany, France, and Russia most likely stayed out for economic reasons in ties with Iraq, and we probably went in for economic motivations. It is still in motion, so hard to discover the full truth on the matter, time will tell.

There are cultural and political reasons Germany, France and Russia are not in Iraq.

Germany is still suffering from a guilt complex from WWII and there is almost nothing that will cause Germany to send troops to a war zone.

France has an animus towards the United States that has been exhibited over and over since the time of Charles DeGaule and will do little, if anything to aid the U.S.

Russia would prefer that the United States be bogged down for geo-political reasons.

And Englnd, tho they sent troops, just LOVES to see us fall on hard times and be hopelessly splintered like we are now.

They are just waiting for the right opportunity to swoop down and take their former colonies back.

I read the Times of London almost every day and the hatred directed towards us in incredible. This went on LONG before George W took office.

I don't trust England, nor really care for them much. Sad too, because my family is mostly English and emigtated from there back in the day.

but I'm an American first and foremost.

They're only nice to us when they want something. The rest of the time, we suck.

Do not trust the Sassenaugh.

Originally posted by Frogger
I guess that in your desire to spew hatred of the president you are willing to ignore the facts catch3. Many intelligence agencies in the world DID believe Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. GWB has made mistakes but lets not make up crap just to take another jab at him.
Please, Frogger. I am your friend. I think that the original Space Invaders and Frogger were the two very best video games ever produced and if I sometimes faltered and let those crocodiles eat you and cars run over you, well I did the best that I could. Really! So it pains me to see that you say I'm "spewing hatred of the president". How can you come to such a silly conclusion?

The man lied. FACT. He has lied. FACT. He continues to lie. FACT. But according to you, calling him a liar openly is "spewing hate"? How is that "hate"?

Furthermore, "many intelligence agencies" did NOT believe that Saddam possessed WMD'S. Bush lied again. FACT.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
How many of them were relying on our bad intelligence, and how many of them felt the intelligence was good enough to base a war on?
Two very important questions. Thank you.

Originally posted by Frogger
Vilepagan

You know, or should know that countries such as Germany, Great Britain and France have their own intelligence agencies and do not simply rely on the United States to tell them what is going on in the world.
Precisely!

* Germany told the U.S. that Saddam did NOT have WMD's.
* France told the U.S. that Saddam did NOT have WMD's.
* Britain couldn’t determine one way or the other so they went along with the U.S.

Please, Frogger. I am your friend. I think that the original Space Invaders and Frogger were the two very best video games ever produced and if I sometimes faltered and let those crocodiles eat you and cars run over you, well I did the best that I could. Really!

Now that's funny.

I may disagree with you politically catch3, but you really made me chuckle. Thank you.

Originally posted by Evakian
But, that is not a lie. And it was not "illegal".
He's admitted to intelligence failures, even taking personal responsibility, and has been looking for making reforms, as said in a speech yesterday. It was a lie. And it was illegal because it was in direct disobedience of international law. Do you not know the difference between the American-led invasion of Kuwait and the American invasion of Iraq?
International law through the United Nations gave the U.S. the "go-ahead" to Kuwait. On the completely other hand, the U.N. strictly forbad the U.S. to invade Iraq. By the way, do you know why the U.S. was granted international approval to attack the Iraqis in Kuwait? Well it seems as though the Iraqis invaded a foreign sovereign state. Hmmmmm, something for you to think about.

Admitting to "making a mistake" is nowhere near admitting to having lied. "Yeah well, we invaded your country, killed thousands of your men (who were rightfully protecting their country against an illegal force), took control over the only natural resource your country has, and totally ruined your infrastructure for which we have no ready substitute other than fire-power terror .................. but sorry we made 'a mistake', so suck on it!"

“And oh, by the way ….. we’re going to stay here until we’re good and ready to leave because if you don’t like it we’re going to blast you into oblivion with our superior weaponry.”

Originally posted by Frogger
Now that's funny.
I may disagree with you politically catch3, but you really made me chuckle. Thank you.
And thank you, Frogger! Yes, it breaks my heart that we are not in agreement here too. :(

Originally posted by Frogger
There are cultural and political reasons Germany, France and Russia are not in Iraq.

Germany is still suffering from a guilt complex from WWII and there is almost nothing that will cause Germany to send troops to a war zone.

France has an animus towards the United States that has been exhibited over and over since the time of Charles DeGaule and will do little, if anything to aid the U.S.

Russia would prefer that the United States be bogged down for geo-political reasons.
Oh, come on, Frogger! Pl-e-e-e-ase don't write such childish rubbish! That was really silly of you. See if you can still edit/remove that post. If you do that I'll remove this one too. OK?

Originally posted by rendova
And Englnd, tho they sent troops, just LOVES to see us fall on hard times and be hopelessly splintered like we are now.

They are just waiting for the right opportunity to swoop down and take their former colonies back.

I read the Times of London almost every day and the hatred directed towards us in incredible. This went on LONG before George W took office.

I don't trust England, nor really care for them much. Sad too, because my family is mostly English and emigtated from there back in the day.

but I'm an American first and foremost.

They're only nice to us when they want something. The rest of the time, we suck.

Do not trust the Sassenaugh.
What?! They're fighting alongside the Americans as we speak, right there in Iraq!

LOL, like Will Rogers, I only know what I read in the papers.

I guess it's no more outrageous than some of the other stuff on these boards!

Satanic, baby-killing Freemasons, St Tookie the Merciful, Nobel Laureate, and how the Union would have lost the Civil War without the Canadiens.

Seriously, I cannot believe some of the stuff I read in their newspapers (England's). And this is from a supposedly "sedate" paper--god knows what their tabloids say...we are referred to regularly as "barbarians", "idiots", "mongrels", and "low-bred trash".

This coming from a country that burned our capital, drove families of the signers of the Declaration into the snow to freeze and die ,hatched assassination plots against Lincoln, and just generally hates our guts.

What are they doing there fighting?
They must want something..it is NOT to help us!!
My 2 cents.
:) :) :) :) :)

Originally posted by rendova
LOL, like Will Rogers, I only know what I read in the papers.

I guess it's no more outrageous than some of the other stuff on these boards!

Satanic, baby-killing Freemasons, St Tookie the Merciful, Nobel Laureate, and how the Union would have lost the Civil War without the Canadiens.

Seriously, I cannot believe some of the stuff I read in their newspapers (England's). And this is from a supposedly "sedate" paper--god knows what their tabloids say...we are referred to regularly as "barbarians", "idiots", "mongrels", and "low-bred trash".

This coming from a country that burned our capital, drove families of the signers of the Declaration into the snow to freeze and die ,hatched assassination plots against Lincoln, and just generally hates our guts.

What are they doing there fighting?
They must want something..it is NOT to help us!!
My 2 cents.
:) :) :) :) :)
Nice post, Rendova! :) By the way. your name suggests slavik origins. May I ask ..... ? I'm into things "slavik" these days: my girlfriend is Slovak and she'll be coming to live next year. Mmmm!

Originally posted by Catch 3
Nice post, Rendova! :) By the way. your name suggests slavik origins. May I ask ..... ?

Well, forgive my rant.
It's hurtful and unfair to be called names by a supposed "ally."

Rendova is the name of my Dad's ship (one of them.)
He was a Navy man and served in WW II and afterwards. Bless his heart, he always wanted to be John Paul Jones.......:)

Sorry, I edited too late to get ahead of your reply .... "I'm into things "slavik" these days: my girlfriend is Slovak and she'll be coming to live next year."

Ah, the name of a boat? It is a typical slavik female name, you know and so I naturally thought ......

A natural mistake. not to worry.
I believe that it's also the name of an island in the South Pacific but could be wrong.

the reason we are such good allies with england and australia is that we speak the same language. It is really quite simple.

Bush also said he would do it again.

Originally posted by Travh20
the reason we are such good allies with england and australia is that we speak the same language. It is really quite simple.

Yes, and if it weren't for us, they'd be speaking German now.
People have short memories.

Catch3

I will neither edit or remove the post. I stand by what it says.

Germany is one of the least nationalistic nations in Europe and is almost pathological in its aversion to battle.

France has a history of anti-Americanism that can be traced to the end of WWII. France has acted in an obstructionist manner vis a vis the U.S. on other occassions.

Russia and the U.S. while no longer cold war enemies still do not see eye to eye on world issues. Russia takes comfort in any discomfort of the United States.

You posted the following:

* Germany told the U.S. that Saddam did NOT have WMD's.
* France told the U.S. that Saddam did NOT have WMD's.
* Britain couldn’t determine one way or the other so they went along with the U.S.

The truth of the matter is, German Intelligence argued thaqt Iraq might have nuclear weapons within three years.

Jacques Chirac said, "There is a problem - the probably possession of mass destruction weapons by an uncontrollable country, Iraq.

Israel, France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China believed, as did the United States, where this belief predated George W. Bush being in the White House, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Originally posted by Evakian
Yes you will.

Then why hasn't it happened yet?

Are we talking about trolls or regular members?

It's getting harder and harder to tell the difference these days.

"Here's a cluebag" Napsterbater, right-wingers don't have that opinion.

That's why I have to tell them. The right wingers here have said that they don't think he's a good pres, but they don't agree with all the bashing. I think they are being hypocrites to defend that moron. I can understand if you haven't been following the political discourse closely, but there is more to my post than you think there is. Honestly Evak, I thought you were capable of seeing underneath the surface and your initial reactions. I know the temptation to make the "easy" arguments and get forum points is pretty great, but damn, you should be smarter than that.

It is that kind of thinking that admits you've very biased views, and with that it is hard to take what you say with a tone of seriousness.

No, it's a statement based in fact. What can you point to that he's done right? Instead of simply complaining about how I make my arguments, make substantial counter-argument.

Only a complete kool-aid drinking idiot would believe a country under sanctions for 12 years and being watched like a hawk, would have WMD's or be in the process of producing them and that is especially true of Nuclear WMD's.

Have you ever seen the infastructure required to refine/process the now famous yellowcake that saddam supposedly got from Niger? It takes buildings the size of football fields. How the hell does that escape our satellites and it probably glows to boot. ROTFLMAO.

Anyone that buys into the WMD's story ... well I guess I just feel sorry for them.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Then why hasn't it happened yet?

It has.

It's getting harder and harder to tell the difference these days.

Not really.

That's why I have to tell them.

You've no right to tell anyone "what they think", that is their's to decide.

The right wingers here have said that they don't think he's a good pres, but they don't agree with all the bashing.

The posts that drip with an inhuman, passionate hatred can be construed as worthy of disagreement. Someone may not like his enviromental or foreign policy, but perhaps don't totally disagree with him, you act as though it is completely impossible to hold that view.

I think they are being hypocrites to defend that moron.

And "they" probably think you are the same for holding that view.

I can understand if you haven't been following the political discourse closely, but there is more to my post than you think there is.

You've openly admitted that you get all your news from "Morons.org" and "Slashdot"(Although i doubt this, as you undoubtedly frequent actual newsites, newsblogs, and various message boards), one is an editorial site run by social libertarians covering small-time news stories, the other is a website about the latest in technology news. Neither of which cover a wide array of current affairs and political discourse.
I do indeed pay attention to the news and the game of politics as often as I can, which is generally on a daily basis.

Honestly Evak, I thought you were capable of seeing underneath the surface and your initial reactions.

You've so much condescension and arrogance that unless I brainwash myself to agree with everything you say, I am a target for vehement criticism and embarassment at your hands. Don't patronize me.

I know the temptation to make the "easy" arguments and get forum points is pretty great, but damn, you should be smarter than that.

See above response...
Also, going for a point-by-point dissection of another persons post is often how a "debate forum" works on the internet. Just because everyone does not sit down and type an entire dissertation on the topic raised by the original post solely on their views does not mean it is an "easy argument", or intended to "score forum points", whatever it is you mean by that. It's "my way or the highway" in your world, isn't it?

No, it's a statement based in fact.

The current administration just cannot seem to do anything right.
---is a statement entrenched in personal opinion.

What can you point to that he's done right?

::looks around::
Why am I getting put on the spot, who said I was a Bush supporter?

Instead of simply complaining about how I make my arguments, make substantial counter-argument.

I just love how you try to defend yourself by making me look bad. LOL

:corn:

Hah, if I said, "Grass is green," Evakian would probably shoot back with, "No it's not!" and think he was getting the upper hand.

*sighs* Well, here I go again...

It has. ---Note conspicuous lack of supporting argument here---

Show me in this thread where.

Not really. ---Note conspicuous lack of supporting argument here---

Sure dude, whatever you say.

You've no right to tell anyone "what they think", that is their's to decide.

I most certainly do! There is this thing called "Freedom of Speech" that seems to get a lot of press these days. Maybe you've heard of it.

The posts that drip with an inhuman, passionate hatred can be construed as worthy of disagreement.

It's true that some Bush-bashing posts are rather stupid. Doesn't mean they all are, though. I'm saying that anytime someone even mentions Bush in a slightly negative way, people fly off their rockers.

And "they" probably think you are the same for holding that view.

Didn't you just get done telling me that I have no right telling others what they think?

Anyway, so the fuck what? Let them tell me, and we can argue about it. What are you their damn champion or something? Bright knight in shining armor Evakian, come to save allForums from the evil Napsterbater?

You've openly admitted that you get

blah blah blah...

and the game of politics as often as I can, which is generally on a daily basis.

I'm talking about the political discourse on this particular site. I will forgive you if you don't read every discussion completely and thoroughly, analysing the points made.

You've so much condescension and arrogance that unless I brainwash myself to agree with everything you say, I am a target for vehement criticism and embarassment at your hands. Don't patronize me.

Whine whine whine. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Lots of people here have been targeted by me at one point or another.

It's "my way or the highway" in your world, isn't it?

Of course.

---is a statement entrenched in personal opinion.

... based on fact.

Why am I getting put on the spot, who said I was a Bush supporter?

'Twas a rhetorical question.

I just love how you try to defend yourself by making me look bad. LOL

I don't care to look good or bad. I just enjoy the flow of conversation. I'm sorry you can't hack it.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Hah, if I said, "Grass is green," Evakian would probably shoot back with, "No it's not!" and think he was getting the upper hand.

On the other hand, if I were to say "Pigs can't fly", you would smugly reply "You've fail to convince me of this, and you cannot change my mind, as all my decisions are pontifical. Liberal chicks pwn yuo."
And claim victory.

*sighs* Well, here I go again...

Don't reply if it is such a chore.

Show me in this thread where.

Whoa charlie, who said anything about 'this thread' in particular? The reference was "these boards", which would be a broad label for the site itself.

Sure dude, whatever you say.

I'm sorry you're blind :(
I will get you a helper monkey for Christmas, maybe he'll type better than you.

I most certainly do! There is this thing called "Freedom of Speech" that seems to get a lot of press these days. Maybe you've heard of it.

Expressing your views freely and telling others what to believe is not the same cookie.
I just saw that statement "That's why i have to tell them" as extemely arrogant.

It's true that some Bush-bashing posts are rather stupid. Doesn't mean they all are, though. I'm saying that anytime someone even mentions Bush in a slightly negative way, people fly off their rockers.

::Horace and Norbert fly off their rocking chairs::

*waving canes and old man grumblings distort their words, something about a shubbery named George*

Didn't you just get done telling me that I have no right telling others what they think?

Alas, i used the term 'probably' as an indicator of 'most likely' but that would be a personal inference and there is room to err.

What are you their damn champion or something? Bright knight in shining armor Evakian, come to save allForums from the evil Napsterbater?

Sounds like a cool job, what's the annual salary? Do i get a mighty steed and lance to jab the heathens?

I'm talking about the political discourse on this particular site.

Okay, that issue is cleared up, thank you.

Whine whine whine. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Lots of people here have been targeted by me at one point or another.

Cheese cheese cheese. I'd address the rest of this passage Nap, but you might've realized that I'm just having a spot of fun, saying things to see your response and vice versa, chances are you are doing the same. Good times amigo

I'm sorry you can't hack it.

::munches on cheese::

*voice clarity hindered by cheesy goodness* "I can too hack it!"

::begins breakdancing, messes up and breaks arms and legs at the same time, as well as dislodging his spleen::

(from hospital bed, in casts) "All your base are belong to me!"

I am not a hard rightwinger, but I can still say that I think Bush has done some pretty good things, especially considering how much shit he inherited.

Afghanistan- Good

Iraq- One of the most efficient and bloodless military operations in our history. Good.

Privatizing Social Security- Good

NCLB - Bad.

Massive Healthcare Spending- Bad

Massive Spending in General- Bad

Tax Cuts- Good

Reforming US Intelligence- Good...for the most part.

Economy- Bad, then Better. Although I still hold the contention that the President has as much to do with the economy as the gum on my shoe.

Gay Marriage- Bad and Pointless.


There's probably more, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

On the other hand, if I were to say "Pigs can't fly", you would smugly reply "You've fail to convince me of this, and you cannot change my mind, as all my decisions are pontifical. Liberal chicks pwn yuo."
And claim victory.

Pigs can fly, you greasy, addled, mayonaisse fucker!

Whoa charlie, who said anything about 'this thread' in particular? The reference was "these boards", which would be a broad label for the site itself.

When I said, why hasn't it happened yet, I was saying that the righties had plenty of time to debunk my claim that they don't think Bush lied and cheated his way into the war. The last time I argued with Trav over it, he came right out and said that Bush needed to lie because the people wouldn't accept real reasons to go into Iraq. Then about half of the other wingers popped up and said they didn't consider Bush a conservative. That was what led to my "following the political debate on the boards" statement.

I will get you a helper monkey for Christmas, maybe he'll type better than you.

Will you buy one of the NASA monkeys for me?

Sounds like a cool job, what's the annual salary? Do i get a mighty steed and lance to jab the heathens?

I'm not sure, I've never played City of Heroes. Can't imagine that it'd be a whole lot though.

To Evil Homer

Privatizing Social Security- Good

Ummm, he didn't privatise Social Security. He went on and on about it to boost his poll numbers, but never actually followed through.

Tax Cuts- Good

When 80% of the benefit went to his rich buddies, most of which pay little to no tax in the first place, I'd say to thee nay!

Reforming US Intelligence- Good...for the most part.

Really? I don't suppose you have any evidence to back up the idea that Bush's security and intelligence reforms have actually done any good? Remember, terrorist attacks have actually gone up since 9-11. Most of the perceived security from Bush's reforms likely came from the heightened awareness on all levels that come from a major terrorist attack.

Iraq- One of the most efficient and bloodless military operations in our history. Good.

Really? *wanders off to check Iraq body count* Guerrilla warfare's a motherfucker

Afghanistan- Good

I'll have to give you that one.

Originally posted by rendova
I believe that it's also the name of an island in the South Pacific ...
Hey yeah! You're right! :) Look here:

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:GOJ9Wy2OVRIJ:www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/name-021407.html+rendova+island&hl=sv (http://http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:GOJ9Wy2OVRIJ:www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/name-021407.html+rendova+island&hl=sv)

That's the first time I've heard of it.

Originally posted by Travh20
the reason we are such good allies with england and australia is that we speak the same language. It is really quite simple.


:) :) :) :) :D :) :) :) :)

Originally posted by rendova
Yes, and if it weren't for us, they'd be speaking German now.
People have short memories.
Your historical facts are atrocious! Britain was NEVER occupied by the Germans.:mad:

In any case, it makes no sense. If it weren't for the English you (the U.S.) would never exist - or in the very least you would be speaking German or Dutch! It was only by a small margin that English was voted over German as being the official language of the newly formed United States. Have a good read of that history book before your daughter takes it to Sweden, Rendova... :)

Sorry Catch3 but it is your facts that are historically inaccurate.

While Britain was never occupied by the Germans it probably would have been had not the United States entered the war. Britain was on the ropes which is one of the major reasons FDR wanted to get the U.S. into the war.

You are wrong on German almost being voted the official language of the United States although you are just repeating a commonly held misconception. Since there is no official language in the United States, not even English, German could never have been voted the official language.

What you are probably referring to is a petition to translate certain legal declarations into German, a vote that was defeated with the explaination that England had never translated official documents into Welsh or Scottish even though millions of her citizens spoke not a word of English.

Originally posted by Frogger
Catch3

I will neither edit or remove the post. I stand by what it says.

Germany is one of the least nationalistic nations in Europe and is almost pathological in its aversion to battle.

France has a history of anti-Americanism that can be traced to the end of WWII. France has acted in an obstructionist manner vis a vis the U.S. on other occassions.
FROGGER. My reply to you was much too clumsy. I apologise for that.

My point, however, is this:
Germany is not at all as you describe it. In the first place you are talking about a nation, not Billy Bobkins on the other side of the railroad tracks who knows when to hide and when to run from bullies – and fairness of the matter be damned. A sovereign nation takes world affairs on a merit basis, those merits that apply to the situation “at hand”. Germany had no reason to condemn Saddam for possessing WMD’s and German leaders said so. Clean and simple. Facts of the day prove that Germany was right too. Furthermore, it is childish and ignorant to say that Germany is gun shy in the face of danger or unwilling to stand up for what they deem is right. Germany was the very first to successfully launch an anti-terrorist attack in Somalia to free ALL the hostages alive! And if you’d read the events of the day more carefully you’d know that there are German troops in Afghanistan now, where one German soldier was recently killed.

To say that France is anti-American is ridiculous too. France helped the “Americans” gain independence from England, the statue of liberty is a gift from France, and American soldiers helped France in both the first and second world wars. France’s seemingly self-centred attitude to world affairs is “across the board”. They are equally stubborn towards us (in Sweden) and any other nations of the world. This is part of their national identity - and we all have to put up with them. Not only you.

Originally posted by Frogger
While Britain was never occupied by the Germans it probably would have been had not the United States entered the war.
Facts do not bear you well. It is a known fact that Hitler had no intention of occupying Britain. He asked the British time and time again to make peace and let Britain be. And the ONLY reason he bombed England was to convince them that he could invade if he really wanted.

Now I know you’re going to tell me all about the peace treaties he made with other countries and how he broke every one of them, except with Sweden. You are right to bring that up. But the advantage of post-war speculation is that we eventually find out the truth, in the end. We know (from written and eye-witness accounts) that despite Hitler’s agreement with Stalin he wanted to invade Russian from the very start. This is documented fact. This "fact" applies to all other countries, i.e. Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc. BUT those very facts show that he didn't want war with England. He really DID NOT.

Catch3

I am fairly conversant with German political culture. I have relatives who are involved in the German Government and they and I converse on a regular basis. I also travel to Germany and have German relatives spend weeks with my family each summer. It is not a question of being gun shy but of being averse to war. Germans will fight when they deem it necessary but it takes a lot more for them to deem it necessary.. As to my other statement regarding the German pshche, they are among the least nationalistic people in Europe.

The French aided the fledgling United Colonies in their fight against England not because of any love of the colonist but because of a rivalry with England. France had been driven out of most of North America and had fought a succession of wars with England. Her aid to the colonies was basically an extension of the continental wars.

Since the time of Charles DeGaulle, France has had an anti-American posture. France is an arrogant nation, not satisfied with her relegation to second or third tier status on the world stage. She resents any suggestion that she is not still the major world player on the stage of international politics. You are right when you say France has prickly relations with most of the countries of the world, including Sweden but the French have a special animosity toward the United States.

England put up quite battle against Germany during WW II. They were bombed continously, even tho an actual landed invasion of the island would have been prob one of the bloodiest things seen yet. This is why Germany tried to finish them from the air--V2 rockets, etc.

I do believe if it weren't for us they probably eventually would have gone under unless they drew their vast navy back home, thus leaving all their colonies unprotected.

And we know how they like to cling to those colonies!!

Seriously, we all have read a few things about this and we are all a bit nationalistic. Nothing wrong with that--just goes to show how an event can be shaped by exactly who is writing it!

But there is no doubt, the US was indeed the "Arsenal of Democracy" in this thing. The steel mills in my own home town of Gary, Indiana, produced more steel than Germany and Japan COMBINED. Go, steelworkers!

Hard to win a war without armaments, gentlemen.:)

PS Correct, Frogger, about a national language here. Also right, Catch, about how we belonged to England and if it weren't for them, our histroy would be vastly different.
Maybe if they'd have been NICER things would have turned out differently!My family came on the Mayflower. If things would have been better for them , they never would have left to begin with!

Originally posted by Frogger
"As to my .... statement regarding the German pshche, they are among the least nationalistic people in Europe."
You've mentioned lack of German nationlism more than once. I have lived in both Germany and France. That does not make me an expert but I can speak with confidence when I say that this is a very bad mistake you’re making and I’m forced (against my will) to say that is a rather typical, American misconception.

Nationalism has NOTHING to do with the subject. But the fact that you bring it up again means that you still haven’t realised that Iraq had nothing to with 9/11 in New York, and that the American invasion of Iraq is a purely illegal venture. Why do I say that? Because you see the world (and aggressive intervention) as “national interest” rather than global, humanitarian interest.

You are trying to blame Germany’s refusal to invade Iraq on “German non-nationalistic sentiments”. But Germany hasn’t been attacked since the end of the Second World War, for Christ’s sake! So whether the everyday Kartoffelpuffer or Oma Schickelgrüber is nationalistic or not – it has absolutely no bearing on Germany’s involvement on international warfare.

Those fellows in the White House who keep harping on about the virtues of “national pride” ought to have their asses kicked “from sea to shining sea”. Those men are turning your countrymen into willing, tunnel-vision robots ready to invade any country at all at the mere drop of a hat - and then justify it as “national, pre-emptive security measures”.

My dear good friend, Frogger. Hitler waged war, a world war, based on nationalism. This is precisely the same pretence that sent so many Americans to war in Vietnam (against the fictitious “Red Hoard”) and now in Iraq (against the fictitious international terrorists), etc. Don’t you see (?) that nationalism (in particular false nationalism) will only bring you war – but never peace or individual prosperity.

Hitler shot some men, dressed their corpses in Polish military uniforms and called on his people to swarm over the Polish “invaders” – Bush has taken a oil-rich country and falsely blamed it for the “9/11 disaster” and a “WMD threat” - then called on his people to swarm over the Iraqi “perpetrators”. The whole notion is bad news. Rome tried it, the Nazis tried it, and Moscow tried it.

Originally posted by rendova
" ... we know how they like to cling to those colonies!!":)




Originally posted by rendova
"Go, steelworkers!":) :D :)

Originally posted by Catch 3
You've mentioned lack of German nationlism more than once. I have lived in both Germany and France. That does not make me an expert but I can speak with confidence when I say that this is a very bad mistake you’re making and I’m forced (against my will) to say that is a rather typical, American misconception.

Nationalism has NOTHING to do with the subject. But the fact that you bring it up again means that you still haven’t realised that Iraq had nothing to with 9/11 in New York, and that the American invasion of Iraq is a purely illegal venture. Why do I say that? Because you see the world (and aggressive intervention) as “national interest” rather than global, humanitarian interest.

You are trying to blame Germany’s refusal to invade Iraq on “German non-nationalistic sentiments”. But Germany hasn’t been attacked since the end of the Second World War, for Christ’s sake! So whether the everyday Kartoffelpuffer or Oma Schickelgrüber is nationalistic or not – it has absolutely no bearing on Germany’s involvement on international warfare.

Those fellows in the White House who keep harping on about the virtues of “national pride” ought to have their asses kicked “from sea to shining sea”. Those men are turning your countrymen into willing, tunnel-vision robots ready to invade any country at all at the mere drop of a hat - and then justify it as “national, pre-emptive security measures”.

My dear good friend, Frogger. Hitler waged war, a world war, based on nationalism. This is precisely the same pretence that sent so many Americans to war in Vietnam (against the fictitious “Red Hoard”) and now in Iraq (against the fictitious international terrorists), etc. Don’t you see (?) that nationalism (in particular false nationalism) will only bring you war – but never peace or individual prosperity.

Hitler shot some men, dressed their corpses in Polish military uniforms and called on his people to swarm over the Polish “invaders” – Bush has taken a oil-rich country and falsely blamed it for the “9/11 disaster” and a “WMD threat” - then called on his people to swarm over the Iraqi “perpetrators”. The whole notion is bad news. Rome tried it, the Nazis tried it, and Moscow tried it.

Nice post Catch 3, I agree completely. It's fine to be proud of your country and its accomplishments, but when this sense of "patriotism" morphs into the idea that your country is "better" than another, or that the citizens of another country are "inferior" in some way, nationalism becomes a problem.

I also agree. Well said.

Jefferson said it best.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident....."

But we are hardly the only nationalist place on the planet, sad to say.

Seeing as how Jefferson is still a "mongrel" in certain places.

Perhaps it is not only you who is not always completely clear in his posts, catch3. I did not mean to imply that nationalism was the cause of Germany's not joining the United States in Iraq. It was used as just another example of some of the psychological changes the war produced in Germans, including the Opas and Omas you mentioned. Another change in the German psyche was an aversion to war. It is that aversion to war that makes it less likely Germans will go to war.

Have a good read of that history book before your daughter takes it to Sweden, Rendova...

Nay, my good man!
I have studied American history for over 30 years, the Civil War being my specialty, but have done some reading as well on our early colonies and the Revolution.

Granted, there is always more to learn, which is why we are all here, I hope....

I come by this love of our history honestly. ....my grandpa was abandoned for a while by poor grandma, as she was fed up with him always spending money on books, and he even pawned their furniture to buy a gun which had belonged to Winfield Scott Hancock, as well as raise money for the monument put up to the 29th Indiana Volunteer Infantry at Shiloh Battlefield, which both his own grandpas served in.

Grandpa took our history personally, so do I. But no one is an all-knowing expert by any means.(except Grandpa, lol)

As an example of the anti-military bent in Germany, today's issue of die Welt reports that Wolfgang Schneiderhan the German General Inspector wants to disband the German Army, Navy and Air Force and restructure it as a sort of support group.

American Casualties:

American Revolution: 10,500

War of 1812: 6,700

Indian Wars: 1,000

Mexican War: 17,300

Civil War (Union): 646,300

Civil War (Confederate): + 13,700. (Unknown wounded)

Spanish American War: 4,000

WWI: 320,500

WWII: 1,077,200

Korean War: 157,500

Vietnam War: 243,400

Gulf War: 2,500


Some of these casualties include nontheater operations, and others do not have the number of wounded, but the my statement stands. The engagement in Iraq (approx 17,000 us casualties) is one of the most bloodless military conflicts in our history, and it has even lasted longer than some of these other engagments.

My Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html)

Originally posted by Evil Homer
American Casualties:


WWII: 1,077,200

Korean War: 157,500

Vietnam War: 243,400

Gulf War: 2,500


Some of these casualties include nontheater operations, and others do not have the number of wounded, but the my statement stands. The engagement in Iraq (approx 17,000 us casualties) is one of the most bloodless military conflicts in our history, and it has even lasted longer than some of these other engagments.

My Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html)

I guess Iraqi causalties don't count. Are they bloodless too?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
" ..... when this sense of "patriotism" morphs into the idea that your country is "better" than another, or that the citizens of another country are "inferior" in some way, nationalism becomes a problem."
You're a man after my own heart.

Originally posted by Frogger
It was used as just another example of some of the psychological changes the war produced in Germans, including the Opas and Omas you mentioned. Another change in the German psyche was an aversion to war. It is that aversion to war that makes it less likely Germans will go to war.
In the first place EVERYONE should have “an aversion to war”. Anyone who rushes into war is neither a friend of mine, nor of humanity.

It is that very noble aversion that compels one to arms only when it really is necessary - not simply for the fun or adventure of it. It wasn't only Germany who didn't join in on "the fun", you know.

Germany (and the rest of us) knew "beyond a shadow of doubt" that there was not sufficient proof of WMD's. We were right too!

Jascha Fischer told Rumsfeld to his face (which was televised) that " ... in a democracy one must make his case first ...". The U.S. never made their case before sending in the bombs and invading a foreign state. I think that the U.S. is in dire need of some aversion. Don’t you too?

Originally posted by rendova
Have a good read of that history book before your daughter takes it to Sweden, Rendova...
You did see that it was written with a kind smile behind it, yes? Good!

Originally posted by rendova
" my grandpa ......... even pawned their furniture to buy a gun which had belonged to Winfield Scott Hancock... "
Is that the "put your Hancock at the bottom of the page" Hancock? No, wait. His name was John, no?

Winfield Scott Hancock (love his name) was a Union general who commanded the Federal center at Gettysburg.

He and his men were atop Cemetery Hill and turned back Pickett's men ("The high water mark of the Confederacy") on the third day of battle, July 3, 1863, thus winning the battle and most likely, the war, tho it dragged on for another 2 years. He later ran for President but was defeated.

John Hancock, wealthy Boston businessman and first signer of the Declaration, had beautiful copperplate handwriting (What?? you mean those colonist dogs could WRITE??!!) which my own grandpa modeled his own handwriting after....he purposely wrote large on this document so the King could read it without his glasses.

Originally posted by newdsagent3
I guess Iraqi causalties don't count. Are they bloodless too?

I was posting from the American Standpoint. If you'd like, I could post again with the total casualties from every one of those wars. Although it would take a good bit more time, I'm still confident that the conclusion would be the same.

Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race.
-- Albert Einstein

@evil

1. You forgot Gulf War 1 and Afghanistan

2. Gulf war 2 casualties is something like 18,000+. Did you mean fatalities?

3. That number is still artificially low because when the wounded come in one guy goes around saying "alive, alive, alive, dead, alive" and if the injured person happens to die immediately after he is couted as alive the death is not considered to be related to the war.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
3. That number is still artificially low because when the wounded come in one guy goes around saying "alive, alive, alive, dead, alive" and if the injured person happens to die immediately after he is couted as alive the death is not considered to be related to the war.

That sounds rather dubious...you have any documentation to verify this?

It is then considered non-combat related and not reported. The same with casualties. Oh and now that I'm reading up the 18,000 number appears to be low. It's more around 30,000+ (considering that was the high estimate (30K) over a year ago)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/19/60minutes/main656756.shtml

http://www.juancole.com/2004/09/us-casualties-in-iraq-gustafson-erik.html

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/10/1537224

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1205-13.htm

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/wantwar/maimed_mistreated_neglected.html

I just heard on Washington Week, there are 20,000 wounded. We'll be paying disabled vets for a long time. Just as we'll be paying for the mess in Iraq a long time. Was it Saddam's idea for us to rebuild Iraq? Maybe Usama thought we should spread our wealth to the Middle East and cripple our soldiers. What a farce! I pity the next president - he's gotta real mess to clean up.

Lets not forget Gulf War syndrome either. It often took a while for any symptoms to show up. Seeing as how it was most likely caused by exposure to depleted uranium expect the numbers to go through the roof.

Over 10,000 of the troops in Iraq War 1 died within a decade of their service through illness. This is presumably from DU as well.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the military and political leaders could give a fuck less about the troops.

Originally posted by Catch 3
Precisely!

* Germany told the U.S. that Saddam did NOT have WMD's.
* France told the U.S. that Saddam did NOT have WMD's.
* Britain couldn’t determine one way or the other so they went along with the U.S.

I'd love to see the source for this. could you provide it please?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Lets not forget Gulf War syndrome either. It often took a while for any symptoms to show up. Seeing as how it was most likely caused by exposure to depleted uranium expect the numbers to go through the roof.

Over 10,000 of the troops in Iraq War 1 died within a decade of their service through illness. This is presumably from DU as well.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the military and political leaders could give a fuck less about the troops.

is there a large number of air force ground crew members who have gulf war sickness? they load the DU shells into the planes. What about the pilots? What kind of protective gear do they wear? IF you say it is aersol created by impacting rounds then you have a point, but you have to be in small radius (20 feet) directly after a hard impact, at which 70% of the DU shells fired become small enough to breath, or, if you have shells in 500 + degree heat for 1/2 hour. am not saying DU is harmless, I am saying that it is being overplayed by the left, like everything else.

DU did not cause Gulf War Syndrome. The dosing of US troops with experimental vaccines, aspertame, and the testing of chemical warfare compounds on the troops caused it.

http://www.doewatch.com/gws.html

My friends brother was in GW1. They gave him a bunch of pills to take when he went home. He didn't. It'd be nice if we could get them tested somewhere (for free).

However I think its silly to disregard the idea that GWS could be caused from DU.

IF you say it is aersol created by impacting rounds then you have a point, but you have to be in small radius (20 feet) directly after a hard impact, at which 70% of the DU shells fired become small enough to breath, or, if you have shells in 500 + degree heat for 1/2 hour. am not saying DU is harmless, I am saying that it is being overplayed by the left, like everything else.

"The smaller the particles of DU, the greater the danger. Particles less than 5 microns can be inhaled and deposited in the lungs where they can remain for years. A study found DU particles 42 km (26 miles) away from the source. However, there is reason to suspect that DU particles can travel many times that distance (see L. Dietz: "Contamination of Persian Gulf War Veterans and others by Depleted Uranium")"
http://www.umrc.net/facts_and_fictions.aspx#f7

The war's littlest victim
He was exposed to depleted uranium.
His daughter may be paying the price.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/236934p-203326c.html

Poisoned?
Shocking report reveals local troops
may be victims of america's high-tech weapons
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/180333p-156685c.html

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du.htm

(scroll down for DU deformities)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

BTW Trav all the BS that Bush spouts trying to scare the country into a ferver with 'dirty bombs' is exactly what we are doing in Iraq right now. Poisoning cities and countries with radioation. Funny your so scared of a 'dirty bomb' that you want anyone who's skin/religion 'aint quite right' to be searched and scanned but disregard preventing the same in another coutry as "overplayed".

CHB says troops were ordered to write false LTTE's to make the Iraq war look better than it is ...

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7918.shtml

Sad part is ... the troops apparently did what they were told. No balls.

I can't help but think, that if Trav had gotten a nice dose of Agent orange he'd be singing quite a different tune right now. But I guess he doesn't give a fuck that all his comrades were poisoned back then because it was anti-war advocates who fought to bring attention to the problem.

That seems to fit...

Letter From a Military Mom: Domestic Spying & Incident of Intimidation of Military Families
http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=559&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Originally posted by waldo
I'd love to see the source for this. could you provide it please?
I’m not sure that I know how deeply you want me to probe. Are you academically interested or are you sceptical and want me to defend my words?

U.N. inspectors went into Iraq and had a good rummage. True, Saddam played a game of cat and mouse (for all it was worth) that seemed to confirm that he was really hiding something. In retrospect he probably only wanted to make the task as difficult as possible because he resented anyone giving him a “pat down” in his own country. But when all the games were played out the leading inspectors were convinced that Iraq had no WMD’s and I believe that Hans Blixt came straight out and said so.

We now know that there were agents of the American CIA that were placed into the inspection team and this is no longer a conspiracy accusation, but fact. It was through their false testaments that Bush could fan some INDEPENDANT flames of an AMERICAN myth into justification for seizing the oil fields by invading Iraq.

In other words, the job of the UN inspection was eventually completed. Democratic countries rely on such organisations because it is through international cooperation that stability (through fact) is achieved. The U.S. did NOT go into the matter in that same spirit but rather had its’ own, personal, devious agenda. I apologise that English is not my first language, and so I don’t know any other way to spell
O-I-L F-I-E-L-D-S.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
I can't help but think, that if Trav had gotten a nice dose of Agent orange he'd be singing quite a different tune right now. But I guess he doesn't give a fuck that all his comrades were poisoned back then because it was anti-war advocates who fought to bring attention to the problem.
Yep. That’s it in a nutshell alright. :)