My solution for the current world crisis

[Colonel Olrik]

And so does the rest of the world. Other countries are hoping the U.S. economy to fall but if that happens the rest of the world won't be far behind.

Didn't you read the scenario? It calls for the retreat of the US, only. The E.U and the other nations wouldn't close themselves too. And the E.U only economy comparable in size with that of the U.S.

Without american protection of its overseas interests, the E.U companies would have free reign over the world.

The E.U economical external deficit is also inferior to that the U.S. The U.S economy would be left dead by a sudden closure of the country. The E.U would follow, but it would recover. The US, if it still following the same policy, would not.

[Captain Kruger]

Nations do not have friends, they have interests. If you do not accept this principle then you are rejecting the cornerstone of long-term US foreign policy and are therefore a hypocrite. If you accept this principle then you have no grounds to complain about the behavior of the rest of the world and are therefore also a hypocrite.

Try to create a better argument next time.

Try to pull your head out of your ass and fire up your brain before you respond to a post. How exactly does my rejection of long-standing US policy make me a hypocrite? Did I invent the fucking policy in the first place? No, dipshit! Try looking up the definition of the word hypocrite.

and shoot the fuck out of anyone who crosses them illegally. If anyone wants to move here legally, fine.

Shoot illegal immigrants? Are you crazy? What kind of fucked up justice is that? I hope you're joking.

I guess I should clarify that remark. I wasn't suggesting that an illegal immigrant who's already in the country should be shot on sight without any arrest or trial when authorities catch up with him. I was talking about placing our military along our borders and neutralizing the problem. If the troops see an illegal running across the border, he should be ordered to surrender and if he doesn't, then he'd be a viable target.

There are currently over 7 million documented illegal aliens in the US. These are just the ones we know about that haven't been punted out of the country. I've heard the real number could be up to 13 million, almost enough to be a small country to themselves. It's a serious problem and needs to be dealt with more harshly; otherwise, they'll just keep on coming and living off of the taxpayer dollars of our citizens.

Oh, and of course, kick the UN out of New York and let it be hosted on someone else's soil. It's a second-rate joke anyway.

It's a forum for nations to work out their grievances peacefully as well as a nexus for humanitarian aid etc. By what standard is it a second-rate joke? There are thousands of UN aid and human rights workers who'd disagree.

It's a second-rate joke when it comes to enforcing its own resolutions. Iraq has been spitting in the face of UN authority for 12 years. And now, when a US President comes along and says "enough is enough, put your money where your mouth is", he gets called an imperialist warmonger. Israel has given the UN the middle finger for decades. (And yes, I know that's mainly our fault — we need to stop blindly supporting them.)

The current crisis is proving just how grateful the world is to us for sticking our necks out.

Sticking your necks out? WTF? Sticking your necks out for what?

For the ungrateful French in two World Wars…for the ungrateful South Koreans who would be under the boot of one of the world's biggest nutcases otherwise…young American men barely out of their teens died to protect these countries. Now they're spitting in our faces. And the saddest thing is some of those brave Americans are still alive to see this ingratitude. I can only imagine how they must feel.

Actually, I prefer the UN policy of dealing with aforementioned dictators with collective overwhelming force when they actually attack another country, rather than pre-emptively attack them whenever we percieve a threat. In the case of Iraq, it's especially ludicrous consideringing the Cold War ended 11 years ago. I'd love to see Bush 43 apply his inane pre-emptive attack logic to that.

Let's all save the world from a fifth-rate tin pot dictator tyrant who got his ass kicked thoroughly the last time he invaded someone, is barely a regional power, and in the process of this 'liberation' kill thousands of people and create a whole new generation of Middle Eastern extremists to blow up the NEXT World Trade Centre. Smart. Is it a wonder that other countries aren't enthusiastic?

Flashback to 1931…"Let's all the save the world from a dictator named Hitler whose country got its ass kicked in their last war, who barely has a functional armed forces anymore, and in the process kill thousands of people and create a whole new generation of German extremists who will hate France and Britain…" Oh wait…that would have been a good idea, wouldn't it? If the Brits and French had gone in and disarmed Hitler as soon as he started violating the treaty that ended WW1, WW2 NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. But instead, London and Paris had their thumbs up their asses throughout the 1930s and allowed Hitler to start the biggest war ever.

Like it or not, Vympel, history is on our side here. Tony Blair read his history. Chirac has his head in the sand.

In addition to the historical precedent, there's the small factor of the WMDs that didn't exist during WW2. I suppose you think we should wait until Saddam sells this crap to terrorists who then use it to slaughter thousands of Americans.

Most Europeans think that Bush is more of a tyrant than Hussein and Kim Jong Il put together.

Evidence?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/ ... index.html

"This anti-Americanism is believed to be much worse than what has gone before. Analysts warn that a whole generation of America-haters is being created, a European generation which they say believes Americans deliberately bomb civilians and kill Arab babies."

Need I say more?

Okay, maybe "most" was a little extreme on my part. The Euros who don't feel that way probably don't feel the need to crowd the streets and shout.

I think that about says it all for the kind of fucked up minds some European nations are turning out.

And America doesn't have fucked up minds? For every uber-left wing 'Euro-weenie' there's an uber-right wing dumbfuck moron: Here's a gem:

"Yeah, I wanna tell you that the cause of this problem is the fucking medieval Arabs and their wish to enslave us all – and I tell you that it is because we want to save the Jews from the fucking savage Arabs who want to throw them into the sea that we are about to fuck Saddam"

Your point being what? Just because we have right-wing dipshits in this country means that no American ever has the right to say some Europeans are full of shit? Australia certainly has its share of Inbred White Trash too, doesn't it?

[Mr Bean]

for the ungrateful South Koreans who would be under the boot of one of the world's biggest nutcases otherwise…

Point of fact South Korean's are not ungrateful infact by Poll numbers they love American

By the same token they have an excellent reason for not letting Americans use their bases
Two acutal
1. North Korea would be forced to attack or give up, once there is an Army in Place that could defeat them, they obviously have no hope of winning except a pre-emtive nuclear strike on American forces which thanks to SK's Land is highly likley to succeded, infact more-so than anywhere else
2. There is not a scrap of land anywhere in South Korea that North Korea Artillery can not reach
And they have a hell of alot of Artillery

The diffrence inbetween SK and the rest of the world is the fact they KNOW they will loose to a NK invasion and if US troops start landing then its a damn good chance that NK will invade and they will loose along with American troops
Unless we move them in under Cloaking shields or similar as soon as the numbers start looking even we force NK to make a chose
1. Invade? Or Surrender?
And frankly SK does not want that happening and they KNOW as does the American goverment that NK is on the verge of collapse all by itself, So why risk it?

[Captain Kruger]

I want the United States to return to its pre-WW1 policy of isolationism. I want us to pull back all of our assets to our homeland, both civilian and military, lock up our borders tight, and shoot the fuck out of anyone who crosses them illegally.

Shooting illegal immigrants? Would you really want to degrade yourself to the level of North Korea or Stalin's era Soviet Union? For example, the American units stationed in Philippines or Georgia are there to protect American interests, (just as Vympel said) by helping the local militaries to fight against Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

See my reply to Vympel in the last post.

The current crisis is proving just how grateful the world is to us for sticking our necks out. Most Europeans think that Bush is more of a tyrant than Hussein and Kim Jong Il put together. I think that about says it all for the kind of fucked up minds some European nations are turning out.

Hey, thanks for hasty generalisations. After this you still wonder why some people hate USA for becoming too arrogant? I actually support many things that USA does abroad, with a big exception of your Israel policy. Not that you probably care, though. After all, I'm just a piece of Eurotrash with a fucked up mind, right?

Okay, take one more look…

"The current crisis is proving just how grateful the world is to us for sticking our necks out. Most Europeans think that Bush is more of a tyrant than Hussein and Kim Jong Il put together. I think that about says it all for the kind of fucked up minds some European nations are turning out."

Notice the two bolded words? I wasn't writing off every single person on your continent as a raving America-basher. In fact, the word "most" was probably a little excessive on my part since it's mainly France and Germany doing all the crowing.

And I agree with you on Israel. They fucked the Palestinians up one side and down the other right from the get-go, and we turned a blind eye to it. Not one of our better claims to fame.

I'm actually glad that this is all happening right now. It's finally teaching us who our friends really are. At this point, that would pretty much be Britain and Japan. (Which are the only two countries I will ever visit — I wouldn't feel safe anywhere else, except possibly Canada.) I single those two out because I think they're the only countries that are more than just our "friend of the moment".

Why wouldn't you feel safe anywhere else? Just curious. And how about the countries which haven't said a word against American attack in Iraq, but haven't promised to militarily support it either?

*sigh*…I was tired when I wrote the original post last night. I didn't think through that paragraph very well. Obviously I shouldn't feel that way about you guys…Scandinavia hasn't exactly been hostile to Americans. Sorry.

I think what I was trying to get at is that Americans are some of the most likely people in the world to be targeted for ridicule, beatings, or even death just because of their nationality. I would stay away from most of the world because of this.

Ah yes, just the good old USA kicking back all by itself, free of the burden of playing international policeman. What a beautiful thought.

For playing the role of an international policeman you can only blame your own politicians who regularily get your country involved in everyone else's affairs. For example, you offer Saudi Arabia almost unconditional support. You've saved their ass before in the Gulf War. How do the Saudis react? They finance terrorist organisations which fly airplanes into skyscrapers.

We're in total agreement on this. Saudi Arabia should have been on my list with France and South Korea. Except they're worse…they've actively supported those who want to murder our civilians. I see them as just as much a target as Iraq is.

Before you say that my country owns something to the USA, such as saving our ass during the WWII... We fought twice against Soviets and never took the Marshall aid. What you did to us and the entire Western Europe, well, because of you we didn't have to learn Russian as our second language.

Like I said, I have no problem at all with Scandinavia. You've always seemed like damn fine people to me.

[Darth Wong]

And so does the rest of the world. Other countries are hoping the U.S. economy to fall but if that happens the rest of the world won't be far behind.

So you admit that the American economy is NOT self-sufficient despite your earlier assertion that it would be on top and already has "everything we need". Concession accepted.

"Does Canada have an army or a navy"?

Nice (and incredibly transparent) attempt at distraction from your mistake, ass-hat.

[Vympel]

If the troops see an illegal running across the border, he should be ordered to surrender and if he doesn't, then he'd be a viable target.

That's barbarism! You can't just ARREST him?

There are currently over 7 million documented illegal aliens in the US. These are just the ones we know about that haven't been punted out of the country. I've heard the real number could be up to 13 million, almost enough to be a small country to themselves. It's a serious problem and needs to be dealt with more harshly; otherwise, they'll just keep on coming and living off of the taxpayer dollars of our citizens.

Of course, the penalty should be death!

It's a second-rate joke when it comes to enforcing its own resolutions. Iraq has been spitting in the face of UN authority for 12 years. And now, when a US President comes along and says "enough is enough, put your money where your mouth is", he gets called an imperialist warmonger. Israel has given the UN the middle finger for decades. (And yes, I know that's mainly our fault — we need to stop blindly supporting them.)

Iraq wouldn't be 'spitting in the face' of UN authority if the nations within the damn UN respected it's authority and the ideals it represents. Like when the US fucked up the original inspections back in 98 by placing spies in the inspection teams.

For the ungrateful French in two World Wars…for the ungrateful South Koreans who would be under the boot of one of the world's biggest nutcases otherwise…young American men barely out of their teens died to protect these countries. Now they're spitting in our faces. And the saddest thing is some of those brave Americans are still alive to see this ingratitude. I can only imagine how they must feel.

What bullshit- a sovereign nation has to kowtow to a nation that ever helped it, to the detriment of its own interests? What's the half-life on this blood-debt archaic nonsense that has no place in international affairs? Should the French be calling up the Revolutionary War favors perhaps?

Flashback to 1931…

Lol. This is the precursor to the mountain of ignorance that follows. You do know that Hitler was voted into office in 1933, don't you?

"Let's all the save the world from a dictator named Hitler whose country got its ass kicked in their last war, who barely has a functional armed forces anymore, and in the process kill thousands of people and create a whole new generation of German extremists who will hate France and Britain…"

Iraq is not Germany. Have you ever heard the phrase 'The German Problem'? Germany, when it united in the late 1800s, became the de facto Great Power on the European continent. Iraq has no such power. Please refrain from your infantile comic book version of simplisitc history.

Oh wait…that would have been a good idea, wouldn't it? If the Brits and French had gone in and disarmed Hitler as soon as he started violating the treaty that ended WW1, WW2 NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED

LOL. It was the incredible injustice of the Treaty of Versailles that CAUSED Hitler's rise to power in the FIRST place.

But instead, London and Paris had their thumbs up their asses throughout the 1930s and allowed Hitler to start the biggest war ever.

Yup keep pushing the Saddam=Hitler bullshit. Are you asserting that a starving, beat up Iraq under crushing economic sanctions, with an obsolescent, pathetic military (NONE OF WHICH APPLIES TO MID-1930S GERMANY, GENIUS) is going to start a war with anyone, let alone the biggest war ever?

Like it or not, Vympel, history is on our side here. Tony Blair read his history.

Maybe the color-in 10 page version of the beginning of WW2 that you seem to have read.

Chirac has his head in the sand.

Or maybe an attack on Iraq just isn't in France's interests?

In addition to the historical precedent, there's the small factor of the WMDs that didn't exist during WW2. I suppose you think we should wait until Saddam sells this crap to terrorists who then use it to slaughter thousands of Americans.

Hahahahahahahahahahah. I really wonder if I should dignify such alarmist bullshit with a response. But I will:

Give a reason for why Saddam would do that, considering that there is no link between Iraq and any terrorist group, every reason to think that their couldn't possibly be one, considering that islamic fundamentalists despise Iraq's secular, quasi-socialist regime, and all the reports by intelligence services (including the CIA and various others) that insist that no such links exist (having consistently debunked the desperate attempts to create a link- i.e. the anthrax attack, the asserted BS meeting between Atta and an 'Iraqi agent' in Prague) as well as the opinion given that Saddam would only use such WMD if attacked and 'backed into a corner' (bonus hint: which nation WOULDN'T use it's WMD if it was attacked and backed into a corner).

"This anti-Americanism is believed to be much worse than what has gone before. Analysts warn that a whole generation of America-haters is being created, a European generation which they say believes Americans deliberately bomb civilians and kill Arab babies."

Need I say more?

Oh yeah, that vague CNN article, with the quote you provided prefixed by the vauge: "analysts warn" (I wonder who these analysts are? they wouldn't write for the Weekly Standard now, would they?) means your argument is water-tight.

Okay, maybe "most" was a little extreme on my part. The Euros who don't feel that way probably don't feel the need to crowd the streets and shout.

Ah, so the only possible reason for millions of people taking to the streets is because they hate America and think they're a bunch of murderers. Gotcha.

Your point being what? Just because we have right-wing dipshits in this country means that no American ever has the right to say some Europeans are full of shit? Australia certainly has its share of Inbred White Trash too, doesn't it?

Precisely- there's no point in citing some left-wing/right-wing dipshit as general proof in a debate that 'Euros hate America' or some such.

[Darth Fanboy]

aaah, another "we helped europe in the past that´s why europe has to lick our ass and in general has to act like gollum in TTT".

bah!

i´d say you better visit some other countries because that would be the best way to get rid of your narrow minded, short sighted point of view.

MAHOK!

you know the guy who posted before you is from Finland right?

[salm]

aaah, another "we helped europe in the past that´s why europe has to lick our ass and in general has to act like gollum in TTT".

bah!

i´d say you better visit some other countries because that would be the best way to get rid of your narrow minded, short sighted point of view.

MAHOK!

you know the guy who posted before you is from Finland right?

you know my reply went to captain krueger who is from monteray?

[Pendragon]

Like I said, I have no problem at all with Scandinavia. You've always seemed like damn fine people to me.

Gee thanks, man Im touched that you think so highly of us... but what the hell has that got to do with Finland?

Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden. And since Finland is no longer a part of Sweden, and hasnt been for quite some time that means its not a part of Scandinavia.

However there is something we call "Norden" (rough translation "The North") wich includes Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Denmark and Denmarks little colony, wich's name I do not know in English ("Färöarna" in swedish... Faery Islands perhaps?).

This ends todays geography lesson.

[Robert Treder]

In English, they are the "Faroe Islands".

[InnerBrat]

Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden. And since Finland is no longer a part of Sweden, and hasnt been for quite some time that means its not a part of Scandinavia.

However there is something we call "Norden" (rough translation "The North") wich includes Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Denmark and Denmarks little colony, wich's name I do not know in English ("Färöarna" in swedish... Faery Islands perhaps?).

This ends todays geography lesson.

Hmmph.
OK, I always use Scandinavia to refer to all 4 countries - and my Finnish frineds have never objected to being called Scandinavians. Who defines what Scandinavia is anyway? It's not a political body, is it?

(to clarify tone, these are genuine questions, not an argument)

[Vympel]

For some reason I personally never thought of Finland as part of Scandinavia.

[Oberleutnant]

I have no problems with being called Scandinavian. After all, Finland is historically and culturally part of it, mainly because of the six hundred year long Swedish rule. Geographically, we don't belong there. The official commmon name for Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland is the "Nordic countries", but who cares? For most people, Scandinavia is a lot more easier and familiar name.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Actually, the US economy is far from self-sufficient. This is a global economy now; perhaps you should update your thinking and enter the 20th century, so you'll only be one century behind.

One could argue that the world was heavily globalized in the 19th century - A lot of so-called "isolationism" in the USA during that period was political, not economic, and any economic was largely imposed due to recovery from the Civil War and the devastation of our merchant marine during the Civil War, which has never recovered. A British subject of the same period would be buying and using productions from every corner of the globe, and exports from Britain would be reaching those same corners.

That's what makes the idea of ending globalization silly. Ever since the development of a large-scale maritime trade - which really began in Ming Dynasty China in the 15th century - globalization has been with us, and we're just in a new phase. The majority of commerce still occurs between divisions inside states even now, and in that this age of globalization and that before WWI are not much different. We've spent a lot of the post-WWII era simply recovering from those two conflicts.

To cut ourselves off from the global economy would almost be as medieval a concept as what the Islamists propose - Indeed, an America collapsed and in economic depression from such a move would be ripe for the resurgence in popularity of the far-right and its own fundamentalist parties. Neo-isolationism and fanatical christianity generally go together for a reason..

[Captain Kruger]

If the troops see an illegal running across the border, he should be ordered to surrender and if he doesn't, then he'd be a viable target.

That's barbarism! You can't just ARREST him?

"Stop or I'll shoot!" has always been a common police command in America when suspects are fleeing authorities. If you don't heed the warning, you can suffer the consequences.

Most American cops these days will probably try to chase the suspect down instead, but not if they think for a microsecond that their life might be in danger because of it.

Back to the situation with the fleeing illegal…killing him will most likely not end up being necessary. If being ordered to stop doesn't get through his skull, a series of warning shots almost certainly will.

Try to keep things in perspective here. This entire thread was more of an "I wish" example rather than a real-life workable one. The western US is already filled with mother fuckers who live off of my tax dollars either because they're lazy and want to live off the system or because they don't have any viable skills and shouldn't have been in this country in the first place (as in ILLEGAL). I'm fucking sick of it. I don't know of any other way to keep them out. I work for a living. I contribute something to America. People who just live off of this country without contributing tax dollars make me sick.

Now, poor Americans who live off of welfare and are actually trying to improve their lives…that's a different story. They're the ones the system was designed to help.

There are currently over 7 million documented illegal aliens in the US. These are just the ones we know about that haven't been punted out of the country. I've heard the real number could be up to 13 million, almost enough to be a small country to themselves. It's a serious problem and needs to be dealt with more harshly; otherwise, they'll just keep on coming and living off of the taxpayer dollars of our citizens.

Of course, the penalty should be death!

Read, dumbfuck…then post. I said the ones who are already here shouldn't be shot on sight. Use your eyes.



As for the rest of your post, you're obviously on the "sit on our ass, trust in the oh-so-benevolent UN, and hope nobody gets killed because we didn't stop mass-murdering Saddam Insane from giving bio-terror weapons to fanatics" side of the fence. But then again, when or if that comes, it'll be my country that's the target, not yours. So why should you give a fuck, right? And even if Aussies were targeted, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if you figured out a way to blame it on us.

The issue is not whether Iraq is a perfectly identical parallel for 1930s Germany. The comparison is valid because this is yet again a point in history where not acting against a psychotic tyrant will almost certainly get a lot of innocent people dead further down the road. The inability to see this correlation smacks to me of ignorance of history…or just ignorance period.

It's also a matter of unfinished business. We dropped the ball in 1991 by not finishing that bastard off. Bush Sr. convinced Kurd and Shiite rebels to rise up against Saddam. They did, and then they got slaughtered when we pulled out. We let those people down. It's time to make it up to them.

[AdmiralKanos]

Captain Kruger, you're NEVER going to convince any sane person that Iraq poses an actual military threat to the US, so this "it's my country that'll be next, not yours" argument is a waste of breath.

[Mr Bean]

There is no Country Save China who acutal pose a Military threat to us anymore and China lacks the Assets to move their Army anywhere so as before the US is pretty secure from Military Attack

However as I noted in the past, He can send the US Economey down the shit-hole and fast at will if he ever gets Nukes

[Stuart Mackey]

Our economy would go to hell if we returned to pre-McKinley Isolationism. Our current economic status - all of those nice things in life everyone enjoys - And the buying power of the middle class, for that matter, completely depends upon our overseas trade, and our ability to enforce free/beneficial trade overseas, and a good enviroment for that trade.

The US, and free trade? dont make me laugh,the moment NZ and Aussie lamb gets anywhere near a oven in America your farmers cry foul and want tarrifs and subsidies to protect their lazy asses.

We now have no choice but to maintain an American economic Empire worldwide for as long as possible.

The worst thing that can happen is that it will collapse. Even if it collapses due to the military efforts of a coalition of several other Great Powers in the distant future, it would be ludicrous to imagine the U.S. mainland being threatened, not with the defensive potential we have:

snip
No, there's only one choice, and it is that we must, with a sigh, and a shudder, take up the burden of Empire. It was lowered by Britain, and now that the USSR is defeated, it is the turn of the younger of the great English-speaking countries, and the Republican of the two, to arise to the dominant position of Hegemon.

I trust you are not serious?
For all your knowledge, Marina, sometimes you sure lack wisdom.

[Vympel]

"Stop or I'll shoot!" has always been a common police command in America when suspects are fleeing authorities. If you don't heed the warning, you can suffer the consequences.

Most American cops these days will probably try to chase the suspect down instead, but not if they think for a microsecond that their life might be in danger because of it.

Back to the situation with the fleeing illegal…killing him will most likely not end up being necessary. If being ordered to stop doesn't get through his skull, a series of warning shots almost certainly will.

Illegal immigrants pose no threat to the lives of US soldiers guarding the border, unless they're toting weapons.

Try to keep things in perspective here. This entire thread was more of an "I wish" example rather than a real-life workable one. The western US is already filled with mother fuckers who live off of my tax dollars either because they're lazy and want to live off the system or because they don't have any viable skills and shouldn't have been in this country in the first place (as in ILLEGAL). I'm fucking sick of it. I don't know of any other way to keep them out. I work for a living. I contribute something to America. People who just live off of this country without contributing tax dollars make me sick.

Now, poor Americans who live off of welfare and are actually trying to improve their lives…that's a different story. They're the ones the system was designed to help.

Fine.

Read, dumbfuck…then post. I said the ones who are already here shouldn't be shot on sight. Use your eyes.

You already implied shootings in your previous post. Don't blame me when you clarify and backpedal from that extreme position now.

As for the rest of your post, you're obviously on the "sit on our ass, trust in the oh-so-benevolent UN, and hope nobody gets killed because we didn't stop mass-murdering Saddam Insane from giving bio-terror weapons to fanatics" side of the fence. But then again, when or if that comes, it'll be my country that's the target, not yours. So why should you give a fuck, right? And even if Aussies were targeted, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if you figured out a way to blame it on us.

Standard tactic of someone who cannot respond point for point to another post. You obviously couldn't deal with what I posted, so you just decided to send off a scatter gun of bullshit that I've already challenged (bio weapons to terrorists bullshit for example), as if your argument will be better by repetition.

The issue is not whether Iraq is a perfectly identical parallel for 1930s Germany. The comparison is valid because this is yet again a point in history where not acting against a psychotic tyrant will almost certainly get a lot of innocent people dead further down the road. The inability to see this correlation smacks to me of ignorance of history…or just ignorance period.

Coming from someone who thinks Hitler was in power in 1931, fuck off. I demolished your asinine comparison to Germany, and your best response is, "oh, it's only relevant in that if we don't act against a psychotic tyrant, a lot of people will get killed!":

You are setting up a blatant false dilemma, that it's either war or do nothing. Not unlike the anti-war= you must love Saddam false dilemma.

It's also a matter of unfinished business. We dropped the ball in 1991 by not finishing that bastard off. Bush Sr. convinced Kurd and Shiite rebels to rise up against Saddam. They did, and then they got slaughtered when we pulled out. We let those people down. It's time to make it up to them.

They'll just love you this time round.

[Captain Kruger]

Sorry for the old thread revival, folks, but I've just moved and been out of action for two weeks. And since a certain Australian absolutely insists that I have to respond point-to-point rather than summarizing to save bytes…

Flashback to 1931…

Lol. This is the precursor to the mountain of ignorance that follows. You do know that Hitler was voted into office in 1933, don't you?

IIRC, Hitler's first try at getting into power was a failure. Maybe that's what occurred in 1931.

"Let's all the save the world from a dictator named Hitler whose country got its ass kicked in their last war, who barely has a functional armed forces anymore, and in the process kill thousands of people and create a whole new generation of German extremists who will hate France and Britain…"

Iraq is not Germany. Have you ever heard the phrase 'The German Problem'? Germany, when it united in the late 1800s, became the de facto Great Power on the European continent. Iraq has no such power. Please refrain from your infantile comic book version of simplisitc history.

Ah, so anyone who takes a slightly different perspective from history than you do is infantile? You must be a pretty oddball Aussie. I didn't think such arrogance was common Down Under. Do you have many friends? I mean real life ones, not on-line ones.

And as for your so-called "point", I've said before that Iraq and Nazi Germany are not a precise parallel for one another. That doesn't change the fact Saddam, can, will, and has slaughtered innocent people with bio-weapons.

Oh wait…that would have been a good idea, wouldn't it? If the Brits and French had gone in and disarmed Hitler as soon as he started violating the treaty that ended WW1, WW2 NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED

LOL. It was the incredible injustice of the Treaty of Versailles that CAUSED Hitler's rise to power in the FIRST place.

Whooptie-fucking-do. Just because the treaty wasn't fair to Germany, that means the Brits and French shouldn't have taken steps to keep that fucking psychopath from arming up? Great logic. Nice piece of retroactive hindsight head-up-the-ass history there.

But instead, London and Paris had their thumbs up their asses throughout the 1930s and allowed Hitler to start the biggest war ever.

Yup keep pushing the Saddam=Hitler bullshit. Are you asserting that a starving, beat up Iraq under crushing economic sanctions, with an obsolescent, pathetic military (NONE OF WHICH APPLIES TO MID-1930S GERMANY, GENIUS) is going to start a war with anyone, let alone the biggest war ever?

As has been seen with North Korea, GENIUS, a starving, economically pathetic country will happily sell whatever weapons they have to whatever parties can pay for them. Your ignorance of where that can lead to is truly pathetic.

Like it or not, Vympel, history is on our side here. Tony Blair read his history.

Maybe the color-in 10 page version of the beginning of WW2 that you seem to have read.

*applause, whistles* What a snappy comeback. Ever thought of going into stand-up comedy?

Chirac has his head in the sand.

Or maybe an attack on Iraq just isn't in France's interests?

Of course not, since they've been invested in Iraq for decades. They're the ones who helped build the Iraqi nuclear plant that was trying to produce weapons-grade material — until the Israelis slagged it.

In addition to the historical precedent, there's the small factor of the WMDs that didn't exist during WW2. I suppose you think we should wait until Saddam sells this crap to terrorists who then use it to slaughter thousands of Americans.

Hahahahahahahahahahah. I really wonder if I should dignify such alarmist bullshit with a response. But I will:

And people worrying about Hitler during the 1930s was alarmist bull shit too, right?

Give a reason for why Saddam would do that, considering that there is no link between Iraq and any terrorist group, every reason to think that their couldn't possibly be one, considering that islamic fundamentalists despise Iraq's secular, quasi-socialist regime, and all the reports by intelligence services (including the CIA and various others) that insist that no such links exist (having consistently debunked the desperate attempts to create a link- i.e. the anthrax attack, the asserted BS meeting between Atta and an 'Iraqi agent' in Prague) as well as the opinion given that Saddam would only use such WMD if attacked and 'backed into a corner' (bonus hint: which nation WOULDN'T use it's WMD if it was attacked and backed into a corner).

Here's a clue, numb nuts: it's called having a MUTUAL ENEMY. Did I print that big enough for you? Were we ever fond of the Soviet Union? Hell no. Did we fight alongside them to bring down Nazi Germany? Hell yes. Is history chock full of instances where natural adversaries worked together against a common threat?

I can't seriously believe that you think that Saddam, with his history of brutalizing his neighbors and his own people with WMDs and with a vested interest in helping those who wish to do harm to America, could not possibly be the slightest threat to anyone.

Enjoy having your head in the sand. Say hi to Chirac for me.

"This anti-Americanism is believed to be much worse than what has gone before. Analysts warn that a whole generation of America-haters is being created, a European generation which they say believes Americans deliberately bomb civilians and kill Arab babies."

Need I say more?

Oh yeah, that vague CNN article, with the quote you provided prefixed by the vauge: "analysts warn" (I wonder who these analysts are? they wouldn't write for the Weekly Standard now, would they?) means your argument is water-tight.

What sources are water-tight, then? Only the ones that support your viewpoint? That figures. If you don't like the message, attack the messenger.

Okay, maybe "most" was a little extreme on my part. The Euros who don't feel that way probably don't feel the need to crowd the streets and shout.

Ah, so the only possible reason for millions of people taking to the streets is because they hate America and think they're a bunch of murderers. Gotcha.

Whatever.

Your point being what? Just because we have right-wing dipshits in this country means that no American ever has the right to say some Europeans are full of shit? Australia certainly has its share of Inbred White Trash too, doesn't it?

Precisely- there's no point in citing some left-wing/right-wing dipshit as general proof in a debate that 'Euros hate America' or some such.

Hey, look here everyone! It's a classic case of the "you too!" argument! So you're basically saying I should never criticize anything that ever comes out of a single Euro mouth just because there are stupid, mindless Americans out there. You know what? Those Americans are not my problem. I don't live in the backwoods with a bunch of inbred single-digit-IQ hicks wearing overalls and a straw hat. Just because those people exist doesn't mean someone from a major western US city doesn't have the right to comment on anything that happens in the rest of the world. Should you hold your tongue about other countries just because someone says "Hey! You shouldn't be talking because there are stupid people in Perth!" Grow a brain.



But wait, folks, there's more. Remember, he insists on me responding to every damn point…

Of course, the penalty should be death!

Read, dumbfuck…then post. I said the ones who are already here shouldn't be shot on sight. Use your eyes.

You already implied shootings in your previous post. Don't blame me when you clarify and backpedal from that extreme position now.

I already clarified several posts ago that I didn't advocate shooting all illegal aliens on sight. I advocate whatever methods are necessary for keeping them out of the country in the first place, not killing every one we find who's already here. Again, you might want to actually try using your eyes before you get on the damn keyboard.

You know, your attempts to demonize me as some kill-crazed lunatic just because you don't like my point of view are truly comical. Thanks for the laugh.

As for the rest of your post, you're obviously on the "sit on our ass, trust in the oh-so-benevolent UN, and hope nobody gets killed because we didn't stop mass-murdering Saddam Insane from giving bio-terror weapons to fanatics" side of the fence. But then again, when or if that comes, it'll be my country that's the target, not yours. So why should you give a fuck, right? And even if Aussies were targeted, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if you figured out a way to blame it on us.

Standard tactic of someone who cannot respond point for point to another post. You obviously couldn't deal with what I posted, so you just decided to send off a scatter gun of bullshit that I've already challenged (bio weapons to terrorists bullshit for example), as if your argument will be better by repetition.

Well now you've been dealt with…are you happy? [shameless movie quote]"You have been measured, you have been weighed, and you have been found wanting." [/shameless movie quote]

As I said before, that so-called "scatter gun of bull shit" is called summarizing. It saves Web space, makes the post less tedious for other people to read, and gets the point across better. But I guess I'm wasting my time explaining something like that to you, since you're obviously more interested in trash-talking sarcasm.

The issue is not whether Iraq is a perfectly identical parallel for 1930s Germany. The comparison is valid because this is yet again a point in history where not acting against a psychotic tyrant will almost certainly get a lot of innocent people dead further down the road. The inability to see this correlation smacks to me of ignorance of history…or just ignorance period.

Coming from someone who thinks Hitler was in power in 1931, fuck off. I demolished your asinine comparison to Germany, and your best response is, "oh, it's only relevant in that if we don't act against a psychotic tyrant, a lot of people will get killed!"

Behold, the Strawman cometh. I was slightly off on the date he came to power, so that means I know nothing about anything. Is that the best you can do? When you constantly insult me and try to discredit me rather than just debating the point, you put yourself in the same camp as the Trekkie fucktards that inspired this board's creation in the first place. Congratulations on the company you keep.

Iraq and Germany are a relevant comparison, you moronic fuck. If Hitler had been acted against before Germany rearmed itself into the greatest military machine in Euro history, countless millions wouldn't have died from his actions. If Saddam is acted against now rather than continuing these useless fucking inspections that have been given 12 years to take their course, we'll have made the world a better place. In about 6 months to a year, we won't even be talking about this anymore.

You are setting up a blatant false dilemma, that it's either war or do nothing. Not unlike the anti-war= you must love Saddam false dilemma.

It's either war or the inspections that haven't achieved diddly shit in 12 years. Only a lunatic keeps doing exactly the same thing and expects different results.

It's also a matter of unfinished business. We dropped the ball in 1991 by not finishing that bastard off. Bush Sr. convinced Kurd and Shiite rebels to rise up against Saddam. They did, and then they got slaughtered when we pulled out. We let those people down. It's time to make it up to them.

They'll just love you this time round.

I don't care about getting their love. People will find a reason to hate us no matter what we do. It's natural to despise the country that's at the top of the food chain, even if that country uses its power to help improve the world.



Are you satisfied now, Vympel? Are you happy that so much space has been wasted on your demand for point-for-point retaliation? Do you want to drag this crap on further and further until someone locks the thread? Or can you grow the fuck up and stop being a trash-talking baby?

[Vympel]

And since a certain Australian absolutely insists that I have to respond point-to-point rather than summarizing to save bytes…

Yeah, whatever. It was tearing you up that you couldn't think up a half-decent reply for all this time, eh- and now you come back spouting rhetoric to 'the audience', as if anyone gives a shit how hard you were smacked down weeks ago.

IIRC, Hitler's first try at getting into power was a failure. Maybe that's what occurred in 1931.

And of course, the European nations, without your brillaint 20/20 hindsight at what would happen a decade later, should have promptly invaded. All bow down before the master of the chronosphere

Ah, so anyone who takes a slightly different perspective from history than you do is infantile?

Your perspective is infantile, and comes from someone who's never studied history.

You must be a pretty oddball Aussie. I didn't think such arrogance was common Down Under. Do you have many friends? I mean real life ones, not on-line ones.

*yawn* Down to the cheap jabs now are we?

And as for your so-called "point", I've said before that Iraq and Nazi Germany are not a precise parallel for one another. That doesn't change the fact Saddam, can, will, and has slaughtered innocent people with bio-weapons.

Ah, so he attacks Kurds within his own nation during a brutal counter-insurgency campaign, who can't retaliate mind you, so therefore he's only a step away from attacking America with bio-weapons without provocation! Talk about light year leap in logic.

Whooptie-fucking-do. Just because the treaty wasn't fair to Germany, that means the Brits and French shouldn't have taken steps to keep that fucking psychopath from arming up? Great logic. Nice piece of retroactive hindsight head-up-the-ass history there.

No, I think that honor belongs to your "the allies should've attacked Germany in 1933" school of thought.

As has been seen with North Korea, GENIUS, a starving, economically pathetic country will happily sell whatever weapons they have to whatever parties can pay for them. Your ignorance of where that can lead to is truly pathetic.

Look! It's the mighty-morphin argument! Now the threat is Iraq could give weapons to 'whoever can pay for them'. Yes, Saddam will be big on giving WMD to a man who called him a socialist heathen and whose blood was halal, and who has stated publicly that he would like nothing more than to see Saddam's evil secular regime fall.

*applause, whistles* What a snappy comeback. Ever thought of going into stand-up comedy?

Glad you liked it.

Of course not, since they've been invested in Iraq for decades. They're the ones who helped build the Iraqi nuclear plant that was trying to produce weapons-grade material — until the Israelis slagged it.

And? America helped Iraq too. What the fuck is your point?

And people worrying about Hitler during the 1930s was alarmist bull shit too, right?

No, they had a right to attack Hitler when he demanded the Sudetenland. That was appeasement. Sanctions, weapons inspections, and the greatest military power in the world with the WILL to attack watching you (unlike France and Britain) does not fall under the category of appeasement. Iraq attacked Kuwait, and was smacked down, exactly like it should have been. Please take your pathetic false dilemma fallacies elsewhere.

Here's a clue, numb nuts: it's called having a MUTUAL ENEMY. Did I print that big enough for you? Were we ever fond of the Soviet Union? Hell no. Did we fight alongside them to bring down Nazi Germany? Hell yes. Is history chock full of instances where natural adversaries worked together against a common threat?

LOL. You dumbfuck. you do realize the crucial difference is that the world was at fucking war, right? You do know that Iraq is not in a state of war with the United States? Is there some sort of Iraqi/American front going on right now? In case you haven't noticed- the war ended in 1991. US efforts to start it again nonwithstanding. Do you even know how large an escalation weapons of mass destruction are? He'd be signing his own goddamn death warrant.

I can't seriously believe that you think that Saddam, with his history of brutalizing his neighbors and his own people with WMDs and with a vested interest in helping those who wish to do harm to America, could not possibly be the slightest threat to anyone.

What's his vested interest in harming America, you idiot? What the fuck has he got to gain? A JDAM up his ass? Is Saddam some sort of moron who wants to hurt America anyway he can, even if it means he gets nothing out of it and gets killed? Odd that he didn't use any WMD even when the Coaltion was on his doorstep in 1991. Oh well- let's not let history get in the way of some good rabid paranoia.

Enjoy having your head in the sand. Say hi to Chirac for me.

Yes, not being a victim of rampant paranoia and massive leaps in logic is 'having your head in the sand'.

What sources are water-tight, then? Only the ones that support your viewpoint? That figures. If you don't like the message, attack the messenger.

Be careful, that strawman is looking precarious. I'd really like to meet these people:

"What do you do?"
"I'm an analyst"
"What do you analyze?"
"Well, I'm involved in research to determine whether a new generation of America haters is being created?"
"Oh, and how do you figure that?"
"Oh that's easy, I simply assume that everyone who's anti-war hates America".

Whatever.

Move along people, no rebuttal to see here.

Hey, look here everyone! It's a classic case of the "you too!" argument! So you're basically saying I should never criticize anything that ever comes out of a single Euro mouth just because there are stupid, mindless Americans out there.
You know what? Those Americans are not my problem. I don't live in the backwoods with a bunch of inbred single-digit-IQ hicks wearing overalls and a straw hat. Just because those people exist doesn't mean someone from a major western US city doesn't have the right to comment on anything that happens in the rest of the world. Should you hold your tongue about other countries just because someone says "Hey! You shouldn't be talking because there are stupid people in Perth!" Grow a brain.

YOU'RE the dumbfuck who tried to use some extreme leftie comments as GENERAL proof of what Euros think of America, asshole, not me. Again, it's the mighty-morphin argument!

I already clarified several posts ago that I didn't advocate shooting all illegal aliens on sight. I advocate whatever methods are necessary for keeping them out of the country in the first place, not killing every one we find who's already here. Again, you might want to actually try using your eyes before you get on the damn keyboard.

Bullfuck you did. You only backpedalled after I called you on it.

You know, your attempts to demonize me as some kill-crazed lunatic just because you don't like my point of view are truly comical. Thanks for the laugh.

And your backpedalling mighty-morphin argument is infinitely more amusing.

Well now you've been dealt with…are you happy? [shameless movie quote]"You have been measured, you have been weighed, and you have been found wanting." [/shameless movie quote]

Right ... never mind that you still didn't answer my challenge, and instead chose to ignore the following facts, AGAIN

1: intelligence agencies insist there is no link between Iraq and Al-Quaeda
2: the CIA has gone on the record as saying Saddam would not use WMD unless 'his back was against the wall'

What was your awesome repsonse that you came back weeks later for? "Oh, they have a common enemy". Just brilliant.

As I said before, that so-called "scatter gun of bull shit" is called summarizing. It saves Web space, makes the post less tedious for other people to read, and gets the point across better. But I guess I'm wasting my time explaining something like that to you, since you're obviously more interested in trash-talking sarcasm.

No, I'm obviously more interested in having someone answer my fucking questions, rather than pick and choose what to respond to in the name of 'summarizing'.

Behold, the Strawman cometh.

Bullshit- that's exactly what your argument is. I quote: "this is yet again a point in history where not acting against a psychotic tyrant will almost certainly get a lot of innocent people dead further down the road."

I was slightly off on the date he came to power, so that means I know nothing about anything.

No, the rest of your ignorant bullshit, leaps in logic, and false dilemmas establishes that pretty nicely.

Is that the best you can do? When you constantly insult me and try to discredit me rather than just debating the point, you put yourself in the same camp as the Trekkie fucktards that inspired this board's creation in the first place. Congratulations on the company you keep.

Having fun fooling yourself? Insulting morons while debating them is perfectly acceptable on this forum. Do fuck off to spacebattles now if you don't like it.

Iraq and Germany are a relevant comparison, you moronic fuck.

No, it's totally irrelevant. Iraq does not have a world class economy, a world class military, a large industrial base, cutting edge doctrine, and has not consistently made demands for anschluss, territory, or lebensraum. In addition, Germany is obviously different because in that case the dominant opposing powers totally lacked the will to fight Germany until it was too late, and even after the war started, did not have the ability to prosecute the war. Iraq has none of Germany's power, and furthermore has already been utterly crushed in it's foolish expansionist endeavours, and, unlike Germany, totally lacks the ability to project any sort of power or threaten any of the great powers, let alone the SUPERpower.

In conclusion, you are a moronic fuck.

If Hitler had been acted against before Germany rearmed itself into the greatest military machine in Euro history, countless millions wouldn't have died from his actions.

Brilliant 20/20 hindsight there. And look, the moronic fuck continues to deploy his pathetic Iraq=Germany false analogy. Tell me, WHEN should the Allies have attacked Germany? If you're not a moronic jingoist, Czechoslovakia 1938 would've been the time to put your foot down. Today, we've already put our foot down, idiot.

If Saddam is acted against now rather than continuing these useless fucking inspections that have been given 12 years to take their course, we'll have made the world a better place. In about 6 months to a year, we won't even be talking about this anymore.

Notice:

attack Germany: millions of people would be saved
attack Iraq: the world would be a better place

You can't even keep your own fucked up comparisons straight, can you?

It's either war or the inspections that haven't achieved diddly shit in 12 years. Only a lunatic keeps doing exactly the same thing and expects different results.

Inspections haven't achieved diddly shit? What fucking crack pipe have you been smoking? Maybe you should go tell a former inspector that, they can smack you in the mouth if we're lucky. And no, inspections is not the only issue. Iraq's total lack of power, the sanctions that incidnetally were never imposed on Germany and the eye of the US prevent Iraq from ever threatening the region, let alone America itself.

I don't care about getting their love. People will find a reason to hate us no matter what we do. It's natural to despise the country that's at the top of the food chain, even if that country uses its power to help improve the world.

Now the jingoist shows his true colours. All those dictators you installed and supported really helped make the world a better place. Go sell your bullshit elsewhere.

Are you satisfied now, Vympel? Are you happy that so much space has been wasted on your demand for point-for-point retaliation? Do you want to drag this crap on further and further until someone locks the thread? Or can you grow the fuck up and stop being a trash-talking baby?

Oh shut up you pathetic poser; maybe when you rub your two brain cells together you can think up another reply in 6 weeks time.

[0.1]

Kruger,

the argument for anti war should not be isolationism. You don't want to stop doing business. In another thread I put up my rationale for why the US ought not go to war.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 1&start=50

Look on the second page there. Basically, the U.S. have to stay engaged. But not play the policeman, if people wants to kill each other, let them. It's not our problem unless it affects us directly. But you do it in a way that you're looking our for #1. Example: Lift sanctions on Iraq, cause no one else really wants it anyway. Go ahead and sell them arms, it supports the American economy, and what difference does it make to the U.S. that Saddam gases his own people. No one made the U.S. the moral authority of the world. And I doubt it anyone else want to claim that particular mantle. The U.S. might be a free society, but we don't particularly have a right to impose it on anyone else.

Heck, this actually overturns my original position on why the U.S. should get involved, but I'm happy to say that resource wise, it's much better for the U.S. to back away.

Like Bill Clinton said once before, "it's the economy, stupid"

BTW, Wong, if the global economy collapses, I agree, the US will be really hurt, no avoiding that, but I'd bet it'll come out better than most other nations. Think about it, if there is a war on the Korean peninsula and America doesn't intervene, the U.S. will get hurt, but not as much as NK's neighbors and most of Asia.

There is more than one way to gain power and influence, and the best way doesn't involve the U.S. strutting around the world like a policeman that no one wants.

[Coyote]

The uber-isolationist stance is unrealistic and naive. Most people here have already summed up good reason why, economic beign the most prevalent.

On the other hand, to an extent, I can see the logic in just letting other countries (no, I am not talking about Europe) fuck each other to death. I mean, seriously, if Kazakhstan and Kygrzistan kill one another to the last man, woman and child, it really has little to do with us.

I've been arguing human rights and all that in a lot of recent posts but when you get right down to it, a lot of shit happens in the world and we cannot control it all, and I wonder if we really should. Let's ask ourselves: was it really any of our business what went on in Rwanda? If the world is willing to let shit like this slide and its no skin off our backs, well, maybe we should.

But that means no more interventions, even for 'humanitarian' purposes. That's a pretty big call. Basically, if the people of Sierra Leone want to hack the arms off of children, none of us would care. We'd do what the US, Britain, and France have done recently: send the fleet, evacuate our citizens, then bug out and let them flush their bullshit countries down the drain.

For example-- Saddam sends VX nerve agent to Tel-Aviv; Sharon glasses Baghdad. We better all be prepared to shrug and let them deal with it-- no more of this "The US has a moral responsibility as the sole remaining superpower ... blahblahblah."

Is that the world we want?

[Vympel]

For example-- Saddam sends VX nerve agent to Tel-Aviv; Sharon glasses Baghdad. We better all be prepared to shrug and let them deal with it-- no more of this "The US has a moral responsibility as the sole remaining superpower ... blahblahblah."

*sigh*. Coyote- I've said it many times- I can think up any outlandish scenario and talk about how terrible it is- the question is- why would it happen? The threat must not only be possible, it must be probable. And noone has ever satisfactorily explained why Saddam didn't do it in 1991: answer: he may be a brutal dictator- but he's not out of his fucking mind.

Is that the world we want?

No, the world I'd prefer is where the nations of this Earth respect the principles on which the UN was founded, instead of just using it as a tool, while cynically employing the 'humanitarian' argument whenever it suits them, but picking and choosing who gets this 'humanitarian' benefit. Kurds in Turkey? Fuck them. Kurds in Iraq? Oh, those poor people. It's despicable.

[Coyote]

Aw, man...

Someone is trying to help, but ends up looking trollish while trashing some of the headway I'd hoped to make elsewhere.

Can't win for losing...