Rant: Anti-War Protestors are idiots

[SirNitram]

No, I mean 50%. The 70% support for the war has only come about in the past 12 days or so. People were protesting long before than, and when they were protesting, polls showed that the country was split 50/50 on whether or not they wanted to go to war. That was when Bush unilaterally declared that he was going to be an arrogant prick not only to the rest of the world, but to half his people, as well.

At the risk of stating the obvious, when it's a 50/50 split, you will be ignoring half the nation one way or another.

[Darth Wong]

Hey, for all those saying we can or want to conquer the world, please stop it. Most Americans myself included have no interest in conquering ANYTHING.

That's not it. America is not out to conquer the world per se; America is out to take whatever actions are feasible to ensure that it does not lose its current position of military and economic dominance.

We just want to listen to our music, buy our made in Taiwan products and eat our fast food. Let the rest of the world do what it wants. It's when the rest of the world intrudes on America (terrorsim) that I say lets get out there and kick some ass to secure the safety of our citizens and insure our position as the global power. But in no way would I or most any other American support conquest of ANY sort.

When kids in Europe are arrested and jailed for breaking American copyright laws which have no basis whatsoever in international law (see DMCA and creator of DeCSS), you are seeing the effect of American sabre-rattling, mostly performed using the economic "stick". This is what people are generally referring to when they talk of American imperialism: subversion of foreign government sovereignty and independence under American interests through the kind of state department bullying which Marina speaks of quite casually (and even in glowing terms, as if it's something to be proud of).

This should not be confused with conquest in the traditional sense, and perhaps we need a new term to describe it. But the fact that America has disproportionate influence over world events is undeniable, and most outside observers feel that it is willing to take "ethically questionable" actions in order to preserve that disproportionate influence.

[Frank Hipper]

This should not be confused with conquest in the traditional sense, and perhaps we need a new term to describe it.

"Globalism"?

[SirNitram]

This should not be confused with conquest in the traditional sense, and perhaps we need a new term to describe it.

"Globalism"?

Without the sterilize politikspeak.

[Stormbringer]

That's not it. America is not out to conquer the world per se; America is out to take whatever actions are feasible to ensure that it does not lose its current position of military and economic dominance.

Which is hardly unique to America. It's the action of every top dog government from time immemorial. That's the way governments operate. Hell that's why governments exist: to further the intrests of their people.

When kids in Europe are arrested and jailed for breaking American copyright laws which have no basis whatsoever in international law (see DMCA and creator of DeCSS), you are seeing the effect of American sabre-rattling, mostly performed using the economic "stick".

And just about everyone that has given any thought to those laws hates them. Most people just aren't that familar with that kind of stuff and barely understand that actual impact if they do.

This is what people are generally referring to when they talk of American imperialism: subversion of foreign government sovereignty and independence under American interests through the kind of state department bullying which Marina speaks of quite casually (and even in glowing terms, as if it's something to be proud of).

Again, that's hardly something unique to America. Look at France a few months ago. It's real politics. Any country that bitches about that kind of stuff is either hypocritical or Swiss.

This should not be confused with conquest in the traditional sense, and perhaps we need a new term to describe it. But the fact that America has disproportionate influence over world events is undeniable, and most outside observers feel that it is willing to take "ethically questionable" actions in order to preserve that disproportionate influence.

The US has that influence because like it or not we're a lynchpin of the global community. This has been the American century. I doubt any of the colonial powers of the early 20th century gave it much thought when they were on top.

Like it or not the big countries will get their way. It's how politics work at the international level and how it always has. Most of the countries that bitch now did the same when they were on top and probably would do the same if they ever get their again. It's not fair but it's the way things work.

The US could and should behave more ethically. And in a perfect world it would. I disagree with a lot things the US has done. But it's hypocritical for these nations to act like their shit doesn't stink either.

[Darth Wong]

Stormbringer, the "everybody does it and always has" excuse is not an excuse. Throughout time immemorial, most governments have used torture as a means of extracting information from people they didn't like. Should we do that too? We hope or claim to be moving forward, not emulating the behaviour of the past.

[Stormbringer]

Stormbringer, the "everybody does it and always has" excuse is not an excuse. Throughout time immemorial, most governments have used torture as a means of extracting information from people they didn't like. Should we do that too? We hope or claim to be moving forward, not emulating the behaviour of the past.

In some respects we have progressed. However Mike it's foolish to think that governments will ever cease to jockey for position and use whatever means they can ethically use. It's not like the US is the only nation to bully those that it can.

And we have moved forward in some degrees. A century ago I don't doubt we would have just squashed Afgahnistan and it's people with out second though rather than the relatively surgical war we did fight. We would have leveled Iraq in a heart beat and probably anyone who tried to stop. Hell 50 years ago we probably would have rounded up all the Muslims we could find.

Mike, the methods have changed for the better but the game remains the same. The US is just ahead right so we get all the shit. There isn't a country out there that's innocent of using (and to some degree abusing) it's influence.

[Montcalm]

Something i would like to do but guarantee the media will never show it,going to a peace protest with a sign that says (Saddam let go your weapons of mass destruction and grab your weapon of mass-turbation)

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Something i would like to do but guarantee the media will never show it,going to a peace protest with a sign that says (Saddam let go your weapons of mass destruction and grab your weapon of mass-turbation)

If it should turn out that Tempe hasn't learned their lesson from the last peace protest I disrupted, I vow on your mother's grave I'll do it.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Hey, for all those saying we can or want to conquer the world, please stop it. Most Americans myself included have no interest in conquering ANYTHING.

That's not it. America is not out to conquer the world per se; America is out to take whatever actions are feasible to ensure that it does not lose its current position of military and economic dominance.

We just want to listen to our music, buy our made in Taiwan products and eat our fast food. Let the rest of the world do what it wants. It's when the rest of the world intrudes on America (terrorsim) that I say lets get out there and kick some ass to secure the safety of our citizens and insure our position as the global power. But in no way would I or most any other American support conquest of ANY sort.

When kids in Europe are arrested and jailed for breaking American copyright laws which have no basis whatsoever in international law (see DMCA and creator of DeCSS), you are seeing the effect of American sabre-rattling, mostly performed using the economic "stick". This is what people are generally referring to when they talk of American imperialism: subversion of foreign government sovereignty and independence under American interests through the kind of state department bullying which Marina speaks of quite casually (and even in glowing terms, as if it's something to be proud of).

This should not be confused with conquest in the traditional sense, and perhaps we need a new term to describe it.

I think "legislatism" is an adequate term for this, or maybe litigism -- the abuse of law for economic or political gain.

[Stuart Mackey]

Yep, and If America continues the rest of the world will end up going against America, just as coalitions have always gone against a perceived hegamon.

Coalitions never go against the perceived hegemon. They form around the perceived hegemon. Bush is the most brilliant statesman the USA has had since Reagan, at least - no offense intended to Mike - as he's created a situation where the USA is aggressively using its power to enforce the hegemony. Some people are hating us, but already more than fourty-five countries have committed to the side of the hegemon and will reap the benefits of that in their regions.

Those nations who oppose us will be cowed by the demonstrations of our power, as will pressure groups, as we destroy our enemies in this conflict. The result will be a minimalisation of our opposition and a continued process of the siding of a large number of countries with the USA to reap the benefits of alliance or alignment with the hegemon.

This is the way geopolitics has always worked, amply supported by historical example.

So what was England/Britian doing for all those centuries? And if you think you can overawe a nation like Britian, or NZ or Canada or China or for that matter Russia when Blair is deposed you would have to be kidding yourself.
So Marina, how far do you actually think you will go? want to declare war on a few democracies, eh? cause NZ sure opposes what you are doing.

[Stuart Mackey]

Hey, for all those saying we can or want to conquer the world, please stop it. Most Americans myself included have no interest in conquering ANYTHING. We just want to listen to our music, buy our made in Taiwan products and eat our fast food. Let the rest of the world do what it wants. It's when the rest of the world intrudes on America (terrorsim) that I say lets get out there and kick some ass to secure the safety of our citizens and insure our position as the global power. But in no way would I or most any other American support conquest of ANY sort.

With all due respect, its not your average American people detest, its your governmnent and its policies. But what intruiges me is the way you say " ... insure our position as the global power" its statements like that that get under peoples skin, you know like"We will bury you".

[Darth Fanboy]

Fuck you. This is my opinion , you don't have to like or endorse it.

Well as much as I approve of people who praise our great nation Id rather not piss off every other country while doing it. Especially on an esteemed forum like this where there are a great many international users, hell Americans are just guests on this board as the Great Leader of SDNet is Canadian himself (not that most of you need to be reminded, but it kinda goes along with what im saying)

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

There was infact two or three area's in which such electorial fraud were alledged and not alway atributed to the Republicans. IIRC, most of the Florida election fraud has never panned out and is relegated to a bunch of pissed off Democrates talking shit. I am not saying two wrongs make a right, I just saying it is the political reality we live in and it does need to be changed. But bringing it up when your perfered side loses is dishonest. My side won (though I would have perfered a different choise of canidates) but I admit that the system is corupt as is.

Haven't you been listening? I didn't have a side. I don't take sides in politics.

All politicians are arrogant, as is my observation. I have yet to see a humble politician. As for stupid, well one can point to his money and family as to how he got into Yale and Harvard, but in actualy graduating those institutions I have to believe the guy has some G2.

Other politicians may be arrogant, but they're good at hiding it. Bush's blatant arrogance (among other "traits")has reversed post-9/11 pro-American sentiment, and that's no mean feat.

I never mentioned Clinton, but two different styles (as it were) of accomplishing a Presidency. No red herring.

A style which happened to belong to Clinton...

I am adressing the point. You seem to think that Bush's action to take our military to war is some how unique and therefore damning to his legacy. His authorizing military action is hardly unique and therefore not an issue to his legacy. Weather or not the war is won/lost or is just/unjust will go towards his legacy but the actual action of military conflict will not.

I never gave any evidence of having thought that. The difference is the scale. Clinton ordered many military actions (most of them for shitty reasons or with shitty results), but he never led us to war.

And as far as I know, any American can get stocks. In fact most peoples retirement and savings are wrapped up in stocks in one form or another. This is hardly an example of tax cuts for the rich, since alot of Americans hold stock, both poor and rich.

Poor people do not hold stock, and the middle class does not hold anywhere near as much as the rich. I never said (at least I didn't mean to) that non-rich don't get helped at all, but that his tax cuts favor the wealthy disproportionately.

I didn't say you were a sheep nor an ideologue. I said that you didn't like the above, for ideological reasons.

You just said it again. You don't have to be explicit to be clear. If I don't like someone for ideological reasons that would make me both a sheep and an ideologue. And why are you psychoanalyzing me to find the reasons I don't like the real Axis of Evil when I just gave them?

Cheney is questionable, IMHO but not a bastard. Rumsfeld, well I like him and as of yet, seen footage of him presenting a nuke or other NBC items to Saddam.

Rumsfeld was the person who acted as the initial go-between for Saddam and the US government in 1983, and was most responsible for the Reagan administration's warming up to Saddam.

So if he is the reason for Saddam getting WMD, please post some proof. Again, I am not calling you pro American nor anti American so drop that line of shit.

Sorry, it's hard not to lump you in with people like Durran Kor when I'm responding to both at the same time.

Some parts are questionable and others are just being hyped by opponents of the current administration. Like it or not, its the system and the Judicial Review has yet to weed it out but probably will. They need to have someone who has been actualy 'damaged' first before it can go before the court.

Still shouldn't have been there, and it reveals Ashcroft's true colors.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

1. He stole the election in the first place
BZZZZT Wrong, several independent investigations by newspapers in Florida (like the Miami Herald) after the fact recounted and Bush won by an even greater margin than officially reported. Got a problem with him winning an electoral College Victory go complain to the same authors that made up your precious Bill Of Rights.

How about the way the Supreme Court stopped the recount and handed the election to Bush? What was he so afraid of?

And that answers my assertion how? He WON the election, whether the Supreme Court handed it to him or not.

Well obviously he won, he's the president. What are you, stupid?

2. He's arrogant, stupid, and agressive
SNIFF SNIFF...what's that I smell? Personal opinion masquerading as fact??

Actually it's personal opinion being forwarded as an argument. Care to refute it?
Sure, I don't agree. MY personal opinion forwarded as an argument. Where that get us....no where.[/quote]
*sigh* I didn't really think I needed to explain this one. He's arrogant for dismissing his critics (some of our greatest allies) as "irrelevant" and waving away millions of people protesting, and generally going after his goals like a bull goes after a red cape, no matter what anyone thinks. He's stupid because he's a born-again fundie who can't make a decent speech to save his life, and even when you can understand what he's trying to say, it's incredibly childish (Axis of Evil? What the fuck is this, GI Joe?) His attitudes toward not just Iraq but virtually every country that hasn't toed the line has shown him to be as aggressive as a bull moose. Now, care to refute that?

3. He turned the world against our country
France and Germany do not the world make and as far as I'm concerned, US interests should never be subservient to world opinion. If you lived here in NYC during 9/11 you would know why some of us are extremely adamant about premepting.
If you think France and Germany are the only countries against this war and against Bush, you're more of a lost cause than I thought. There was a poll across European countries about the most dangerous country in the world and 86 percent responded that they thought it was the U.S. And if you think those New Yorkers are solidified against the war you'll have to explain the 500,000 protestors. By the way, Bush's assertion that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 is not just normal politician double-speak, it's a bold faced lie.

Bush did not say that. Bush says that Sadaam has links to terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and as I pointed out and you ignored a terrorist training camp has been blasted by cruise missiles in Northern Iraq. The camp belonged to an organixation that was once fronted by Iran but was eventually disowned and drifted over to Al-Qaeda.

I don't remember you saying that, and it's the first I've heard of it. In any case, Saddam hasn't had control of Northern Iraq for years, the Kurds have. Al-Qaeda hates Saddam's regime so much they offered to kick him out of Kuwait instead of us. Bush hasn't produced a shred of evidence despite some very hard looking that Saddam has "terrorist allies", and that makes what he said a bold faced lie.

As to the protestors, when you are a community of 20 million in the tristate area AND you are culling from a college city like NYC you WILL get alot of protestors, particularly anti-Bush protestors. 500,000, from an area of 20 million, that doesn't faze me too much. Especially when you consider that this is a liberal bastion. You get 500,000 protestors from the midwest or south and THEN we'll talk.

500,000 protestors indicates millions that are anti-war and weren't protesting.

The UN failed to enforce its own resolutions, because they lack the will we should as well? And since when is it bad to take out an evil dictator that is oppressing his people with torture and rape? Have YET to hear a good argument about that.[/color]

I have yet to hear a shred of evidence to suggest that this is our motivation for going to war and not a combination of economic interests and Realpolitik. Even if it were the reason, 1) there are other, more brutal dictators, and 2) we have a long history of leaving bad places twice as bad as we found them.

BUT you have not answered the assertion have you, since the operation IS called Iraqi freedom AND the administration has stated that one of the objectives is the LIBERATION of Iraq thus how can you side with the dictator that does what I outlined??[/quote]
That's really the way you see things isn't it? You think anyone who's not pro-war is siding with Saddam. Anyway, of course the administration says that. They said that about Afghanistan, and surprise surprise, it's just as fucked up now as it was before. They said that about Kosovo, Grenada, Panama, Vietnam, and guess what? It was all bullshit. It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now, and you're an idiot for believing it.

There are more brutal dictators. Ok tell that to the mother whose son was fed to a human meatgrinder in an Iraqi prison, or the daughter raped brutally by Sadaam's henchmen because her fathjer defected or is a political prisoner. "Sorry, you see since there are other brutal dictators out there we cannot intervene."

What about the million+ prison force being routinely executed and used for slave labor in North Korea? What about villages being decimated by rebels, then slaughtered by government forces for allowing rebels to occupy over control of diamond mines in Africa? What about child prostetution in South East Asia? What about the killings in Serbia and Ireland? What about the Russian Mafia? Why don't you give a shit about any of that? Is it because it's not convenient to maintaining your right-wing jingoist worldview?

Oh a LONG history eh? I guess Japan is FAR worse off than it was when we occupied it. Germany, what a shit hole after our occupation. South Korea, god what a mess we made there. Hey, how about this...stop talking out of your ass..[/color]

Remember the hits, forget the misses. You list 3 places that have been made better off by U.S. military action, let's see how many I can list that have been made worse off: Panama, El Salvador, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Grenada, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Sudan, the Phillipines... that's just off the top of my head.

4. He's taken us to war at the cost of the lives of soldiers with bright futures for bullshit reasons.
PREEMPTION. The Bush Doctrine. If you lost friends in those towers as I have you would know that we better damn well hit them first and hit them hard.

Who's "them"? If you're talking about Al-Qaeda, OK, if you're talking about Iraq, you're a moron.

Ah, sticks and stones. ALL TERRORISTS. In case you were fucking sleeping after 9/11 this is a war on TERROR NOT AL-Qaeda. Funny that you can see all the insidious links between Bush and all the evils of the US but you can't see the links between terror and the governments that sponsor them. WHere the fuck do you think they train, get their weapons, recruit??? Oz???[/quote]
Not Iraq. There has been no evidence to show that, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence. By the way, terrorist is a bullshit word. It means whatever you want it to. So declaring war on terror amounts to writing yourself a blank check to do whatever you want.

As for his WMD (we gave him both weapons and knowledge of how to build his own by the way), the weapons' inspectors have found zero evidence for that. I agree that he probably has them, but you can't use assumptions as evidence on the world scene. That's a very dangerous precedent to set.

And IF we did give him the weapons and the knowledge does that not give us the imperative to remove them from him and correct our mistakes??

Yes it does. Just like when I take my car to a fly-by-night shop and they fuck it up, they have the imperative to fix their mistakes. But why the hell should I trust them to fix it? They're the ones who fucked it up in the first place! They'll probably just make it worse. When you have a track record of nation-fucking as shitty as the U.S. does, and especially with such an irresponsible administration, I'd lay down a crisp clean $100 bill that not only do we not "fix our mistakes" in any satisfactory way, but we make more.

6. He cut taxes for the rich, and cut programs for the poor.
He cut taxes for EVERYONE. I saw a significant boost in my refund this year and I am hardly rich. And besides, lets be honest, because a man makes more he needs to pay more than the next man. As I rose up in tax brackets I began to lament hightaxes so I can imagine what people like gates and others think. They already pay quite a fair share, let's punish success shall we?

Apparently sympathy is a foreign concept to you.

No, because I have yet to see the poor driven into the streets or the slash and burn you claim is going on for the poor. Welfare rolls are not being slashed, point in fact welfare rolls have increased here in NYC. Taxing the rich, despite liberal propaganda to the contrary does not solve our economic or social programs. And since when did the rich give up their right to have equal voices in this society? They can't bitch about taxes because their rich? I see equality only swings one way with you.
I must be a talkative guy to have said all those things. Oh wait, that's just you putting words in my mouth. I never said nor implied that we should tax the hell out of the rich or that they shouldn't have equal voices. In any case, the fact that you personally haven't seen bad results is a pathetic appeal to personal ignorance.

8. He's a liar (eg. "Saddam and his terrorist allies").
Oh yes...that's right...NO ONE ELSE lies. Oh god, Clinton NEVER lied...he just asked us what the meaning of "is" was. By the way, a terrorist camp was struck by cruise missiles in Northern Iraq killing about a hundred terrorist fighters. If you're going to come up with an example of his lying please actually find one.

I just provided one. Are you blind? He got up on national television and used the words "Saddam and his terrorist allies". Despite over a year of desperate searching for links between Saddam and terrorist organizations, not a shred of evidence has been found. The propaganda department is trying to make Americans think (and succeeding) that Saddam is in the same camp as the people who attacked the WTC. That's a damned dirty lie, the kind that gets thousands of people killed.


Are you blind or did you not read what I wrote. I said a terrorist training camp was attcaked and destroyed IN NORTHERN IRAQ. This terrorist training camp has been linked to Al-Qaeda after the organization was cut loose by Iran years ago. An Al-Qaeda operative was linked to Baghdad several months ago and traveled to Paris where he dropped off recipe books for Ricin. The Paris police arrested his cell there but promply kept it quite for fear of panic (and to try and stop any bolstering of Bush's argument that Iraq has terrorst ties.) This is a war on Terror. At no time did we ever say that we were limiting our operations against Al-Qeada.[/quote]
I've heard the allegation about the operative, and it embodies the terms "reaching" and "tenuous". Basically, the best the propaganda department could come up with was that there was this Al-Qaeda operative that was in a hospital in Baghdad. That's right, he was in a hospital in Baghdad for a few days or so, therefore Saddam has links to Al-Qaeda. I wondered when I heard the story what kind of gullible dipshit would buy that, now I know.

9. He's an ex-cokehead turned born-again. Honestly, when your president has the characteristics of the Bible thumping McDonald's employee who shows up at everyone's high-school reunion, we've got some serious fucking problems.
Yes, because redemption can never happen and people can never change their ways. Nice view of humanity there....remind me to ask you for counseling when someone dies in my family.

You definitely don't want to talk to me when someone dies, because I'll tell you that there's no soul, no heaven, no reincarnation, they're gone forever, and you know why? Because it's the fucking truth, and if you expect me to tell the Emperor what a nice suit he's wearing, you can kiss my ass.

I am NOT going to get dragged into an argunment about belief but suffice it to say that you can't prove that there isn't one and I can't prove that there is. The country is predominately believers whether you like it or not.[/quote]
I wasn't talking about belief, asshole. The fact that it sticks out in big red letters in your mind is your problem. I was talking about the pursuit of truth and not being a bleating sheep like you, willing to adopt whatever the current cult of personality thinks as your own personal truth.

[Axis Kast]

Remember the hits, forget the misses. You list 3 places that have been made better off by U.S. military action, let's see how many I can list that have been made worse off: Panama, El Salvador, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Grenada, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Sudan, the Phillipines... that's just off the top of my head.

Panama was better-off under Noriega?

Greanadans cheered when we entered in 1983. You're going to tell me that what we did was awful?

Kovoso was left worse-off in what way? Because we destroyed some of the present infrastructure in order to stop mass genocide?

The Phillippines is actually an appreciable modern country despite early colonialism. We left them better off than other colonies of the era.

One can make a strong argument that Pinochet's rule was better than that fo a Communist dictator. Today, Chile is more or less fine.

North Korea? Okay, now look as South Korea.

Vietnam? I might bite - but on the same token, you'd have to claim that we left Germany in a bad spot after the Great War. You open a can of worms with this country.

Sudan? It would have been awful whether or not we bombed the pharmaseutical factory.

[Vympel]

Kovoso was left worse-off in what way? Because we destroyed some of the present infrastructure in order to stop mass genocide?

Oh bullshit. No mass genocide was ever shown to be the case in Kosovo. Maximum dead over 2000, on all sides, including combatants- NATO claims of hundreds of thousands killed are an utter fabrication. Justification for bombing the shit out of Serbia, taking a sovereign part of their territory, and handing it over to a bunch of Albanian terrorists, and the resulting displacement of the Serbs? I should think not. I will also point out that Yuogslavia accepted all terms required of it, except that of NATO occupation. It wanted an international force under the UN, not a military alliance, to administer Kosovo. NATO didn't budge= bombing= death.

One can make a strong argument that Pinochet's rule was better than that fo a Communist dictator. Today, Chile is more or less fine.

Communist dictator If you care to make this argument, Patrick Degan will arrive and blow it into little tiny pieces, just like he did when someone else (Duchess) tried to engage in apologetics for this despicable despot.

[Axis Kast]

Now it's a battle of opinion, Vympel. Your colorful emotives say as much.

[Vympel]

Now it's a battle of opinion, Vympel. Your colorful emotives say as much.

[Axis Kast]

You want to deny that you are convinced NATO spews propaganda? I'm not going to be able to convince you of anything less.

[Vympel]

You want to deny that you are convinced NATO spews propaganda? I'm not going to be able to convince you of anything less.

Of course I'm convinced they spewed (past tense) propaganda. Because they did. Unless you want to provide evidence of the words 'mass genocide' which you so casually toss about- which you can't, because there isn't any. NATO *themselves* retracted their 'hundreds of thousands dead' claim and reduced it to 10,000 (no such evidence found for that, either). You don't have a leg to stand on.

It's not a matter of fucking opinion, it's a matter of goddamn evidence.

[Axis Kast]

Ten thousand isn't mass murder?

If I don't have a leg to stand on, why did we take out Miloservich anyway?

And nice to know that you label all Albanians as terrorists.

[Vympel]

Ten thousand isn't mass murder?

A: No proof of that figure, just like the other figures they pulled out of hot air
B: What was verified was over 2000 dead: gender, affiliation and whether they were combatants or non combatants- not released.

EDIT: 2,108 actually. By the very Tribunal that is prosecuting Milosevic. Interesting that they won't release the age, sex, or nationality of the dead. Regardless- that's 1/5 of the number alleged by the Foreign Office in June; 1/50 of the number alleged by William Cohen in May; and 1/250 of the number suggested by the State Department in April.

You also totally ignored that Serbia acceded to all demands made of it except occupation by a foreign military alliance. Why am I not surprised?

If I don't have a leg to stand on, why did we take out Miloservich anyway?

What kind of dumbass question is that? I would also like to know what fantasy world you live in where the US 'took out' Milosevic.

And nice to know that you label all Albanians as terrorists.

The KLA were terrorists- in case you didn't notice, idiot, I said: "handed it over to a bunch of Albanian terrorists". Could your attempt to paint me as a racist be any more feeble? Furthermore, it was amply shown again that they were terrorists they tried to extend their 'Greater Albania' into Macedonia. Too bad NATO didn't bomb Macedonia I guess

[Kelly Antilles]

Haven't you been listening? I didn't have a side. I don't take sides in politics.

Wow, This has to be the most hilarious thing I've read. This coming from someone who has been spouting shit since the first page.

[theski]

Arthur, took sides so many times in all of his post and he doesn't have the sack to claim it.. At least some of us will stand up and say I support the war, the troops, and the Prez.. If he doesn't agree fine, but have some stones and admit it..