America: are we too arrogant?

[High-Test]

do you know how that sentence suits the topics title?
daimler chrysler own mercedes-benz, yes indeed, but daimler chrysler is not an american company.
daimler chrysler is a german company, situated in the german town of stuttgart and the board of management of daimler chrysler consists of 10 germans and 1 american.

Yeah, because they fired all the other chrysler board members..

 

[Carl.]

Well those are not completely the same of course - a good social security system goes hand in hand with how people look at each other in society. Some believe you should take care of each other, others believe you should take care of yourself. I guess on average we're pretty hot on taking care of each other here, compared to most parts of the world. The last time I saw any figures on this, Sweden and the Netherlands were the two countries with the lowest percentage of poverty in the world. Note that we aren't also the wealthiest two countries in the world, so it's not just a matter of being able to afford it.

What about Canada?

Same goes here. There are some issues associated with it though, management of our universal healthcare could be a lot better and cost-efficient, we have to improve the system a lot to make it durable. While it may have some flaws to address, in the end it's better than leaving a large part of the population without proper healthcare insurance.

In countries that have so more wealth than required to sustain it's population and development, to leave people without their basic needs such as healthcare or food out of economical reasons is absurd. Some say it encourage lazyness instead of productivity, I'd say working for survival is far less appealing than working to improve our lives, individually or collectively.

 

[Pistachio]

What about Canada?

I heard Canada is alot like Australia in regards to spread of wealth, social security, poverty, living standards.

I don't know how commited to these ideals Canada is, im hoping it isn't like Aus is right now, and i hope it's not headed in the same direction as Aus.

If we keep moving towards an American system then im moving to Stuttgart or Nuremburg (love the cars), or Sweden.

 

[Danoff]

This is a naive way to think of it. As Vladimir said truth doesn't necessarily sell. The very fact that the media shapes our conception of political reality means that the truth is irrelevant, because what is said by the media will be accepted as fact.

Whatever, you don’t understand and I don’t have time to explain it to you.

is it of any help for democracy and freedom when people are curious ernough to buy a paper but still so stupid not to realize that the tabloid they have bought is lieing* to them every day.

You’re really hung up on the tabloid thing.

(*to lie; i never got the spelling of that word right, but i am sure you can help me if it is wrong!?)

Only if you did it on purpose.

sure, but politicians won't even let me try it out because most of them say marihuana was more dangerous. and people believe that even if its not true...so much about curiosity.

I don’t agree with drug laws.

about this and about other questions and arguments, i can repeat them if you like:

- when tabloids sell in the millions and serious newspaper in the thousands, what does that tell us about the thirst for facts?

It tells us people like to be entertained. For the most part, people realize the tabloids are crap.

- why is alcohol legal and marihuana illegal?

I don’t know, I don’t agree with that.

and some more questions:

- why was clinton almost impeached due to a 40 million investigation after he screwed lewinsky, whereas president bush, who started a war with lies, who betrayed his allies, who used fake documents, who broke lots of international laws and conventions, is still doing business?

Clinton perjured himself during a sexual harassment trial. He broke so he got impeached. We’ve been over the Iraq thing too many times for me to rehash. The war was started as a result of UN sanction violations.

- why has janett jacksons nipple caused more outrage throughout america than anything else since 9/11?

This is the first time I’ve heard someone talk about that it quite a while. I don’t know why people were upset, it doesn’t make much sense to me.

my ****ing point is, why one ****ing country this god damn with its bull**** SUV surburban dodge crap, has to use 20 ****ing million of oil barrels one freakin day! Get the same population in Japan and they only use half of what the US does.

Why do you care how much oil the US uses? We pay for it.

I heard Canada is alot like Australia in regards to spread of wealth, social security, poverty, living standards.

Yea, you both have totally unfair systems that will implode eventually. I suggest you look up one of the many threads that has already discussed this topic. Do a search on capitalism, you'll find I've said some things that will really piss you off.

 

[High-Test]

No body is anti-american, i assure you the very concept of hating americans because they are americans is reminiscent of Soviet Russia, where dissidents and people who talked out against the government were labeled as "anti-soviet" and cast away. A porpogandistic term that shouldn't be taken seriously.
People don't like the US government because of what they have done. Some hate the US people because they see the people as responsible too.
I mean even bin Laden cleary expressed why he acted out the 9/11 atrocity, he said plainly that it was because of "the US occupation of Saudi Arabia", not because you guys are "a free and riteous people, because he is jealous or resentful of your power".

That's funny. I'll agree to an extent, several people drive SUV's and are irresponsible people, these same bastards who leave their suburbans running so their dog won't die in the midle of february while they spend 4 hours at the mall trying to decide on which CFC hairspray to buy. While it might be a little extreme, On the other hand, you can't honestly b!tch at the 1.2 million more people who voted for gore can you? You can't hate America because of the person in office, (this can, and probably will, backfire) From an Economical statement of the way(s) you severely dislike (and/or hate) Bush and America, the only way you could find out if you really hate him is to come to america and live under his stewardship. But, I think If a man kills millions of people, (hitler) then the British or the Soviets had a full right to hate him. As a man. I'm not pro-nazi or anything, But there were some people in Germany in WWII that harbored Jews in their homes. most didn't even know the evil he was causing. that's what happens when there is only one radio and tv channel. Ok, you hate some of the things bush has ****ed up. you can't have a perfect leader, we could elect john kerry right now. I bet he'd **** up something and then everyone would hate him. He'd pull out of Iraq and then the UN would probably come back asking for support, saying we pussed out. Just because of one guy isn't a reason to hate a whole country. If you hate bush, then all the power to ya. But if you hate america, then you are a bit loony, using one person to hate 280 million others.

AND, the reason our cars are much bigger than europe's and japan's are that they were meant to go longer distances, carry more people, and at the time, (50's 60's) fuel economy wasn't the biggest concern. Big problem, but now they're realizing their mistakes. a fleet of hybrid buses in seatlle alone saved over 750,000 gallons of fuel. the hybrid escape gets 38-40 MPG. Another reason why we don't have smart cars is a practical one. most couples are fairly young, and buying new appliances and groceries to put in their house/apartment. I bet two or three paper grocery bags could fit in that tub thing in the back of a smart car. they get 45 mpg? for two people. a toyota corolla fits 4 people and then more of their junk, at 40 mpg.it isn't just soccer moms who drive around suvs. while I don't hate or like them, many people use them for what their for. utility. several construction companies use them to take people and their tools to a job site. the main reason why nobody here drives micro mobiles like the smart is because if a smart got rear-ended or in any kind of collision with a mid-size pickup truck, the people in the smart are toast.

 

[Carl.]

I heard Canada is alot like Australia in regards to spread of wealth, social security, poverty, living standards.

I don't know how commited to these ideals Canada is, im hoping it isn't like Aus is right now, and i hope it's not headed in the same direction as Aus.

It depends where. In the western provinces, where the Conservatives (99 seats) had a huge majority in last elections, and they obviously lean right, Ontario and the East Coast are Liberals, more on the left (that was enough to have a weak majority of 135 seats), and in Quebec, we play buggers with a party that was created to promote our independance in the nineties (54 seats), but since the 95 referendum failed by a small margin, it only "represents Quebec interests", and they lean left too.

Alberta would be considered as a success story for those who lean right. They capitalized in a boom of economy mixed with drastic cuts in many government programs to cancel their provincial debt (it was around $20 billion if I remember correctly). They currently have a strong economy and low unemployment rate. However, polarization of the income range is higher than in the rest of the country, and the stronger economy doesn't equate in a better average salary.

 

[Pistachio]

Dude, i just said some people MAY hate the American people for their governments actions. These people include bin Laden and his "companions".

Blaming the people, all of them and unconditionaly, because of their government is a huge moral mistake in my opinion and i do believe in your opinion too, and rightly soo, collective hate/punishment is indeed an un-ethical thing.

And danoff, are you implying that Swened has inferior governmental policies, take into count that it is the #1 best place to live according to NGO's.

Whatever, you don’t understand and I don’t have time to explain it to you.

No you don't understand, your media system is as bad as they come, go read Necessarily Illusions by Noam Chomsky or even download an MP3 of his Necessary Illusions lecture. His logic is devestating and his sources of information are impeccable. I'm not going to state his work in shortened form, i will do it no justice if i tried, and his work is soo substantial that even when shortened it would be far too long.

 

[Carl.]

Yea, you both have totally unfair systems that will implode eventually

I'd like you to back that assertion with empirical evidence. Your system of laissez-faire capitalism without restriction has already imploded in 1929. That doesn't mean it will do it again, I don't have that great ability to foresee the future.

 

[Duke]

my ****ing point is, why one ****ing country this god damn with its bull**** SUV surburban dodge crap, has to use 20 ****ing million of oil barrels one freakin day! Get the same population in Japan and they only use half of what the US does.

Here's a little comparison it's probably never crossed your mind to consider:

POPULATION DENSITY IN PERSONS PER SQUARE KILOMETER
Japan: 336
India: 305
UK: 245
Germany: 230
Italy: 192
China: 133
France: 107
USA: 29

Do you think this could have something to do with why we burn gasoline? Maybe there's a reason beyond the fact that we're just a bunch of lazy fatasses in Cadillacs? Japan has eleven and a half times the population density of the US... is it any surprise that public transport works a little more efficiently on a small island than it does on a country that takes up half of a freaking continent?

Duh.

The ****ing problem with the US is, they dont give a **** if comes to energy, they just dont give a ****. We all know that, so dotn argue with me on that.

No, we DON'T all know that, and frankly, you're not really convincing.

I mean, we in europe are paying our asses for gasoline. We sometimes cant even drive cause we dont have enough money for it.

Hey it's not America's fault that you guys voted yourselves higher taxes. Don't blame us just because you can't bend the laws of economics to suit your will.

In 2002, [US] federal, state, and local taxes accounted for approximately 31 percent of the retail cost of gasoline. Taxes in the United Kingdom account for 80 percent of the pump price, while the Europe-wide average is between 60 and 70 percent.

So don't try and hand me crap on this subject when you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Danoff]

I'd like you to back that assertion with empirical evidence. Your system of laissez-faire capitalism without restriction has already imploded in 1929. That doesn't mean it will do it again, I don't have that great ability to foresee the future.

They'll implode because of their structure. It's inherent.


Anyway, our system didn't fail in 1929, but we had a bad president that year. Because of the desparate measures we took to fix the problem, and our refusal to remove those measures once it was apparent that they didn't work, our system is still messed up today.

I'd recommend we take this to one of the many socialism vs. capitalism threads.

 

[Carl.]

I'd recommend we take this to one of the many socialism vs. capitalism threads.

You know what? instead of running through the same arguments over and over again without finding common ground, I'll do something before going on with this issue. That may take a while, but I'll read Necessarily Illusions by Chomsky (thanks for the suggestion Pistachio), and one that you suggest (Ayn Rand?), to see exhaustive explanations of the inherent flaws in both systems, to help me decide if one is more likely to implode when compared to the other.

 

[Danoff]

and one that you suggest (Ayn Rand?), to see exhaustive explanations of the inherent flaws in both systems, to help me decide if one is more likely to implode when compared to the other.

Yup, Ayn Rand.

Give Atlas Shrugged a spin. It's over 1000 pages, but it's fiction so it's a little easier to read. If you want something quickly, you might try Anthem, which you could finish in one evening.

 

[vladimir]

Whatever, you don’t understand and I don’t have time to explain it to you.

great argument...

You’re really hung up on the tabloid thing.

yes, because you avoid that all the time, because it is an argument that shows that you are wrong when you say that the humans curiosity makes the mass media investigate facts...

Only if you did it on purpose.

what?!

I don’t agree with drug laws.

fine, but you are not the majority...

It tells us people like to be entertained. For the most part, people realize the tabloids are crap.

they do? can you prove that?

Clinton perjured himself during a sexual harassment trial. He broke so he got impeached. We’ve been over the Iraq thing too many times for me to rehash. The war was started as a result of UN sanction violations.

i don't recall the UN declaring war on iraq...
bush lied, betrayed and faked, why isn't he already impeached?

This is the first time I’ve heard someone talk about that it quite a while. I don’t know why people were upset, it doesn’t make much sense to me.

it doesn't make sense to you?! well it does make a lot of sense to me...and it fits my theory perfectly.

Why do you care how much oil the US uses? We pay for it.

with bullets?

Yeah, because they fired all the other chrysler board members..

sure, schrempp doesn't share...it was a takeover, as your signature says.

 

[Carl.]

Yup, Ayn Rand.

Give Atlas Shrugged a spin. It's over 1000 pages, but it's fiction so it's a little easier to read. If you want something quickly, you might try Anthem, which you could finish in one evening.

Thanks, I'll read both then.

 

[Duke]

If you want it put very clearly, though somewhat drily, read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. It's non-fiction, and it is a textbook, no matter how slim. But it does give the theory and the philosophical/moral basis for it.

 

[Famine]

It tells us people like to be entertained. For the most part, people realize the tabloids are crap.

they do? can you prove that?

There may be some confusion over what a tabloid is on the different continents...

In the UK/Europe, a tabloid is roughly the size of a piece of A3 paper when closed. They take a couple of forms - the crap tabloid (where every story is about sex, breasts or gentialia, except the one about the red London bus spotted on the moon), the redtop (where page 3 has a woman with her tits out and every headline must be a pun - like "Mansell blasts "Snore"mula 1!!!") and the "serious" tabloid (where some attempt is made at investigative journalism, but usually ends up heavily biased. The Daily Mail - one such "serious" tabloid - for instance, seems to be the centre of a Luddite rebellion. They hate science, scientists and anything that can think faster than them. GM crops are the AntiChrist). Other papers are "broadsheets" - the size of a piece of A2 paper when closed. These give the impression of being more reliable, but each has a predominant political affiliation. And the Daily Telegraph, which is a broadsheet with the substance of a "serious" tabloid.

I get the impression that in the US, "The National Enquirer" is a typical tabloid - all glossy and colourful. I don't know how accurate this is though. In the UK, they're all printed on newsprint. Anything small and glossy (A4 size) is a magazine.

Our tabloids generally have a very loyal readership and they believe every word - and as a molecular biologist I could pluck holes in the Daily Mail's hatred of GM foods large enough to drive Battlestar Galactica through (with enough room for a Borg Cube). Almost everything in the printed press in the UK is a half-truth (at best), embellished by political/social leanings - broadsheet, tabloid OR magazine. Nonetheless, the Mail has a readership of over 10% of the country every day and the majority of those accept what's in it as pure truth.

 

[Carl.]

If you want it put very clearly, though somewhat drily, read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. It's non-fiction, and it is a textbook, no matter how slim. But it does give the theory and the philosophical/moral basis for it.

I'll give it a look too. That will take sometime to read all four though.

 

[Solid Fro]

Your right, there is no 'Left or Right' in American or British Politics at the moment, its all right-wing now - its just the Democrats and British Labour Party at least pretend to be a little left-wing.

Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Al Franken would love to know that. They're not Liberals, they're right-wing nuts!

 

[Solid Fro]

i don't recall the UN declaring war on iraq...

Resolution 1441 gave the US the legal right to attack Iraq if it did not comply to UN sanctions.

bush lied, betrayed and faked, why isn't he already impeached?

:yawn:

More rhetoric. Wanna back that up with some facts?

 

[vladimir]

Resolution 1441 gave the US the legal right to attack Iraq if it did not comply to UN sanctions.

no, it did not. there is no single sentence in resolution 1441 that gave anyone the legal right to attack iraq.

you can read the resolution yourself by following this link:http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

if you find the part of it that gave the USA the legal right to attack, plese post it.

:yawn:

More rhetoric. Wanna back that up with some facts?

no problem...

Vice President Cheney
Veterans of Foreign Wars 103 rd National Convention
August 26, 2002

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

-> where are they?


Secretary Powell
FOX News Sunday Interview with Tony Snow
September 8, 2002

"There is no doubt that he has chemical weapons stocks..."

-> there are no chemical wepaons (even the us administration is slowly starting to admit that...)



Government of Great Britain
Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government
September 24, 2002

-Iraq has military plans to use chemical and biological weapons, including against Iraq's Shia population. "Some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

-> weapons that are deployable within 45 minutes but cannot be found within a whole year?

-"Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

-> the paper this was based on was found to be a fake, and a pretty obvious one, too.



National Security Advisor Rice
The New Republic (June 30, 2003)
September 25, 2002

"There clearly are contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq… There clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship there."

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
The New Republic (June 30, 2003)
September 26, 2002

In Washington on September 26, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "bulletproof" evidence of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

-> fact: there are no ties at all.



President Bush
Interview with TVP, Poland
May 29, 2003

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories… They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."

-> still lieing, they have not found any wmds yet (and he later had to admit that!)


if you want to know about more lies:
http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_10_weblog_archive.htm

 

[rjensen11]

Ok, the US ****ed up. Big deal. Germany has ****ed up, England has ****ed up,Russia has ****ed up, China has ****ed up, practically the whole world has politically ****ed up something in the past. More recently, the UN ****ed up over the oil for food program. While I'm not arrogant about being american, I'm DAMN PROUD OF IT at the same time.

To Quote George Carlin, "Politics is another word for complete bull****."
(Mods can edit this post if they wish)

Canada hasn't messed up on the scale of what you're using. Nor has Australia, NZ, Iceland, Greenland, Scandiwhovia, or the penguin-infested Antarctica....

Heck no! By George, we're right! My country, right or wrong! That's what the Nazi's said! By George, we're right! My country, right or wrong!

Like I said...

There, now I've been quoted properly! Yee haw!

 

[Solid Fro]

no, it did not. there is no single sentence in resolution 1441 that gave anyone the legal right to attack iraq.

you can read the resolution yourself by following this link:http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

if you find the part of it that gave the USA the legal right to attack, plese post it.

I know it doesn't say that, those are my words.

This is what 1441 said:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

The Coalition went into Iraq and upheld the UN's resolutions and it was legal.

I think you need to read the report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. There were relations with Al-Qaeda and Iraq and that every intelligence agency in the world, including the UN, had intelligence that Iraq had WMD, had the will to use them, and had the ability to create them.

Sorry, I don't have time now to fully explain, I have work in an hour. I'm sure someone else can follow this up.

 

[ledhed]

Here's a site or two.. http://www.capitalism.org/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world

 

[vladimir]

I know it doesn't say that, those are my words.

This is what 1441 said:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

The Coalition went into Iraq and upheld the UN's resolutions and it was legal.

the coalition of a handful of nations went into iraq without support from the UN or the security council. so they did not upheld the UN's resolutioan but rather violated itself because the resoultion said that every member should support the UN in its investigation by providing information.
but the US gov. always told that they had proof for wmds, for mobile laboratorys, for ties to al quaeda and for buying of uranium. but instead of providing the UN and the security council with these information they started a way on their own, without a resolution that declared war on iraq. serious consequences don't say invasion. serious consequences doesn't even say anything about military intervention at all.
you cannot base an invasion on that because in the world of laws, rules and resolutions everything has to be perfectly clear, otherwise it is illegal.
you can't back your invasion up with a resolution that does not say perfectly clear that war on iraq is to be declared if saddam does not cooperate!

I think you need to read the report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. There were relations with Al-Qaeda and Iraq and that every intelligence agency in the world, including the UN, had intelligence that Iraq had WMD, had the will to use them, and had the ability to create them.

they always told they had proof for the link to al quaeda, for the wmds, for the mobile laboratorys and for the development of nuclear weapons, but so far the us government has not provided the public, the security council or the UN with one single proof!
iraq had wmds years ago, some of these weapons reamain unfound and unaccounted, but there is no proof that saddam had wmds before the second gulf war. the UN has visited those facilities that were shown on satelite photos and declared as facilities that produced chemical or biological weapons, but they have not found anything.

 

[Danoff]

you cannot base an invasion on that because in the world of laws, rules and resolutions everything has to be perfectly clear, otherwise it is illegal.

Doh! I didn't realize that everything that wasn't specifically stated as legal was illegal.

Oh, wait, that makes no sense at all.


Show me the resolution we broke by invading Iraq. I can show you the ones we were enforcing.

 

[vladimir]

Doh! I didn't realize that everything that wasn't specifically stated as legal was illegal.

Oh, wait, that makes no sense at all.

sorry, but we are not talking about parking you car wrong, we are talking about a bloody war...

the only institution in our society that can legally declare a war on someone is the security council, and the security council has not declared war on iraq.

Show me the resolution we broke by invading Iraq. I can show you the ones we were enforcing.

you broke the un charter by invading iraq and you violated resolution 1441 by not providing the UN and the security council with your information.




and what about your arguments on curiosity, haven't found any to back up your theories?

 

[Pistachio]

Like the US cares about resolutions, Israel has broken 75+ last i checked, the US policy is to lightly verbaly chastise them, then ramp up military funding to them, but when it comes to official enemies they conduct a illegal war against the will of the UN, and popular world opinion.

I know it doesn't say that, those are my words.

This is what 1441 said:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

The Coalition went into Iraq and upheld the UN's resolutions and it was legal.

I think you need to read the report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. There were relations with Al-Qaeda and Iraq and that every intelligence agency in the world, including the UN, had intelligence that Iraq had WMD, had the will to use them, and had the ability to create them.

Sorry, I don't have time now to fully explain, I have work in an hour. I'm sure someone else can follow this up.

There is no doubt in anyones mind that this war was illegal. The grounds you are claiming it was legal isn't even the ground the administration is claiming.
The administration claimed an exemption under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which stipulates that a country may act in self defence "if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations". As you can see the US has no case under article 51 and nobody should take there case seriously.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
http://www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=272&fArticleId=2139119

Actualy just go here http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm its like 3 pages ofl inks to experts saying it is an illegal war.

 

[Pistachio]

EDIT: Also Noam Chomsky's 'Necessary Illusions' isn't soo much a critique of the capitalist system as it is a in depth analysis of Americas media and propoganda systems, though it does prove that a fair and unbiased cannot exist in an American style "free-market" capitalist system.

 

[ledhed]

I live in the US . I did not vote for the security council. My country can declare war LEGALY against any country in the world to protect its sovergnty and security. if the rest of the world disagrees they are welcome to prevent it. every nation in the world has that right. when did you annoint the UN as ruler of the world ? the great debate society is not capable of doing anything without the US to enforce its decisions itself or with the help of the few countries that actually have a military.
I welcome the people reading all these fairy tales to actually look back to the period before the war and remember the debate. Also remember the debate we had in congress before OUR leaders VOTED overwhelmingly for WAR against Iraq. Our congress along with most of the world thought IRAQ was hiding weapons and was guilty of breaking almost all of the conditions for the CEASE FIRE from the first gulf war. All the anti Bush railing crying and posturing in the world will not change the fact that our leaders made up thier minds that IRAQ was a threat and that they decided to eliminate that threat. BUSH didn't decide . He lead the country and congress. They DECIDED with the support of a majority of AMERICANS that Saddam was history.
So Mr pistachio nut and friends ..GET OVER IT . War is hell and there is hell to pay when you bring it on. As long as the Saddams of the world along with the Osamas and his Ilk , the Iranian hostage takers. the palestinian bombers of women and children .ALL the friendly nieghborhood talibans and the COUNTRY"S that support them. I have news for you.
There will be more WAR until they cease to be a problem. Unless you guys go over and give them a nice group hug and they suddenly decide to stop blowing themselves up or something sane..or maybe they read that book by the noam chomsky dude and believe him istead of all the other dudes that are lying to him..well because his books the truth and the others are not and if you dont believe him its because you cant see the truth..
I would'nt lie to you..
Honest.
Excuse me while I go check out my propaganda system..I think South Parks on.

EDIT..here's a link to a some information WITHOUT the editorials and horse crap.
read it and make your own conclusions if you care to ..unless you want others to make them for you. http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/iraqwar.html
here you go ..why the US went to WAR in their own words.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912.html
and as a special guest we have for all those that say we have no plan...the US national security plan, in case anyone wants to know why our government actually thinks we are improving our security by attacking Iraq http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
critical of the US but has a ring of truth..info on the Iran Iraq war. http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html
That dude that had the US supplying weapons to Iraq and killing Kurds was a little nuts but I had to see if he had any cred...see for yourself although if you take into account that FRANCE was that countrys biggest supllier of high tech war stuff and that the army was supplied buy the Soviets..its hard to see how the US could help with the military..the chemical and biological crap is pure fiction..based on companys that sell anthrax spores for legitimate research and industrial chemical companys that I guess if you really want to believe in a conspiracy you can say the material could be used for weapons..but only if you believe ELVIS LIVES.

 

[Pistachio]

I live in the US . I did not vote for the security council. My country can declare war LEGALY against any country in the world to protect its sovergnty and security. if the rest of the world disagrees they are welcome to prevent it. every nation in the world has that right. when did you annoint the UN as ruler of the world ? the great debate society is not capable of doing anything without the US to enforce its decisions itself or with the help of the few countries that actually have a military.

Your country is bound to international law, when the UN was created your country ratified the UN Charter making it part of your countries law to follow international law. The US is bound to it. You can't escape the fact. Under international law the US is breaking the law, there is no argument here. But remember this next time you complain that another country is breaking international law, because no countries government resents internation law more than the US. Side Note: The US was convicted by the World Court of "unlawful use of force" for its invasion of Nicaragua, in response to this the US did not cease its attack and pay reperations, instead it ramped up its war.

You are right in saying that a country can protect its self. But this fails in Americas case because it has failed to prove the threat Saddam posed, and America does not allow other countries this right to self defence, one prominant example is when the US attacked Nicaragua in a ruthless terrorist war, condoning any attempt Nicaragua made to defend itself. This is also true of Iraqi civilians killing US soldiers, which is funnily enough called "terrorism" by the US. Suppose Saddam invaded the US and US citizens took up arms against Saddams troops, would you consider that terrorism?

I welcome the people reading all these fairy tales to actually look back to the period before the war and remember the debate. Also remember the debate we had in congress before OUR leaders VOTED overwhelmingly for WAR against Iraq. Our congress along with most of the world thought IRAQ was hiding weapons and was guilty of breaking almost all of the conditions for the CEASE FIRE from the first gulf war. All the anti Bush railing crying and posturing in the world will not change the fact that our leaders made up thier minds that IRAQ was a threat and that they decided to eliminate that threat. BUSH didn't decide . He lead the country and congress. They DECIDED with the support of a majority of AMERICANS that Saddam was history.

It is not up to the US to dictate what goes on in the world. These choices should be made globaly. Of course this isn't the reality of it, the reality is the US does what it wants, when it wants, and no matter what everyone else in the world thinks it will continue to do as it wishes. No matter how obviously illegal, no matter how counterproductive, no matter if everyone else sees the obvious gainst the US is making from the war, it still does as it wishes.
No wonder the Forum of Non-Aligned Nations called the US the most prominant and dangerous threat on earth.

So Mr pistachio nut and friends ..GET OVER IT .

Lay off the insults. Nice argument, lol.

War is hell and there is hell to pay when you bring it on. As long as the Saddams of the world along with the Osamas and his Ilk , the Iranian hostage takers. the palestinian bombers of women and children .ALL the friendly nieghborhood talibans and the COUNTRY"S that support them. I have news for you.

Saddam was supported whole heartedly by the US throughout his atrocities, called "our kind of guy" by US officials.
Osama was a good friend too until the US built army bases in the two holy cities of Mecca and Madina.
The Palastinians are under occupation, and have suffered through 50 years of opression and genocide, your view of the Israel-Palastine issue is incredibly one sided, the Palastinians have suffered multiple times more deaths than Israel.
After 20 years of opressive rule by the Shah, a puppet leader, after the 1953 American toppling of their democraticaly elected and much loved Prime Minister Mossadegh, all of which you fail to mention in your narrow knowledge of foreign affairs.

There will be more WAR until they cease to be a problem. Unless you guys go over and give them a nice group hug and they suddenly decide to stop blowing themselves up or something sane..or maybe they read that book by the noam chomsky dude and believe him istead of all the other dudes that are lying to him..well because his books the truth and the others are not and if you dont believe him its because you cant see the truth..

Theres no argument with his books, he never states opinions, that's why he is as good as he is. He uses close analysis of facts and comparison of cases.