Main Topic: the war in Iraq... (again!). Triggerer: An article in the New York Times.

[Rnett]

Originally posted by Largefry07
I'm like Drake, I havn't really read any of these posts. But the only reason why I think US should of invaded Iraq is to save the Iraqi people from their dictater.

Are the mods and the head people of this discussion broad going to delete this the "Off Topic Royal Inn" part of the broad? B/c thats what happen to Anno 1503. And I believe it was partly b/c of a thread about the Iraqi war.

So you finally made it over here :dwink: :cheers:

[Drake Maethor]

Originally posted by Dobber
Drake, you still have control over it!
You can make the monster go away by deleting the post you started the thread with. It will all go away into the black hole.:D

OOhh!
GROOVY! :D

OK! EVERYBODY WRITING HERE!!! :angry:
STOP FOR A WHILE OR THIS GOES STRAIGHT INTO THE WC!
AND TRUST ME, I'M WILLING TO PULL THE CHAIN!
AND... BTW, NO SPAM ALLOWED!

:p

[Largefry07]

Originally posted by Rnett
So you finally made it over here :dwink: :cheers:

Well I had to give it a shot, Right?:lol:

[Siena]

Originally posted by Drake Maethor
OOhh!
GROOVY! :D

OK! EVERYBODY WRITING HERE!!! :angry:
STOP FOR A WHILE OR THIS GOES STRAIGHT INTO THE WC!
AND TRUST ME, I'M WILLING TO PULL THE CHAIN!
AND... BTW, NO SPAM ALLOWED!

:p

I you don't want replies - then don't start a topic.
:rolleyes:

[Drake Maethor]

Yes, I do want replies!
I love debating and thinking aloud with other people!

The problem is that I hate not being able to read what all of us write!
The problem isn't that I don't want replies... I want replies, and I want them so much that I want to read them all! But I can't read them all... that's the problem.

So, not creating topics isn't the solution, at all...
Maybe having a more ordered disussion, without many words and more siynthesis of ideas, maybe that yes is the solution.

[Sir Turylon]

I don't think any president will sign that silly Kyoto treaty. hey.. let's strangle US industry so the rest of the world can catch up.. yeah.. great idea.

No, communism isn't a swear-word. Socialism is based upon wanting everyone to have an equal share... where does this not concur with the Liberal view of "global harmony between all people."
Your definition of Communism is wrong Ben. sorry to say. It's not based upon big government... that is Socialism. Communism is based upon Plato's Utopia idea. There is no need for government because people are able to self govern themselves. Russia, FYI, was never a communistic state. The Bolsheviks used marxism and lenninism to grab the public support... similariy to how Hitler used the pomise of a better life when he introduced nazism to the poverty stricken German people. Soon after they took power, the bolsheviks turned into tyrannical ruling party... similair to nazi party.

In face, nazism and socialism (IE the "Russian version of communism") are based upon one thing. Humanism. I'm not talking about humanity... I am talking about... the ideas; There is no god. We can become our own gods. Man is by nature good and does not need anyone but himself to save him.

Take a look at Nazism and Socialism. compare them with those three statements... you'll see they are one in the same... just different colors of the same flavor of ice cream.

@Ben and point about American policy.

No, American foreign policy will always put American interests at the front... unless we have another Bill Clinton who didn't care if the rest of the world stepped all over us. Our history is defined on basic tenets of... We the people... We will never look to say.. France... for guidance on how to run our country and how to interact with foreign governments. Does this make us selfish? well... take a look at the facts.
We have a trade deficit numbering in the trillions. We allow foreign good to come over here without tariffs, yet those nations restrict our goods to their market. We spend well over what many nation's national budget is, in foreign aid. We've just spent $15 billion to fight aids in Afirca, Carribean, SE Asia... and we are going to send another $5 billion. Our government supports non-profit organizations that go around the world... I think the total from them is close to $100 billion each year.

So.. are we selfish when we put American interests at the front of foreign policy? I'd say emphatically, no. A majority of the the time, our interests are directly related to many other countries at the same time. It is only when those other countries have something to hide that they "oppose" our policy. (IE, france and iraq oil "secret dealings")

remember... the UN voted 14-0 for severe consequences on the same inteligence that we had. France, England, Germany, Russia... they all had their own intelligence services check on it... I never heard the MI6 say.. "we cannot collaborate these findings" or the Frenc intelligence service say "no, this is not correct." It was only until our going in to the country was imminent that France, Russia, and a few others began to pull back... fearing what we might find in the billion dollar oil contracts for France and the multi-billion in military aid from Russia. weird. eh?


@Hector
The U.S. should let the international tribuneral judge over their soldiers like in any other country then it would be fair.

Are you nuts? Since when does the international joke of a tribunal have jurisdiction over a soverign nation's military?

@Ben and "shareholders"

You're naive on that matter, in a non-demeaning sense of the word. US companies have to deal with shareholders, environmentalists, the US governement regulatory commision, the media, the employees and their unions, the competiting companies, the state government regulatory comissions.... They have to think of more than just the shareholders.. or stock holders.

take other nations and their civilians into account? Are you refering to us going into Iraq and Afghanistan?

I geuss we never thought of the millions of Iraqis and Afghanis who are now free to decide their own future. I geuss we never took into consideration the German people, or Japanese people, when we toppled those repressive tyrants back in 1945. I geuss we never thought about Kuwaitis when we helped them expel the Iraqi forces from their small state. [/end sarcasm]

You have the right, according to your "free" societies to protest things. They did not. Put yourself in their shoes for only a moment. See how appreciative you would have been if you heard a nation was setting aside all the protests from other countries, to liberate your family eventhough it might cost their own nation some respect in the world. Just think about that for a brief moment. Then think about how much hope and support you give to the other tyrants and terrorists when you oppose any use of force to persue them throughout all corners of the globe. Imagine how much better they feel knowing that former allies of the one nation, who has pledged to exterminate their kind, suddenly turn and protest when a future breeding ground has been yanked from their grasp. Do you really think those terrorists in Iraq are fighting us because we are trying to wipe out Islam? I live near the second largest population center of Muslims outside of the Islamic states, in the world. No, the terrorists are afraid of losing Iraq as a place that they can run and hide in. That is why they are targeting not just the soldiers, but the civilian populations there. They realize something most people do not. They realize that a free Iraq singles a massive movement forward in the eventual victory over their movements.

Let's stop calling this the Iraq war. The war was over a year ago. This is now Operation Iraqi Freedom. IE... The war to stop terrorist destablization in the NEW Iraqi nation.

Appeasing terrorists by leaving them alone is suicide. I hope Europeans would see that point.

[Ben Nevis]

please consult some economists and business administrators. I acknowledge your field of study (History) I think you should start acknowledging my field of study (I studied Business AND Economics), when I say something about these subjects it's correct, ok.

I quite politics for a week, cause it takes too much of my time. You need better sources and better information. I don't think we are getting any further with our discussions cause we are simply miles apart.

:cheers:

btw. America spends a lot less per capita then the Benelux and Scandinavian countries on charity. And pls don't think the US industry is ahead of ours. All other western countries were willing to sign Kyoto.

[Kuno of Gersenau]

@Turylon: I think you have no idea what Kyoto is. I don't know very much about it, but sure it isn't there to destroy the American industrie. It is there to care about our planet. It is SURE that CO2 makes the greenhouse effect. Sure it will not be like in "The Day after tomorrow", but humans CAN destroy this world and we should look that it doesn't happen. But if you think like your president that Kyoto is there to damage you, then you are wrong. I think this protocol doesn't bring very much, but a bit and already this is good. But if you would like 30°C in January then only go on....

God bless America! :silly:

[Hector]

i think all UN countrys are included in the international tribunarel so why should the U.S. be a special case?

the international tribunarel is a good thing cuz soldiers or people that dont obey the convention of Hague and Geneve will be persucuted < something like that. or the country hmm both i think

so why should it be nuts to sign it or is U.S.A afraid that it has absolutly no respect for human rights at all?

[Kuno of Gersenau]

Short joke (don't take serious if you are an American patriot;))

I noticed a funny thing...

The operation is called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" => OIF.
like Turylon said.

I guess you could also say "operation iraqi liberation" => OIL :D


Please notice, I don't say NOW that America invaded Iraq because of the oil, I only noticed this thing...

[Haegemon]

Don't think I'm an anti-american. I sympathize with them. But I can't stand their point, when they move along manipulating the world like if it was a property to invest and take profit. This is a political point also mostly shared by the civil society. Not for Irak but also.
When the things are going right, don't mind to anybody (well, may to a few "anti-patriots") but when the things start to go wrong then appear the criticism.


free civilized countries have the obligation to help opressed people
sure? are you? Death penalty is a common practise in some countries like was in Irak.
What kind of help? the same you gave in Vietnam?

You do an excesive use of the military force. Europe has had a lot of wars along its history. But you know how many wars you have had in your short history?

we could not convince Saddam to give up his dictatorship
Why he should? This is like if "Europe could not convice President Bush to give up his mandate (politicoians never would do such things cos they are very good friends each other)". Bush mandate is a problem of US americans, and only they have to solve this matter.

It took the UN over 10 years to make a resolution to tell Saddam he needed to disclose all his weapons programs
I have the belief that the whole OTAN should disclose all his weapons programs. I'm sure I'll die before see it.

LIBERAL anti-Bush media
I didn't heard the rumor of a fly when the campaign started.

That wedding... go read up on it... they found weapons, uniforms, and explosives the next day when they investigated it.
I guess how many weapons we could find in every US house... To have an uniform is a crime? Then I could be a criminal.

No, American foreign policy will always put American interests at the front...
:lol: :rofl: hello: I have no doubt about this.

We allow foreign good to come over here without tariffs, yet those nations restrict our goods to their market. We spend well over what many nation's national budget is, in foreign aid. We've just spent $15 billion to fight aids in Afirca, Carribean, SE Asia... and we are going to send another $5 billion.
:rofl: :rofl: what heroic...

Since when does the international joke of a tribunal have jurisdiction over a soverign nation's military?
If you can't undergo to the same laws that condemn Iraqis (UN laws), Servians (Milosevik), or whatever Europeans. Why are you involved and why you expect help from this.

This is now Operation Iraqi Freedom.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: This is too much...
Operation Iraqi Post-War Caos. Something where to choose:
Dictatorial order <-> Democratic Caos.

I don't think any president will sign that silly Kyoto treaty. hey.. let's strangle US industry so the rest of the world can catch up.. yeah.. great idea.
Silly Kyoto treaty.....??? :angry: :angry: :angry: This is insulting!
Don't worry..., burn all the coal, burn all the oil. Collaborate to convert this planet into a rock.
One day your sons should pay for pure air.
No world = no America; no stable atmosfer = no stable live on the surface; unstable surface = humans like underground rats.

[Sir Turylon]

so much hate from you anti-americans. lol.

We did not sign the Kyoto treaty for one reason. It would have stiffled out economy. I hope Ben realizes that if the US economy goes down the tubes, rest of the world is impacted severely.
You have to ask yourself why we would not sign that treaty... Yet... we also do not open the Alaskan oil fields... which would cut our need for middle east oil supply... Why? Environmentalists.

The mention of that movie proves that you obtain too much of your own view from movies. There is no way that movie could ever happen. Environmentalists, experts on global warming, geologists, meteorologists, and others have all signed off on that movie as being pure hollywood fiction. I have to laugh that you believe the movie producers. lol.

@Ben
Are you done with your degree? What
You claim to be an expert on business? In which country?
FYI, I never claimed to be an expert on History even when it is my field of study.

I do know what is going on in my own country. Probably better than most of you, since I do not rely on the media and hollywood for my information.




You have an excesive use of the military force. Europe has had a lot of wars along its history. But you know how many wars you have had in your short history?

Yes, I can name them for you.

Revolutionary
1812
Mexican-American
Civil
Spanish-American (one we freed Cuba in)
World War 1
Word War 2
Korean War
Gulf War
War on Terrorism


That is it.

Vietnam was a huge Democrat blunder. JFK got us into that cesspool. Johnson made it worse. That "police action" was a huge mess brought on us because of a couple of prima donna Democrats.
Vietnam was not a war, in fact, state of war was never initiated against North Vietnam.. Grenada, Panama, Bosnia... they were all police actions.

The war in Iraq last year is a continuation of the previous war... We never declared peace with Iraq back in 91. just an armistace and cease fire. IE why we had no-fly zones and military embargos still on Iraq.

We've had many wars?

Let's see who we fought.

British, Mexicans, ourselve, Spanish, WW1 alliance, WW2 alliance, North Korea/China, Iraq, Afghanistan.

Yes... I geuss you're right... we've fought soooooooo many wars in our history.. I geuss that makes us war mongerers.


I guess how many weapons we could find in every US house... To have an uniform is a crime? Then I could be a criminal.

carrying a weapon and shooting at an aicraft is a crime. Having Iraqi Police uniforms without being on the force is a crime. Having explosives aka bomb materials .... is a crime.

Lastly Hagaemon... don't even try going and blaming the US on global warming.

@Elewyn, your sarcasm is not welcome. Honestly, I thought you would respect opposing views. Not sink to the level of mocking the other side.

I hope nadine will close this thread soon. There is just no discussing this without you people resorting to anti-American, anti-Bush... emotional outbursts. Really does not help with the "open minded" debating, some of you feel you are good at.

@Ben and...
America spends a lot less per capita then the Benelux and Scandinavian countries on charity.

Oh plz. 240,000,000 population compared to what? 20,000,000? Plz make a more intelligent reference to aid per capita. You said you are studying business... Sure, the cost per capita sky-rockets up when you reduce the population... lol. nice try though.




Lastly @ hagaemon. How much effort and support has your country given (with no return wanted) to other countries?

You mock, at the foreign aid we give out.. Does your government give out monetary support without wanting anything in return?

I hope nadine will close this thread soon. There is just no discussing this without you people resorting to anti-American policy, anti-Bush... basic hatred. Sure, you have the right to your own opinions.. since you are living in free societies... but... It really does not help with the "open minded" debating, some of you feel you are good at.


PS. I know Kuno.. it is funny. What is even funnier is the fact that the Iraqi oil is going to go to Europe... since we don't even need it. Yet people still think the war was over nothing but oil.

[Drake Maethor]

Originally posted by Hector
lets be happy that saddam is gone:cheers:

BUT WHAT WE HAVE NOW! :p

Originally posted by Sir Turylon
To argue over this war is actually quite stupid. It has been done. It is over. On June 30th there will be a NEW Iraq.
:rofl:
A new IRAQ?
If that was my new Iraq I would send it back to the factory! :p

[Ben Nevis]

Oh plz. 240,000,000 population compared to what? 20,000,000? Plz make a more intelligent reference to aid per capita. You said you are studying business... Sure, the cost per capita sky-rockets up when you reduce the population... lol. nice try though.

What?????????? I think everybody agrees that it's per capita that counts in this matter. BNP per capita is a lot more important than BNP. It's always per capita that's important. With per capita you can compare issues, with totals you can't. Don't be foolish Turylon.

What I said earlier about shareholder and stakeholder value is true, don't argue with me about this and don't call me naive or narrowminded. US has main focus on shareholder value (don't forget that shareholder value and taking good care of your employees goes very well together, eg. lower turnover, higher productivity), while Europe has focus on stakeholder value, which is more of a long term stance whereas shareholder value is more of a short term stance.

and if you've had it with this thread, stop replying!!!!!!!! I want this to quite, but you keep insulting me (my intelligence, my naivite, my narrowmindedness). I think you should really stick with your history and stay away from economics or business, cause you don't say things that are too smart in this matter. Again, pls consult someone and he\she will surely tell you I'm right.:cheers:

[Ben Nevis]

Thx Elewyn for your support.

Let's add the 26 of Scandinavia and we get 52 Million. I think that's enough for a little more respect.

[Sir Turylon]

Sorry if I do not know exactly how many people actually live in those two regions.

Ben, you can compare GNP per capita. If that makes you feel those two regions are better. You cannot compare via per capita. That is just idiotic. Countries like Luxemburg and Kuwait would probably be the richest countries in the world then. No, GNP is used to compare globally. Do not think I am an ignorant on business and economics, since I do not major in them. Do not think you are superior in them either.

Simple fact is that the US puts of more money each year than most of those countries can... since we can. This does not mean those countries support and aid is higher... it isn't.

You can make some crazy analogies based upon amount per capita.

Sweden has a higher GNP per capita... Does that mean their economy is better? Lol. no. It means they distribution of wealth is more even.. IE.. communistic.. or socialistic.




You cannot combine Beneluz and Scandanavia into comparisons with ONE country... If you want to do that.. I will add in Canada, Russia, Mexico, United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, and Japan to the American figures.

one country at a time.


Do you think the US is responsible for global warming? If you do, you're naive. Our ecological restrictions have tripled over the past 20 years. You forget about countries like China, North Korea, etc.... They have no ecological regulations on their industries.

@Elewyn
Nobody said they didn't respect the Hague. I do not see why we should put OUR military which has its OWN justice department under the control of a foreign "tribunal." I would not expect Germany to let some foreign body prosecute their soldiers. That is just nonsense. We are not talking about what happened in Bosnia.

I also realize that some countries cannot base their policy on just their own interests. Do you really think the US is doing this? Are you that narrow sighted? Do you not forsee future threats anymore? (wait.. didn't see hitler coming.. nvm. lol j/k) Do not limit yourselves to thinking that all American foreign policy is based upon just our own interests. We've gone against our own interests numerous times before. If you need examples... We got rid of tarrifs on imported goods. We loaned billions of dollars to war ravaged European countries when we were billions in debt from the war. We halted from taking out Saddam back in 1991 because the international community thought it best to stop. We did not persue North Korea to ultimate victory in the 1950s for fear of possible nuclear war.

Sounds like Europe needs a wake-up call. Time to stop sleeping in the past.. There are new threats out there to all nations. The blindfold was ripped off of our eyes in 2001. Do you really, honestly, believe that American foreign policy is based on selfish desire to help only our country? How blind you are if you do.

Sarcastically and Frustratingly confused by you Europeans.



PS. Meant no offense Ben.. you just seem arrogant about your studies. That's a bad thing. :)

[Ben Nevis]

With a reference to your quote I will show you that you do not know a lot about economics (nor about maths btw).
I hope you will take back your words about me being arrogant after that.

Sweden has a higher GNP per capita... Does that mean their economy is better? Lol. no. It means they distribution of wealth is more even.. IE.. communistic.. or socialistic

First of all Sweden's GDP = $26,800, while US's is $37,800, thus you don't know the facts and don't take the time to look them up either (I have told you before that you are not very factual). I will give you my sources to make it a little more "academic" (btw it's July estimates and secondly GNP and GDP don't differ a lot). sweden (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html) USA (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html) .
This is GNP ->
Secondly
Gross national product (GNP) is the value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year, plus income earned by its citizens abroad, minus income earned by foreigners from domestic production. The Factbook, following current practice, uses GDP rather than GNP to measure national production. However, the user must realize that in certain countries net remittances from citizens working abroad may be important to national well-being.

This is GDP -> Gross Domestic Product - the total output from all the resources located in a country, wherever the owners of the resources live

I will try to explain it to you in Sesamestreet words. GDP relates to all services and goods produced in a certain area or country, whereas GNP relates to goods and services produced within the ownership of a country the ownership of the people with the people with the nationality of that country. Thus, if I own a factory in the USA than the production of that factory adds to the GDP of the US and to the GNP of the Netherlands. Clear??????????? (I just decided to wrote this down entirely before you start objecting that this is not the same. It's not the same, true, but the numbers don't differ a lot (trust me)).

Secondly, and I consider this to be a MAJOR mistake which would never be made by someone with some common knowledge in the field of economics and/or math.

GNP per capita and GDP per capita tell you NOTHING about the distribution of wealth. GNP per capita is just the total output of assets owned by a country devided by the number of people living in that country. Strictly speaking it would be better to divide by the number of people with the nationality of that country, but usually this is not done.
The same is the case for GDP per capita, although in this case it would naturally be better to divide by the number of inhabitants of a country in the first place.
Distribution measures are standard deviation, variance, covariance etc. They have nothing to do with simply deviding a total number as you could have known had you been a little more capable in the subjects of maths and economics.
We could also measure the distribution of income in a more simple way by comparing the mean (the mean is the avarage as you probably know) and the median of the GDP. If the median (the number in the middle of all observations) is a lot lower than the mean we can say that distribuation in more uneven than when the median is closer to the mean. Concerning income the median will never (although this is a big word) be right of the mean and I hope you can figure out yourself why this is (I'll give you a little hint, it has something to do with the general distribution of income).

Don't think that I'm trying to bluff you out. I'm just getting tired of your wise *** :D :D :D :D.

Btw, this was a word joke and not bad English

[Hector]

Lord Turylon

this is a question that i want to know

How does it come that U.S.A. is using 40% of the Worlds total energy?

[Largefry07]

Hector Have you ever seen pictures of Vegas:D

[Ben Nevis]

I like your signature,

Lord Turylon will probably like it too. In the US they are fond of disclaimers ;) .