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

[Spudster]

no, that email came from one of my friends, and that went down the line all the way from the soldier..(its in the relpy box)and im not going to share the addresses...and that site you posted looks very left wing and it says that it is very right wing....

[Hector]

Originally posted by Sir Turylon
lol. no, those are not propaganda emails. You can go and search for facts from Iraq on the state department's website.

@Siena and comparing US helping others to Roman empire.

One major point that you did not mention.

Rome stayed, America has never stayed unless the government or people of that country wanted us to.

Examples. South Korea, Japan, Germany, Suadi Arabia, Qatar, Cuba, Phillipines, China, France, Italy, England, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Israel, Turkey, Panama, Grenada, Mexico, Marshalls, Austrailia, New Guinea, Morocco, and of course Iraq.

@cuba. the Spanish-American war was roughly something like 60 years BEFORE Fidel Castro took over. That's like comparing the Franco-Prussian war with Hitler. sorry.. won't work. :)

@ that website you posted. yep. believe in the the Ralph Nader political machine. he'd never try to stretch the truth in order to look better. use the USAID as a factual basis... it is more up-to-date than last August's information.

after installing some companie's to earn money yea

not to mention pupet rulers that they control

[Haegemon]

Originally posted by Sir Turylon
so much hate from you anti-americans. lol.

Anti-americans...? we love Mexico, Argentina, Canada, Brazil,... ;)

Ok, may as a nation you awake some abhorrence, but your actions unintentionally or not spread it. You pretend to do 'good actions' for nations, but later these turn back on you and blame your actions. Well, why don't you stop 'to lend a hand' and act like any other country doing just the right things that nodoby could look at you suspicious. EEUU is a frontier, why don't stay in there like a paceful country.

Note: Ok, it's not your fault the policy of your nation, and I don't think anybody here feels hate against you, but as you said like a republican you endorse that policy. And you're the closest to a representative of your nation's policy we've here. :cheers:

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

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.

A war is a war when involves military action before or after a ceasefire. You forgot some.


Spanish-American (Don't touch me the balls...! The rebellion was ended, but you broke all treatys helping under-hand a rebels, yourselves could call now 'terrorists'. The congress (repulican) was putting pressure on President Cleveland to interfere openly, while senators, bussinesmen and press like the NY Herald, NY Sun, World, Sim... suported and instigated the insurgents. Nothing strange since the insurgent movement was installed in New York, as they recived EEUU nationalisation. The insurgents were few and grew in number but never become the half of the cubans. Finally in times of Mac-kinley you got the excuse with the explosion in The Meine to involve openly in Cuba, imputing (http://hispanidad.4t.com/imagenes/diario.jpg) the responsability to the spaniards, later demonstrated false. With this the machine moved and you won in front a feeble nation. You freed Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Filipine Islands [ sarcastic]

"...Engreídos los norteamericanos con el poder que les procura su enorme población y su inmensa riqueza, prescinden en absoluto de los deberes y respetos que impone, así al fuerte como al débil, el concepto de la moral y la necesaria convivencia en el concierto de las naciones; y llevados de ciega e insana codicia, han favorecido solapada, pero eficazmente, una rebelión sostenida por los elementos menos estimables..."

.-Memorandum, 23 april 1896. Spanish govement. (http://hispanidad.4t.com/html/cuba.htm)

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.

Yes it is. But don't play with me... Your exactly words were "That wedding... go read up on it... they found weapons, uniforms, and explosives the next day when they investigated it."
In the register of a private house you can find a lot. First cos Irak was country with a free movement of weapons due to all wars it had, where even Sadam banned to shoot in public places. Second cos had an uniform don't constitutes a crime. Ex-military and ex-police men can keep uniforms, and in some countries even their guns. This means in that kind of country you can't consider everybody a terrorist unless they clearly give motives to think they are.

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?

Yes, probably less than yours, but your country is bigger than Europe itself. And give aid it's a duty not a right since we, the 'rich' countries, are part responsible. This is not matter to put us medals.

I do applaud Sweden for not entering the EU. (yes I'm anti-EU, but not anti-European... not even France)

I don't know how but I knew it. :rolleyes: :lol:

[Siena]

Originally posted by Sir Turylon
lol. no, those are not propaganda emails. You can go and search for facts from Iraq on the state department's website.

@Siena and comparing US helping others to Roman empire.

One major point that you did not mention.

Rome stayed, America has never stayed unless the government or people of that country wanted us to......

...@cuba. the Spanish-American war was roughly something like 60 years BEFORE Fidel Castro took over. That's like comparing the Franco-Prussian war with Hitler. sorry.. won't work. :)

@ that website you posted. yep. believe in the the Ralph Nader political machine. he'd never try to stretch the truth in order to look better. use the USAID as a factual basis... it is more up-to-date than last August's information.

regarding propaganda - do some research on nazi propaganda, or communist propaganda - and you will see many similarities with Bush's propaganda.
I had an opportunity to live in a country where propaganda was daily life - and to tell you from personal experience - it is very similar to the stuff these political articles are posting.
So I know propaganda when I see it.

Another thing - I did not compare US with Roman empire - I compared justification for agression. "Helping" thing...
That is nothing new. If you like history - you will encounter that many many times in your reading. It is probably the most common justification for agression.

Also, did it ever occur to you that these days it could be just nor economically and politically viable to keep an empire. So why would you expect US to create one? Maybe it is much more effective to keep "friendly government" and have an "insider deal" when getting resources from the country?

So are you saying that there was no US presence in Cuba after the "liberation" from Spain? No US interest there?

Regarding the website - I simply searched for "Ray Reynolds" on the web - and that is the website all references were pointing to.

[Sir Turylon]

@Siena

it'd be stupid if I said there was no presence their in Cuba... We still own a base down there.

Of course, propaganda is propaganda... but what is so funny about Moore is that people believe his propaganda to be the actual truth... which it isn't... only a quasi-realistic twist on what is really going on. It depends upon what side of the political fence you stand in.

Are you for justified agression? or do you think diplomacy is the only option for solving conflicts?

@hagey

ya ya... I left out the police actions. mainly because they are not a war over here unless Congress passes a Decleration of War. Thing is.... Bush couldn't have gone against Congress and took us into Iraq alone. Congress passed something like 99-1 to use military force to oust Saddam. Now... when the elections are coming up.. the Democrats want to backtrack and say.. "Oh, oops, we didn't know what military action meant."

And yes, I fully know how we got into the Spanish-American war. "You show me the pictures, I'll give you a war." -newspaper editor at the time. It was caused by yellow journalism trying to trump up a reason to go to war. The fact remains though that we took Spanish control off of Cuba and the Phillipines as well as Peurto Rico (which still is part of US... protectorate, maybe a state someday).

[Siena]

Originally posted by Sir Turylon

Are you for justified agression? or do you think diplomacy is the only option for solving conflicts?


when playing games - I am for "justified agression" :) however, good games also have good diplomacy :)

However, if we are talking about human life - I am against agression of countries.
It is always quite easy to see an agressor. It is the country that tries to gain something from the conflict.
Sometimes both sides wants conflict - like world war I.

But all that comes down to "special interests" in the countries - they are the ones that benefit from the war. And they advertise war through propaganda, they try to drum up the emotions - so that "public opinion" would be favourable to war...
War - is a way to get something from other people - and most of the time - using other people's hands to do it.

If there was nothing to gain - there would be no war. So wars are NEVER fought for altruistic reasons.
And there are no "justified" wars.

[Finellach]

I am really curious how much would these people llike Turylon who are justifying agression(what an idiotic expression) would feel if the conflict is leading on their own soil.

Yeah Iraquis are grateful, Afgans are also grateful. They are grateful that they don't have electricity, that crime increased some 200-300%, they are gratful that they no longer have jobs, water, money....oh my they are so grateful they are even fighting the "liberation" *cough*occuppation*cough* forces. :rofl:

Please wake up from that pink dream you are living on, turn off the mtv, leave the big mac in your hand and the coke in the other and watch the news a bit...:rolleyes:

[Sir Turylon]

Originally posted by Finellach
I am really curious how much would these people llike Turylon who are justifying agression(what an idiotic expression) would feel if the conflict is leading on their own soil.

Yeah Iraquis are grateful, Afgans are also grateful. They are grateful that they don't have electricity, that crime increased some 200-300%, they are gratful that they no longer have jobs, water, money....oh my they are so grateful they are even fighting the "liberation" *cough*occuppation*cough* forces. :rofl:

Please wake up from that pink dream you are living on, turn off the mtv, leave the big mac in your hand and the coke in the other and watch the news a bit...:rolleyes:

I'm just going to put this in the "Naive European anti-American" collection bin and send it down the local dump since it is filled with one sided opinions on the subject matter.

[Haegemon]

Originally posted by Sir Turylon
@hagey

ya ya... I left out the police actions. mainly because they are not a war over here unless Congress passes a Decleration of War. Thing is.... Bush couldn't have gone against Congress and took us into Iraq alone. Congress passed something like 99-1 to use military force to oust Saddam. Now... when the elections are coming up.. the Democrats want to backtrack and say.. "Oh, oops, we didn't know what military action meant."

Yes, I sorry their cowardness cos they also voted and never dissented before the conflict. I think this is something common in your nation.

Btw about wars you left out native-american clashes carried by the union army aproved by govment (not a declared war but...), also forgot Filiphines and Afganistan.

And yes, I fully know how we got into the Spanish-American war. "You show me the pictures, I'll give you a war." -newspaper editor at the time. It was caused by yellow journalism trying to trump up a reason to go to war. The fact remains though that we took Spanish control off of Cuba and the Phillipines as well as Peurto Rico (which still is part of US... protectorate, maybe a state someday).

Once Texas tryed to become independent from the union. Imagine if Mexico or whatever in that moment had take advantage from this clash.


CUBA

Cuba always had good economic relations with Spain.
1856.- the enslavement its abolished in Cuba.

1848.-the firsts independentist movements started with the publication of «El destino manifiesto (manifest destiny) », which suggests that Cuba shoud liberate from Spain to join to Unit States.

1868.- starts the first independence war, 'la guerra de los Diez Años o guerra Grande (the war of the 10 years or big war)'.

1878.- Ceasefire. Peace treaty of Zanjón. Which failed due to the general Valeriano Weyler, and internal disunion about concerns like enslavement, the grade of independence o the linking with the Unit States.

1895 .-Beggining of Sugar's economic crisis. Emerges radical nationalist strains mastered by José Martín, Antonio Maceo, Carlos Céspedes y Guillermo Moncada.

1898.- EE UU declares the war after the sinking of the dreadnought Meine

1898.-Defeat. Treaty of Paris. Spain adjudicates to EEUU, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, Occ. Indias in the Caribean and Filiphine isles for which cession Spain recived 20$ milion dollars. There was a compromise from EEUU to not occupy Cuba and granted its independence but wasn't for Filipinas nor Puerto Rico.

1899.- Cuba declares his independence althogh sufers EEUU occupation. Later EEUU left from the isle but with a clause that permited 'the intervention of The Unit States of America if it's necessary'. It was, and US reoccuped the isle (1906) until finaly left again but mantaining strong influences on the isle until 1959.


PUERTO RICO

1821.- Its independetist aspirations started without a revolution or comfrontation.

23 sept 1868.- The first independentist clash. The rebelion is defeated but is cosidered the creation of the first Republic. The insurgents are freed the same year. When in Spain falls the queen Isabel II the first Republic is created.

1869.- Puerto Rico can elect its own members of Parliament (Cortes españolas). It still don't have self-govement but it's negotiated with Spain.

1897.- Puerto Rico gains self-govement.

1898.-Starts the war between Unit Sates and Spain for Cuba, Puerto Rico y Filipinas.

1898.-Defeated Spain EEUU invades Purto Rico. Armistice Spain-EEUU. Treaty of Paris. Spain adjudicates to EEUU, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, Occ. Indias in the Caribean and Filiphine isles for which cession Spain recived 20$ milion dollars. There was a compromise from EEUU to not occupy Cuba and granted its independence but wasn't for Filipinas nor Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico becomes a region administered by EEUU and its territory but is not an State of equal rights. Saparation from Spain but no independence. It had a militar govment 2 years and later was constituted a civil govement.

1917.- Puerto Rico citizens acquires the right of become Unit States citizenship.

1947.- EEUU permission to self-govement. Except defense and foreign affairs.

1952.- PR becomes free associated state. PR can write its own constitution supervised by EEUU, whom controls the army, mail, customs, coin, foreign affairs, worker-patronal relations, migration, air traffic, guard coast, comunications. The Law 600 that defines the relation between EEUU and Puerto Rico says exactly, that Puerto Rico belongs to Unit States, but is not a part of the Unit States.

¿90's-2001? they had the offer to become an state of full right, but they refused it.


FILIPHINES

At the end of the XIXc. started a local independentist movement,
composed by the half-breed bourgeoisie aspirant to the politic power who were banned and other depresed sectors. One of its leaders was Jose Rizal

1896.-Anticolonial revolution of filiphine patriots.

1 may 1898.- The spanish Pacific Armada (Navy) was destroyed in Manila's bay by US Navy.

12 jun 1898.-An independent govement is installed in Cavite leadered by Aguinaldo and his assistant Apolinario Mabini.

1898.-Defeated Spain EEUU invades Purto Rico. Armistice Spain-EEUU. Treaty of Paris. Spain adjudicates to EEUU, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, Occ. Indias in the Caribean and Filiphine isles for which cession Spain recived 20$ milion dollars.

This cause and that the filiphine patriots were not allowed to enter into Manila victorious, angered the filiphines. The triumf was for EEUU, but this means that the Unit States had to defeat and destroy the Filiphine army, and don't recognize the new founded republic.

4 feb 1899.-US soldiers shot against filiphine soldiers. Starts a militar conflict which became a guerrilla war (1899-1902).

US casualities: from 126,000 US soldiers, 4,234 died.
Filiphine casualities: lost 16,000 guerrilleros, 200,000 civilians died because starvation and epidemic derived of the war.
Mass executions, atrocitys af all sorts and genocide were very used by occupation troops when the guerrila war gave evidences of prolong it indefinitely.

23 mar 1901.-Aguinaldo was captured. Oficially the war ended but there were still of deads in 1906

1965.- EEUU installed in the power the family of Ferdinand Marcos (1917-1989), and raised in Filiphinas one of the most sophisticated military bases inthe world.


"And as for a flag for the Philippine Province, it is easily managed. We can have a special one -- our States do it: we can have just our usual flag, with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced by the skull and cross-bones."
Mark Twain. "To the Person Sitting in Darkness" (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/sitting.html)

[Drake Maethor]

Originally posted by Haegemon
.-Memorandum, 23 april 1896. Spanish govement. (http://hispanidad.4t.com/html/cuba.htm)

:scratch:
What are doing Yrigoyen, Peron and Jauretche there??? :confused:
That's an Argentine web!

[Siena]

Originally posted by Sir Turylon
I'm just going to put this in the "Naive European anti-American" collection bin and send it down the local dump since it is filled with one sided opinions on the subject matter.

I was thinking - maybe Sir Turylon is right. Maybe Europeans are delusional and are afraid to be men... Maybe Europeans were so scared by the last century's big wars that they do not want to see reality anymore...
Maybe human nature is such, that wars will always be. Maybe wars are natural state of man. Just like of ants.

Maybe it is natural that US, China, Russia, India and other countries try to become or stay superpowers and redivide the world. Maybe Europeans will be abused in the future by all of them...
It well may be.

Maybe Europeans have to wake up and start arming up. And maybe they should not trust US to defend them?
Maybe Europeans should start to get more involved into world affairs, try to get more from weaker countries by force. Because that is natural among men.

In real world force and power is all that matters, isn't it?
Maybe Europeans are just being childish and do not want to see it.

Can it be?

[Hector]

Originally posted by Siena
Maybe Europeans have to wake up and start arming up. And maybe they should not trust US to defend them?
Maybe Europeans should start to get more involved into world affairs, try to get more from weaker countries by force. Because that is natural among men.




eh we are already armed and we are protecting ourselfs not the US.

It is no longer a mather of having a big army it is a mather of having good economy and money if u have that u are the superpower army usualy follows a good economy.

And we already got what we wanted from the weaker countrys

[Finellach]

Originally posted by Sir Turylon
I'm just going to put this in the "Naive European anti-American" collection bin and send it down the local dump since it is filled with one sided opinions on the subject matter.

You know this "naive european" saw much more than you. This "naive european" witnessed the war from the first hand. This "naive european" had to dodge sniper bullets...unlike you... :rolleyes:

Strange that anything you say against the war and the policy of current US president(the cowboy from wild wild Texas) is leading is described "anti-american". Honsetly I am quite tired of the semantics and misconception of such term. It denys different opinion and is nothing more than fasicm in disguise.

The only one one-sided here is you. I bet you don't know what war means. I bet you never heard a bomb going off 10 yards away from you. I guess you never had to run away from your home carrying your stuff in one naylon bag.
If you americans would know this you would not be so willing to go to war and hide behind terms such as liberation when it is clear to all that USA goes in war only when it suits you and when it's good for you. It was not done once that USA goes to war to boost it's economy and all who say different are deluding themselves.

[Sir Turylon]

oh, you mean the ethinic wars in Bosnia and Croatia?

please remember that Naive can mean two meanings.

naivity can also mean, besides being ignorant, that you lack a full picture of what is going on.

Like I said earlier... it really depends upon what side of the political fence you are.

For me, security and freedom is much more important than money. (did an American just say that!!! money isn't the most important thing!!!) Why yes, I did just say that. lol. (stop thinking hollywood is the best representation of America... it might help you understand a bit better)

[Spudster]

Originally posted by Sir Turylon
For me, security and freedom is much more important than money. (did an American just say that!!! money isn't the most important thing!!!) Why yes, I did just say that. lol. (stop thinking hollywood is the best representation of America... it might help you understand a bit better)
True, there is a lot different things than how hollywood puts it or even the media. Also just like Iraq, there is more going on that we cant see, and im pretty sure it is for the good....but some is bad...

[Finellach]

Originally posted by Sir Turylon
oh, you mean the ethinic wars in Bosnia and Croatia?

No...tribal wars actually.... :rolleyes:

naivity can also mean, besides being ignorant, that you lack a full picture of what is going on.

Like I said earlier... it really depends upon what side of the political fence you are.

I am not on any "side of policital fence". I am person who is tired of constant wars and war mongering by the "most advanced country" in the world. Obviously USA needs to work a lot more on civil and international rights. And what would it take to gain "a full picture of what is going on"? Do you consider me and other Europeans stupid? We have eyes and ears you know...we are smart enough to think for ourselves...we don't need our goverments to tells us what is right or wrong...unlike some others *wink, wink*...

For me, security and freedom is much more important than money. (did an American just say that!!! money isn't the most important thing!!!) Why yes, I did just say that. lol. (stop thinking hollywood is the best representation of America... it might help you understand a bit better)

Securtiy for whom? I see that crime and poverty has risen in Afghanistan and Iraq to immense proportions. Are you so selfish that you care only about YOUR security and YOUR freedom...typically american....

Originally posted by Spudster
Also just like Iraq, there is more going on that we cant see, and im pretty sure it is for the good....but some is bad...

Yes you are right. There is a war between European, Russian and American corporations for oil and dominance for world market.
The difference between Russians and Europeans is that they can't start wars like american corporations. :p

[Sir Turylon]

LOL.

war mongerers?

hmm.... You've been alive for how many "American wars?"

Last I checked, Korea, Gulf War, WW2, WW1, even Vietnam were all supported by the UN. I just love how you think America is a war mongerer, when you live in one of the most volatile regions in the world.

Just to enlighten you a bit. Diplomacy is always the first option for our government. (yes I can say OUR because it belongs to all US Americans. even if you do not think so.) Diplomacy was tried for what? 10-12 years with Saddam. He refused to respect the UN and its resolutions. Yet this is another "American agression" according to your type of thinkers. Amazing.

The difference between Russians and Europeans is that they can't start wars like american corporations.

interesting. I might comment.. but you'd never believe it..

Question: Do you wish for Europe to become a new superpower? One that can contest with America and all her greatness? (FYI, it'll never happen btw.)

[Finellach]

Originally posted by Sir Turylon
LOL.

war mongerers?

hmm.... You've been alive for how many "American wars?"

Hmmm...let'see...in my short life of 22 USA has led at least 5-6 wars. Tell me which other country has led so many wars in the same period? No don't answer it's rhetorical question.

Last I checked, Korea, Gulf War, WW2, WW1, even Vietnam were all supported by the UN. I just love how you think America is a war mongerer, when you live in one of the most volatile regions in the world.

It's war mongering by the fact it seeks to "liberate" countries like Iraq fabricating evidence and deludion world public.

Just to enlighten you a bit. Diplomacy is always the first option for our government. (yes I can say OUR because it belongs to all US Americans. even if you do not think so.) Diplomacy was tried for what? 10-12 years with Saddam. He refused to respect the UN and its resolutions. Yet this is another "American agression" according to your type of thinkers. Amazing.

Actually it is agression by the UN as well.

Question: Do you wish for Europe to become a new superpower? One that can contest with America and all her greatness? (FYI, it'll never happen btw.)

If you are refering to superpower in arms no I don't wish it. If you refer to ecenomical strenght Europe is already a superpower...much stronger than USA. Btw. I don't see what is this "greatness" you are talking about? Do you consider having nuclear bomb as greatness? Do you consider having the largest army in the world as greatness...you must live in a very lonely world it you find joy in this....

[Spudster]

you know having a nuclear bomb isnt very logical because there are 27, 000 nuclear bombs in the world...enough to blow the world up like 50 times....

[Finellach]

Really?!? :rofl: :go: