Boycott of American and British goods

[asi_gonia]

I don't want to seem smart or brag about my anti-war actions, but I have come to the conclusions that the only way anybody can hurt the US in any sort of way (and don't get me wrong, it's not that I want to 'hurt' Americans persee), is to boycott the goods America produces.

I now pledge that I will not smoke another Marlboro, by another pair of levis, drink coke, pepsi etc.....

It will be done. And don't doubt the effectiveness of such an action.

thanks.

[iain]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
I don't want to seem smart or brag about my anti-war actions, but I have come to the conclusions that the only way anybody can hurt the US in any sort of way (and don't get me wrong, it's not that I want to 'hurt' Americans persee), is to boycott the goods America produces.

I now pledge that I will not smoke another Marlboro, by another pair of levis, drink coke, pepsi etc.....

It will be done. And don't doubt the effectiveness of such an action.

thanks. Good for you. I doubt the effectiveness of your boycott, but I salute you for being willing to back up your views with sensible, legal action.

[asi_gonia]

Don't doubt that nothing will come from it.

I know plenty of people here in Greece who are starting their own personal boycott. I'm sure plenty of people in Europe are doing the same thing.

If enough people do it, throughout the western world.......the Americans will stand up and listen. I'm sure of it.

[Tony]

Lets boycott every country that liberates oppressed people, that will teach 'em. We wont stand for this liberation.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
I don't want to seem smart or brag about my anti-war actions, but I have come to the conclusions that the only way anybody can hurt the US in any sort of way (and don't get me wrong, it's not that I want to 'hurt' Americans persee), is to boycott the goods America produces.

I now pledge that I will not smoke another Marlboro, by another pair of levis, drink coke, pepsi etc.....

It will be done. And don't doubt the effectiveness of such an action.

thanks.

Boycott us, loser. Do it. The United States has a self-sustaining economy. We always have. Go ahead and boycott us so we can end the trillions in foreign aid we give away every year.

I bet American products continue to fill every shelve in Europe, unhindered.

JK

[asi_gonia]

This poor kid here sure seems liberated :

{G6: I'm replacing this image with a link. It's a little too graphic}
http://www.antiwar.com/photos/ali.jpg

So now the war is about liberating the Iraqi people. More like starving them into submission, or cutting off their water supply. But I guess that is the price of war uhh?

What exactly happened to the WMD's ?

If the rest of the modern world would boycott American goods, you will feel it my good man.

Foreign AID ?? To Israel ?? To Turkey ? Both countries who are very much known for their glorious human rights record.

hahaahahahaha.....wankers

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The United States has a self-sustaining economy. We always have.


:rolleyes:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
This poor kid here sure seems liberated :

{G6: Replacing the image with a link. It's graphic.}
http://www.antiwar.com/photos/ali.jpg

So now the war is about liberating the Iraqi people. More like starving them into submission, or cutting off their water supply. But I guess that is the price of war uhh?

What exactly happened to the WMD's ?

If the rest of the modern world would boycott American goods, you will feel it my good man.

Foreign AID ?? To Israel ?? To Turkey ? Both countries who are very much known for their glorious human rights record.

hahaahahahaha.....wankers

The Iraqis can always have more kids.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by armageddonman



:rolleyes:

That is all you can do is roll your eyes, lefty.

Only 4% of all global citizens can afford to buy US products. That means the US is a self-sustaining economy. Boycott us and watch what happens.

JK

[Reginald]

Boycott away, I've been doing it for years, with various oppresive regimes around the world. The end reult.....Nothing.

Good luck though, you will need it.

Feel free to add UK stuff to your "not to buy" list. We are there too. Oh and Australian, Polish, Spanish,Bulgarian...............

Edited to remove a half nice comment after reading the JK comment.....about the Iraqis having more kids!!!

That was not nice!!!!

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The Iraqis can always have more kids.

JK

JK, you will eventually grow up to be a disgusting person. Go to your room, little boy, before your mom finds out you've been talking sh*t again in the Net.

[Tony]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
This poor kid here sure seems liberated :


{G6: replacing the image with a link}
http://www.antiwar.com/photos/ali.jpg

So now the war is about liberating the Iraqi people. More like starving them into submission, or cutting off their water supply. But I guess that is the price of war uhh?

What exactly happened to the WMD's ?

If the rest of the modern world would boycott American goods, you will feel it my good man.

Foreign AID ?? To Israel ?? To Turkey ? Both countries who are very much known for their glorious human rights record.

hahaahahahaha.....wankers

Trying to use disturbing pictures to validate your opinion? I could show you a hundred disturing pictures of aborted babies, would that change your view on abortion one way or another? Probably not, so whats the point?

Iraq is liberated, the people are happy and saddam is soon to be out of power. Disturbing pictures arent going to change that fact.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
I now pledge that I will not smoke another Marlboro, by another pair of levis, drink coke, pepsi etc.....


I assume you wont be using Windows or a Mac or Any computer using Intel or AMD chips either then? I expect not to ever hear from you again. Good luck with your boycott.

Originally posted by asi_gonia

thanks.

Dont mention it.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That is all you can do is roll your eyes, lefty.

Only 4% of all global citizens can afford to buy US products. That means the US is a self-sustaining economy. Boycott us and watch what happens.

JK

Self sustaining means no external input is needed. Since the US economy is dependend on oil imports, it's not self sustaining.

[Always Free]

I think the picture of the child has been repeated enough.

I'm glad it isn't a child I know.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Self sustaining means no external input is needed. Since the US economy is dependend on oil imports, it's not self sustaining.

Turn on your TV. Oil is not a problem.

JK

[egslim]

When Saddam was forced to choose between his own people and being a danger to the rest of the world, he chose the latter. That resulted in about a million Iraqi children having died from malnutrition and poor medical care since '91. That is roughly half a million lives lost every year. Say after the regime's removal that 'll be reduced by 20% - very pessimistic estimate.

Even if this war will cost 100,000 lives and last the rest of the year - again very pessimistic - by 2010 at least 600,000 lives will have been spared.
Now if the regime were to be removed by peaceful means, they've tried that in some form since '91, there is no reason to assume it would be succesful in the next ten years. But say they would be gone by the end of 2005. That would still save less lives than this war does.
Also, I'd like to hear one practical peaceful plan of how to get rid of the regime. Preferably in a way not to start a civil war, which would cause more victims.

[ssibal]

The funny thing about boycotting U.S. products is that some factories are located in other nations so you may be inadvertently hurting your own country and people.

[asi_gonia]

I dont get you guy's...

3 weeks ago it was "Saddam has WMD's so we must go to war".......no WMD's found. Saddam must of kept them under his bed.

1 week ago it was "We must free Iraqi people from this evil regime"......no Iraqi civilians were by your side.

Today it is "The Iraqi people are free, so never mind the countless victims"....I don't know what news you guys are watching, but from the news I get on my tv, the Iraqi people were starved into submission because you wouldn't allow humanitarian aid into the country, and cut off the main water supplies.

Yesterday the American army delibratley attacked the Palestine Hotel which was widely known to house foreign journalists. I wonder why exactly ??

So can you please finally tell me why exactly you attacked a legal state, in this illegal war ?

As for my boycott. I understand that maybe I will not have a choice on certain goods(I am a realist), but your precious economy is also made up of food/clothing/tobbaco/car/oil/chemical giants that I will boycott.

thanks again.

[iain]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


I assume you wont be using Windows or a Mac or Any computer using Intel or AMD chips either then? I expect not to ever hear from you again. Good luck with your boycott. Linux is the way to go in this case. The Opera web browser is Norwegian and far superior to IE or Netscape.

I agree that the computer hardware could be a bit tricky, but I don't think you'll ever get it perfect. However, you could reasonably continue to use existing US products (they're already paid for) and just not upgrade.

[Suspected Idiot]

I imagine that while it may be possible to stop buying US goods directly, you'd never be able to boycott all American products. Any company thats floated on any stockmarket probably has some US ownership somewhere down the line, and its likely that some US produced equipment was used to build the roads and run the power stations in virtually every country in the world since the end of the cold war.

[Supercharts]

Greek Salad will now be known as Freedom Salad.
All Feta Cheese must be produced in Wisconsin.
Nana Mouskouri is still OK 'cause she's a Babe.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
I dont get you guy's...

3 weeks ago it was "Saddam has WMD's so we must go to war".......no WMD's found. Saddam must of kept them under his bed.

1 week ago it was "We must free Iraqi people from this evil regime"......no Iraqi civilians were by your side.


So are you essentially saying that because it has not happened yet, WMD will not be found and the Iraqi civilians will not be on our side? Funny as I am watching them celebrating in the streets right now.

Today it is "The Iraqi people are free, so never mind the countless victims"....I don't know what news you guys are watching, but from the news I get on my tv, the Iraqi people were starved into submission because you wouldn't allow humanitarian aid into the country, and cut off the main water supplies.

What are you watching, Iraqi television? The same one that says we are not in Iraq?

Yesterday the American army delibratley attacked the Palestine Hotel which was widely known to house foreign journalists. I wonder why exactly ??

Let me guess, the U.S. military got bored with killing innocent civilians so they decided to kill journalists?

So can you please finally tell me why exactly you attacked a legal state, in this illegal war ?

Legal state.....sure.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
I don't want to seem smart or brag about my anti-war actions, but I have come to the conclusions that the only way anybody can hurt the US in any sort of way (and don't get me wrong, it's not that I want to 'hurt' Americans persee), is to boycott the goods America produces.

I now pledge that I will not smoke another Marlboro, by another pair of levis, drink coke, pepsi etc.....

It will be done. And don't doubt the effectiveness of such an action.

thanks.

Should be no problem for you. I don't think those industrial-strength back-hair removal implements are made by an American company anyway. :rolleyes:

[asi_gonia]

The trade embargo that was forced on Iraq since Gulf War I was the reason for the death of 1/2 million kids. I blame the US and its UN pawns for allowing this embargo to go on and mot allowing much needed medicine to enter Iraq. Especially medecine used for the treatment of cancer, that sky-rocketed after Gulf War I because of the uranium used in YOUR bloody bombs.

Saddam Hussein, in my opinion, was not soley the cause of those deaths you talk about.

Anyway. This war was a wake-up call to all in Europe and the rest of the world. This was nothing more than an imperialist act needed to sustain America's oil supply, and strengthen Israels role in the region.

And don't talk to me about America's oil supplies in Alaska. It costs 4 times as much to extract and produce, than that of Iraq.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Turn on your TV. Oil is not a problem.

JK

:rolleyes:

Sorry but I havn't seen any reports about new oil fields in the US that would be large enough to provide all the oil needed to sustain the US economy.

Apart from the oil, the US economy is dependent on exports.

[asi_gonia]

I love the way you Americans result to stereotyping ethnycities.....and yet are the proponents of Democracy.


To answer the question as to what tv newspapers I watch/read . Basically whatever European paper/news service is available on the net (BBC, Independant, CNN).....I watch the Greek news channels who do have reporters in Bagdhad (Greek channel NET has actually employed Peter Arnett to be one of their correspondents). I get ITN, CNN, A French news channel.

I get a wide variety of news......., but I can tell the difference between the bullsh*t, and the truth.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
The trade embargo that was forced on Iraq since Gulf War I was the reason for the death of 1/2 million kids. I blame the US and its UN pawns for allowing this embargo to go on and mot allowing much needed medicine to enter Iraq.

Ok, you have drawn me off the fence here. With all due respect this is simply not true!

At no time were there any restrictions placed on food or medicine, Billions of dollars that could have been spent on these just sat in banks doing nothing.

Food and medicine was used in Iraq as incentives for the party faithful and withdrawn as punishment to those who didn't tow the line.

Before you get on your high horse about who did what you may consider Boycotting French goods on the basis they supplied Pergeot cars under the "Food for oil" program (note the use of FOOD in that statement). Why did they not insist on supplying medicine instead??

Oh and while you are learning from the TV have a look at the Palaces that have been built Since 1991, you may like to factor the cost of these into your next post.

[Darat]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
I dont get you guy's...

3 weeks ago it was "Saddam has WMD's so we must go to war".......no WMD's found. Saddam must of kept them under his bed.



Well I don't like to be tarred with a "you guy's" brush but I thought I would respond.

WMD was never the ONLY reason given for a war with Saddam. Several reasons were always given, including his support of anti-west, especially anti-American terrorists - in words and most likely deeds. The fact that he had in very recent times attacked a neighbour indicated he did not respect the sovereignty of other nations. And finally the UN told him he must allow weapons inspectors to do their appointed role or face severe consequences. He did not allow this. Lots of reasons.

Originally posted by asi_gonia

1 week ago it was "We must free Iraqi people from this evil regime"......no Iraqi civilians were by your side.


Gross simplification and a load of rubbish - what just one week it changed from "WDM" to "free the people"? Please support this or is it as I suspect just a load of hyperbole?

Originally posted by asi_gonia

Today it is "The Iraqi people are free, so never mind the countless victims"....I don't know what news you guys are watching, but from the news I get on my tv, the Iraqi people were starved into submission because you wouldn't allow humanitarian aid into the country, and cut off the main water supplies.


Again a crock of body excrement. Did you read what you posted? Have you watched the news (not just European & USA networks but Arab news) - The majority of the do seem to have wanted Saddam removed. And yes there have been many (not countless) victims of this campaign - however the VAST MAJORITY of them occurred over the last 20 years of Saddam's reign! Saddam has killed many more, by several orders of magnitude, Iraqis then the coalition forces have – yet you seem to believe that is fine?! :mad:

Originally posted by asi_gonia

Yesterday the American army delibratley attacked the Palestine Hotel which was widely known to house foreign journalists. I wonder why exactly ??


I doubt that many USA military officials are posting here so I doubt anyone can tell you "why". I can hazard a guess, what about a mistake - you know there is a war on and it has always been my belief that being in the middle of a war is not a safe place to be?

Originally posted by asi_gonia

So can you please finally tell me why exactly you attacked a legal state, in this illegal war ?



Well I don't believe it makes the slightest difference to any person hurt or killed in a conflict whether it is "illegal" or "legal". I would point out two facts - one that the war has not been determined to be illegal or legal yet by any international authority.

And secondly unlike you I would feel terrible about the child in the picture whether the war is legal or not. I assume from your words that if the war is legal then it is just "tough sh*t" about the kid.

Originally posted by asi_gonia


As for my boycott. I understand that maybe I will not have a choice on certain goods(I am a realist), but your precious economy is also made up of food/clothing/tobbaco/car/oil/chemical giants that I will boycott.

thanks again.

Fine - fortunately you seem to live in a country where you can choose what to do - something that until very recently no Iraqi could claim.

[asi_gonia]

The queen has a palace.

Look Saddam is no angel, I have never claimed that he is, but the embargo placed on Iraq was a slow acting genocide. There was a former UN diplomat who was put in charge of this, but retired in protest(forgive me but I have forgotten his name).

It's the oil....at least admit it.

Most of you guy's probably never knew where Iraq was on the map up until a few months ago.

I ask that most of the American readers of this forum watch the Warren Beatty movie "Bullworth"......a lot of truth in that movie.

[Darat]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
The trade embargo that was forced on Iraq since Gulf War I was the reason for the death of 1/2 million kids. I blame the US and its UN pawns for allowing this embargo to go on and mot allowing much needed medicine to enter Iraq. Especially medecine used for the treatment of cancer, that sky-rocketed after Gulf War I because of the uranium used in YOUR bloody bombs.

Saddam Hussein, in my opinion, was not soley the cause of those deaths you talk about.

Anyway. This war was a wake-up call to all in Europe and the rest ...snip...

If he had allowed the money to he got from the limited oil sales to be used to feed and provide medical care for his people then not one would have starved.

Instead what did he spend money on - gold plated taps for his 50+ "official" Palaces?

Saddam could have ensured not one of his people starved or went without at least basic medical care. He choose to allow his people to suffer and hundreds of thousands of people to die so he could use their deaths as “political” pawns.

The decision for the people to starve was Saddam’s - it was not the sanctions - they still allowed enough money but not if you want to import Italian marble for your palaces.

(By the way I believe children and adults equally deserve sympathy yet you consistently seem to indicate your sympathy is reserved for children.)

[crackmonkey]

So you're getting your 'news' from Hollywood movies? No wonder you have such an unusual take on current events...

I quake in fear over the impending Greek boycott of US goods... :rolleyes:

[asi_gonia]

Have any of you guy's heard of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfovitz ? You do realise that these guy's and the rest of the neo-cons have been advocating a war with Iraq since Reagan was in office.

Richard Perle was on Greek television just last week, being interviewed by a very respected Greek journalist named Gregory Papahelas , and he readily admitted that a war with Iraq has been on the cards since the mid-80's. He also said that regime changes are also needed in Syria, and Iran.

What are your thoughts on this ?? Do you guy's readily believe that the USA should not stop at Iraq, but proceed to it's neighbouring countries ??

[Checkmite]

I respect everyone's opinion regarding this war. As an American, I have to admit that my government has been a little enigmatic regarding the whole "justification" thing. And the fact that the US has taken about 70% of Iraq and still hasn't found any (confirmed) WMD doesn't seem to bode well. However:

Originally posted by asi_gonia
This was nothing more than an imperialist act needed to sustain America's oil supply, and strengthen Israels role in the region.


Given the lengths at which the US and Britain have gone to keep Israel out of this war, I'm wondering where you got this idea. Surely, the US is allied with Israel and gives it aid; the US is also allied with Egypt and gives them aid as well. I'd like to know how you think the role of Israel will be "strengthened" in the region.

[LTC8K6]

Ah yes, another limbless lion cub, a member of the ashbal saddam no doubt. Saddam's own hitler youth. he likes to start them young.

http://a.abcnews.com/media/World/images/nm_saddams_cub_030117_nh.jpg

[Reginald]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
The queen has a palace.

ROTFL :D

Oh yes she does, she has several.

Thanks for pointing that out to me.

That must rate as the singularly most ridiculous comment I have ever seen in response to any post at any time! Brilliant!

[crackmonkey]

I think the regimes in Iran and Syria should be changed.. many people do, at least the people who oppose totalitarian, terrorist governments. I doubt that these regime changes will be through armed intervention, more likely this will occur by popular uprising. I suspect Perle said as much.

I don't want to seem smart
Don't worry about it - not much danger of that.

[Mel]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
Have any of you guy's heard of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfovitz ? You do realise that these guy's and the rest of the neo-cons have been advocating a war with Iraq since Reagan was in office.

Richard Perle was on Greek television just last week, being interviewed by a very respected Greek journalist named Gregory Papahelas , and he readily admitted that a war with Iraq has been on the cards since the mid-80's. He also said that regime changes are also needed in Syria, and Iran.

What are your thoughts on this ?? Do you guy's readily believe that the USA should not stop at Iraq, but proceed to it's neighbouring countries ??

Let me ask you..... how does IGNORING terrorists or terrorist regimes BENEFIT the world at large? How does turning a blind eye to INNOCENT PEOPLE suffering help anyone?

Is that what civilized nations must continue to do in order to placate the people with no concept of what is MORALLY RIGHT?

If the suffering we are CLEARLY seeing in Iraq were happening in Greece, would you still be against the coalition coming to rescue YOUR family from terror?

[Supercharts]

"On 12th March, 1947, Harry S. Truman, announced details to Congress of what eventually became known as the Truman Doctrine. In his speech he pledged American support for "free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures". This speech also included a request that Congress agree to give military and economic aid to Greece in its fight against communism. Truman asked for $400,000,000 for this aid programme. He also explained that he intended to send American military and economic advisers to countries whose political stability was threatened by communism. "

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAtrumanD.htm

NNTTM
:p

[asi_gonia]

I would welcome anybody BUT the USA to do such a thing. It was the USA that put in place a bloody military junta here between 1967-1974...........who's affects are still being felt today.

The US has bases all-over Greece. A couple of months ago a a US soldier in Greece was arrested for breaking into a house and raping a woman. Luckily her neighbours heard the screams and came running. He was charged, but quickly whisked away by the USA. Gangs of US soldiers have been known to start fights in bars/restaraunts all-over Greece. Resteraunts/Bars have put up signs saying that they refuse to serve US servicemen

What exactly gave the U.S and it's citizens the right to tell the rest of the world what is a 'regime' ? Saudi Arabia/Quwait ARE regimes, but no a word is said about them.....I wonder why ??

Look through the looking glass people.

[Mel]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
I would welcome anybody BUT the USA to do such a thing. It was the USA that put in place a bloody military junta here between 1967-1974...........who's affects are still being felt today.

The US has bases all-over Greece. A couple of months ago a a US soldier in Greece was arrested for breaking into a house and raping a woman. Luckily her neighbours heard the screams and came running. He was charged, but quickly whisked away by the USA. Gangs of US soldiers have been known to start fights in bars/restaraunts all-over Greece. Resteraunts/Bars have put up signs saying that they refuse to serve US servicemen

What exactly gave the U.S and it's citizens the right to tell the rest of the world what is a 'regime' ? Saudi Arabia/Quwait ARE regimes, but no a word is said about them.....I wonder why ??

Look through the looking glass people.

Ah.... so you're saying there would be NO CRIMES or SUFFERING in Greece if not for the horrible Amercans? I'd be more than happy to have our troops leave your country, stop sending you our foreign aid and letting you fend for yourselves.

I'm sure Turkey would be more than willing to have Greece's refund check.

[asi_gonia]

So if the gift of 'freedom' is what America is giving, then why haven't they given it to the Israeles all these years, for their persecution of the Palestinians ? Or the Turks for their countless human rights violations ??

I'm confused.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
The queen has a palace.

Look Saddam is no angel, I have never claimed that he is, but the embargo placed on Iraq was a slow acting genocide.

Oh, right and Britain is labouring under evil UN imperialist genocidal sanctions regimes as proscibed under our (very generous) ceace-fire agreement after we had lost a war of agression against our smaller neighbour that we started for the sole purpose of funding our ludicrously lambitious military expansion programe- not withstanding the fact that the only thing we would have gad to do to get rid of sanctions would be to give up our bio/chem weapons programs while millions of children starve and die of lack of medical care because the queen spends what little revenue we do have on her and her families own personal agrandisment?

How silly of me! I forgot!! :rolleyes:

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Mel


I'm sure Turkey would be more than willing to have Greece's refund check.

Sure theyd be content with the other half of cyprus.

[asi_gonia]

I love the way you threaten my country with Turkey............you're such a warrior of freedom........

So basically freedom is the threat of violence ??

I understand now.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
I love the way you threaten my country with Turkey............you're such a warrior of freedom........

So basically freedom is the threat of violence ??

I understand now.

The countries you threaten to boycott are the counties saving you from becoming turkey food.

[asi_gonia]

The Iraqi invasion of Quwait was given the nod by the American embassador to Iraq 1 night before it happened. My, my how well informed we are.

So tell me the difference between what Iraq did in 1990, and what the USA and Britain is doing now exactly ?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
The Iraqi invasion of Quwait was given the nod by the American embassador to Iraq 1 night before it happened. My, my how well informed we are.


Absolute fiction. Some of us are well informed. You are not.

Originally posted by asi_gonia

So tell me the difference between what Iraq did in 1990, and what the USA and Britain is doing now exactly ?

what are the similarities?

[Mel]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
I love the way you threaten my country with Turkey............you're such a warrior of freedom........

So basically freedom is the threat of violence ??

I understand now.

How am I "threatening" your country in any way? You clearly said that you do not APPRECIATE America being on your soil and therefore *I* do not feel the need to send you foreign aid either.... since you would like to be totally self sufficient.

So you see, the real threat that you PERCEIVE is the threat of NOT having America readily available to keep Turkey off your backs.

Exactly WHAT is it that America GAINS from this one way relationship with your country? I keep forgetting all the things you do for us...... refresh my memory, please.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Supercharts

Nana Mouskouri is still OK 'cause she's a Babe.

You dig on 69 year old ladies? (Shudder)

:D

Zee

[Darat]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
So if the gift of 'freedom' is what America is giving, then why haven't they given it to the Israeles all these years, for their persecution of the Palestinians ? Or the Turks for their countless human rights violations ??

I'm confused.

Oh dear - you can't support the comments you made originally so now it is the tactic of bringing in as many unconnected issues as possible in an attempt to muddy the waters in the hope no-one will realise you can’t support your statements .... not unexpected.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
I don't want to seem smart or brag about my anti-war actions, but I have come to the conclusions that the only way anybody can hurt the US in any sort of way (and don't get me wrong, it's not that I want to 'hurt' Americans persee), is to boycott the goods America produces.

I now pledge that I will not smoke another Marlboro, by another pair of levis, drink coke, pepsi etc.....

It will be done. And don't doubt the effectiveness of such an action.

thanks.

You are but a molecule in a drop in a swimming pool...

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


You dig on 69 year old ladies? (Shudder)

:D

Zee

When I first saw her about 20 years ago [Boston, Lowell? I forget] she was a Babe. And real Babes are Babes all of their life.
I also still in love with Sophia Loren - go figure. Now ask yourself - what does this have to do with Feta Cheese?

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Supercharts


When I first saw her about 20 years ago [Boston, Lowell? I forget] she was a Babe. And real Babes are Babes all of their life.
I also still in love with Sophia Loren - go figure. Now ask yourself - what does this have to do with Feta Cheese?

You're right, age doesn't count, your mentioning Sophia Loren proves it clearly. I must have been confused by
a) she's got a lousy taste for glasses
b) she sings like a squeaking door (I won't back up from this one, she did and still does A LOT of "singing" in Germany ... ARRRGH my EAAARS HUUURT)

Zee

[c0rbin]

Right, the Greeks are too busy making scratch on human trafficing to concern themselvves with real evil in the world.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
Especially medecine used for the treatment of cancer, that sky-rocketed after Gulf War I because of the uranium used in YOUR bloody bombs.



Asi,

Since we are pointing out some of the gaps between what you know and what you think you know, I will add in my own small contribution.

Most media sources know nothing about science or weapons. Depleted uranium is not a serious radiation hazard. Here is a place to start reading about what it is:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.


Depleted uranium results from the enriching of natural uranium for use in nuclear reactors. Natural uranium is a slightly radioactive metal that is present in most rocks and soils as well as in many rivers and sea water. Natural uranium consists primarily of a mixture of two isotopes (forms) of uranium, Uranium-235 (U235) and Uranium-238 (U238), in the proportion of about 0.7 and 99.3 percent, respectively. Nuclear reactors require U235 to produce energy, therefore, the natural uranium has to be enriched to obtain the isotope U235 by removing a large part of the U238. Uranium-238 becomes DU, which is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium. Since DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, there is very little decay of those DU materials.


Have you ever thought that maybe something else may be responsible for the cancer rate in Iraq? Where is the cancer rate in Serbia right now? Bosnia as well?

About boycotts. Where does your local Coke and Pepsi come from? Who makes and spends most of the money to produce this? Who would be hurt the worst in such a boycott? The local business or the multinational corporation at the top?

As for Iraqi chemical weapons, some have been found.

Here is a short list of things we are looking for but don’t have yet in Iraq:

1.) Chemical weapons stockpiles.
2.) Saddam and sons
3.) The majority of captured US military personnel.
4.) Bunker complexes.
5.) 600+ missing Kuwaiti citizens from the last gulf war.

All were known to exist at one time. No need to jump to conclusions about not finding them yet.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Doubt


Asi,

Since we are pointing out some of the gaps between what you know and what you think you know, I will add in my own small contribution.

Most media sources know nothing about science or weapons. Depleted uranium is not a serious radiation hazard. Here is a place to start reading about what it is:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/du.





Most people (and particuarly bedwetters) have a knew-jerk reaction when they hear the word uranium.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
This poor kid here sure seems liberated :

(picture of child with no arms removed)



Pictures like this show why I have a problem with the credibility of the anit-war movement. They post a disturbing picture as 'proof' that their side is right, witnout really analyzing it.

First of all, you have no idea who this child is, and what happened to his limbs. He could have lost his arms by Saddams actions (remember, his own people were shelling their own civilians). It could be a picture from before the war even started. In fact, the kid may not even be Iraqi. This forum should be for critical thinking; perhaps you should try it some time.

Another issue I have is that as bad as that image is, what you don't see are the dozens of people who would have been murdered by Saddam had he remained in power.

[rustypouch]

If the US is so corncerned about liberating oppresed people and stopping the killings of innocents, why are they igroning the situation in Africa?

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2003/04/06/congo_030406

[corplinx]

Originally posted by asi_gonia


3 weeks ago it was "Saddam has WMD's so we must go to war".......no WMD's found. Saddam must of kept them under his bed.


Post a link to the thread please.

[GovtSlave]

First of all, you have no idea who this child is, and what happened to his limbs. He could have lost his arms by Saddams actions (remember, his own people were shelling their own civilians). It could be a picture from before the war even started. In fact, the kid may not even be Iraqi. This forum should be for critical thinking; perhaps you should try it some time.

Just FYI, though I can't find it now another picture of the same boy was up on MSNBC.com earlier today and the caption stated he was wounded during a coalition bombing raid, lost his family and is being cared for by a distant aunt. Wish I could find it now... bugger....

* GovtSlave bows back out of the discussion...

[EvilYeti]

What about using an american message board?

Got an intel chip in your PC? Better throw your computer out!

Don't let the door hit you in your ass on the way out.

Originally posted by asi_gonia


I now pledge that I will not smoke another Marlboro, by another pair of levis, drink coke, pepsi etc.....

It will be done. And don't doubt the effectiveness of such an action.

thanks.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by rustypouch
If the US is so corncerned about liberating oppresed people and stopping the killings of innocents, why are they igroning the situation in Africa?

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2003/04/06/congo_030406

Because we are currently engaged in two other theatres? Did this really need answering?

[Darat]

Originally posted by rustypouch
If the US is so corncerned about liberating oppresed people and stopping the killings of innocents, why are they igroning the situation in Africa?

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2003/04/06/congo_030406

So you want the USA to invade the Conga or is it Uganda or is it both?

[svero]

I don't agree with the concept of boycotting american goods if you don't like what Bush and co. are doing. As war protests have demonstrated the american govt doesnt necessarily speak for all the American public.

American citizens are the ones who have the power to change foreign policy with their votes. If you want to affect how things are happening in the world then share information you think is relevant with your American friends. I don't see that hurting coke sales in spain is going to do much but affect the lives of people working at some bottling plant.

I think one problem is that Americans are largely isolated from the consequences of their govt's foreign policies. Life in the USA has been so good, that the concept of walking down the street and stumbling over some land mine and losing both your legs and not being able to afford a Dr, much less a wheelchair is so alien to them that they think of war in the same terms as it's largely presented on CNN. A little video game where a general moves some plastic tanks on a little map and people cheer in the streets after being liberated. Who would be adamantly against that? You can't have any real empathy without any experience of suffering. At least it's much more difficult. That's why I don't find it all that surprising that many victims of 9/11 and the families of loved ones lost are strongly against war.

I'd like to take some people here and drag their buts into a few of these countries and force them to see a little of what they advocate first hand. I know travelling to poor countries still recovering from the effects of war has had a profound effect on me. And I haven't even seen the worse of it. When your sitting in north american behind a desk, or watching tv at home and hearing some horror stories or seeing an awful picture like the one of the little boy with his arms blown off, it's just not the same as actually being there and smelling the burnt flesh, or watching the one legged 5yr old girl pick rotten meat out of a garbage can to feed the 1 yr old she's taking care of strapped in a bedsheet and tied across her back. Maybe then they wouldn't be so quick to say 'Bombs Away! hahaha! Die die die"

[c0rbin]

Life in the USA has been so good, that the concept of walking down the street and stumbling over some land mine and losing both your legs and not being able to afford a Dr, much less a wheelchair is so alien to them that they think of war in the same terms as it's largely presented on CNN.

Hmmm... the simple answer here is DON'T LITTER YOUR COUNTRY WITH F*CKING LANDMINES!

Same thing with Africa and the Middle East. Shieks and Warlords hoarding the wealth and food for them and thier armies. It breeds ignorance and desperation. Throw in a little religious zealousy and you have a martyr brigade.

But oh no, get pissed of at the US as if we strap bombs on kids and march them into mosques or onto buses or into supermarkets.

[HarryKeogh]

go ahead and boycott american goods.

25 million iraqis will think youre a horse's ass but go ahead.

i've been choked up twice in the past 24 hours. the first time when i saw the story on that boy who lost his family and his limbs and the second time when i saw that statue fall and the iraqis beating it with their shoes. unfortunately freedom has a price but it's worth it. i'm sure if i was related to that poor kid i'd disagree but i have the advantage of seeing it from a distance and making a logical, not emotional, decision as to why the war is worth the loss of lives on both sides.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Darat


So you want the USA to invade the Congo or is it Uganda or is it both?

With 2 A-10 warthogs & 100 good men you take over the continent, but then what would you do?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by hammegk


With 2 A-10 warthogs & 100 good men you take over the continent, but then what would you do?

Erm..... Are you being serious? I hope you are being sarcastic.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
The US has bases all-over Greece. A couple of months ago a a US soldier in Greece was arrested for breaking into a house and raping a woman. Luckily her neighbours heard the screams and came running. He was charged, but quickly whisked away by the USA.

Was he court martialled?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Erm..... Are you being serious? I hope you are being sarcastic.

OK, ya got me, 3 & 150.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by rustypouch
If the US is so corncerned about liberating oppresed people and stopping the killings of innocents, why are they igroning the situation in Africa?

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2003/04/06/congo_030406

Because you and people like you would bitch and moan and cry 'imperialism' and 'rascism' and post pictures of dead Congolese children with no arms no legs and no goats.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by hammegk


OK, ya got me, 3 & 150.

I think you might find that conquering the African continent might prove rather more difficult than you think.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by rustypouch
If the US is so corncerned about liberating oppresed people and stopping the killings of innocents, why are they igroning the situation in Africa?

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2003/04/06/congo_030406

So we must either help everyone right now, or help no one at all??? :confused:

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Because you and people like you would bitch and moan and cry 'imperialism' and 'rascism' and post pictures of dead Congolese children with no arms no legs and no goats. Exactly. And if the US affirmatively stated that they weren't going to do anything about it, the very same people would decry the heartless US for its hypocricy.

A better question might be why, if the Anti-US-action folks really cared about people in other countries, are they completely ignoring the situation in Congo, or dozens of other places like it, except to criticize the US for only helping those the US chooses to help. They use the massacre in Congo for political posturing, showing not the least bit of actual human concern for those involved. Disgusting.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
I would welcome anybody BUT the USA to do such a thing. It was the USA that put in place a bloody military junta here between 1967-1974...........who's affects are still being felt today.

The US has bases all-over Greece. A couple of months ago a a US soldier in Greece was arrested for breaking into a house and raping a woman. Luckily her neighbours heard the screams and came running. He was charged, but quickly whisked away by the USA. Gangs of US soldiers have been known to start fights in bars/restaraunts all-over Greece. Resteraunts/Bars have put up signs saying that they refuse to serve US servicemen

What exactly gave the U.S and it's citizens the right to tell the rest of the world what is a 'regime' ? Saudi Arabia/Quwait ARE regimes, but no a word is said about them.....I wonder why ??

Look through the looking glass people.

Are you already boycotting Israel, for their repression of the Palestinians? India for the Kashmiris? China for the Tibettans? Russia for the Chechnyans?

How about this?

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1994/144/144p12.htm

http://hrw.org/reports/world/greece-pubs.php

Boycott yourself!

Seriously, get over it. America is doing little that everyone else hasn't already done. America is not in an "illegal war" against a "legitimate government". In its short defeat against America, Iraq broke just about every war crime law there was!

-Ben

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by GovtSlave


Just FYI, though I can't find it now another picture of the same boy was up on MSNBC.com earlier today and the caption stated he was wounded during a coalition bombing raid, lost his family and is being cared for by a distant aunt.

Actually, I stand corrected. The photo was of someone injured during the coalition bombing. (It is posted on CNN too.)

But the second part of my argument still stands: while I have sympathy for this boy, his loss must be weighed against the losses of dozens of others had Saddam remained in power. (Just look at the recent release of dozens of Iraqi children from jail, who's only crime was that they didn't want to join Saddam's party.)

[Nikk]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
What about using an american message board?

Got an intel chip in your PC? Better throw your computer out!

Don't let the door hit you in your ass on the way out.




In day to day life it's very difficult to boycott US goods in Europe because there are so few on sale. Finding something with a "made in the US" label is extremely rare in my experience. Once you boycott coke ( locally bottled ), Levis's ( not worth the extra money ), McDonalds ( local staff ), and virginia tobacco ( irreplaceable if you smoke, I don't ), then that's pretty much it. One can of course refuse to watch US tv programmes or films as well. Check the figures for your trade deficit if you doubt me.

So I don't think a consumer boycott would make much difference even if it was widespread.

Personally I boycott US fruit and vegetables on principle. The principle being that they have even less taste than the Dutch product. I think it's the result of genetically modifying them to include DNA from polystyrene:D

[NullPointerException]

Feel free to boycott American made products... I'm sure if you try really hard you can find one. Our G.I. Joes are made in China, our Cars and Computers are made in Japan, and we don't rely on a single export for our money like Iraq or Saudi Arabia. I'm sure you could find an SUV that says made in America, of course the demographic that buys them doesn't contain irate foriengers. :D

[Mike B.]

I always thought using graphic pictures was a lousy tactic.

I mean, not to dredge up horrible memories, but why not show pictures of Dresden in 1945 and conclude that the allies were unjustified to fight World War II?

Asi will not post on here I am sure because the JREF is located in Florida in the United States.;)

[Baker]

This is a Inappropriate image shouldnt it be removed?

[asi_gonia]

Was the U.S marine court marshalled ??

Well one journalist here in Greece who investigated the situation, could not get a straight answer from any U.S officer.

Go figure.

Listen, I asked a question about Richard Perle, Wolfovitz and the rest of the neo-conservatives a few posts back, and only got one bloody reply, and that was lame as well.

Do you guy's even know who these guy's are, and what purpose they serve.

Also, I have had enough of people here throwing around the words 'democracy', 'freedom' without really knowing the real meaning of them. I am Greek, we invented these things, however you stole the definitions of them.

I still prefer the Greek definition.

[asi_gonia]

As for the numbskull who said that third world countries should not be planting land mines in the first place......your an idiot.

It was America who vetoed a resoltution that would of banned them outright. I can't remember what exact law that was, but it was a UN resolution.

[Marquis de Carabas]

A UN resolution that surely would have been obeyed if only we damned americans hadn't vetoed it, right?

[Darat]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
Was the U.S marine court marshalled ??

...snip...

Also, I have had enough of people here throwing around the words 'democracy', 'freedom' without really knowing the real meaning of them. I am Greek, we invented these things, however you stole the definitions of them.

I still prefer the Greek definition.

Well I can still see that you are refusing to stand by your original statements and trying to muddy the waters but like I said before - no great surprise there.

And no wonder you thought that Saddam should remain in power if you prefer the "original" Greek definition of "democracy"!

It is very hard to extract sense from what you say but I suppose you are referring to the original form of government proposed by Cleisthenes?

So let me get this right you are proposing that you would prefer a form of government in which no women can participate, in which no women can hold a political office and in which no women can vote. Alongside that I have to assume you will be happy with having a third of the population owned by the other two thirds i.e. slaves.

I pity the Greek women you want to disenfranchise.


Can't wait for your campaign to strip the vote away from women starts (and presumably concurrent to this your campaign to re-introduce slavery in Greece) so that you can once again introduce the "original Greek democracy" you are so passionate about.

[Tony]

Originally posted by asi_gonia

It was America who vetoed a resoltution that would of banned them outright. I can't remember what exact law that was, but it was a UN resolution.

The UN gods have written a new commandment in stone.

Thou shalt obey. :rolleyes:

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by TonyThe UN gods have written a new commandment in stone.

Thou shalt obey.

Is the point of your comment that the US can do what it likes when it likes and can ignore the UN with impunity. Why then is the US in the UN? Surely you shouldn't be in a club if you won't abide by the rules. That would be a stupid thing to do wouldn't it? Particularly when you're not wanted by the other members.

Do you advocate the US leaving the UN?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
A UN resolution that surely would have been obeyed if only we damned americans hadn't vetoed it, right?

Shouldn't a gentleman walk when his company is no longer required at the dinner table?

Surely, if you don't want to abide by the rules, it is more sensible to leave and let the other like minded countries to get on with the world without continually flouting their democratic wishes.

Do you avocate the US leaving an organisation you dislike or not?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by HarryKeogh
...i have the advantage of seeing it from a distance and making a logical, not emotional, decision as to why the war is worth the loss of lives on both sides.

Seeing war from a distance is always a better way to view it.

Unfortunately the locals don't have that ability and each innocent life lost is one hundred more Bin Ladens generated.

[asi_gonia]

The US don't care about no UN. They only care about it when it suits them.

Unfortunatley the UN is finished, or soon will be.


The only chance the world has (in my view) is Russia join the EU. But will the American lackeys of Europe allow this (cough, cough....Britain...cough...cough). Russia still is a military might, and so is France.

Let me ask this simple questions to the Americans of this board. Is it your God given right to judge what is right and what is wrong in this world ? I mean I regard the death penalty in your country as barbaric, does this give me a right to attack you ?

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
The US don't care about no UN. They only care about it when it suits them.

Unfortunatley the UN is finished, or soon will be.

The only chance the world has (in my view) is Russia join the EU. But will the American lackeys of Europe allow this (cough, cough....Britain...cough...cough). Russia still is a military might, and so is France.

Let me ask this simple questions to the Americans of this board. Is it your God given right to judge what is right and what is wrong in this world ? I mean I regard the death penalty in your country as barbaric, does this give me a right to attack you ?
It is everyone’s right to make his or her own distinction between right and wrong. Individuals can decide what is good and what is bad. In terms of what is good individuals can decide for themselves the degree of support. In terms of bad individuals can determine the degree of non-support or condemnation.
If you feel that attacking the United States is justified because of capital punishment then by all means go for it. [Understand, of course, that you must be willing to accept any and all consequences for your actions]

[Darat]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
The US don't care about no UN. They only care about it when it suits them.

Unfortunatley the UN is finished, or soon will be.


The only chance the world has (in my view) is Russia join the EU. But will the American lackeys of Europe allow this (cough, cough....Britain...cough...cough). Russia still is a military might, and so is France.

Let me ask this simple questions to the Americans of this board. Is it your God given right to judge what is right and what is wrong in this world ? I mean I regard the death penalty in your country as barbaric, does this give me a right to attack you ?

Strange that you don't seem to realise that the death penalty has not been abolished in Greece,? I can't believe how uninformed you are - it is absolutely breathtaking:

Amnesty International (http://web.amnesty.org/rmp/dplibrary.nsf/ff6dd728f6268d0480256aab003d14a8/daa2b602299dded0802568810050f6b1!OpenDocument)

2. Abolitionist for ordinary crimes only
Countries whose laws provide for the death penalty only for exceptional crimes such as crimes under military law or crimes committed in exceptional circumstances

ALBANIA, ARGENTINA, BOLIVIA, BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, BRAZIL, CHILE, COOK ISLANDS, EL SALVADOR, FIJI, GREECE, ISRAEL, LATVIA, MEXICO, PERU, TURKEY



Is there anything you know anything about?


(Edited to add - if that link doesn't work go to http://web.amnesty.org/rmp/dplibrary.nsf/ and select the "Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries" link.)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


Is the point of your comment that the US can do what it likes when it likes and can ignore the UN with impunity. Why then is the US in the UN? Surely you shouldn't be in a club if you won't abide by the rules. That would be a stupid thing to do wouldn't it? Particularly when you're not wanted by the other members.

Do you advocate the US leaving the UN?

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!! :)

[Doubt]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
As for the numbskull who said that third world countries should not be planting land mines in the first place......your an idiot.

It was America who vetoed a resoltution that would of banned them outright. I can't remember what exact law that was, but it was a UN resolution.

No such resolution was ever proposed to my knowledge.

However, there is such a thing as an anti-landmine treaty. The US did not sign onto this treaty because of the situation in Korea, where land mines are an integral part of the defense of the South. The text of the treaty can be found here:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/mine/UNDocs/ban_trty.htm

Notice that the treaty only bans anti-personnel landmines and not anti-tank land mines. A person running at a moderate pace can exert a ground force of several times their own weight. Many anti-tank mines can be detonated by forces as low as 300 lbs., (136 Kilos), potentially resulting in detonation.

Also many countries don’t quite seem to think they should stop booby trapping their anti-tank mines. See below for a list of countries who are part of the treaty but still booby trap their mines. Greece is on the list for one type of mine they produce.

http://www.icbl.org/lm/factsheets/antihandl2000.php3


GREECE (signatory only)

Primary Concern

PYRKAL (appears to have an inherent anti-disturbance device because of design of magnetic influence fuze)


For the reasons the US rejected the land mine treaty, see below:

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/spring99/thumm.html


Although the US government made efforts to accommodate its policy on land mines in accordance with international pressure, it was unable to accept the Ottawa Treaty on Land Mines that calls for a total ban on AP mines once the treaty entered into force on March 1, 1999. Rather, the President’s Statement issued on September 17, 1997 made it clear that the US government would like a number of changes to the treaty text, namely, to be able to retain Mixed Munitions, to cease the use of all pure AP mines (except for Korea) by the year 2003, and to eliminate pure AP mines in Korea by 2006 provided that alternative systems can be devised by then. The US approach clashes with the Ottawa Treaty in that it deems the mixed systems critical to US global military commitments and security needs. The government believes such an approach is not very harmful to humanitarian interests as most US land mine systems have a self-destruction function with over 99.99% reliability.


Now Asi, you have a number of very strong opinions. How many of them have you ever researched?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


Seeing war from a distance is always a better way to view it.

Unfortunately the locals don't have that ability and each innocent life lost is one hundred more Bin Ladens generated.

Oh please! :rolleyes:

Bin Laden was not created by the loss of innocent lives! Bin Laden was a rich and bored fanatic who believed he was called by Allah to make jihad on every living non-Arab.

A "hundred more Bin Ladens" :D You sound like the idiot who gave the "A Million Mogadishus" speech! Where are all these Bin Ladens then eh?

Face it...the WOT works...has worked well since inception...and will work as long as we continue to hone our intelligence apparatuses and go after these creeps wherever they slither to. If, as you are saying, these imagined injustices are creating hundreds more Bin Ladens then our country should be torn by much more terrorism. Well look around...we've had less! Far less terrorism since the WOT began! Alot less terrorism than the negligent appeasement that the Clinton admin's approach offered. Take a lesson....a dead terrorist is far less dangerous than an appeased one is. :)

-zilla

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Doubt
Now Asi, you have a number of very strong opinions. How many of them have you ever researched?
Perhaps he's confusing it with the UN General Assembly resolution sponsored by the United States (around 1992, if memory serves) calling for countries to initiate moratoria on the export of landmines, as a result of which Greece was persuaded to follow the U.S. lead and ban such exports.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Surely, if you don't want to abide by the rules, it is more sensible to leave and let the other like minded countries to get on with the world without continually flouting their democratic wishes.

This is not about abiding by the rules. This is about MAKING the rules concerning landmines. Why should the US support a resolution that public pressure will force it to obey while its enemies can ignore it since, not being democratic, they do not have to worry about such public pressure, and the UN refuses to enforce its own resolutions? At this point, I don't think the US should support ANY UN resolution unless it has acceptable enforcement provisions built in. This doesn't necessarily mean leaving the UN (although that is one solution) but it does mean opposing most resolutions because without giving them teeth they tend to favor dictators.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Do you avocate the US leaving an organisation you dislike or not?
I would advocate the US leaving an organisation I dislike. If you mean specifically do I favour the US leaving the UN, the answer is no.

The point of my post was merely to point out--rather sarcastically, I admit--that had the resolution in question been passed, I doubt it would have done any good as far as limiting the usage of landmines.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originaly posted by RikzillaA "hundred more Bin Ladens" You sound like the idiot who gave the "A Million Mogadishus" speech! Where are all these Bin Ladens then eh?
And that passes as serious debate on your world Rik? Can I just suggest that they may be found in every Arab country. When the Brtish armed forces killed innocent civilians in Londonderry the membership of the IRA shot up leading to more deaths in the province. If you will not learn frm history you are destined to repeat it.

Can I also point out that it wasn't Bin Laden who actually flew the planes into the towers. That was carried out by others who were prepared to die for their cause. Perhaps they were all also bored rich kids or perhaps it might just be useful to study what was behind their views. Perhaps you don't care to actually think about the reasons for their actions? Face it...the WOT works...has worked well since inception...and will work as long as we continue to hone our intelligence apparatuses and go after these creeps wherever they slither to. If, as you are saying, these imagined injustices are creating hundreds more Bin Ladens then our country should be torn by much more terrorism. Well look around...we've had less! Far less terrorism since the WOT began! Alot less terrorism than the negligent appeasement that the Clinton admin's approach offered. Take a lesson....a dead terrorist is far less dangerous than an appeased one is.
Would that be the war that ignores Mafia terrorism would it or the far right nutters in Montana? Or the WOT that has generated immense lawlessness in Iraq with innocent peple being killed as we speak. Or the WOT that ignores IRA terrorism or the WOT hasn't found the person who actually committed the atrocity at the twin towers etc. Doesn't seem to work very well does it particularly when it goes after a country that was no immediate threat so that Bush can command the oil resources and when it ignores the UN.

Take a lesson from Northen Ireland - when you kill innocent children and adults you generate more terrorists.

Who are you going after next Rik - Germany?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by EJ Armstrong:
When the Brtish armed forces killed innocent civilians in Londonderry the membership of the IRA shot up leading to more deaths in the province. If you will not learn frm history you are destined to repeat it.

Yes, but only a minority of the Nationalist community in the North ever supported the IRA campaign of terror. Sinn Fein only overtook the SDLP when it subscribed to the peace process.

That was carried out by others who were prepared to die for their cause. Perhaps they were all also bored rich kids or perhaps it might just be useful to study what was behind their views. Perhaps you don't care to actually think about the reasons for their actions?

Actually, quite a few, if not all of them came from affluent backgrounds.

Would that be the war that ignores Mafia terrorism would it or the far right nutters in Montana?

The same ignorance that sent McVeigh to the chair and condemned Capone and Gotti to jail?

Or the WOT that has generated immense lawlessness in Iraq with innocent peple being killed as we speak.

Or indeed the scenes of joy on the streets of Bagdad at the toppling of Saddam? Have you a link for this "immense lawlessness"? It's an odious comparison, but the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe was precipitatedand accompanied by "immense lawlessness".

Or the WOT that ignores IRA terrorism or the WOT hasn't found the person who actually committed the atrocity at the twin towers etc.

Ignoring IRA terrorism? Isn't that a cornerstone of the peace process, what with continuing murders and beatings and Gun smuggling by the IRA, and the blind eye turned towards it?

The reason that Bin Laden hasn't been found is that the evidence suggests he's dead.

Take a lesson from Northen Ireland - when you kill innocent children and adults you generate more terrorists.

Or he could take a lesson from the Republic of Ireland, where sustained, succesful and prudent security actions by successive Irish governments had reduced the IRA to near oblivion, only for the Bible thumping Neanderthals and dub as horsecrap British governments (including those made up of bleeding heart icons such as Atlee and Wilson) to kickstart the Vemin gang agin.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Shane CostelloYes, but only a minority of the Nationalist community in the North ever supported the IRA campaign of terror. Sinn Fein only overtook the SDLP when it subscribed to the peace process.
I'm glad you agree that killing innocent people increases the number of terrorists in that section of the population which is inclined to support it. I believe that this principle applies all around the world where anyone is treated badly.The same ignorance that sent McVeigh to the chair and condemned Capone and Gotti to jail?
I seem to remember that both McVeigh and Gotti went through a proper judicial process with full legal representation. A process that has not being afforded to the people in Guantanmo Bay where not all of those held are guility of anything. I also note that no tanks were used in capturing McVeigh or Gotti and that Little Italy is largely unbombed. Unfortunately to many in the world it seems like one law for American terrorists and one law for others. That will unfortunately continue to cause problems in the future. Actually, quite a few, if not all of them came from affluent backgroun Which is it Shane? Some or all. Was it really boredom brought on by wealth that caused the twin tower attack? Perhaps that is merely a common justification for not properly considering the origins of the problems in the Middle East as is desperately needed?Or indeed the scenes of joy on the streets of Bagdad at the toppling of Saddam? Have you a link for this "immense lawlessness"? It's an odious comparison, but the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe was precipitatedand accompanied by "immense lawlessness".[QUOTE]
On BBC radio four as I type this there are reports of demonstrations on the steets of Iraq demanding action against the lawlessness and of vigilante groups taking their own action. If there is no immense lawlessness perhaps you can explain why they are doing that? Perhaps you don't believe the BBC reports? Is that good enough for you or are you claiming that the Irish press channels are not reporting the anarchy in Iraq at the moment? I believe that you can get some of the BBC coverage. I recommend you try to catch some. Either there is an immense problem with lawlessness or there is not.

There were indeed scenes of joy. I note that they were nowhere near the level suggested beforehand probably because of the way they had been abandoned by George Bush and others in the past. You are also correct in that your comparison is odious but that is up to you. The problem in Iraq appears to be that insufficient thought or preparation has been afforded to the issue of civil policing by the invading countries. [QUOTE]Ignoring IRA terrorism? Isn't that a cornerstone of the peace process, what with continuing murders and beatings and Gun smuggling by the IRA, and the blind eye turned towards it?

The reason that Bin Laden hasn't been found is that the evidence suggests he's dead.
?
Iraq has been invaded for apparently having weapons which have not yet been found while the IRA refuses to give up acknowledged weapons and to date has been allowed to keep them and its representatives some of whom are alleged to have directed the killings get to meet with GW. An interesting comparison perhaps. Why does GW talk to one group of terrorists and attack others? Where is the consistency? Does the WOT extend to terrorist groups in America or just to countries with immense oil wealth?

Which evidence is there that Bin Laden is dead? If it is parts of bodies why not do DNA tests? If his death is however based only on hearsay reports why should we pay any attention to them and how can he issue apparently real videos in a dead condition?Or he could take a lesson from the Republic of Ireland, where sustained, succesful and prudent security actions by successive Irish governments had reduced the IRA to near oblivion, only for the Bible thumping Neanderthals and dub as horsecrap British governments (including those made up of bleeding heart icons such as Atlee and Wilson) to kickstart the Vemin gang agin.
Given that you have already acknowledged that killing innocent peple generated more terrorists in Northern Ireland, your point here is unclear Shane. My point is very simple but appears not yet to be grasped by many on the right in America. If anyone show a lack of regard for innocent human life they will generate more terrorists from those groups who are disposed to support terrorism. America is in the top three countries in the world in killing its own people including the mentally ill and juveniles and has a disproportionate number of black Americans on death row so perhaps that helps explain the apparent indifference to innocent deaths in Palestine and elsewhere in the world within some American circles.

Like many Americans the Irish government gave aid to the IRA in the early days of the Troubles. Presumably that a horsecrap Southern Irelander government as well? Similarly American and British bodies supplied chemicals and biological agents to Saddam Hussein when he was terrorising his own people. Will Rumsfeld tell us who supplied those supplies to Hussein and who is implicated in that despicable trade? Apparently not. Could he have been involved?

Sadam Hussein has always been a brutal dictator. In that he was always consistent so it isn't a recent discovery or anything to be surprised about yet both America and the UK saw that he was a fit person to work with and even to supply weapons grade materials to. So much for helping to rid the Iraqi people of a brutal dictator! How come he suddenly became an unfit person particularly when he had nothing to do with the twin tower atrocity? Running the world on a whim seems a bizarre way to run it. He was however tolerated by the US and the UK at one time because he was engaged in a war with a country where the CIA had previously destabilised democratic bodies and was therefore acting in the strategic interests of America and Britain.

The British and Irish govenments have been responsible for getting the IRA to give up the war to the limited extent that they have done so. This has been achieved by not killing innocent people on a routine basis and by treating everyone on a fair basis as well as by applying intelligence and appropriately focussed force so that the IRA decided enough was enough when it became clear that nothing they did in the North was unobserved and that their sons and daughters who participated would be spending the rest of their lives in jail.

I note that IRA splinter groups launched their attack on innocent children in Omagh from the Republic of Ireland which just shows how difficult it is to deal with determined terrorists.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
The queen has a palace.

Look Saddam is no angel, I have never claimed that he is, but the embargo placed on Iraq was a slow acting genocide. There was a former UN diplomat who was put in charge of this, but retired in protest(forgive me but I have forgotten his name).

It's the oil....at least admit it.

Most of you guy's probably never knew where Iraq was on the map up until a few months ago.

I ask that most of the American readers of this forum watch the Warren Beatty movie "Bullworth"......a lot of truth in that movie.

But did she build it with money that was supposed to feed people? Being from the US myself, I'm not sure but doesn't Buckingham and other palaces generate revenue by tourism now?

And that revenue goes into the national health system and other public works programs?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


Seeing war from a distance is always a better way to view it.

Unfortunately the locals don't have that ability and each innocent life lost is one hundred more Bin Ladens generated.

That's interesting considering that bin Laden is a Saudi and we've never invaded them. He grew up in a rich and powerful family with more opportunities than many Americans and Brits will ever see. He never spent his childhood eating from the garbage.

Yes, he saw war in Afghanistan. However after we helped the Afghanis repel the Soviets, we left. We figured it would be ok, because France left us alone after the Revolutionary War when statehood and ethnic groups outweighed being American. Shame on us for thinking that the Afghanis had the maturity to rule themselves.

But the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were not from war torn countries, they are usually from countries that have never been invaded by the US. Why is that?

Why don't we have Japanese terrorists in the US? After all, we did drop two atomic bombs on their cities. The effects are still being felt, are the Japanese just too polite to be terrorists?

How about South and Central Americas? I don't see any Grenadan terrorists, why is that? No Nicaragian terrorists have attacked us for taking Manuel Noriega.

Maybe I'm not seeing something, but I find that most terrorists are born and raised in countries that have never been in a war with the US.

[Shane Costello]

originally posted by EJ Armstrong:
I seem to remember that both McVeigh and Gotti went through a proper judicial process with full legal representation. A process that has not being afforded to the people in Guantanmo Bay where not all of those held are guility of anything.

Your original point was that a blind eye was being turned to organised crime and anti-governmnet conspiracists in the US. NOw you seem to be conceeding that such an assertion is false. The internees in Guantanamo bay are not US citizens, and as such are not comparable to Gotti and McVeigh.

I also note that no tanks were used in capturing McVeigh or Gotti and that Little Italy is largely unbombed. Unfortunately to many in the world it seems like one law for American terrorists and one law for others.

It's apples and oranges. Iraq had eleven whole years to put their WOMD verifiably beyond use, and resolution 1441 passed by the UN security council promised "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to satisfy the conditions of sanctions.

Which is it Shane? Some or all. Was it really boredom brought on by wealth that caused the twin tower attack? Perhaps that is merely a common justification for not properly considering the origins of the problems in the Middle East as is desperately needed?

It was Rik who made the original claim that all the 9/11 bombers came from affluent backgrounds, not me. Mohammed Atta certainly enjoyed a propsperous upbringing. As to what motivated him to do what he did I can only guess. I'm satisfied that grinding poverty couldn't have played a factor.

On BBC radio four as I type this there are reports of demonstrations on the steets of Iraq demanding action against the lawlessness and of vigilante groups taking their own action. If there is no immense lawlessness perhaps you can explain why they are doing that? Perhaps you don't believe the BBC reports? Is that good enough for you or are you claiming that the Irish press channels are not reporting the anarchy in Iraq at the moment? I believe that you can get some of the BBC coverage. I recommend you try to catch some. Either there is an immense problem with lawlessness or there is not.

Disorder is to be expected in the immediate aftermath of Saddam's fall. Did you expect an orderly civil society to arise from the ashes of totalitarianism overnight? Whether the there is an "immense" amount of lawlessness is something else altogether. There's certainly an "immense" amount of lawlessness on the streets of cities and towns in this part of the world on weekend nights. In fact Mark Steyn commented that a year from now Basra and Bagdad will be probably be safer than any English borough.

Iraq has been invaded for apparently having weapons which have not yet been found while the IRA refuses to give up acknowledged weapons and to date has been allowed to keep them and its representatives some of whom are alleged to have directed the killings get to meet with GW. An interesting comparison perhaps. Why does GW talk to one group of terrorists and attack others? Where is the consistency? Does the WOT extend to terrorist groups in America or just to countries with immense oil wealth?

You should read todays edition of the "Irish Independent". Conor Cruise O'Brien makes some interesting speculations as to GWB's influence on the events of the past week. Don't forget that Bush inherited the process from the previous adminsitration, and has been assured of Sinn Fein/IRA's peaceful intentions by the British and Irish administrations. Of course, Sinn Fein also points out that it considers itself to be a seperate and distinct entity from the IRA.

Which evidence is there that Bin Laden is dead? If it is parts of bodies why not do DNA tests? If his death is however based only on hearsay reports why should we pay any attention to them and how can he issue apparently real videos in a dead condition?

There's circumstancial evidence to suggest he is a gonner. His pronouncements are now largely limited to sparse press releases. Purported recordings of him have been shown to be fakes, or at least of doubtful authenticity. He also suffered from a serious kudney ailment that required regular hospital visits, something that would have been impossible in Tora Bora or the Pakistani border with Afghanistan.

Given that you have already acknowledged that killing innocent peple generated more terrorists in Northern Ireland, your point here is unclear Shane.

My point is clear and concise; Force can and has defeated terrorism.

If anyone show a lack of regard for innocent human life they will generate more terrorists from those groups who are disposed to support terrorism.

Few men have showed a more callous disregard for human life than Saddam Hussein. So why wasn't he deposed a long time ago by terrorist groups in Iraq? As dmarker pointed out, Japan and Germany did not witness the rise of anti-American terrorist groups in the aftermath of WWII, despite sustaining enormous civilian casualties in that conflict.

America is in the top three countries in the world in killing its own people including the mentally ill and juveniles and has a disproportionate number of black Americans on death row so perhaps that helps explain the apparent indifference to innocent deaths in Palestine and elsewhere in the world within some American circles.

At least people in America were given due process (admittidly flawed in many cases) prior to conviction. Saddam never granted this to the people he slaughtered. There are disproportionate numbers of Blacks on death row because the homicide rate among blacks is disproportionately high. Nor would I carp on toomuch about "innocent deaths in Palestine", given the Palestinian tendency to glorify suicide bombers nad blow poeple to bits in Cafes.

Like many Americans the Irish government gave aid to the IRA in the early days of the Troubles. Presumably that a horsecrap Southern Irelander government as well?

Wrong. Certain elements within the Irish government were suspected of aiding the IRA, but they were brought to trial. Likewise the Special criminal court was set up to deal with increased IRA activity. IRA terrorists convicted of murder were sentenced to death, although later granted clemency. Neither was Irish-America the hotbed of IRA sympathies you seem to think it is. Certainly none of my Irish-American relatives gave succour and money to murderers, and the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was noted for his condemnationof the IRA campaign of terror, and appealed to Irish-Americans not to send money to them.

Sadam Hussein has always been a brutal dictator. In that he was always consistent so it isn't a recent discovery or anything to be surprised about yet both America and the UK saw that he was a fit person to work with and even to supply weapons grade materials to. So much for helping to rid the Iraqi people of a brutal dictator! How come he suddenly became an unfit person particularly when he had nothing to do with the twin tower atrocity? Running the world on a whim seems a bizarre way to run it. He was however tolerated by the US and the UK at one time because he was engaged in a war with a country where the CIA had previously destabilised democratic bodies and was therefore acting in the strategic interests of America and Britain.

But Britain and America ceased their dealings with him. Not so the French. I'm also perplexed at why you find it unacceptable that British and American governments act largely in the interests of Britain and America? In whose interests should they act?

I note that IRA splinter groups launched their attack on innocent children in Omagh from the Republic of Ireland which just shows how difficult it is to deal with determined terrorists.

Not when you have determined governments.

[E.J.Armstrong]

That's interesting considering that bin Laden is a Saudi and we've never invaded them. He grew up in a rich and powerful family with more opportunities than many Americans and Brits will ever see. He never spent his childhood eating from the garbage.
I do believe that people of a particular world view can exist in more than one country and that the killing of innocent people can produce effects across borders particularly where deep ethnic and religious connections exist. Wealth is not a barrier to empathising with a particular cause. If that was the case there would be no rich men in guerilla groups yet we have seen that happen through out history.
Yes, he saw war in Afghanistan. However after we helped the Afghanis repel the Soviets, we left. We figured it would be ok, because France left us alone after the Revolutionary War when statehood and ethnic groups outweighed being American. Shame on us for thinking that the Afghanis had the maturity to rule themselves.
How do you mean left? Is that left as in not supplying weapons or left as in taking out the special forces or left as in still sending him money? So America helped the Afghanis repel the Soviet Union and destabilised that country in the process as well as armed him- you took those away as well presumably? Defining leaving can be difficult some times. To compare post French America with the state the US and Russia left Afghanistan in is not very equitable especially comparing the natural resources of the two countries.
Meddling in othe peoples lives is a risky business - look at Vietnam. I seem to remember a civil war in post-French America as well as many other domestic upheavals.But the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were not from war torn countries, they are usually from countries that have never been invaded by the US. Why is that? For the very reason I gave above. In addition America is hated around the world for what it has done to subvert democracies and support terrorism and abuse of the peoples of many countries. You do not have to be in an invaded country to take part in a military campaign. If your contention were to be true then Australia would never have participated in Vietnam or WWII. The were never invaded yet they sent their men to die overseas. Can't other peoples feel the same when they see fellow groups under attack.
The activities of Israel and US support therof might have a bit to do with the matter as well.Why don't we have Japanese terrorists in the US? After all, we did drop two atomic bombs on their cities. The effects are still being felt, are the Japanese just too polite to be terrorists? You seem to feel tha I am claiming that it is only people in countries attaked by the US who turn to terrism. It isn't. THe reason we don't have Japanese terrorists is for the same reason that we don't have German terrorists in the UK. The Japanese and Germans were treated essentially reasonably after WWII. In contrast certain groups in the Middle East are currently being suppressed and their liveliehoods destroyed and innocent children are being killed with apparent impunity and without effective America intervention. If you provide financial support to a regime which behaves badly you will be associated with that regime by those groups inclined to do so. Does that make it right? No but it is surely understandable that people who are treated badly will not simply acquiesce in their own abuse.

The US provided support to people like Pinochet and Noriega who killed their own people until Noriega for one got a bit uppity. I do not believe that any country can get involved in such atrocities without adverse effects. The world is not a chess board where carbon based pieces make simple moves to command.How about South and Central Americas? I don't see any Grenadan terrorists, why is that? No Nicaragian terrorists have attacked us for taking Manuel Noriega For taking Manuel Noriega. In what way? There is ongoing abuse of human rights in the Middle East that America is supporting. Saudi Arabia is heading for a regime change that is likely to shift away from the favour previously afforded the US. The US nevertheless has supported a corrupt regime in that country. That other people have not reacted in the same way is to their credit but to expect everybody to lie back and accept whatever the US wants particularly if it is to their disadvantage is in my opinion living in cloud cuckoo land. Maybe I'm not seeing something, but I find that most terrorists are born and raised in countries that have never been in a war with the US. For some reason you seem to feel that there can be no cross border support for oppressed groups. The example of Australia or New Zealand demonstrates that view is not correct. You are also ignoring the terrorists who reside in your own country such as the Mafia ad the group which supported the Oklahoma bomber. The attempt to claim Middle East origins for the Oklahoma bomb initially shows a certain world view existed even at that time. Do you actually know who was responsible for all the other terrorist attacks on America? The Palestinians were involved in a number of such attacks in previous years. Your country supports the country that they see as oppressing them. Americans have also been injured by the IRA. I see no attempt by Bush to avoid having tea with people personally accused of ordering the deaths of innocent people in Northern Ireland and who represent a terrorist group which will not give up its stash of weapons.

Do you know how many places around the world have had terrorist activity supported either financially or with weaponry supplied by the US or with training from US specialists?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
This poor kid here sure seems liberated :

{G6: I'm replacing this image with a link. It's a little too graphic}
http://www.antiwar.com/photos/ali.jpg

So now the war is about liberating the Iraqi people. More like starving them into submission, or cutting off their water supply. But I guess that is the price of war uhh?

What exactly happened to the WMD's ?

If the rest of the modern world would boycott American goods, you will feel it my good man.

Foreign AID ?? To Israel ?? To Turkey ? Both countries who are very much known for their glorious human rights record.

hahaahahahaha.....wankers


Really? Here's a picture of a Kurdish child gassed to death like an insect by Saddam's Regime.

http://www.kdp.pp.se/14.gif

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
This poor kid here sure seems liberated :

{G6: I'm replacing this image with a link. It's a little too graphic}
http://www.antiwar.com/photos/ali.jpg

So now the war is about liberating the Iraqi people. More like starving them into submission, or cutting off their water supply. But I guess that is the price of war uhh?

What exactly happened to the WMD's ?

If the rest of the modern world would boycott American goods, you will feel it my good man.

Foreign AID ?? To Israel ?? To Turkey ? Both countries who are very much known for their glorious human rights record.

hahaahahahaha.....wankers


Really? Here's a picture of a Kurdish child gassed to death like an insect by Saddam's Regime.

http://www.kdp.pp.se/14.gif

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Shane CostelloYour original point was that a blind eye was being turned to organised crime and anti-governmnet conspiracists in the US. NOw you seem to be conceeding that such an assertion is false. The internees in Guantanamo bay are not US citizens, and as such are not comparable to Gotti and McVeigh
Please reread my original comments for what I actually said. My original point was and remains that there is no equivalent WOT being waged against domestic American terrorists or any other terrorist group which the US listens to such as the IRA. When was Little Italy last bombed? America supplies enormous sums of money to Israel where it is thought correct to use tanks to destroy the homes of innocent people, sometimes with the occupants in them and to fire shells at cars when children are playing nearby or even in the cars. When was the last time that this was politely accepted in the US? I will tell you. It never has been accepted with good grace as Waco proved. A major terrorist incident is believed to have been caused by the actions of the ATF in Waco namely the Oklahoma bombing. This is a close parallel with what is happening elsewhere in the world yet there is no equivalent war against domestic American terrorists. Timothy McVeighs parent's house was not destroyed by a tank nor his neighbourhoood trashed. The families of the Una bomber in the US also remain untrashed. It is one law for America and one law for the rest of the world.

What status do the people in Guantanamo Bay have under international law and under the Geneva Convention? If Guantanmo Bay was used for non-US nationals why does the US not send every non-US national convicted of crimes to Guantanamo Bay?It's apples and oranges. Iraq had eleven whole years to put their WOMD verifiably beyond use, and resolution 1441 passed by the UN security council promised "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to satisfy the conditions of sanctions. Which WOMD is that? Has any been found? If you don't have any you can't disarm it I think. The serious consequences explicitly did not refer to an invasion.
Either you have a war on terrorism or you don't, domestic or otherwise. The invasion of Iraq looks more and more like an attempt to get strategic and economic advantage for the US. It was Rik who made the original claim that all the 9/11 bombers came from affluent backgrounds, not me. Mohammed Atta certainly enjoyed a propsperous upbringing. As to what motivated him to do what he did I can only guess. I'm satisfied that grinding poverty couldn't have played a factor. And it was you specifically who claimed that Actually, quite a few, if not all of them came from affluent backgrounds. Glad to help you remeber your own words. So we have two rich people involved in Al Quaeda. Any advance on two? I can think of at least one more if that helps but I am blowed if there is a conclusion to be drawn from the observation. I do believe that some of the IRA used to be wealthy people and as to your level of satisfaction that has me convinced - not.Disorder is to be expected in the immediate aftermath of Saddam's fall. Did you expect an orderly civil society to arise from the ashes of totalitarianism overnight? Whether the there is an "immense" amount of lawlessness is something else altogether. There's certainly an "immense" amount of lawlessness on the streets of cities and towns in this part of the world on weekend nights. In fact Mark Steyn commented that a year from now Basra and Bagdad will be probably be safer than any English borough. I expected a proper plan would be in place to address the 'expected' unrest. But that seems to have been beyond the 'experts' who drew up this plan. The BBC described the situation as chaos but I am not very reassured that you are content with the expert analysis of Mark Steyn.

With an active civil police force you describe the normal weekend activities in Ireland as immense lawlessness yet you seem to have difficulty with the concept that almost universal looting, shootings, vigilanteeism and desperate pleas from the locals for support from the troops as not being in the same league. Shome mishtake shurely? I note that you feel that Dublin at the weekend is comparable to anarchic Baghdad.You should read todays edition of the "Irish Independent". Conor Cruise O'Brien makes some interesting speculations as to GWB's influence on the events of the past week. Don't forget that Bush inherited the process from the previous adminsitration, and has been assured of Sinn Fein/IRA's peaceful intentions by the British and Irish administrations. Of course, Sinn Fein also points out that it considers itself to be a seperate and distinct entity from the IRA. And if Bush believed that he is even more gullible than he appears. Martin McGuinness was a senior commander in the IRAwhen innocent people were being bombed (cf comments about innocent Palestinians later) and Gerry Adams has been accused of directing bombing activity. Bush chose to have tea with these people who represent the IRA - a group which has not yet given up its arms stashes. He started a war against terrorism and yet he has tea with representatives of a terrorist group which still refuses to give up its weapons. Now I do not call that consistency. There's circumstancial evidence to suggest he is a gonner. His pronouncements are now largely limited to sparse press releases. Purported recordings of him have been shown to be fakes, or at least of doubtful authenticity. He also suffered from a serious kudney ailment that required regular hospital visits, something that would have been impossible in Tora Bora or the Pakistani border with Afghanistan. It wouldn't stand up in a court I'm afraid. Where is the body? If he is dead Al Quaeda have won a small victory until he is found. If he is alive then they have won a bigger victory. There seem to be very few bodies around what with people escaping on motorbikes from hyperpowers. They are good at friendly fire incidents though.My point is clear and concise; Force can and has defeated terrorism Why then did it not work in Northern Ireland where the British military conceded long ago that it was not possible to defeat the IRA by purely military means and the Irish govenment has failed to defeat the splinter groups living in the Republic? Why then has the mighty Israeli military machine with no apparent qualms about killing innocent children not yet defeated their terrorists if your thesis is correct? Are they not detemined enough for you? Your thesis doesn't even stand up in your own backyard I'm afraid.Few men have showed a more callous disregard for human life than Saddam Hussein. So why wasn't he deposed a long time ago by terrorist groups in Iraq? As dmarker pointed out, Japan and Germany did not witness the rise of anti-American terrorist groups in the aftermath of WWII, despite sustaining enormous civilian casualties in that conflict. I agree that Saddam Hussein was an extremely nasty individual but that did nor does make him in any way unique. The US has seen fit to deal with many mass murderers including Saddam Hussein when it suited them, as did the UK. As far as I am aware Sadam Hussein never changed his spots yet both the US and the UK deemed it OK not only to deal with him but to sell him WOMD; much as they deemed it OK to supply Osam Bin Laden with arms. Is there a theme getting through here at last? To claim now that they are getting rid of him because he is nasty, amongst other things, frankly sticks in many peoples' throats with the sheer hypocrisy of that claim by Blair and Bush. Who are they trying to kid? He always was an evil tyrant and the UK and the US knew it and supplied him with WOMD which he used on his own people. Once again the US and the UK were, in effect, sponsors of terror. Then Bush Senior directly caused the deaths of many Iraqis by failing to help them despite asking them to overthrow Hussein. No he did not kill them - Hussein did that but exactly what did Bush senior expect Hussein to do with people who tried to kill him and his soldiers. That was one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the US and the west.

I have pointed out that the Japanese and the Germans were treated essentially fairly after WWII so they do not compare to the ongoing oppression in the Middle East. I do not condone the killing of anyone by terrorist action whether government inspired and supported or not. Bush does seem to have a very inconsistent approach to terrorism. He seems to be happy looking at the justification put forwards by supporters of some terrorist groups, such as the IRA and their Loyalist counterparts while not apparently doing the same for other groups. The IRA has refused to decommission its weapons and the Loyalists are still murdering each other. What could be clearer? These are active terrorist groups who are still terrorising the people in Northern Ireland with punishment beatings yet they sup with Bush and no doubt with a very short spoon. Filthy lucre always talks.

You have already conceded that killing of innocent people generated more terrorists in Northern Ireland so I am surprised that you seem to contradicting yourself now. There have been many attempts on Saddam Hussein's life from within Iraq. They apparently were not successful but where any of the latter manifestations of Saddam Hussein actually him? One of his sons was injured in an attack. Despite the Ba'athist regime in Iraq and its murderous actions some people did try to kill Hussein.
At least people in America were given due process (admittidly flawed in many cases) prior to conviction. Saddam never granted this to the people he slaughtered. There are disproportionate numbers of Blacks on death row because the homicide rate among blacks is disproportionately high. Nor would I carp on toomuch about "innocent deaths in Palestine", given the Palestinian tendency to glorify suicide bombers nad blow poeple to bits in Cafes. Unbelievable. My eyes have finally been opened to the true extent of your callousness. If I am to be murdered in the American penal system I will be so happy that you agree that my process could have been flawed. That will make my dead man walking routine amongst the fat hillbillies doing Texas's dirty work a real pleasure knowing that I am an acceptable statistic of democratic America life. Acceptance of such a position is callous in the extreme.

Can I also suggest that the reason that there is a disproportionate number of African Americans on death row is due to a significant extent to the latent and institutionalised racism amongst US policing and judicial bodies as witnessed even in 'reputable' areas of Los Angeles. Talking to ordinary Americans it is obvious, even in metropolitan New York, that racism is endemic and that many firms simply will not employ black people because of racial stereotyping amongst other things. Once again the root of the world's problems treating people unfairly is causing massive problems across the US. Is this what Bush wants to export to Iraq?

What has really taken the biscuit however is your atitude to innocent Palestinians. So it is carping on to highlight the fact that innocent children are being killed in Palestine. I can see that the idea of me pointing out that innocent women and children are getting killed in Palestine doesn't sit easily with you and that in some deeply perverse way you seem to imply that because some Palestinians support the terrorists(as also happens in Belfast) when innocent palestinians are killed with little apparent concern by the Israelis this fact is not to be talked (carped)about? Wow. .

When will you get it into your head that there are innocent people living in Palestine and Israel who are entiltled not to have their home flattened because someone in their neighbourhood might just be a terroist and are entitled not to have their children murdered in assasination attempts on suspects. I hope to prick your lamentably absent conscience for all the children in every part of the world who are geting killed for spurious reasons such as getting rid of previously acceptable dictators or by terrorist groups acceptable to the 'terror' 'fighter' in chief.

What is happening in Palestine did not happen in Northern Ireland and it will not happen in the US. Why? Because there would be an absolute uproar of exactly the type that occurs in Palestine when the Israelis fire tank shells at cars with innocent children in them or the Palestinians suicide bomb another bus with school children in it. In my opinion your attitude is an utter disgrace for a civilised person to hold and is at the root of why terrorism exists around the world. Such apparent contempt and disregard for innocent life wherever it exists such as innocent people and imbeciles on US death rows is frankly a disgrace to Ireland and your words do you a great discredit in my humble opinion. You would not accept it if your brothers child or your wife were killed by a tank shell fired at the car of a suspected IRA bomber with no regard for innocent life and if you won't put up with in your own backyard then don't give me such crap about carping on about innocent peple being killed. I challenge you to bring this thread to the attention of your tutors and your potential employers. The ones who treat you normally after seeing it are clearly the people to work with. I suspect that they won't live in Ireland but I know you won't have the guts to do so. Wrong. Certain elements within the Irish government were suspected of aiding the IRA, but they were brought to trial. Likewise the Special criminal court was set up to deal with increased IRA activity. IRA terrorists convicted of murder were sentenced to death, although later granted clemency. Neither was Irish-America the hotbed of IRA sympathies you seem to think it is. Certainly none of my Irish-American relatives gave succour and money to murderers, and the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was noted for his condemnationof the IRA campaign of terror, and appealed to Irish-Americans not to send money to them. There was a TV programme broadcast in Northern Ireland approximately five years ago where former Republic minister admitted that they supplied the IRA in the early days of the Troubles. Where did all the money for the IRA come from? Was the fund raising a figment of my imagination or did it really occur?But Britain and America ceased their dealings with him. Not so the French. I'm also perplexed at why you find it unacceptable that British and American governments act largely in the interests of Britain and America? In whose interests should they act? Are you seriously suggesting that the US and UK govenments did not know that Hussein was a brutal dictator when they supplied WOMD to him and that the US dd not know what Noriega was like when they helped him to disappear people in the middle of the night or that the US and the UK have not destabilised democracies around the world for their own economic and strategic interests?

Can I also point out that the UN was set up to stop the type of macho posturing and aggression the US and the UK are engaged in. Now that the UN has been thrown aside and the efforts of the inspection team thwarted to the detriment of world security interestingly Americans have stopped flying around the world that Bush has made 'safer' for them. I think that says it all.

It seems to have escaped your attention that every other country in the world has the right to do the same as the US and the UK. Any governemt now has the right to assasinate the head of another government and the result will be anarchy on a global scale. I fear for the world.
Not when you have determined governments. And which detemined government of Ireland was it that defeated the IRA? The one under which they killed all those innocent people in Omagh. Forgive me, I forgot. I am not supposed to carp on about innocent lives particuarly when so many people on the North support IRA terrorism. The IRA exist at least to some degree because the Republic of Ireland could not suppress them in their safe havens such as Drogheda and as a result they successfully bombed Omagh from the Republic. If you mean that terrorism will be stopped by Bush's continuous war you are more cretinous than I thought but your remarks in your last post have made this starkly clear. I make no apology because am frankly amazed at the extent of your callousness.

When you stop seeing the world in black and white cowboy tinted sunglasses the world might turn into a safer place. Until then I have no time to spend with people with no conscience. At least I thought Jedi Knight had some humourous rationale for his idiotic claims but you do not even have that fig leaf.

You do not have to respond to this post. I can see that you are happy as an apologist for whatever Bush gets up to around the world, whether that involves killing innocent people domestically or internationally. I find your attitude to innocent deaths totally distasteful and disgraceful. No doubt you feel the same about me but I can no longer stomach the callous disregard for human life I have found on this site.

I really hope that your life will not be blighted in any manner by the IRA or the UVF or Sharon or Palestinian bombers or in any of the ways that Bush and Blair deem acceptable at present. I hope that your brother does not get falsely convicted of murder and be judicially murdered himself in the US because you will never get over it and while the perpetrators will sit happily at home at night your world will have changed forever. Will you be as blase if it happens to you. Let me tell you one thing. You will not but by then, for all the people for whom you care nothing, it will be too late for them to lament with you.

Good bye and good riddance.

[Troll]

Originally posted by asi_gonia
The US don't care about no UN. They only care about it when it suits them.

Unfortunatley the UN is finished, or soon will be.


The only chance the world has (in my view) is Russia join the EU. But will the American lackeys of Europe allow this (cough, cough....Britain...cough...cough). Russia still is a military might, and so is France.

Let me ask this simple questions to the Americans of this board. Is it your God given right to judge what is right and what is wrong in this world ? I mean I regard the death penalty in your country as barbaric, does this give me a right to attack you ?

if you think you should attack us then go ahead.

Good luck. No offense but crime syndicates and street gangs have enough weapons to repel Greece. Maybe, just maybe, if you got France to join ya, we'd get the boy scouts to help defend America as well. Face it and accept it. Ability and capability goes to us. sorry but that's just the way it is.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by EJ Armstrong:
My original point was and remains that there is no equivalent WOT being waged against domestic American terrorists or any other terrorist group which the US listens to such as the IRA.

Probably due to the Mafia and right wing nuts not waging a war on the US in the same degree as Islamofascists.

America supplies enormous sums of money to Israel where it is thought correct to use tanks to destroy the homes of innocent people, sometimes with the occupants in them and to fire shells at cars when children are playing nearby or even in the cars. When was the last time that this was politely accepted in the US?

Palestinain terrorists see no qualms about setting up base among civilians, so they ultimately bear responsibility for the deaths of innocent people. Israel consciously truies to avoid these deaths.

Don't forget that on 9/11, the USAF was prepared to down any civilian craft hijacked and potentially capable of mounting a terrorist attack.

A major terrorist incident is believed to have been caused by the actions of the ATF in Waco namely the Oklahoma bombing. This is a close parallel with what is happening elsewhere in the world yet there is no equivalent war against domestic American terrorists.

I see. So when action is taken against terrorists it provokes more terrorism, but when they are left alone then this counts as acquiesence?

Can you describe some of the actions taken by "American terrorists" lately. I wasn't aware such a group existed.

Timothy McVeighs parent's house was not destroyed by a tank nor his neighbourhoood trashed. The families of the Una bomber in the US also remain untrashed.

Funny you should mention that, but I don't remember OBL's relatives being targetted either. Nor did tanks roll into Dearborn, Michigan. You know, where all the Arabs have been celebrating the downfall of Saddam?

What status do the people in Guantanamo Bay have under international law and under the Geneva Convention? If Guantanmo Bay was used for non-US nationals why does the US not send every non-US national convicted of crimes to Guantanamo Bay?

They usually just deport them back to their country of origin.

I expected a proper plan would be in place to address the 'expected' unrest. But that seems to have been beyond the 'experts' who drew up this plan. The BBC described the situation as chaos but I am not very reassured that you are content with the expert analysis of Mark Steyn.

Well, I suppose they could have shot the looters, but that would have been unwise. Of course, there have been peaceful demonstrations since then, and the civil police seem to be reporting for duty, so I don't think things are nearly as bad as you think they are. Considering that crime is negligable in the Arab world compared to the West, I think Mark Steyn is reasonable in his analysis.

And if Bush believed that he is even more gullible than he appears. Martin McGuinness was a senior commander in the IRAwhen innocent people were being bombed (cf comments about innocent Palestinians later) and Gerry Adams has been accused of directing bombing activity. Bush chose to have tea with these people who represent the IRA - a group which has not yet given up its arms stashes. He started a war against terrorism and yet he has tea with representatives of a terrorist group which still refuses to give up its weapons. Now I do not call that consistency.

Neither do I, but I think there's reason to believe that Bush may not be as gullible as the previous administration. If there's anyone who's being inconsistent here then it's Blair.

It wouldn't stand up in a court I'm afraid. Where is the body? If he is dead Al Quaeda have won a small victory until he is found. If he is alive then they have won a bigger victory. There seem to be very few bodies around what with people escaping on motorbikes from hyperpowers. They are good at friendly fire incidents though.

I never claimed that it would stand up in court. I said that "circumstantial evidence " suggests that he probably is dead. At the same time I doubt you have the legal training to decide on this. I fail to see how Al-Qaeda have won a small victory with the non-appearance of his carcass, considering that their second in command has been apprehended.

Why then did it not work in Northern Ireland where the British military conceded long ago that it was not possible to defeat the IRA by purely military means and the Irish govenment has failed to defeat the splinter groups living in the Republic?

Well the Irish authorities have captured and convicted members of IRA splinter groups. The Irish state hasn't been threatened by these people, nor have wee seen any more bombings on the scale of Omagh. And since the British have no "selfish or strategic interest" in Northern Ireland, their unwillingness to wage an all out war there isn't surprising.

Why then has the mighty Israeli military machine with no apparent qualms about killing innocent children not yet defeated their terrorists if your thesis is correct? Are they not detemined enough for you? Your thesis doesn't even stand up in your own backyard I'm afraid.

My thesis was never that force would "always" defeat terrorims, merely that it "could". ANd it stand's up in "my own back yard", since "my own backyard" isn't threatened by terrorism in the way it was in 1921.

Can I also suggest that the reason that there is a disproportionate number of African Americans on death row is due to a significant extent to the latent and institutionalised racism amongst US policing and judicial bodies as witnessed even in 'reputable' areas of Los Angeles.

Yeah, poor OJ Simpson! Oh wait, he was acquitted! Well, I suppose they would have convicted him if he stood accused of murdering a white person, such is the latent racism. Oh wait, that is what he stood accused of.

Talking to ordinary Americans it is obvious, even in metropolitan New York, that racism is endemic and that many firms simply will not employ black people because of racial stereotyping amongst other things.

I could go to Belfast and find plenty of "ordinary" people to tell me that the IRA is a CIA front, or that Northern Ireland in it's present form is a sectarian state. This is anecdotal evidence. Have you any solid evidence that firms won't employ peple based on skin colour? Don't forget that the present administration has African Americans in positions of power and influence.

There was a TV programme broadcast in Northern Ireland approximately five years ago where former Republic minister admitted that they supplied the IRA in the early days of the Troubles. Where did all the money for the IRA come from? Was the fund raising a figment of my imagination or did it really occur?

Oh, please! You was someone on the TV a few years ago saying something! As it happens, I also averred to this.

The IRA money came from some very diverse sources, such as Colonel Ghadaffi, organised crime, and Bank robbery, which resulted in the deaths of policemen in the Republic.

What has really taken the biscuit however is your atitude to innocent Palestinians. So it is carping on to highlight the fact that innocent children are being killed in Palestine.

No, it is carping on to ignore the central fact that Palestinians glorify suicide bombers, and that the tactics of Palestinian terrorists make civilian deaths unavoidable.

Such apparent contempt and disregard for innocent life wherever it exists such as innocent people and imbeciles on US death rows is frankly a disgrace to Ireland and your words do you a great discredit in my humble opinion. You would not accept it if your brothers child or your wife were killed by a tank shell fired at the car of a suspected IRA bomber with no regard for innocent life and if you won't put up with in your own backyard then don't give me such crap about carping on about innocent peple being killed.

If my brother (if I had one) chose to raise his kids in a war zone, then he'd be the one showing contempt for innocent life. Nor have I fully explained my opinions on the death penalty, so your assertion that I am callous is premature. FWIW, I think your reference to the mentally disabled as "inbeciles" is discraceful.

Good bye and good riddance.

The feeling is mutual.