PDA

View Full Version : What Really Happened



Rocko
04-25-2003, 05:18 PM
The real war ....
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/whiteflag.jpg

Death Iraq soldiers . Look the white flag

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/surrender.jpg

No Comments

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/basra1.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqibabyburn.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/basra2.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/basra5.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/basra3.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/manandgirl.jpg

If this girl was your sister? ... would you going to forgive the people that do this... to her.

This is what really happend in the war.


Rocko

Edit: changed some of the pics as link because they are very crude

kAb
04-25-2003, 05:21 PM
could you please post the extremely graphic ones in links. i really did not need to see that this morning :angry:

also, our soldiers wouldn't fire on white flags unless there was a threat. remember when we welcome them and our soldiers died? chances are they either saw a gun, or were getting fired at.

edit: again i ask you, put those in links with a WARNING sign next to them :angry:

edit again: i see the white flag. but who knows...

DiogenesUK
04-25-2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by kAb@25 April 2003 - 18:21
could you please post the extremely graphic ones in links. i really did not need to see that this morning  :angry:

also, i don't see the white flags. they look like potatoe sacks to me. also, our soldiers wouldn't fire on  white flags unless there was a threat. remember when we welcome them and our soldiers died? chances are they either saw a gun, or were getting fired at.

edit:

again i ask you, put those in links with a WARNING sign next to them  :angry:
Yeah,I also believe all the stories about 'friendly' fire were just the result of a conspiracy by the extremely left-wing journalists & their communist masters,such as AOL-Warner & Rupert 'The Red' Murdoch :blink:

Now then,where are my spectacles?.....the ones especially prescribed for a severe case of selective myopia B)



Take care

Jibbler
04-26-2003, 12:28 AM
Some innocent civilians were harmed, some killed. However, thousands more people have been killed by the very same government that has been established there for 30 years. The collective forces have served a great cause for the nation of Iraq. Those people will now be free to live without the violent oppression of their own government. The world is a safer place now. You won't weaken my resolve by some disturbing pictures. :huh:

kAb
04-26-2003, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by Jibbler@25 April 2003 - 16:28
Some innocent civilians were harmed, some killed. However, thousands more people have been killed by the very same government that has been established there for 30 years. The collective forces have served a great cause for the nation of Iraq. Those people will now be free to live without the violent oppression of their own government. The world is a safer place now. You won't weaken my resolve by some disturbing pictures. :huh:
wow. another person on this board that isn't liberal. :)

(i mean this in a good way)

j2k4
04-26-2003, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by kAb+25 April 2003 - 20:23--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kAb @ 25 April 2003 - 20:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jibbler@25 April 2003 - 16:28
Some innocent civilians were harmed, some killed.&nbsp; However, thousands more people have been killed by the very same government that has been established there for 30 years.&nbsp; The collective forces have served a great cause for the nation of Iraq.&nbsp; Those people will now be free to live without the violent oppression of their own government.&nbsp; The world is a safer place now.&nbsp; You won&#39;t weaken my resolve by some disturbing pictures. :huh:
wow. another person on this board that isn&#39;t liberal. :)

(i mean this in a good way) [/b][/quote]
kAb-

You are wise beyond your years-let&#39;s see if you catch hell for being rational ;)

chloe_cc2002
04-26-2003, 03:01 AM
Those people will now be free to live without the violent oppression of their own government. The world is a safer place now. You won&#39;t weaken my resolve by some disturbing pictures.

I certainly hope you are right. However history would tell us that regime changes don&#39;t always have happy endings and in the Middle East I would imagine there are people who have optimistically looked forward to a benevolent regime only to face being re-traumatised.

Wherever there is oil there is a potential for corruption, and that will always be the case with the Middle East.

I hope they do the mop up well, preserve records at all costs. Without any attempt to set up the tribunals properly and without a proper UN oversight over the process, I fear that &#39;mistakes&#39; will remain buried, people will continue to be victimised and there will be further casualties (how many refugees are going to successfully make it???)

1978-9 was a defining moment in Middle East history.

I think I&#39;ll wait it out and see what happens....I am glad that Saddam is gone but I think it was a pyhrric victory for many. On the other hand, being a cynic I also subscribe to the view that history is written by the victors, and therein lies the problem. There has to be some openness and accountability in the change of regime, and the US enthusiasm to become overly involved in it should be tempered.

Jibbler
04-26-2003, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by chloe_cc2002@25 April 2003 - 23:01

Those people will now be free to live without the violent oppression of their own government. The world is a safer place now. You won&#39;t weaken my resolve by some disturbing pictures.

I certainly hope you are right. However history would tell us that regime changes don&#39;t always have happy endings and in the Middle East I would imagine there are people who have optimistically looked forward to a benevolent regime only to face being re-traumatised.

This is very true. However, the coalition can only do so much. We have freed them from oppression, we have provided food, water, medical supplies, rebuilt their power grid, and their oil wells are now producing again. We are working to create a democratic government there.

The tools are in place for Iraq to flourish as a nation. They could surpass Syria, Iran, Turkey, Isreal and other middle-eastern countries. There is always an opportunity for this to fail, but I believe that the Iraqi people can build a strong nation with the help we have provided. Only time can answer these questions for us.

There is an incredible opportunity here for the Iraqi people. There are some very wise people in their nation faced with the challenge of bringing this country into the 21st century.

chloe_cc2002
04-26-2003, 11:21 PM
I hope so.

The problem is that the US is &#39;handpicking&#39; the representatives of the tribunal and some have suggested that this is by design so that they may be inspired by some ulterior agenda. Trials that investigate crimes such as genocide under the "auspices" of an interim Government that is selected by the US could have the appearance of lacking in partiality, being under the control of the US.

Some commentators have suggested that whilst it is important that the Iraqi people have control over the process of accountability, there is a further problem that may detract from their credibility and appearance of neutrality.

The two sources for the constitution of the tribunal are the Iraqi exiles and those who served in the Iraqi system under Ba&#39;ath party rule. The difficulty in avoiding tensions becomes clear and it is quite complex. The appearance of impartiality is just as important as the reality. Those who have served under Ba&#39;ath party rule could be seen as politically motivated or compromised. There are problems with those repressed by the former regime, the Kurds & Shia, despite their qualifications for similar reasons. They would face credibility problems in the eyes of other Arab countries.

Many suggest and I think correctly that the tribunal should be a mixed one and that UN involvement in terms of oversight and resources is critical to creating the appearance and reality of fair, impartial and independent trials.

"The United States and its coalition partners have a responsibility to help build a strong and independent judiciary for Iraq. In the meantime, we urge you to work towards the establishment either of an international ad hoc tribunal authorized by the Security Council, or, if that is not possible, a mixed national-international court, created either by the Security Council or an agreement between the U.N. and an interim Iraqi authority"

These are the sentiments expressed in communications to the UN, and I think they all stem from the same concerns, namely the desire to avoid ad hoc and arbitrary justice being meted out in an atmosphere which could give rise to "post conflict" Iraqi justice.

It is clear from their experience in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia that the US commanders have learnt of the devastation that cluster bombs can cause in areas where there are high populations of civilians. This is clearly a violation of international law. The US however has failed to PUBLICLY acknowledge the extent of this and it is fairly clear that they knew that cluster munitions had not only a high failure rate in terms of precision and leaving duds around which would cause additional carnage.

I think that the US detaching themselves from the process would lend credibility to the process. This is especially so when the US have been involved in securing the "victory" and they are showing that they are not willing to be responsive to claims that they have been in flagrant breach of international law themselves. It is disingenuous.

echidna
05-06-2003, 03:07 PM
Nice Orwellian Newspeak kAb,
liberal = militant facist simpathiser
there is no liberation
US troops watch as the recorrds of Iraq burn [except for the oil ministry]
US troops watch as hospitals and museums are looted [that museun had the artifacts of writing and the wheel]
US troops watch while medicine and water and electricity are not made available to Bagdad

US troops watch but can&#39;t find Saddam or the weapons they went to get

the only people fooled are US fools

ShockAndAwe^i^
05-16-2003, 08:42 AM
Echinda is so anti american that his posts no longer hold any validity
Your right "cheeseweasle"
You sound extremely like the left in this country.
France has no honor.
How sad.
I bet you Love my name.

hypoluxa3k
05-16-2003, 10:05 AM
i&#39;m proud to be anti-american (not just anti US Gov)&#33;
they want to rule the world and the american people go along with it and love it&#33;
they want to send Muslims the same way as the Native Americans&#33;
YOU AIN&#39;T GONNA TAKE ME ALIVE, YOU YANK MOTHERFUCKER&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry: :angry: :angry:

Z
05-20-2003, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by hypoluxa3k@16 May 2003 - 05:05
i&#39;m proud to be anti-american (not just anti US Gov)&#33;
they want to rule the world and the american people go along with it and love it&#33;
they want to send Muslims the same way as the Native Americans&#33;
YOU AIN&#39;T GONNA TAKE ME ALIVE, YOU YANK MOTHERFUCKER&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry: :angry: :angry:
wow. how ignorant. have you ever stepped foot in the united states, even if you dont want to? u dont know any americans...dont lie.

ShockAndAwe^i^
05-20-2003, 03:46 AM
hehehe
I love being called a Yank&#33;&#33;
I love it&#33;

opivy
05-24-2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by hypoluxa3k@16 May 2003 - 11:05
i&#39;m proud to be anti-american (not just anti US Gov)&#33;
they want to rule the world and the american people go along with it and love it&#33;
they want to send Muslims the same way as the Native Americans&#33;
YOU AIN&#39;T GONNA TAKE ME ALIVE, YOU YANK MOTHERFUCKER&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry: :angry: :angry:
This makes me sick on both sides of the line its people like this that make this world a bad place

OlderThanDirt
05-24-2003, 09:50 PM
hypoluxa3k

i&#39;m proud to be anti-american (not just anti US Gov)&#33;
they want to rule the world and the american people go along with it and love it&#33;
they want to send Muslims the same way as the Native Americans&#33;
YOU AIN&#39;T GONNA TAKE ME ALIVE, YOU YANK MOTHERFUCKER&#33;&#33;&#33;

Yeah, I know what you mean. The USA is such a terrible country. That&#39;s why so many people are lining up, begging to be allowed to immigrate to Syria and Iran ... and why US immigration offices lie dormant with officials having virtually nothing to do. I mean, really, who wants to live here anyway? :lol:

kAb
05-24-2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@24 May 2003 - 13:50

hypoluxa3k

i&#39;m proud to be anti-american (not just anti US Gov)&#33;
they want to rule the world and the american people go along with it and love it&#33;
they want to send Muslims the same way as the Native Americans&#33;
YOU AIN&#39;T GONNA TAKE ME ALIVE, YOU YANK MOTHERFUCKER&#33;&#33;&#33;

Yeah, I know what you mean. The USA is such a terrible country. That&#39;s why so many people are lining up, begging to be allowed to immigrate to Syria and Iran ... and why US immigration offices lie dormant with officials having virtually nothing to do. I mean, really, who wants to live here anyway? :lol:
:lol: :lol:


and the U.S. definetly doesn&#39;t give billions of dollars of aid to other countries... its the other way around&#33; :o


:rolleyes:

OlderThanDirt
05-24-2003, 10:05 PM
kAb wrote:

and the U.S. definetly doesn&#39;t give billions of dollars of aid to other countries... its the other way around&#33;

Yeah (sigh) ... I guess it&#39;s the cross we have to bear for being such an unloved country. :rolleyes:

j2k4
05-24-2003, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@24 May 2003 - 17:05

kAb wrote:

and the U.S. definetly doesn&#39;t give billions of dollars of aid to other countries... its the other way around&#33;

Yeah (sigh) ... I guess it&#39;s the cross we have to bear for being such an unloved country. :rolleyes:
kAb & OTD-

You both seem to be in agreement with me on this point (tell me if I&#39;m wrong):

Nobody who frequents this forum who isn&#39;t a U.S. citizen seems to have the imagination to put themselves in our shoes, however vicariously.

This can&#39;t help but sound overly righteous, but it IS ONLY AN EXERCISE.

I&#39;ve attempted, on other occasions, to help them try:

Imagine you have the power, financial, military, what-have-you, and the altruistic inclination to HELP-anywhere in the world. You are willing to spend the lives of your own to render aid.
You literally have whatever it takes to vanquish evil (subject to definition), equalize any playing field, cure (almost) any ill, and the will to help in almost any situation- in most cases, without compensation.
You know, as the world&#39;s leading consumer of goods and resources, as well as being the richest and most powerful country on Earth, you have a duty to do so; not "sharing" would be sinful.

Your giving is boundless; if some disaster befell your erstwhile ally, France (even FRANCE), you would be on the scene, doing whatever it took, doing whatever needed to be done.

You know, also, that this altruism will not result in anything approaching universal respect, indeed, the likelihood is just the opposite.

Do you take your ball and go home? Do you attack those who betray you?
Do you refuse aid? Do you close your borders? Do you adopt isolationism as your overarching foreign policy?

No. You can&#39;t.

Cuz you&#39;re the United States of America ;)

Ah-I guess you have to live here, huh? B)

OlderThanDirt
05-24-2003, 11:03 PM
That about says it all, j2k4. Bravo for putting it so eloquently.

clocker
05-25-2003, 12:30 AM
http://archives.theconnection.org/archive/category/art/rockwell/images/freedom_from_want.jpg

myfiles3000
05-25-2003, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@24 May 2003 - 23:51
You know, also, that this altruism will not result in anything approaching universal respect, indeed, the likelihood is just the opposite.
unfortunately for shock and awe, my strength is rapidly gaining. but my first reasonable response will be to j2k4: you have said a lot of complimentary things in your last post about the philanthropy of the USA. but no specifics. I hate to muddle the dialogue with facts, but is it not true that the US has spent increasingly less on international aid/development in the past decade or two? I read last week that the targetted funding to the developing world of Western countries is set at 0.7% of GDP...the US spends I believe the lowest of any g8 country, in relative terms -- close to a tenth of the target.

I&#39;m not saying the US doesn&#39;t do any good abroad. But to portray washington as some bastion of selfless benevolence is innacurate. And the money spent on &#39;other people&#39;s problems&#39; is often at least partially motivated by something other than altruism.

As for France befalling some sort of mishap, its important to keep in mind that its in America&#39;s own best interests to rectify as best it can -- economic trade with the EU is an important element to the functioning of the US economy. So intervention is by no means a sign of Christian fellowship and selfless giving. In contrast, i don&#39;t recall the USA responding to Rwanda. Where something like 800,000 civilians were slaughtered. and the impact on the american economy was nil.

All nations practice enlightened self-interest to one degree or another, thus my somewhat cynical comments are equally applicable to other countries, and aren&#39;t an American-specific attack. Just resist the rose-tinted propaganda, the world is a cruel place. It is, after all, the home of Shock and Awe.

clocker
05-25-2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@24 May 2003 - 18:53
Just resist the rose-tinted propaganda, the world is a cruel place.&nbsp; It is, after all, the home of Shock and Awe.
http://www.ob1knorrb.com/images/covers/10_foot.jpg

hmmm, which one to use...

j2k4
05-25-2003, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+24 May 2003 - 19:53--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 24 May 2003 - 19:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@24 May 2003 - 23:51
You know, also, that this altruism will not result in anything approaching universal respect, indeed, the likelihood is just the opposite.
unfortunately for shock and awe, my strength is rapidly gaining. but my first reasonable response will be to j2k4: you have said a lot of complimentary things in your last post about the philanthropy of the USA. but no specifics. I hate to muddle the dialogue with facts, but is it not true that the US has spent increasingly less on international aid/development in the past decade or two? I read last week that the targetted funding to the developing world of Western countries is set at 0.7% of GDP...the US spends I believe the lowest of any g8 country, in relative terms -- close to a tenth of the target.

I&#39;m not saying the US doesn&#39;t do any good abroad. But to portray washington as some bastion of selfless benevolence is innacurate. And the money spent on &#39;other people&#39;s problems&#39; is often at least partially motivated by something other than altruism.

As for France befalling some sort of mishap, its important to keep in mind that its in America&#39;s own best interests to rectify as best it can -- economic trade with the EU is an important element to the functioning of the US economy. So intervention is by no means a sign of Christian fellowship and selfless giving. In contrast, i don&#39;t recall the USA responding to Rwanda. Where something like 800,000 civilians were slaughtered. and the impact on the american economy was nil.

All nations practice enlightened self-interest to one degree or another, thus my somewhat cynical comments are equally applicable to other countries, and aren&#39;t an American-specific attack. Just resist the rose-tinted propaganda, the world is a cruel place. It is, after all, the home of Shock and Awe. [/b][/quote]
myfiles-

My post was admittedly idealistic in content, a little too &#39;pie in the sky&#39;, maybe, but my intent was to get some who would second-guess our overall intent (internationally) to think-to literally put themselves in our shoes, and imagine what it would be like to possess THAT ability; what would THEY do?

If they would/could imagine a concept thus, I would defy them to follow another path; I&#39;m not preaching to those beyond redemption-I would expect THEM to dismiss me with derision.

But I can take it-I&#39;m a bit of an idealist, and (U.S.) American, to boot.

I am well aware that we spend money overseas acting in our own interest; I would defy them to do THAT, too.

I would also bet my OWN money they would make mistakes (huge ones).

The fact remains, WE TRY&#33;

We always have.

And if we stop spending, influencing, and acting when need be, things will get worse-I&#39;d bet my own money on that, too.

As for decreased aid overseas, I don&#39;t believe anybody out-spends us-who would profess to be capable of establishing a standing, obligatory dollar-figure? Hogwash-
My point is, there is entirely too much hand-biting going on.

As far as Rwanda (that wasn&#39;t a first), and situations like it, I agree, a serious re-think is in order re: all of Mid- and North Africa (Qaddhafi). I fear, though, more on-site involvement (the kind you hate) may be required.

OlderThanDirt
05-25-2003, 02:14 AM
myfiles3000 wrote:

I hate to muddle the dialogue with facts, but is it not true that the US has spent increasingly less on international aid/development in the past decade or two? I read last week that the targetted funding to the developing world of Western countries is set at 0.7% of GDP...the US spends I believe the lowest of any g8 country, in relative terms -- close to a tenth of the target.

That&#39;s not an entirely accurate figure since it only takes "government" aid into account. I&#39;m uncertain whether or not there is a clear statistical measure of this ... but, I&#39;m fairly confident that we have more NGOs providing "private" aid to developing countries than any other nation I can think of. In fact, it&#39;s possible that funding from NGOs exceeds what our government metes out. Food for thought, anyway.

P.S. And this comes from someone whose ex-wife was a Filipino. How many immigrants do we have in this country who send money/products home to their relatives? That&#39;s another "aid" source that can go unnoticed in the statistical scheme of things. Not counting the money Filipinos send home to families, the amount of products sent overseas is phenomenal. Filipinos even have a word for it ... they call them Balikbayan Boxes ... boxes sent by ship that include everything from clothing to food to electronics. And money-wise, Filipinos avail themselves of door-to-door services (cheaper than Western Union) where you pay a company the money you want to send, they take a small cut, and the rest heads to the islands where it&#39;s delivered in Pesos. I can only imagine how much money/products Mexican immigrants (legal and otherwise) send home as well ... not to mention other immigrants.

myfiles3000
05-25-2003, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@25 May 2003 - 02:29




j2k4 et al, I&#39;ll let the numbers speak for themselves. I find them more convincing than platitudes like "at least we try" and "too much hand-biting".

Comparison of aid spending as % of GNI -- USA is 21st, behind Greece and Portugal (http://webnet1.oecd.org/pdf/M00037000/M00037873.pdf)

http://www.cbpp.org/4-25-00bud-f1.jpg

myfiles3000
05-25-2003, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@25 May 2003 - 03:14
I&#39;m fairly confident that we have more NGOs providing "private" aid to developing countries than any other nation I can think of. In fact, it&#39;s possible that funding from NGOs exceeds what our government metes out. Food for thought, anyway.

I wish i knew definitively, but I believe the majority of NGO funding comes from the government anyway. so i&#39;m not sure the distinction makes a difference (a meaningful one, anyway).

OlderThanDirt
05-25-2003, 02:43 AM
myfiles3000 wrote:

j2k4 et al, I&#39;ll let the numbers speak for themselves. I find them more convincing than platitudes like "at least we try" and "too much hand-biting".

Comparison of aid spending as % of GNI -- USA is 21st, behind Greece and Portugal

True, but getting back to my last post, how much money do Greek/Portuguese NGOs spend overseas? Government aid is not the true picture of ALL aid.

OlderThanDirt
05-25-2003, 02:46 AM
myfiles3000 wrote:

I wish i knew definitively, but I believe the majority of NGO funding comes from the government anyway.

I doubt that. I suspect the majority of NGO funding comes from organizations like the United Way or corporate sponsorship (or both). And in the United Way&#39;s case, funding comes from grassroots America, one individual at a time ... though I suspect corporate sponsorships are the real cash-cows. But, as I said, I&#39;m unaware of any statistical information either way.

myfiles3000
05-25-2003, 02:55 AM
the worlds wealthiest nation, and the economic, political and military hyperpower of the world, donates a quarter of the average of the nations sampled, and 1/7th of the UN target. Is this "trying"?

http://www.globalissues.org/images/NetODA2001.jpg

By the way, I should point out that I don&#39;t necessarily have anything against US military interventions. Indeed, i think the problem is that American voters can&#39;t stomach the casualties, which leads to 800,000 dead to save 50 or 100 american lives. This ain&#39;t what i call bravery. Or selflessness.

clocker
05-25-2003, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@24 May 2003 - 20:55


By the way, I should point out that I don&#39;t necessarily have anything against US military interventions. Indeed, i think the problem is that American voters can&#39;t stomach the casualties, which leads to 800,000 dead to save 50 or 100 american lives. This ain&#39;t what i call bravery. Or selflessness.
Where/when did this happen?

OlderThanDirt
05-25-2003, 03:12 AM
Well, I said it before and I&#39;ll say it again. Government funding does not constitute all funding. Using government foreign aid statistics alone in an inaccurate portrayal of aid from any country in general and wealthy countries in particular.

myfiles3000
05-25-2003, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@25 May 2003 - 03:46

myfiles3000 wrote:

I wish i knew definitively, but I believe the majority of NGO funding comes from the government anyway.

I doubt that. I suspect the majority of NGO funding comes from organizations like the United Way or corporate sponsorship (or both). And in the United Way&#39;s case, funding comes from grassroots America, one individual at a time ... though I suspect corporate sponsorships are the real cash-cows. But, as I said, I&#39;m unaware of any statistical information either way.
Corporate?&#33; Hang on a second, i thought the topic was international development aid. i don&#39;t know what % of funding is accounted for by corporations, but common sense would dictate that it&#39;s in the neighbourhood of squat. after all, providing clean drinking etc is not compatible with maximizing profits. its not the role of the private sector to save the world.

OlderThanDirt
05-25-2003, 03:25 AM
myfiles3000 wrote:

Corporate?&#33; Hang on a second, i thought the topic was international development aid.

I thought the topic was "the real war" ... and that questions of foreign aid (not just government foreign aid) came out of it.


i don&#39;t know what % of funding is accounted for by corporations, but common sense would dictate that it&#39;s in the neighbourhood of squat. after all, providing clean drinking etc is not compatible with maximizing profits. its not the role of the private sector to save the world.

No, it&#39;s the role of corporatations to find a tax write-off ... and corporate charitible funding is a very good way to do this -- especially if corporations give hard goods at "their" prices and write them off at "retail" prices. And NGOs are always lobbying them, eager to suggest methods of doing this. It&#39;s also a good PR tool. But, regardless of their motivations, the money is spent.

clocker
05-25-2003, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by clocker+24 May 2003 - 21:03--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 May 2003 - 21:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--myfiles3000@24 May 2003 - 20:55


By the way, I should point out that I don&#39;t necessarily have anything against US military interventions. Indeed, i think the problem is that American voters can&#39;t stomach the casualties, which leads to 800,000 dead to save 50 or 100 american lives. This ain&#39;t what i call bravery. Or selflessness.
Where/when did this happen?[/b][/quote]
Ah,I&#39;m still waiting...

OlderThanDirt
05-25-2003, 03:49 AM
clocker wrote:

Ah,I&#39;m still waiting...

Me, too. I&#39;m unaware of any military adventure of the United States where we killed 800,000 people to save 50-100 American lives.

clocker
05-25-2003, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@24 May 2003 - 21:49

clocker wrote:

Ah,I&#39;m still waiting...

Me, too. I&#39;m unaware of any military adventure of the United States where we killed 800,000 people to save 50-100 American lives.
Perhaps he was indulging in a bit of ah, hyperbole.

j2k4
05-25-2003, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+24 May 2003 - 21:35--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 24 May 2003 - 21:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@25 May 2003 - 02:29




j2k4 et al, I&#39;ll let the numbers speak for themselves. I find them more convincing than platitudes like "at least we try" and "too much hand-biting".

Comparison of aid spending as % of GNI -- USA is 21st, behind Greece and Portugal (http://webnet1.oecd.org/pdf/M00037000/M00037873.pdf)

http://www.cbpp.org/4-25-00bud-f1.jpg [/b][/quote]
Myfiles-

I noticed the numbers spoke (regardless of percentage of GDP) to the tune of &#39;1560&#39; (BILLION&#33;??&#33;?) in 1980 and &#39;fell&#39; steadily until they reached a low of &#39;2504&#39; (again, BILLION&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?) in the most recent year quoted.

I&#39;m not sure of the effect of inflation during the same time frame, but I&#39;d bet it doesn&#39;t keep pace with this, uh, (here goes nothing) GROWTH-SHRINKAGE :blink:

I hope you&#39;ll forgive me for failing to realize an expectation on the part of the U.N. (their &#39;target&#39; number) rose to the status of a hard obligation. In light of this, I&#39;m relatively sure they&#39;re upset about Iraq, too, huh? Just a guess.

I thought (even during the Clinton years) that we were the masters of our own ship; we haven&#39;t been scheduled by the U.N. to join the E.U. by any chance, have we?

By the way, just to confirm that I am up to speed:

The U.S. is officially a HYPERPOWER?

As defined by the U.N.?

Cool-THAT doesn&#39;t bother me in the least. :P

kAb
05-25-2003, 04:19 AM
http://www.cbpp.org/4-25-00bud-f1.jpg

notice how the graph shows how much we&#39;re going to spend in the next two years :rolleyes:

myfiles3000
05-25-2003, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@25 May 2003 - 05:07
I noticed the numbers spoke (regardless of percentage of GDP) to the tune of &#39;1560&#39; (BILLION&#33;??&#33;?) in 1980 and &#39;fell&#39; steadily until they reached a low of &#39;2504&#39; (again, BILLION&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?) in the most recent year quoted.

I&#39;m not sure of the effect of inflation during the same time frame, but I&#39;d bet it doesn&#39;t keep pace with this, uh, (here goes nothing) GROWTH-SHRINKAGE :blink:

I hope you&#39;ll forgive me for failing to realize an expectation on the part of the U.N. (their &#39;target&#39; number) rose to the status of a hard obligation. In light of this, I&#39;m relatively sure they&#39;re upset about Iraq, too, huh? Just a guess.

I thought (even during the Clinton years) that we were the masters of our own ship; we haven&#39;t been scheduled by the U.N. to join the E.U. by any chance, have we?

By the way, just to confirm that I am up to speed:

The U.S. is officially a HYPERPOWER?

As defined by the U.N.?

Cool-THAT doesn&#39;t bother me in the least. :P
this argument wouldn&#39;t hold up in high school, let alone a first year econ class. let alone a discussion among educated adults. The US economy has grown immensely since 1980, whereas the increase in spending has not kept place, not even close. To try to counter relative economic statistics with absolutes, well, again, i&#39;ll let THAT rhetorical device speak for itself. What next, compare current spending with that of the 1800&#39;s?&#33; I know, I&#39;ll knock on some guy&#39;s door, explain to him that the home he&#39;s selling sold for &#036;7200 in 1904, and offer him &#036;1400, because, its 100 years old, after all.

As i said, i hate to muddle the discussion with facts....

AFAIK, usa as hyperpower is a widely accepted term. but perhaps i read too much.

clocker
05-25-2003, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by clocker+24 May 2003 - 21:30--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 May 2003 - 21:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -clocker@24 May 2003 - 21:03
<!--QuoteBegin--myfiles3000@24 May 2003 - 20:55


By the way, I should point out that I don&#39;t necessarily have anything against US military interventions. Indeed, i think the problem is that American voters can&#39;t stomach the casualties, which leads to 800,000 dead to save 50 or 100 american lives. This ain&#39;t what i call bravery. Or selflessness.
Where/when did this happen?
Ah,I&#39;m still waiting...[/b][/quote]
I hate to muddle this discussion with facts, but I&#39;m still waiting.

myfiles3000
05-25-2003, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by clocker+25 May 2003 - 06:24--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 25 May 2003 - 06:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -clocker@24 May 2003 - 21:30

Originally posted by -clocker@24 May 2003 - 21:03
<!--QuoteBegin--myfiles3000@24 May 2003 - 20:55


By the way, I should point out that I don&#39;t necessarily have anything against US military interventions. Indeed, i think the problem is that American voters can&#39;t stomach the casualties, which leads to 800,000 dead to save 50 or 100 american lives. This ain&#39;t what i call bravery. Or selflessness.
Where/when did this happen?
Ah,I&#39;m still waiting...
I hate to muddle this discussion with facts, but I&#39;m still waiting. [/b][/quote]
unnecessarily so, i might add.

OlderThanDirt
05-25-2003, 06:16 AM
myfiles3000 wrote:


clocker wrote:

I hate to muddle this discussion with facts, but I&#39;m still waiting.

unnecessarily so, i might add.

Two points for clocker, then.

clocker
05-25-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@24 May 2003 - 20:55
This ain&#39;t what i call bravery. Or selflessness.
Or true, apparently.

myfiles3000
05-25-2003, 02:42 PM
clocker, if you&#39;d bothered to follow the thread, and read all of my posts in this very thread from yesterday, you&#39;d know the answer is rwanda. instead, you sat there demanding an answer like some spoiled debutante.

And before anyone misquotes me again (older than dirt) I&#39;m going to re-post the comment. Clocker, the quote should appear below. in a box with a yellow background.


Indeed, i think the problem is that American voters can&#39;t stomach the casualties, which leads to 800,000 dead to save 50 or 100 american lives. This ain&#39;t what i call bravery. Or selflessness.

the 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutus. The americans didn&#39;t kill the Tutsis, and i never said they did. What i was saying, to counterbalance what i thought to be an overly congratulatory portrayal of the USA in world affairs, was that this massacre could have quite easily been prevented by the worlds great hyperpower. it was a conscious decision not to get involved. a deliberate act of ommission. of not acting. and 800,000 people were slaughtered as a result. The USA didn&#39;t even "try".

the cost would have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of dozens of US fatalities. but little strategic pay-off in return. cost Too high. return too low. so 800,000 Africans die. The USA is not an inherently benevolent force in the world. stop trying to convince yourself and others it is. where benefits accrue from their actions, they are by-products. welcome to the real world.

myfiles3000
05-25-2003, 04:19 PM
the plot thickens...

http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/money/fig1-1.gif

NOTE: i mistakenly posted this chart to the wrong thread first time around, my bad. perhaps clocker could repost his chart so we can keep the discussion in a single place.

clocker
05-25-2003, 04:49 PM
http://www.jinjapan.org/stat/stats/images/dpl22.gif

ok, so now what?

j2k4
05-25-2003, 07:41 PM
Myfiles-

Please educate this uninformed correspondent how economic growth equates to an automatically and commensurately larger contribution to foreign aid?
Is this "obligation" outlined in some obscure tome authored under the auspices of the U.N.?
It would seem so.

It would also seem that, the proferring hand having been bitten bloody, it might naturally follow that said hand would be withdrawn, to some extent.

Could there possibly have been less "need" in succeeding years?

Re: Rwanda-

As I said, it has/had happened before; one of those occasions occurred in Southeast Asia after "popular opinion" was allowed to force a wholesale, willy-nilly withdrawal from Viet Nam. The slaughter was much worse than even Rwanda-well into the millions-but this is subject to the failing memories of the rhetorically selective, and political circumstances into the bargain.

One more thing-

I don&#39;t choose to match my educational level, or lack thereof, against anyone else here.

I feel, given the current state of higher education, lucky to have gotten the education I have, when I got it; however, I don&#39;t feel I really started to get ahead in this area until I took responsibility for educating myself.

Higher education these days is a risky proposition due to the introduction of academic W.M.D.-"Weapons of Mass Delusion". ;)

clocker
05-25-2003, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@25 May 2003 - 13:41


I don&#39;t choose to match my educational level, or lack thereof, against anyone else here.

I feel, given the current state of higher education, lucky to have gotten the education I have, when I got it; however, I don&#39;t feel I really started to get ahead in this area until I took responsibility for educating myself.


I just knew it&#33;

You&#39;re a lifetime subscriber too, aren&#39;t you?
http://members.aol.com/herbiehawk/images/r1935bl.jpg

clocker
05-25-2003, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@25 May 2003 - 13:41

Re: Rwanda-

As I said, it has/had happened before; one of those occasions occurred in Southeast Asia after "popular opinion" was allowed to force a wholesale, willy-nilly withdrawal from Viet Nam. The slaughter was much worse than even Rwanda-well into the millions-but this is subject to the failing memories of the rhetorically selective, and political circumstances into the bargain.


Just a quick question...

Since Rwanda seems to have become the poster child for outside intervention that didn&#39;t happen...
How come no one has asked Why doesn&#39;t Belgium step in?

Wasn&#39;t Rwanda a colony until 1959? Didn&#39;t the tribal slaughter begin before Belgium granted independence?
How have they managed to attain such moral superiority of late, and why is it the US&#39;s problem/responsibility to step in?
I suppose it&#39;s a lot easier to ride a high horse if you avoid the mud...

myfiles3000
05-25-2003, 09:29 PM
Please educate this uninformed correspondent how economic growth equates to an automatically and commensurately larger contribution to&nbsp; foreign aid?
Is this "obligation" outlined in some obscure tome authored under the auspices of the U.N.?
It would seem so.

no, j2k4 there is no man-made "law" or international legal regime under which the USA or any other nation is obligated to share its wealth with the needy. Its just that some nations try harder than others.


It would also seem that, the proferring hand having been bitten bloody, it might naturally follow that said hand would be withdrawn, to some extent.Could there possibly have been less "need" in succeeding years?
what the hell are you talking about?


Re: Rwanda-
As I said, it has/had happened before; one of those occasions occurred in Southeast Asia after "popular opinion" was allowed to force a wholesale, willy-nilly withdrawal from Viet Nam. The slaughter was much worse than even Rwanda-well into the millions-but this is subject to the failing memories of the rhetorically selective, and political circumstances into the bargain.

right, so i guess the world will never again depend on the USA for anything, because of vietnam. Fine, have it your way, bury your head in the sand. just stop bragging about how magnanimous y&#39;all are.


One more thing- I don&#39;t choose to match my educational level, or lack thereof, against anyone else here. I feel, given the current state of higher education, lucky to have gotten the education I have, when I got it; however, I don&#39;t feel I really started to get ahead in this area until I took responsibility for educating myself. Higher education these days is a risky proposition due to the introduction of academic W.M.D.-"Weapons of Mass Delusion". ;)

whatever gets you through the night, j2.

j2k4
05-25-2003, 10:07 PM
You nailed it, Clocker.

Myfiles-

I really can&#39;t recall all the specifics in Rwanda, but when people bring up past genocide/holocaust-type events (of which there were MANY), I wonder why the U.S. has somehow assumed the mantle of responsibility for ALL of them.
Going back to WWII, these things have happened, at times largely under cover.
Everyone knew Hitler was persecuting the Jews, but the dimensions of his acts and intent weren&#39;t known until the war was ending, and the camps were discovered. As with other such incidents, much of the slaughter takes place without so much as a peep, because dead men (as it were) tell no tales.

Myfiles chooses not to pay heed to historical context and circumstances:

Could we have stopped the slaughter in Rwanda?

Given full knowledge of events and a clear field-probably.

Could/should others have stepped in? Certainly.

Was doing so, at least arguably, someone else&#39;s duty? Yup.

Could we have averted Pol Pot&#39;s killing spree? Had we stayed in South East Asia, and fought to win, you bet.

Speaking of massacres-what about Stalin?

Estimates of the numbers of his victims run as high as 25 MILLION.
What would myfiles have had us do there?

(No fair using the "apples and oranges" argument, either, myfiles.)

No, I guess the U.S. is uniformly liable for curing ALL the world&#39;s ills; no way around it.

Seriously-I&#39;d be the last to claim a perfect record for the U.S.; I&#39;ve said it before.

But-if we close all our bases around the world, cease our interminable interference, and, for lack of a better term, "pull in our horns" as people like you insist we do, how are we supposed to effectively, and coincidentally, fix everything?

Are we to adopt a posture of &#39;sugar daddy&#39; to the world? No strings? No conditions?

BTW, myfiles-

If WE don&#39;t look out for our OWN well-being on an on-going basis (that is to say, &#39;act in our own interest&#39;), we wouldn&#39;t be in shape to help for long.

j2k4
05-25-2003, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@25 May 2003 - 00:01

this argument wouldn&#39;t hold up in high school, let alone a first year econ class. let alone a discussion among educated adults.



Myfiles-

This was what prompted me to make the statement about my "education".

It IS sufficient to get me through the night, and I sleep very well, indeed.

I&#39;m sure I wouldn&#39;t qualify as educated in your circles. ;)

Rat Faced
05-26-2003, 12:10 AM
Clocker, you answered your own question.


Wasn&#39;t Rwanda a colony until 1959?


Until 1959.

Since then its been an independant sovereign state. Belgium has as much responsibility to interfere as UK did when USA invaded Grenada.

....less in fact, as Grenada is a member of the Commonwealth, which we have treaties with. (actually, by those treaties UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the rest of the Commonwealth should have rushed to Grenada&#39;s aid....;) )

Or do you suggest that the UK should have declared war on the USA for invading a former Colony?


Actually, i&#39;d be interested to know whether j2k4 thinks we should have invaded the Republic of Ireland when the IRA was bombing the fuck out of Ulster and the British Mainland.........some of the arguments used in a number of threads seem to suggest this.....







:-"



I really shouldnt answer in a political debate when I&#39;ve had a drink........ :ph34r:

clocker
05-26-2003, 12:34 AM
Well, actually my question wasn&#39;t when Rwanda gained it&#39;s independence.

I assume ( and I have to assume, since he has pointedly refused to elucidate ) that Myfiles was referring to Rwanda when he stated that the American electorate didn&#39;t "have the stomach" to accept "50 or 100" American casualties to save 800,000 people.
So my question is:
Given that tribal warfare had erupted at least 3 years prior to it&#39;s independence, and the situation there has degenerated ever since, why should America be expected to go in and sacrifice 1 US soldier while Belgium ( which has to accept some of the responsibility ) sits idly by?



Now I need a drink...

Rat Faced
05-26-2003, 12:47 AM
They havent.

There have been quite a few Belgian military deaths in their former Colonies in Africa.

I heard of one Belgian Para that was tortured and killed by decapitation (limbs 1st, while still alive) 500m from a company of Belgian Troops, that were ORDERED not to interfere with what was happening.

The Belgian Government has no Mandate or Right to interfere there, and they follow International Law.

I dont think i would have had the discipline NOT to charge in........and im not sure I&#39;d want to have that much discipline, but its an example that they are there (or were, im not sure if they have pulled out now)


However in former &#39;colonies&#39;, surely the former &#39;opressors&#39; are the LAST people that should go in.

clocker
05-26-2003, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@25 May 2003 - 18:47



However in former &#39;colonies&#39;, surely the former &#39;opressors&#39; are the LAST people that should go in.
Fair enough RF.

Given that much of the world considers the US "The Great Oppressor", do you think we should rush in?

myfiles3000
05-26-2003, 03:00 AM
J2, honestly, you have a real knack for filling large amounts of screen space without saying much of anything. it must work very well on those not inclined to read critically....


Myfiles chooses not to pay heed to historical context and circumstances:

i&#39;m having deja-vu...could you be a little more specific as to what i&#39;m missing here?


Could we have stopped the slaughter in Rwanda? Given full knowledge of events and a clear field-probably.
neither conditions were absent, ergo you should have according to your own logic, probably.


Could/should others have stepped in? Certainly.
like who? Belgium?&#33; do you think that BELGIUM has the excess military capacity to put down a civil war/ethnic cleansing in which 800,000 people were killed?&#33;


Was doing so, at least arguably, someone else&#39;s duty? Yup.
whose would that be? either way, its irrelevant, 2 wrongs don&#39;t make a right.

I must reiterate: i never said that the USA has any particular role, that was J2&#39;s line. To quote:


Imagine you have the power, financial, military, what-have-you, and the altruistic inclination to HELP-anywhere in the world. You are willing to spend the lives of your own to render aid.
You literally have whatever it takes to vanquish evil (subject to definition), equalize any playing field, cure (almost) any ill, and the will to help in almost any situation- in most cases, without compensation.
You know, as the world&#39;s leading consumer of goods and resources, as well as being the richest and most powerful country on Earth, you have a duty to do so; not "sharing" would be sinful.

AND


The fact remains, WE TRY&#33; We always have. And if we stop spending, influencing, and acting when need be, things will get worse-I&#39;d bet my own money on that, too.

what happened to "You are willing to spend the lives of your own to render aid."? You&#39;re backtracking.


I wonder why the U.S. has somehow assumed the mantle of responsibility for ALL of them. As with other such incidents, much of the slaughter takes place without so much as a peep, because dead men (as it were) tell no tales.

see your own comments above. plus, regarindg rwanda, everybody knew damn well what was going on. the same also happens to be true with East Timor, plus you yanks were good enought to supply the weaponry used in the slaughter of 200,000 civilians by the indonesian army. Not only did the good ol usa NOT do anything to prevent the genocide, they AIDED AND ABETTED IT. charming.


Speaking of massacres-what about Stalin?Estimates of the numbers of his victims run as high as 25 MILLION. What would myfiles have had us do there?(No fair using the "apples and oranges" argument, either, myfiles.)

apples and oranges all the same. I think most people on this board can appreciate the obvious difference between intervening in rwanda and the USSR. but just to spell it out, no, i don&#39;t think risking World War III with the only other nuclear superpower of the time would have been justified. I would have thought it went without saying, but there you have it.


If WE don&#39;t look out for our OWN well-being on an on-going basis (that is to say, &#39;act in our own interest&#39;), we wouldn&#39;t be in shape to help for long.

good to see you&#39;re finally coming around to my way of thinking, j2. if you look over our posts, you&#39;ll see that is has been YOU that ever said otherwise. I&#39;m not the one guilty of myth-making.

edit: quoting hijinx

Rat Faced
05-26-2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by clocker+26 May 2003 - 00:55--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 26 May 2003 - 00:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Rat Faced@25 May 2003 - 18:47



However in former &#39;colonies&#39;, surely the former &#39;opressors&#39; are the LAST people that should go in.
Fair enough RF.

Given that much of the world considers the US "The Great Oppressor", do you think we should rush in? [/b][/quote]
Only certain parts of the World consider the USA as the "Great Oppressor"....eg Most of Middle East.


Please dont think that EVERYONE hates the USA, they dont.



What really gets to me is how certain countries, EVEN NOW, can kill thousands of their people and it doesnt even get mentioned in the news.

No threats of intervention by the rest of the world despite blatant fixing of elections and assasination of political opponents.

eg Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of Africa, where 1/2 the people are starving; not due to lack of rain etc...but due to their own Government......


Ah, but cynic that I am.....they dont have the vast mineral resources of their neighbour South Africa, or any Oil Fields of worth.

Im not getting at USA here..........but at all of the stupid bloody people "In Charge".

I certainly would have put intervention here.....A REAL problem (Starvation), ahead of Iraq....an IMAGINED problem (WMD).

Especially as the number of people being &#39;mistreated&#39; is way in access of those that were in Iraq.

clocker
05-26-2003, 12:26 PM
Well, surprise&#33; surprise&#33;

RF, we agree&#33;

Many Americans (step up hobbes) were as appalled by the pathetic spin that Bush used to justify our incursion in Iraq as the rest of the world. From my ( cursory) check of the foreign press, I see that pressure to prove the existance of WMD is still high, while here in the US the question has been relegated to the status of "irrelevant". Our media spin focuses on "our brave boys/girls" and how do we "insure Democracy for the people of Iraq". Winning the war on TV was apparently more important than actually fininshing off the job- the Baath party is still active and aggressively organizing underground resistance cells, waiting ( and trying to hasten) the day when American interest wanes and they can rise again.
But ,that given, I think it&#39;s almost a moot point.

Here is where I side with j2...

Rat, you bring up Zimbabwe.
Myfiles is passionate about Rwanda.
Everyone seems to have their pet cause where US intervention would be more accepable/humane/justified.
" Your invasion of Iraq was totally illegal and unjustified, but you really should help ___( fill in the blank)."

I think that many non-Americans have a very distorted view of us.
Fact is the US has severe problems on the homefront.

Personal bankruptcy is at an all time high.
Our hardware infrastructure ( the interstate highways, bridges et al) is crumbling.
Our software infrastructure ( health care, education, etc.) is a mess.

We could spend every penny of our GNP on nothing but our own problems and it would still take decades to achieve the level of comfort & security that most of the world already thinks we enjoy.

I don&#39;t think that everybody hates America.
It does however get rather galling to continously hear about our stupidity/ gullibility/ rapacity without ever reading a constructive idea of how it could be better done ( or who could do better).

So step right up Belgians, English, French , whoever...

We could easily build Fortress America with a fraction of our current military budget, and spend the remainder totally on us
.
Would the world be a better place then?

jetje
05-26-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by clocker@26 May 2003 - 14:26
We could easily build Fortress America with a fraction of our current military budget, and spend the remainder totally on us
.
Would the world be a better place then?
Honestly......&#33;&#33;


YES

clocker
05-26-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by jetje+26 May 2003 - 06:52--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jetje @ 26 May 2003 - 06:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--clocker@26 May 2003 - 14:26
We could easily build Fortress America with a fraction of our current military budget, and spend the remainder totally on us
.
Would the world be a better place then?
Honestly......&#33;&#33;


YES [/b][/quote]
Great&#33;

Oh, BTW, you know Russia? They&#39;re kinda like right onyour back porch?

Well they&#39;ve been blackmailing us for the past few years- whining that they can&#39;t secure/ maintain/ control their huge nuclear stockpile because they&#39;re broke.
So we&#39;ve been sending them millions.
I&#39;ll PM you with the payment details.
And oh yeah, then there&#39;s....
Oh hell, the list is huge&#33;
I&#39;ll just fax it on over to ya&#33;

Open up your wallet, I don&#39;t think they take Visa/MasterCard.

Good luck&#33;


toddles off to repaint shutters and clean out garage...whew&#33; what a relief not to have to run the world&#33;

j2k4
05-26-2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by jetje+26 May 2003 - 07:52--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jetje @ 26 May 2003 - 07:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--clocker@26 May 2003 - 14:26
We could easily build Fortress America with a fraction of our current military budget, and spend the remainder totally on us
.
Would the world be a better place then?
Honestly......&#33;&#33;


YES [/b][/quote]
Clocker-

Jetje agrees with your proposition-we are free to proceed&#33; ;)

Your post was spot on re: everyone&#39;s &#39;pet gripe&#39;.

I&#39;ve been (I think) reasonably clear about the difficulties of being &#39;all things to all people&#39; vis a&#39; vis our foreign policy; I appreciate your recognition of same.

Rat-

The situation in Northern Ireland is so.....(you supply the word), believe me, it makes me Irish parts hurt. When such conflicts become generational in nature, a reassessment is in order, but who to do this? I know not-

Myfiles-

You are nit-picking and you know it. You are an accomplished practitioner of the art of selectivity in debate, and you have begun to "project" the inadequacies of your argument(s) onto others. Your &#39;buckle&#39; is fast losing it&#39;s &#39;swash&#39;.

You mentioned in another post you had suffered recently from the flu, and were thus not up to posting with your usual fervor; I believe you equated your capabilities (while in the throes of your illness) to those of someone "throwing rocks"?

I observe here that your armament continues to consist of a collection of small stones supplemented by a collection of U.N. generated graphs and pie-charts....... :huh:

myfiles3000
05-26-2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@26 May 2003 - 14:47
Myfiles-

I observe here that your armament continues to consist of a collection of small stones supplemented by a collection of U.N. generated graphs and pie-charts....... :huh:
J2, your rejoinders, i&#39;m afraid, are unconvincing (as well as incomplete, given all the unanswered questions i posed).

just give us some examples of when the USA acted in accordance with your assertion:

"You are willing to spend the lives of your own to render aid."

that&#39;s all i ask. when did the us spend lives to render aid?

clocker
05-26-2003, 05:38 PM
Oh, boy...

j2k4
05-26-2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+26 May 2003 - 12:21--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 26 May 2003 - 12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@26 May 2003 - 14:47
Myfiles-

I observe here that your armament continues to consist of a collection of small stones supplemented by a collection of U.N. generated graphs and pie-charts....... :huh:
J2, your rejoinders, i&#39;m afraid, are unconvincing (as well as incomplete, given all the unanswered questions i posed).

just give us some examples of when the USA acted in accordance with your assertion:

"You are willing to spend the lives of your own to render aid."

that&#39;s all i ask. when did the us spend lives to render aid? [/b][/quote]
The last expectation I have of ANY of my rejoinders would be convincing you, myfiles.

Our differences are inherent, and thus defy nullification.

You define aid according to your own constantly variable set of conditions; this is typical of those who worship at the U.N. altar and suffer painful irritation at every move the U.S. makes.

I do it differently.

myfiles3000
05-26-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+26 May 2003 - 18:55--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 26 May 2003 - 18:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -myfiles3000@26 May 2003 - 12:21
<!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@26 May 2003 - 14:47
Myfiles-

I observe here that your armament continues to consist of a collection of small stones supplemented by a collection of U.N. generated graphs and pie-charts....... :huh:
J2, your rejoinders, i&#39;m afraid, are unconvincing (as well as incomplete, given all the unanswered questions i posed).

just give us some examples of when the USA acted in accordance with your assertion:

"You are willing to spend the lives of your own to render aid."

that&#39;s all i ask. when did the us spend lives to render aid?
The last expectation I have of ANY of my rejoinders would be convincing you, myfiles.

Our differences are inherent, and thus defy nullification.

You define aid according to your own constantly variable set of conditions; this is typical of those who worship at the U.N. altar and suffer painful irritation at every move the U.S. makes.

I do it differently. [/b][/quote]
feel free to use your own, non-UN definition of aid, then.