quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

Basically, if you threaten me, I'm going to stand up for myself.  If I tell you that if you don't leave me be, I'm going to do *A*, and you continue, then I'm going to do it!!  I don't make empty threats.  That's what I think the Iraq war is about.  Most of the country is for an open, free society, and they are working towards that with us helping them.  It wasn't a classical "invasion."  When we have secured the country, we won't take their land, or their goods.  We rebuild and go home.  But we need to stay until it's done. 

Let's get this straight. Are you saying that Iraq was a threat to the US? If you are you are seriously dellusional.

And you say it's not?  You are seriously dellusional.  *See?  I can do that too!!*

The US spends more on defence than the next thirteen largest defence spenders put together. Iraq has a large army of waiters in military uniforms, obsolete Russian tanks, a sixth rate airforce and no Navy to talk of but the US is so badly equiped and trained its generals were quaking in their boots?

quote:

Are you saying the US planned to rebuild Iraq? If so you are seriously dellusional

Are you saying we didn't?  You are seriously delusional!  (I did it again!!)

Saying you have a plan is not the same as having one. You do know that?

quote:

 and don't even listen to your own government. Rumsfeld's No.2 said immediately in the aftermath of the invasion that America owes Iraq nothing, American soldiers have given Iraqis their freedom and that is all they get and should be grateful.

And they should be grateful (I think they are).  We may not "owe" them anything, but we've generally rebuilt a country after we've invaded and been to war with them.  I think that'd it be a horrible idea to leave before Iraq is stable.  But perhaps Bush forgot to run his plans by you for approval??

The BBC has been running a documemtary over the last couple of nights with a lot of talking heads and a lot were Bush appointees. One said when they arrived in Iraq they went to a meeting gathered by Rumsfeld's No.2 and told there was no plan! Several American diplomats said they were aghast at the negligence and off hand nature of Rumsfeld's man.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gXO7gMad8VtexBBOj-nozQ05sChQ

 The British backlash over the United States's handling of post-invasion Iraq grew Sunday as another top military commander blasted what he called Washington's "fatally flawed" policy.

On TV Cross went further as did British General Jackson and they were backed up by an army of frustrated American officials who said they were bewildered at the lack of planning.

quote:

The British general who was supposed to be in charge of reconstruction in the British sector after the invasion, having been to Washington for discussions before the invasion reported to Blair he should be seriously concerned about the lack of planning for after the invasion because basically there was none. Blair was criminally negligent for going along with the invasion for knowing that fact.

Links?  And how do you know his info was accurate?

quote:

Again, if you think you forced freedom on the Iraqis, you are seriously dellusional. YOU ARE OCCUPYING THEIR COUNTRY and TRYING to FORCE THEM TO PRIVATISE THEIR OIL COMPANIES and GIVE US COMPANIES FAVOURABLE CONTRACTS!!!!

Uh huh.  Right.  If you think that, you are seriously delusional!!  (See what I can do AGAIN??) 

Links?  Proof?

Part of the plan was to defeat OPEC
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm


New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

View segments of Iraq oil plans at www.GregPalast.com

quote:

You are just an apologist for a bunch of cack handed ignorant imperialists who think having military power is all it takes to run an empire. If they read a little bit of history they would know that running an empire requires a little bit of planning or it all ends up in choas like...er..Iraq.

You realize you sound seriously dellusional here?  (this is starting to be fun!)  Proof that I'm an apologist?  Proof that the US is an "empire" or that Bush is an "imperialist?"  Do you even know what those words mean?

Wasn't it an American President that said if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck? Americans are the only nation in the world that thinks the US isn't an empire. Look at how the European empires used to operate and then look how the US operates, there is no difference other than the difference of modern technology changing some aspects of the operation.

quote:

Bush and Co were never interested in giving anyone freedom.

Huh.  Interesting that they're free now.  And still have their oil. 

LOL Free? Freedom to live in anarchy, free to flee the country, free to be blown up? You've got to be joking, tell me you are please, you can't seriously have meant that statement. I think most Iraqis would tell you that there is little difference between American freedom and Saddam's tyranny. Your freedom has no meaning in the chaos created by the US and the UK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

So now the freedom fighters in Nicaragua count as terrorists?  And I don't believe the feds have been funding the IRA. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

...i am a little stunned Pink, by someone quoting Ann Coulter as an authority. The UK security services is on record as saying that the whole Niger thing was wrong......Ann Coulter misrepresents another country when she says the British now say it happened. Misrepresenting other countries is her stock in trade though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

So now the freedom fighters in Nicaragua count as terrorists?  And I don't believe the feds have been funding the IRA. 

....the rest of what you wrote is basically opinion, and we are all entitled to that, but these two points need further clarification. What you call freedom fighters in Nicaragua, most of the rest of the world calls foreign funded terrorists against a democratically elected regime. They murdered ordinary people, including nuns and priests.

quote:

As for Northern Ireland, i do agree there was no federally funded support.....instead the Feds refused to stop US nationals funding terrorism in that province. That irish-american vote was too important to annoy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

The US spends more on defence than the next thirteen largest defence spenders put together. Iraq has a large army of waiters in military uniforms, obsolete Russian tanks, a sixth rate airforce and no Navy to talk of but the US is so badly equiped and trained its generals were quaking in their boots?

quote:

Saying you have a plan is not the same as having one. You do know that?

quote:

The BBC has been running a documemtary over the last couple of nights with a lot of talking heads and a lot were Bush appointees. One said when they arrived in Iraq they went to a meeting gathered by Rumsfeld's No.2 and told there was no plan! Several American diplomats said they were aghast at the negligence and off hand nature of Rumsfeld's man.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gXO7gMad8VtexBBOj-nozQ05sChQ

 The British backlash over the United States's handling of post-invasion Iraq grew Sunday as another top military commander blasted what he called Washington's "fatally flawed" policy.

On TV Cross went further as did British General Jackson and they were backed up by an army of frustrated American officials who said they were bewildered at the lack of planning.

quote:

Part of the plan was to defeat OPEC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm


New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

View segments of Iraq oil plans at www.GregPalast.com

quote:

Wasn't it an American President that said if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck? Americans are the only nation in the world that thinks the US isn't an empire.

quote:

Look at how the European empires used to operate and then look how the US operates, there is no difference other than the difference of modern technology changing some aspects of the operation.

quote:

LOL Free? Freedom to live in anarchy, free to flee the country, free to be blown up?

quote:

I think most Iraqis would tell you that there is little difference between American freedom and Saddam's tyranny.

quote:

 Your freedom has no meaning in the chaos created by the US and the UK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

quote:

LOL Free? Freedom to live in anarchy, free to flee the country, free to be blown up?

What?? Iraqi's voting was propaganda?

quote:

quote:

I think most Iraqis would tell you that there is little difference between American freedom and Saddam's tyranny.

The Americans are operating rape rooms? Are they using bottles to anally rape political prisoners and cause them to bleed to death? I believe you are deliberately ignoring the huge amount of positives happening in your eagerness to blast the US.

quote:

quote:

Your freedom has no meaning in the chaos created by the US and the UK.

Freedom takes work and is worth it!

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Well, the Government they voted in ain't done shit.

quote:

Um, yes. JUST ONE RAPE AND MURDER OF A 14 YEAR OLD GIRL MAKES ALL THE "POSITIVES" WORTHLESS.

quote:

And if you don't believe so, ask the dead, raped, 14 year old girl how she feels about her rape, torture and murder.

quote:

Well, the the fucking Iraqis should have done the damn work, shouldn't they?

quote:

But since they've FAILED, with 17% of specific goals set in US Law achieved, that's not going to happen, is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

quote:

Um, yes. JUST ONE RAPE AND MURDER OF A 14 YEAR OLD GIRL MAKES ALL THE "POSITIVES" WORTHLESS.

So your standard for Americans is perfection, and for others is... what?

quote:

And if you don't believe so, ask the dead, raped, 14 year old girl how she feels about her rape, torture and murder.

I'm sure it was awful. But aside from emotion, how again does one crime equate Sadaam Hussien and his sons?

quote:

quote:

But since they've FAILED, with 17% of specific goals set in US Law achieved, that's not going to happen, is it?

17% is better than none. Is this how you treat your relationships? Demand perfection, constantly diminish positives and highlight negatives? That's no way to treat our military, our allies, or anyone truthfully.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
It's not just "one crime", is it? How many innocent Iraqis did US Troops and US paid Mercenaries kill today?

quote:

When the US Congress, sets, in US Law, goals to be met, then that is the standard to use in evaluating success or failure.

quote:

What do you call 17 out of 100? Success?

quote:

Wow, No wonder America Sucks, with people considering 17 out of 100 "Success".

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

So now the freedom fighters in Nicaragua count as terrorists?  And I don't believe the feds have been funding the IRA. 

....the rest of what you wrote is basically opinion, and we are all entitled to that, but these two points need further clarification. What you call freedom fighters in Nicaragua, most of the rest of the world calls foreign funded terrorists against a democratically elected regime. They murdered ordinary people, including nuns and priests.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding who we're talking of here.  Care to clarify?  Perhaps some links?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

That is mostly opinion on your side.  If people are laundering money or arms, the Feds get pissed.  Though I don't think we have laws against sending money to relatives in other countries, which may be what that was falling under.  Care to clarify here as well?

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

So now the freedom fighters in Nicaragua count as terrorists?  And I don't believe the feds have been funding the IRA. 

....the rest of what you wrote is basically opinion, and we are all entitled to that, but these two points need further clarification. What you call freedom fighters in Nicaragua, most of the rest of the world calls foreign funded terrorists against a democratically elected regime. They murdered ordinary people, including nuns and priests.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding who we're talking of here.  Care to clarify?  Perhaps some links?

...ok.........one quick google later, this link leaps out....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America

....from which...

"The U.S. is officially committed to what is called "low-intensity warfare"... If you read the definition of low-intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of "terrorism" in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they're almost the same"

....and of your 'freedom fighters in Nicaragua....

"the Contras "attacked bridges, electric generators, but also state-owned agricultural cooperatives, rural health clinics, villages and non-combatants." US agents were directly involved in the fighting. "CIA commandos launched a series of sabotage raids on Nicaraguan port facilities. They mined the country's major ports and set fire to its largest oil storage facilities." In 1984 the US Congress ordered this intervention to be stopped, however it was later shown that the CIA illegally continued"

......and this, by way of summing up...

"...the U.S. has toppled many democratically-elected governments, including those of Iran, Guatemala, Haiti, and Chile when it suited its interests, showing a lack of real concern about whether or not countries in the developing world are democratic, but very real commitment, like most great powers in history, to furthering its own political and economic objectives"

......in order to legitimately claim the moral high ground, one has to actually occupy it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

That is mostly opinion on your side.  If people are laundering money or arms, the Feds get pissed.  Though I don't think we have laws against sending money to relatives in other countries, which may be what that was falling under.  Care to clarify here as well?

Read about Noraid and arms from America.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/aia/wilson95.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

Wow, pinkme2, if you're in denial over the atrocities the Contras were committing in Nicaragua (with our - or at least Reagan's - backing),

quote:

 there's probably no room for rational discourse here with these other posters. This is pretty well established history. In fact even the Repubicans in Congress were appalled enough by the ongoing rape and torture being committed with our tax dollars that they went along with the Democrats in passing the Boland Amendment. That cut off aid to the Contras - leading Reagan to subvert the Constitution and sell arms to Iran, funneling the proceeds to the Contras through eventually-convicted felons such as Oliver North. You really might want to take your nose out of Ann Coulter's you-know-what once in awhile and read some mainstream history books. She's probably not fond of talking about this episode in our history of "freedom fighting".

quote:

Our country has done a number of good things in the world, but we've also backed a lot of terrorist and torture regimes. Yes, really. No Santa Claus either. Sorry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

Because it's not an empire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

Well, if YOU look at it, those European Empires were constantly expanding, or were trying to.  We don't.  They forced their influence on others, we do not.  We don't force others to drink Starbucks or to speak English.  Yes, we are rich, powerful, and influential, and have a tendancy to forget the rest of the world exists.  But an empire?  Nope.  Are you American?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

That is mostly opinion on your side.  If people are laundering money or arms, the Feds get pissed.  Though I don't think we have laws against sending money to relatives in other countries, which may be what that was falling under.  Care to clarify here as well?

Read about Noraid and arms from America.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/aia/wilson95.htm

Thank you for the link, albeit a rather long read.  From what little of it I read, it looks as though the Feds prosecuted and persued those they believed were channeling money or arms... Right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

First, you're getting your source from Wiki, which isn't always entirely reliable.

quote:

Second, those quotes come from scholars who wrote those things, so not first hand info or even a news article.  That for me would be another dubious source. 

quote:

 You also say that they were fighting a duly elected government.  Your wiki article doesn't even make that claim.  It was a left-wing (read communist) government that came into power, and these guys were fighting for a free society. 
And perhaps I didn't find it in google because I wouldn't even have thought to search "State terrorism of the US".  No bias there, huh?  Come on...