Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

The Local _ International affairs _ Anti-American? Anti-European?

Posted by: Kodos 22.Feb.2006, 04:30 PM

So Roy's head doesn't (rightfully) explode, let's continue our discussion here.

Posted by: Alice Is Back 22.Feb.2006, 04:31 PM

could we add anti-EU too, I would really like to bust some Swedish heads on this laugh.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: Kodos 22.Feb.2006, 04:33 PM

Varför inte? Pourquoi-pas???

Calling all haters in da house...

laugh.gif

Posted by: Roy E 22.Feb.2006, 04:33 PM

QUOTE (Kang)
So Roy's head doesn't (rightfully) explode, let's continue our discussion here.


Yikes. This could get ugly in a hurry.

I'll start loading up the B-52's with Big Macs now.

Call me when you need me. laugh.gif

Posted by: Kodos 22.Feb.2006, 04:34 PM

I hope Melanie has finished polishing her jack boots.

By the way, Roy, I have hired a Hummer for the ride.

Posted by: Alice Is Back 22.Feb.2006, 04:36 PM

this will be difficult to be anti-european since I have lived here so long and watch Eurovision Song Contest every year now but I will try my best.

Posted by: Mnemonic 22.Feb.2006, 04:36 PM

This line if its any truth in it..
Defence Secretary Rumsfeld, with his usual brazen condescension, calls those European nations who question the US project, primarily France and Germany, "the old Europe", dismissing them as unimportant.

Someone that want to spread democracy to the world shouldn't call someone unimportant that only shows you got no clue what democracy is. And this is a good example of ignorance and a good way to put fuel on the america hate.

Posted by: Kodos 22.Feb.2006, 04:40 PM

*buzzer for wrong answer sounds*

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has never been in combat. Therefore, everything he says is null and void, anyhow.

Next...

Posted by: Roy E 22.Feb.2006, 07:18 PM

Wow Kang. Awesome!

Looks like calling everybody out on this has restored a degree of sanity.

Good Job! biggrin.gif

Posted by: Kodos 22.Feb.2006, 07:47 PM

It's eerily quiet right now, isn't it?

*shares bilar with Roy*

Posted by: Crusader 22.Feb.2006, 08:10 PM

Anti-American? Anti-European?

both, I'm four king Chinese laugh.gif

Posted by: Kodos 22.Feb.2006, 08:14 PM

Well...in that case, we'll have to include Anti-Asian so everyone can play. laugh.gif

Posted by: Crusader 22.Feb.2006, 08:19 PM

with an African Father... 8)

Posted by: Kodos 22.Feb.2006, 08:49 PM

Of course!!!! Let's Earth bash!!!! laugh.gif

Posted by: Alice Is Back 22.Feb.2006, 08:50 PM

nobody wanted to take me up on the euro or eu, I am so sad :cry: :cry:

Posted by: Markbase With An Invisible Silen 23.Feb.2006, 11:02 AM

Only occasionally, dear Aaron. tongue.gif

Mark Base
http://www.markbase.net
For observations and opinions about life in Helsingborg

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 11:51 AM

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has never been in combat. Therefore, everything he says is null and void, anyhow.

Next...

So I guess retiring from the Navy as a Captain (One rank below General) has no bearing. Have you ever served your country (in the military)?. If not, then your logic says that your opinion of anyone who has is null and void.

Posted by: Franko 23.Feb.2006, 11:54 AM

What's a US marine doing in Sweden? Unless he's one of those rude uneducated Bs at the US Embassy in Stockholm.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 11:59 AM

Top Secret. I'd tell you, but then I'd have to, well you know the rest. Bye the way, I used to be one of those "uneducated Bs" guarding our embassies about 20 years ago. They are more educated than you think.

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 23.Feb.2006, 12:03 PM

But not in spelling. :wink:

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 12:10 PM

Which word are you referring to?

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 23.Feb.2006, 12:11 PM

Bye.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 12:16 PM

I thought so. Check out dictionary.com. Bye (also by)- a secondary matter, a side issue.

Posted by: VikingHumpingWitch 23.Feb.2006, 12:21 PM

Hmmmmmm I'm not sure I'm prepared to accept being out-pedanted on this one, nobody uses bye in that sense any more.

Posted by: Alice Is Back 23.Feb.2006, 12:33 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
. If not, then your logic says that your opinion of anyone who has is null and void.


well I see kang has gone from hero to zero in defending things all American. Oh well I guess these thinks can happen!

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 12:52 PM

QUOTE (VikingHumpingWitch)
Hmmmmmm I'm not sure I'm prepared to accept being out-pedanted on this one, nobody uses bye in that sense any more.


Had to look up pedant. Which I am definitely not, bye the way. I went straight to boot camp a month after graduating high school. By no means a scholar.

Posted by: Franko 23.Feb.2006, 01:10 PM

QUOTE (VikingHumpingWitch)
Hmmmmmm I'm not sure I'm prepared to accept being out-pedanted on this one, nobody uses bye in that sense any more.


i'm with you on this one Witch, and the ones in Stockholm are rude. BTW USMarine, how d'you pronounce 'nuclear'?

Posted by: Beth 23.Feb.2006, 01:20 PM

QUOTE (Franko)
the ones [marines] in Stockholm are rude.


in all fairness, i think the marines in Stockholm are right ok...but it could be a matter of which color passport you flash.

and i don't believe in knocking the marines for the sake of being marines, but i don't think it puts anyone into elite privlidge status either...

to serve your country comes in many forms. to say if it has not been in the form of military service is to dismiss your opinion is small-minded. the armed forces are servants of the people. the civilians are your employers to whom you are responsible and accountable.

the marines are an honorable corps or respectful and committed men and women. i don't believe the poster bragging about his US Marine affiliation is a good representative on an institution worthy of merit.

especially when you boast on a public forum that you have a sadistic pleasure of imagining the destructive force of bombs on humans flesh.

Posted by: Roy E 23.Feb.2006, 01:32 PM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
well I see kang has gone from hero to zero in defending things all American. Oh well I guess these thinks can happen!


Oh, this can spontaneoulsly combust at any moment. All it takes is one person having a bad day laugh.gif

Actually,It's difficult to make a blanket 'Anti' or 'Pro' statement.

On balance, I'm both pro American and pro European. I cherish the differences and find the notion of a homogenous 'one world' depressingly bland.

I love American founding ideals while simutaneously detesting American pop-culture (from the 1990's on). It Makes me cringe. But alas. freedom also means the freeedom to be stupid - and even the freedom to broadcast that stupidity around the world *sigh* . If that's the (high) price we have to pay for freedom of speech, so be it.

Posted by: Benzed 23.Feb.2006, 02:25 PM

Anti American.

Almost lost the hate when I spent 5 months there and made a stack of sound Yankoid pals, but since then it is back to judging the country on its political manifesto, foreign policy, public figures and generally apathetic / ignorant / yeehaww public.

Insert TOOL lyrics here re: earthquakes in LA. :twisted:

Posted by: Windycity 23.Feb.2006, 02:36 PM

I am so tired of this boring condesension which I find ususally comes from psudeo-intellectual Europeans.
That said, cya, I have many European friends, and this is not a broad sweeping generalization :wink:
This debate is so tired! Here's an idea, instead of always bitching about us, maybe you can use some of this fabulous energy and actually do something. Your days may be over as world superpowers, but I am sure you must have something still to contribute. Although all I normally encounter is what I call the 'can not do' attitude. I feel sorry for you!

Posted by: Benzed 23.Feb.2006, 02:47 PM

Silence, filthy yank.

Posted by: Franko 23.Feb.2006, 02:49 PM

"psudeo-intellectual " ?????

Posted by: Markbase With An Invisible Silen 23.Feb.2006, 02:50 PM

QUOTE (Benzed)
Silence, filthy yank.


laugh.gif tongue.gif laugh.gif tongue.gif

Mark Base
http://www.markbase.net
For observations and opinions about life in Helsingborg

Posted by: Windycity 23.Feb.2006, 02:50 PM

Bite me Benzed! To be fair, where are you from? I'd love to discuss your home country.
Interesting that you choose 'filthy' which is not a broad sweeping generalization most would associate with Americans. We actually do like to bathe.

Posted by: Windycity 23.Feb.2006, 02:52 PM

Oh and Franko, sorry I forgot to use spell check. I wish I could be as smart as you :oops:

Posted by: Benzed 23.Feb.2006, 02:53 PM

Haha, I´m from Botswana and we are UNTOUCHABLE.

See ya wouldn´t want to be ya.

8)

Posted by: Windycity 23.Feb.2006, 02:55 PM

Oh, Benzed, see that's the thing, I think you secretly do.

Posted by: Franko 23.Feb.2006, 02:55 PM

QUOTE (Windycity)
Oh and Franko, sorry I forgot to use spell check. I wish I could be as smart as you :oops:


Not possible Ben. Know the definition of a kiwi?

Posted by: Nico aka the boy wonder 23.Feb.2006, 03:02 PM

QUOTE (Windycity)
Oh and Franko, sorry I forgot to use spell check. I wish I could be as smart as you :oops:


QUOTE
When you've managed to get a good heated exchange going try to score points by using a word that will drive your opponent to the dictionary. Mock any attempts on their part to do the same. If possible humiliate them and react to attacks on your arguments with ironic references to misspellings, ill-conceived sentence construction, or inappropriate word usage.


laugh.gif

Posted by: Windycity 23.Feb.2006, 03:07 PM

Exactly.

Posted by: Alice Is Back 23.Feb.2006, 03:38 PM

QUOTE (Benzed)
Silence, filthy yank.


benzed would you like for me to start picking on you again, I know how much you enjoy that

Posted by: Braderunner Rennuredarb 23.Feb.2006, 04:06 PM

Hrmm...I just got back from the US Embassy in Stockholm...did not have problem one.

Personally - people can be anti-american all they want...I really dont care. I dont even really pity their stupidity either...I just dismiss them because they are not worth my oxygen. biggrin.gif Actually...scratch that...sometimes I like stomping them down...especially if I am having a bad day. Anyone that is so obtuse to be anti-any nationality just because they think everyone of that nationality is "bad" is simple cannon fodder in a war of words. :twisted:

Posted by: Nico aka the boy wonder 23.Feb.2006, 04:22 PM

Interesting article.
http://www.hooverdigest.org/032/ash2.html

some quotes from the article

QUOTE
The Mars-Venus Debate

A study should be written on the sexual imagery of these stereotypes. If anti-American Europeans see ?the Americans? as bullying cowboys, anti-European Americans see ?the Europeans? as limp-wristed pansies. The American is a virile, heterosexual male; the European is female, impotent, or castrated. Militarily, Europeans can?t get it up. (After all, they have fewer than 20 ?heavy lift? transport planes, compared with the United States? more than 200.) Following a lecture I gave in Boston an aged American tottered to the microphone to inquire why Europe ?lacks animal vigor.? (The word ?eunuchs? is, I discovered, used in the form ?EU-nuchs.?) The sexual imagery even creeps into a more sophisticated account of American-European differences: In an already influential Policy Review article by Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace entitled ?Power and Weakness.? ?Americans are from Mars,? writes Kagan approvingly, ?and Europeans are from Venus??echoing that famous book about relations between men and women, Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus


QUOTE
The current stereotype of Europeans is easily summarized. Europeans are wimps. They are weak, petulant, hypocritical, disunited, duplicitous, sometimes anti-Semitic, and often anti-American appeasers. In a word: ?Euroweenies.? [Their values and their spines have dissolved in a lukewarm bath of multilateral, transnational, secular, and postmodern fudge.] They spend their euros on wine, holidays, and bloated welfare states instead of on defense. Then they jeer from the sidelines while the United States does the hard and dirty business of keeping the world safe for Europeans. Americans, by contrast, are strong, principled defenders of freedom, standing tall in the patriotic service of the world?s last truly sovereign nation-state.

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 04:34 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has never been in combat. Therefore, everything he says is null and void, anyhow.

Next...

So I guess retiring from the Navy as a Captain (One rank below General) has no bearing. Have you ever served your country (in the military)?. If not, then your logic says that your opinion of anyone who has is null and void.


Can't. Flat feet.

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 04:36 PM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
well I see kang has gone from hero to zero in defending things all American. Oh well I guess these thinks can happen!
'

No...Kang was in a stiumlating meeting discussing hospital ergonomics. After my tea, I should be ready to strike...

Posted by: Alice Is Back 23.Feb.2006, 04:38 PM

nico didn't we already debuke Robert Kagan as a nasty neo-con who is not representive of the States. I mean I can find all the anti-american stuff on the net and post it here, but that would not represent all europeans

you and your generalisation issues, they are even worse than love problems :roll:

Posted by: David S 23.Feb.2006, 04:41 PM

pro-Marine
pro-America
pro-EU
pro-Euro
anti-neocon
anti-bush
anti-cheney
anti-rumsfield
anti-rove
anti-saddam
anti-osama

Posted by: Nico aka the boy wonder 23.Feb.2006, 04:42 PM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
nico didn't we already debuke Robert Kagan as a nasty neo-con who is not representive of the States. I mean I can find all the anti-american stuff on the net and post it here, but that would not represent all europeans

you and your generalisation issues, they are even worse that love problems :roll:


I wans´t saying he was reprenenive of the states, just showed you guys a article about the subject of this thread nothing more nothing less.. Did you read the article? what did you think?

Posted by: Alice Is Back 23.Feb.2006, 04:44 PM

well I disagree does that surprize you??

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 04:48 PM

pro-Marine - agreed (and all other branches of the armed services)
pro-America - agreed
pro-EU - agreed
pro-Euro - up in the air
anti-neocon - agreed
anti-bush - agreed
anti-cheney - agreed
anti-rumsfield - agreed
anti-rove - agreed
anti-saddam - agreed
anti-osama - agreed

And...I would like to add...

anti-wolfowitz

Posted by: Nico aka the boy wonder 23.Feb.2006, 04:51 PM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
well I disagree does that surprize you??


disagree on what? that Anti-Europeanism in America exists?

Oh i should proboly post this aswell Anti-Americanism in Europe: http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/antiamer.html

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 04:54 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has never been in combat. Therefore, everything he says is null and void, anyhow.

Next...

So I guess retiring from the Navy as a Captain (One rank below General) has no bearing. Have you ever served your country (in the military)?. If not, then your logic says that your opinion of anyone who has is null and void.


Let me ask you this...did you ever criticize Bill Clinton because he did not serve? I recall he drew a lot of heat from that.

Donald Rumsfeld is one step removed from one of the most dangerous men in history, McNamara. He's about the numbers, trying to do the war on the cheap. How many times did he send his henchman back to the drawing board so they could cut more manpower and equipment to meet his unrealistic budget projections?

Based on logic and given your service as a Marine, would you send your men into combat without the proper equipment?

And before you think I'm anti-military, anti-war and all that nonsense, I have paid my respect to your fallen comrades at Belleauwood (among many other places). You have respect for the solider without having any respect for the leader of a country.

Posted by: Wolfie 23.Feb.2006, 05:00 PM

QUOTE (Nico)
I wans´t saying he was reprenenive of the states, just showed you guys a article about the subject of this thread nothing more nothing less.. Did you read the article? what did you think?


I read the article. I think what he says makes a lot of sense.

Posted by: David S 23.Feb.2006, 05:31 PM

QUOTE (Kang)
And...I would like to add...

anti-wolfowitz


I was going to list him but I decided against that because he seems, surprisingly, to be doing some good things with the World Bank. So the jury is still out.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 05:40 PM

QUOTE (Kang)
Let me ask you this...did you ever criticize Bill Clinton because he did not serve? I recall he drew a lot of heat from that.

Donald Rumsfeld is one step removed from one of the most dangerous men in history, McNamara. He's about the numbers, trying to do the war on the cheap. How many times did he send his henchman back to the drawing board so they could cut more manpower and equipment to meet his unrealistic budget projections?

Based on logic and given your service as a Marine, would you send your men into combat without the proper equipment?

And before you think I'm anti-military, anti-war and all that nonsense, I have paid my respect to your fallen comrades at Belleauwood (among many other places). You have respect for the solider without having any respect for the leader of a country.


Yes, I've criticized Slick Willy. But Rumsfeld did serve, in the Navy, and retired as a Captain as I've already pointed out. He didn't dodge the draft, run off to another country and then bad mouth his own country. Little bit of a difference there.

What basic equipment are you referring to? Please be more specific. During the Clinton years, our motto was that we do more with less than anybody. Just ask my wife. We went from being rotated out for 6 months every two years to being rotated out every year. I think that civilians are a little spoiled by having what they want, when they want it. In the service, you carry out the mission with what you have available.

This goes out to both Kang and Beth. Kang, I appreciate the fact that you've taken the time to pay your respects at Belleauwood, among other places. Beth, as honorable as you believe service in the Marine Corps is (which it is), there is darker side to it that it seems many people don't quite understand. Do you know the nickname that was given to the Marines by the German defenders at Belleauwood? It's "Devil Dogs", and not because of their "honor", but because of their tenacity in combat. Marines are warriors, that's what they are trained for. Along with that comes a mentality, where the enemy isn't a person, but a target. Someone who is trying to kill you before you kill them. So as good as those commercials are that you see on TV, there's another side that you don't want to see. Trust me.

Posted by: Roger O. Thornhill 23.Feb.2006, 05:42 PM

QUOTE (Kang)
*buzzer for wrong answer sounds*

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has never been in combat. Therefore, everything he says is null and void, anyhow.

Next...


Logic audit! Kang, you have never been Secretary of State. Therefore, everyting she says is null and void, anyhow.

Next

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 05:46 PM

QUOTE (Beth)
in all fairness, i think the marines in Stockholm are right ok...but it could be a matter of which color passport you flash.

and i don't believe in knocking the marines for the sake of being marines, but i don't think it puts anyone into elite privlidge status either...

to serve your country comes in many forms. to say if it has not been in the form of military service is to dismiss your opinion is small-minded. the armed forces are servants of the people. the civilians are your employers to whom you are responsible and accountable.

the marines are an honorable corps or respectful and committed men and women. i don't believe the poster bragging about his US Marine affiliation is a good representative on an institution worthy of merit.

especially when you boast on a public forum that you have a sadistic pleasure of imagining the destructive force of bombs on humans flesh.


Never bragged and never boasted, just stated fact, thank you.

Posted by: Roy E 23.Feb.2006, 05:57 PM

QUOTE (David S)
I was going to list him but I decided against that because he seems, surprisingly, to be doing some good things with the World Bank. So the jury is still out.



it is much, much easier to be anti-something than pro-something.

What you stand FOR and to what lengths you are prepared to go to defend it is a much more constructive and responsible contribution to the debate. Standing against something without offering an alternative is an evasion of accountabilty. More destructive than anything else.

That's why I'm disinclined to to jump in on the bashing. Nobody seems to have come up with a better idea. And doing nothing is not an option.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 06:11 PM

QUOTE (Windycity)
I am so tired of this boring condesension which I find ususally comes from psudeo-intellectual Europeans.
That said, cya, I have many European friends, and this is not a broad sweeping generalization :wink:
This debate is so tired! Here's an idea, instead of always bitching about us, maybe you can use some of this fabulous energy and actually do something. Your days may be over as world superpowers, but I am sure you must have something still to contribute. Although all I normally encounter is what I call the 'can not do' attitude. I feel sorry for you!


Amen!

Posted by: Benzed 23.Feb.2006, 06:25 PM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
benzed would you like for me to start picking on you again, I know how much you enjoy that


Yawn. I fear being "picked on" by you about as much as I fear strangulation by lettuce leaves. And you´re American? Finally, an explanation of your incessant running off at the mouth and bombardment of a Swedish forum with asinine and self important opinions about all and sundry, from Berlin. :roll:

Bog off.

Posted by: Wolfie 23.Feb.2006, 06:26 PM

Hehehe!

http://www.zen29819.zen.co.uk/b3ta/years.gif

Posted by: Benzed 23.Feb.2006, 06:28 PM

There was a total eclipse (possibly of the heart) in 1999 then :?:

Posted by: FR 23.Feb.2006, 06:32 PM

My red flag re Rumsfeld:

"Mr. Rumsfeld resigned from Congress in 1969 during his fourth term to join the President's Cabinet. From 1969 to 1970, he served as Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and Assistant to the President. From 1971 to 1972, he was Counsellor to the President and Director of the Economic Stabilization Program. "

Posted by: Alice Is Back 23.Feb.2006, 06:45 PM

QUOTE (Benzed)
Bog off.


no

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 07:00 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
So I guess retiring from the Navy as a Captain (One rank below General) has no bearing. Have you ever served your country (in the military)?. If not, then your logic says that your opinion of anyone who has is null and void.



Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html

Is a Reserve Captain the same as a Active Duty Captain? I thought there was a difference between Reserve and Active Duty commissions...

He only served three years of AD and was in the reserves until retirement.

And to speak of Clinton...call him a draft dodger, it doesn't matter to me. The only thing that separated him from Bush in that respect was a lack of a rich daddy to buy his son's way out of service.

Posted by: Windycity 23.Feb.2006, 07:02 PM

Benzed is a boner and did anyone know that Botswana Day is the 30th of September? Nope because nobody cares :cry:

Posted by: Alice Is Back 23.Feb.2006, 07:04 PM

Benzed is "special" like we say in the states!

btw are you from chicago, I am from Indiana and only grew up 1 hr from Chicago.

Posted by: Windycity 23.Feb.2006, 07:09 PM

Yes, I am from Chicago smile.gif And, I love Indiana!

Posted by: Alice Is Back 23.Feb.2006, 07:11 PM

"love" those are really strong words, what do you find so wonderful about indiana?

Posted by: Windycity 23.Feb.2006, 07:12 PM

the beaches on Lake Michigan

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 07:12 PM

QUOTE (David S)
I was going to list him but I decided against that because he seems, surprisingly, to be doing some good things with the World Bank. So the jury is still out.


He gives me the willies. I cannot put my finger on it...but something is not right with that man.

Posted by: FR 23.Feb.2006, 07:20 PM

QUOTE (Kang)
Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html

Is a Reserve Captain the same as a Active Duty Captain? I thought there was a difference between Reserve and Active Duty commissions...

He only served three years of AD and was in the reserves until retirement.

And to speak of Clinton...call him a draft dodger, it doesn't matter to me. The only thing that separated him from Bush in that respect was a lack of a rich daddy to buy his son's way out of service.


Worth highlighting:

his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments

Posted by: Alice Is Back 23.Feb.2006, 07:20 PM

QUOTE (Windycity)
the beaches on Lake Michigan


I only grew up 10 min from Lake Michigan, really nice!!

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 07:24 PM

FR...

Didn't you have fun typing out administrative? :wink: laugh.gif laugh.gif

/Marnie

Posted by: FR 23.Feb.2006, 07:25 PM

QUOTE (Kang)
He gives me the willies. I cannot put my finger on it...but something is not right with that man.


If you read his bio http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/wolfowitz.html, you will see that it mentions a lot of fund-raising. That's probably what give you the creeps. He's a warmonger in a salesman's uniform.

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 07:25 PM

QUOTE (FR)
My red flag re Rumsfeld:

"Mr. Rumsfeld resigned from Congress in 1969 during his fourth term to join the President's Cabinet. From 1969 to 1970, he served as Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and Assistant to the President. From 1971 to 1972, he was Counsellor to the President and Director of the Economic Stabilization Program. "


And what year did the US economy fall into the toilet (recession)?

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 07:26 PM

QUOTE (FR)
If you read his bio http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/wolfowitz.html, you will see that it mentions a lot of fund-raising. That's probably what give you the creeps. He's a warmonger in a salesman's uniform.


My father calls him, "a bad Jew." wink.gif

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 07:29 PM

QUOTE (Kang)
Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html



Is a Reserve Captain the same as a Active Duty Captain? I thought there was a difference between Reserve and Active Duty commissions...

He only served three years of AD and was in the reserves until retirement.

And to speak of Clinton...call him a draft dodger, it doesn't matter to me. The only thing that separated him from Bush in that respect was a lack of a rich daddy to buy his son's way out of service.


A Captain is a Captain. The only difference being reserve pay versus active duty pay. And only three years? One day would have been more than the Schlick-meister.

As far as Clinton goes, that's the sad thing, it should matter. And both of the Bush presidents did serve their country. I don't care if Bush 2 was only in the National Guard. And no matter how much the good old liberal media(NBC, ABC, CBS,CNN, MSNBC, etc.) tried to prove he was AWOL, we know how that blew up in their faces. Anyone remember the documents that were supposed to be from the 1970's? One problem with them, they were printed off a modern day printer using a font that wasn't even around back then! Tiny oversight there on the sources part, huh?

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 07:32 PM

QUOTE (Kang)
And what year did the US economy fall into the toilet (recession)?


I was only young back then, so I may wind up doing some research on this. But didn't that have something to do with oil prices?

Posted by: FR 23.Feb.2006, 07:34 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
I was only young back then, so I may wind up doing some research on this. But didn't that have something to do with oil prices?


Nixon, president counselled by Rumsfeld, instituted price controls, wreaking havoc on the US economy.

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 07:37 PM

I thought that's where you were going with that.

*hi-fives FR*

Posted by: FR 23.Feb.2006, 07:40 PM

I checked on the negative GDP years... 1970, 1974 and 1975.

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 07:42 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
As far as Clinton goes, that's the sad thing, it should matter. And both of the Bush presidents did serve their country. I don't care if Bush 2 was only in the National Guard. And no matter how much the good old liberal media(NBC, ABC, CBS,CNN, MSNBC, etc.) tried to prove he was AWOL, we know how that blew up in their faces. Anyone remember the documents that were supposed to be from the 1970's? One problem with them, they were printed off a modern day printer using a font that wasn't even around back then! Tiny oversight there on the sources part, huh?


INCOMING!!!! Everyone duck!!!! It's the Liberal Media bomb. biizzzzzuuuuuuu...bang!

Did you forget that Rather lost his job over his stupidity? He didn't employ Rebekka-the-fact-Chekka and he got burned. Rightfully so, I might add.

Liberal Media. I forgot...only Fox News has ethical pitchmen, like O'Snively, Novak and Britt Hume. C'mon on...can't you think of something a little more creative than that? Liberal Media has been used so often it carries absolutely no weight anymore.

*convulses on the floor in laughter*

Oh...and I forgot Geraldo!!!! "We're nearing the vault..."

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 07:42 PM

QUOTE (FR)
I checked on the negative GDP years... 1970, 1974 and 1975.


*holds out handful of bilar for FR*

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 07:45 PM

QUOTE (Kang)
My father calls him, "a bad Jew." wink.gif


I may be wrong here, and correct me if I am. But I'm guessing that you two are Democrats or at least lean a little to the left side of the political aisle. Probably have the impression that all (well, at least a majority of) Republicans or conservatives are warmongers. Let's not forget history.

WWII- Roosevelt, Democrat (some conspiracy theorists believe he let Pearl Harbor be bombed in order to draw us into WWII)
WWII-Truman, Democrat. Dropped the only atomic weapons in the history of warfare on Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Korean "Conflict"-Truman, Democrat.
Vietnam War- Kennedy, Democrat.
Vietnam War cont'd.- Johnson, Democrat.
Vietnam War, end- Nixon, Republican who finally got us out of Vietnam.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 07:53 PM

QUOTE (Kang)
INCOMING!!!! Everyone duck!!!! It's the Liberal Media bomb. biizzzzzuuuuuuu...bang!

Did you forget that Rather lost his job over his stupidity? He didn't employ Rebekka-the-fact-Chekka and he got burned. Rightfully so, I might add.

Liberal Media. I forgot...only Fox News has ethical pitchmen, like O'Snively, Novak and Britt Hume. C'mon on...can't you think of something a little more creative than that? Liberal Media has been used so often it carries absolutely no weight anymore.

*convulses on the floor in laughter*

Oh...and I forgot Geraldo!!!! "We're nearing the vault..."


May I recommend "Bias- A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News" by Bernard Goldberg? Of course, he'll probably get labeled a "bad Jew" also. I guess Joe Lieberman falls into that category also.

O'Snively, huh? I used to make fun of people's names when I was in fourth grade also.

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 07:57 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
WWII- Roosevelt, Democrat (some conspiracy theorists believe he let Pearl Harbor be bombed in order to draw us into WWII)
WWII-Truman, Democrat. Dropped the only atomic weapons in the history of warfare on Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Korean "Conflict"-Truman, Democrat.
Vietnam War- Kennedy, Democrat.
Vietnam War cont'd.- Johnson, Democrat.
Vietnam War, end- Nixon, Republican who finally got us out of Vietnam.


Oooooh...I see you're going to your e-mail chain-letter file for ammunition. How adorable.

Let me get this straight...you think the United States (and the rest of the world for that matter) would have been better of by staying out of WW2? You can kick about Kennedy and Johnson all you want about Vietnam. Especially Johnson...he royally screwed the pooch on that one. But to say that the Democrats brought us into WW2, while the Republican party would have preferred to say home and play chess is, well, foolish.

For your edification, I was a card carrying Republican until 1996. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan...I did not leave the Republican party, it left me. I like the idea of lower taxes, smaller government, etc... The Republican party (today) does not represent those ideals and they haven't for years. The Neo-Cons hijacked the Republican party and all that is left is a steaming pile of debt, people crying because they cannot post the Ten Commandments in public places and idiots running around screaming about third rail issues like gay marriage.

The US is selling out to the UAE for port management and the Republicans are afraid to allow gays the same rights as hets. Yeah...that makes a lot of sense to me.

Oh...and to address your comments about Clinton and his military policies...Rummy is trying to close more bases than Clinton did. It's funny that a lot of people forget about the base reassignment and closing initiative of 2005.

Posted by: Alice Is Back 23.Feb.2006, 07:58 PM

for a proud marine you seem really bitter

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 08:01 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
May I recommend "Bias- A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News" by Bernard Goldberg? Of course, he'll probably get labeled a "bad Jew" also. I guess Joe Lieberman falls into that category also.

O'Snively, huh? I used to make fun of people's names when I was in fourth grade also.


I think Joe Lieberman is a big, ol' baby. Nothing made me cringe more than Joe during the Democrat debates. He carried himself with an air of entitlement as if it would only be logical to give him the party nod. He is more of a Republican that some Republicans. I do not agree with a majority of the stuff that comes out of his mouth.

How did you guess which grade I am in???

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 08:02 PM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
for a proud marine you seem really bitter


How, by stating fact?

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 08:03 PM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
for a proud marine you seem really bitter


He does. I guess the non-Republicans are responsible for that, as well.

Posted by: Alice Is Back 23.Feb.2006, 08:03 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
How, by stating fact?


it's the tone

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 08:07 PM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
it's the tone


Oops, didn't realize you could hear me! Sorry, I'll try to keep the profanities down.

Posted by: Alice Is Back 23.Feb.2006, 08:12 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
for a proud marine you seem really bitter


How, by stating fact?


it's the tone


Oops, didn't realize you could hear me! Sorry, I'll try to keep the profanities down.


yes quite a good idea

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
P.S.- I used to load some of those 500 lb. bombs on our fighter jets. You should see what they do to a building, let alone a human body! Can anyone say ground meat?

Posted by: Dock Hussein Ellis 23.Feb.2006, 08:16 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
But Rumsfeld did serve, in the Navy, and retired as a Captain as I've already pointed out. He didn't dodge the draft, run off to another country and then bad mouth his own country. Little bit of a difference there.


I'm not quite sure why you guys are even debating Rumsfeld's military record, it's what he's done as SecDef that really matters here If anything, a Navy Captain (O6, eq. to an Army/Marine Colonel, as you pointed out) should know better than some draft-dodging idiot from Texas what happens when you try and wage war on the cheap- your mission fails, and men die needlessly.

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
What basic equipment are you referring to? Please be more specific.


-Kevlar body armor. That one's been well publicized.

-Uparmored Humvees. I guess when you think the population is going to be throwing flowers, you don't plan on IEDs.

-Tanks. Tommy Franks wanted them, Rumsfeld said no. I know tanks aren't generally thought of as being good at urban warfare, but they've been very effective against insurgents who lack traditional "main force" AT capability. In fact, when the USMC took Fallujah, they brought two extra brigades of Abrams tanks from the army. Rumsfeld should have learned from Clinton's Somalia disaster, where armor (that the White House refused to send) could have broken through to the besiged Delta operators and saved some lives.

-Men. Once again, Franks wanted more troops than Rumsfeld was willing to pay for. Result? the US lacked the manpower to control urban areas early on, and let the insurgency take hold.

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
During the Clinton years, our motto was that we do more with less than anybody.


While it's true Slick Willie gutted the defense budget, Marines have always had to do more with less- it's been part of the culture since at least WWII, when Marines went into battle with WWI era '03 Springfields instead of the M1Garands the army had. Ever seen newsreels of Vietnam with Marines still flying around in Sea Horses while the army had Hueys?

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
In the service, you carry out the mission with what you have available.


That's true- the point though, is why undertake a mission you're unequipped for if you don't have to? I fully support the US mission in Afghanistan (which is why it pisses me off that so many resources that are needed in Afghanistan are being siphoned off to Iraq), but Iraq is a bullshit war started for bullshit reasons by a bullshit president.

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
So as good as those commercials are that you see on TV, there's another side that you don't want to see. Trust me.


Totally true. Marines are not trained to be relief workers or peacekeepers, they are trained to deal out death and destruction- and I'm awfuly grateful to them for volunteering to do so. It's a nasty world, and sometimes you have no recourse but to match agression with agression. What bothers me is when some two-bit chickenhawks in Washington abuse our sevicemen (and women) by sending them off to fight pointless wars of conquest (not national defence), and don't even give them the tools to win.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 08:18 PM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
yes quite a good idea


War is ugly, what can I say. Someone has to do the dirty work. If you can't deal with reality, sorry.

Posted by: Alice Is Back 23.Feb.2006, 08:19 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
War is ugly, what can I say. Someone has to do the dirty work. If you can't deal with reality, sorry.


and funny laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 08:22 PM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
and funny laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif


Now...I'm thinking of Matthew Modine's character in Full Metal Jacket...wearing the peace sign.

Posted by: Dock Hussein Ellis 23.Feb.2006, 08:26 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
WWII- Roosevelt, Democrat (some conspiracy theorists believe he let Pearl Harbor be bombed in order to draw us into WWII)
WWII-Truman, Democrat. Dropped the only atomic weapons in the history of warfare on Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.


Are you saying you disagree with either of these decisions? As both of my grandfathers would have been involved in an invasion of the Japanese home islands, I can only say "give 'em hell, Harry!"

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Korean "Conflict"-Truman, Democrat.

North Korea invaded South Korea and attacked US forces with no warning. You would have folded your tent and gone home?

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Vietnam War- Kennedy, Democrat.
Vietnam War cont'd.- Johnson, Democrat.
Vietnam War, end- Nixon, Republican who finally got us out of Vietnam.


Be fair, our involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower, Republican. And if you want to credit Tricky Dick (a great president we can all be proud of, right?) with getting us out, why did he wait until his second term?

What exactly is your point?

Posted by: Cyberfluff 23.Feb.2006, 08:27 PM

QUOTE (Franko)
BTW USMarine, ...


:oops:
All this time, I've been reading it "proud 2 bus marine" and I was wondering what Marines were being bussed around Sweden...

I can't even blame it on lack of caffeine. I've been thinking this for days.
:oops:

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 08:31 PM

QUOTE (Melanie)
:oops:
All this time, I've been reading it "proud 2 bus marine" and I was wondering what Marines were being bussed around Sweden...

I can't even blame it on lack of caffeine. I've been thinking this for days.
:oops:


Don't feel too badly...I thought the same at first. :oops:

Posted by: Cyberfluff 23.Feb.2006, 08:33 PM

QUOTE (David S)
pro-Marine
pro-America
pro-EU
pro-Euro
anti-neocon
anti-bush
anti-cheney
anti-rumsfield
anti-rove
anti-saddam
anti-osama


add
anti-extremist (any)

And I'm pretty much with you.

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 08:35 PM

QUOTE (Melanie)
And I'm pretty much with you.


Does that include religious, nut-bag? I don't very much care for them, either.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 08:45 PM

QUOTE (Dock Ellis)
Are you saying you disagree with either of these decisions? As both of my grandfathers would have been involved in an invasion of the Japanese home islands, I can only say "give 'em hell, Harry!"


North Korea invaded South Korea and attacked US forces with no warning. You would have folded your tent and gone home?





Be fair, our involvement in Vietnam was started by Eisenhower, Republican. And if you want to credit Tricky Dick (a great president we can all be proud of, right?) with getting us out, why did he wait until his second term?

What exactly is your point?


Never said I disagreed with them. Just making a point that not only Republicans get us involved in wars. As far as your comment about Iraq being a "bullshit war" by a "bullshit president", I do believe you are out of line there. Can we agree that the reason we invaded Iraq was based on the intel that they had WMD's? Probably not, I'm guessing. If we didn't have to wait for the inept UN to get out of the way, they would have been found. Funny that I didn't hear about this over here, but there is an article in the NY Sun about a new book by the former No.2 General in Saddam Hussein's air force. In it he details how Iraqs WMDs were spirited away to (believe it or not!) Syria. Gee, didn't see that coming. All that time the UN was pussy-footing around, the weapons were moved by civilian aircraft. Naturally, they couldn't be moved by truck, the evil US spy satellites would have seen them.
Of course, this information will more than likely be written off as the former General being a puppet and being paid off by the Bush Administration. As I have said before, history once again will show the US being on the right side.

Bye the way, I had an Uncle who was rejected for military service in the states. He then went to Canada and joined up there during WWII.

Posted by: Cyberfluff 23.Feb.2006, 08:45 PM

QUOTE (Windycity)
Benzed is a boner and did anyone know that Botswana Day is the 30th of September? Nope because nobody cares :cry:


There's a Botswana day?

Is that when we liberated them? Or do they still need liberating (read: "McDonalds and Wal*Mart and Brittany Spears")...?

:goes to get those jackboots:

Posted by: Cyberfluff 23.Feb.2006, 08:50 PM

QUOTE (Kang)
*convulses on the floor in laughter*

Oh...and I forgot Geraldo!!!! "We're nearing the vault..."


You know, I have that same convulsive laughter reaction whenever "Geraldo" and "News" are linked... I guess we know where Jerry's gonna get a job when he finishes the talk show circuit.

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 08:58 PM

QUOTE (Melanie)
You know, I have that same convulsive laughter reaction whenever "Geraldo" and "News" are linked... I guess we know where Jerry's gonna get a job when he finishes the talk show circuit.


I think he needs to line up behind Maury Povich, though. And Montel. And any of those other freakshow hosts from daytime television (that includes you...Oprah and the women of The View).

Oh...wow...what a great idea for a show...get Michelle Malkin, mAnn Coutler, James Carville's wife and another right-winger and have a version of The View!!!! They could call it the Betty Bowers Hour of Power!!!!

edit: by "you" I was directing that to the all seeing-all knowing Oprah.

Posted by: FR 23.Feb.2006, 09:00 PM

Do you think Ann Coulter and Mary Matalin would play footsies under the table?

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 09:01 PM

Most def.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 09:25 PM

QUOTE (Melanie)
:oops:
All this time, I've been reading it "proud 2 bus marine" and I was wondering what Marines were being bussed around Sweden...

I can't even blame it on lack of caffeine. I've been thinking this for days.
:oops:


Sorry, didn't realize it would be so confusing. But it probably is happening everyday in countries around the world. When I served in Geneva as an Embassy Guard, we had a dedicated van and two local drivers that took us to work and out on liberty. State Dept. didn't want us driving for both our security and they didn't want us causing any international incidents with accidents and such. Probably a good decision.

Posted by: Cyberfluff 23.Feb.2006, 09:32 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Never said I disagreed with them. Just making a point that not only Republicans get us involved in wars.


Did anyone say that? I missed that comment.

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
As far as your comment about Iraq being a "bullshit war" by a "bullshit president", I do believe you are out of line there. Can we agree that the reason we invaded Iraq was based on the intel that they had WMD's? Probably not, I'm guessing.


I'm with Dock on this one. Did you happen to catch the thread that summarized the logical fallacy of asking someone to prove that something doesn't exist?


QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Of course, this information will more than likely be written off as the former General being a puppet and being paid off by the Bush Administration. As I have said before, history once again will show the US being on the right side.

The winners write the history books. There's never been a conflict that is as cut and dried and black and white as any history book would have you believe. There is a difference of perspective when any conflict is viewed from the point of the troops on the ground compared with the diplomatic and political maneuverings that are responsible for creating the situation.

Your career field makes you a little suspect when it comes to decreeing the "right" of the U.S. The USMC is probably the single most dogmatic branch of the U.S. military when it comes to the "U.S. is right" position. Everything you've said I've heard from other... wait for it... Marines. Nearly verbatim. I understand completely that, especially for career Marines, it really is a lifestyle not just a job. But the fact the you live up close and personal to the propaganda machine does not somehow give you greater insight into what is right or wrong than any other American.


QUOTE (Dock Ellis)
As both of my grandfathers would have been involved in an invasion of the Japanese home islands, I can only say "give 'em hell, Harry!"

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Bye the way, I had an Uncle who was rejected for military service in the states. He then went to Canada and joined up there during WWII.


And my grandfather fought with the Allies in Italy after getting out of a Russian prison camp and ended up living in Canada after the war. See, I got "grandfather" "Canada" and "WWII" in there.

Shall we keep playing?

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 09:39 PM

QUOTE (Melanie)
Did anyone say that? I missed that comment.



I'm with Dock on this one. Did you happen to catch the thread that summarized the logical fallacy of asking someone to prove that something doesn't exist?



The winners write the history books. There's never been a conflict that is as cut and dried and black and white as any history book would have you believe. There is a difference of perspective when any conflict is viewed from the point of the troops on the ground compared with the diplomatic and political maneuverings that are responsible for creating the situation.

Your career field makes you a little suspect when it comes to decreeing the "right" of the U.S. The USMC is probably the single most dogmatic branch of the U.S. military when it comes to the "U.S. is right" position. Everything you've said I've heard from other... wait for it... Marines. Nearly verbatim. I understand completely that, especially for career Marines, it really is a lifestyle not just a job. But the fact the you live up close and personal to the propaganda machine does not somehow give you greater insight into what is right or wrong than any other American.



And my grandfather fought with the Allies in Italy after getting out of a Russian prison camp and ended up living in Canada after the war. See, I got "grandfather" "Canada" and "WWII" in there.

Shall we keep playing? :roll:


Funny. You seem to have quoted everything from that post EXCEPT for the part about the new revelations about the WMDs that were there but were carted away to Syria.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 09:47 PM

Proud2busmarine wrote:
Never said I disagreed with them. Just making a point that not only Republicans get us involved in wars.


Did anyone say that? I missed that comment.

Much like my "tone" according to Berlin, it was implied.

Posted by: Cyberfluff 23.Feb.2006, 10:02 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Funny. You seem to have quoted everything from that post EXCEPT for the part about the new revelations about the WMDs that were there but were carted away to Syria.

-------------------------------------------

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Funny that I didn't hear about this over here, but there is an article in the NY Sun about a new book by the former No.2 General in Saddam Hussein's air force. In it he details how Iraqs WMDs were spirited away to (believe it or not!) Syria.


There's not much to address. It's only useful as leverage on Syria. We can just demand that Syria prove they don't have them and then invade them when they can't show us where they aren't.

There was never any question that Iraq had the weapons at some point... we even know where they came from... the only question was whether they still had them. And, if Syria now has them then Iraq didn't have them any more, eller hur?

So... either we jumped the gun and used bad intelligence and invaded another fvcking country over it or We The People are having smoke blown up our lilly white arses. I've said quite plainly in the last anti-American thread that I would be far more able to support the invasion of Iraq had we not been lied to about it. And the conclusion we are left with after this WMD charade is either our leaders and decision makers are criminally incompetent or they are scheming liars. (Or both.)

Posted by: Ezpen The Caveman 23.Feb.2006, 10:08 PM

I am anti European. I really hate Europe...

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 10:08 PM

QUOTE (Melanie)
There's not much to address. It's only useful as leverage on Syria. We can just demand that Syria prove they don't have them and then invade them when they can't show us where they aren't.

There was never any question that Iraq had the weapons at some point... we even know where they came from... the only question was whether they still had them. And, if Syria now has them then Iraq didn't have them any more, eller hur?

So... either we jumped the gun and used bad intelligence and invaded another fvcking country over it or We The People are having smoke blown up our lilly white arses. I've said quite plainly in the last anti-American thread that I would be far more able to support the invasion of Iraq had we not been lied to about it. And the conclusion we are left with with this WMD charade is either our leaders and decision makers are criminally incompetent or they are scheming liars. (Or both.)


Intelligence said they were there. Even John Kerry and the French believed that. The fact that they were moved on "civilian" aircraft makes it a wee bit difficult to know when they were moved.

And we did uncover WMDs. In Pakistan and Libya.

Posted by: Cyberfluff 23.Feb.2006, 10:09 PM

QUOTE (Espen)
I am anti European. I really hate Europe...


Why, min favorite Norwegian?

Posted by: Cyberfluff 23.Feb.2006, 10:13 PM

QUOTE (Melanie)
So... either we jumped the gun and used bad intelligence and invaded another fvcking country over it or We The People are having smoke blown up our lilly white arses. I've said quite plainly in the last anti-American thread that I would be far more able to support the invasion of Iraq had we not been lied to about it. And the conclusion we are left with with this WMD charade is either our leaders and decision makers are criminally incompetent or they are scheming liars. (Or both.)



QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Intelligence said they were there. Even John Kerry and the French believed that. The fact that they were moved on "civilian" aircraft makes it a wee bit difficult to know when they were moved.

And we did uncover WMDs. In Pakistan and Libya.


A) Why does what John Kerry believed matter?

cool.gif How does this in any way dispute that we invaded a country based on bad intelligence?

C) How do WMDs in Pakistan and Libya justify invading Iraq?

Posted by: Ezpen The Caveman 23.Feb.2006, 10:15 PM

QUOTE (Melanie)
Why, min favorite Norwegian?

I don't like the mentality of the Europeans. Glad I'm not one of them.
I don't like the Union and it seems like we should have let Hitler win WW2.
Thay will rob my culture, language and identity...

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 10:16 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Funny. You seem to have quoted everything from that post EXCEPT for the part about the new revelations about the WMDs that were there but were carted away to Syria.


Funny. And our intel cannot seem to track the WMDs down, either. :roll:

Look...Karl Rove engineered this clusterphuck to win the election in 2004. All of the sheep (oh bloody hell, now I'm sounding like Trowbridge. ha) bought the program lock, stock and barrel because soccer moms became security moms...terrified of the "evil doers." Voila...Bush stays in the White House.

Are you even remotely concerned that Bush even admitted that his so-called intel was crap? Don't you find it a little strange that some sap at the CIA was outed because an Ambassador called Bush on the carpet about it? Are you even remotely tweaked about the no-bid awards to Halliburton?

What about the recent UAE port issue? Are you comfortable with that? Bush (at first) said he saw nothing wrong with the agreement. Then Frist and the rest of the lot start screaming. Lo and behold...the White House recants and says that Bush knew nothing about it. That situation, in and of itself, reminds me a lot of Iran-Contra and Ronald Reagan's platform of ignorance.

Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist but there is something fundamentally wrong wrong wrong with this Administration. It's really sad to see otherwise good people being duped by an Administration whose only goal is self-serving.

Dick Cheney said we would be safer under the Bush Administration. I'm not sure about that. Not when management of our major ports has been handed over (on a friggin' silver platter) to the UAE.

Mission Accomplished - my ass.

Posted by: Alice Is Back 23.Feb.2006, 10:16 PM

QUOTE (Espen)
I don't like the Union and it seems like we should have let Hitler win WW2.


????

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 10:17 PM

QUOTE (Espen)
I am anti European. I really hate Europe...


But, we love you.

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 10:18 PM

QUOTE (Melanie)
...

So... either we jumped the gun and used bad intelligence and invaded another fvcking country over it or We The People are having smoke blown up our lilly white arses. I've said quite plainly in the last anti-American thread that I would be far more able to support the invasion of Iraq had we not been lied to about it. And the conclusion we are left with after this WMD charade is either our leaders and decision makers are criminally incompetent or they are scheming liars. (Or both.)


You go, girlfriend.

*pours a beer for Melanie*

Posted by: Cyberfluff 23.Feb.2006, 10:21 PM

QUOTE (Espen)
I don't like the mentality of the Europeans. Glad I'm not one of them.
I don't like the Union and it seems like we should have let Hitler win WW2.
Thay will rob my culture, language and identity...


Is this about whales? :shock:

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 10:21 PM

QUOTE (Melanie)
-------------------------------------------



There's not much to address. It's only useful as leverage on Syria. We can just demand that Syria prove they don't have them and then invade them when they can't show us where they aren't.

There was never any question that Iraq had the weapons at some point... we even know where they came from... the only question was whether they still had them. And, if Syria now has them then Iraq didn't have them any more, eller hur?

So... either we jumped the gun and used bad intelligence and invaded another fvcking country over it or We The People are having smoke blown up our lilly white arses. I've said quite plainly in the last anti-American thread that I would be far more able to support the invasion of Iraq had we not been lied to about it. And the conclusion we are left with after this WMD charade is either our leaders and decision makers are criminally incompetent or they are scheming liars. (Or both.)


Gotta love that lib catch phrase, "Lied to". If the Pres., hell, if anyone for that matter told me that the sky was purple over Sweden, based on multiple reports from agencies in numerous countries, until I saw it for myself (maybe I'm gullible), I would accept what they were telling me as fact. As did many in the government, not just the administration. The fact that they were moved right under the UN's nose is what amazes me. They couldn't find them, and they didn't have to worry about fighting a war all the while.

Posted by: Beth 23.Feb.2006, 10:22 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
And we did uncover WMDs. In Pakistan


i'm sorry, but i can't help this dig...

was it by the same top class intel? kinda hard not to "uncover" it when pakistan had detonated a test nuclear bomb? --all pakistan forgot to do was take out a billboard in Times Square.

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 10:24 PM

QUOTE (Beth)
i'm sorry, but i can't help this dig...

was it by the same top class intel? kinda hard not to "uncover" it when pakistan had detonated a test nuclear bomb? --all pakistan forgot to do was take out a billboard in Times Square.


Oh, Beth...that was great!

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 10:25 PM

QUOTE (Beth)
i'm sorry, but i can't help this dig...

was it by the same top class intel? kinda hard not to "uncover" it when pakistan had detonated a test nuclear bomb? --all pakistan forgot to do was take out a billboard in Times Square.


Yes genius, the world knew they had nukes, but not biological weapons. And how come you left off the Libya part?

Posted by: Ezpen The Caveman 23.Feb.2006, 10:26 PM

Why should anybody love Europe??
This aweful continent with slavs and germans, tries to become a union. Inside this union they fight like hell, and tries to get most benefits for their own country (state). There is an internal battle for power and money. Soon all the people might speak spanish...

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 10:26 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
...

Gotta love that lib catch phrase, "Lied to". If the Pres., hell, if anyone for that matter told me that the sky was purple over Sweden, based on multiple reports from agencies in numerous countries, until I saw it for myself (maybe I'm gullible), I would accept what they were telling me as fact. As did many in the government, not just the administration. The fact that they were moved right under the UN's nose is what amazes me. They couldn't find them, and they didn't have to worry about fighting a war all the while.


That's right, let's blame Hans Blix.

Leave the poor bastard alone.

Posted by: Beth 23.Feb.2006, 10:27 PM

btw...
i hear that india might have wmd too

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 10:28 PM

Has anyone mentioned North Korea yet? What about Iran?

Plenty of other countries need to be invaded, if rumoured weapons is a solid foundation for war.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 10:32 PM

Please don't tell me that you think it would be OK for Iran to have nukes? As far as North Korea goes, Clinton already helped them out by selling them the technology.

Posted by: Cyberfluff 23.Feb.2006, 10:33 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Gotta love that lib catch phrase, "Lied to". If the Pres., hell, if anyone for that matter told me that the sky was purple over Sweden, based on multiple reports from agencies in numerous countries, until I saw it for myself (maybe I'm gullible), I would accept what they were telling me as fact. As did many in the government, not just the administration. The fact that they were moved right under the UN's nose is what amazes me. They couldn't find them, and they didn't have to worry about fighting a war all the while.


Being liars is not the province of the neocons. It's an inherent flaw in a system where you can make a career out of being a politician, but are reliant on public approval to maintain your seat. Lying, pandering, and bribes are all part of the package. Saying that our current administration consists of a bunch of big fat liars in no way implies that any other politicians are more honest.

The fact that you trust your government to tell you the truth is charming and almost Swedish in it's naivety. It's also flawed in a system seething with special interest groups, back scratching, perks from lobbyists, and the like. I will also remind you that the people that drafted the original documents that shape our government considered it the duty of Americans to watch and question their government.

And, just so I'm not accused of avoiding the topic... now it's the fault of the UN that we invaded Iraq based on bad intelligence because they couldn't find what Iraq said it didn't have and we still haven't found, only to find out that it's in Syria? And how does this justify invading Iraq again?

Posted by: Beth 23.Feb.2006, 10:36 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Yes genius, the world knew they had nukes, but not biological weapons. And how come you left off the Libya part?


it was implied

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 10:38 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Please don't tell me that you think it would be OK for Iran to have nukes? As far as North Korea goes, Clinton already helped them out by selling them the technology.


Here we go, folks!

Yes Clinton was a (Mary Cheney style), "bad man. A very, bad man." It's all slick Willie's fault. Let's burn him at the stake, shall we?

Again, fair Marine...How do you feel about the UAE managing our ports??? I keep hearing crickets when I should be hearing an answer to my question. It's more than valid.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 10:40 PM

QUOTE (Melanie)
Being liars is not the province of the neocons. It's an inherent flaw in a system where you can make a career out of being a politician, but are reliant on public approval to maintain your seat. Lying, pandering, and bribes are all part of the package. Saying that our current administration consists of a bunch of big fat liars in no way implies that any other politicians are more honest.

The fact that you trust your government to tell you the truth is charming and almost Swedish in it's naivety. It's also flawed in a system seething with special interest groups, back scratching, perks from lobbyists, and the like. I will also remind you that the people that drafted the original documents that shape our government considered it the duty of Americans to watch and question their government.

And, just so I'm not accused of avoiding the topic... now it's the fault of the UN that we invaded Iraq based on bad intelligence because they couldn't find what Iraq said it didn't have and we still haven't found, only to find out that it's in Syria? And how does this justify invading Iraq again?


If you don't get it by now, you aren't gonna get it. And please don't miss-quote me. At no point did I say it was the UN's fault, I'm just amazed they couldn't find them. Maybe the Iraqis were being a little deceitful, huh? Can't imagine a guy who gasses his own people would do that.

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 10:42 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Please don't tell me that you think it would be OK for Iran to have nukes? As far as North Korea goes, Clinton already helped them out by selling them the technology.


Are you going to bitch-slap Reagan for giving guns to the Afghanis to fight the Russians? You need consistency in your arguments.

Posted by: Nico aka the boy wonder 23.Feb.2006, 10:43 PM

QUOTE (Beth)
btw...
i hear that india might have wmd too


I think i heard somewere that U.S have wmd too.. i wonder when Sweden is going to invade and liberate the american people from that horrible Bush guy and find and destroy the wmd wink.gif

Ok i admit it.. sweden meaby wasn´t the best example. laugh.gif

Posted by: FR 23.Feb.2006, 10:43 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
If you don't get it by now, you aren't gonna get it. And please don't miss-quote me. At no point did I say it was the UN's fault, I'm just amazed they couldn't find them. Maybe the Iraqis were being a little deceitful, huh? Can't imagine a guy who gasses his own people would do that.


As the US attack on Iraq was pre-meditated, why didn't they know the WMD weren't there anymore? Or did they leave under US watch? Or is this Syria thing just another ruse by the Bush admin? If you're amazed the UN couldn't find the WMD, then you should be downright shocked that the US couldn't.

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 10:44 PM

QUOTE (Nico)
I think i heard somewere that U.S have wmd too.. i wonder when Sweden is going to invade and liberate the american people from that horrible Bush guy and find and destroy the wmd wink.gif

Ok i admit it.. sweden meaby wasn´t the best example. laugh.gif


Nico...

Who cares if it wasn't the best example. You made an excellent point.

Please come liberate me from the NeoCon oppression!!! Or at least help me get a PUT so I can move.

/Kang

Posted by: Alice Is Back 23.Feb.2006, 10:44 PM

what nico, did you see that, americans being very extemely critical of their own government, ISN'T THAT THE BIGGEST SURPRIZE YOU HAVE SEEN TODAY?? :twisted: :twisted:

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 10:50 PM

QUOTE (Kang)
Here we go, folks!

Yes Clinton was a (Mary Cheney style), "bad man. A very, bad man." It's all slick Willie's fault. Let's burn him at the stake, shall we?


Again, fair Marine...How do you feel about the UAE managing our ports??? I keep hearing crickets when I should be hearing an answer to my question. It's more than valid.


Not that I'm obligated to answer, but no, on one hand I don't really like it. On the other hand, it's a private company from the UAE, not the government. The US is about free enterprise, isn't it? The US isn't going to give up the practice of inspecting containers by the Dept of Homeland Security to my knowledge. As long as they keep the same workers and don't bring in Achmed and Muhammad from the desert to run things, it's hard to say no. Do I get the willies otherwise? Yes.

Posted by: Beth 23.Feb.2006, 10:51 PM

QUOTE (FR)
As the US attack on Iraq was pre-meditated, why didn't they know the WMD weren't there anymore?


because they left on Air Iraq Flight 666 -- civilian flight. intel can't crack their shields.

Posted by: FR 23.Feb.2006, 10:52 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Not that I'm obligated to answer, but no, on one hand I don't really like it. On the other hand, it's a private company from the UAE, not the government. The US is about free enterprise, isn't it? The US isn't going to give up the practice of inspecting containers by the Dept of Homeland Security to my knowledge. As long as they keep the same workers and don't bring in Achmed and Muhammad from the desert to run things, it's hard to say no. Do I get the willies otherwise? Yes.


But is the UAE into free enterprise? How involved is the govt in "private" business there?

Posted by: Cyberfluff 23.Feb.2006, 10:55 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
If you don't get it by now, you aren't gonna get it. And please don't miss-quote me. At no point did I say it was the UN's fault, I'm just amazed they couldn't find them. Maybe the Iraqis were being a little deceitful, huh? Can't imagine a guy who gasses his own people would do that.


I didn't misquote you, your quote is contained in it's pure, untouched, virgin entirety. I asked a question. (The implication in your post seems to have been that had the UN found the WMDs in Iraq, we wouldn't have had to invade. For Great Justice, of course. I asked for clarification.)

Why are you amazed the UN couldn't find WMDs in Iraq, given the new information that they were moved to Syria?

(Don't try the humanitarian thing. It's irrelevant in this discussion. That's not why we claimed we were invading Iraq.)

Posted by: FR 23.Feb.2006, 10:56 PM

The UAE is also a transfer shipment point for Asian illicit drug exports. Good place for money laundering too.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 10:56 PM

QUOTE (Nico)
I think i heard somewere that U.S have wmd too.. i wonder when Sweden is going to invade and liberate the american people from that horrible Bush guy and find and destroy the wmd wink.gif

Ok i admit it.. sweden meaby wasn´t the best example. laugh.gif


Sweden and what army?

Posted by: FR 23.Feb.2006, 10:57 PM

QUOTE (Beth)
because they left on Air Iraq Flight 666 -- civilian flight. intel can't crack their shields.


Dressed them in jeans and baseball caps?

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 10:58 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Not that I'm obligated to answer, but no, on one hand I don't really like it. On the other hand, it's a private company from the UAE, not the government. The US is about free enterprise, isn't it? The US isn't going to give up the practice of inspecting containers by the Dept of Homeland Security to my knowledge. As long as they keep the same workers and don't bring in Achmed and Muhammad from the desert to run things, it's hard to say no. Do I get the willies otherwise? Yes.


Good. Now that we have established that you find it unsavory...is it not a smack in the face to your service and dedication to this country? The Bush Administration is putting profiteering ahead of security. Just like they did with no-bid contracts with Halliburton and subsidiaries thereof.

I have heard the argument for free enterprise and quite frankly, it holds no water with me what-so-ever. The United States has absolutely no issues with embargos. Businesses cannot ship dual-purpose goods to the certain parts Middle East or China (including - of all things - sewer rooters). Not to mention the lack of decent cigars in this country because Cuba is only good enough for us to use as a prison camp. This Administration is wont to line their own pockets before anything else.

And to your comment about Achmed, Apu and whoever else...John Walker Lindh looks just like you, me and every other American.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 23.Feb.2006, 10:59 PM

QUOTE (Beth)
because they left on Air Iraq Flight 666 -- civilian flight. intel can't crack their shields.


You ladies are soooo funny! You gals crack me up, I can't stand it anymore!

Posted by: Wolfie 23.Feb.2006, 11:01 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
You ladies are soooo funny! You gals crack me up, I can't stand it anymore!

Who let Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in here?

Posted by: Nico aka the boy wonder 23.Feb.2006, 11:12 PM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
what nico, did you see that, americans being very extemely critical of their own government, ISN'T THAT THE BIGGEST SURPRIZE YOU HAVE SEEN TODAY?? :twisted: :twisted:


No, not really.. after all, the Americans have a long long tradition of being critical of goverments in general. They liberated themself from the britts and i guess have been suspicius of athority ever since. Look, i know we had our fights but i seriously feel i was being missunderstood by you guys. I never really implied that ALL Americans was supportive of the bush admin. But when it got down to usage of words and how many votet for him i held to that 51% is still a MAJORITY. You feelt i was ignoring the ones who didn´t and all i said was that the american peole (the majority= 51%) did.

Nevermind.. i have left that behind me now.

Posted by: Dock Hussein Ellis 23.Feb.2006, 11:15 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Never said I disagreed with them. Just making a point that not only Republicans get us involved in wars.


OK, fair enough. In the same spirit, let's look at your list another way-

WWII- US attacked by Japan, Germany declared war on US.
Korea- US forces attacked by N. Korea.
Vietnam- US gets involved in (essentially) Vietnamese civil war. First US advisors sent by Eisenhower, Republican
Gulf War- Regardless if you supported US involvement in this action or not, Iraq never attacked or declared war on the US, conflict initiated by Bush 41, Republican
Afghanistan- Taliban government supports al-Qaida, who attacked US on 9/11, so in effect Afghanistan attacked the US.
Iraq- (see "Gulf War"), Bush 43, Republican

So... Democrats never initiated US involvement in any of these conflicts, whereas Republicans started three of them. Conclusion? Democrats don't start wars, Republicans do.

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
As far as your comment about Iraq being a "bullshit war" by a "bullshit president", I do believe you are out of line there.


That's certainly your right, but I stand by both statements. In fact, I'm of the opinion that GB43 will go down in history as one of the 5 worst American presidents ever.

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Can we agree that the reason we invaded Iraq was based on the intel that they had WMD's? Probably not, I'm guessing.


That was the reason the neocons sold us on, anyway. Don't forget though, LBJ (a Democrat, I know) ramped up involvement in Vietnam based on the "Gulf Of Tonkin Incident", which, uh, never happened.

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
If we didn't have to wait for the inept UN to get out of the way, they would have been found.


You know this for a fact? What's your source?

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Funny that I didn't hear about this over here, but there is an article in the NY Sun about a new book by the former No.2 General in Saddam Hussein's air force. In it he details how Iraqs WMDs were spirited away to (believe it or not!) Syria. Gee, didn't see that coming. All that time the UN was --footing around, the weapons were moved by civilian aircraft. Naturally, they couldn't be moved by truck, the evil US spy satellites would have seen them.


I won't argue you about the UN being nothing but bumbling idiots, and there may very well have been WMD in Iraq- we know they had Sarin in 1990, after all (just ask the Kurds, who GB 41 cut and ran on), I can even see those weapons being spirited to Syria. What we actually know though, is that Bush had decided to invade Iraq regardless if they had WMDs or not, and those decisions were made before 9/11- in fact before he was even president. WMDs had nothing to do with why the US invaded Iraq.

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Of course, this information will more than likely be written off as the former General being a puppet and being paid off by the Bush Administration.


Well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... you know, when left-wingers come up with this kind of crap, the neocon pundits jump all over them. I'll just say "we'll see".

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
As I have said before, history once again will show the US being on the right side.


You mean like Vietnam?

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Bye the way, I had an Uncle who was rejected for military service in the states. He then went to Canada and joined up there during WWII.


You have every right to be proud of a man like that- and to be glad his war wasn't about some made-up bullshit in the interests of big oil.

Posted by: Kodos 23.Feb.2006, 11:15 PM

QUOTE (Nico)
No, not really.. after all, the Americans have a long long tradition of being critical of goverments in general. They liberated themself from the britts and i guess have been suspicius of athority ever since. Look, i know we had our fights but i seriously feel i was being missunderstood by you guys. I never really implied that ALL Americans was supportive of the bush admin. But when it got down to usage of words and how many votet for him i held to that 51% is still a MAJORITY. You feelt i was ignoring the ones who didn´t and all i said was that the american peole (the majority= 51%) did.

Nevermind.. i have left that behind me now.


According to Bush...51% is a mandate. Political capital, I believe is the term he used.

Posted by: Nico aka the boy wonder 23.Feb.2006, 11:18 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Sweden and what army?


We have a secret army of gnomes hidden in the great northen woods.. Really scary indeed. But i think its agianst the geneva convetion to use them because they are evile little bastards.

Posted by: Alice Is Back 23.Feb.2006, 11:19 PM

so nico we can smoke the peace pipe now

[img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/smoking/rauch04.gif[/img]

I hope you are not offended anyway by the smiley it was the best one I could find

Posted by: Dock Hussein Ellis 23.Feb.2006, 11:22 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
As far as North Korea goes, Clinton already helped them out by selling them the technology.


Ah, he figured it was OK after Regan paid to arm and train Osama Bin Laden and the rest of the furture al Qaida.

Posted by: Dock Hussein Ellis 23.Feb.2006, 11:26 PM

QUOTE (Melanie)
And my grandfather fought with the Allies in Italy after getting out of a Russian prison camp and ended up living in Canada after the war. See, I got "grandfather" "Canada" and "WWII" in there.

Shall we keep playing?


Damn girl, you schooled me!

I only mentioned my grandfathers as a way of talking about Truman dropping The Bomb on Japan- not going for "cred by association", sorry if I didn't make that clear...

Posted by: Nico aka the boy wonder 23.Feb.2006, 11:27 PM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
so nico we can smoke the peace pipe now

[img]http://www.websmileys.com/sm/smoking/rauch04.gif[/img]

I hope you are not offended anyway by the smiley it was the best one I could find


Pass me that joint man laugh.gif

Posted by: Brah 24.Feb.2006, 12:27 AM

I haven't read past page two but can imagine what will ensue...and apologize if everyone has hugged and kissed and made up...


Here is my take, and should be finality to the whole conversation...(haha)

First, it seems like people were ganging up on the Marine..There is NO reason for this at all...You associate his being a Marine...(seems like Kang and Viking witch or whatever the name is) with America and it's government as a whole...THIS is the problem in general..aka stereotyping 300 million people...I respect him for his role, and just becasue he is a Marine doesn't mean he agrees with all American Policies..Hex for all I know he could have joined to get great training, and use the skills in the private sector..so many reasons, and no need to get into all that. In terms of Rumsfield and any high ranking politician from any country who has to make statements etc, it is hard to judge these folks as you have done, as A., you HAVE NO IDEA the pressure these guys are under, and generally are just messengers of the information, and regardless of what they say, someone will be unhappy. I think we can mostly be thankful that WE don't have to make the types of decisions they do...Please don't take this personally, but many of you seem to gripe about this and that, and your not even working(Thisis a weak argument as everyone is entitled to their opinion, but hopw you see my point)..contributing not much to society as this point..AND NO OFFENSE, as I have been unemployed, and know how hard it is to get a job in SWEDEN...
I am not saying I ultimately agree with them,(People like Rumsfeld or other's in positions of power) but, I am also saying no need to automatically TRASH them which so many people do on this forum as opposed to a healthy debate...but the fact remains...We have NO IDEA of the information that they know, and hence can't make such bold statements based on JUST THAT REASON...I can't stress the importance of this...How many times ahve you been so sure you were right in an argument only to learn some information that revals how truly wrong you were...I think this would happen more often than not, if we had access to the information they do...
Not to sound like Jack Nicholson, in that Tom Cruise movie...but soemtimes I think we should be thankful as we sleep peacefully at night while these decisions get made for us...
Perhaps I am a bit tired of Good ol USA getting slammed in every which way...I agree some poor decisions may have been made, but we also have done so much good, and protect, and I mean TRULY protect so many others at our own expense...The end and good night...
Hope this helps Porud Marine

Ciao
Matt
P.S. Probably a bunch of typos, but I don't care.

Posted by: Cyberfluff 24.Feb.2006, 12:36 AM

QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
... did you see that, americans being very extemely critical of their own government,


Here's an interesting thought...

Americans argue incessently over their government and issues. There's a whole gamut of issues that people are concerned with. Europe really only sees foreign policy and the things that make news like the Patriot act, DMCA issues, and civil rights topics. (Which makes sense, I have no idea about local politics in Vienna, for instance.) Things that get discussed here, as divisive as it might appear, are only the tip of the iceberg. There's a whole spectrum of issues ranging from education to military base closings to highway and transportation issues to sales tax to... well... everything.

I don't think that criticism of government is a bad thing at all. I don't think defending it against criticism is either, because unless you are just spouting party lines back and forth, you have to consider the other viewpoint. The thing that I think is most interesting is that this thread is Americans arguing their own politics with each other, while the other was arguing an American position. I think it's fascinating to see the differences with the same people discussing the topic on a different angle.

So what do the Europeans, who've been really quiet, think about the difference between the last thread and this one?

Posted by: Cyberfluff 24.Feb.2006, 12:48 AM

QUOTE (Matthew Antine)
First, it seems like people were ganging up on the Marine..There is NO reason for this at all...You associate his being a Marine...(seems like Kang and Viking witch or whatever the name is) with America and it's government as a whole...THIS is the problem in general..aka stereotyping 300 million people...I respect him for his role, and just becasue he is a Marine doesn't mean he agrees with all American Policies..


I don't have a problem with Marines. Some of my favorite people are or have been Marines. (Yeah, I know already, once a Marine...) And I apologize if it seems like any of my statements have been intended as personal attacks. However (and you knew this was coming) his choice of profession does not in any way make his viewpoint on a topic into a sacred cow. He's willing to present it and to defend it despite the fact that it's unpopular. That's cool. But it's not a get out of jail free card, either. Some posts I skimmed, so I apologize in advance if I missed it, but I didn't see any personal attacks directed at p2busm - what I see are discussion of a specific position that he chose to take. The fact that the majority of people posting on the topic hold a very different one and feel strongly about it naturally generates a large number of posts with an opposing opinion.

Posted by: Brah 24.Feb.2006, 04:14 PM

There were personal attacks...I think from Kang perhaps...but who cares...
The bottom line is this...My opinion is what matters, and I am smarter than the rest!

HAHAHAHAAAAAA :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Posted by: Kodos 24.Feb.2006, 04:24 PM

No personal attacks, sorry. You're going to have to find another vehicle to deride me.

The fact of the matter is that the Marine and I are polar opposites. I do not agree with the war in Iraq or 90% of the Bush Administration's actions. This should not come as a suprise to anyone because I have only said it a gogillion times on this forum.

The Marine has served his country proudly. I feel badly that he had to do so at the hands of money-grubbing profiteers.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 24.Feb.2006, 04:48 PM

Don't feel sorry for me. Truth be told, the majority of my service was under the Greatest President the free world has ever known, Ronald Reagan.

I didn't know the Pres.was making money off the war in Iraq? I guess it's all that oil he's stealing and turning around for a huge profit off the American people. Oh wait, that was the UN who was involved in the oil for food scam, right?

Posted by: Kodos 24.Feb.2006, 04:55 PM

Halliburton. Dick Cheney.

So...not Bush (directly). But Cheney was involved with Halliburton for years. And...Halliburton was awarded no-bid contracts. That flies directly in the face of government procurement policies and procedures.

Posted by: Kodos 24.Feb.2006, 04:55 PM

By the way...

I really did like Ronald Reagan. I was so distraught, the day he left office, I stayed home from school.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 24.Feb.2006, 05:03 PM

QUOTE (Kang)
Halliburton. Dick Cheney.

So...not Bush (directly). But Cheney was involved with Halliburton for years. And...Halliburton was awarded no-bid contracts. That flies directly in the face of government procurement policies and procedures.


Relationship to Halliburton as Vice President
Cheney resigned as CEO of Halliburton on July 25, 2000, and put all of his corporate shares into a blind trust, except 433,333 stock options worth about $8 million which are referenced in a Gift Trust Agreement pursuant to which an Administrative Agent has the right to exercise those options and distribute the proceeds from the sale of the resulting stock to certain charitable organizations. As part of his deferred compensation agreements with Halliburton contractually arranged prior to Cheney becoming Vice President, Cheney's public financial disclosure sheets filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics showed he received $162,392 in 2002 and $205,298 in 2001. Upon his nomination as a Vice Presidential candidate, Cheney purchased an insurance policy that would guarantee his deferred payments regardless of the company's performance, removing any conflict of interest. Cheney's net worth, estimated to be between $30 million and $100 million, is largely derived from his post at Halliburton. In the rebuilding of Iraq, Halliburton was granted a $7 billion no-bid contract, the execution of which received much scrutiny by U.S. Government auditors along with the media and various political opponents who also scrutinized the awarding of the contract, claiming that it represented a conflict of interest for Mr. Cheney. In June 2004, the General Accounting Office reviewed the contracting procedures [20] and found Halliburton's no-bid contracts were legal and likely justified by the Pentagon's wartime needs.

An old, tired argument. So unless you have something new, I think we can both drop this subject. Thanks.

Posted by: Kodos 24.Feb.2006, 07:26 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
An old, tired argument. So unless you have something new, I think we can both drop this subject. Thanks.


Agreed.

For what it's worth...thank you for your service to our country. I really do appreciate it.

Posted by: Dogge 24.Feb.2006, 09:22 PM

QUOTE (Benzed)
Anti American.

Almost lost the hate when I spent 5 months there

Something is screaming inferiority complex at me.

Or perhaps it is just possible you hate people who are born within the borders of the US.

Posted by: Alice Is Back 24.Feb.2006, 09:32 PM

QUOTE (Dogge)
Man. I think you have a massive inferiority complex.

Or maybe you do just hate people who are born within the borders of the US.


well he likes to make big generalizations and is not known to keep away from prejudices

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 24.Feb.2006, 09:37 PM

QUOTE (Kang)
Agreed.

For what it's worth...thank you for your service to our country. I really do appreciate it.


You're welcome, not a problem.

Posted by: Kodos 24.Feb.2006, 09:42 PM

*hands the Marine some bilar as a peace offering*

Posted by: Dock Hussein Ellis 25.Feb.2006, 05:27 AM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Not that I'm obligated to answer, but no, on one hand I don't really like it. On the other hand, it's a private company from the UAE, not the government. The US is about free enterprise, isn't it?

No, the company is owned by the government of the UAE. What this proves is that the neocons put greed ahead of all else- including national security.

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
The US isn't going to give up the practice of inspecting containers by the Dept of Homeland Security to my knowledge. As long as they keep the same workers and don't bring in Achmed and Muhammad from the desert to run things, it's hard to say no. Do I get the willies otherwise? Yes.


Do you think this purchase might make it a lot easier to infiltrate sleeper agents into the ports to provide surveilence and intel for attacks, kind of like the guys who did the scouting and provided the support network for the 9/11 attackers?

Posted by: Dock Hussein Ellis 25.Feb.2006, 05:48 AM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
the Greatest President the free world has ever known, Ronald Reagan.


(spits beer out of nose) You're joking, right? The man who declared ketchup a vegetable? The man who plunged the country into a recession through the idiocy of "trickle down economics" (read:the rich get richer, the poor can piss right off)? The man who created Osama Bin Laden? The man who funded Saddam Hussein? The man who was responsible for Iran Contra? The man who said "facts are stupid things"? Reagan was a genius compared to GB43, but come on- Abraham Lincoln (a Republican!) he was not.

Just for grins, what time frame do you use to define "the free world"? Personally, I don't think any US president since Truman has been worth a damn.

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
I didn't know the Pres.was making money off the war in Iraq?

You need to understand the difference between "rich" and "wealthy"- as Chris Rock described it, Shaq is rich. The guy who signs his check is wealthy. The point is that wealthy people can look at money in the long term- 20, 30 years down the road. Like, after Iraq has a nice, stable puppet government and spreads "democracy" in the middle east. Unless the opposite happens and we create an industrialized terror state, and I'm sure Halliburton has a plan for making money off that, too.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 25.Feb.2006, 11:41 AM

QUOTE (Dock Ellis)
No, the company is owned by the government of the UAE. What this proves is that the neocons put greed ahead of all else- including national security.



Do you think this purchase might make it a lot easier to infiltrate sleeper agents into the ports to provide surveilence and intel for attacks, kind of like the guys who did the scouting and provided the support network for the 9/11 attackers?


My understanding is that it is a British company that is selling it's control to a UAE based company. Other than the government collecting tax revenue, exactly how are the "neo-cons" making any money?

As far as making it easier to bring in "sleeper agents", no I don't believe so. If anything, I would think that the intelligence community would watch these ports and the company even closer. Besides, if you want to come into the country, just come up through Mexico, as I'm sure many "sleepers" already have.

Posted by: Proud2busmarine 25.Feb.2006, 11:48 AM

QUOTE (Dock Ellis)
(spits beer out of nose) You're joking, right? The man who declared ketchup a vegetable? The man who plunged the country into a recession through the idiocy of "trickle down economics" (read:the rich get richer, the poor can piss right off)? The man who created Osama Bin Laden? The man who funded Saddam Hussein? The man who was responsible for Iran Contra? The man who said "facts are stupid things"? Reagan was a genius compared to GB43, but come on- Abraham Lincoln (a Republican!) he was not.

Just for grins, what time frame do you use to define "the free world"? Personally, I don't think any US president since Truman has been worth a damn.



You need to understand the difference between "rich" and "wealthy"- as Chris Rock described it, Shaq is rich. The guy who signs his check is wealthy. The point is that wealthy people can look at money in the long term- 20, 30 years down the road. Like, after Iraq has a nice, stable puppet government and spreads "democracy" in the middle east. Unless the opposite happens and we create an industrialized terror state, and I'm sure Halliburton has a plan for making money off that, too.


Maybe you sould put that beer down and stop basing your philosophy on a comedian.

Posted by: Franko 25.Feb.2006, 11:50 AM

It's not only Americans who are unhappy abouut the sale of P&O
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Happy ending to P&O story has bittersweet plot twist for some fans of historic saga
As the next chapter for a famous company promises a windfall to shareholders, some feel its passing into foreign hands is a sad day for UK shipping, writes Janet Porter
Wednesday February 15 2006

TWO decades ago, Jeffrey Sterling emerged victorious from a hard-fought battle with arch rival Nigel Broackes of Trafalgar House for control of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

That wrestle for one of the most famous names in shipping transfixed Britain?s business leaders and was a defining moment for the country?s maritime industry as P&O went on to develop into a truly global brand.

So it was fitting that Lord Sterling (below) was present for the final chapter of the era he had shaped as an even more epic struggle for ownership of P&O eventually came to an end on Monday afternoon.

Maritime historians may never put the Battle of Wembley in the same league as the Battle of Trafalgar, but the outcome will nevertheless reverberate in the UK and further afield for decades to come.

London?s position as one of the world?s premier maritime hubs was thrown into question in a shabby corner of northwest London when shareholders gave their overwhelming consent for a takeover bid from a foreign buyer.

For the first time, the capital does not have a UK-owned global shipping company at the heart of its maritime community, and opinion is divided about how much this may matter as competitors around the world aim to provide the same sort of maritime services offered by London-based shipbrokers, bankers lawyers, insurers, surveyors and other professions.

Globalisation is hitting every sector of the shipping industry, and this time round it was not a domestic contest between a pair of homegrown entrepreneurs for P&O, but a head-to-head confrontation between two rich and powerful city states both determined to punch way above their weight.

For the past three months, the future of P&O has been the main topic of conversation not just in shipping circles but the broader business world as stock market analysts, fund managers and institutional investors rapidly revised their opinions of just how much ports are worth. For what is being paid for P&O, whose principal assets are terminals and ferries, is truly phenomenal.

The drama began when Dubai?s restructured DP World first made an approach to P&O in late November, with an offer of 443 pence a share that valued the group at £3.3bn ($5.6bn). The bid price compared with a low point at one stage last year of 263 pence.

Dubai?s move raised the immediate spectre of a counter-bid, with the names of most of the industry majors being tossed around. In the end, it was Singapore?s PSA Corp that stepped in with a higher offer of 470 pence per share.

Few were surprised when DP World trumped PSA with an offer of 520 pence ? neither were many eyebrows raised when PSA decided enough was enough and backed out late last week.

By that time the numbers on the table were so incredible that P&O had seen its value rise by £1.6bn in the space of a few weeks from the level at which shares were changing hands before the bidding war erupted.

When Lord Sterling first took charge of P&O in the mid-1980s, ports barely featured in the company?s thinking. At that stage, it operated cruise and cargo ships, ran ferry services, and had a large property portfolio. Its terminals division was managed from Australia and largely left to its own devices.

Over the following decade, P&O concentrated on expanding its passenger and container shipping activities, and developing land transport and logistics services. Ports were still something of a backwater as far as head office was concerned. But as P&O?s collection of business interests grew, so the City became increasingly convinced that the sum of the parts was worth more than the whole, and started to press for the release of shareholder value through asset sales.

The de-merger of the cruise division was the start of a process that has continued to this day. Some, including a fair number of loyal shareholders, still feel very bitter about what they see as the break-up of a great company by the moneymen. There are those within P&O who would agree, but not everyone blames the financial markets for what has happened over the past decade. Quite the reverse, according to one line of thinking. P&O as a worldclass shipping conglomerate could have been saved if management had acted differently, critics argue. The City could have been won round if the board had managed to exploit the synergies between its various business divisions, claim opponents of the sell-off policy.

Ironically, the day that shareholders accepted the DP World offer that will transfer P&O?s ownership out of the UK for the first time in its history was the very same day that the P&O name vanished from the liner shipping trades after 170 years as one of the industry leaders.

AP Moller-Maersk?s acquisition of P&O Nedlloyd last year was followed by a six month phase-in that was completed at the weekend. Although the Nedlloyd name may continue to be used for some activities, Maersk did not acquire the rights to the P&O name and has now absorbed the former Anglo-Dutch container line into re-branded Maersk Line.

DP World will continue to use the P&O name, and in many ways, much will remain the same. Having only finally known for sure last Friday that he had won one of the most high-stake takeover battles in the history of corporate shipping, Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem (above) has yet to decide on the details of how DP World and P&O will be consolidated.

But the two sides began talking on Monday morning ahead of the shareholder meeting, and the first details should be announced very soon, he told Lloyd?s List. P&O?s chief executive Robert Woods will stay on to help with the integration process.

But no matter what the size of their windfall, many individual shareholders - mostly elderly - feel terribly let down by the board and dreadfully sorry that P&O will no longer be in UK hands. They were clearly not in it for the money.

P&O chairman Sir John Parker tried to explain that P&O was already operating in the global economy, with terminals in 19 countries and the UK accounting for only 4% of profits from port activities.

?P&O should not be on the bandwagon of protectionism,? Sir John told shareholders in response to pleas for the government to intervene and stop the company from being sold overseas.

Lord Sterling, while admitting to mixed feelings about the sale, also explained to unhappy shareholders that, although headquartered in London, P&O was a global business.

But their words did little to placate shareholder dissidents led by Capt David Hawker, well known to successive P&O boards over the years.

?As an Irishman, I am astounded by the lack of patriotism in Britain,? he thundered to rounds of applause from the couple of hundred shareholders who had made their way to the Wembley Conference Centre.

He accused the City of ?failing to learn the lessons of history? and reminded his audience that ?seafarers built the British Empire?.

If foreigners were prepared to pay so much for P&O, ?then it must be a good company worth hanging on to,? he continued.

Such views are also widespread within P&O, with Lloyd?s List receiving a large number of letters from employees around the world deeply distressed about how the company has been stripped of many of its corporate jewels over the years and finally sold off to the highest bidder.

But despite such misgivings, the outcome of the shareholder vote was never in the slightest doubt, with more than 99% accepting the offer and the takeover now scheduled to be completed within a month.

In the end, the deciding vote on the future of one of the great names of British shipping was something of an anti-climax, with a succession of meeting culminating in the EGM all over within three hours.

This is not the end of P&O. The name and the business will live on, albeit under different owners.

But for many loyal and patriotic shareholders who have held P&O stock for many years and for a variety of reasons not connected with making a fast profit, February 13, 2006 was a day of sadness and regret.

Posted by: Dock Hussein Ellis 25.Feb.2006, 03:26 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
My understanding is that it is a British company that is selling it's control to a UAE based company.


You understand it wrong. DP World is OWNED by the government of the UAE. This is all over the news, try and keep up.

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Other than the government collecting tax revenue, exactly how are the "neo-cons" making any money?


The UAE is an oil producing nation. The Bush family fortune is made how (besides doing business with the Nazis in WWII)?

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
As far as making it easier to bring in "sleeper agents", no I don't believe so. If anything, I would think that the intelligence community would watch these ports and the company even closer. Besides, if you want to come into the country, just come up through Mexico, as I'm sure many "sleepers" already have.


Yes, it is very easy to sneak into the US from Mexico. Much harder though, is to get a job at a company which oversees operations at 21 American ports- a perfect vantage point for collecting intel on the port system's security. As for the intelligence community, they knew Mohamad Atta was an al-Qaeda operative, yet he was able to carry out his attack anyway.

Posted by: Dock Hussein Ellis 25.Feb.2006, 03:28 PM

QUOTE (Proud2busmarine)
Maybe you sould put that beer down and stop basing your philosophy on a comedian.


Hmm, your entire criticism of my post is that I quoted a comedian. Running low on ammo, marine?

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)