American Juve (15 Viewers)

[Zlatan]

No, you went to this war beacause Blair wanted to kiss up to Bush. I fact, he's kissed Bush's ass so many times he's begun to wear it out. Our poor Bush's gonna need an ass transplant. But it's ok, thgey can use any part of him for the transplant, he's a complete ass.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Tom]

++ [ originally posted by River ] ++Yeah for this war people like to think Britian are just Americas puppy dog. But thats rubbish, we went to this war because its our ass as much as Americas. Britian made the decision to help noone else.

What do you mean its our ass as much as America's? Just because they want to stick their noses into what was clearly a UN issue, we had no reason to follow, and to risk the lives of our armed forces. Blair is just too much of a wimp to every admit that Bush hasn't a clue what he's doing, and will just blindly follow to make sure we're in America's good books.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

++ [ originally posted by River ] ++


Yeah for this war people like to think Britian are just Americas puppy dog. But thats rubbish, we went to this war because its our ass as much as Americas. Britian made the decision to help noone else.

canadians used to have that role

 

[River]

++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
No, you went to this war beacause Blair wanted to kiss up to Bush. I fact, he's kissed Bush's ass so many times he's begun to wear it out. Our poor Bush's gonna need an ass transplant. But it's ok, thgey can use any part of him for the transplant, he's a complete ass.

Blair wanted to kiss up to Bush? Thats just a load of media shit that the dumb ass protestors use. Most of the british population wanted to go to war with Iraq. We would be very stupid to think London wont get attacked. War on Iraq was mostly wanted.

War on Iraq from Britians point of view was for 2 reasons:

1) To fight a world wide problem that most nations seem content to leave to that hands of the UN who lets face it are a complete waste of space (negotiating with Saddam would never have worked. Thats like making a deal with the devil for christ sake.)

2) To save our own ass. Unlike the rest of Europe we arent prepared to wait around until our capital is blown up.

Saddam is gone, Iraq is free and in time will be thankful. Blair has been cleared of any wrong doing and he is going to win the next election again. Most of Britian still believe we made the right choice.

And those stupid hippie protestors who dont (ive met alot of these people while organising them, and talked to people protesting on the street with flyers etc, most of them are stupid jobless idiots who have nothing better to do and think they will make a difference, they want to be part of something big, most dont really give a shit about Iraq.), they will look stupid when London needs bodybags, which lets face it sooner or later its gonna happen.

Yes we couldnt have done it alone. And yes we did help America like they have helped us in the past. As the second most powerful military Britian also have a duty to help out.

Like I said its easy to sit comfortably in Sweden and ***** about what we are doing. Make your town number one target and see if you think the same.

 

[River]

++ [ originally posted by Paolo_Montero ] ++


What do you mean its our ass as much as America's? Just because they want to stick their noses into what was clearly a UN issue, we had no reason to follow, and to risk the lives of our armed forces. Blair is just too much of a wimp to every admit that Bush hasn't a clue what he's doing, and will just blindly follow to make sure we're in America's good books.

UN are a joke. Do you really think that Saddam would have complied? If he was going to he would have done it already. Come on use your head. And come on the UK is and always has been a top choice for attacking. Its a matter of time before it happens. Like America didnt care to much before sept 11, you want us to wait until something happens before attacking?

 

[Zlatan]

You're missing one very important point Riv: Saddam had nothing to do whatsoever with Osama or Al Quaida, and saying that you wanted him out to stop future terrorist attacks is just stupid. If anything, the Inavsion on Iraq would only give the terrorists more reasons to attack the Allies.

 

[Tom]

++ [ originally posted by River ] ++
UN are a joke. Do you really think that Saddam would have complied? If he was going to he would have done it already. Come on use your head. And come on the UK is and always has been a top choice for attacking. Its a matter of time before it happens. Like America didnt care to much before sept 11, you want us to wait until something happens before attacking?

No, I think its you that needs to use your head here. Would Saddam have complied no, but who gives two shits if he complies or not its bugger all to do with us! The question that needs answering is "would Saddam be stupid enough to attack either the US or UK?" The answer is clearly a big fat no!

As has just rightly been stated there is no proof of a link between Saddam and Al Quaida, they are two seperate entities and attacking Saddam would surely only serve to make matters worse, almost creating an excuse for many to join these sick terror groups!

Bottom line here is this: were we in any danger from Saddam's regime - no so why the hell did we have to invade?

 

[River]

++ [ originally posted by Paolo_Montero ] ++


No, I think its you that needs to use your head here. Would Saddam have complied no, but who gives two shits if he complies or not its bugger all to do with us! The question that needs answering is "would Saddam be stupid enough to attack either the US or UK?" The answer is clearly a big fat no!

As has just rightly been stated there is no proof of a link between Saddam and Al Quaida, they are two seperate entities and attacking Saddam would surely only serve to make matters worse, almost creating an excuse for many to join these sick terror groups!

Bottom line here is this: were we in any danger from Saddam's regime - no so why the hell did we have to invade?

We invaded because everyone believed we were in danger from Saddams regime. We also invaded to liberaty a nation.

And to be honest I dont see that as such a clear no. Why wouldnt he have attacked us? Why didnt he comply with UN over WMD inspections, Iraq did have WMD thats for sure, where they are or if they have them now shouldnt derail the fact that we needed to take action.

Yes I agree we made a total balls of the whole thing, and its a mess right now but it can only get better from here. And yes of course in short term there would be an increased chance of terrorist attack but in the long run we will be a hell of alot better of.

All terrorists should be dealt with. Next it should be the IRA.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++



I think you're being naive Andy. I'm sure the US government would rather spend the billions and billions of dollars of foreign "aid" on domestic problems. They spend it and "help" so they can get political, economical and military power.

And helping is one thing and invading a country against international law completely another. My examples show how fast the US is to "help" when they dont have a lot of national interests in the region. Even the fall of Yugoslavia was in their interest, as it was the biggest and most powerful communist state in Europe after the USSR, and also one of the biggest military powers in the world. And look at us now. I'm not saying they were responsible for it, altho they may very well have been, but it did play very nicely in their hands. You see, sometimes the US protects its interests by "helping", and sometimes by doing nothing.

And yes, they do have some interest in Bosnia, and thats partly why they helped. There are two large US army bases in Bosnia, one of which is about to become the main NATO base in the region.

"It's not all about the benefits for us, ya know." I'm sorry Andy, but it is.

Thats a bunch of garbage Zlatan. I think you are being a little naive when you say that all our presence in other countries is for our own benefit. Like I said before, why would we have troops stationed in Somalia, Liberia, and Bosnia? What the hell is there that makes us want to be in those locations? Absolutely nothing, except for suffering people who need our help, cuz nobody else wants to do it. And again about this Yugoslavia conflict, who knows why we didn't act more quickly? As I do recall, Bill Clinton was in office during this time, and it seems like he did a better job at "thinking things out" when it comes to oversea conflicts. Or maybe it didn't look that serious at first? Who the hell knows? Wow, two large army bases? That really shows why we cared about the conflict in Bosnia. Thats rubbish Zlatan. And all the blame for the fall of Yugoslavia now goes to us? Thats even more rubbish, and you know it.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
No, you went to this war beacause Blair wanted to kiss up to Bush. I fact, he's kissed Bush's ass so many times he's begun to wear it out. Our poor Bush's gonna need an ass transplant. But it's ok, thgey can use any part of him for the transplant, he's a complete ass.

The rubbish is starting to pile up high Zlatan.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by River ] ++


Blair wanted to kiss up to Bush? Thats just a load of media shit that the dumb ass protestors use. Most of the british population wanted to go to war with Iraq. We would be very stupid to think London wont get attacked. War on Iraq was mostly wanted.

War on Iraq from Britians point of view was for 2 reasons:

1) To fight a world wide problem that most nations seem content to leave to that hands of the UN who lets face it are a complete waste of space (negotiating with Saddam would never have worked. Thats like making a deal with the devil for christ sake.)

2) To save our own ass. Unlike the rest of Europe we arent prepared to wait around until our capital is blown up.

Saddam is gone, Iraq is free and in time will be thankful. Blair has been cleared of any wrong doing and he is going to win the next election again. Most of Britian still believe we made the right choice.

And those stupid hippie protestors who dont (ive met alot of these people while organising them, and talked to people protesting on the street with flyers etc, most of them are stupid jobless idiots who have nothing better to do and think they will make a difference, they want to be part of something big, most dont really give a shit about Iraq.), they will look stupid when London needs bodybags, which lets face it sooner or later its gonna happen.

Yes we couldnt have done it alone. And yes we did help America like they have helped us in the past. As the second most powerful military Britian also have a duty to help out.

Like I said its easy to sit comfortably in Sweden and ***** about what we are doing. Make your town number one target and see if you think the same.

Thats exactly right River. Nobody in these supposed "Neutral" countries have a clue what we are going through and the steps we are taking to protect our Nations (US and England). Its hand in hand a team effort.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
You're missing one very important point Riv: Saddam had nothing to do whatsoever with Osama or Al Quaida, and saying that you wanted him out to stop future terrorist attacks is just stupid. If anything, the Inavsion on Iraq would only give the terrorists more reasons to attack the Allies.

Thats still up in the air Zlatan. He could have easily sold WMD's to Al-Quaida, that is, if he had them. Which chances are he did have them at one point in time.

 

[Zlatan]

Riv, you can hardly say that he certanly had WMD2. The fact is none have been found, and until they do you cant be absolutely sure they did have them.


And I dont think I'm being naive Andy, two military bases might not seem much to you, but in the end it's all about control, economic, political and military.

Also, anyone could have sold WMDs to AQ. Hell, the Russians could have done it. Every man has his price.


P.S. Are you denying that Bush is a complete ass?

 

[Majed]

++ [ originally posted by River ] ++


UN are a joke. Do you really think that Saddam would have complied? If he was going to he would have done it already. Come on use your head. And come on the UK is and always has been a top choice for attacking. Its a matter of time before it happens. Like America didnt care to much before sept 11, you want us to wait until something happens before attacking?

UN are a joke only because they're the US government's pupit.

Iraq didn't complied with what?! common people?! There are no WMD.

We were able to find Saddam in a hole in the ground and not a single documnet that even points to WMD were found let alone the warheads themselves!! get real.... please.
All this WMD BS is hype created by the media to serve Dubya's purpose to go into war. (We made our own excuse!)

No offense, but you and Andy have bought into all the media BS.

we're talking about a country that has been under very tight UN sanctions for a decade. They can barely provide food and medical equipment. Their weapons (whatever was left of them) are decades old.

Like y'all mentioned, AQ and Suddam are two diffferent entities. Osama bin Laden never liked Saddam anyway, and this has always been a well known fact. Bin Laden hates Saddam as he hates the Saudi government and many gulf leaders. Bin Laden was only against the War The Media here in the US (and probibly the UK) have tried to force a strong connection between them down our throats.
The only connection is that when Bush declared war against Iraq, Bin Laden automatically was on "Iraq" (not Saddam's) side because he hates the US.
So you could say that with the war against Iraq, the US is uniting these groups together!!


Back to my point, the media successfuly made you River believe that the UK were a target before the war. They were not.

Did AQ ever bomb a UK embassy?
Are the UK supporting Israel with WMD, protecting them from UN laws and providing them with the most modern military technology?

case and point: Spain.
When were they ever a target?!! no .. Never!!
but the moment they helped the US in Iraq, AQ launched an attack in Madrid!

Congratulations... Blair has succesfully MADE YOU A TARGET and The war in Iraq has Successfully United these freaks agianst Y'all! :down:

 

[River]

The UK have always believed to be a major terrorist target from extremists, even long before Sept-11. So no I didnt buy into media hype. If i bought into media hype I would be crying about the whole thing.

++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
Riv, you can hardly say that he certanly had WMD2. The fact is none have been found, and until they do you cant be absolutely sure they did have them.


And I dont think I'm being naive Andy, two military bases might not seem much to you, but in the end it's all about control, economic, political and military.

Also, anyone could have sold WMDs to AQ. Hell, the Russians could have done it. Every man has his price.


P.S. Are you denying that Bush is a complete ass?

yeah of course I cant be certain about WMD.

And Bush might be an ass but atleast he stepped it up and brought his nation through one of their worst moments in history.

Not even talking about WMD here for a second. The war in Iraq still should have happened. A country has been liberated, just like Afganistan. Without the UK and US in recent times imagine how this world would be. Iraq drags on and the world is friggin moaning about it. Get it yourselfs, look at the bigger picture.

 

[Vinman]

++ [ originally posted by Majed ] ++

the problem he sees wasn't with "defending." It was with "nesting" in these two countries that he's not happy with.

Anyhow, that's not the reason why he's after the us.
It's probibly because our beloved "human rights seeking" and "good-doer" government are continuely supplying Israel with WEAPONS and ignoring the dozens of UN resolutions that they've failed to comply with, all while pretending to want peace in the region. The fact that Israel has hundreds of US allowed Nukes is enough to create instability and fear. All this while they countinue to occupy lands, build their seperating wall preventing people from trying to live a normal life, and demolishing towns and villages on the way ( not to mention all the mass killings and rapings). (Genocide anyone?!)

so dont give my this BS about we're the super-heros of the world rescuing people from opression. It's all for the power and money at the expense of many lives.

We helped Afghanistan to keep the USSR crippled at war. It was a great idea, but dont ever say that it was for the Afghans.

We helped Saudi Arabia and Kuwait because of Bush's good ties with the Saudi royal family. Our gov. needed them and we got shit-loads of oil in return (around $60 billions worth). The US was keeping it's indirect control of the largest oil producing country too from falling into Saddam's Hands. of course, who was he a threat to if he did occupy KSA and Kuwait? A threat to the USA? of course not. He would just become another force in the region like Israel. (except without the Nukes!! )

Sorry, but our beloved government doesn't give a rats ass about any people.

In Kosova, Bosnia, and Chechnya, help either never came or was years late.

Yes, Saddam was terrible, and Osama is a madman, but the fact that remains is that our gov. is in it for the power and money at the expense of other human lives. We're not exactly acting any better than Saddam.

BTW, are the US even thinking about North Korea?! of course not. While We were thinking of going into Iraq, The ,equally to Saddam, terrorizing North Korean president was admiting to have Nuckes. I dont see our gov. lining up now to lend a helping hand to their people and the region against a terrible regime.

Defending your own country is top priority, I fully agree, but playing double standard and pretending to be a super hero all while getting thousands of people killed is another. What's bad for us Amercians is that these barbaric "you may indirectly hit me one day, therefore i'll hit you harder now" tactic is only going to make things worse and make people look down on us and make others hate us.

The solution is to look at WHY WHY and, I repeat, WHY many people hate us. Do you really think that we are a super/perfect race and others are just evil who want to kill us all?!

We should just mind our own business and stop playing lying to the world.



Money? yes sadly.
Nuckes?... I highly doubt it.

Yes , Osama has nukes, in fact, there may be 20 suitcase nuclear warheads in our country RIGHT NOW, and these terrorist scumbags are just waiting for the go -ahead to launch world war 3 on our soil

Unfortunately, I feel its unavoidable........

 

[Vinman]

++ [ originally posted by Majed ] ++


UN are a joke only because they're the US government's pupit.

Iraq didn't complied with what?! common people?! There are no WMD.

We were able to find Saddam in a hole in the ground and not a single documnet that even points to WMD were found let alone the warheads themselves!! get real.... please.
All this WMD BS is hype created by the media to serve Dubya's purpose to go into war. (We made our own excuse!)

No offense, but you and Andy have bought into all the media BS.

we're talking about a country that has been under very tight UN sanctions for a decade. They can barely provide food and medical equipment. Their weapons (whatever was left of them) are decades old.

Like y'all mentioned, AQ and Suddam are two diffferent entities. Osama bin Laden never liked Saddam anyway, and this has always been a well known fact. Bin Laden hates Saddam as he hates the Saudi government and many gulf leaders. Bin Laden was only against the War The Media here in the US (and probibly the UK) have tried to force a strong connection between them down our throats.
The only connection is that when Bush declared war against Iraq, Bin Laden automatically was on "Iraq" (not Saddam's) side because he hates the US.
So you could say that with the war against Iraq, the US is uniting these groups together!!


Back to my point, the media successfuly made you River believe that the UK were a target before the war. They were not.

Did AQ ever bomb a UK embassy?
Are the UK supporting Israel with WMD, protecting them from UN laws and providing them with the most modern military technology?

case and point: Spain.
When were they ever a target?!! no .. Never!!
but the moment they helped the US in Iraq, AQ launched an attack in Madrid!

Congratulations... Blair has succesfully MADE YOU A TARGET and The war in Iraq has Successfully United these freaks agianst Y'all! :down:

...and while we were trying to appease the feeble UN about going into Iraq, the WMD were being taken by many tractor trailers for "safe-keeping " into Syria. My country knows this, but what are we supposed to do ??? Invade Syria ????? I have my feelings on that, and eventually we may be forced to, because they are yet another radical country that wants to harm us-directly or indirectly....

 

[Vinman]

Lets be honest on one other point...when the Soviet Union fell, where do you think many of their high-paid nuclear scientists went after being given their termination notices ?????

Al Queia, ladies and gentlemen........................

 

[Majed]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


Thats a bunch of garbage Zlatan. I think you are being a little naive when you say that all our presence in other countries is for our own benefit. Like I said before, why would we have troops stationed in Somalia, Liberia, and Bosnia? What the hell is there that makes us want to be in those locations? Absolutely nothing, except for suffering people who need our help, cuz nobody else wants to do it. And again about this Yugoslavia conflict, who knows why we didn't act more quickly? As I do recall, Bill Clinton was in office during this time, and it seems like he did a better job at "thinking things out" when it comes to oversea conflicts. Or maybe it didn't look that serious at first? Who the hell knows? Wow, two large army bases? That really shows why we cared about the conflict in Bosnia. Thats rubbish Zlatan. And all the blame for the fall of Yugoslavia now goes to us? Thats even more rubbish, and you know it.

Common Andy?!
Do you really think our gov. would spend millions and millions on "helping" other for the sake of it when we have our own problems?

to answer your questions:
Somalia: to bring back the American forces in Eastern Africa and reclaim their old bases along the red sea cost. Why would our gov want this?
1. It's not too far from Saudi Arabia. With these bases, the US can protect its main suppliers from another direction. (Dont foget that Saudi-Yemeni relations weren't good at all)
2. Long ago (in the 70's I think), it was beleived that there were offshore oil fields, so further exploring was still a possibility.
3. Somalia location makes it easier for the US to protect the oil tanker routes through the india ocean and the red sea.

These may seem as good goals, but the way in which the government has dealt with Somalia is terrible. Durring the conflict in Somalia last decade, 19 US soliders were killed and 1000 Somalis. what's worse is that the US already had bases on the Somali red sea coast from the regime that it supported back in the early 80s. The terrorizing regime was as bad (if not, worse) than Saddam's regime in Iraq. The Us supported them (with money and weapons) to keep them in power. in exchange, we got to build bases. The whole mess in Somalia was in fact mostly our fault. We helped the oppressors, then we left and a civil war staretd because the people couldn't take the regime anymore. the country was ripped apart!! So the US had to get back in there agian. (but failed as you've seen in "Black Halk Down")

Zlatan already answered about Bosnia.
as for Liberia, I havn't read much about it, but the fact that Nigeria supplies a significacnt amount of oil to the US (which i think is supposed to increase) is enough for me to assume that the US is only keeping its interests safe. Nigeria are spending a lot of resources in the Liberian situation, all while having their own problems. The US wouldn't want a civil war to tear up Nigeria. again, i need to research more about how the US dealt with Liberia and what were the results.

To sum up, I'm sorry to say that you're being the naive one Andy. The Media has done a fantastic job in brain washing many of the people.

 

[flieeeekke]

++ [ originally posted by Vinman ] ++


Yes , Osama has nukes, in fact, there may be 20 suitcase nuclear warheads in our country RIGHT NOW, and these terrorist scumbags are just waiting for the go -ahead to launch world war 3 on our soil

Unfortunately, I feel its unavoidable........

how do you know that?