US's a bitch.

[Empanado]

what do you think about the US wanting to make their citizens INMUNE to the international court, on La Haya? (i surely will have some typo mistakes there, sorry, i still need to improve my english)
Don't you think that's just plain arrogant?
Besides, they freezed up the military help for ABOUT 30 COUNTRIES who didnt accepted the proposal. And they're countries who pretty much need the help, like Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, and a lot of ex-URSS countries.

Actually it's more like 50 countries.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030701_316.html

It shows you the true face of Republicans.

[JMHX]

Well, it's not like we ever wanted to help them anyway. We've got nations to invade. I thought the final total was somewhere around 38 nations? Hm...I might be off.

[Shangui]

I knew Bush was an idiot, but not to that extend. The internationna court of law should apply to anybody, Bush must be starting to think that he might be facing this very same court of law in the futur years yuk yuk yuk.

I've heard that any country can decide to not recognize this court of law to immune itself to it. That way, any strong governement can make attrocities while keeping their power. Russia is a good exemple, with the battle in Tchetchenia (I'm not sure about how it's written). 20% of the population of this region has been massacred so far I've heard, but since Russia is a strong country, nobody gives a shit.

[JMHX]

At 7/2/03 06:30 PM, BaKsHi wrote: doesn't brazil build nukes? i think any country that has enough money to build their own nukes can help defend themselves? but yeah, bush is goiong to extreme cutting off military aid to all these countrys just because of the international court.

I didn't think Brazil had the economy or the ability to build nuclear weapons. I might be wrong, though, since it's been two years since I last did any serious research on Brazil.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/2/03 03:12 PM, nailbomb wrote: Actually it's more like 50 countries.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030701_316.html

It shows you the true face of Republicans.

And yet, at the same time, you complain about the US being involved in these countries. Pick a side and stay with it because you can't have it both ways.

And why is everything a Republican plot to you? Are you just that eager or paranoid to blame everything on them?

At 7/2/03 07:21 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

And yet, at the same time, you complain about the US being involved in these countries. Pick a side and stay with it because you can't have it both ways.

Nooooooooo, I "complained" when America invaded Iraq and when it liberated Afghanistan, reviving the world's largest producer of opium.

And why is everything a Republican plot to you? Are you just that eager or paranoid to blame everything on them?

Because the man running the country is a Republican and so is most of the people occupying high posts in the government... Why else?

[JMHX]

At 7/2/03 11:35 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 7/2/03 07:21 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

And yet, at the same time, you complain about the US being involved in these countries. Pick a side and stay with it because you can't have it both ways.

Nooooooooo, I "complained" when America invaded Iraq and when it liberated Afghanistan, reviving the world's largest producer of opium.

What were your objections to the military action in Afghanistan? I mean, I'm no supporter of Bush, but I can see why we did it and I certainly had no problems with it. I'm curious now...

At 7/3/03 12:03 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

What were your objections to the military action in Afghanistan? I mean, I'm no supporter of Bush, but I can see why we did it and I certainly had no problems with it. I'm curious now...

I have no objections to the military actions in Afghanistan undertaken by the U.S., it's the fucking mess they've left behind. (i.e. supplying 60% of the US's heroin through the unregulated growing of opium crops, which were banned uner Taliban regime but are now free as a bird.)

[JMHX]

At 7/3/03 12:11 AM, nailbomb wrote:

At 7/3/03 12:03 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

What were your objections to the military action in Afghanistan? I mean, I'm no supporter of Bush, but I can see why we did it and I certainly had no problems with it. I'm curious now...

I have no objections to the military actions in Afghanistan undertaken by the U.S., it's the fucking mess they've left behind. (i.e. supplying 60% of the US's heroin through the unregulated growing of opium crops, which were banned uner Taliban regime but are now free as a bird.)

Well, we don't really have a great habit of cleaning up the messes we make after the bombs have stopped flying. Or dropping. Whatever. I mean, the anarchy in Iraq and the warlord no-man's-land left in Afghanistan after we started removing troops should be a red-flag to the U.N. to never green-light another U.S. led attack on anyone until we can learn to clean up after ourselves.

You forgot all those old uranium shells left behind in the first gulf war by U.S. troops.

[wickedhamo]

AMERICA SUKS fullstop.

[JMHX]

At 7/3/03 12:27 AM, nailbomb wrote: You forgot all those old uranium shells left behind in the first gulf war by U.S. troops.

Not to mention all of the mines (yes.) we've left in Iraq now. There was a map of it somewhere, CNN I believe, showing that now Iraq is more mined and dangerous then before we entered. There was a debate on the best and most cost-efficient way to remove them in the Senate, but I only caught the middle of it on CSPAN.

[misterx2000]

At 7/3/03 03:28 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 7/3/03 12:27 AM, nailbomb wrote: You forgot all those old uranium shells left behind in the first gulf war by U.S. troops.

Not to mention all of the mines (yes.) we've left in Iraq now. There was a map of it somewhere, CNN I believe, showing that now Iraq is more mined and dangerous then before we entered. There was a debate on the best and most cost-efficient way to remove them in the Senate, but I only caught the middle of it on CSPAN.

Yep, there are still MILLIONS of mines out there, that can't be cleared fast enough, and people are still being blown up or worse, mutilated and disabled for life, by them.

And as for the court thing, it's kind of hypocritical that the war in Iraq was to alegedly to foster democracy, yet they act like dictators...

But hey, who are we to question the actions of Bush Almighty? Leftist commies? hell yeah!

[BootlegJones]

what the hell is the international court?

It's like the Supreme Court only more powerful and applies to any country in the world.

[TheTio]

Yeah, its pretty fucking ridiculous that america thinks itself above the law, then tries to dole out that law, I really think that your government as a whole needs to get its head outta its own smelly ass and do something for the international good for a change

Anyone in the world should be held accountable for war crimes, or any crime, no matter what their nationality or size of their bank account

Also, crossbreed has every right to blame the republicans, who else are you going to blame, the democrats, your mum, the drug dealer on the corner, NOOOOOOO

The only ones with any major say, thus dictating the current fucked up state of affairs are, *drumroll* THE REPUBLICANS

[aviewaskewed]

At 7/3/03 12:14 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: I mean, the anarchy in Iraq and the warlord no-man's-land left in Afghanistan after we started removing troops should be a red-flag to the U.N. to never green-light another U.S. led attack on anyone until we can learn to clean up after ourselves.

I think the U.N. has begun to get that message loud and clear...they certainly weren't very willing to sign off on Iraq. I also doubt they'll be willing to sign off on any further actions by the Bush Adminastration...but than again...where is the U.N. headquartered at really? New York...so right there you have a situation that says to me they will never completely condemn American actions...for fear of losing they're headquarters...dunno...me? I think the U.N. should be positioned somewhere like Switzerland...somewhere where it's safe, and they aren't trigger happy and willing to use their money and connections to protect them from the consequences of their actions.

Remember Bush, there's a difference between U.N. and U.S. ^_^

[mikehrt]

Honestly the whole world bitched about us removing Saddam from power, even though it was the best thing to do. Fine, we'll just pull out all our military and bring them home. Sounds like a good idea to me. No need to help the world if they just want to bitch about it all the time. Oh and BTW, America provides plenty of Aid to starving countries.

[mikehrt]

I hate posting something like the US gives plenty of aid with out a source. Here's something from the WFP.

http://www.wfp.org/index.asp?section=1

We gave 3 times as much as the second biggest donor to the world food program. Include that in your list of atrocities committed by the US.

Ousting Saddam from power is a good thing (although the U.S. gave him a blind eye concerning his gassing of Kurds 12 years ago) but occupying the country is not.

[Commander-K25]

At 7/6/03 02:16 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Ousting Saddam from power is a good thing (although the U.S. gave him a blind eye concerning his gassing of Kurds 12 years ago) but occupying the country is not.

So we walk away, turn our backs and leave unfinished business in Iraq?

Another thug will muscle his way to the top if we do that. We've got to get things back on track before we leave, or we'll have another situation like this a few decades from now.

At 7/6/03 02:26 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:
So we walk away, turn our backs and leave unfinished business in Iraq?

LOL! THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID WITH AFGHANISTAN! You should've let the UN dealt with rebuilding Afghanistan just like you should get the hell out of Iraq and let the UN deal with rebuilding Iraq. And on thw ay out, clean up you uranium shells that you left all over Iraq during the first gulf war.

Another thug will muscle his way to the top if we do that. We've got to get things back on track before we leave, or we'll have another situation like this a few decades from now.

You mean like the dictators you've installed or backed up in Iran, Chile, Kuwait, Guatemala, Panama and El Salvador?

[TheTio]

At 7/6/03 01:39 AM, mikehrt wrote: Honestly the whole world bitched about us removing Saddam from power, even though it was the best thing to do. Fine, we'll just pull out all our military and bring them home. Sounds like a good idea to me. No need to help the world if they just want to bitch about it all the time. Oh and BTW, America provides plenty of Aid to starving countries.

I agree, Saddam should have been taken out of power, but it was neither americas business or job to do it, and yeah, just pull out now when the damage is already done.
America has taken it upon themselves to free the people, I still dont see any freedom going on, and plenty of aid my arse, where the fuck do you think america gets all of this food to go giving away to starving nations, do you realise that farmers are payed slave labour rates in third world countries to sell their goods to you, so you give a little back and expect a pat on the back for it

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 7/2/03 07:21 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 7/2/03 03:12 PM, nailbomb wrote: Actually it's more like 50 countries.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030701_316.html

It shows you the true face of Republicans.

And yet, at the same time, you complain about the US being involved in these countries. Pick a side and stay with it because you can't have it both ways.

I don't think I've ever agree with the Commander before, and most of the time I've found him to be annoying (especially the name) but he's right.

When America does something that is incorrect, they're held to a diffrent standard.

America supported the Muja Hadin in the Afgani war during the 70's. If they had not, they probably would have taken critizism for not aiding someone who was attacked by an agressor, now 30 years later when the Muja Hadin is dispersed, and the Taliban who took control 10 years after is in control, America is being critizied for aiding and training afgan militants.

America has the right to extent military aid if it serves it's intrest, and cease when it does not, but no matter what they do the popular opinon is always against them.

America isn't omiscent, they can't know if one group who is being attacked is going to later form into a group who will attack, but blaming them either way seems deconstructive.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 7/6/03 02:40 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

At 7/6/03 02:26 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:
So we walk away, turn our backs and leave unfinished business in Iraq?

LOL! THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID WITH AFGHANISTAN!

I'd have to agree with this statement as well, even though it's uncommon for me to agree with crossbreed.

America hasn't properly aided afganistan after the war, and it doesn't look like they will.

Is it their responsibility? Definitly, should they be the only ones? Of course not. America shouldn't bear the world on it's atlas back. We all have a duty to serve and help others, particularly in this case Afganistan. Of course we could fight over if America helps as many people as Montel says they do on T.V., or if Fox news is Bull shit, or how Britian would have knocked out hitler, then the soviet Union, then rebel a Martian attack if America hadn't helped them in World war two, but that won't help anything except for simmering egos of stupid fat annoying white men.

The Dangers in North Atlantic relations, are just as dangerous in Mid east realtions, except that instead of religious wars like the Isreali conflict, we strangle the world with our ignorance.

Europeans, Americans, and Canadians are all just as guilty in this.

Think of all the excess we have, and all the help that we could do if we used those resources to help Afganistan, or Bhutan, or our own poor, rather than fighting about who's responsible and who achieved what.

We're all responsible, and any help that any of us have done is not something we should use as an excuse for idlitry, but as an example for our actions in the future.

There have never been more impoverished people in the world before, or a larger growth for that matter.

If we're going to solve our problems, we have to solve them for the right reasons, not for who did what.

America is responsible for cleaning up Afganistan, but so are every single one of us who take our minimum wage pay checks with a grumble.

At 7/6/03 09:56 AM, TheAnarchyPenguin wrote:

America supported the Muja Hadin in the Afgani war during the 70's. If they had not, they probably would have taken critizism for not aiding someone who was attacked by an agressor, now 30 years later when the Muja Hadin is dispersed, and the Taliban who took control 10 years after is in control, America is being critizied for aiding and training afgan militants.

The only reason that America aided the Muja Hadin was because Afghanistan was being invaded by the evil communists. So yeah, you train one group of people to kill another and then it's a big surprise when they turn their weapons on you.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 7/6/03 02:35 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: The only reason that America aided the Muja Hadin was because Afghanistan was being invaded by the evil communists. So yeah, you train one group of people to kill another and then it's a big surprise when they turn their weapons on you.

Did you miss the paragraphs about America, and all other nations looking out for thier intrests, and holding America to a double standard?