Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6989|California

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Lol erkut, you def. got my blood flowing.
I've had a VERY bad day, and then I saw your thread. And well, the rest is history.
Good show mate.
And no, just because I use eh and mate doesn't mean I'm canadian or scottish or irish or aussie or whatever.
It's simply the freedom of English not being your maternal language, it allows you to mix all sorts of accents and dialects without feeling bad about it
I said Yank earlier, and I'm not from Limeyville. =P

I'll call a muthafugga a Pizda, if I'm so inclined.
Nehil
Member
+3|6986|South Sweden (NOT SWITZERLAND)
OT: how come everyone who has english as maternal language spells like shit or uses all sort of "u,2,1,ur,wot" etc instead of taking time to write so everyone will understand? I mean shit, don't you even learn to spell in your schools these days? (This is not ment for everyone, some are alot better.)
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7012|MA, USA

hurricane2oo5 wrote:

i went to iraq for gulf war 2, every american that i met was friendly, kind and do anything for a fellow soldier.
id just like to say that i respect america and id love to go over there

bye
Thanks Hurricane.  I was over there for 16 months in the early part.   Loved talking with the Brits...always good guys.  I'm a fan of the UK too, been there quite a bit and always have a good time.

Swampyuk1961 wrote:

y is it that ur army is so prone to doing friendly fire, is it bcos they cant hit a bloody thing or are they blind as a bat or is it that they dont giv a fuck

look bck in ur military history on friendly fire  u will be amazed at wot u will learn
Can I ask if you have any military background?    Do you know what communication is like in combat?  I wonder if you know what 500,000 troops in a country the size of Washington State means on the battlefield?  Can I also ask if you have any idea what the stats are for hits on the enemy in the same timeframe?  Do you know what the numbers are?  The percentages?  Do you know anything? 

I think you are a nasty little troll lashing out at someone who pisses you off.  When you lash out without thinking you hit unintended targest.  Lash elsewhere.
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7012|MA, USA

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Nehil wrote:

whittsend wrote:

Further, as I noted in my amended post above, ours isn't the only country which regularly acts in a self interested manner, but we get the bulk of the ire.  Why is that so?  Why doesn't, say, China, or Iran or North Korea get as much scorn as the US?
Probably becuse you pollute the most and if you'd change others would follow. America is always important and easy to blame and focus on. I know that. Sometimes even fucking unfair. But tell my, why is it so hard to try to do something good for all future generations? I always hear racist idiots say they want to protect their children but when it comes to working for it instead of shooting people they always shut up. Now I'm not calling everyone whos against the Kyoto protocol a racist. But consider becomming one, it's easier to hate you then
Amen, brother.
I doubt most countries would change because of the US.  I suspect the opposite, because hatred of us is endemic and knee-jerk.  I have already stated (as have others) why I think Kyoto is a bad treaty.  I won't beat that horse any more.

We are easy to focus on, but thinking people, realising that, should understand that they are acting unjustly and should resist the temptation.

Lastly:  With all the Americans on this board, and all the responsibilities the US has around the world, do you REALLY want to imply that the US doesn't do anything for the good of all future generations?  Think about it.
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|6963|Charlie One Alpha
Yes.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6985|Peoria, Illinois

LaidBackNinja wrote:

M1-lightning, thank you for your post. You have actually made a good point, and I think I agree.
Maybe the kyoto agreement was not exactly the right solution. I didn't know those things, thanks for clearing it up.
But do you really think that the US would have signed up for a different treaty, that WAS REALLY aimed at lowering co2 production and not about transferring money?
I believe the feds would do that if and only if there were no repruccussions for not falling through on it. They have already implemented some of the ideas within new EPA regulations. As technology advances, we and many other nations in the world are developing cheap and efficient ways to produce energy with lower emissions. It is a real goal and we are working on it.

In 2002 the EPA issued stronger mandates on lower emissions. The company I work for has developed new technology that meets the new standards and even went a step further lowering them even more. So it is ongoing and we're not flipping the finger to the world by driving SUVs. We're just trying to come up with the best ideas to accomplish these emission goals without doubling the cost of our heating bills, fuel costs, and vehicle price tags.

On a side note, the core problem with the world's view on America is our very own media. They air our dirty laundry for all but they fail to show our good side. It gets better ratings when they air bad news. For some reason that's what the average person enjoys watching. Paint factory explosions are far more interesting than charitable donations by the Red Cross.
Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6989|California
Well, let's keep i going kids. All this Anti-America stuff makes me warm and tingly in my danger zone.
Nehil
Member
+3|6986|South Sweden (NOT SWITZERLAND)
Hmm It's doing some good sure, but the thing is and this is why I sometimes seem to hate America for no reson: YOU COULD DO SO MUCH MORE! With that much power you should have some responsability, make love not war! America has great potential but what do you do with it? Vote for Mr. Bush? Start wars? Shit...
irarreF
Member
+0|7007

Nehil wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong here but Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2 are made by DICE. They are from Sweden. YOU SHOULD GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE. But instead I'm going to be nice and say enjoy the game, it's made for people by people. Share it instead of arguing about it. And bitching about it on a internet forum IS doing something about it, some people will change their views and right now people who understand America is doing something wrong understand they are not alone, just like I discoverd what LaidBackNinja thinks about you.
True, but almost all of it was done in the Dice Canada studios.
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|6963|Charlie One Alpha
Hey we had one of those! Only it was a fireworks factory exploding.
It actually happened in the city I now live in. Only I didn't live here when it happened so I missed the whole lot.
Apparantly it was quite the scandal and a lot of guys zilched.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7012|MA, USA

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Yes.
Ah.  Truly a thinking person.    Thanks for the conversation LBN.

http://www.usaid.gov
http://www.peacecorps.gov/
http://qesdb.cdie.org/gbk/

That's for starters...then there are PRIVATE causes etc.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelate … tributions

You get the point.  I invite others to help illustrate what Americans do around the world for the greater good.

I would especially like to point out that when one includes private contributions, Americans give more than any other people in the world.

I suspect you don't ACTUALLY care because you would rather sustain your knee-jerk hatred of us.  That's ok...I only wish I had the power to show you what things would be like if the things you say were ACTUALLY true.

madark wrote:

ok one reason people dislike the us is that they generally seem to think that they`re  "better" then other countries out there..
Seems to me like there are plenty of people here who think they are better than the US.  Not much of an argument for hating someone.

madark wrote:

And about the "shutting the us borders" thing, it`s not like the world`s gonna end if the us falls.
The US has 1/5th of the worlds GDP.  If we shut our borders (we can't, but we are talking hypothetically here) the rest of the world would be in some serious economic shit.  Face facts...economies can rise and fall on rumors of policies in the US.

madark wrote:

The sovietunion fell, and so did nazi-germany.
Is that a threat?  The Soviet Union fell because they couldn't sustain a spending race with the US.  It's an arguable point, but that is what I believe. 

I won't say that the US singlehandedly overthrew Nazi Germany, (we all know that isn't true) but ask yourself this:  would Nazi Germany have been defeated without the US? 

madark wrote:

Now, i don`t hate the us, but when the rest of the world tells you "Don`t attack that country". What do you do? You rush right on in there, not caring what anyone else thinks. Usa is the least popular country in the world right now, and i don`t blame people for disliking you. "We belive they have weapons of mass destruction"... how stupid is that?  Everyone knew they didn`t have it.
Not true.  Many thinking folks suspected they did have WMD, and trusted that our government actually had the secret evidence they claimed to have.  Turns out it was bullshit, but we didn't know that at the time.  In retrospect, taking into consideration the lies of the administration, the invasion was bad policy.  At the time I supported it because I trusted that what they said was the truth.  A mistake I won't make again with this administration.  By the way, look at poll numbers now...many if not most Americans agree with my point of view.

madark wrote:

It was an exuse to invade a country you had previously supported.
Given that, at some point in their histories, most countries have received money or aid or some such from the US, and that Iraq has received MARKEDLY less than most; why do you say we previously supported them?

Last edited by whittsend (2005-12-20 10:37:26)

Swampyuk1961
Member
+0|6960

whittsend wrote:

hurricane2oo5 wrote:

i went to iraq for gulf war 2, every american that i met was friendly, kind and do anything for a fellow soldier.
id just like to say that i respect america and id love to go over there

bye
Thanks Hurricane.  I was over there for 16 months in the early part.   Loved talking with the Brits...always good guys.  I'm a fan of the UK too, been there quite a bit and always have a good time.

Swampyuk1961 wrote:

y is it that ur army is so prone to doing friendly fire, is it bcos they cant hit a bloody thing or are they blind as a bat or is it that they dont giv a fuck

look bck in ur military history on friendly fire  u will be amazed at wot u will learn
Can I ask if you have any military background?    Do you know what communication is like in combat?  I wonder if you know what 500,000 troops in a country the size of Washington State means on the battlefield?  Can I also ask if you have any idea what the stats are for hits on the enemy in the same timeframe?  Do you know what the numbers are?  The percentages?  Do you know anything? 

I think you are a nasty little troll lashing out at someone who pisses you off.  When you lash out without thinking you hit unintended targest.  Lash elsewhere.
I wasnt talking to you

yeah I have   
10yrs  4 Bn C coy QLR  or in other words   4th Battalion C company  Queens Lancashire Regiment
4yrs    With there Territorials ( like your National Guard ) in Preston

2 tours in Northern Ireland
1st Gulf War  I was attached to the 3 Bn Royal Regiment of Fusiliers  which was shot up by 1 of your A-10s

And the Warriors had a transponder fitted to them so they could be identified as friendly to allied aircraft
so you tell me what happened, I was badly hit was taken to Riyadh  then to Germany then back to the UK when I left hospital I left the forces  bcos of flashbacks 
Yeah hectic crap , I wouldnt like to say ,
yeah I do know anything, alot about your military friendly fire history. 
can you answer them.
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6985|Peoria, Illinois

Nehil wrote:

Hmm It's doing some good sure, but the thing is and this is why I sometimes seem to hate America for no reson: YOU COULD DO SO MUCH MORE! With that much power you should have some responsability, make love not war! America has great potential but what do you do with it? Vote for Mr. Bush? Start wars? Shit...
Our deficit is huge. We appear to be super rich but if we paid of all our debts right now we would be a fairly poor country. The only thing that keeps the train going here is the productivity of our people. We truly can't afford to be giving 15 billion dollars to Africa for Aids research when we have families with children here in our own country that can't afford dinner tonight. Remember, all that POWER comes from "credit cards". It has to be paid back someday.

As far as wars go, name one government we levied war on that you would voluntarily live under. We didn't invade England, Australia, Spain, Russia or any other friendly nation. Despite the blunders in intelligence between our nations on WMD, we invaded two nations that had evil governments. It wasn't a war against the people of the nation, it was a war against their unelected governments. Oh and it wasn't just the US, it was 42 other nations that joined us in the war as well.

We the people elect our government so when our governemnt goes bad it's our fault. In a nation like Iraq, the people aren't responsible for what their governement did. In today's modern world, no free nation will wage war against another free nation. That's because the governments of those nations are held responsible for their actions by their own people.
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7012|MA, USA

Swampyuk1961 wrote:

I wasnt talking to you

yeah I have   
10yrs  4 Bn C coy QLR  or in other words   4th Battalion C company  Queens Lancashire Regiment
4yrs    With there Territorials ( like your National Guard ) in Preston

2 tours in Northern Ireland
1st Gulf War  I was attached to the 3 Bn Royal Regiment of Fusiliers  which was shot up by 1 of your A-10s

And the Warriors had a transponder fitted to them so they could be identified as friendly to allied aircraft
so you tell me what happened, I was badly hit was taken to Riyadh  then to Germany then back to the UK when I left hospital I left the forces  bcos of flashbacks 
Yeah hectic crap , I wouldnt like to say ,
yeah I do know anything, alot about your military friendly fire history. 
can you answer them.
I stand corrected (on you being a troll).

Anyway, you may not have been talking to me, but you were talking about me...it is my army, and I don't like hearing it bad-mouthed (I suspect you feel the same).  Now, I'm sorry about your experience with friendly fire...I mean that, I can't even tell you how much I hate the idea of it, BUT:

1) You don't think it is intentional, do you?
2) Have you compared the statistics and extrapolated them out to the size of the conflict?  I'm not trying to excuse it; what I'm saying is that when the US goes to a large scale conflict, it throws around a lot of ordnance.    I am curious to see your stats, but I think you'll find that the absolute numbers extrapolate linearly from those of smaller confilcts.
3) As you no doubt know, commo sucks and the pilots especially don't have a clue.  When G2 tells them, "Hit here, it's clear of friendlies", they assume it is clear of friendlies and ask questions later.  I myself was in Cobra free fire zone in Somalia at one time.  Commo and  Intelligence snafu.  Fortunately the pilot was smart enough to check his target, but there was some puckering going on, I can assure you.

None of the above is intended to demean your experience.

Anyway, I'm Army, not Air Force, but as an American I personally extend my apologies for the hit you took.  I promise you no American serviceman I know would have ever considered doing such a thing intentionally.

Last edited by whittsend (2005-12-20 10:55:08)

M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6985|Peoria, Illinois

whittsend wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Yes.
Ah.  Truly a thinking person.    Thanks for the conversation LBN.

http://www.usaid.gov
http://www.peacecorps.gov/
http://qesdb.cdie.org/gbk/

That's for starters...then there are PRIVATE causes etc.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelate … tributions

You get the point.  I invite others to help illustrate what Americans do around the world for the greater good.

I would especially like to point out that when one includes private contributions, Americans give more than any other people in the world.

I suspect you don't ACTUALLY care because you would rather sustain your knee-jerk hatred of us.  That's ok...I only wish I had the power to show you what things would be like if the things you say were ACTUALLY true.

madark wrote:

ok one reason people dislike the us is that they generally seem to think that they`re  "better" then other countries out there..
Seems to me like there are plenty of people here who think they are better than the US.  Not much of an argument for hating someone.

madark wrote:

And about the "shutting the us borders" thing, it`s not like the world`s gonna end if the us falls.
The US has 1/5th of the worlds GDP.  If we shut our borders (we can't, but we are talking hypothetically here) the rest of the world would be in some serious economic shit.  Face facts...economies can rise and fall on rumors of policies in the US.

madark wrote:

The sovietunion fell, and so did nazi-germany.
Is that a threat?  The Soviet Union fell because they couldn't sustain a spending race with the US.  It's an arguable point, but that is what I believe. 

I won't say that the US singlehandedly overthrew Nazi Germany, (we all know that isn't true) but ask yourself this:  would Nazi Germany have been defeated without the US? 

madark wrote:

Now, i don`t hate the us, but when the rest of the world tells you "Don`t attack that country". What do you do? You rush right on in there, not caring what anyone else thinks. Usa is the least popular country in the world right now, and i don`t blame people for disliking you. "We belive they have weapons of mass destruction"... how stupid is that?  Everyone knew they didn`t have it.
Not true.  Many thinking folks suspected they did have WMD, and trusted that our government actually had the secret evidence they claimed to have.  Turns out it was bullshit, but we didn't know that at the time.  In retrospect, taking into consideration the lies of the administration, the invasion was bad policy.  At the time I supported it because I trusted that what they said was the truth.  A mistake I won't make again with this administration.  By the way, look at poll numbers now...many if not most Americans agree with my point of view.

madark wrote:

It was an exuse to invade a country you had previously supported.
Given that, at some point in their histories, most countries have received money or aid or some such from the US, and that Iraq has received MARKEDLY less than most; why do you say we previously supported them?
Meh, I may not be with the polls but I don't really care. Invading Iraq was a good thing. The process by which we did it was not. It was not planned very well and it wasn't secretive enough. We also should have been on the stronger side of the propaganda battle as well. We lost that battle. Elections should have been planned for years ago.

Saddam already used WMD on his own people and invaded another nation. That's good enough reason for me to send in an army to remove him.
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7095|Cologne, Germany

M1-Lightning wrote:

Nehil wrote:

Hmm It's doing some good sure, but the thing is and this is why I sometimes seem to hate America for no reson: YOU COULD DO SO MUCH MORE! With that much power you should have some responsability, make love not war! America has great potential but what do you do with it? Vote for Mr. Bush? Start wars? Shit...
Our deficit is huge. We appear to be super rich but if we paid of all our debts right now we would be a fairly poor country. The only thing that keeps the train going here is the productivity of our people. We truly can't afford to be giving 15 billion dollars to Africa for Aids research when we have families with children here in our own country that can't afford dinner tonight. Remember, all that POWER comes from "credit cards". It has to be paid back someday.

As far as wars go, name one government we levied war on that you would voluntarily live under. We didn't invade England, Australia, Spain, Russia or any other friendly nation. Despite the blunders in intelligence between our nations on WMD, we invaded two nations that had evil governments. It wasn't a war against the people of the nation, it was a war against their unelected governments. Oh and it wasn't just the US, it was 42 other nations that joined us in the war as well.

We the people elect our government so when our governemnt goes bad it's our fault. In a nation like Iraq, the people aren't responsible for what their governement did. In today's modern world, no free nation will wage war against another free nation. That's because the governments of those nations are held responsible for their actions by their own people.
just curious, when are you going to invade syria, iran, north corea or china then ?

couldn't resist, sorry. anyway, I don't mind america'a foreign politics. every country shall do as it pleases.
what I would like to see though, is some honesty about the reasons for going to iraq in the first place.

I will add some of my comments from the "has america been the greatest military aggressor of the century thread". It is a bit out of context, but it describes my position towards US foreign policy and the iraq affair.

B.Schuss wrote:

Now, don't get me wrong here. I know Saddam was a bad man, a tyran, and the world is probably better off without him. My point is, the US had no right to decide when he should be removed. Forcing your will on another sovereign nation like that is not fighting terrorism or fighting for freedom or democracy, it is shitting on the values you claim to defend. At  the time, Saddam was not a threat to anyone outside of his own territories , surely not to the US. At the time, he had no WMD. And he had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks either.
a safe haven for terrorists ? come on, these people hide everywhere, most of them weren't even iraqis but from saudi arabia ( like osama ). But have we seen the US attack the saudis ?

Will the US campaign in iraq be a success ? As someone else has put it, it is far too early to tell. As far as I am concerned, there will be no peace in iraq for at least another 10 to 15 years. you cannot force democracy on people. It needs to develop within them, possibly over hundreds of years. europe has learned that lesson, and I do hope the US will some day.

"Bombing for democracy is like fucking for virginity"

with all that said, I believe the US foreign policy in the middle east has been incredibly short-sighted over the last 30 years.

ricardo1978 wrote:

Osama Bin Laden was supported by the US with arms to fight the russians in the 80's and then abandoned, no wonder he's pissed off.

    The Taliban were put into power by the US as a puppet regeime so to enable the US to build a pipeline through their country into the Kazachstan gas fields when compliance was refused propaganda was espoused about human rights violations and the harbouring of terrorists.

    Saddam Hussein was put into power by the US and was a close personal friend of George Bush Senior and even informed his government that he planned to invade Kuwait because of border incursions,  when he no longer complied with Oil requests the US felt that this was a perfect opportunity to teach him a lesson thus he became the most evil man in the world and don't forget all his WMD (biological,chemical etc) technologies were supplied by the US to fight Iranians that were being supported by the Russians.
history has strange ways to deal with us. Basically, US troops are now fighting two regimes / organisations the US helped put up in the first place.

well, at least you are trying to clean up after yourselves...

Don't get me wrong here. I admire what the US is willing to do to preserve their idea of "democracy" and promote "freedom". And I respect what they have done for us in the past.

It is the underlying motivation and their methods today that I question. and judging by the failing support for the war in iraq in the US, I am not alone.

so, what's ahead ? iran ? syria ? maybe north corea ? only time will tell. whatever turn US foreign policy might take in the coming years, I sincerely hope that one sentence from the cold war era remains present in US minds. It goes something like "we all live on the same planet, we all breathe the same air, we all care about the future of our children"...

sorry, cannot remember the exact quote. You all know who said it, I suppose.

thx to everyone who took the time to read through all of this.
If you want, you can read the whole thread here: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=5204&p=1

with all that said, I don't hate america. I am critical of some of its' governments actions, just as some americans are critical of some of europe's governments decisions. no big deal.
I have met a lot of you guys here on forums, and some are nice people, others are not.
But then again, you will find your fair share of idiots in every nation.
And who am I to judge ?
Swampyuk1961
Member
+0|6960

whittsend wrote:

Swampyuk1961 wrote:

I wasnt talking to you

yeah I have   
10yrs  4 Bn C coy QLR  or in other words   4th Battalion C company  Queens Lancashire Regiment
4yrs    With there Territorials ( like your National Guard ) in Preston

2 tours in Northern Ireland
1st Gulf War  I was attached to the 3 Bn Royal Regiment of Fusiliers  which was shot up by 1 of your A-10s

And the Warriors had a transponder fitted to them so they could be identified as friendly to allied aircraft
so you tell me what happened, I was badly hit was taken to Riyadh  then to Germany then back to the UK when I left hospital I left the forces  bcos of flashbacks 
Yeah hectic crap , I wouldnt like to say ,
yeah I do know anything, alot about your military friendly fire history. 
can you answer them.
I stand corrected (on you being a troll).

Anyway, you may not have been talking to me, but you were talking about me...it is my army, and I don't like hearing it bad-mouthed (I suspect you feel the same).  Now, I'm sorry about your experience with friendly fire...I mean that, I can't even tell you how much I hate the idea of it, BUT:

1) You don't think it is intentional, do you?
2) Have you compared the statistics and extrapolated them out to the size of the conflict?  I'm not trying to excuse it; what I'm saying is that when the US goes to a large scale conflict, it throws around a lot of ordnance.    I am curious to see your stats, but I think you'll find that the absolute numbers extrapolate linearly from those of smaller confilcts.
3) As you no doubt know, commo sucks and the pilots especially don't have a clue.  When G2 tells them, "Hit here, it's clear of friendlies", they assume it is clear of friendlies and ask questions later.  I myself was in Cobra free fire zone in Somalia at one time.  Commo and  Intelligence snafu.  Fortunately the pilot was smart enough to check his target, but there was some puckering going on, I can assure you.

None of the above is intended to demean your experience.

Anyway, I'm Army, not Air Force, but as an American I personally extend my apologies for the hit you took.  I promise you no American serviceman I know would have ever considered doing such a thing intentionally.
No worries

was just that the guy (kid) I was talking to told me to pick a topic so I did ......... he didnt answer so he aint clever as he seems

1 With the warriors having transponders to tell allied aircraft that the convoy was friendly does seem a bit iffy in the least, either he had his transponder turned off to ID targets is another thing bcos the other A-10 didnt fire its missiles, so I was even more lucky as if he did I think he would have got the warrior I was in, I was injured after the warrior in front blow up.
Iv often wondered what happened to the pilot of the A-10

2 I wouldnt like to guess on the statistics

3 With using the comms it does get hectic on a net on a battlefield 


Ah well enuff said on the matter
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6985|Peoria, Illinois

B.Schuss wrote:

just curious, when are you going to invade syria, iran, north corea or china then ?

couldn't resist, sorry. anyway, I don't mind america'a foreign politics. every country shall do as it pleases.
what I would like to see though, is some honesty about the reasons for going to iraq in the first place.

I will add some of my comments from the "has america been the greatest military aggressor of the century thread". It is a bit out of context, but it describes my position towards US foreign policy and the iraq affair.
Here's the honesty you're looking for. The media only seemed to focus on WMD and partly Bush's fault for portraying it that way, but the reasons for war as voted on by Congress and sign by the President:

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Joint Resolution, H.J.Res.114

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled
DLHanley
Member
+0|6957
Wow. Thank you to Erkut for finally inspiring me to stop reading the posts and actually sign up. having the extremely warped sense of humor that I do, I can appreciate the mad tirade that was used to incite this discussion, and my compliments to Erkut for his colorful remarks. On a serious note, this whole thread does touch upon something that has me concerned. I am a professor of history and geography, and while I have a hawkish vein that would never shirk from a principled fight, I must admit that America can do a lot more in this world if we drop the aggressively ignorant beligerence that some of us hold. Nationalism is a double-edged sword. I voted for Bush the first time, after I was tired of the previous administration's antics. At the present time I would welcome Clinton back with a box a Cuban cigars. My point of departure with Bush came shortly after the Sept 11 attacks, when America was enjoying some of the most sympathetic world sentiment in decades. Bush has almost fully embodied the unilateral, self-concerned attitude that has made this country seem more like a neighborhood bully than a respectable older brother. If we have been blessed with good fortunes in our history, it behooves us to not take that fortune for granted. I'm not suggesting that we ignore the plights of our own people; I'm rather conservative when it comes to taking care of business at home and making sure we continue to maintain our society. However, I also believe that this world is now becoming too small for the US to act like a bull in a china shop. Whether we want to accept the responsibility of being a consciencous member of the world community or not, the fact is that we are but a small portion of the world's population. It is callous indifference to our neighbors that breeds grass-roots resentment against our country, people and way of life, and this becomes the seedbed of terrorism in its various forms. There is a lot of good that we do, and there is so much more that we can do, if we properly apply ourselves. And although some of our more oblivious citizens may think otherwise, good for the world is ultimately good for us. History is replete with great civilizations and empires that have finally fallen after exhausting their creative or progressive energies. In fact, as far as history goes, the odds may be against us if we cannot conceive of a more beneficial program than any of our predecessors have. And like many of the other posters have noted, it is a difficult task to overcome basic human nature, but it is something we must do if we are to surivive. A recent anthropological study found that of several dozen pre-industrial societies surveyed, only 5% practiced any sort of activities with an eye toward conservation of resources for future generations. For all of you young posters out there...stay in school!

Best Regards Everyone
Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6989|California
Between M1's posting of Conress' Resolution,  and Hanley's response, I have a massive migraine. I'm trying to draw my steel  (I draw steel for a living) here people, I keep jumping back here to read for a second, then get back to work. Then I get stuck reading quite a bit of stuff.

M1, fantastic post.

Hanley, very well put. Good points one and all.

I'm off for a bit, need pills and caffeine. Keep the posts coming, this is almost sounding like rational debate. Kinda scary....

Last edited by Erkut.hv (2005-12-20 12:14:32)

DLHanley
Member
+0|6957
Thanks for that. Yeah, I've put away the soapbox. I'm used to having captive audiences that are worried about their grades!

Wouldn't it be great to handle affairs a la Stripes? With border disputes settled by hand-picked BF2 teams playing on customized maps?
Lib-Sl@yer
Member
+32|6967|Wherever the F**k i feel like

LaidBackNinja wrote:

cwkatl wrote:

For all of you pinko commie liberal faggots, i bet your all from america or france, and are at least under the age of 18............... and also what ever you say is full of shit, cite your sources like the guy who copied and pasted that carbon dioxide bullshit, wtf, america always helps every1 out, and if u hate america that badly and you live here, stop BITCHING AND MOVE OUT FO OUR COUNTRY, and do eevry1 a favor, thankyou and have a nice day you stupid socialist commie liberal bitchez
I am over the age of 18. I am not from the US or france.
America always helps everyone out, eh?
I don't think I really have to go into these things.
You keep proving to me that Americans are in fact retarded.
In fact, I didn't even know it was this bad.
Is there not a single American that can respond in an intelligent fashion?
Considering I am a patriotic American, I would consider your remarks uneducated and pointless.
Lib-Sl@yer
Member
+32|6967|Wherever the F**k i feel like

Nehil wrote:

Hmm It's doing some good sure, but the thing is and this is why I sometimes seem to hate America for no reson: YOU COULD DO SO MUCH MORE! With that much power you should have some responsability, make love not war! America has great potential but what do you do with it? Vote for Mr. Bush? Start wars? Shit...
If we dont do anything to help a country we are seen as inhumane observers, if we do help we are seen as war mongers. So, which is it inhumane monsters or war mongers
Erkut.hv
Member
+124|6989|California

DLHanley wrote:

Wouldn't it be great to handle affairs a la Stripes? With border disputes settled by hand-picked BF2 teams playing on customized maps?
No, South Korean h4xor5 would r00l the gl0b3.

Look at the havoc they caused in Diablo II..... lol
Nehil
Member
+3|6986|South Sweden (NOT SWITZERLAND)

Lib-Sl@yer wrote:

Nehil wrote:

Hmm It's doing some good sure, but the thing is and this is why I sometimes seem to hate America for no reson: YOU COULD DO SO MUCH MORE! With that much power you should have some responsability, make love not war! America has great potential but what do you do with it? Vote for Mr. Bush? Start wars? Shit...
If we dont do anything to help a country we are seen as inhumane observers, if we do help we are seen as war mongers. So, which is it inhumane monsters or war mongers
Ever considerd that INVADING dosen't always help a country? Help dose not equal war. Or overthrowing a government.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard