PM Elect - Spain out of Iraq

[Nickatilynx]

Here is the story (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/15/spain.election/index.html)


Interestingly this online vote on CNN is being taken

Do you agree with Spain's premier-elect that his country's troops should be pulled from Iraq?

Yes 54% 2807 votes

No 46% 2354 votes

Total: 5161 votes

[Mike AI]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040315/1/3irv0.html

The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster," Zapatero, 43, told Cadena Ser radio Monday.


This guy is out of touch. The War in Iraq was one of the most successful ever. What other country could have pulled off such a swift victory with so few casualties? Militarily speaking it was amazing. ( were there mistakes? of course - it is war. )

The occupation has had some problems, definatly some lack of planning and knowledge of mid east mind sets and such. However, I think it has gone pretty well.

It has not even celerated the first anniversy of the start of the war yet....
This is but a small snipit in time.

PD you are an old guy, how long before Vietnam became an major politcal issue with regards to the occupation and war? I know it was not less then a year.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 15 2004, 01:14 PM
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040315/1/3irv0.html

The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster," Zapatero, 43, told Cadena Ser radio Monday.


This guy is out of touch. The War in Iraq was one of the most successful ever. What other country could have pulled off such a swift victory with so few casualties? Militarily speaking it was amazing. ( were there mistakes? of course - it is war. )

The occupation has had some problems, definatly some lack of planning and knowledge of mid east mind sets and such. However, I think it has gone pretty well.

It has not even celerated the first anniversy of the start of the war yet....
This is but a small snipit in time.

PD you are an old guy, how long before Vietnam became an major politcal issue with regards to the occupation and war? I know it was not less then a year.
There was opposition almost from the beginning of American involvement in combat - right around the '64 election. In the beginning it was very small.

It didn't become a major political force until 2 years later. By '68, it was THE issue - and Nixon won on the outright lie that he had a secret plan to win the war.

[Nickatilynx]

PD you are an old guy, how long before Vietnam became an major politcal issue with regards to the occupation and war? I know it was not less then a year.


An indication of what a mistake this war was?

The execution of the military action, by the military was without doubt superb, both by the US and the British Forces.

However ,The delaration of War and the order to mobilise was a fuck up off biblical porportions.

Based on erroneous inteligence and precipitous in the extreme.

There was in fact "No clear and present danger" whatsoever , and I suspect that over time Bush will be reviled as a warmonger and possibly a fabricator of Inteligence.At best his decision will be shown to be unsafe and unsound.

As time goes on more and more inteligent people , who are not blinkered by fanatical political belief , come realise that fact .

Some realised at the time of course , others just shouted "Housar!"

;-)))

I've said before the scariest thing I have seen is the American people agreeing that the President was wrong , but believing they should back him regardless. !?!?

WTF!!! LOL

[Mike AI]

Nick if you assume the reason for gonig to war was WMD, then it looks like a fuck up.

If you see it as the US securing a base of operation to stablize a region of vital importance, to be near the precious oil for long term ecnomics - it is BRILLIANT!

More then one President, Prime Minister has thought about getting into the oil fields on the middle east.

Bush has pulled it off, pretty effortlessly ( militarily speaking), and there has not been a huge "arab street" counter...

Iraq is about oil, stabilization of middle east, putting pressure on saudi arabia, the WMD and getting ride of a tyrant are nice window dressing.

If Saddam had kept playing ball with the US, he would still be in power.

[PornoDoggy]

The VC and the NVA never attacked outside of Southeast Asia - and while you can claim they internationalized the war by forays into Laos and Cambodia, who did what first is an arguement that fills libraries. They also were nominally tied to a state, and therefore much easier to target.

IMHO, AT THIS MOMENT the similarity of the situation of Vietnam to that of Iraq is tenuous at best (Afghanistan is an ox of a different color) ... but the longer U.S. troops remain in the country, and the more puppet-like the governing council appears the stronger that connection grows.

The extremists who argue that we should stay there, and/or in fact widen the war (Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran) will pour oil on that fire.

If the efforts of the governing council fail, and the U.S. is forced to intervene in a civil war (either because of the efforts of the terrorists or because of the inherent problems of Iraq), we will be in deep shit.

Add onto that the international nature of the backers of al Qaida and the improbability that they can be effectively taken on by the military, and you have what Senior Chief Trittle used to call "a cluterfuck of incalcuable magnitude."

Me personally ... I'm actively seeking out a decent book in English about the reasons for the French withdrawal from Algeria in the 50s, which lead to the fall of the 4th Republic, and brought DeGaulle back to power.

Just kinda wondering if we've stepped in a pile of shit we should have known to avoid, in a deja vu all over again kinda way.

[Nickatilynx]

Mike ,

If you see it as the US securing a base of operation to stablize a region of vital importance, to be near the precious oil for long term ecnomics - it is BRILLIANT!

And you say I spin things!!!!!!!!!!! Shiiiiit!!! ;-)))

If Saddam had kept playing ball with the US, he would still be in power.

So are you saying that the US has the right to commit an act of aggression against a soveriegn nation by purely using the "playing ball" doctrine? ;-)))


Gonzo, Bishop,

I reckon Opranoradio.com needs a political discussion program on.

"""Good evening ,From the left PD , from the center ,Nick , and way the fuck over on the right waaaay past Hitler , MikeAI"""

;-))))

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 15 2004, 02:09 PM
Nick if you assume the reason for gonig to war was WMD, then it looks like a fuck up.

If you see it as the US securing a base of operation to stablize a region of vital importance, to be near the precious oil for long term ecnomics - it is BRILLIANT!

More then one President, Prime Minister has thought about getting into the oil fields on the middle east.

Bush has pulled it off, pretty effortlessly ( militarily speaking), and there has not been a huge "arab street" counter...

Iraq is about oil, stabilization of middle east, putting pressure on saudi arabia, the WMD and getting ride of a tyrant are nice window dressing.

If Saddam had kept playing ball with the US, he would still be in power.
You say brilliant - I say fundamentally flawed.

What you are describing, Mikey, is imperialism. It's a failed policy that should have been laid to rest in the last century, mostly at the insistence of the Americans.

As a matter of fact, France and Britian tried something similar in '56.

If what you say is true, then Iraq WILL undoubtedly become another Vietnam - one that my 11 year old grandson might get to fight in.

It will then become a matter of whether the American people are willing to sacrifice their sons and daughter to the realpolitik you are espousing. And if they are not, the damage to American prestige and credibility will make Vietnam look like a victory.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Mar 15 2004, 02:20 PM
Mike ,

If you see it as the US securing a base of operation to stablize a region of vital importance, to be near the precious oil for long term ecnomics - it is BRILLIANT!

And you say I spin things!!!!!!!!!!! Shiiiiit!!! ;-)))

If Saddam had kept playing ball with the US, he would still be in power.

So are you saying that the US has the right to commit an act of aggression against a soveriegn nation by purely using the "playing ball" doctrine? ;-)))


Gonzo, Bishop,

I reckon Opranoradio.com needs a political discussion program on.

"""Good evening ,From the left PD , from the center ,Nick , and way the fuck over on the right waaaay past Hitler , MikeAI"""

;-))))
Nick, that's not fair. Mike is definitely to the left of Hitler.

A little to the right of Franco, maybe ... but definitely to the left of Hitler. :D



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Mar 15 2004, 02:28 PM

[Mike AI]

Nick why does anyone have a concern about the middle east? Why is there much more attention paid to middle east compaired to Africa?

It is simple: OIL!! If there was no oil there, no one would give a hoot.

The reality is the US is there because we need cheap oil to fuel our economy. There is no spin, this is the reality. The spin is possible WMD, turning out an "evil" dictator, saving the kurds, etc... etc... that is the spin.


PD you are correct, it is a form of imperialism. Looking out for vital national interest is what drives foreign policy. It might be distasteful, but it is reality. This is the same thing we did in China and Japan with the open door policy.

Without cheap oil the US economy would collapse, which mean the worlds economy would collapse. The US gets its power from its economy. Our miltiary power is so good because of our economy. We are able to afford a top notch military, with weapon systems and tactics that are lightyears ahead of anyone else.

[Nickatilynx]

Of course Mike.

But use the search function and re-read your posts on why this was a fair and just war , spinmeister ;-)))

That aside , your current stance seems to be in its simplist terms:

The United States of America , with Britain , and other agressor nations , invaded Iraq in order to protect the agressor nations interest in the Oil reserves.

Damn!! You sound like the most militant of the militant Muslims!!!

I believe that is EXACTLY what they claim.

;-)))

[Mike AI]

PD this is not even close to Vietnam. The domino theory was a flawed theory. The thought that all communists got along and worked together was flawed. At the time it made sense, but looking back one has 20/20 hindsight.

Iraq is a completely different situation, we have many more national interests in that region ( OIL), and last I checked the Viet Cong were not sending people to the US to blow up buildings.

The American people might not be happy with the realities of foreign policy, but minute the oil stopped flowing there would be calls for action. Look at the reation to higher gas prices now. Imagine if gas became $5 a gallon, $10 a gallon, or you could not get gas at all. This is just one small aspect of what oil bring to our economy - oil heats our homes, gives us power, is the base for all plastic, etc... etc...

People have always fought over natural resources - as they continue to dwindle there will be more and more wars over them. Wars are promarily fought over economic issues....

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Mar 15 2004, 02:54 PM
Of course Mike.

But use the search function and re-read your posts on why this was a fair and just war , spinmeister ;-)))

That aside , your current stance seems to be in its simplist terms:

The United States of America , with Britain , and other agressor nations , invaded Iraq in order to protect the agressor nations interest in the Oil reserves.

Damn!! You sound like the most militant of the militant Muslims!!!

I believe that is EXACTLY what they claim.

;-)))


I am sure they claim this, but the difference is history is written by the victors!

Fair and just war? Is there ever such a thing? Securing national interest, which include oil is fair and just for me. Our Anglo sensibilites are pushed out of wack when we have to use our military to secure economic gains. It is much more "Patriotic" to support a war againt "Evil" but this is not always a reality. It has to be sold this way to the mass public...

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 15 2004, 11:58 AM
Iraq is a completely different situation, we have many more national interests in that region ( OIL), and last I checked the Viet Cong were not sending people to the US to blow up buildings.



People have always fought over natural resources - as they continue to dwindle there will be more and more wars over them. Wars are promarily fought over economic issues....
If this was the case, then in both points, why wasn't Saudi Arabia invaded?

Oh, they play ball. Or do they?

I believe they fund quite a bit of terrorist orgs via dummy corps.

Hrmmmm, still trying to find a reason why they weren't invaded.

[Nickatilynx]

I am sure they claim this, but the difference is history is written by the victors!


And history decides the victors .

Vietnam , Korea both were "victories" of the US at one point.

Now considered at best , a score draw ;-)))

G-d forbid The US's economic war, becomes , in the eyes of Muslims everywhere, a war of faith.

Ooops too late it is and has.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Mar 15 2004, 03:09 PM
I am sure they claim this, but the difference is history is written by the victors!


And history decides the victors .

Vietnam , Korea both were "victories" of the US at one point.

Now considered at best , a score draw ;-)))

G-d forbid The US's economic war, becomes , in the eyes of Muslims everywhere, a war of faith.

Ooops too late it is and has.


It was a war of faith even before Iraq.

The people who lost in Korea & Vietnam were the poor North Koreans, and Vietmanese... Think about it.

[PornoDoggy]

Mikey ... when I talk about the situation in Vietnam, I am not talking about the rationalizations for the war - I'm giving my opinion of the tactical situation we are getting oursellves into.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 15 2004, 03:24 PM
Mikey ... when I talk about the situation in Vietnam, I am not talking about the rationalizations for the war - I'm giving my opinion of the tactical situation we are getting oursellves into.

I honestly do not see the situation being the same at all.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Mar 15 2004, 03:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Mar 15 2004, 03:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Mar 15 2004, 03:24 PM
Mikey ... when I talk about the situation in Vietnam, I am not talking about the rationalizations for the war - I'm giving my opinion of the tactical situation we are getting oursellves into.

I honestly do not see the situation being the same at all.[/b][/quote]
Like I said before, it may not be - YET.

If you are right, and the masters are deceiving the sheep into supporting what cannot be called anything othat than a war of imperialism in the turn of the LAST century tradition - it will get that way.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Mar 15 2004, 03:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Mar 15 2004, 03:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Mike AI@Mar 15 2004, 03:32 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Mar 15 2004, 03:24 PM
Mikey ... when I talk about the situation in Vietnam, I am not talking about the rationalizations for the war - I'm giving my opinion of the tactical situation we are getting oursellves into.

I honestly do not see the situation being the same at all.
Like I said before, it may not be - YET.

If you are right, and the masters are deceiving the sheep into supporting what cannot be called anything othat than a war of imperialism in the turn of the LAST century tradition - it will get that way.[/b][/quote]


Well I honestly hope Bush has a better exit strategy then he had for occupation. This is the problem with current events, it is hard to see the REAL big picture when things are still fluid.

[PornoDoggy]

I'm confused.

If the purpose of the war is "US securing a base of operation to stablize a region of vital importance, to be near the precious oil for long term ecnomics" - then there would be no need for an exit strategy, unless you think we can pull off in Iraq what we did in Iran in '53 (install a government that is essentially a puppet).

If we make that attempt, you'll see that your assessment of the reaction of the "Arab street" was premature at best.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 15 2004, 03:54 PM
I'm confused.

If the purpose of the war is "US securing a base of operation to stablize a region of vital importance, to be near the precious oil for long term ecnomics" - then there would be no need for an exit strategy, unless you think we can pull off in Iraq what we did in Iran in '53 (install a government that is essentially a puppet).

If we make that attempt, you'll see that your assessment of the reaction of the "Arab street" was premature at best.


Something can be secure without having to have an occupation force. When the turnover comes, it will jsut be for political power. Our military will still be stationed through out IRaq. We just won't be on all the street corners but out in the boonies away from everything else.

From what I have read we are bulding premanent bases for our troops now.

We still have troops throughout Europe and Asia - surely these countries are not occupied? Or are they?

Bush continues to drop the ball domesticly, if things continue he is going to get smeared in an election and like his father set the Republican party back years. As of this second he seems to have the same aloofness his father head when it comes to re-election. I do not get it....

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 15 2004, 12:01 PM
Securing national interest, which include oil is fair and just for me.
So basically you are saying it is okay for your government to murder any number of people, to commit any atrocity, to invade any nation as long as it is in the economic interests of the U.S.A.?

[Vick]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack+Mar 15 2004, 04:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Sixpack @ Mar 15 2004, 04:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Mar 15 2004, 12:01 PM
Securing national interest, which include oil is fair and just for me.
So basically you are saying it is okay for your government to murder any number of people, to commit any atrocity, to invade any nation as long as it is in the economic interests of the U.S.A.?[/b][/quote]
It's tough being the top dog

Now you're starting to understand

[PornoDoggy]

Mikey ... as long as our military remains in Iraq it will be a target. As long as it is a target, it will be forced to take actions that play into the hands of the terrorists.

How long do you think it will take for an Iraqi government to establish control and ask us to leave? If that government does not, it will not retain the support of the people.

What are we going to do when that happens?

You are buying a pie in the sky, Mike ... I repeat again - the policy that the Bush Administration is pursuing is fundamentally flawed, and will damage the interests of the U.S. in both the short and long term.

[Nickatilynx]

An interesting Article , Mike , on this very point. (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1132/10_53/84184712/p1/article.jhtml?term=)

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Vick+Mar 15 2004, 01:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Mar 15 2004, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Joe Sixpack@Mar 15 2004, 04:09 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Mar 15 2004, 12:01 PM
Securing national interest, which include oil is fair and just for me.
So basically you are saying it is okay for your government to murder any number of people, to commit any atrocity, to invade any nation as long as it is in the economic interests of the U.S.A.?
It's tough being the top dog

Now you're starting to understand[/b][/quote]
This is why I support terrorist acts againist your murderous regime.

[Vick]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack+Mar 15 2004, 04:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Sixpack @ Mar 15 2004, 04:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Vick@Mar 15 2004, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by -Joe Sixpack@Mar 15 2004, 04:09 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Mar 15 2004, 12:01 PM
Securing national interest, which include oil is fair and just for me.
So basically you are saying it is okay for your government to murder any number of people, to commit any atrocity, to invade any nation as long as it is in the economic interests of the U.S.A.?
It's tough being the top dog

Now you're starting to understand
This is why I support terrorist acts againist your murderous regime.[/b][/quote]
Well Joearmchair lipservice

Let me see if I can put it in terms you can relate to

What you you do to defend the last 6 beers in your refrigerator, the very tasty brews you worked hard to earn (I'm guessing you have some first hand knowledge of hard work and maybe sacrifice)

How far would YOU go Joe to protect what has meaning for you, to protect what is important to your quality of life?

:P


I'm guessing not far - where are you convictions?

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Vick+Mar 15 2004, 01:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Mar 15 2004, 01:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Joe Sixpack@Mar 15 2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by -Vick@Mar 15 2004, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by -Joe Sixpack@Mar 15 2004, 04:09 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Mar 15 2004, 12:01 PM
Securing national interest, which include oil is fair and just for me.
So basically you are saying it is okay for your government to murder any number of people, to commit any atrocity, to invade any nation as long as it is in the economic interests of the U.S.A.?
It's tough being the top dog

Now you're starting to understand
This is why I support terrorist acts againist your murderous regime.
Well Joearmchair lipservice

Let me see if I can put it in terms you can relate to

What you you do to defend the last 6 beers in your refrigerator, the very tasty brews you worked hard to earn (I'm guessing you have some first hand knowledge of hard work and maybe sacrifice)

How far would YOU go Joe to protect what has meaning for you, to protect what is important to your quality of life?

:P


I'm guessing not far - where are you convictions?[/b][/quote]
I certainly wouldn't be murdering others who were no real threat to me.

Your nation is the most evil on the face of the Earth. I wish nothing but terror and death upon you and your fellow Americans.

[wig]

Originally posted by Vick+Mar 15 2004, 04:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Mar 15 2004, 04:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Joe Sixpack@Mar 15 2004, 04:09 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Mar 15 2004, 12:01 PM
Securing national interest, which include oil is fair and just for me.
So basically you are saying it is okay for your government to murder any number of people, to commit any atrocity, to invade any nation as long as it is in the economic interests of the U.S.A.?
It's tough being the top dog

Now you're starting to understand[/b][/quote]
Vick,

You hit it right on the head!

It's not about America the country. It is about being number 1.

When you are number 1, you do what it takes to stay there. It is totally natural.

When you are number 2 or lower, you relish seeing number 1 knocked off. Also, totally natural.

But, all countries in the position of number 1 do the same thing and Australia would be no different.

[Vick]

Wig - :okthumb:


Seriously Joe - where are your convictions? Sounds like you have USA envy (just poking at ya) -

You have to understand, we, the USA are #1 and by nature will do what it takes to remain #1 - you being beneath will have your views

I'm not sorry you aren't the top dog and can't appreciate the view from here (and what it took to get here)

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Vick@Mar 15 2004, 05:22 PM
Well Joearmchair lipservice

Let me see if I can put it in terms you can relate to

What you you do to defend the last 6 beers in your refrigerator, the very tasty brews you worked hard to earn (I'm guessing you have some first hand knowledge of hard work and maybe sacrifice)

How far would YOU go Joe to protect what has meaning for you, to protect what is important to your quality of life?

:P


I'm guessing not far - where are you convictions?
:wnw:

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Vick@Mar 15 2004, 01:41 PM
Wig - :okthumb:


Seriously Joe - where are your convictions? Sounds like you have USA envy (just poking at ya) -

You have to understand, we, the USA are #1 and by nature will do what it takes to remain #1 - you being beneath will have your views

I'm not sorry you aren't the top dog and can't appreciate the view from here (and what it took to get here)
Australia has never aspired to be number one because of our small population.

If becoming a murderous, warmongering regime is what it takes to be number one then I'll happily pass.

Besides, you're certainly not number one when it comes to quality of life and that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned.



Last edited by Joe Sixpack at Mar 15 2004, 01:45 PM

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack@Mar 15 2004, 05:44 PM
Australia has never aspired to be number one because of our small population.

If becoming a murderous, warmongering regime is what it takes to be number one then I'll happily pass.

Besides, you're certainly not number one when it comes to quality of life and that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned.
Joe, who do you think Australia would call if someone decided that a big place with so few people would be easy to take over? B)

[wig]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack+Mar 15 2004, 04:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Sixpack @ Mar 15 2004, 04:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Vick@Mar 15 2004, 01:41 PM
Wig - :okthumb:


Seriously Joe - where are your convictions? Sounds like you have USA envy (just poking at ya) -

You have to understand, we, the USA are #1 and by nature will do what it takes to remain #1 - you being beneath will have your views

I'm not sorry you aren't the top dog and can't appreciate the view from here (and what it took to get here)
Australia has never aspired to be number one because of our small population.

If becoming a murderous, warmongering regime is what it takes to be number one then I'll happily pass.

Besides, you're certainly not number one when it comes to quality of life and that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned.[/b][/quote]
Yeah, uh huh.

Same sorry position the poor take about the rich.

Further to the point, this is not about what Joe, Vick, Wig or anyone else would do. We are not the Government.

To wish a dirty nuke on an innocent population and to relish and cheer for it is not only asinine, it is childish and contrary to your supposed core foundation of anti-murderous, anti-war mongering, blah, blah, blah.

Or is it okay as long as your personal interests are satisfied??

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by Peaches+Mar 15 2004, 01:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Mar 15 2004, 01:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Joe Sixpack@Mar 15 2004, 05:44 PM
Australia has never aspired to be number one because of our small population.

If becoming a murderous, warmongering regime is what it takes to be number one then I'll happily pass.

Besides, you're certainly not number one when it comes to quality of life and that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned.
Joe, who do you think Australia would call if someone decided that a big place with so few people would be easy to take over? B)[/b][/quote]
Australia would be one of the most difficult countries in the world to invade because of our location and our geography.

Who do you think is capable of invading Australia?

[Joe Sixpack]

Originally posted by wig@Mar 15 2004, 01:57 PM
To wish a dirty nuke on an innocent population and to relish and cheer for it is not only asinine, it is childish and contrary to your supposed core foundation of anti-murderous, anti-war mongering, blah, blah, blah.

Or is it okay as long as your personal interests are satisfied??
I like to see big bullies get their comeuppance.

I'd like to see Americans experience more of the death and misery they so frequently inflict on others.

[Vick]

Originally posted by wig@Mar 15 2004, 04:57 PM
To wish a dirty nuke on an innocent population and to relish and cheer for it is not only asinine, it is childish and contrary to your supposed core foundation of anti-murderous, anti-war mongering, blah, blah, blah.

Or is it okay as long as your personal interests are satisfied??
Spot on!! Good call Wig :okthumb:

[wig]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack+Mar 15 2004, 05:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Sixpack @ Mar 15 2004, 05:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Mar 15 2004, 01:57 PM
To wish a dirty nuke on an innocent population and to relish and cheer for it is not only asinine, it is childish and contrary to your supposed core foundation of anti-murderous, anti-war mongering, blah, blah, blah.

Or is it okay as long as your personal interests are satisfied??
I like to see big bullies get their comeuppance.

I'd like to see Americans experience more of the death and misery they so frequently inflict on others.[/b][/quote]
In other words, you are a hypocrite.

[Nickatilynx]

Who do you think is capable of invading Australia?


If an asshole like you is representative , who would want too.


* Nickatilynx does not believe that joesixpack is a true representative of Australia.In fact Nickatilynx likes Australia and Australians , with the exception of Joesixpack and does not wish to be introduced to bolt cutters in any form. Thank you.

;-)))

[wig]

Originally posted by Vick+Mar 15 2004, 05:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Mar 15 2004, 05:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Mar 15 2004, 04:57 PM
To wish a dirty nuke on an innocent population and to relish and cheer for it is not only asinine, it is childish and contrary to your supposed core foundation of anti-murderous, anti-war mongering, blah, blah, blah.

Or is it okay as long as your personal interests are satisfied??
Spot on!! Good call Wig :okthumb:[/b][/quote]
:salute: :salute: :salute: :D

Back at ya!

[clemsontiger]

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack+Mar 15 2004, 06:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Joe Sixpack @ Mar 15 2004, 06:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Peaches@Mar 15 2004, 01:53 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Joe Sixpack@Mar 15 2004, 05:44 PM
Australia has never aspired to be number one because of our small population.

If becoming a murderous, warmongering regime is what it takes to be number one then I'll happily pass.

Besides, you're certainly not number one when it comes to quality of life and that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned.
Joe, who do you think Australia would call if someone decided that a big place with so few people would be easy to take over? B)
Australia would be one of the most difficult countries in the world to invade because of our location and our geography.

Who do you think is capable of invading Australia?[/b][/quote]
There is a reason that the British sent their criminals to Australia and it wasn't for the scenery.

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Mar 15 2004, 12:59 PM
Here is the story (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/15/spain.election/index.html)

Interestingly this online vote on CNN is being taken

Do you agree with Spain's premier-elect that his country's troops should be pulled from Iraq?

Yes 54% 2807 votes

No 46% 2354 votes

Total: 5161 votes
Saw that article and that poll the other day. Made me wonder some things.

Is that poll and its results

- only for English speakers (and possibly few Spanish)
- is there a seperate poll in Spanish in which people from Spain are voting
- are the results only of the English poll, or if it is multilingual, the results of all the polls (if they exist)

Depending on how it was done would tell me how useful the poll is (or isn't) or what slant it is taking by the voters. Naturally there is no explanation on the CNN site itself so I find it pretty useless.

[Meni]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 15 2004, 02:09 PM
Nick if you assume the reason for gonig to war was WMD, then it looks like a fuck up.

If you see it as the US securing a base of operation to stablize a region of vital importance, to be near the precious oil for long term ecnomics - it is BRILLIANT!

More then one President, Prime Minister has thought about getting into the oil fields on the middle east.

Bush has pulled it off, pretty effortlessly ( militarily speaking), and there has not been a huge "arab street" counter...

Iraq is about oil, stabilization of middle east, putting pressure on saudi arabia, the WMD and getting ride of a tyrant are nice window dressing.

If Saddam had kept playing ball with the US, he would still be in power.
Mike did GW tell us thats we went for Oil?
for oil?

oil?
we talklng about oil

oil?

not a game

oil

oil man

we talking about oil

oil son

oil


(oil is replacing practice in this post)

[Meni]

Originally posted by Vick@Mar 15 2004, 04:41 PM
Wig - :okthumb:


Seriously Joe - where are your convictions? Sounds like you have USA envy (just poking at ya) -

You have to understand, we, the USA are #1 and by nature will do what it takes to remain #1 - you being beneath will have your views

I'm not sorry you aren't the top dog and can't appreciate the view from here (and what it took to get here)
Vick we are number 1 in what?

number 1 hockey?

number 1 in scholastic scores?

number 1 in quality of living?

number 1 in less taxation?

number 1,, in gun deaths!!!!!!

um number 1 in? hypocrisy?

number 1 in football? yup

number 1 in baseball? yup

hoop yup

number 1 in life expectancy?

number 1 in freedom?

number 1 in what dude

[Vick]

Everything that matters - being the only Superpower :D

and #1 in Freedom :D

[Vick]

p.s. - Please let me add

There are great countries in the world, many great places to live and we in terms of humanity are fortunate to have this diversity

I chose the USA as #1 for freedom for many reasons (not putting down any other countries or cultures) one of the major reasons is a lower tax rate than many countries


Also the USA owes a debt to the fine upstanding countries such as England and Australia who chose to stand united with the USA in our challenges against terrorism (and fight for oil and stability in the Middle East)

Yes you can disagree and/or flame me as much as you like (or not) that's one of the great things about the Internet - exchange of ideas and information




:salute: :stout:

[Meni]

Originally posted by Vick@Mar 16 2004, 02:51 PM
Everything that matters - being the only Superpower :D

and #1 in Freedom :D
number 1 in freedom?
really?
am I free to listen to Stern in FL?
can I see a tit on tv?
i can in europe
dude the freedom shit is pretty old
how limited is freedom in Amsterdam?
or Paris
or Tokyo?
or Montreal?
or Rio?
or Sydney?
fill me in bro
cuz keep braggin about superpower and thats just a sword fight dude
our schools suck
thats our future dude
$500K fine for "INDECENCY" what ever THAT IS
thats our future
The religious right trying to take away a woman's right to abortion
limit stell cel research
NO gay marriages thats just pure EVIL huh

the drug companies fuck us on our meds and the FDA is in bed with the Med companies
we pay up the ass for the same meds sold in Canada

[aeon]

Originally posted by Meni+Mar 16 2004, 11:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Meni @ Mar 16 2004, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Vick@Mar 15 2004, 04:41 PM
Wig - :okthumb:


Seriously Joe - where are your convictions? Sounds like you have USA envy (just poking at ya) -

You have to understand, we, the USA are #1 and by nature will do what it takes to remain #1 - you being beneath will have your views

I'm not sorry you aren't the top dog and can't appreciate the view from here (and what it took to get here)
Vick we are number 1 in what?

number 1 hockey?

number 1 in scholastic scores?

number 1 in quality of living?

number 1 in less taxation?

number 1,, in gun deaths!!!!!!

um number 1 in? hypocrisy?

number 1 in football? yup

number 1 in baseball? yup

hoop yup

number 1 in life expectancy?

number 1 in freedom?

number 1 in what dude[/b][/quote]
#1 in porn related companies and revenues. :salute:

[J'sdude]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 15 2004, 10:14 AM
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040315/1/3irv0.html

The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster," Zapatero, 43, told Cadena Ser radio Monday.


This guy is out of touch. The War in Iraq was one of the most successful ever. What other country could have pulled off such a swift victory with so few casualties? Militarily speaking it was amazing. ( were there mistakes? of course - it is war. )

The occupation has had some problems, definatly some lack of planning and knowledge of mid east mind sets and such. However, I think it has gone pretty well.

It has not even celerated the first anniversy of the start of the war yet....
This is but a small snipit in time.

PD you are an old guy, how long before Vietnam became an major politcal issue with regards to the occupation and war? I know it was not less then a year.
Superbly planned....not. It was a cakewalk of an arms bazaar. Bambi meets Godzilla.
The war that should never have happened, chasing weapons of mass destruction that never existed. Sadam has never had weapons of mass destruction. Now before you go off your nut and blather on about gas; they used mustard gas which is a tactical battlefield weapon. Been known to kill fewer that the MOAB. But certainly not a WMD.
While we are at it, could you please post a list of all those countries you feel are entitled to possess WMD and why?

[Meni]

Yeah

you Bush punks

can you show me a list of countries allowed to have WMD

[J'sdude]

Originally posted by Meni@Mar 17 2004, 09:54 PM
Yeah

you Bush punks

can you show me a list of countries allowed to have WMD
How about we start with.....for a hundred dollars....
Third world countries that should be allowed to have nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons...
1. Israel
2. North Korea
3. Iran

Please add your choice so we can make the world a safer place with another decade of mutually assured destruction