Europeans...

[Guest Kingpk]

*Standing Ovation*

 

[Guest EricMM]

First: Could we PLEAAASE stop talking about the 2000 elections? Please? It's been two years and it's getting VERY old. I don't care anymore. It's irrelevent.

 

Second:

How about the fact that food and medical supplies, stuff that could help starving and sick Iraqi's, are being exempt thanks to the Sanctions which prohibit imports. What about the fact that the Sanctions have violated the Geneva Convention which prohibit the "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare." What about the fact that the sanctions still deny Iraqis adequcate health care, water, and electricity. How about the fact that the overall deterioration in the quality and quantity of drinking water has contributed to the rapid spread of infectious diseases. Hundreds of tons of raw sewage, for example, is dumped untreated into the Tigris and Euphrates rivers each week, causing epidemics of cholera, typhoid and gastroenteritis. And how about the fact that 5,000 Iraqi children have died every month since the sanctions began.

 

Maybe I am misinformed but if Iraq can't feed or medicate it's own people with sanctions in place, they shouldn't worry about going to war with us. They should take their NBC labs and change them into hydroponic labs and grow some fucking food or whatever. I don't want to hear this bullshit about us starving Iraq's. The US didn't screw Hussien, Hussien screwed Hussien.

 

Interesting side note I read a letter in I think esquire magazine, it was this VERY irate man who was yelling at the editor to stop calling Saddam Hussien "Saddam". He was all "We wouldn't call Bush 'George' so why do we call Hussien "Saddam"? I snickered at it, but if you think about it, it's kind of true. The writer then said it was disrespectful for S. Hussien, which I guess it is, but I mean, I've been calling him Fucking Saddam Hussien for years now, is that any more disrespectful? If so, good.

[Guest Michael Joel Benoit]

I hate Hussein also. I don't support him nor do I think he is a good leader. I actually want him ousted myself.

 

But, the longer the sanctions continue, the more hatred the Middle East has for us and the more of a chance something like what happened on 9/11 happens again. I just want the sanctions to stop not just for the Iraqis but for Americans as well.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

First: Could we PLEAAASE stop talking about the 2000 elections? Please? It's been two years and it's getting VERY old. I don't care anymore. It's irrelevent.

I second that! It DOESN'T MATTER! If Gore would have been elected then all the liberal stuff Bush has been doing (amnesty for illegal aliens, farm bill, campaign finance reform, some environmental stuff) would have never been passed because he's a Democrat and the Republicans would have said no. But, because Bush WANTS to do liberal things, his followers and Democrats will gladly go along with him.

 

In short, Liberals need to stop bitching about the election because they're getting liberal legislation passed that NEVER would have been passed had Gore been in office.

[Guest TJH]

I meant the sanctions.

The ones the UN approved and still supports?

 

I agree with your points, but don't go round saying "screw the U.N, we'll just invade if and when we want" and then say "the U.N approves sanctions, so how can you criticise us for this?".

 

Just a tad hypocritical.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

2---Tom, you're entitled to your opinions and SKBF deserved all he got, but he had already had quite a drubbing and as moderator of this forum you should not be saying "fuck you" to your posters. Period. You have a position of responsibility, so try to keep yourself in check.

I disagree with this. As long as Tom doesn't abuse his power, he should have the exact same rights to express himself as everyone else. Actions speak louder than words: SKBF, despite being a retard, has been allowed to keep posting his garbage in this forum; if Tom weren't trustworthy, and he meant everything he said, he would have banned SKBF long ago and deleted his posts. He didn't. That means that he's entitled to more trust and respect from you, not less.

I don't want to see anyone, mod or member, tone down his posts for any reason at all. Say what you think and back it up to the fullest. How will anyone learn anything otherwise?

[Guest TJH]

2---Tom, you're entitled to your opinions and SKBF deserved all he got, but he had already had quite a drubbing and as moderator of this forum you should not be saying "fuck you" to your posters.  Period.  You have a position of responsibility, so try to keep yourself in check.

I disagree with this. As long as Tom doesn't abuse his power, he should have the exact same rights to express himself as everyone else. Actions speak louder than words: SKBF, despite being a retard, has been allowed to keep posting his garbage in this forum; if Tom weren't trustworthy, and he meant everything he said, he would have banned SKBF long ago and deleted his posts. He didn't. That means that he's entitled to more trust and respect from you, not less.

I don't want to see anyone, mod or member, tone down his posts for any reason at all. Say what you think and back it up to the fullest. How will anyone learn anything otherwise?

That is supremely 100% correct.

[Guest NoCalMike]

For the 1000000th time.........Supporters of Al Gore ARE NOT fucking "liberals" they are DEMOCRATS, and there is a big difference. Stop repeating what Bill O' Reily or Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh drones into your minds.

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

Extremely entertaining thread folks (and that's all I ask), and although a part of me believes in the logical sense of what SKBF has been saying (for after all, in such a society as he describes, people like Marney and Doc represent the disbelieving majority who will instantly strike down the truth of what may actually be happening, simply because of their blind faith in the government and policies at hand) this young'un should know better than to deal with people like Marney, a full-fledged intellgence expert who gets information us poor, tit-sucking liberals could never believe, or Doc, a full-fledged anti-Ashcroft freedom fighter who wants this country to live up to its ideals. Marney and Doc, as much as we disagree on so many ways on how to make this planet live up to its promise, at least we can all agree on the common goal of peace and understanding amongst all peoples, even if we disagree heavily on the methods and ways to achieve this goal. God bless and peace and all that crap. As long as we can all believe we can work out all this in the end, we'll be alright........

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Supporters of Al Gore ARE NOT fucking "liberals" they are DEMOCRATS, and there is a big difference

This is true. Liberals aren't necessarily Godless hypocritical bleeding-heart bottom-feeding borderline-Commie hypocrites with their lips firmly wrapped around twenty thousand labour-union cocks, not only willing but eager to subvert the Constitution on a whim, able to contemplate freedom only if it's the freedom to conform. I still have some respect for classical liberals.

[Guest fk teale]

How about the fact that food and medical supplies, stuff that could help starving and sick Iraqi's, are being exempt thanks to the Sanctions which prohibit imports.

Iraq Lagging in Buying Food, Medicine for Needy, U.N. Complains

 

In a letter to the Security Council's Iraq Sanctions Committee, Benon Sevan, executive director of the Office of Iraq Program, expressed his "grave concern over the very slow rate of submissions of applications" to purchase food, medicine and other supplies needed by Iraqi civilians under the council's oil-for-food program. U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard released the letter to the public January 18.

 

He noted that food purchases exceeded $1.58 billion and were approved by the sanctions committee in "a very timely manner."

 

"I am gravely concerned, however, with regard to the unacceptably slow rate of submission of applications, in particular under the health, education, water and sanitation, as well as the oil sectors," Sevan said. "Despite all the concerns expressed regarding the nutritional and health status of the Iraqi people, the total value of applications received under the health sector was only $83.61 million against the $624.75 million allocated."

 

 

And how about the fact that 5,000 Iraqi children have died every month since the sanctions began. Concidence? I think not.

 

Dead Iraqi Baby Inflation Reaches Epic Proportions; "Math is Hard," Socialists Complain

 

While firefighters were still pulling out warm body parts from Ground Zero, foreign policy critic Noam Chomsky and his followers on college campuses and alternative-weekly staffs nationwide were insisting that it was vital to understand the "context" of the September 11 massacre: that U.S.-led sanctions were killing "5,000 children a month" in Iraq. Meanwhile, on the Iraqi government’s own Web site, the number of under-5 deaths from all causes for the month of September was listed as 2,932.

 

 

...

 

Shut your ignorant cock hangar.

[Guest MR. COOLING]

<But, the longer the sanctions continue, the more hatred the Middle East has for us and the more of a chance something like what happened on 9/11 happens again. I just want the sanctions to stop not just for the Iraqis but for Americans as well.>

 

Well then support the attack on Iraq its the only way to get sanctions ended quickly. The fact is you can'tjust stop the sanctions and the limits on Saddam's miltary as that will give him a free reign to develop is weapons of mass destruction which will provoke Israel into attacking him by ANY means whether the US likes it or not.

 

W.W.I Cooling

[Guest DrTom]

I agree with your points, but don't go round saying "screw the U.N, we'll just invade if and when we want" and then say "the U.N approves sanctions, so how can you criticise us for this?".

 

Just a tad hypocritical.

That's not really what I'm saying, though. SKBF seems to be of the belief that America shouldn't be acting on its own, should follow the UN, go thru proper channels, and all that. I mentioned the sanctions being UN-approved because he came across as hyper-critical of those sanctions for their alleged effects on the Iraqi economy and people. It was an attempt to point out his own inconsistencies in thought.

 

I've been very much in favor of telling the UN to bugger off for a while now.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

don't go round saying "screw the U.N, we'll just invade if and when we want" and then say "the U.N approves sanctions, so how can you criticise us for this?". Just a tad hypocritical.

I don't see how this position is hypocritical at all, actually. What's wrong with it? How can someone criticise the United States alone out of the 189 members of the United Nations and the 15 members of the Security Council? And where's the problem if, when someone does make that criticism, we say, "Fuck it, if we're the only ones who're going to take shit, we might as well take shit for things we really are solely responsible for?"

There's no hypocrisy there. The position is perfectly consistent, and I happen to hold it.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well for one, how can you tell other countries to follow and uphold what the UN delegates, and then turn around and say, "well in this case, we are just forgetting what the UN says and we'll just go to war, yee haw"

[Guest DeputyHawk]

I don't want to see anyone, mod or member, tone down his posts for any reason at all. Say what you think and back it up to the fullest. How will anyone learn anything otherwise?

to clarify my criticism, i think tom's a great poster - i just think it's not a mod's place to be flaming people. the moderator of a forum should be someone whom posters can go to when they are dissatisfied with others' behaviour towards them, so when the mod himself is saying "fuck you" to people, it leaves those posters in an awkward position. i'm all for saying what you think and backing it up to the fullest, but i just think as a mod you should rise above the puerile insult throwing that someone like SKBF resorts to. i wasn't asking him to tone down his views, just his method of expressing them. bit it is tom's forum and he did agree to be more civil, so hey.

[Guest MrRant]

I will refer you all to the 2nd commandment of NO MA'AM:

 

IT IS WRONG TO BE FRENCH

 

This Sermon by The Reverend Rant brought to you by:

 

The Church Of NO MA'AM and

PBS

[Guest DeputyHawk]

*marks out*

[Guest danielisthor]

I will refer you all to the 2nd commandment of NO MA'AM:

 

IT IS WRONG TO BE FRENCH

 

This Sermon by The Reverend Rant brought to you by:

 

The Church Of NO MA'AM and

PBS

LMGDAO.

[Guest TJH]

don't go round saying "screw the U.N, we'll just invade if and when we want" and then say "the U.N approves sanctions, so how can you criticise us for this?". Just a tad hypocritical.

I don't see how this position is hypocritical at all, actually. What's wrong with it? How can someone criticise the United States alone out of the 189 members of the United Nations and the 15 members of the Security Council? And where's the problem if, when someone does make that criticism, we say, "Fuck it, if we're the only ones who're going to take shit, we might as well take shit for things we really are solely responsible for?"

There's no hypocrisy there. The position is perfectly consistent, and I happen to hold it.

The thing is, if you basically say "fuck the U.N, we don't give a rats arse what they say" and then say "well, these sanctions are U.N approved so they obviously fair and just".

 

You can't just completely ignore an organisation when it disagrees with you, and then pay it attention when it does agree with you.

 

You can either say:

 

Screw the U.N, it doesn't matter what they say about anything

 

OR

 

The U.N is a legitimate body and all nations should abide by its rulings

 

You can't say

 

The U.N is correct when it agrees with us, and incorrect when it disagrees.

[Guest MrRant]

Yes we can... we are America.

 

::Statue Of Liberty poses and spits water on Europe::

[Guest DeputyHawk]

you just created an image which will remain with me for the rest of my life. deputyhawk wipes both tears of laughter and america's spittle from his eye.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

You can't say

The U.N is correct when it agrees with us, and incorrect when it disagrees.

If we're in the right, and the UN disagrees with us - and that happens all the time - we absolutely can.

[Guest danielisthor]

You can't say

The U.N is correct when it agrees with us, and incorrect when it disagrees.

If we're in the right, and the UN disagrees with us - and that happens all the time - we absolutely can.

My humble opinion as that the United Nations is only for the best interest of poor 3 world countries that can't take a shit without permission and help. They don't care about anything else regarding the United States, as long as we keep funding that worthless organization with money and military might.

[Guest Mystery Eskimo]

The UN is fairly useless...

 

But going back to the title of this thread, I'm just wondering why so many posters on this board feel the need to abuse Europeans and their opinions? The survey said that some Europeans (and only 55%) think that US foreign policy may have contributed to 9/11. Given that foreign policy dictates much of how the rest of the world looks and reacts to a country, is this such an awful and amazing thing to say?

 

I'm sure I'll probably get an answer like "Europe has no power and is jealous of the US" or something but I just wondered.

 

Of course, it is indeed true that it is wrong to be French