You're right

[WolfMoon]

Originally Posted by 4mytribe

Actually it appears there is proof that he lied and knew it based on some documents that came out Britain and too many afterwards to mention. There is no doubt this whole thing was fishy.

Yeah, yeah......


He just made up a reason to go to war?

Uh?

Spin again!

[Corpsey]

Why do i hate bush? Because he has made millions of people's lives miserable by fucking up Iraq, as i have already stated. Who in the world should have that right? Saddam is in dire need of a chelsea smile as well, the topic was bush so i stayed on the topic. Saddam needed to be taken out, like all the miserable wanks in this world BUT bush just goes around like a fucking lunatic and charges into there with just the american concept of peace keeping, which is quite frankly rediculously poor. How many times in the history of the world has your country bothered to be aware of the ways other countries run themselves? Or even, how the locals might react to loosing their societies way of being run? Almost none at all. You're history of peace keeping is as minimal as possible and when it's done, it's done with unexperienced officers. You might be excellent at doing most things in a war, but peace keeping isn't one of your forte's. My main point here is that because of bush's inexperience of peace keeping, coalition forces had no idea what to do once they had kicked out Saddam, they had no idea of how to help the people there, this made millions of people's lives in Iraq miserable and i loathe him.


I didnt my sources from the media. My dad is one of the head Engineers in the NZ army and i have heard from people who he has sent over here to restabilise things what happens. He described it as total fucking chaos, people constantly pointing the finger at each other and shit peace keeping on your part. He told me a load more about how foreign freaks are turning up in Bagdad just to stir up the peace for when the camera's were rolling.

Also, NZ has been anti any nuclear country just because they have nukes. If you didnt know, it was a New Zealand scientist who figured out how to split the atom and the original accurate atomic model, so it was our fault that nukes are around. No, politically we just don't want them on our soil, and i hate nuclear weaponry in general. Not big kaboom nukes, im talking about depleated uranium. In Iraq there are tanks on the side of the roads from the original gulf war with DU written on them, meaning they are radioactive and with be forever pretty much. Some sniper rounds are DU tipped and they go through any sort of tank armour like a hot knife in butter. X_X No wonder the Iraqis got their ass caned 1st time round. So yes, Im against nuclear weaponry because they kill things for a very long time.

And my thing about USSR was sheerly based off the fact that bush claims he's fighting a war on terrorism. America has never really been that interested in taking out dictators, why start now. And the war on terrorism is bull too, There was more terrorism in the 1970's than recently so when bush rants on about it i think he's making a fool of himself.

[Crom Crauch]

Corpsey... I've said this once and I'll say this again... get the facts straight before you sound off. Rutherford made a model of the atom, true, BUT there was a problem with it. According to his model, the atom would have a continuous spectra line, instead of the discrete emission spectra found in experiments. The person that you actually want was born in Copenhagen, and is known as Neils Bohr...

Oh yeah, tell that "concept of peacekeeping" bit to take a look at the excellent job done in the Balkans by the NATO troops. Yeah, NATO may now be defunct, but the main bodies of troops are still from the NATO signatories, so study. The problems with peacekeeping in Iraq is that the military is being reigned in by the politicians, instead of simply doing what is needed for peacekeeping.

Found a little something about the dreaded Depleted Uranium, you might find it interesting: Depleted Uranium info read it, please

Nice to know that yer dad's in the NZ army, but... why do you not back up your opinions with sources? It really isn't that hard to do, and maybe people would be nicer to you.

*edit* oh yeah, forgot to throw this out there... DU is less radioactive then a coal-fired power plant... or a nuclear power plant. (in both instances living down-wind... up-wind there is negligible radiation)

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by Corpsey

Because he has made millions of people's lives miserable by fucking up Iraq, as i have already stated.

You must hate near all the world's politicians. China, Russia, North Korea, France along with the US are terrible at regulating arms sales abroad from their own countries.

quite frankly rediculously poor

Oh yes, compared to the other great models of peacekeeping by the other governments of the world...should you find one.

How many times in the history of the world has your country bothered to be aware of the ways other countries run themselves?

Can you provide an example of a country which is successful in this endeavor? There are several countries that desire nuclear weapons. Does NZ bother to be aware of why these countries want them and why they get pissed off when any country tells them otherwise?

it's done with unexperienced officers.

Unless you are in the US military and have first hand experience of officers in the US military (and a 'I do' statement because your father is in the NZ Army will not suffice), your statement is based on assumption and speculation due to a preset bias.

He described it as total fucking chaos, people constantly pointing the finger at each other and shit peace keeping on your part.

Then we beseech your great wisdom on the right way. So many are the voices saying its wrong and does not work. Be original and propose a viable solution. Many like you seem to enjoy 'pointing the finger', also; but with no recommendations which will result in a real solution.

Some sniper rounds are DU tipped and they go through any sort of tank armour like a hot knife in butter

Not familiar with that large caliber sniper gun but I do believe I understand your sentiment. There are or were guns armed with the DU tipped rounds and to be useful against a tank would require multiple round firings to ensure a complete shredding of the armor. The DU round is being phased out of the US inventory and replaced with the tungsen tipped round with the same ability to kill armor.

So yes, Im against nuclear weaponry because they kill things for a very long time.

What a lazy statement. You are for napalm, carpet bombing, shrapnel grenades and such? A kill is a kill is a kill. Whether by bullet or neutron radiation, killing is killing. You take away the bombs (which I do hope happens) we (mankind) will devise a new way to kill. We (mankind, once again) has been doing this for a very long time. Look to Gettysburg, Normandy, Falkirk and Waterloo. We still have killed more with the good old fashion methods of killing in a single instance than we have with nuclear type weapons.

There was more terrorism in the 1970's than recently so when bush rants on about it i think he's making a fool of himself.

Such statements without facts and statisics, makes you the same ranting fool. Yes, that was a comparison to Bush; the very one you loathe. When you do not make statements linked to facts and only on sketchy intelligence, you become your enemy as you employ the tactics you are accusing him of using.

[Virulent Dryad]

Originally Posted by Xnguela

Actually, I think the point was that angledust is basically just mimicking what it hears at school, and not bothering to form its own opinions.

Umm what kind of name is angledust?

[mansongothicmadonnababy14]

Originally Posted by Corpsey

You might be excellent at doing most things in a war, but peace keeping isn't one of your forte's.

Yes, believe me, we know after the disasters in Japan, Germany, South Korea, Kuwait, Bosnia, Grenada, and elsewhere. It's so sad too, because peacekeeping is so freaking easy! I mean, look at the number of successes in Lebanon, Rwanda, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Western Sahara, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan by multinational forces! I remember what a great job the UN did of mediating in Afghanistan from 1988 to 1990 too. US forces having trouble in Iraq? They just suck at this peacekeeping thing. There are no other factors involved, so don't you Bush lovers tell us any different! I mean, how else do you explain the hit and miss track record of Indian and Pakistani UN peacekeeping troops if it's a "win some, lose some" deal? Eh? Anyone? That's what I thought.

Originally Posted by Corpsey

My main point here is that because of bush's inexperience of peace keeping, coalition forces had no idea what to do once they had kicked out Saddam, they had no idea of how to help the people there, this made millions of people's lives in Iraq miserable and i loathe him.

Right, I know exactly what you mean. Idiots will sit there and tell you that it wasn't Bush who was ENTIRELY responsible for every policy implimented under his regime. That people with experience in peacekeeping, such as Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and others had a hand in policy making. They're idiots. It was all George W. Bush. He's a war criminal! Sentence him to hang!

Originally Posted by Corpsey

I didnt my sources from the media. My dad is one of the head Engineers in the NZ army and i have heard from people who he has sent over here to restabilise things what happens. He described it as total fucking chaos, people constantly pointing the finger at each other and shit peace keeping on your part.

Oooooh. I was kind of skeptical before, but shoot - that's all you had to say! Verbal gossip is entirely creditable in my book. They need to print more news stories based on this stuff. I'd like to base my decisions and thoughts on, not what is verifable news, but rather, what's being passed down through the grapevine! Afterall, it's not like that was what primarily lead the US intelligence community astray in gathering evidence against Iraq.

Originally Posted by Corpsey

and i hate nuclear weaponry in general. Not big kaboom nukes, im talking about depleated uranium. In Iraq there are tanks on the side of the roads from the original gulf war with DU written on them, meaning they are radioactive and with be forever pretty much. Some sniper rounds are DU tipped and they go through any sort of tank armour like a hot knife in butter. X_X No wonder the Iraqis got their ass caned 1st time round. So yes, Im against nuclear weaponry because they kill things for a very long time.

I completely agree! I mean, maybe the UN/WHO nor the IAEA does on the effects of DU munitions on human health, but whatever! There's enough articles on the internet that I don't need to even look at those so-called "reports" done by the so-called "experts."

Originally Posted by Corpsey

There was more terrorism in the 1970's than recently so when bush rants on about it i think he's making a fool of himself.

I know! He looks like such an idiot when he makes remarks that he can't back up with verifiable fact. He needs to just stop, especially with the recent terrorism thing. I mean, I don't have any facts to back this up, but there WAS more terrorism going on the 70s. Then again, why do you need facts when everyone knows it's true?!

[edible_eye]

Originally Posted by mansongothicmadonnababy14

Yes, believe me, we know after the disasters in Japan, Germany, South Korea, Kuwait, Bosnia, Grenada, and elsewhere. It's so sad too, because peacekeeping is so freaking easy! I mean, look at the number of successes in Lebanon, Rwanda, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Western Sahara, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan by multinational forces! I remember what a great job the UN did of mediating in Afghanistan from 1988 to 1990 too. US forces having trouble in Iraq? They just suck at this peacekeeping thing....

when i saw your screen name, i cringed inwardly, wondering what i was subjecting myself to by coming back to this thread.

i'm so glad my intuition was wrong.

thank you for a thoroughly enjoyable read.

[Crom Crauch]

highly enjoyable reply, mansongothicmadonnababy14... very entertaining

[Godslayer Jillian]

I know!
She was the perfect n00b

[An Eccentric Cellist]

mansongothicmadonnababy14 Why in the world do you have such a long name? It's intersting but gods it's long.
I don't like nuclear weapons they screw everything up and could blow the atmosphere off the planet.

Very good points hm.... very nice newb I'm off to look for your intro.
I have a lovely little chart on Radiation Sickness:

Radiation sickness is an illness caused by over-exposure to radiation. Rems are the unit used to measure nuclear radiation.

Rems: Effect:
0-25 Nothing noticeable
25-100 Some blood cells reduced in number slightly and only for a short amount of time
100-200 Some blood cells suffer long-term reduction in amount; more than 125 cause nausea, vomiting and fatigue.
200-300 Vomiting and nausea with in 24 hours of exposure; a dormant period (up to 2weeks). Followed by malaise, pallor, diarrhea, sore throat, appetite and weight loss. Recovery may take 3 months
300-600 Vomiting, diarrhea, and nausea for the first few hours. One week dormance, after that malaise, pallor, fever, and appetite loss. Followed by hemorrhage, inflammation of the mouth and throat , diarrhea, and weight loss; death my occur in 6 months
600+ First few hours nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Rapid emaciation as soon as second week; almost all victims die.

[nuksaa]

Rems are the unit used to measure nuclear radiation.

Not entirely true. Rem stands for Roentgen equivelent man and define amount of energy absorbed by biological material. Radiation is normally measured in roentgen which is the same amount of energy absorbed by any material.

I look at your chart and am scratching my head a bit. I will need to look up the ranges again but your chart seems very liberal in its range selection.

Another added note: the chart is primarily based on an acute dose of radiation vice exposure over an extended period of time (example: days versus years)

[Corpsey]

Okay, last time i was all hypo and ready to rant. Now that i've read your valid points, i'll try to answer your doubts.

Crom Crauch, Yes its true Rutherford's model was very flimsy and had many holes in it. I was once told by my physics teacher that he couldnt be bothered teaching us about the atomic model because it is always changing and i've heard similar view from other university students. But Ernest Rutherford was the first person to put forward the theory of a central positive nucleus with negative electrons orbiting it. http://www.chemsoc.org/timeline/pages/1911.html
Before hand, everybody thought the structure of the atom was like the plum pudding model, so this was a great leap in understanding what atoms looked like. If i can remember my history (which isnt exactly conrete, my history is shocking) correctly Bohr worked with Rutherford. If im wrong, i apologise.
Also thankyou for that site on DU, it was very interesting.

nuksaa, The topic was on bush so i go on about bush. I also dislike those leaders that you mentioned. Massey university's newspaper showed a picture of the Chinese dictator Mao Tsu-tung in drag and generally was against socalist leaders and socialism in general, and i found it hilarious. Again i have gone off topic, but this is very amusing.
http://bureaucrash.com/blog/commupolitan
But yeah, i dislike all of them, but i wanted to go on about bush because that as the topic.

I cant compare American peace keeping to many governments except New Zealand without knowing what im going on about. New Zealand may be small but we have done well in Peace Keeping in Many of the Pacific Islands. Boganville, East Timor, The Soloman Islands, New Zealand forces went in there and managed to Keep things in control by keeping tags on all the militant powers in that area and tried their damndest to try not to have any bloodshed. I get this information from Kevin foster, who served in Timor and helped out in the reconstruction of peace there. In East timor New Zealand was the second largest foreign military power and behaved a hell of a lot better towards the Timoree's than the Australians did (there were several cases where the Australian soldiers ***** women in East Timor). We did our best there and only 4 of our troops died there out of the 10% of our forces that were there (wikipedia). So in comparison to the American forces in Iraq where 2455 troops to date have died, thats a fair difference, considering the bulk of your troops is over there. I dont know what else really went on in Timor, but we kept casualties on both sides down to a minimum, which is the most important thing to have when you are peace keeping. Also in Boganville, The New Zealand forces, as a sign of neutrality, locked up ALL of thier weapons in a big storage container and they would only get them if they were being deliberately attacked. They could've been masacred but were completely neutral and managed to restore peace without weilding power around.

No, I cannot provide proof of a country which has done that endevour succesfully but this is about how america tries to come to grips about how people will react to a foreign power where they have nothing in common with. Im talking about what the Iraq's would do once thier Freaky, but comprehendable, dictator was kicked out and was replaced, temporarily, by the americans, which they have very limited knowledge about. How would they react to this? How can we make it better for these people to win their trust? How can we prevent people from provoking anxiety and upheaveling peace? These are the questions the generals should've thought before they went in and should've expected some sort of mixed feeling and hostility towards them. They let thing get out of control, from what i've heard from soldiers who have served in Iraq and the Generals weren't flexible to the people who they were supposed to be helping out. They allowed the chaos that is currently occuring to happen and haven't helped the situation out any better. This is what infuriates me, a situation was preventable, but was allowed because of the stupidity of the american officers and them being unprepared. And because of this, people in the millions are suffering and Iraq will be insecure for hundreds of years. This is the opinion i have heard from both the New Zealand Soldiers i have talked to and to some french officers i have spoken with when i was on an exchange to New Caledonia. These people all have had a large amount of military service and both groups of people have thought the sitution was preventable and was caused by bad peace keeping and planning.


No, I have not met US officers but i have met people who have met them who have been serving in Iraq and they have told me what a shambles it is in Iraq and how unprepared they were. I'll see if i can get the letter that one of my dads engineers sent him about Iraq off my dad, then i'll put it up here if you're interested.

Here's my solution. America, do you're homework on how a country works before you invade to restore peace. Iraq was craptacular and you could've done better at peace keeping and things could be so much better in Iraq now than it currently is.

Its good to hear that they're phasing out DU rounds. A soldier i met at a party i went to called Adrian explained to me about them and how dangerous they were, and i respect the general amount of soldiers i meet and take their comments as if they're valid. Also, about other weapons in the world, NO i hate them all! we've found amazingly efficient ways to masacre each other! Let's pat each other on the back for it! My problem with nuclear weapons is that they can kill people hundreds and thousands of years down the road which never were even a part of the conflict where the weapon was used. This is sad. It's like you're great great great great grandchildren can die from some weapon that was used Countless years back. Most weapons only kill those who they are immediately used on, not future generations. the fact that we humans can now do this is sick. And im talking about all nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, DU rounds, nukes, i think they're the worst thing man has ever made.

As for my last statement about terrorism in the 1970's, i couldn't chuck up anything much because i was being kicked out of the library because it was closing. I'm po so i dont have the internet at home so i just use it at University. So, terrorism in the 1970's? Lemme start with..... Munich, where Israeli Olympic athletes were held hostage and then murdered...... Terrorism in Spain by basque seperatists.... December 17, 1973 Five terrorists attack the Rome International Airport, killing 32 at the airport and one later as they dump the body of a hostage on the tarmac in Athens. Just go to http://terrorism.about.com/od/timeline/a/timeline70.htm and read about the terrorism then. Anyway, the point is that the American government only really cared about terrorism until it happened on your soil. As bad as 9/11 was, terrorism had been flying round the world for a very long time, and Bush claiming he and his party are fighting the war on terrorism is just a current ploy they are putting on because untill 9/11 they never gave two shits about global terrorism. If you proove me wrong here, i'll be happy to take it and then i'll know a bit more about the bush administration.

Hope i cleared up anything, and sorry for not chucking sources in before. Also most of the stuff i babble on about is mainly based off personal conversations i've had with people, and not through the media. I never read or watch the news anymore, its so depressing.

[mansongothicmadonnababy14]

Originally Posted by An Eccentric Cellist

mansongothicmadonnababy14 Why in the world do you have such a long name? It's intersting but gods it's long.

I like to get the most out of life, ya know what I mean? Live it to it's fullest and capitalize on every oportunity to benefit from the maximum limit. If I'm allowed to take 9 hours on my SAT, byfuckinggod, I'm gonna use every minute of those 9 hours. If I'm allowed to squeeze 25 characters into my user name to produce some inept monstrosity, you bet your ass I'm going to use every character space avaliable.

[bjork_freak]

I like you...you have spunk.

[mansongothicmadonnababy14]

Corpsey,
I'm with you on this 1970s thing. Dude, Iraq, Israel, and Chechnya don't even hold a candle to Northern Ireland back in the day. And shit like Beslan pales in comparison with Munich. Oh what? 186 innocent children were shot in the back? Boo hoo! 11 Israeli athletes DIED in the Munich Massacre!

And, dude, you so fucking hit the nail on the head about how the US didn't even care about terrorism until it struck it's own soil. Some idiots will tell you that we cared when Iranian students seized the US embassy in Iran, or when our barraks were bombed in Lebanon, or when our embassy was bombed in Beruit, or when the nightclub in Germany was targeted by Libya, or when Flight 103 went down cause Libya bombed it, or when the USS Cole was hit, or the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and all this other crap. Horseshit! If that's true, we would have actually retaliated with something like... say... bombing Tripoli back to the Stone Age to try and kill Qaddafi! Or placing sanctions against countries like Libya. Or say, trying to launch a rescue mission into Iran. Or even just bombing training camps in Afghanistan and Sudan. But nope. Nothing happened until 9/11. The US didn't give a shit about terrorism until a few years ago.

I mean, what's the big fucking deal? It's not like 9/11 was the biggest single coordinated terrorist attack in history or anything! So why the fuck should that stand out?

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by corpsey

Boganville, East Timor, The Soloman Islands, New Zealand forces went in there and managed to Keep things in control by keeping tags on all the militant powers in that area and tried their damndest to try not to have any bloodshed.

NZ in East Timor as part of UN forces

States the peacekeeping forces are multinational UN force, UNMISET. The list of contributing countries to the operation is extensive, an additional 46. And the NZ part of UNTAET is with Australia in the West region. UNTAET replaced INTERFET during this transitional period. So this is not a NZ solo peace keeping operation. And please link the article dealing with your alleged Australian **** of women in East Timor.

NZ should apologize for past action on East Timor Note: Australia and the US are also implicated with NZ in the link.

We did our best there and only 4 of our troops died there out of the 10% of our forces that were there (wikipedia).

0.3% American casualties occurred during the Grenada invasion (historyguy.com). 14% casualties in Iraq so I guess NZ has the US by 4%.

Originally Posted by corpsey

Here's my solution. America, do you're homework on how a country works before you invade to restore peace.

That is not a solution and it is naive at best. You might want to do your homework, though. This was not a peacekeeping mission. It was an application of military force in order to forcably remove Saddam Hussein and his party from power. It took many years for European countries to rebuild their infrastructures after WWII to become what they are today. This is a post war rebuild.

Originally Posted by corpsey

And because of this, people in the millions are suffering and Iraq will be insecure for hundreds of years.

Homework, Corpsey. Homework. You need to delve into the historical stability of this region some more and realize how silly your statement is.

These are the questions the generals should've thought before they went in and should've expected some sort of mixed feeling and hostility towards them. They let thing get out of control, from what i've heard from soldiers who have served in Iraq and the Generals weren't flexible to the people who they were supposed to be helping out.

Gossip again. Do you know what the mission of these generals were? I would venture, no. The primary mission of many generals were to neutralize the Iraqi forces and secure the Iraqi infrastructure (yes the oil was involved). Secondary missions dealt with the people of Iraq. Yeah, it sucks but that is war. And I am not sure what your are reading or watching, but their was a large military shift in training focusing more toward urban combat prior to the war. The lessons of Viet Nam are widely discussed and efforts are being made to prevent that from happening. This is the Middle East where rival factions of Islam vie for power with weapons of war. The US should have locked down all borders and prevent any Arabic influence to enter the country. That would have increased hostility even more than it is. Much insurgency is based on the lingering Iran/Iraq war, the Iraq invasion of Kuwait and the US has inherited it. Saddam would just mow the rivals down with bullets. So I suppose there is more unrest now that the rival voices have a voice and are not being threatened with oppression. That sounds a little like freedom, now if we could just get the guns out of the picture maybe a government would form.

some french officers

I do not view an opinion from French influence as unbiased in their view. They are too politically implicated with Iraq.

So, terrorism in the 1970's? Lemme start with..... Munich, where Israeli Olympic athletes were held hostage and then murdered...... Terrorism in Spain by basque seperatists.... December 17, 1973 Five terrorists attack the Rome International Airport, killing 32 at the airport and one later as they dump the body of a hostage on the tarmac in Athens.

More homework required. I think terrorism is more widespread today than it was in the 1970's. It is more global. I am sure Plastinians, Isrealis, people in Northern Ireland and Americans would disagree. Since 1990, at least 3 successful acts occured on US soil. I do not recall any from 1970 occurring on US soil.

Also most of the stuff i babble on about is mainly based off personal conversations i've had with people, and not through the media. I never read or watch the news anymore, its so depressing.

That's a great policy. That way, when the rumors of Wallis & Futana developing weapons of mass destruction surfaces, you'll be ready. There are many sources of news. Some better than others. If you choose to ignore them and continue to preach your hate for Bush, you will continue to be misinformed. HINT: Do not choose Bill O'Reilly as your source.

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by corpsey

untill 9/11 they never gave two shits about global terrorism. If you proove me wrong here, i'll be happy to take it

US bombs Libya
US law against financers of terrorism 1995
US response to Tanzania embassy bombing
US response to Oklahoma city bombing

[nuksaa]

I searched but couldn't locate NZ response to global terrorism prior to 9/11. If you know, provide link please.

[Corpsey]

http://www.thefamily.org/endtime/article.php3?id=8
shows that the Australian soldiers were accused. Im looking but i cant find an internet link to proove this, but it was on the New Zealand news and everything.

Yes NZ went in as part of the UN but we were the second largest force that went in there and we've deployed most of our troops there in different waves of relief. I'll throw up the figures when the NZ army gets back to me, i couldn't find the number anywhere.

Cheers 4 the backup masongothicmadonnababy14. It was just the biggest thing that had happened on American mainland soil since the japanese dropped bombs on some forest in WWII from a foreign force. Oklahoma bombing was from a yank that was a wank and the others were done against the US but not directly to them on mainland soil, so i guess it made the difference. Plus, all the families of the dead were shouting out for some sort of reprisal, so something was done - Afghanistan. That was as far as it should've gone.

[Corpsey]

Also the attack on libya was an interesting read, because i hadn't heard on it before, but had known Libya had been against the US.
'Prime Minister Thatcher was roundly criticized for going against the advice of her cabinet and supporting the American strike. In the House of Commons she stood firm -- like a "lioness in a den of Daniels'. Haha, that's a crack up. The other one about bombings in Tanzania were irrelevant bacause there were no American casualties.

Originally Posted by Corpsey

And because of this, people in the millions are suffering and Iraq will be insecure for hundreds of years.

Also i'd like to change that to decades of years, i don't know where i got hundreds from

[mansongothicmadonnababy14]

Originally Posted by Corpsey

Cheers 4 the backup masongothicmadonnababy14. It was just the biggest thing that had happened on American mainland soil since the japanese dropped bombs on some forest in WWII from a foreign force.

Err... forest? What? I know you can't be talking about Pearl Harbor*, but that only leaves the few incendiary bombs dropped in Oregon that didn't cause much damage and the "balloon bombs" that caused all of 6 deaths. You're saying these events were on par or even greater in scale than 9/11?

(note: the attack on Pearl Harbor was strictly a conventional military strike, didn't really hit any 'forest,' and has nothing to do with the "war on terror" unless we're now talking about the "war on biggest things")

[Cambodian Breakfast]

If you have time and want to read something good, read.

http://essay.theboywhocriediraq.com/

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by Corpsey

The other one about bombings in Tanzania were irrelevant bacause there were no American casualties.

An attack on any embassy is an attack on a nation's sovereign territory. Those were people employed by America and afford the protection an embassy is supposed to encompass.

Also i'd like to change that to decades of years, i don't know where i got hundreds from

Confused as to when Iraq has experience one decade of peace in the past 100 years.

from a yank that was a wank

And other terrorists are not wanks?

It was just the biggest thing that had happened on American mainland soil since the japanese dropped bombs on some forest in WWII from a foreign force.

Along with Pearl Harbor (21 warships damaged/sunk, 1500+ Americans dead), there were skirmishes in Alaska with the Japanese, Japanese submarine successes on the western seaboard and German U-boat successes on the eastern seaboard. Granted, nothing to the scale of the European battlefields occurred.

so something was done - Afghanistan. That was as far as it should've gone.

A study of US foreign policy prior to WWII demonstrates on a passivity. We did enter an attack without direct gain or without receiving a direct attack. Many predicted an attack the size of Pearl Harbor many years before due to this passivity. The US would have been severely delayed in entering WWI were it not for the sinking of the Lusitania. The same delay would have occurred had Pearl Harbor not happened. Hitler did not want the US to enter the war and Admiral Yamamoto did not want to attack Pearl Harbor.

We still hold to the passivity of the past though with much more forward presence. Read the Rules of Engagement and see the strings we have attached to our employment of force compared to other countries (wikipedia). We also follow the Laws of Armed Combat. And I assume your hatred for Bush is partly due to him declaring war on Iraq?

[Crom Crauch]

On a side note, since I'm not too sure if I should be posting this here, but the Federal Govt. owned magazine, the Government Executive (www.govexec.com) has published an article aobut the new counter-insurgency guidelines now being tested in Iraq.

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by Crom Crauch

(www.govexec.com) has published an article aobut the new counter-insurgency guidelines now being tested in Iraq.

back issue link