PLXTO

Election in Spain

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
*d* said:
The US has targeted civilian areas with no military objectives in the following countries:
Japan (1945)
China (1945–46)
Korea & China (1950–53)
Guatemala (1954, 1960, 1967–69)
Indonesia (1958)
Cuba (1959–61)
Congo (1964)
Peru (1965)
Laos (1964–70)
Vietnam (1961–1973)
Cambodia (1969–70)
Grenada (1983)
Lebanon (1983–84)
Libya (1986)
El Salvador (1980s)
Nicaragua (1980s)
Iran (1987)
Panama (1989)
Iraq (1991–2000)
Kuwait (1991)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994–95)
Sudan (1998)
Afghanistan (1998)
Pakistan (1998)
Yugoslavia (1999)
Macedonia (1999)
This list shows liberal stupidity. As I previously stated, I was talking about current military action. Everything listed as post 1991 involves mistakes not deliberate killing of civilians. This list shows the true idiocy of liberalism. We hit something we believe to be a military target and we turn out to be wrong and somehow thats the same as deliberately bombing women and children.
BTW, don't think the anti-American liberals are unique for this kind of historical argument. The IRA used similiar lists and historical claims to justify their bombing of mainland england which resulted in the direct killing of innocent people. You sound just like my pro-IRA relatives...
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
Saturn_Alien said:
The USA is goint to hit a brick wall, Spain already said it will join "the french side of the conflict", that means join the peace side. The entire 3rd world is against the USA (and for good reason). Saudi Arabia and Jordan, long-time puppets of the USA are already officially anti-american.

Americans have put a noose around their own necks, that's what any bully gets when other smaller kids have had enough.

I hope Americans smarten up and vote for Kerry, The Spanish sure smarten up, democracy has to win.
I wouldn't call the French side "the peace side." And I wouldn't say Spain has chosen peace, they've chosen appeasement.
 

The Shake

Winner (with a capital W)
Feb 3, 2004
1,846
0
0
Maryland
www.drivenbyboredom.com
ocean976124 said:
I wouldn't call the French side "the peace side."
I have to strongly, strongly agree with Ocean on this one.

While I didn't agree with the Iraq war, the French position was neither noble nor about "peace". It was about the strategic interests of France, period.
 

The_Jaded_One

sick of it all
The Shake said:
I have to strongly, strongly agree with Ocean on this one.

While I didn't agree with the Iraq war, the French position was neither noble nor about "peace". It was about the strategic interests of France, period.
Yeah, but the French went about their strategic interests the right (civilized) way. You don't bomb a country to shit, so you can make money off of them.
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
The_Jaded_One said:
Yeah, but the French went about their strategic interests the right (civilized) way. You don't bomb a country to shit, so you can make money off of them.
Especially if you're already making money from them!
 

*d*

Active member
Aug 17, 2001
1,621
12
38
ocean976124 said:
This list shows liberal stupidity. As I previously stated, I was talking about current military action. Everything listed as post 1991 involves mistakes not deliberate killing of civilians. This list shows the true idiocy of liberalism. We hit something we believe to be a military target and we turn out to be wrong and somehow thats the same as deliberately bombing women and children.
BTW, don't think the anti-American liberals are unique for this kind of historical argument. The IRA used similiar lists and historical claims to justify their bombing of mainland england which resulted in the direct killing of innocent people. You sound just like my pro-IRA relatives...
Not sure why anything before '91 is not valid, but here's from '91 forward.
Iraq --US General R Neal in '91 described Basra in Iraq as a military town with no civilian targets. It was carpet bombed as a 'fire free zone' violating Article 51 of the Geneva protocol. You see, Basra is not just military. It is the second largest city in Iraq with 800000 people. Thousands of civilians died. Mistake? No. US General McPeak explained that Basra was large with a low density of military targets within it. Carpet area bombing was the most efficient way, but unfortunately with the greatest loss of life.

Iraq --In '03 the 'decapitation strategy', which was used to bomb Iraqi leaders as they moved about Baghdad with cellphones, could only locate targets within a 100 meter radius. That's an area over 600 ft across. In densely populated civilian neighborhoods, 600 ft times about 50 bombs used in this strategy, accounted for the loss of more than 1000 civilians. Mistake? Not as the Human Rights Watch reported it.

Kuwait --General Schwarzkopf ordered, at the start of the '91 Gulf War, to not let anyone or anything out of Kuwait City. As a result thousands of civilians, especially unarmed Palestinians, were killed as they tried to escape the city. US Air Force were given orders to take out anything that moves. Mistake? No, just stupidity.

Somalia --In Magadishu '93, nearly 500 unarmed civilians running for their lives, were cut down by US helicopter gunmen.

Sudan --In '98 the Clinton administration had a large Sudan medicine factory bombed with 16 cruise missiles. He did this with no certain knowledge about the factory owners or what it produced. He did it to be on the safe side in case terrorists were making chemical weapons there. But he also did it with no concern on how the country would cope without medicines if it was only a pharmaceutical factory. Of course, it was.

Yugoslavia --The US ordered the intentional bombing of a Belgrade television station, killing 16 civilians. No military or government connections here. Nor was the station broadcasting propaganda under Milosovic. The US just wanted it silenced. US NATO commanders also ordered Spanish pilots to drop anti-personnel bombs on Pristina and Nis. The pilot's Colonel refused that order because these were not military targets. Good thing. But the pilots were transfered because the order to bomb was not a mistake.

And I could go through the rest, but if you don't get it now, you never will.
 

Ickabod

New member
Oct 13, 2001
327
0
0
59
Heather Elite
ocean976124 said:
I wouldn't call the French side "the peace side." And I wouldn't say Spain has chosen peace, they've chosen appeasement.
They've chosen democracy.

The People - "Hello, Mr Government, your idiocy is making us less safe rather than more safe"

The Goverment - "Tough Shit!"

Kabooooom.

Idiots - "These guys deserve 4 more years."

The People - "Good riddance Mr Government".

Is this turn of events a victory for terrorism. Looks that way to me. Is it the fault of the Spanish people? Who rose up and did everything in their power to prevent this possibility? Um, no. George Bush laid the groundwork for this victory. And the Spanish people paid the price for it. Hopefully, Bush will too come election time.
 

KBear

Supporting Member
Aug 17, 2001
4,169
1
38
west end
www.gtagirls.com
Wow, this has turned into a long debate. I was concerned with our upcoming federal election. Will our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq be a political issue, normally it would not be. Will some group try to influence the outcome of our election like they did in Spain. Maybe to vote NDP, if the NDP are pledging to withdraw our troops.
 

Ickabod

New member
Oct 13, 2001
327
0
0
59
Heather Elite
ocean976124 said:
This is laughable.
Oh, don't be so hard on yourself.

There is a huge difference between directly targeting civillians and what is unfortunately the side result of a bomb.
I think i conceded that point. Learn to read.....or cut the "liberals taking things out of context again" crap. Either/or would be fine.

Let me see, your nation kills people from my nation so I drop a bomb on your military that unfortunately kills civilians nearby so I'm at fault?
You missed my point. Not surprising given your reading comprehension skills. What you think, or what i think, doesn't matter. What matters is what can very easily be rationalized by the other side. If your local police chief gave orders that he knew were going to kill 10 innocent civilians in order to catch a mass murderer, there'd be outrage. And by the way, how many restaurants did we bomb trying to get Hussein? And missing?

BTW, there is no chest thumping but I do get angry when someone takes the side of anti-semetic terrorists over two nations that are trying to defend themselves.
And i get angry when someone twists my sentiments into something they're clearly not, just so they can say i'm wrong. I'm not anti american, nor am i taking the side of terrorists. In fact, if you wanted to wager who was more American, you or i, and let God be the judge, winner goes to heaven and the other guy goes to hell, i'll take that bet every time. But i digress. What i'm saying is that if we do something like bomb a country and kill innocent civilians for, near as i can tell, no legitimate reason whatsoever, i could agree with it all i want.....be thankful for it all i want....think better them than me all i want....but i'll understand how they could, gee, take offense at being bombed and killed? And maybe react in a way that i might not like? Just because something isn't bad in your mind doesn't mean it's not bad in nobody's.
 

Ickabod

New member
Oct 13, 2001
327
0
0
59
Heather Elite
The_Jaded_One said:
So what would you have suggested the French have done ? Go to war against Iraq to help the USA get their contracts and make money off of Iraq? Okay...
What Ocean is saying is that it's ok if we go to war for our financial interests, but not ok if France refuses to go to war in order to protect their's.

Someday someone should start a counter on how often conservatives contradict their own points.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Old News

Another European country retreats and appeases, it’s a continental commitment to wusdom. Viva La Vichy

OTB
 

DATYdude

Puttin' in Face Time
Oct 8, 2003
3,762
0
36
Ramblings...

I don't think it's fair to say that any country's government mentioned here was not acting in its perceived national interest when it chose to support or not support the US war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Supporters of the US decision think that the US took the moral high road by getting a brutal despot out of power, and considered France's and Germany's decisions (and Canada's and others) to be cynical and motivated by greed and fear.

Supporters of France's and Germany's decision think that the US decision to reject multilateralism was arrogant, and motivated by greed and revenge, and was based on spurious or exaggerated evidence of WMD and links to terrorism.

Personally I think the world is better off without Saddam and his people, so in one way at least the world is better off because of the US, England and Spain (among others).

And I don't think any of this has to do with the bombings in Spain.

If the terror continues, it will show that there are small numbers of Muslims beginning to actualize a violent ideology which they believe is the true faith. THis ideology is intended to destabilize and divide the West in the short and medium term, especially economically (everyone fights when money runs low). Over the medium to long term the ideology is meant to reverse the Crusades and eventually to conduct a conquest of the world in the name of Islam and the Prophet. Historical memory runs deep.

Given that they don't seem to care about their own lives individually the terrorists have a good deal of strength. THey already have the Western powers squabbling. Add to that the birth rates among devout Muslims, and this ideology has a decent chance of subduing societies whose laws champion freedom and rights if the majority of people in those societies are afraid of a fight.

Or I could be wrong.
 

cogterb

New member
Aug 1, 2003
60
0
0
my 2 cents

The argument about appeasing or not appeasing terrorists is moot.

A people has to vote on what they believe is right not on what they think will be percieved as a victory for the terrorists or not.

I think this is exactly what the Spanish people just did - voted from their heart against a cynical leader who was just appeasing the US and making the Spanish situation a lot more dangerous thn it needed to be.

I strongly commend the Spanish people for doing the right thing. (and by the way - I don't trust pre-election polls - too manipulative).

I just wish the British would do the right thing and dump Blair - another great manipulator.

(many years ago, in the 70's, I used to vote Labour, now sadly it's gone way to the right under Blair's stupidity. I hope they dump him and try to return the Labour party to it's Socialist roots.).

Then I hope for a socialist USA. (dream on).
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
Ickabod said:
What Ocean is saying is that it's ok if we go to war for our financial interests, but not ok if France refuses to go to war in order to protect their's.

Someday someone should start a counter on how often conservatives contradict their own points.
LOL, not quite. France acted in what they believed was in their best interest. Fine, no problem. Just don't expect the USA not to act in its own best interest.
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
*d* said:
Not sure why anything before '91 is not valid, but here's from '91 forward.
Iraq --US General R Neal in '91 described Basra in Iraq as a military town with no civilian targets. It was carpet bombed as a 'fire free zone' violating Article 51 of the Geneva protocol. You see, Basra is not just military. It is the second largest city in Iraq with 800000 people. Thousands of civilians died. Mistake? No. US General McPeak explained that Basra was large with a low density of military targets within it. Carpet area bombing was the most efficient way, but unfortunately with the greatest loss of life.

Iraq --In '03 the 'decapitation strategy', which was used to bomb Iraqi leaders as they moved about Baghdad with cellphones, could only locate targets within a 100 meter radius. That's an area over 600 ft across. In densely populated civilian neighborhoods, 600 ft times about 50 bombs used in this strategy, accounted for the loss of more than 1000 civilians. Mistake? Not as the Human Rights Watch reported it.

Kuwait --General Schwarzkopf ordered, at the start of the '91 Gulf War, to not let anyone or anything out of Kuwait City. As a result thousands of civilians, especially unarmed Palestinians, were killed as they tried to escape the city. US Air Force were given orders to take out anything that moves. Mistake? No, just stupidity.

Somalia --In Magadishu '93, nearly 500 unarmed civilians running for their lives, were cut down by US helicopter gunmen.

Sudan --In '98 the Clinton administration had a large Sudan medicine factory bombed with 16 cruise missiles. He did this with no certain knowledge about the factory owners or what it produced. He did it to be on the safe side in case terrorists were making chemical weapons there. But he also did it with no concern on how the country would cope without medicines if it was only a pharmaceutical factory. Of course, it was.

Yugoslavia --The US ordered the intentional bombing of a Belgrade television station, killing 16 civilians. No military or government connections here. Nor was the station broadcasting propaganda under Milosovic. The US just wanted it silenced. US NATO commanders also ordered Spanish pilots to drop anti-personnel bombs on Pristina and Nis. The pilot's Colonel refused that order because these were not military targets. Good thing. But the pilots were transfered because the order to bomb was not a mistake.

And I could go through the rest, but if you don't get it now, you never will.
Oh please, what a pile of horse crap. Like I said, the IRA used the exact same type of argument to defend killing innocent British citizens. War is ugly, things happen in war that country's aren't always proud of but that is a far cry from actually being military policy. Oh well, I guess if you want to rationalize that the USA's military is morally equivalent to Al Qaeda that would be your delusional right to do.
I used to be you, many of my relatives still are. And then I saw with my own two eyes the smoke from the twin towers on 9/11. Last year I met a woman made a widow from an IRA bomb back in the 80's. Terrorism has no justification and the US and British forces are probably the most moral military forces that have ever existed. Does shit happen? Yes, but thats a far cry from actual national or military policy.
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
Ickabod said:
Read "Saudi Arabia".
In a certain sense, yes. Look the world is crazy place. Not every nation sees eye to eye on almost anything. You have to pick your spots and choose your fights.
To pretend that France is some begnin peace maker is silly. They had their own interests at heart, which is fine but lets not make them out to be peace loving pacificists.

"For sale, French military rifle. Never fired, droped once."
 

The_Jaded_One

sick of it all
ocean976124 said:
LOL, not quite. France acted in what they believed was in their best interest. Fine, no problem. Just don't expect the USA not to act in its own best interest.
You just don't get it, do you genius? Can you really not see the difference between acting in accordance with your best interests within the confines of a capitalistic market versus taking what you want forcefully by bombing the shit out of a country?? One is acceptable and the other isn't. This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp, even for a close-minded right wing hawk.
 

cogterb

New member
Aug 1, 2003
60
0
0
ocean976124 said:
Oh please, what a pile of horse crap. Like I said, the IRA used the exact same type of argument to defend killing innocent British citizens. War is ugly, things happen in war that country's aren't always proud of but that is a far cry from actually being military policy. Oh well, I guess if you want to rationalize that the USA's military is morally equivalent to Al Qaeda that would be your delusional right to do.
I used to be you, many of my relatives still are. And then I saw with my own two eyes the smoke from the twin towers on 9/11. Last year I met a woman made a widow from an IRA bomb back in the 80's. Terrorism has no justification and the US and British forces are probably the most moral military forces that have ever existed. Does shit happen? Yes, but thats a far cry from actual national or military policy.
The big lie is that military operations do not target civilians.
That's just political rhetoric to placate the people. The military is designed to win at all costs and wherever possible they will target civilians when they can get away with it.
That's reality and that is why the military option is NEVER the right one.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts