Bush Jr.'s next move?

[Greebe]

Hurl!

[SCompRacer]

Say Greebe, bring it up again and we'll all vote on it!

[paulcs]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kaj:
Paul-> Putting mayo on fries is a matter of taste. </font>

Rosanne Barr (or whatever the hell she's called now) has been married several times. I guess it's all a matter of taste. Still, the mere thought of marrying Rosanne guarantees I won't be eating anytime soon.

I have other rules as well. I think you shouldn't be allowed to put anything on pizza that you would put in Jello and visa versa. NO PINEAPPLE!

Hey, have the smilies I've typing in appearing in people's browsers. I'm much more concerned about disparity in opinion about Jessica Alba's left and right breasts than people's culinary kinks. Hey! Some people eat horse. (I bet they liberally slather Mr. Ed with mayonnaise before chowing down.)



Paul
paulcs@flashcom.com

[impact]

Oh yeah, that's even better, they just first attempt to assasinate anyone not willing to surrender, then make a law prohibiting it, so that if anyone tries to do it to them, they can say "Hey it's against the law! We would never do that." blood driping form the still wet knives of their special forces.

That's the kind of attitude I really like about americans...

No hard feelings Rags, you asked for the explanation, right?

And don't forget the original point of this thread.

Fact of the day: Did you know that in the US, when companies are hiring new people, they will often choose those worst suited for the job, inadequately trained/schooled, etc... just because they are not 'white' and the company has so satisfy a certain 'b-w' people quota? Amazing...

[Rags]

Uh, no bright guy, that executive order was made because of such situations. If you are going to go around shooting your mouth off, you would be better served by doing some research first.

Rags



[This message has been edited by Rags (edited 20 February 2001).]

[impact]

OK.

You said that US would never assasinate any foreign leader because it's against the law, then I just pointed out that before the that particular law was made (not very long ago, I guess), it was a regular praxis for the US' forces to assasinate any and all who stood in the way of democracy.

Maybe nowadays, they would not assasinate anyone. That's too subtle. They will just bomb the s**t out of Saddam and say (in Britney's voice): "Ooops, we did it again! Our super duper ballistic missiles somehow got confused by the aurora borealis or ion particles from the sun or something and aimed straigh for Baghdad residencec. Sorry about that. Won't happen again"

While at the white house, junior will be celebrating happily with the senior that they got rid of the old bugger. And preparing to start the cold war again, but this time with the missile shield at hand, no more equality, all hell will be unleashed. That's why Europeans fear Bush and his ideas. He doesn't seem to be able to foresee the consequences of his actions.

[Rags]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You said that US would never assasinate any foreign leader because it's against the law, </font>

Sheesh, I know that you have a hard time grasping the English language, but come on man, go back and read what I wrote again. I did NOT say that. Get a grip.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">While at the white house, junior will be celebrating happily with the senior that they got rid of the old bugger. And preparing to start the cold war again, but this time with the missile shield at hand, no more equality, all hell will be unleashed. That's why Europeans fear Bush and his ideas. He doesn't seem to be able to foresee the consequences of his actions. </font>

Well, if all Europeans don't read as well as you do, then I can see your point of view. But, just because you think that GW is a moron, and that somehow the president acts soley on everything he does, how can I argue with someone who has no clue whatsoever on how the presidency of the US works? I know that I cannot argue with some who has no grasp on neither reality nor basic knowledge.
So I give up talking to you. I just hope that all Czechs aren't as stupid as you seem to be.

Rags

[Maggi]

IMHO, all comes down to one aspect that GW seem to have missed ...

he really should have informed the rest of the world beforehand and not only the UK.

I think everybody would have understood his need to defend the allied forces for letting them do their job safely (guarding the no-fly-zone) and also keep Saddam within his boundaries, if he had introduced it before.

Just my 0.02$ and I'd really wish some of the peeps in here would open up their mind and stop being ignorant.

'nuff said ...

[paulcs]

I don't think the CIA has been seriously accused of a covert assasination plot since Allende.

I wouldn't be surprised if the remainder of the Alliance knew more about the strikes then they're letting on.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Gurm]

The rest of the UN knew exactly what was going on, but most of the world has chosen to pretend that the US is the bad guy in all of this.

Kinda like Israel and Palestine. The rest of the world has taken the position that Israel is the "bad guys", despite the fact that the Palestinians are LED by a guy who, up until a couple years ago, was one of the most wanted terrorists in the world, and who has killed more Americans than anyone except Bin Laden.

It's cognitive dissonance. You decide something must be a certain way, and can't be persuaded otherwise, despite all the facts shown to you. *shrug*

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[dZeus]

in the middle-east conflict, I think both sides are equally wrong. It's the small group of extremists on both sides that mess it up for everyone else.

[Maggi]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gurm:
The rest of the UN knew exactly what was going on, but most of the world has chosen to pretend that the US is the bad guy in all of this.
...
- Gurm
</font>

hmm ... how do you know ?

[Gurm]

Maggi,

Do you SERIOUSLY think that when the US and UK mobilize fighters from a European launch site that the rest of the UN doesn't know about it? Please.

As for the middle eastern mess, it comes down to one simple fact:

Israel won. There was a war (three of them to be exact) and Israel won. It doesn't matter who helped whom, it matters who won. And when there's a war, the winner dictates terms.

Never in the history of the world has the loser of a war been so coddled by the rest of the world, and has the winner been so vilified for not immediately surrendering all lands taken.

When the US defeated Mexico, did we "give back" New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, and California? Umm... no.

So the Palestinians can cry all they want, but it's a tremendous tribute to the good will of the ISraelis that they've "given back" ANYTHING.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[CHHAS]

Do we have to get the Israel/Palestinian conflict into this? This thread is complicated enough as is

It's plain to see that the Israelies can do whatever they please to the Palestinians without repercussions. Talk about a country that need UN intervention.

[Jorden]

Okay, let me add some Persian Gulf oil to the fire. Any country in the world has a right to defend itself against the countries around, right? Any country may defend itself against air-attacks, land attacks and sea-attacks by neighboring countries. But for the countries the US deams unsafe for the democratic world, therefor those countries are not allowed to defend themselves against air-attacks, land-attacks and sea-attacks. The US says that they have to allow UN people to do their work, to get rid of weapons of mass-destruction (womd), those nations have. If I'm going wrong somewhere, please tell me.

Okay, so we have a couple of nations in the world that don't allow UN people in, who can only erradicate those womd's if they stay in that country for a very long time. Something like 20 years or more. All this time, the countries surrounding this one country are freely allowed, sometimes with help of the US itself, to buy & construct their own weapons. They are allowed to teach their personnel how to use those weapons, are allowed to make defences against their surrounding countries, are allowed to do a lot of things, including make a profit for themselves.

Assassination of a country's leader is not allowed anymore. I know that. This leader was a good friend of the US before (as Saddam was, for he bought a lot of American weapons directly from America during the Iran-Iraq war, and at that time no-one thought much of it... after Nixon, dear Matt), so first they tried to soothe him. When that didn't work, they tried force, by killing and capturing and after some time, letting go of a lot of Iraqi men, who only followed orders. If you don't follow orders in such a country, you will be shot. It was always that way, it'll always stay that way. The US were against having Saddam pull the strings, all of a sudden, so they rallied before the UN that it was time to get Saddam out of Kuwait, with a lot of forces from all over the world. China and Russia were against this kind of force, but who can blaim them? They have their own oilfields, which give them enough polution and oil to take almost care of their own people.

Oil? Oil again. Kuwait, Iraq, Iran and the Saudi Arabian countries sit on the biggest oilfield of this world. Maybe something sits in Russia's Eastern part, close to China, but that's not really confirmed yet. And it's out of the hands of the Americans anyway.

Kuwait, a country smaller than The Netherlands, holds a vast oil-field. It's almost nothing but oilfield underneath. And since your airplane doesn't run on water, nor does your car, nor does your diesel train, nor does you lawnmower, nor does your electricity plant (when it's not coal or nuclear), someone had to make sure that there's still oil coming through the Persian Gulf, towards your Volkswagen Rabit. If it weren't for that oilfield under Kuwait and under Saudi Arabia, there would've been no 1st Gulf war. If Kuwait would've been just a barren country, no-one would've thought of liberating it from the bad bad Iraqi's in 1990/1991.


Okay, so a lot of persons were killed, as in every war. We didn't sleep for nights, watching those bomb-runs on Iraq. Following some CNN reporters through Baghdad, as they were the only ones around and allowed to speak for themselves or the Iraqi's in the first days of the real war.

Then afterwards the whole thing with the UN dismantling Iraqi warfare machines and all whatnots, until they got kicked out and kicked out again. The Northern No Fly Zone was in effect, yet Saddam killed thousands of people there, without so much intereference of the UN airplanes (read: UK and USA). The Turks could get onto Iraqi territory to finally kill a lot of Kurds, who tried to flee to Turkey. No one said a word about that. I have never heard the Americans tell the Turks to stop killing those Kurds, not even after whole of the world saw Turkish tanks fire shells at women and children. But then again, the Americans and the English needed the Turkey air-bases to uphold the Northern No Fly Zone, as well as be able to fly possible necessary bombing runs against targets around Baghdad. So why would they say anything about the Turks killing people? Why jeopardize their airfields?

It's been 10 years since The 1st Gulf War. And in the time inbetween US and UK airplanes have upheld the no fly zones. And they were shot at from day one. And they shot down planes, sometimes even their own, from day one. But only because 'we were shot at more the past month than we were shot at during any other month, we had to let Saddam know we are still here (as if he doesn't know), and give him a message'. Send him an email, send him a postcard. Why not?


I've seen the reports on various news-items: That bombing run had been in the making since a couple of months. So why bring it under the name of: "We were shot at more during the past month, than any month before"? Plain and simple BS. Maybe Clinton didn't want to do it, who knows? Maybe GW did want to do it. That's why I made that first post, plus the joke. If you are an American and you can't laugh about it, too bad. Sometimes we Europeans are allowed to have some (morbid) humor as well.
<hr> The rest of this thread is something that's out of my hands. But I can react to it, I hope.<hr>
Racism I won't even burn my hands on. I live together with a black American (US) woman, and if she feels fit to handle this, I'll let her. I won't touch it, for I don't care what colour you are. You will be an equal to me, as far as I feel it.<hr>
GinoCyber: If you were to nuke the whole of the Middle East, just to get rid of all these Bible wars, then I think you ought to read up on the good book first. There's been enough wars about religion, about some religion being good, the other bad. I concur with you in one way: let the wars stop over things said in the bible, let the wars stop because we have another religion than yours. There will be enough places in the Bible saying things about quiting wars, or quarrels, just because one person doesn't believe the same as the other does. The Catholic Church has tried bannishing out the worshipping of pagan gods, by telling people to worship bits and pieces of their own priests, saints and all that. So people went from worshipping the bones of one God, to worshipping the bones of someone made Saint by the C.C.
Nuking the Middle East doesn't help. It's still the place where your ancestors came from, believing in a God. Whether that God was Mohammed or whether it was Jesus or whether it was the Christian God, that doesn't matter. Saying "nuke the place" is some thing your mother never taught you!!<hr>
Mayo or vinegar on chips or french fries. I put mayo on my friet, I put mayo on my hamburger. You got the friet from the Dutch or the Belgians, we might've all gotten the hamburger from the Romans. I also use salt on potato's and friet. Vinegar is used on things that are too dry to eat on their own, like kale. And I eat it stamped though stamped-potato's, with baked pieces of bacon (not those thin slices, but real big chunks), and the gravy from the bacon. With a pickle and some sour onions on vinegar. Does that make me a barbarian in your eyes, Paulcs?
Maybe everything is bigger in the US, but you exlpain to me why people eat vitamine pills every day, instead of real food?
<hr>
Last in the list: Jessica Alba: As I said to Jason already through ICQ: What breasts? There's nothing on all the pictures I saw that would be enough to hold in one hand... He couldn't even find a picture on the net showing them really good. As far as I could see she's pretty, but if you look at her breasts only, a well used ironing board has more bumps! <hr>

Jord, with enough fuel to burn me, right?


[This message has been edited by Jorden (edited 20 February 2001).]