British newspapers are reporting that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has created a 200-page dossier which states that the best course of action against Iran's nuclear program is diplomacy led by Britain, France and Germany.
Reports state Straw will meet with US secretary of state nominee Condoleezza Rice in February and argue his case. Reports that the US intends to attack Iran increased when a "New Yorker" story reported that US commandos have been operating in Iran.
The Pentagon said that story was "riddled with fundamental errors" but it didn't deny conducting such missions. VP Cheney said Iran is "right at the top of the list" when it comes to international issues.
Just imagine if it were any country other than the US that invaded country after country like this.
They sure now how to piss the world off. You can be sure to look forward to more retaliatory action against US (what you Americans arrogantly call "Terrorism") for the killing of these other nations' people.
i don't know what the rest of the world calls terrorism, i happen to live in america and i speak american terminology. however. the day after the 9/11 attacks i wrote how this country had pissed so many people off it was only a matter of time, and how america was probably going to react by starting some stupid war to remind everyone we can stomp wherever we like. i got hatemail and death threats for that, some from people who a year later were saying the exact same anti-bush things.
it's silly. people outside this country blame me for america's stupidity, and people inside this country accuse me of being anti-american. i mean, pick one already, eh?
just saying i don't think it's right to hold all americans responsible for crap our government does without our consent. i've been outvoted. how much direct input do other countries' people have in their governments' actions?
nothing personal, vizz. that's something that's been bugging me for a while.
b4u, that is funny, Afghanistan Iraq and Iran joining forces. I will put a bomb in my skull set to explode when they unite and I will prepare to live a long long life. Even with a foreign army at there door. And even if they did, once the common enemy is gone it is buisness as usual.
Bush isn't looking for Osama in Ladin, the pentagon isn't looking for WMDs, what is in Iran anyway?
I dont think Tony would have the audacity to attack Iran, and if he does he certainly won't until after the general election.
Can the chimp wait that long to attack, who knows?
But if they do, although i'm normally one to stay away from protetst marches (i dislike the work dodging hippy types) but if they attack iran i'm going to be right up there on this one ¬_¬
The will of the american people is reflected by its choice of president.
When you elect a right wing extremist like dubya for a second term, with no indication of any shift in policy, outsiders can rightfully say "you americans".
I'm sure most americans actually think things are going well in Iraq, that Iraq is on the right track and freedom and democracy will ensue momentarily. The media machine is working smoothly.
In reality of course, Iraq is in total chaos. Thousands of civilians are dead, the country has degraded into a state of civil war, hospitals, schools, universities - nothing works. Unemployment is massive due to the US disbanding the Iraqi army and due to the security situation in general, the oil is not flowing, the administration is not working. What IS working is the steady flow of caskets being shipped quietly back to the US, out of media sight.
I'm sure the Iraqi's are very, very, very grateful. I mean they did manage to live for thousands and thousands of years without help from the US, and of course the very cradle of civilization does have its origins in Iraq, but hey, Dubya knows best.
I'm not exactly looking forward to going into Iran... hopefully it doesn't happen. (Hope for peace, prepare for war).
@Mberg: When was the last time you were in Iraq to see that "nothing works". It seems to me you really have no idea. The only hint you've got is that everything you see on TV is a lie... and that can be almost as dangerous as believing everything you see.
As long as you remain in the US, as a citizen paying taxes etc.. I'd say a fair argument can be made to group you in as 'you americans'. You're definitely not the worst of the bunch, but contributing to the Iraq effort nonetheless. Writing and speaking out can only go so far as a protest. Get out if you really have a problem with the situation. I'm sure you'll find that at least one of the civilized countries of the world will take you in.
Iraq and Afghanistan are both on Iran's border, and Iran has influence over the Shiite Moslems in both countries. Without the US, both countries could easily be allies of Iran which already has the ear of the mullahs of Iraq and warlords of Afghanistan.
Several points. Given the flaws in our policy abroad, one might deduce that there could be just as many in our voting system. Regardless of who had the popular vote, or the electoral one. Additionally, looking at any map will tell you where the voting power in this nation is. In places like New York and California you have to appeal to vastly diverse sociopolitical groups. Throughout the south and midwest, there is predominately the NASCAR loving, bible-hugging stereotype that we often make light of. It's easy to please the sheep in the 'hick' states, it's not so simple to appeal to the 500 different ethnic and special-interest groups in the democratic voting areas. Bush is exactly what the south wants. A 'simple' man who appeals to their desire for a 'down home' type leader. Hence, he has the overwhelming majority, with the exception of the vastly disputed Florida, the reason being due to the growth and increased diversity in that area. After you've won the 'country' portion, all you need is 1 or 2 swing states to take the cake. It's an easy job for the republican candidates, and with the 'give em hell' additude, the south just swoons over bush.
As for moving away when you don't agree with policy, consider this. I know quite a few people who would love to be somewhere that would love to be elsewhere, but there's hurdles. Our economy isn't the greatest now, consider now that moving to the UK or most 1st world countries would cost you at LEAST 20% more than it would 5 years ago. Compound that with the massive papertrail you put up with, the costs of moving, the time/effort/stress, and it's very difficult. Even moving to Canada can be more of a hassle than it's worth. This country isnt great right now, and moving might seem like a solution. I *hope* and pray that we can change the course of this nation and minimize the damage we have already caused. Because for the average citizen, running away is not nearly as easy as you make it out to be. I'd estimate for a single young guy like myself it would cost at least $50,000. And unless you have a very impressive resume that can be internationally recognized, best of luck getting a job/place to live in youre new country of residence. If anyone knows an organization that would like to hire a network technician with no work history, and no education in your country at an 'american' salary, move my things, find me a house, and settle me down in the netherlands, though, do let me know. </rant>
1) Now that the votes are in and Bush has been elected the majority want him.... Therefore when people talk about Americans the are talking about the majority... You just have to live with it...
2) You can't expect everyone to leave the country when they vote against the winner... You would be moving every few years to other countries.. Lets be realistic... and consider what you will do if your choice doesn't get in... Are you going to leave your country?
Do you just love it when broad generalizations get thrown into a "serious" subject? Can prejudicial statements do anything other than make an argument seem less rational?
I mean you have to accept that the 2004 elections were based on the candidates "qualities" and not the issues, polls back me up on this most voters voted on the candidates qualities. (Issues are usually avoided during elections, the real issues , the ones which conflict between the vast majority of American opinion and the Administration are never brought into elections and both sides fully acknowledge this . ) Before you all go ballistic at this (demanding sources) it's practically a paraphrase from Chomsky in an interview on www.democracynow.com around October 2004 so you can write to him at M.I.T. and ask for the poll sources (you may be amazed in the frequency in which he answers his e-mail from individuals )
I mean if you take the American stance on The Middle East Israeli /Palestinian conflict , If ,memory serves me correctly polls conducted in the US report that only 17% of Americans support their Administrations policies in the region with the vast majority supporting that American should take a neutral stance in the conflict and hand the situation over to International Bodies and equal aid to both sides etc…. The findings of this poll were so outrageous that they “simply weren’t reported” …..
The Elections like the News in the US are run by the PR industry , The USA currently has 22,000 more PR people preparing the news than journalists ………
Yes, technically that may mean "most", but BARELY. To say "you Americans" is directed at me as well, and your assumption about my political views is completely inaccurate. People like you say to hell with the other 49%(1 percent less than half!); we should be categorized with the idiot war-mongers. We are already hated by the Bush-Lovers, why not be hated by the rest of the world too? I don't appreciate your over generalization. I didn't condone war in Iraq, and I DON'T CONDONE IT IN IRAN. There is not a large enough majority, in my opinion, to generalize the entire American population.
Your assumption that the U.S. is attacking Iran is nothing more than that, an assumption. Not fact but fiction. All that is happening at this point is the gathering of intelligence to find out of nukes are being made and what if anything needs to be done to prevent a major war not start one. I love when a jackass post stories like this one that twist the headlines and misquotes the information to press yet another anti-American story into play. If the rest of the world could just hear the pop of their head coming out of your asses you might see that a rogue nation such as Iran that harbors nukes is a treat more to any of you than the U.S. and due to that fact you should be all for finding out just what is anything is being built in regards to nukes in Iran. Gathering intelligence is not war. It is simple the responsible thing to do in this case. The last thing you want to do with a rouge nation of terrorist breeding Muslims is let them go unchecked. I, for one, hope Iran is on the level and not producing nukes but I doubt that is the case. Since they continue to pour over the boarders of Iraq and attack U.S. and Iraqi troops and citizens at will they have in effect declared war on both the U.S. and Iraq. So before you begin to run your mouths with more anti-American garbage pop your heads out of your collective ass and know the whole as a whole needs to know what is happening with the nuclear program in Iran.
Okay...I believe you halfwits need a refresher in history.
First, dubya is not our first choice for president. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd know that George W LOST the popular vote to Al Gore, but thanks to electoral college -- an antiquated system which we don't need anymore, the moron won the presidency.
Second, for the Brits out there insulting me and my fellow American bush haters...Need I remind you who started not one, but TWO crusades where non-Christians (hmmm...mostly Arab) we slaughtered by the thousands or that you are a people whose nation was founded by the Romans. The Romans were a group of blood thirsty imperialistic expansionists...sound familiar? Until you saw your borders reduced to a couple of meager islands (England, Ireland, BVI, part of the Isle of Man, and a few other small ones), you were just like your predecessors! Oh, and one more thing...why is it that after hundreds of thousands of Americans, British, and French sacrificed their lives defending the world from the nazi regime, a member of YOUR royal family (Prince Harry) goes to a party w/ a nazi armband on? Sounds like you blokes are just brilliant, if we are to assume that the actions of the royal family are indicitive of those of their nation. He may not be the heir-apparent, but he's close enough.
Buzz off...
Now, for any Germans that have recently felt the need to insult me...one word...Blitzkreig and in more than one word, ethnic clensing from 1938 - 1945. You halfwits sure jumped behind Hitler awfully quickly, if the logic that I've seen on this site hold true, then you blokes are absolute morons for allowing such a man to come into power. Yes, I realize your grandparents made that decision, but c'mon...the apple never falls far from the tree.
I think we all know enough about history that I can just leave the Russians out of this. They've been killing everyone -- including their own people -- they could get their hands on and make deals with whomever the most powerful party is at the time (i.e. Stalin's pact w/ Hitler, which lasted just until Hitler decided he wanted to see Stalingrad burn to the ground).
Now, as far as the French are concerned...I'm well traveled and I can honestly say: hell, no one likes the French! Their rude, cocky, arrogant pricks that couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag...their nation has seen more flags than a 2 bit whore has seen misters. Yes, I'm completely cognizant of the fact that w/o France, America would not exist right now, but their track record since the revolution has been less than superlative.
Well, I suppose I've pissed off enough of the G8 nations for now.
I'll close with the following: All Americans are not fools simply because their figurehead (which I mentioned before LOST the popular vote) is a complete and utter moron. I honestly think this years election was rigged, but w/o any proof, what the heck can I do. Throughout the history of this world of ours, morons & infidels have come to power through various means (coups, trickery, bribery to name a few). It may not have been in the best interest of the world, but it came to pass and it was not necessarily the fault of the people. To those of you whom still fail to understand my point, then I'd venture to say that perhaps you should stop pointing fingers at the 'idiots' in the world and perhaps take a closer look in the mirror.
I completely agree with your last paragraph, as well as the bit about GW losing the popular vote. I feel, however, that verbally attacking other countries for occurrences in their history is the wrong path to persue. It will only serve to instill more anger against us as a people. The entire world sees us as having poor foreign relations, let's not prove them right.
sure, there's people dying, but this isn't war. Vietnam was barely a war. You know what a war is, WWII, WWI, the U.S. civil war. These are wars. What's the casualty rate for the U.S.? Less than two-thousand. LESS THAN TWO-THOUSAND. How many Germans died in WWI? One-million-seven-hundred-thousand. How many people died in WWII? Over thirty-million. We are not at war, we never were at war. As for Iran being invaded, Beaty hit the nail on the head...we haven't invaded Iran, all that's being done is recon which is done by the U.S. in probably just about every country in the world, including our allies. So stop acting like we have.
acg "As long as you remain in the US, as a citizen paying taxes etc.. I'd say a fair argument can be made to group you in as 'you americans'."
Um, if you don't pay your taxes you go to jail. Regardless of your views on the war in Iran and Iraq, you don't pay your taxes, you get locked up. I love when people generalize/stereotype/group large groups of clearly different people. It shows how smart they are...
Haha, Yes I agree as a American that this isn't a war since only two thousand killed or injured. BUT, look on the opposite side, thousands are being killed. This is just the beggining for a war as far I percieve it, so might as well call it a war.
Just because it was not a long war it does not make it no war.
Definition of war: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. The period of such conflict. The techniques and procedures of war; military science. http://dictionary.reference.com/ It is a war. As the german blitzkrieg was a war. Just because something is fast with just few casualties does not make the act lose the war quality it has.
http://www.m-w.com/ Main Entry: war Pronunciation: 'wor Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Middle English werre, from Old North French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse 1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict
"Throughout the history of this world of ours, morons & infidels have come to power through various means (coups, trickery, bribery to name a few). It may not have been in the best interest of the world, but it came to pass and it was not necessarily the fault of the people"
then
"Now, for any Germans that have recently felt the need to insult me...one word...Blitzkreig and in more than one word, ethnic clensing from 1938 - 1945. You halfwits sure jumped behind Hitler awfully quickly, if the logic that I've seen on this site hold true, then you blokes are absolute morons for allowing such a man to come into power."
see the contradiction here? Oh and as for ethnic cleansing? well lets see... we have the american indians whom were killed and driven off in huge numbers. We have the vietnamese who had whole viliages wiped out as well as 3 times the ordinance of WW2 dropped on their country. I think 500k civilian casualties at least. (yes it was a war) and they did beat the U.S.A.
You shouldn't use the phrase "the apple never falls far from the tree"... Your ancesters have build a state by slaughering the rightfull owners. And what is about written agreements? Yeah, you never broke any. WWI and II: When the germans are standing against the wall you are stepping in. A bunch of jakals killing a serious wounded tiger.
Germany declared war on the United States immediately after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. The USA had been supplying and offering increasing non-combative support to the British since the outbreak of the war and now the full force of the American military and immense war production capability were brought to bear in the conflict against Germany. The first major defeat was in North Africa at the second Battle of El Alamein in 1942. Around about the same time the tide was turning for the Germans in Russia. The defeat at the Battle of Stalingrad shocked many in the German High Command and the realisation that the German forces were not invincible began to permeate through the minds of the German people." http://en.wikipedia.org/
Very good dilwit, you got my point. My point was that EVERY bloody nation did something at some point in their nation which was ethically wrong. You must be a lil daft?
Also...how did Germany beat America? The only axis force that got anywher near America was Japan and they never even got close to our mainland.
If you call beating America having the Eastern half of your country under Communist rule for over 50 years then keep believing that lie.
WW I: I'll grant you that Germany was a wounded Tiger when we stepped in.
WW II: This couldn't be further from the truth. America entered the war on 7 December 1941. At the end of December 1941 the reich stretched from the volga (almost Stalingrad) to the Atlantic (occupied France). From there they set their sights on the United Kingdom & Africa. They used France to launch V-2 rockets which devastated London. The tables didn't even begin to turn until June 6th 1944, which is D-Day, when the largest amphibious assault was ever mounted (which was a collaborative effort between the US, UK, and Russia (w/ minor support from Canada and French Resistance). The war was basically over for Germany a few months later with the AMERICAN victory at the Battle of the Bulge.
Okay...I stand corrected, the imperial navy did blow up some trees in Wisconsin and almost grazed an oil field in texas when they tried to shell it from way too far away.
When I said they never got close to our mainland, I should have said they were never able to form any kind of coordinated assault on our mainland. 2 Attacks 0 casualties usually tallies up to a complete and utter failure in my book, but thats just me.
But those poor trees! Just kiddin'. I realize it was a failed attempt at a waste of time, but it's an interesting bit of trivia that not many people know.
