Message from Britain to the USA after Bush was elected.

sephin said:

Ufortunately every 'yank' knows it is pointless to argue with any country about who is better because we simply are. Most rich, most intelligent, most generous, etc etc...

Thats why everyone is so damn bitter/jealous

BTW, pretty funny, I am a Bush fan though, Kerry would have been a worse choice.

Click to expand...

Most intelligent?! That's fucking bullshit. What exactly do you base that on? America has a small intellectual elite, but then again, so does every other civilized country which gives its citizens an opportunity to study, learn and develop. However, if you look at the statistics, you will see a very clear pattern that indicates most western European countries have a more highly educated general populace. I'm not trying to come off as arrogant or anything, but rather stating the truth.

And about being the most generous.. well, that can be debated. Bush was very, VERY stingy when it came down to helping the victims of the Tsunami tragedy, for example. I'd say that your nation has foresight, and it mostly gives out help when it knows it can benefit from doing so in some way. And don't even try and give me any shit about your "righteous" assault on Iraq to help the nation from the clutches of the cruel dictator and bring lasting peace to the region. Those were the PR reasons, not the real ones. America has never gone to war if it hasn't had major issues of power or profit involved.

Well, you are the richest nation, I'll give you that. But you still fall short of several other countries in the international statistics in overall well-being (measured as a sum of several factors).

The US always thinks its the best, it isn't.
We know that, most people know that....but alot of the US people dont.
Superpower or not, rich or not it makes not a scrap of difference.....the US has and always will love itself. I remember going to the USA one year when the Olympics were on and ALL I SAW on TV was the US athletes, there was no coverage or talk of other countries winning much....just US this and US that. They are So biased its untrue. Yet I went into Europe at the sametime and saw even couverage of such big events.....makes you wonder. Plus I think Bush is a WANKER with a capital 'W' and hope the next UK Prime minister turns his back on the whole sorry state that is, bush and Co.

I love both UK and the US for different reasons. I live in London but my dad lives in New York so I visit all the time.
Sephin, when I initially read your comment about the US being the best at everything, I thought you were joking. Now I realise that you were not. I find it sad that you feel that your country is the best at everything. I don't really want to get dragged into this but I have lived for long periods of time in six different countries and therefore have a good perspective on this. Keep in mind that I love your country very much and find a lot of your citizens very friendly. Just so that you do not continue thinking that your country is the best at everything I'll give you an example of one very important thing that the US is the worst in the world at. Economy of lifestyle i.e. the average citizen of America pollutes more than double the average European does. It is precisely the fact that the US does not conserve well that has led to it becoming the worlds greatest power.
So that is one thing that the US is very bad at. Needless to say there are many things that the US is equally good at. After traveling a lot I have come to the opinion that each country has its strengths and it's weaknesses.

As I said before I find the vast majority of US citizens very nice but you have to understand that outside of your country Americans are seen as arrogant and self obsessed by a lot of people (at least people that I have met). I have not found this to be the case whilst I've been in America and always correct people when they quote this stereotype. I think the reason that many people believe most Americans to be arrogant is because of the very rare few that have opinions such as you sephin. I do however think that the US needs to look outside it's borders a bit more often.

And about being the most generous.. well, that can be debated. Bush was very, VERY stingy when it came down to helping the victims of the Tsunami tragedy, for example.

Click to expand...

Lol your like that european (forgot country) idiot from the UN claiming we are stingy. We give more than any country, and Im sure it could be debated more %-wise.

Obviously, I was trying to sound sili, and fill the stereotype so you guys could feed on it and I could chuckle. Of course I dont have facts to back it up but Im a 'yank' a 'cowboy', I talk out my ass and think Im the shit right? lol

And don't even try and give me any shit about your "righteous" assault on Iraq to help the nation from the clutches of the cruel dictator and bring lasting peace to the region. Those were the PR reasons, not the real ones. America has never gone to war if it hasn't had major issues of power or profit involved

Click to expand...

Considering the genocyde of his own people, Iraq IS better off than it was. Unfortunately ignorant, sili, people, look at the news and see the PUBLICIZED (with pics and video of aftermath) deaths of over 1,000 soldiers and no more than 1,000 Iraqi civillians (and that is generous).

Too bad the 100,000s if not more gassed Iraqi's, under Saddam's regime , ordered by Saddam, have been forgotten. People like you that overlook that fact, or simply ignore it and try to propagate your view by overblowing the current numbers of the war and focusing on that.

I find it hilarious every anti-iraq-war person, never debate the fact of the Iraqis Saddam gassed. They will only scream bloodymurder on oil, profit, power...

1) Power? We are giving them elections then moving out. What power do we gain from being in Iraq? If anything we lose power, using resources, money, troops etc

2) Profit? Fact: We get LESS than 2% of our oil from Iraq. We dont need their oil, and if we take some at cheap prices or even free after war YAYA for us. People scream "we are taking the Iraqi peoples oil OMFG" We havent and EVEN IF WE DID, why not?

Did these same people complain the WHOLE time Saddam was in power, that it was HIS oil and the Iraqi people lived in poverty as he was in cahoots with FRANCE AND GERMANY along with the Kofi Annan's (sp?) son abusing the oil for food program. Nope. Ah another reason the US is better than those 2 sad sad countries.

Anyhow, done with that.

I think the reason that many people believe most Americans to be arrogant is because of the very rare few that have opinions such as you sephin. I do however think that the US needs to look outside it's borders a bit more often.

Click to expand...

I was being purposefully arrogant/sili, but I do see the USA as the shining light in the world, and that we can debate.

I agree, lets look outside our borders. IMPenis EnlargementRIALISE Mexico, they cause us too many damn problems, and they are corrupt fuckers.

sephin said:

Lol your like that european (forgot country) idiot from the UN claiming we are stingy. We give more than any country, and Im sure it could be debated more %-wise.

Obviously, I was trying to sound sili, and fill the stereotype so you guys could feed on it and I could chuckle. Of course I dont have facts to back it up but Im a 'yank' a 'cowboy', I talk out my ass and think Im the shit right? lol

Click to expand...

Yes, you are an arrogant yank, and you have your head so far up your own ass it is pointless to argue with you about anything. You are SO in love with your dear country that you couldn't care less what goes on in the rest of the world, even though you only represent a small fraction of the world's populace. And it's funny you should claim to be the most generous country: 15 million dollars isn't exactly a huge sum of money to donate to the Tsunami victims, especially when it is coming from the world's richest nation. Hell, individual people and organizations have given out more than than, and the same goes for most wealthy European nations.

sephin said:

Considering the genocyde of his own people, Iraq IS better off than it was. Unfortunately ignorant, sili, people, look at the news and see the PUBLICIZED (with pics and video of aftermath) deaths of over 1,000 soldiers and no more than 1,000 Iraqi civillians (and that is generous).

Too bad the 100,000s if not more gassed Iraqi's, under Saddam's regime , ordered by Saddam, have been forgotten. People like you that overlook that fact, or simply ignore it and try to propagate your view by overblowing the current numbers of the war and focusing on that.

Click to expand...

No more than 1000 civilians? And where would you be getting this info from? Fox news? :clap: Good for you. It's too bad that pretty much every independent and/or international survey puts the death toll up to 10 times more than what you claim. I'd trust an objective survey done on the topic over your bullshit regime's war propaganda figures any day. And as far as Saddam's atrocities are concerned: you don't have any proof of the exact numbers, now do you? The fact is, he was in power for quite some time, and there were no records kept of the executions he ordered, so you can't really make more than a guess. 100,000 sounds like an exaggeration, and you probably took that number from the same source that claimed there were no more than a thousand civilian lives lost in the war. Saddam was not a threat to America by any stretch of the imagination, contrary to what was propagated by the administration. America is not the world police, and moving its troops into the Middle-East yet again was a very bad move. If you had any concern of your own well being, you would have stayed out. The whole Islamic world will take major offence to the mere fact that you are invading their home turf, and you can be sure that it will draw more terrorist elements out of the woodwork.

sephin said:

1) Power? We are giving them elections then moving out. What power do we gain from being in Iraq? If anything we lose power, using resources, money, troops etc

Click to expand...

You can't force democracy on a country that has long rooted traditions in dictatorship. The American way won't work in a place where the infrastructures to support it are nonexistant. Besides, the Iraqi populace has a very strong sense of national pride, and will not be westernized. Even if you manage to create a temporary order (in which you've failed horribly so far), it won't last long.

Regarding the use and expansion of power; I could give you a dozen reasons why America is really in the middle east, but you'd simply dismiss it all as "leftist conspiracy theories", so I'll give it a pass.

sephin said:

2) Profit? Fact: We get LESS than 2% of our oil from Iraq. We dont need their oil, and if we take some at cheap prices or even free after war YAYA for us. People scream "we are taking the Iraqi peoples oil OMFG" We havent and EVEN IF WE DID, why not?

Click to expand...

I never said America has much to gain in financial profits from being in Iraq in particular. I simply stated that America has never gone to war with unselfish intent. I mean c'mon, gimme a break. Even you can't be that naive.

OK first off lets get something straight. Don't label me as a Democrat or Republican because I don't believe in either. When I said things about Clinton, I was a dirty Republican, now I say things about Bush and Im a Democrat?

I could care less who your president is but I do care about what orders your presidents are taking because it effects all of us not just you. Im not american and I don't like watching your country being raped knowing that once they get full control of your country we are all screwed.

Last time I read, out of the 5 major Electronic Voting Machine companies 3 were owned by ex-CIA officials one was oned by clearchannel and the other was owned by someone high up in the NSA.

Those of you who still believe in this Right Republic and Left Democrat need to ask yourself some questions. Either the president is pro freedom or pro control. Clinton wanted women in the frontline for war and was demonized for it. Bush just passed it. Clinton wanted a national ID card. Bush just passed that. Clinton supported gun control. Bush supports gun control. Clinton wanted more police patrolling your streets. Bush is getting more police patrolling your streets. Usually it is the slaves who are disarmed and then screwed over.

If the far right is Anarchy and the far left is Tyranny and both presidents support more government control, would that not make them both left?

Maybe you feel having a national ID card is good. Maybe you want check points and the police and military combining. Maybe you want a national curphew. Keep in mind that they only people who need this national ID card are americans not the american foreigners. Why would they have this rule?
If there is a terrorist threat why are your borders wide open and the only people getting controlled are the american people? Why does patriot act 2 only apply to american citizens?

According to Patriot Act 2. An american citizen who gets stopped and cannot provide their ID card is killed, not put in jail taken away and killed. Ya that sounds like pro freedom which would put Bush on the right side of the scale. Also with the passing of Patriot Act 2 and all those other hitler loving goodie acts, Bush is now above the law. That would now put him at the level of a dictator.

As far as the Iraq elections, last thing I read was they were not going to tell you who was running until the day of the election. The prime candidate also works for some oil company which would mean they were creating a puppet government. Whether or not you want to believe it Saddam was funded and put into power by the US.

Since the US had nothing to gain from Afganistan or Iraq. Why are they there? Why has opium production in Aftanistan gone up to record production since they took it over? What about the trillions of dollars in oil in Afganistan? What about the trillions of dollars in oil in Iraq? What about the billions of dollars in weapons sales and Haliburton contracts? I guess those are nothing to be concerned about since the Americans could never profit there.

On Iraq:

1. Most of the mass killings (specifically Kurdish people, who don't consider themselves part of Iraq and actively defied the regime) were carried out when we funded and supported Iraq. The situation was bad after we lost a diplomatic hold on the country as well, but then again I don't remember hearing much about us going in to protect the Iraqi people from the regime in the first place, it was for OUR SAFETY! Not Theirs, so don't trumpet that like some sort of altruistic goal we went to war for, because if I know one thing about most of the right wingers they don't care much about the downtrodden and abused of the world. The war was sold on WMDs, the abuse and murder of Iraqi citizens was heavily publicized to drum up emotional support for the war from the public at large.

2. Iraq wasn't a threat, and they weren't going to be a threat. If we'd let the search continue, we would have learned this. All the inspection experts have stated that it was simply a matter of time before the inspections were able to accumulate enough evidence to prove to even trigger happy Bush, Rummy, and Wolfowitz that we had no business in there. The war was sold as necessary to snuff out a direct threat to our safety based on suspicion of advanced WMD programs and production. We know now that there was absolutely nothing of the sort in the country, nor any real programs in place to develop them. I might add a good chunk of our "intelligence" on this matter came from some raving bullshit artist defector who was essentially proved to be full of it on all his claims.

3. There weren't training camps in Iraq, nor was it a hot bed of activity for such things, so don't go spouting that propaganda. If we invaded for those reasons than we ought to be invading Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and elsewhere this very moment because each is reported to have heavy terrorist organizational and recruitment activity (a large percentage of the terrorists fighting our troops in Iraq are foreign born and came into the country to fight after the war). Our own government intelligence had always noted that Iraq was not a harboring ground for terrorists due to the regime's iron-fisted controls. And once again, we went in for the WMDs, which were never there, fully disclosed by our own government. Not terrorists. The CIA, by the way, reported a few months back that Al Queda and terrorist networks in general are mostly unphased and likely have increased numbers. I feel better, don't you?

4. Many military and intelligence figures, including Brent Snowcroft (war man for Bush Sr. and an original conservative icon) have concluded that the Iraq war has only strengthened the recruitment efforts of terrorists and weakened our position in the world. The current fighting is training a whole new legion of terrorists in urban combat and terror strategy, and the survivors will surely come out of the conflict prepared and eager for more. Our military and and budget are stretched so absurdly thin that we're weakened across the board by a war we absolutely 100% did not need to fight.

5. The upcoming 'elections' are a sham. Anybody that thinks simply holding a few poll elections to get some officials in place to smile for the cameras and drafting a quickie constitution equals a true and secure democracy is living in a bubble. The interem prime minister, by the way, has vocalized a need to postpone them, citing what he believes will be a wave of violence and chaos in their wake as well a perpetuation of antagonism between Suni and Shiite Muslim groups.

I look forward to the day when all the staunch war supporters will be confronted with history at large proclaiming the massive blunder and waste of this war. Those that so ardently support the administration no matter what happens are, in my opinion, small-minded individuals who are so blinded by the need to feel correct in all their political persuasians that they'll never admit any error on the part of their chosen side. The same thing happens on the left, or in any political category for that matter. In this case, however, the pro war crowd are carrying on like bloody idiots. When will the war be a bad idea? How many thousands of reservists have to die, how many billions do we need to funnel away from our own country, how much bad press does our country need around the planet? The answer for you lot, is there just isn't enough. Kill 'em all, spend every penny, it was still a great idea because Bush signed off on it.

And as far as getting out of there after an election - how irresponsible, short-sighted, and altogether callow. Anybody in favor of that I would hope is just terribly uninformed. As Colin Powell said when asked about the whole Iraq scheme, "You break it, you but it." He understood the responsibility would fall on our shoulders to provide funds and military power to keep the region from devolving into chaos after the regime was toppled, and the dry tone of his words (plus his reluctance and caution regarding the entire affair) suggests he understood just how taxing it would be. Unfortunately the Bush administration's bullshit drove one of our most upstanding, brightest, and most respected figures out of public life. A person that dogmatically supports a political party, it's ideals, and it's leadership isn't a real American. Americans think for themselves.

Damn good post, swank!
And once more as a clarification: I'm not anti-American by any means. Not agreeing with the blind arrogance and egoism of a few individuals who really don't represent their nation as a whole doesn't mean that I harbor a grudge against America per se. There are always a few rotten apples in the mix, and sometimes they surface in ugly ways.

OK Sephin, I think I misunderstood you. You were being sarcastic in your first post right?
It is very difficult to tell as not much emotion can be conveyed through simple text on a screen.
Kausion and Swank. Great posts, very interesting.

I do support the war, and GWB. Out of the many reasons that the US, UK, and the other 30 allies went to war against Iraq, only one has been pointed out as not being proven, no stockpiles of WMD. Big deal. I do not understand why this is important.

Saddam had a proven record of insane actions, against his own people, Israel, and other neighbors. He had the CAPACITY to produce more weapons. Why would stockpiles even matter when he could simply produce more after the heat was off? It makes no sense. He supported terrorism, with money and by housing terrorists. The chances were too great that he would grant more aid and weapons to terrorsts in the future. As with Syria and Iran, this is enough to warrant a war.

I also believe that one day, within the next 5-10 years, the rest of the world will truly jump on board in the war against terrorism. I am afraid when the US and others go back to a defensive posture, the Islamic radicals will come out of their holes, and continue attacks against Europe. They will find the European countries much easier to attack than the US, so they will take the path of least resistance in order to make their points. There will be a heavy price for European indifference. I pray that I am wrong.

I have researched Islamic radicalism, understand their position, goals, and the methods they will use to attain them. They want nothing less than an end to western influence and culture in the middle east, and indeed throughout the world. A lofty goal to be sure. Unless you are prepared to convert to Islam, and to give up most if not all of your rights, you should be prepared to fight for your freedoms and rights.

As far as the costs and casualties go, freedom has never been cheap. Not in any country or time period. Thankfully, there has always been those willing to pay the price to provide freedom to others. I am very grateful for these sacrifices made on my behalf in the past, and will never forget them.

As far as all of the conspiracy theories concerning the reasons for going to war, I have never heard of any that make sense. The US is one of the few countries that actually tried to enforce the oil embargo against Iraq. They have not made a dime off of any Iraqi oil sales during the "oil for food program", or since. But many other countries and individuals have.

The US had Congressional approval, as did the UK with their parliment. The UN Security Council voted on several occasions condoning force against Iraq.

Looking at all of the evidence, only one conclusion can be drawn. The US, UK, and the other allies were correct, honest, above board, and straight forward in their actions. Other countries and individuals cannot make the same claims.

It will be interesting to see how the oil for food scandal plays out, and the individuals and countries fingered. As for now, it appears that money may have trumped freedom in many cases.

Bigger

All I have left to say is that those who do not learn from the lessons history teaches are doomed to repeat them.

Im watching history repeat itself while many think what is happening is something new. Those of you who believe in religion should be praying to god and those who don't should be looking from within to make a change to this.

You can find some of the reasons for the Iraq and Afganistan wars in a de-classified document called Project for the New American Century (PNAC). It was started in 1992 then left and picked up again in 97 and in 2001-2003 it was put into effect.

W00T, 3 hurrahs for Bib. BTW swank where is your reply on that religious thread that was in here a few months back, you never ever replied.

Sephin, what is this thread? I'll be happy to reply to whatever I was discussing, I've been traveling for quite a while and have only recently had time to look at the forums much.

On the topic of this Bib character, I noticed you quickly deferred to his words in the other thread (the "I Told You So" one) as well. I must say, your eagerness to have somebody else explain your views, despite the fact that you don't know the person or exactly what they're going to say illuminates me to the fact that you're not much of an independent thinker or leader in your own right. While I respect the opinions of many and agree with them as well, I don't need another person to outline my politics for me (especially just because I might believe they can jot down a more solid case, like I said, it's about more than just 'feeling right'). I feel for you, the matter of appearing to be on the sensible and informed side is more crucial than an actually meaningful challenge and probe of your beliefs, opions, and why you hold them.

That being said, this just goes towards confirming my more and more urgent suspicion that people who spit out tired rhetoric on both the left and right haven't got a thought in their heads that didn't originate from some talk radio entertainer (Rush Limbaugh, Al Frankin, and all the rest are entertainers, not authorities), or a mildly literate chit-chat coffee table novel (Ann Coultier, Bernard Goldberg). I have the distinct feeling - and please don't take this personally as this is a penis enlargment forum and we're just waxing political - that you more or less just repeat what seem like very cogent arguments to you, rather than seriously contemplating the issues from different perspectives. To me, that's not politics or even debate. That is just a person who enjoys the sensation of feeling they have it all figured out, which I promise you that absolutely nobody does.

Please give it a thought before you bother to respond to people . . .

I will agree that Bush was a better choice than Kerry, but not for the normal reasons. Firstly, although Bush has made some bad calls (and i don't believe all of his foreign affairs have been the wrong choice) Kerry only convinced me that his foreign policy would be different from Bush'es, but that doesn't tell me they will be any better. Probably the biggest one is that if Kerry were elected into office, nothing would get done. If you understand anything about American Politics you would realize that since our Congress is at this time by a huge majority Republican, a Democratic President would have a very hard time passing anything new, and also the Democratic President would probably be unlikely to not Veto many of the Bills going through the Republican Congress. The whole checks and Balances system of American Politics would enlighten you to the fact that Bush'es foreign policy is really the only thing you can argue about regarding directly him(whether you agree with it or not). In most other aspects of this country being run, the President is little more than a figurehead. People claim that Bush is bad for our economy as well, but after taking extensive Economic studies in High School and College (anyone who has done the same should agree with me), the American economy is a gigantic thing, and for even the smallest changes to take effect would take years before anyone would begin to notice a difference. Its like applying pressure to a giant cart with wheels (not a great analogy) but it takes continuous effort and alot of time for it to gain any momentum, then you hope that the momentum is in the right direction. What I'm saying is that most economic policies a President makes he won't even see the effects of within his own term of office. President Clinton didn't work wonders to the American economy, but rather he likely enjoyed the effects of policies instated by Bush Sr., and further down the line we see a decline during Bush'es first term, and sure enough these are almost certainly greatly the result of policies put in place during the Clinton Administration. Anyway, I think everyone needs to wait a little longer to see how these affairs in the Middle East pan out further before making any kind of intelligent opinion, whether they are right or wrong we need to wait for the smoke to clear before we see it clearly.

Hey guy's what is all the fighting about, I posted this write up by John Cleese, to promote some thought into the US election results, not to create a fisty cuff between members. Now shack hands and cum out wanking.

lol am I the only one from america here.

Anyway I'd have to agree Bush wasn't a good pick but neither was Bush, and I think we were better off with Bush. As for the war, there seems to be a lack of understanding as to the reasons he went to war. From what I understand he Was told by 3 different agencies that Huessein had weapons of mass destruction. 3 of them and they werent all from The US. So, so far America thinks that Sadam might have weapons of mass destruction. So when Sadam at first refuses to let weapons inspectors come in, but then finally allows the inspectors check certain areas. I mean jesus christ, I dont know about you guys but just based on that info i'd think the bastard gots mad weapons too. And thats not even to mention Sadaam's horrible past. The point is The war, or conflict might be a proper term, had some basis to it. And as for iraq not wanting democracy thats a bunch of Bull shit. All those beheadings and shit were done by terroist and sadaam loyalist, you think every1 in Iraq is doing this? Jesus sometimes I really do think that other countries, Like the UK, are jealous and just trying to find reason to try and insult america, you guys are basically in the same boat as us the only difference is were more dedicated as usual.