# Suicide Bomber kills 22 in Iraq



## Silence (Sep 16, 2008)

Suicide bomber kills 22 in attack on party

A suicide bomber blew herself up Monday among police officers who were celebrating the release of a comrade from U.S. custody, killing at least 22 people, Iraqi officials said. Separate bombings in Iraq killed 13 other people.



I guess the surge really worked eh?


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 16, 2008)

So I guess if a person commits murder in your town, the government and the police did not work? I someone goes crazy and does something evil and stupid in Galveston while the national guard is there, does that mean the national guard has failed?

No, silence... the surge is not going to eliminate every last individual out for whatever warped evil thing that they want to act out for whatever reason... one instance does not take away from what the surge has done, and what my military brothers and sisters have done in the effort


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 16, 2008)

More US citizens die in traffic accidents each year then soldiers die in Iraq so maybe we chould send everyone to war to keep them safe!  Silence you are just another person screaming for a reason to way we are not winning in Iraq.  Possibly a victim of the media.  I do not fault you for your ignorance simply would request you look at all the facts before you post something as ignorant as this.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 16, 2008)

i find it odd that a cultural that claims to be so peaceful....muslims...would allow drugged women and handicapped people to become bombers.  can one can stop random acts of violence.

as a country we opted to take the fight to them...now we are there and must complete what we have started.  

as i have said..if 100 muslims die to save one serviceman or woman...i am all for it.
the beheadings disgusted me..and made me realize that we have to do what we have to do.  

we have to stop them and on their land not ours.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Sep 16, 2008)

> More US citizens die in traffic accidents each year then soldiers die in Iraq so maybe we chould send everyone to war to keep them safe!



What a stupid defense of death in war.


----------



## editec (Sep 16, 2008)

I can't help but note that all the people killed were Moslems.

Way to kill an infidel for Allah, there, terrorist.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Sep 16, 2008)

As long as we have been told the truth and we don't see a sudden rise in the violence level.  Maybe that was the point.


----------



## Gem (Sep 16, 2008)

Silence Wrote:


> I guess the surge really worked eh?



Even Obama states that the surge has been a remarkable success.  Careful here, Silence, it looks a bit like you're gloating over the senseless deaths of 22 innocent people just because it advances your political beliefs.


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 16, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> What a stupid defense of death in war.



Thats not a defense it is sarcasm.  How can we be expected to stop random violence in Iraq when we can't stop random violence in prisons which are supposed to be the most controlled enviroments?


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 16, 2008)

Silence said:


> I guess the surge really worked eh?


Chicago is far deadlier than Iraq.

If only there were someone who could organize the community there. Why, if they did a really good job there they could go on to be president some day.

If only we had Hope.

BTW - If Clinton brought us peace in the 90's and we got 9/11 out of it it seems peace is deadlier than war judging by your math.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 16, 2008)

Silence said:


> Suicide bomber kills 22 in attack on party
> 
> A suicide bomber blew herself up Monday among police officers who were celebrating the release of a comrade from U.S. custody, killing at least 22 people, Iraqi officials said. Separate bombings in Iraq killed 13 other people.
> 
> ...



No "surge" is going to stop terrorism anymore than the police in this country prevent crime.  All it can do is minimize.  That's all it was designed to do.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 17, 2008)

MichaelCollins said:


> You sound like a coward to me.
> 
> Revelling in the deaths of innocent civilians is pure cowardice and the sign of one very ffed up individual.




i prefer the deaths of my enemies over the deaths of our servicemen...

so again piss off wanker.  do you pefer your fellow countrymen die over the iraqis....


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 17, 2008)

btw wanker....no amercian killed any of these 22 people ..now did they?


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 17, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> btw wanker....no amercian killed any of these 22 people ..now did they?



I bet if they were joooooos! or if the bombing occurred on US soil he'd be clucking about "blowback".


----------



## Silence (Sep 17, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> More US citizens die in traffic accidents each year then soldiers die in Iraq so maybe we chould send everyone to war to keep them safe!  Silence you are just another person screaming for a reason to way we are not winning in Iraq.  Possibly a victim of the media.  I do not fault you for your ignorance simply would request you look at all the facts before you post something as ignorant as this.



so it's ignorant to look at the statistics and see that the violence has NOT been reduced in Iraq?  I see how that works...thanks for the 411 

if the purpose of the surge and the purpose for the continued occupation of Iraq is to bring peace and stability to the region then they are failing miserably IMO.  

as for the comparison of what if someone committs a murder in my town do I fault the government or police?  well if the government or police took what was before a pretty stable neighborhood (even if I didn't agree with how it was run), rolled their forces in, took out the mayor of that neighborhood and allowed unfriendly and dangerous insurgents from other neighborhoods to set up shop there and people were dying in mass suicide bombings? then yeah, I'd say I'd blame them...damn right.

personally I'm disgusted that ANYONE would think that the life of ONE American serviceman/woman is worth the lives of 100 muslims.  

and not all muslims are the enemy strolling, think that's true is feeding into the propoganda that the muslims on those planes are just regular muslims.  There were extremists.  There are extremists in every religion that would just as soon kill you as allow you to believe different than they do.  

were there suicide bombers killing innocents prior to our occupation?  yes, were they an every day occurence?  not to my knowledge.  

the beheadings are wrong no doubt about that....but in their CULTURE that is how the deal with what they deem criminal behavior.  In Saudi do they not chop off the hand of someone who steals?  also they behead people in public too.  why do we look the other way for them and not for Iraq?


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 17, 2008)

> allowed unfriendly and dangerous insurgents from other neighborhoods to set up shop there



Is that what you claim America did ?


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 17, 2008)

Saddam murders MILLIONS

Silence calls that a "pretty stable neighborhood".

Maybe we should "stabilize" New York, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami and San Fran...but then who vote democrat?


----------



## xsited1 (Sep 17, 2008)

Silence said:


> A suicide bomber blew herself up Monday among police officers who were celebrating the release of a comrade from U.S. custody, killing at least 22 people, Iraqi officials said. Separate bombings in Iraq killed 13 other people.
> 
> I guess the surge really worked eh?



What a disgusting comment.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Sep 17, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> Saddam murders MILLIONS



[with full US backing and support].

Just fixing it up.


----------



## Silence (Sep 17, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Is that what you claim America did ?



that obviously wasn't the intent going in but that's what happened.  Al Qaeda didn't have a foot into Iraq prior to the war.  Saddam, for as much of a detestable human being as he was, was NOT in cahoots with them and was in no way, shape or form responsible for even one death on 9/11.  

and saying he murdered millions?  yes okay...but what about Darfur?  Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanda? Democratic Republic of the Congo?   c'mon people if you're outraged about Iraq don't you have to be outraged about them too?  


Mass crimes against humanity and genocide since World War II


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 17, 2008)

Silence said:


> so it's ignorant to look at the statistics and see that the violence has NOT been reduced in Iraq?  I see how that works...thanks for the 411



Statistics say violence has been reduced.




Silence said:


> if the purpose of the surge and the purpose for the continued occupation of Iraq is to bring peace and stability to the region then they are failing miserably IMO.



The purpose was to reduce violence not eliminate it.  I refer you to my above comment.



Silence said:


> as for the comparison of what if someone committs a murder in my town do I fault the government or police?  well if the government or police took what was before a pretty stable neighborhood (even if I didn't agree with how it was run), rolled their forces in, took out the mayor of that neighborhood and allowed unfriendly and dangerous insurgents from other neighborhoods to set up shop there and people were dying in mass suicide bombings? then yeah, I'd say I'd blame them...damn right.



Yes the government was stable for Sadam and his regime but not for the millions murdered on his whims.



Silence said:


> personally I'm disgusted that ANYONE would think that the life of ONE American serviceman/woman is worth the lives of 100 muslims.



Personally Im disgusted at anyone who thinks that American soldiers should be killed instead of the enemy who is killing civilians.



Silence said:


> and not all muslims are the enemy strolling, think that's true is feeding into the propoganda that the muslims on those planes are just regular muslims.  There were extremists.  There are extremists in every religion that would just as soon kill you as allow you to believe different than they do.



But strolling is not an extremist and is simply stating that the life of a soldier is worth more than the life of a terrorist and i agree.  In this case the terrorist happen to be muslim or islamic extremist.



Silence said:


> were there suicide bombers killing innocents prior to our occupation?  yes, were they an every day occurence?  not to my knowledge.



You are absolutely right they were not suicide bombing because they could walk into a city and kill anyone they pleased.  If they walked into a city with ak47's and tried that now the US military would destroy them with minimal effort thus they had to change their killing tactics.  They did not however change their targets, iraqi civilians.




Silence said:


> the beheadings are wrong no doubt about that....but in their CULTURE that is how the deal with what they deem criminal behavior.  In Saudi do they not chop off the hand of someone who steals?  also they behead people in public too.  why do we look the other way for them and not for Iraq?



So if their culture says violence is the answer should the United States behead every person we capture as a criminal of war in order to respect their culture?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 17, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> Statistics say violence has been reduced.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Violence can go up just as fast as it went down.  And keep in mind that in the past week we renigged on a deal with the Sunni's, so expect violence to go back up again.  Wackamole.  Doesn't matter, we need to turn it over to the Iraqi's and go back to Afganistan.

We killed more people in Iraq

If it were reverse and Iraq invaded America, you'd call them the terrorists, so I find it funny you call the Iraqi's in Iraq that are fighting America TERRORISTS.  Was George Washington a terrorist?  It depends on who you ask.  Plus, we handed Iraq over to Iran.  Just about the dumbest thing ever done by an Administration.

What did Reagan do when Marines were killed in Lebanon?  He brought them home.

Who thinks American soldiers should be killed?  No one, that's who.

No, the terrorists are Christian extremists.


----------



## eots (Sep 17, 2008)

Gem said:


> Silence Wrote:
> 
> 
> Even Obama states that the surge has been a remarkable success.  Careful here, Silence, it looks a bit like you're gloating over the senseless deaths of 22 innocent people just because it advances your political beliefs.



the SURGE what a bunch of assholes...the_ surge_..it is just a word..they sent more troops ,spent more money and it allowed for a llittle more control...hey guess what Einstein ...if we send even more troops and even more money we probably can exercise a _little _more control...


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 17, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Violence can go up just as fast as it went down.  And keep in mind that in the past week we renigged on a deal with the Sunni's, so expect violence to go back up again.  Wackamole.  Doesn't matter, we need to turn it over to the Iraqi's and go back to Afganistan.



We do need to hand Iraq over but not at this moment.  The Progression is further than you are led to believe it wont be much longer.



sealybobo said:


> We killed more people in Iraq



Please prove that!



sealybobo said:


> If it were reverse and Iraq invaded America, you'd call them the terrorists, so I find it funny you call the Iraqi's in Iraq that are fighting America TERRORISTS.  Was George Washington a terrorist?  It depends on who you ask.  Plus, we handed Iraq over to Iran.  Just about the dumbest thing ever done by an Administration.



No I call Iraqis who are slaughtering Iraqi's and attempting to slaughter Americans terrorists.



sealybobo said:


> What did Reagan do when Marines were killed in Lebanon?  He brought them home.



Welcome to war.



sealybobo said:


> Who thinks American soldiers should be killed?  No one, that's who.



Then why defend those trying to kill them.



sealybobo said:


> No, the terrorists are Christian extremists.



If this is indeed true it would be a religious genocide and we would destroy the full islamic nation which we are capable of doing and have not done.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 17, 2008)

Epsilon Delta said:


> [with full US backing and support].
> 
> Just fixing it up.



This may come as a shock to you--you being as dutifuly steeped in your masters' propaganda--but T-72's, MiG's, ZSU's, AK-47's, RPG's et al are not manufactured by the US.


----------



## Silence (Sep 17, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> Statistics say violence has been reduced.



violence against American troops, perhaps but we're still losing too many in this unnecessary war and even one soldier dead in a conflict that should've never taken place is too many 



> The purpose was to reduce violence not eliminate it.  I refer you to my above comment.



well if the purpose is to just reduce it and they've done that then they can leave now right? 



> Yes the government was stable for Sadam and his regime but not for the millions murdered on his whims.



again I refer you to the government of Saudi Arabia and other third world countries who don't necessarily practice peace against their people.  Are we to believe that the United States military should go into those countries as well and "keep the peace"? 



> Personally Im disgusted at anyone who thinks that American soldiers should be killed instead of the enemy who is killing civilians.



who said anything about the terrorists?  you and others equate terrorist with muslims.  I do not do that.  I am able to know there is a difference, I am sorry you are not.  and by the way, the terrorists who killed americans on 9/11 are still at large.  



> But strolling is not an extremist and is simply stating that the life of a soldier is worth more than the life of a terrorist and i agree.  In this case the terrorist happen to be muslim or islamic extremist.



the life of a terrorist yes...the life of a muslim?  NO and that is what strolling said... read it again 



> You are absolutely right they were not suicide bombing because they could walk into a city and kill anyone they pleased.  If they walked into a city with ak47's and tried that now the US military would destroy them with minimal effort thus they had to change their killing tactics.  They did not however change their targets, iraqi civilians.



I think you believe the media propoganda pushed on us.  I choose to do a little more than watch Fox news for my information.  Try it, you might be enlightened.  




> So if their culture says violence is the answer should the United States behead every person we capture as a criminal of war in order to respect their culture?



their "culture" does not say this...extremists within their culture say this.  Just as extremists in our culture believe that violence is how you get results.  Timothy McVie ring any bells?  Wacco?  c'mon don't act as if there aren't militant groups in this very country who believe the same thing, they just call their God something else. 

and we already torture people who haven't even been convicted of a crime so we're not really much different...we just think we can claim righteous justification as our reason behind our behavior.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 17, 2008)

Silence said:


> and saying he murdered millions?  yes okay...but what about Darfur?  Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanda? Democratic Republic of the Congo?   c'mon people if you're outraged about Iraq don't you have to be outraged about them too?
> 
> 
> Mass crimes against humanity and genocide since World War II



I am and so was America when we intervened in Kosovo and Bosnia.--and that was to protect Muslims.


----------



## Mr. President (Sep 17, 2008)

Silence said:


> violence against American troops, perhaps but we're still losing too many in this unnecessary war and even one soldier dead in a conflict that should've never taken place is too many



One soldier dead is always too many but death is a sacrifice we are willing to make not wanting.  The necessity of this war is questioned by you not me and there are justifications for this conflict.




Silence said:


> well if the purpose is to just reduce it and they've done that then they can leave now right?



I take it you are unfirmiliar with war zones it takes a while to make changes become a normality.



Silence said:


> again I refer you to the government of Saudi Arabia and other third world countries who don't necessarily practice peace against their people.  Are we to believe that the United States military should go into those countries as well and "keep the peace"?



I believe that the military should have unrestricted permission to destroy all those who wish to commit genocide and torture innocent people I never argued against that.



Silence said:


> who said anything about the terrorists?  you and others equate terrorist with muslims.  I do not do that.  I am able to know there is a difference, I am sorry you are not.  and by the way, the terrorists who killed americans on 9/11 are still at large.



I do not equate muslims with terrorists if so I couldnt be in Iraq or serve in the military for that matter.  There is a difference the terrorists we are facing happen to be muslim.  If you can find an instance where i said we are against the muslim world and not islamic extremist then please bring that to my attentio i would gladly correct myself.



Silence said:


> the life of a terrorist yes...the life of a muslim?  NO and that is what strolling said... read it again



Yes that is what strolling said that could be equated with patriotism if they asked me to save one American or 100 Italians I would save my countrymen.



Silence said:


> I think you believe the media propoganda pushed on us.  I choose to do a little more than watch Fox news for my information.  Try it, you might be enlightened.



I do more than watch fox i camp out in the war zone and fight the war come on over and discuss it over some coffee 




Silence said:


> their "culture" does not say this...extremists within their culture say this.  Just as extremists in our culture believe that violence is how you get results.  Timothy McVie ring any bells?  Wacco?  c'mon don't act as if there aren't militant groups in this very country who believe the same thing, they just call their God something else.



Exactly so you say that because we havent eliminated extremism world wide we shouldnt do it in one place.



Silence said:


> and we already torture people who haven't even been convicted of a crime so we're not really much different...we just think we can claim righteous justification as our reason behind our behavior.



HAHA not convicted but not innocent either you cant wage war by two sets of rules.


----------



## Red Dawn (Sep 17, 2008)

Silence said:


> Suicide bomber kills 22 in attack on party
> 
> A suicide bomber blew herself up Monday among police officers who were celebrating the release of a comrade from U.S. custody, killing at least 22 people, Iraqi officials said. Separate bombings in Iraq killed 13 other people.
> 
> ...




Iraq is still one of the most violent places on earth. 

It's good that less people are dying than in 2006.   

Anyone who thinks we're on the verge of victory, and creating a strong, pro-american ally in the middle east - I would ask them if they would like to wander around Tikrit, Sadr City, or Mosul alone, unarmed, and unescorted for a couple hours


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 17, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> Iraq is still one of the most violent places on earth.
> 
> It's good that less people are dying than in 2006.
> 
> Anyone who thinks we're on the verge of victory, and creating a strong, pro-american ally in the middle east - I would ask them if they would like to wander around Tikrit, Sadr City, or Mosul alone, unarmed, and unescorted for a couple hours



I wouldn't do that in east Austin.


----------



## MichaelCollins (Sep 17, 2008)

Let me just make something clear to the retards who try to fool themselves that the US is a force for good in the world.

The US NEVER invades or bombs a country for the good of those people....

The Saddam was evil argument...and the US went in..to save the Iraqi people is so laughable...that i find it hard to read those who propagate this bile and not cringe.

The US were the main supporters of Saddam when he committed most of his attrocities... and it was certainly not in the millions.


Now then... Rwanda, the Congo, Sudan, Camobodia etc etc etc etc...These were in the millions. Millions of civilians being massacred....Where was this "fighter for freedom and democracy" USofA then? It was safely at home and tucked up in bed...because it was not in their interest to get involved.



I know that the hatefilled supporters of the US terrorism in Iraq know the truth...deep inside they know the truth.

US military action is only ever committed in self interest..... NEVER to help others.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 17, 2008)

MichaelCollins said:


> Now then... Rwanda, the Congo, Sudan, Camobodia etc etc etc etc...These were in the millions. Millions of civilians being massacred....Where was this "fighter for freedom and democracy" USofA then? It was safely at home and tucked up in bed...because it was not in their interest to get involved



and where was Jolly Old England ?


----------



## MichaelCollins (Sep 17, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> and where was Jolly Old England ?



Jolly old English people do not claim to be a force for democracy and justice in the world....as jesus freak americans do regularly on this forum.

FACT.. the US totally ignored genocide and genocide in Africa..

The US SUPPORTED Saddam attrocities against his own people.

BUsh is a great mate with Karimov ... a much more evil man that Saddam...nearly as good a mate as DUmbsfeld was with Saddam..but not quite.


----------



## Jeepers (Sep 17, 2008)

Good thing the war is over... people could actually get hurt when bombs and shit go off...


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 17, 2008)

MichaelCollins said:


> Let me just make something clear to the retards who try to fool themselves that the US is a force for good in the world.
> 
> The US NEVER invades or bombs a country for the good of those people....
> 
> ...



look you wanker.....did the us not come to britains aid in ww2?  why dont you go out and look at them poppy fields ...why dont you pull your head out of your ass....


----------



## MichaelCollins (Sep 17, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> look you wanker.....did the us not come to britains aid in ww2?  why dont you go out and look at them poppy fields ...why dont you pull your head out of your ass....





It is just as easy to say that Britain came to the aid of the US for many years fighting the germans...and thus preventing a unified Nazi Germany...which the US could not possible have dealt with.

Anyway we have had this argument before.... Russia won WW2... 70% of german forces were used to deal with Russia.

THe US was a speck in a desert of death and suffering.


----------



## eots (Sep 17, 2008)

they have been martyred for the jihad ...they are in a better place now


----------



## Gunny (Sep 17, 2008)

MichaelCollins said:


> Let me just make something clear to the retards who try to fool themselves that the US is a force for good in the world.
> 
> The US NEVER invades or bombs a country for the good of those people....
> 
> ...



Right.  Because we had some self-interest going in the UK and Europe when we bailed your asses out in WWII.

Shut the fuck up, nimrod.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 17, 2008)

MichaelCollins said:


> Jolly old English people do not claim to be a force for democracy and justice in the world....as jesus freak americans do regularly on this forum.
> 
> FACT.. the US totally ignored genocide and genocide in Africa..
> 
> ...




The US did NOT support Saddam's attrocities against his own people, shit for brains.  The US supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War.  

Do you purposefully spew lies in real life as you do on this board?  Or don't you have the balls to act out your fantasies?

That's right ... i forgot.  Obviously you don't, the names you call Marines on this board because your ass would be buried somewhere if you said that to one's face.

Loser.


----------



## MichaelCollins (Sep 18, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Right.  Because we had some self-interest going in the UK and Europe when we bailed your asses out in WWII.
> 
> Shut the fuck up, nimrod.




AS an administrator...should you not possess even the smallest bit of knowledge about WW2 or EU/US relations?

The US became involved in WW2... primarily to prevent a unified Nazi Europe... not to save John Smith of Manchester....ok?  Once again...the US like most nations ..do not act altruistically in foreign affairs... the US is by far the least generous.  If we want to look at altruistic nations..it would be more scandanavian and Uk and even Japanease.

The central focus of US Foreign Policy over the past 100 years...has been to divide and disrupt a single Europe.

Initially they feared a unified Nazi Europe...subsequently the focus has been to prevent a unified Europe.... European Union... they failed on the crucial economic front...where the EU now pisses on the US... .however they have been much more successful in disrupting a united EU foreign policy and defence policy.....shown by the Uk's split from the rest of Europe over Iraq.

I have written several articles and papers on NATO and the US fear of a politically unified Europe. 

I cannot believe that i am actually engaging with people of your academic level.... initially it was just to put my toe into the morass of american ignorance ....just to experience something that we dont really have in Europe (utter ignorance)... but didnt realise just how deep the pool of jesus freak retards was.

To conclude... the US only ever acts out of self interest.... recently it is not even the interest of the US people...but the interests of a small group of powerful people who profit from a JOKE US defence budget.... only the US people would be stupid enough to pay it.

Why?  because they are drenched in fear and hatred... and think they need to spend 100x more than every other western nation!  LMAO


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 18, 2008)

MichaelCollins said:


> AS an administrator...should you not possess even the smallest bit of knowledge about WW2 or EU/US relations?
> 
> The US became involved in WW2... primarily to prevent a unified Nazi Europe... not to save John Smith of Manchester....ok?  Once again...the US like most nations ..do not act altruistically in foreign affairs... the US is by far the least generous.  If we want to look at altruistic nations..it would be more scandanavian and Uk and even Japanease.
> 
> ...



Actually, If you had ever read a fuckin' book, you would know that the US entered the war militaristically due to an attack in Hawaii by a Nazi ally. The US had in de facto been invovled in the European front for some time with our lend/lease program(your welcome, you ungrateful bastard). You are correct about not wanting save John Smith of Manchester though. There was a large contigent in the US that did not want to enter the European front. Many Americans, Joseph Kennedy included, did not mind the Nazis so much. Had it not been for the close peronal friendship of Churchill and Roosevelt, You would probably be typing in german right now.


----------



## MichaelCollins (Sep 18, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> Actually, If you had ever read a fuckin' book, you would know that the US entered the war militaristically due to an attack in Hawaii by a Nazi ally. The US had in de facto been invovled in the European front for some time with our lend/lease program(your welcome, you ungrateful bastard). You are correct about not wanting save John Smith of Manchester though. There was a large contigent in the US that did not want to enter the European front. Many Americans, Joseph Kennedy included, did not mind the Nazis so much. Had it not been for the close peronal friendship of Churchill and Roosevelt, You would probably be typing in german right now.



Without doubt the most naieve post that i have ever read.

Read my previous post and gain a semblance of an education.

Regards and pity,

Michael


----------



## jla1178 (Sep 18, 2008)

MichaelCollins said:


> Let me just make something clear to the retards who try to fool themselves that the US is a force for good in the world.
> 
> The US NEVER invades or bombs a country for the good of those people....
> 
> ...


----------



## editec (Sep 18, 2008)

MichaelCollins said:


> AS an administrator...should you not possess even the smallest bit of knowledge about WW2 or EU/US relations?


 
As an administrator? No. As an American, probably. 

And, as far as I can tell he does have a fairly good handle on that history, too. 

Do you? Thus far you haven't proven it to me.



> The US became involved in WW2... primarily to prevent a unified Nazi Europe... not to save John Smith of Manchester....ok? Once again...the US like most nations ..do not act altruistically in foreign affairs...


 
Nor should it. 

Every national government should put their nation's interests ahead of international moral considerations. That is their job, after all.



> the US is by far the least generous.


 
We have been generous in the past. Denying that obviously and easily proven fact is at least one of the reasons that most of us think you're mission here is merely to emflame the passions of the less inteligent and less informed American patriots on this board. 



> If we want to look at altruistic nations..it would be more scandanavian and Uk and even Japanease.


 
Yes, those nation have often come to the aid of nations, too. Good for them. 

It was nice when the rest of the world started acting generously to help out the less fortaunate like America had been acting since WWII... *when we financed the rebuilding of EUROPE.*

Of course, those nations didn't spend trillions of dollars defending themselves from he communist menace* for fourty years* like we selfish Americans did for EUROPE AND JAPAN, either.

They can afford it to give a little back, just as we'd been doing for that whole damned time for much of the world.



> The central focus of US Foreign Policy over the past 100 years...has been to divide and disrupt a single Europe.


 
Oh what sheer blather. The EUROS didn't need _our help_ to stay divided.

Now, if you'd made the case that America economy benefitted tremendously from the EUROS inability to keep the peace between its xenophobic and racist nations, you'd be absolutely correct.

America got rich supplying you EUROS with the arms to kill each other, that's for _damned sure._



> Initially they feared a unified Nazi Europe...subsequently the focus has been to prevent a unified Europe.... European Union... they failed on the crucial economic front...where the EU now pisses on the US... .however they have been much more successful in disrupting a united EU foreign policy and defence policy.....shown by the Uk's split from the rest of Europe over Iraq.


 
 Hmmm...an interesting and I think completely absurd premise. 

I suspect WHO unified Europe was at least as important to us (and most Europeans, too) as its unification, generally. 



> I have written several articles and papers on NATO and the US fear of a politically unified Europe.


 
I've love to read them.  I am certain they must be smarter and better informed than your posts here.



> I cannot believe that i am actually engaging with people of your academic level.... initially it was just to put my toe into the morass of american ignorance ....just to experience something that we dont really have in Europe (utter ignorance)... but didnt realise just how deep the pool of jesus freak retards was.


 
When you seek out a swamp, you really shouldn't whine that your feet got wet. Particularly since you have chosen to jump in the muck whenever you find it.



> To conclude... the US only ever acts out of self interest....


 
One would hope that was true.



> recently it is not even the interest of the US people...but the interests of a small group of powerful people who profit from a JOKE US defence budget....


 
That has been my complaint with US foreign policies for decades, now.




> only the US people would be stupid enough to pay it.


 
You mean like the English people were stupid enough to pay for the Hessians?

The American people are hardly unique in that respect. Leaders lead, people pay, the world over, sport.



> Why? because they are drenched in fear and hatred... and think they need to spend 100x more than every other western nation! LMAO


 
If you are half as smart as you think you are, you know how thoroughly dishonest your conclusions about the American people really are.

If you a tenth as smart as you claim to be, you know perfectly well the American people no more control their government's foreign policies then most people in the world control theirs.

If you were even remotely interesting in engaging in real discussions about America or American foreign policy, you could have engaged people on this board who could have joined you in serious discussions about that subject.

Instead you choose to post inflammatory bullshit designed to bring out the chauvinism of some of this boards dumbest posters.

So, quit whining troll.

You're a faker, and we all know it.


----------



## Jeepers (Sep 18, 2008)

> The central focus of US Foreign Policy over the past 100 years...has been to divide and disrupt a single Europe.


 Entertaining hypothesis but, europe doesnt need any help from us to remain in disarray.. When is the UK going to adopt the euro?


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 18, 2008)

MichaelCollins said:


> Without doubt the most naieve post that i have ever read.
> 
> Read my previous post and gain a semblance of an education.
> 
> ...



Could someone just ban this fucker and get it over. He has now quit responding to posts. He is just taking up space and that makes him a waste of space. Here that Collins? You are a load that should have been swallowed.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Sep 18, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> This may come as a shock to you--you being as dutifuly steeped in your masters' propaganda--but T-72's, MiG's, ZSU's, AK-47's, RPG's et al are not manufactured by the US.



Who's my master?



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> According to Said Aburish, Saddam made a visit to Amman in the year 1979, before the Iran-Iraq war, where he met three senior CIA agents. He discussed with them his plans to invade Iran.[5]
> 
> In 1980, Iraq started the war with a blitzkrieg attack, the tide had turned by 1982 in favor of much larger Iran, and the Ronald Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might lose. Reagan chose Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Saddam, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.[2]
> 
> ...



Saddam Hussein - United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WebCite query result



			
				United Press International said:
			
		

> But the agency quickly moved into action. Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions.



And just to remind you about the little incident of the 1991 Intifadas against Saddam, which might have been successfull in finally overthrowing the murderers. George the First even made a great magnanimous call to action on February 15th of that year to force out the tyrant. What happened? Despite the fact that the US was totally capable of enforcing the no-fly zone in order to severely cripple Saddam's response to the uprising, it simply allowed him to go right over and absolutely crush the rebellion. Yay for the great magnanimity of talk and no action when it is most reasonable and necessary. 



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The Administration did sternly warn Iraqi authorities on March 7 against the use of chemical weapons during the unrest, but equivocated about Iraq's use of helicopter gunships against civilians. President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker stated in mid-March that helicopter gunships should not be used, but other Administration officials gave conflicting signals. The question of helicopters was ignored in the March 3 cease-fire agreement, which clearly prohibited Iraq's use of fixed-wing aircraft. In the end, the aircraft were employed with impunity to attack rebels and civilians alike, and proved instrumental in quelling the insurrection.



1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Bootneck (Sep 18, 2008)

MichaelCollins said:


> I have written several articles and papers on NATO and the US fear of a politically unified Europe.



Ah! So it was your paper about which a senior NATO official made this comment:

_"I am sitting on the can with a paper by Michael Collins before me. Soon it will be behind me."_


----------



## MichaelCollins (Sep 19, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> Could someone just ban this fucker and get it over. He has now quit responding to posts. He is just taking up space and that makes him a waste of space. *Here that Collins?* You are a load that should have been swallowed.



Is that English? 

Or is it hillbilly fear and hatredism?

regards,

Michael.


----------



## user_name_guest (Sep 19, 2008)

Why did the suicide bomber blew herself up?  Should we be outraged at her?  Why did she have to kill 22 others?  Are those 22 others innocent?  Should we mourn their losses?  Should we use it for political commentary?   35 people died in the hands of terrorists?  Or died because US are in Iraq?  I didn't know Iraqis fought similarly to terrorist groups since i thought there weren't terrorists in that country.   Why are they even in Iraq?


----------



## editec (Sep 19, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> Could someone just ban this fucker and get it over. He has now quit responding to posts. He is just taking up space and that makes him a waste of space. Here that Collins? You are a load that should have been swallowed.


 
It is a truly bad idea to ban the comments of people with ideas that we find objectionable.

It leads to group-think and group-think, while very comforting,  is basically intellectual stagnation.

Show me a nation on its way down, and I'll show you a nation which has eliminated from power all those who won't sign onto the mind-set of those in power.

If we ban people like  Michael we might as well all don brownshirts and start burning books, too.


----------

