Hagbard Celine
Senior Member
Avenger, give me a break with this. Nobody in their right mind wants theocratic dictatorships to get nukes. I call bullschite!The real truth is many europeans WANT theocratic regimes to get nukes.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Avenger, give me a break with this. Nobody in their right mind wants theocratic dictatorships to get nukes. I call bullschite!The real truth is many europeans WANT theocratic regimes to get nukes.
Hagbard Celine said:Avenger, give me a break with this. Nobody in their right mind wants theocratic dictatorships to get nukes. I call bullschite!
Hagard,
They may not admit it but by their lack of action and general pussy footin around says it. France, Germany, Russia, and the UN's involvement with Saddam(against UN sanctions) and their fight with the United States to prevent us from taking that unstable, murderous, environmentally disasterous, and extremely cruel pile of camel shit out of power says it also. Ignore the facts kid, we know that you have to be antiBush to be cool in school, doesn't make you very bright though.
Hagbard Celine said:I never said anything about Bush here man! You're trying to change the subject.
Think about what you're saying here. Europeans have just as much interest in not seeing brutal regimes gain access to nukes as we do. I guarantee you that none of them want to see a mushroom cloud rising out of Paris, London, Rome, Berlin or Amsterdam and I can comfortably say that having never met any of them. They're human beings just like us man! You're trying to demonize them when the reality is just that they approach diplomacy in a different manner than we do. Where Europeans draw diplomacy out and use positive reinforcement to encourage good behavior, US diplomacy is more direct and forceful.
padisha emperor said:Come on, don't say that the USA went to Iraq only to dissolve the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and bring democracy, while the evil French, Germans and Russians were only running to preserve their interests...
USA helped a lot of dictators in the past, sometimes against democratic regimes and elected president - Aliende and Pinochet in Chile, to give an example - .
When it was the USA's interest, they didn't have any hesitation to put bloody dictatorship on the power.
padisha emperor said:Hey guy, for the last time I don't hate you, the USA and the Americans.
But still believe it if it's enjoying yourself...
Hagbard Celine said:I never said anything about Bush here man! You're trying to change the subject.
Think about what you're saying here. Europeans have just as much interest in not seeing brutal regimes gain access to nukes as we do. I guarantee you that none of them want to see a mushroom cloud rising out of Paris, London, Rome, Berlin or Amsterdam and I can comfortably say that having never met any of them. They're human beings just like us man! You're trying to demonize them when the reality is just that they approach diplomacy in a different manner than we do. Where Europeans draw diplomacy out and use positive reinforcement to encourage good behavior, US diplomacy is more direct and forceful.
rtwngAvngr said:I think We all agree there needs to some sort of global security force. The U.S. is it. The U.N. fails repeatedly. It's too corrupt. Until then, someone needs to do what has to be done. The real truth is many europeans WANT theocratic regimes to get nukes. Their senseless hatred of America runs so deep they will sleep with any enemy, self preservation be damned.
manu1959 said:then tell me....why did the US go to Iraq?
were the germans, french russians and chinese not protecting their interests?
what does america's past have to do with the here and now?
france used to be an evil empire bent on taking over the world...since you were once that should i belive that you are still that?
hate us all you want yall are just a few rock short of a full box
Hehehe.Originally posted by Sitarro
Hagard,
They may not admit it but by their lack of action and general pussy footin around says it. France, Germany, Russia, and the UN's involvement with Saddam(against UN sanctions) and their fight with the United States to prevent us from taking that unstable, murderous, environmentally disasterous, and extremely cruel pile of camel shit out of power says it also. Ignore the facts kid, we know that you have to be antiBush to be cool in school, doesn't make you very bright though.
Grin. You have some great resources, what are they, Faux news?Originally posted by Sitarro
Hey padish,
Has that highly informative, nonbiased, and always correct news media in France and Europe bothered to report how Chirac, Putin, Schroeder and Kofi's kid spent a lot of time on there knees in front of Saddam doing anything and everything for him? I didn't think so, we know that European leader's sex life is their business.
Harmageddon said:Hehehe.
Thanks for the entertaining hot air. I believe you just missed a country in your little list. . . I believe it's called the United States of Whatever. Apparently they sold Saddam's regime ingredients for nerve gas, that Saddam was to use on the Iranians. When he threw it on the kurds instead, they sold him some more to really throw on the Iranians this time. Besides that an ample supply of weapons of course, to fight a war with Iran. Remember the picture with Rummie and Saddam shaking hands? So don't start the crap about involvements that were hypocritical at best; your own country had plenty of that.
Grin. You have some great resources, what are they, Faux news?
Ignorance is bliss, mate, and so is a comatose state. Just swallow a couple 'o blue pills and chill out on the couch of American greatness, don't bother with the world. You might get hurt.
Although Kofi's son and whatever bribes he is accused of did reach the news in Europe, we too have a biased media. So whatever interest Putin, Chiraq and others had in Iraq were not front page news. It was reported however, but mainly in the little posts on the edge of the newspapers.
Like I have been saying: do not trust to a single newssource for your view of the world. I realized the Dutch media was biased only after 9/11 and since I have been checking for news from a handfull of sites from all over the world.
All I'm saying is:
You seem to be unable to handle the truth. So don't talk as if you can. You wanna know what's going on?? Why the world increasingly hates you?? Check newsreports from other countries! They may also be lying, but you may just get a little closer to the truth. Your country is no worse than mine in this respect.
Reality is a shark, Sitarro - a real big one, like some ancient Megalodon.
Are you afraid you may be the snorkeler you refer to?
sitarro said:Ya know Hanzel,
You have given most of the cliche Euro lines about uninformed Americans and unilateral thinking this and hypocritical that . . . where is the Euro favorite? Where is the criticism of the overweight American or the single language Americans, we haven't heard that crap from you yet, why not?
Your posts have proven that you are the missinformed child and I am thoroughly bored with you. Make yourself usefull kid, go stick your finger in a dike.
Later. . . Yawn.
Put it this way, who is pushing for contined sale of nuclear technology?
Hagbard Celine said:Well Said, may I remind you that nuclear technology, in addition to its use as a WMD, is also a very good source of electricity? Anyway, the US sells nuclear technology too, to India, which is only a stone's throw from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Europeans aren't the only ones spreading this technology.
Why US Is Shifting Nuclear Stand With India
padisha emperor said:War in Irak 2003 : CSM, you can say everything you want, this american intervention was totally illegal.
And I say it isn't....
There are rules, and international laws. USA didn't respect them.
bull. The USA doesn't respect the "laws" made up specifically designed to break the USA
USA signed the UNO Charta. This is a part of the international laws. And USA didn't respect it.
Maybe you make a confusion between legality and legitimity. For you this was a legitim intervention, wasn't it ? This point is discutable, but here, i only put your point of view.
I beleive it was legal and legitimate
But on the law point of vew, about the legality, it was against the rules. It was totally illegal.
I disagree
UNO Charta : article 2-6 : even the non-member States can't use the war, the threat, or even the force.
And the article 2-4 : war, threat and forces are forbidden.
Disingenuous...the right to self defense is never denied
Ans there are other sources of laws.
And USA didn't sign the Ottawa convention, 1997, about the antipersonnal mines. Why ?
Harmageddon said:Robert Kagans piece was quite informative, thank you.
Now as to my personal view of this:
Robert Kagan seems to be living with his head in his ass.
Now before everyone gets all aggressive once more, let me explain why I think this is so. Remember, this is MY personal view, it does not necessarily correspond with the European view in general.
In short:
Kagan on the one hand applauds the relations between Europe and America that have been both friendly and aggressive in the past. This I agree with in full, as should be obvious from previous posts. I also agree with his notion that a peaceful Europe would not have emerged without the American economical aid and a massive American military to keep an eye on European internal relations, thus preventing new wars to develop between European countries intent on revenge after WWII.
Kagan on the other hand applauds the continuing unilaterism embraced by America. Any criticism by Europe in this regard he dismisses as being a sign of weakness. Sure enough, Europe has seen its influence dwindle after the second World War because of a weakened military presence as related to the soviet and american forces. And yes, America is the stronger of the two. But to explain any unilateral action as a sign of strength while bashing any opposition with the argument of well you have no choice because you are weak is the most essential flaw in his entire piece. For if this were the truth, than any action taken by the strong are automatically considered a good act, while any action by the weak are automatically evil or worse, weak acts.
If you truly think this is so, I have an elixer of strength to sell you.
This is once again a perfect example of Sitarro rhetoric: stating your belief as truth, and gathering facts to try and build a foundation for them. My view on Sitarro rhetoric: see previous posts.