It looks like they are paying there price, I hope this teach them a lesson of the rule of war.
they will
Alltaken
I was refering to the US allience.
they will
Alltaken
is this in any way relevant? you didnt even post a link to an article or an explanation… 
do you want to end up like cubefan?
I’m from Europe, the Netherlands; just like Ton Roosendaal :D, and I don’t see why everyone should be ripping on the U.S.A. so much 
it could mean anything
it could mean their price is a good one, e.g. they are benifiting from it. it could mean its a bad one that will backfire.
just as the word consequence doesn’t mean its good or bad
Alltaken
uh? 
why did he wrote this?, is there any thing I missed?
The least he could’ve done was spell the topic correctly…
well i totally suport him in writing this.
i don’t see why its so bad, its jsut the same as an american writing that they hope afganistan, or iraq or north korea get what is coming to them.
geeze guys don’t be so hypercritical, why isn’t it ok for him to post this when its fine the other way around???
Alltaken
Now, the US is the “world leader” in fact and they want to play the “world leader” and they do.
IMO, as a world leader talking about freedom, justice, democracy and all this funny things they should behave like this and fulfill at least their own standarts.
I can’t see this in a wide range of their action.
Cheating poeple with faked facts is only the minor part of the concerns I have with the US government.
Malice is not the best answer, but sometimes the only one you can give.
One thing is for sure… I feel a lot more comfortable with Bush having WMD’s than Saddam, Kim Jong Il, ayatollah Khameini or any other 3rd world country’s leader.
umm…im in the US. it sucks. we are f*cking stupid. serious.
I saw that video of yours.
You’re right, it could be worse and I don’t want to live under Saddams or any other dictator’s rule.
But “it could be worse” is not a good standpoint, IMO.
You can take nearly any event in history and say it could have been worse. That something could be worse doesn’t make the actual situation better. And accepting a “decline” in little steps one after the other, because it could be worse, can be a dangerous way. There are many examples in history.
I don’t feel very comfortable at all with Bush having nuclear weapons. They’re not there to use. They’re more like a decoration. But he’s the guy in the museum that touches things he’s not supposed to and breaks them…
Oh man… Ok, maybe im missing something in your arguments agaisnt the US and Bush…maybe not.
I personally cannot understand how you could be against Bush. The UN is full of bloody morons that think that if they ignore Saddam, he will go away. Just like WWII. I just dont see whats so wrong about kicking saddams ass for a change and ridding the world of a guy that harbors terrorists, funds terroist activity, and lies all the time.
Yes, the US is about freedom. I dont know if you guys know about this, but the US was attacked on September the 11th of 2001. Saddam funds organizations that do this kind of stuff. The US is simple protecting their freedom, as has been stated over and over and over and over…
Besides, Bush has enough on his plate as it is. Chances are, he knows more than all of us about whats going on over there. So why not cut him some slack.
Of course, I would certainly like to understand the point of view opposite mine. If you have any decent arguments, please bring them to the table, because I would REALLY like to know why you would rip on the US for doing what I see to be as a good thing.
How about $166 Billion for a war AND tax cuts at the same time…hmmmmmmm…sounds like fuzzy math to me.
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Translated from the French by Bill Blum
you can connect the dots from here.
First, there is nothing wrong with getting rid of dictators.
On the other side.
Despite it was said repeatedly that Saddam has something to do with September 11th and that Saddam bears chemical weapons and this was used to justify the war against Iraq, until today there is not a single proof from the US side for this thesis.
I’d call this lies and cheating.
And if you condamn Saddam for his lies what about Bush and Blair ?
Being from a democratic country doesn’t make lies more true.
Saying this, form me it is really hard to “defend” (kind of) poeple like Saddam against the US that teached my country democracy, but also helped to make Saddam strong.
And one thing that seems sometimes to be forgotten by the US is the question: How would “you” feel and act if “you” were treaded like the US treats other countries ? How would you feel if Saudi Arabia or other islamic countries would station troops in your contry ? How would you feel if some US citizens were treaded like the poeple in Guantanamo. Even terrorists are still human beings. And a lot more.
And you have to accept that this can make some crazy poeple to become terrorists or at least helps to find a target.
And before Bush was “elected” I’ve thought that things like happened in Florida only could happen in some Banana Republics but never ever in the world’s leading Democracy.