A turd by another name would still stink like shit

[boutons_]

'Low Intensity Civil War' Likely in Iraq, Ambassador Says

By Mary Jordan and Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 3, 2006; 7:10 AM


LONDON, Aug. 3 -- Britain's outgoing ambassador to Iraq has advised his government that the country is more likely headed to "low intensity civil war" and sectarian partition than to a stable democracy, the BBC reported Wednesday.

The network said it obtained a diplomatic dispatch from William Patey to Prime Minister Tony Blair and top members of Blair's cabinet.

The British government, which maintains troops in Iraq, has been supportive of the policies of the Bush administration in Iraq, making Patey's assessment all the more significant. Patey's views are shared by many other commentators, but few, if any, officials allied with the U.S.-led coalition have said so publicly.

Patey's assessment was not made publicly either and the British government said it does not comment on leaked documents.

Blair is scheduled to hold a news conference later Thursday and will likely be faced with questions about the Patey memo.

In it, the BBC said, Patey wrote that "the prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy.

"Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq -- a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror -- must remain in doubt."

He said it a major priority was to contain militia organizations -- such as the Mahdi Army led by the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr -- lest they become "a state within a state, as Hezbollah has done in Lebanon. . . .

The BBC did not publish a copy of the memo, but rather reported excerpts from it.

President Bush has acknowledged that the situation in Iraq in many ways has worsened lately. But administration officials have resisted "civil war" analogies.

( "A rose by another name .... ")

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has reversed a decision to skip a public hearing on Capitol Hill and said he will testify Thursday at a session on the Iraq war.

The move came after hours of criticism and pressure from Senate Democrats who urged him to come before the Senate Armed Services Committee to answer questions about the administration's Iraq policies.

Rumsfeld had said earlier Wednesday that his crowded calendar did not allow him to be present for the meeting Thursday morning, but he agreed to attend a private, classified briefing in the afternoon with the entire Senate.

Speaking to Pentagon reporters earlier Wednesday, Rumsfeld suggested that complaints about his decision could be politically motivated.

The Pentagon provided no reason for the change. The committee said the Pentagon called and said the secretary would be testifying.

Fred Barbash reported from Washington .


© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[boutons_]

BBC NEWS

US echoes Iraq civil war warning

The top US commander in the Middle East, Gen John Abizaid, has said Iraq could move toward civil war if the sectarian violence is not stopped.

"The sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it, Gen Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

A similar warning was contained in a confidential memo to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair by the UK's outgoing ambassador to Iraq.

William Patey also predicted the break-up of Iraq along ethnic lines.

A bomb left near a busy Baghdad shopping area on Thursday killed at least 10 people and injured 29, police said.

US commanders have recently moved 3,700 troops from Mosul to Baghdad to bolster the capital's fragile security.

Love not hate

Gen Abizaid told the committee the top priority was to secure the Iraqi capital, where the struggle was at a "decisive" stage. "It is clear that the operational and tactical situation in Baghdad is such that it requires additional security forces, both US and Iraqi," he said.

But Gen Abizaid also said he remained optimistic that the Iraqi government and iraqi forces, with US support, could prevent the slide into civil war.

Gen Abizaid's warning was backed up by Gen Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said ultimately descending into or avoiding civil war depended on the Iraqis.


IRAQ VIOLENCE

"Shia and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other," Gen Pace said.

( the feminization of the US Army, gone all touchy-feely )

The two generals were joined by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who did not comment directly on the prospect of civil war but again warned against pulling out US troops prematurely.

British Ambassador William Patey, who left Baghdad last week, gave a bleak assessment of Iraq's future in his final diplomatic cable.

"The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy."

He said that position was not hopeless but it would be "messy" for five to 10 years.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/5243042.stm

Published: 2006/08/03 16:18:49 GMT

© BBC MMVI

====================

Well the ex post facto justification for the Repug war isn't looking very credible either

1) democracy isn't breaking out in the in the M/E, let alone in Iraq

2) the invasion hasn't put the fear into any terrrorists, or cowed Iran or Syria.

The US military is looking very ineffective right now, and its limits to take on terrorists head-on and assure public security in a shocked/awed/invaded/occupied country are very evident to all the US's enemies.

And of course, the US is no safer now than before dubya/dickhead/rummy/wolfie wasted 2,500+ US military lives.

"You're doing a heckuva job, dubya"

[DarkReign]

Bah, the US is second to none in ass-kicking and grandstanding.

Its the whole "nation-building" that fux us all up. Britain is much better at it, historically, shoulda gave the job to them.

[whottt]

Britain is much better at it, historically, shoulda gave the job to them.


You're insane....

Psst...

Pakistan
Afghanisatn
Iran
Iraq
Saudi Arabia

Have all felt the embrace of British Nation Building...and all the problems we face with these countries now are either directly or indirectly tied to the despots they put in power or the after effects of their colonization attempts.


What the British were good at is colonization and massacring indigenous populations...and their aristocratic policies usually caused their own colonies to reject them. Oh...they're also good at saying what you want to hear but having little success actually giving it to you.

Oh yeah...and it was the British that created the fucked up Paletstinian Israel problem too by promising both groups sections of the same land.



Geezus...and you wonder why I tell you guys to fucking a crack a book sometime...before you just spontaneously form opinions.

The Brits are the worst in history at nation building compared to anyone but the French.

Damn you fucking dudes scare the living shit out of me.


So let's run that checklist of British Influence on other Nations...one more time...

Pakistan
Afganisan
Iran
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
Israel
Palestine


Oh and in the name of biparisanism for the Nbadans boutons and others...their greatest evil...

US.




This is excluding the many humanitarian shitholes in Africa they created.


America has a much better track record on this sort of thing...in fact we have the best track record of anyone...

Modern War Free Europe for one.

Japan for another.

It's when we try the European Colonial er......appoint a friendly despot approach(like in Iran) that we fail.


All these evil allies, like Saudi, you libs are so fond of criticising America for having were put in place by the British.

Just learn something before you vote mmmmkay?


This is why I have such a hard time respecting the opinions of the boards libs...because you guys seldom have a clue what you are talking about.

Not trying to be mean...but damn, that was about as wrong of a statement as you can make.

[clambake]

Yeah you...fuck.....douchey douches bags STFU........shit...hole......pussies....if you could see everything from my birdseye view.........pres. can do anything he wants...you..fuck ........life is great nowSTFU......pussy....dick....pussy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[clambake]

I bet bush picked up one of your books and thought "here is the reason to invade Iraq, Whott had it the whole time. It's because of history! Maybe I can find a book to allow me to re-enact the bay of pigs!"

I watched those hearings and came away with nuasea. Noone on either side is worth a damn. But this administration is just winging it.

[whottt]

Yeah you...fuck.....douchey douches bags STFU........shit...hole......pussies....if you could see everything from my birdseye view.........pres. can do anything he wants...you..fuck ........life is great nowSTFU......pussy....dick....pussy!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Give me one example of Britain building a successful independent nation with an indigenous population...

One example.

Or shut up.

[Nbadan]

Give me one example of Britain building a successfull independent nation with an indigenous population...

Well, India, but I degress.

[whottt]

Well, India, but I degress.


Digress all you want...but you are wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

Britain didn't built India into a Democracy...

Britain colonized, exploited, conquered and ruled India until they broke free and gained Independence.

How in the fuck do you consider that nation building?

Britain didn't institute Democracy and Independence in India....the fucking Indians did.

They were a commonwealth dependency under the British....


So basicially, we should conguer all the countries in the mid-east and plunder their wealth until they drive us out right?


LMAO...

This is fucking great...You just surpassed Yoni as the biggest neocon on the board.


I am literally falling out of my chair laughing.


Let's use the India plan...conquer and rule them until they drive us out.

:tu

[Nbadan]

So basicially, we should conguer all the countries in the mid-east and plunder their wealth until they drive us out right?

How is this different from current U.S. policy? It was Colonialism that led to the creation of an independent India, so without Britain exploiting the indiginants, maybe India wouldn't have organized. Same thing that is happening to the U.S. in Iraq.

[whottt]

LMAO the most successful example of British Nation Building is Saudi Arabia...

Let's do that one instead.

[whottt]

How is this different from current U.S. policy? It was Colonialism that led to the creation of an independent India, so without Britain exploiting the indiginants, maybe India wouldn't have organized. Same thing that is happening to the U.S. in Iraq.


We're removed a military dictator from power and are installing a Democracy...that's exactly what we are fucking doing and I don't know how you could think we are doing anything else with it.


And BTW...

The British already installed one government in Iraq...sheesh...how'd that turn out?

[whottt]

How is this different from current U.S. policy? It was Colonialism that led to the creation of an independent India, so without Britain exploiting the indiginants, maybe India wouldn't have organized. Same thing that is happening to the U.S. in Iraq.



You know what current major US policy is in the Middle East and has been for the last 100 years?

Ally ourselves with all the dictators installed by the British before the Russians(and now the Chinese do)....

How's that working out for us?

[DarkReign]

The USA. Maybe not intentional, but by proxy.

[Nbadan]

We're removed a military dictator from power and are installing a Democracy...that's exactly what we are fucking doing and I don't know how you could think we are doing anything else with it.

And BTW...

The British already installed one government in Iraq...sheesh...how'd that turn out?

More like removing a Dictator and putting in yet another in a long string of puppet governments. Iraq has the third largest reserve of Oil still in the ground, how you can think that this hasn't figured into a Oil President's agenda is beyond me.

[Nbadan]

LMAO the most successful example of British Nation Building is Saudi Arabia...

Let's do that one instead.

South and Central America - shining examples of democracy.

:lol

[clambake]

Hey Whott, fuck history! You want to go back and re-live it, have fun! Your certainly no help for the present.

I sat and watch that hearing in horror. Their asking THESE people questions! It didn't occur to them what the quality or value of their answers would be!

When I listened to Hillary I thought, what a pub hound. Then I thought at least she's smart enough to know THESE guy's got no answer. The most worthless statements made were from Hillary and yet the tactic is the only one that made sense. Then she promptly got up and left. She's such an ahole!

[whottt]

Yeah Dan...

You can tell what a colonial proxy ruler we are by the fact that half the countries in Europe where our military stands as their sole form of protection and or has stood since WWII tell us to go fuck ourselves with regularity and even lead international opposition against us.

France and Germany immeditately come to mind.

Wooo we're the devil...

[whottt]

South and Central America - shining examples of democracy.

:lol


Psssst....

Who colonized South America slick?

Wasn't us...

If you guys could remove your tongue from European ass you'd reaslize that after having been under their thumb...any form of government looks good...including socialism, or militant Islam....looks good to the people living there anyway...

Now I realize you'd rather have Soviet Nukes stuck up our ass for most of the cold war...

But seeing as how the Soviets had mass emmigration problems(well they would have) and are no longer around...they aren't and weren't a good alternative either...and they are no different than a military dictator.

In fact...all Socialist Countries that I know of that still around are Military Dictatorships.


Do you see people hopping on boats to get into Cuba? or to get out?




Tell you what...let's all move to the countries built by those we think are the best nation builders....

Me? I'm going to fucking Germany or Japan...

You guys get to go Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe.

[whottt]

Hey Whott, fuck history! You want to go back and re-live it, have fun! Your certainly no help for the present.

I sat and watch that hearing in horror. Their asking THESE people questions! It didn't occur to them what the quality or value of their answers would be!

When I listened to Hillary I thought, what a pub hound. Then I thought at least she's smart enough to know THESE guy's got no answer. The most worthless statements made were from Hillary and yet the tactic is the only one that made sense. Then she promptly got up and left. She's such an ahole!

History is a better thing to go on...than, your ass.

You never have any factual backing for your arguments...you don't even attempt it...

At least when I criticize I have some form of factual basis...

You have none.

I have less respect for you, your knowldge, and the insight behind your opinion, than any poster I have ever encountered on this forum.


boutons and Nbadan drive me insane with their hardwired bias and no clearly discernible stance other than opposition...but they do at least read before they form the basis of their opinion....

There is literally nothing of substantial basis behind your opinion....

[DarkReign]

You have no respect for anyone. Its plainly obvious. Youre right there with Yoni and Gtown.

[Extra Stout]

You have no respect for anyone. Its plainly obvious. Youre right there with Yoni and Gtown.
whottt may be a horse's ass, but he is a horse's ass who cites fact.

[DarkReign]

whottt may be a horse's ass, but he is a horse's ass who cites fact.

Agreed. But the message gets lost with the messenger.

[Extra Stout]

Agreed. But the message gets lost with the messenger.
His tone used to be the norm for the political forum. We've calmed down since then.

[whottt]

More like removing a Dictator and putting in yet another in a long string of puppet governments. Iraq has the third largest reserve of Oil still in the ground, how you can think that this hasn't figured into a Oil President's agenda is beyond me.



Um...Iraq is in freaking OPEC.


It was in OPEC under Saddam.
It is in OPEC under the current government.

It is traded globally and the only subsidized oil was in the decade it was under UN Sanctions.


Thread of Rad Islam - Real.
They do commit suicide bombings.
They are relgious fascists...like have plagued all the religions.

Just like the coldwar...

The Soviet Union was an exapansionist military empire...it was not all in our imgaginations. They were real...they really did invade other countries and impose their form of government on them...how can you tell it was a bad government? Well, it's no longer around for one thing....people defected from it or died escaping for another...

Does that sort of thing happen in Democracies?

One is better than the other.

Last I checked we get more Oil from Non Opec Canda and Mexico than we do from Saudi Arabia or any mideastern or OPEC country.

If all we wanted was to put Iraq back into OPEC we could have just lifted the sanctions.

And the only Oil interests we protect in the Middle East are the World's.

Why is it so hard to relize that there are a shitload of suicide bombers in the middle east that are Religious Fascists, they are the tools of a bunch of shitheads that have no interest in personal freedoms or civil rights, they just want to be kings sitting on a shitload of Oil.... and what the potential is once they get nukes?

[whottt]

You have no respect for anyone. Its plainly obvious. Youre right there with Yoni and Gtown.



False...I have respect for some, and not for others.

Why would I lie about it?

There, I've been truthful with you...

Now you tell me what lead you to say the British are good at Nation building...

Their last great idea was to stick a bunch of European Jews smack dab in the middle of the Mid-East on land that was partially promised to Arabs...how'd that turn out?

Should we try that in Iraq?

[clambake]

YOu seem to put special emphisis on "European" Jews. Guess that has something to do with your love affair with history(the way you see it). Jews and Israel in the same sentence appears normal to normal people (I'd never accuse you of that). YOur self granduer only exist your in head(along with other thoughts that I have been requested not to mention). And yet you haven't the courage to admit what's wrong.

You are a fasinating specimen.

A beacon for posterity!

[Nbadan]

Yeah Dan...

You can tell what a colonial proxy ruler we are by the fact that half the countries in Europe where our military stands as their sole form of protection and or has stood since WWII tell us to go fuck ourselves with regularity and even lead international opposition against us.

France and Germany immeditately come to mind.

Wooo we're the devil...

Quit acting like the U.S. had no vested defense interest in keeping troops and equipment in Western Europe. World War 2 was another time under a Democratic President who had little interest in American colonialism or globalization.

[Nbadan]

Who colonized South America slick?

Yeah, the U.S. has never had any influence on South and Central American governments.

:rolleyes

Grow up.

[clambake]

Some people think if you read it then it must be true.
Some people think that history books are printed without shedding some favorable light. Some people understand that history is nothing more than what people agreed to believe. At least he can read.

[whottt]

Quit acting like the U.S. had no vested defense interest in keeping troops and equipment in Western Europe. World War 2 was another time under a Democratic President who had little interest in American colonialism or globalization.


LOL.


Our vested interest was in not getting sucked into another one of their wars and not being forced to speak Russian.

We also have vested in interest in having troops in the middle east and removing the governments that breed apocalyptic religious zealouts.

And that President that had little interest in American colonialism or globalization also nuked the living shit out of Japan old boy.

[whottt]

Some people think if you read it then it must be true.
Some people think that history books are printed without shedding some favorable light. Some people understand that history is nothing more than what people agreed to believe. At least he can read.

LMAO...

Yeah it's better not to read.

IT's better to advocate illiteracy and watch TV.

Without a doubt, you are the stupidest person I have ever encountered in my life.

[whottt]

Yeah, the U.S. has never had any influence on South and Central American governments.

:rolleyes

Grow up.


How many full out wars have we fought in South and Central America Dan?

You know...the necessary ingredient before you can get to that Nation building stuff.

[Nbadan]

How many full out wars have we fought in South and Central America Dan?

You know...the necessary ingredient before you can get to that Nation building stuff.

The U.S. isn't a colonialist Whott, we are Globalist. Globalist will make a deal with the devil as long as they can make a few bucks off the deal, the will of the people of the nation be damned.

[whottt]

The U.S. isn't a colonialist Whott, we are Globalist. Globalist will make a deal with the devil as long as they can make a few bucks off the deal, the will of the people of the nation be damned.


Globalist what?

What are we spreading Globally Dan?

What is our economic and political policy we are spreading? The very thing that makes us one of the leading Immigration Countries in the World?

Seeing as how the so called Globalist Countries have the highest Immigration Rates in the world dan, maybe that's not a bad thing you know? Maybe we're just trying to get some folk to stay home.

And back to Britain...Britain was Globalist in the negative connotation. We are not them.

[clambake]

I'm glad you can read. I can too, but i'm mature enough not spew what ever suites my fancy. I'm mature enough to know that everything I read is not completely accurate, nor do I expect it to be. Your inability to do the same may be a result of your episode of thunderdome.

You ACT like you love America. Americans know that any president that takes us to war over lies and fabrications is un-American.

[whottt]

I'm glad you can read. I can too, but i'm mature enough not spew what ever suites my fancy. I'm mature enough to know that everything I read is not completely accurate, nor do I expect it to be. .

So then how do you decide what is accurate and what isn't?

Your ass?

Even if you can find nothing to support that opinion?








Americans know that any president that takes us to war over lies and fabrications is un-American.


Did you read that somehwere?

[clambake]

I did read somewhere that our troops are battle hardened (soon to be code for shellshocked).
I read somewhere "There is no draft you fuckwad" ( which is code for "Your only way out is desertion".)

How do I find out? I wait for your opinion, study it carefully, and choose not to jump to conclusions.

True Americans don't send our young men and women to their deaths over a lie. That would be like strapping bombs to our children and convincing them to run into that crowd of people because their evil.

[exstatic]

We also have vested in interest in having troops in the middle east and removing the governments that breed apocalyptic religious zealouts.

You do realize that there was virtually NO Radical Islamic activity in Iraq under Saddam, don't you? He hated those people, repressed them beyond imagination and ran a secular government. The only thing wrong was we didn't like him. Syria is virtually the same way, except that they support a bit of exported terrorism in Lebanon. Those people know that they dare not operate in Syria, though. I remember reading about a situation dealt with by Hafez Assad, the current Syrian president's father. There were some radical Islamicist stirring up shit in one town. He called out his army, brought in the artillary and levelled the whole town. The whole fucking town was just gone, literally wiped off the map. Fundamentalism is used by Middle East govts to battle Israel, but if Israel vanished tommorrow, those people would be hunted into extinction in about a year by the sitting governments in the Middle East. Anyone who sees the Middle East as turning totally radical is way off base.

[whottt]

You do realize that there was virtually NO Radical Islamic activity in Iraq under Saddam, don't you?

Sure...Saddam was a Socialist...until he jumped on the Islam brigade after the GulfWar.


He hated those people, repressed them beyond imagination and ran a secular government.

The only thing wrong was we didn't like him.

No one liked him except for like 3 countries.


Syria is virtually the same way, except that they support a bit of exported terrorism in Lebanon. Those people know that they dare not operate in Syria, though. I remember reading about a situation dealt with by Hafez Assad, the current Syrian president's father. There were some radical Islamicist stirring up shit in one town. He called out his army, brought in the artillary and levelled the whole town. The whole fucking town was just gone, literally wiped off the map. Fundamentalism is used by Middle East govts to battle Israel, but if Israel vanished tommorrow, those people would be hunted into extinction in about a year by the sitting governments in the Middle East. Anyone who sees the Middle East as turning totally radical is way off base.



Oh I know...it can be controlled, see the future of Hezbolla thread...

That's why everyone needs to stop blaming the Israelis for civillian deaths...

No one is keeping Hezbollah from getting out there in the open and fighting...

Israel would wipe them out quicker than Syria did.

It is the middle eastern govts that sponsor these groups...because they know they can't fight Israel conventionally.

And it's funny how everyone calls out Israel for the Palestinian situation never seeming to notice that the majority of the Palestinians were forcibly evicted from Jordan...and none of the Arab countries will let those nuts back in.


I don't see how this changes anything though...

Saddam was still a threat and sanctions were used as a recruiting tool for Extremists...and Arabs/Muslim fundamentalists still can't can't fight tactical wars, especially in the modern era, worth a shit.

What they can do is blow civillians up with bombs if they are willing to kill themselves in the process.

Oh, they can fly planes into shit and kill themselves in the process...and that's about all they understand about Air Warfare.

I can tell you guys that Israel isn't going to stop until Hezbollah is gone from Lebanon and the government and people get the message that if they don't police themselves, Israel will.

Actually, that's the same message America is sending...

IF you get this, then why don't you get how full of BS all these ME leaders are?

[whottt]

(soon to be code for shellshocked).

Where'd you read that?


( which is code for "Your only way out is desertion".)


Then don't join..

And where'd you read that? All this crap sounds good to you...but it's lame, trite and you're stupid.



How do I find out? I wait for your opinion, study it carefully, and choose not to jump to conclusions.

Well the waiting for my opinion thing is good....it's when you attempt logical thought on your own that things start to get fucked up...

Stick to part 1...

Eliminate that thinking on your own part...you do a shitty job of it.



True Americans don't send our young men and women to their deaths over a lie.

Where'd you read all of that?


That would be like strapping bombs to our children and convincing them to run into that crowd of people because their evil.

No, it wouldn't be like that....

What would be like that would be doing something like that....


Moral equivalancies suck in and of themselves...and that's a shitty one on top of it....

That is in no way morally equivalent....and the fact that you somehow see them as being equivalent, well...you're just stupid.



Go find that chromosome now.

[Burly_Man]

LMAO the most successful example of British Nation Building is Saudi Arabia...

Let's do that one instead.

Actually, the jewel in the crown has traditionally been Hong Kong. Singapore and Malaysia have also done exceptionally well. And India is poised for takeoff, all these countries follow many British Institutions.

I guess we aren't counting commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia.

The Brits have been more successful than the Spanish, Portugese, Dutch, Germans, Japanese and French as Nation Builders.

[whottt]

Actually, the jewel in the crown has traditionally been Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is smaller than New York City and has about a 3rd of the population...

Hong Kong is a big city...not a nation.



Singapore


Singapore is another big city...it's got like 3 million people living in it...

That's Houston, that's not a nation.



and Malaysia have also done exceptionally well.

I'll give you Maylasia...there's one.



And India is poised for takeoff, all these countries follow many British Institutions.

India fought wars for it's Independence....


That's not building a nation...

That's ruling them until they break free.






I guess we aren't counting commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia.


Oh I counted them...I gave Britain full credit for it's ability to colonize and massacre indigenous populations...hell. give em credit for America and Israel too.

Is that the approach we can take in the mid-east? Or is that exactly their worst fears are that we are going to do?


Take the land and pump it full of white people...

Now tell me...who does that?

America? Or England?

And no we don't count...we were the colony.



The Brits have been more successful than the Spanish, Portugese, Dutch, Germans, Japanese and French as Nation Builders.

Hmmmm...Spain I'm not so sure of. Ok maybe.

Portugal? Mmmmm.......well if you are going to give credit for colonies I have to say Brazil is pretty impressive considering the other countries.

The Dutch have a pretty good track record....better IMO, than the British.

The Germans are shitty at it...I'll give you that.
Japanese are shitty at it, I'll give you that.



The French are without a doubt the worst in World history at it....


You've got Maylasia as a country that was set up by Britain while maintaining it's indigenous identity and is a sucessful nation...

But I will, it was also a colony...it wasn't the same type as Austrailia and America so it does count as far as true nation building...

But it still won't work in this situation...we can't just turn Iraq into a colony...

That's what the fear in the Mid-East is.

And when they accuse us of colonialism, if Imerialism...they are taking the deeds of the European colonial empires and attributing them to America...even though, we have never truly done anything of the sort since gaining our independence...

Sticking our military in a country to stabilize it is not colonialism...if that's the case than Europe is our colony.

[smeagol]

I thank America for fighting off Communism.

There . . . I said it!

[Burly_Man]

Hong Kong is smaller than New York City and has about a 3rd of the population...

Hong Kong is a big city...not a nation.

Singapore is another big city...it's got like 3 million people living in it...

That's Houston, that's not a nation.


Hong Kong has nearly the same population as Israel, it also has a larger GDP and higher per capita income than Israel. Singapore has about 4 million people and it's GDP and per capita income are also higher than Israel's.


India fought wars for it's Independence....


That's not building a nation...

That's ruling them until they break free.

True, they earned their freedom, they weren't given it. Most Institutions there are also modeled after the British.


Hmmmm...Spain I'm not so sure of. Ok maybe.

Portugal? Mmmmm.......well if you are going to give credit for colonies I have to say Brazil is pretty impressive considering the other countries.

The Dutch have a pretty good track record....better IMO, than the British.

The Germans are shitty at it...I'll give you that.
Japanese are shitty at it, I'll give you that.

The French are without a doubt the worst in World history at it....


Most Portugese and French colonies in Africa have turned to shit. Name a former Spanish colony that turned out relatively free of corruption.

Brazil turned out well, but it's still a 3rd world country with a high incidence of violent crime and no middle class.

Just wondering about the Dutch, the Boer's in Africa were famous for cruelty as were the Dutch in Indonesia. And which country is more developed, Indonesia or Malaysia?


You've got Maylasia as a country that was set up by Britain while maintaining it's indigenous identity and is a sucessful nation...

But I will, it was also a colony...it wasn't the same type as Austrailia and America so it does count as far as true nation building...

But it still won't work in this situation...we can't just turn Iraq into a colony...

That's what the fear in the Mid-East is.

And when they accuse us of colonialism, if Imerialism...they are taking the deeds of the European colonial empires and attributing them to America...even though, we have never truly done anything of the sort since gaining our independence...

Sticking our military in a country to stabilize it is not colonialism...if that's the case than Europe is our colony.

I never said you could...Iraq will take years to sort itself out.

As for American Colonialism, During the Spanish American War, America took possession of most of Spain's colonies.

Over a million civilians in the Philippines died during the Philippine American War. There was the usual stories of war atrocities committed by US Troops.

America granted the Philippines Independence after World War 2, nearly 50 years after taking possession of this colony.

[whottt]

I thank America for fighting off Communism.

There . . . I said it!


De Nada.

[boutons_]

Communism was going to collapse anyway. It was a waiting gamea stand-off.

What broke Russia's back was the collapse of oil prices after the world adjusted to the Iranian oil shock of the early 80s.

When the oil prices collapsed in mid-80s, Russia main source of hard currency collapsed with it. Russia was essentially bankrupted into collapsing, could not respond to Lech in Poland, got their butts beat and treasury depleted in Afghanistan, could only watch as Berliners knocked down the wall.

Of course, the CIA was surprised as anyone when Russia collapsed. Those fuckers are useless, but they get their $50B/year, job security, and fat pensions anyway. Sure beats working for a living.

[whottt]

Hong Kong has nearly the same population as Israel,

Actually I think it's got quite a few more people than Israel...


it also has a larger GDP and higher per capita income than Israel. Singapore has about 4 million people and it's GDP and per capita income are also higher than Israel's.

Well Israel has enemies on all sides...

Why mention Israel anyway? It's a British invention...not an American.

And seeing as how we are plunging into WWIII over it...I'd wouldn't be using it as an example of success.

IT could have been...it migth still be...but so far it's a been the central point of much conflict since WWII.



The point is...Hong Kong and Singapore are small areas, small populations...

They are not a country of 25 million like Iraq.

Shit we can fix a city...





Most Portugese and French colonies in Africa have turned to shit. Name a former Spanish colony that turned out relatively free of corruption.


Mexico? Eh...never mind.
I'll get back to you on that...



Brazil turned out well, but it's still a 3rd world country with a high incidence of violent crime and no middle class.

In some ways Brazil is more forward thinking than any nation in the world at this time...




Just wondering about the Dutch, the Boer's in Africa were famous for cruelty as were the Dutch in Indonesia. And which country is more developed, Indonesia or Malaysia?


Ok I'll give you Maylasia again...I just think there are fewer former Dutch colonies that are shitholes than British.




As for American Colonialism, During the Spanish American War, America took possession of most of Spain's colonies.

Over a million civilians in the Philippines died during the Philippine American War. There was the usual stories of war atrocities committed by US Troops.

America granted the Philippines Independence after World War 2, nearly 50 years after taking possession of this colony.


That's not colonizing a previously uncolonized people....that's taking Spain's colonies...Hell the Brits, Dutch and Spanish did that to each other all the time. That's not us going out and establishing colonies by enslaving the indigenous populations...

And furthermore...the Philipines aren't a shithole, and they are sizable country that fights for and loves it's Democracy....the Philipines are a great country and they've overcome quite a bit of strife.

That's year another example of the success of America at Nation building....albeit not the kind that I am advocating now. They've pretty much done it on their own.

Where are our failures? Which countries have we culturally destroyed and then left after turning them into economic and humanitarian shitholes?


And by the way, I am very impressed :tu.

[velik_m]

Cuba...

[DarkReign]

His tone used to be the norm for the political forum. We've calmed down since then.

Really? His tone the norm? Yikes....


False...I have respect for some, and not for others.

Why would I lie about it?

There, I've been truthful with you...

Now you tell me what lead you to say the British are good at Nation building...

Their last great idea was to stick a bunch of European Jews smack dab in the middle of the Mid-East on land that was partially promised to Arabs...how'd that turn out?

Should we try that in Iraq?

Nothing lead me to believe the British were any better or worse than the US. Because the real answer is no one is very good at nation building if they had ever attempted more than 5x.

I said "Give it to the Brits" more tongue-in-cheek than anything else. I am well aware of their past efforts in Africa and Asia and how those seem to be working out.

I was being sarcastic without explicitly stating. But you are such a rapid-fire, sword wielding post slayer, I doubt you have ever read any of my previous posts on Iraq to truly know my position. Not that I know yours...oh wait....pick a topic in the political forum....Whott has it on lockdown.

[clambake]

Don't be sucked in by Prof. Whotts deluted history lessons. He has already given us a shining example of his take on history.

He says "democrats just want to cut and run.

I haven't heard any politicians or anyone else on this forum say that but him. Thats how he spins all of his history garbage. I pity the unfortunate who have to hear him spew that shit just because their trapped near his infected world. That will be his take on the cut and run theory for the rest of his miserable life.

Then he tries to appear openminded by saying he's unhappy with bush's immigration policy. Here's a tip Whott, replace that by saying " I don't want bush to touch another f ing thing. I don't even want him within smelling distance of another decision". So stop trying to appear flexible, your not bright enough to be a democrat or a liberal. Your genes couldn't support the weight. Bush is doing his part. He's going to spend a week and a half cutting brush himself. He will not hire an illegal alien to do it. Smartest thing he's done all year.

Now, I know what you're going to say. "out my ass, in my ass, up my ass"!

We can discuss your attraction to my ass after the experiment is complete.

I'm going to watch closely, wait for another cut and run history lesson and compile all this marvelous data.

I'm also going to be more careful, CHUCK. I don't want to find myself on the wrong end of your scope. Beware the tower!

[boutons_]

Hijacking over, start your own thread.

===================

August 4, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

Time for Plan B

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

It is now obvious that we are not midwifing democracy in Iraq. We are baby-sitting a civil war.

When our top commander in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid, tells a Senate Committee, as he did yesterday, that “the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it,” it means that three years of efforts to democratize Iraq are not working. That means “staying the course” is pointless, and it’s time to start thinking about Plan B — how we might disengage with the least damage possible.

It seemed to me over the last three years that, even with all the Bush team’s missteps, we had to give our Iraqi partners a chance to produce a transitional government, then write a constitution, then hold an election and then, finally, put together their first elected cabinet. But now they have done all of that — and the situation has only worsened.

( meanwhile, the poor fucking US military is still getting killed and maimed, in in body and mind, while racking up charges for criminal misconduct )

The Sunni jihadists and Baathists are as dedicated as ever to making this U.S.-Iraqi democracy initiative fail. That, and the runaway sectarian violence resulting from having too few U.S. troops and allowing a militia culture to become embedded, have made Iraq a lawless mess.

Yes, I believe it was and remains hugely important to try to partner with Iraqis to create one good example in the heart of the Arab world of a decent, progressive state, where the politics of fear and tribalism do not reign — the politics that has produced all the pathologies of unemployment, religious intolerance and repression that make the Middle East so dangerous to itself and others.

But the administration now has to admit what anyone — including myself — who believed in the importance of getting Iraq right has to admit: Whether for Bush reasons or Arab reasons, it is not happening, and we can’t throw more good lives after good lives.

Since the Bush team never gave us a Plan A for Iraq, it at least owes us a Plan B. It’s not easy. Here are my first thoughts about a Plan B and some of the implications.

I think we need to try a last-ditch Bosnia-like peace conference that would bring together all of Iraq’s factions and neighbors. Just as Bosnia could be solved only by an international peace force and the Dayton conference — involving Russia, Europe and the U.S., the powers most affected by Bosnia’s implosion — the civil war in Iraq can be quelled only by a coalition of those most affected by Iraq’s implosion: the U.S., Russia, Europe, Japan, India, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syria and Jordan. As in Bosnia, any solution will have to be some form of federalism, a division of oil wealth and policing by an international force, where needed.

For such a conference to come about, though, the U.S. would probably need to declare its intention to leave. Iraqis, other Arabs, Europeans and Chinese will get serious about helping to salvage Iraq only if they believe we are leaving and it will damage their interests.

What would be the consequences of leaving without such a last-ditch peace effort, or if it just fails? Iraq could erupt into a much wider civil war, drawing in its neighbors. Or, Iraqis might stare into this abyss and actually come to terms with each other on their own. Our presence may be part of the problem. It’s hard to know.

If Iraq opts for all-out civil war, its two million barrels a day will be off the market and oil could go above $100 a barrel. (That would, however, spur more investment in alternative fuels that could one day make us independent of this volatile region.)

( that would spurs many 10s of $Bs of even more record windfall profits in the oil/energy cos, so the Repugs should be all for supporting this key objective of the phony war, push up the price of oil )

Some fear that Iran will be the winner. But will it? Once we are out of Iraq, Iran will have to manage the boiling pot next door. That will be a huge problem for Iran. The historical enmity toward Iran by Iraqi Arabs — enmity temporarily focused on us — will re-emerge. And Iran will also have to compete with its ally Syria for influence in Iraq.

Yes, the best way to contain Iran would have been to produce a real Shiite-led democracy in Iraq, exposing the phony one in Tehran. But second best is leaving Iraq. Because the worst option — the one Iran loves — is for us to stay in Iraq, bleeding, and in easy range to be hit by Iran if we strike its nukes.

Finally, the war in Iraq has so divided us at home and abroad that leaving, while bringing other problems, might also make it easier to build coalitions to deal with post-U.S. Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. All these problems are connected. We need to deal with Iran and Syria, but from a position of strength — and that requires a broad coalition.

The longer we maintain a unilateral failing strategy in Iraq, the harder it will be to build such a coalition, and the stronger the enemies of freedom will become.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

======================

So where is the leadership, the "vision-thang", Plan B from dubya/dickhead/rummy/Repugs?

"stay the course" is a road deeper into hell, the insanity of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

The Repugs never really cared about Iraq.

The bullshit reasons for invading Iraq have been exposed as abject lies.

The phony Repug Iraq war was just a ploy to enrich the rich + corps while maintaining dubya in 2003 campgain as a "war president" in an election he would have otherwise lost, and it has done that wonderfully.

[DarkReign]

De Nada.

I am not going to act all offended here, but you arent even remotely qualified to accept that.

The only people who can could possibly say "Youre welcome" either served in WW2, fought in any foreign war, or have served in the military (or the President, but thats immaterial).

I dont fill any of those requirements, and I dont believe you do either. Heck, I dont even like the guy, but Vashner could.

[whottt]

I am not going to act all offended here, but you arent even remotely qualified to accept that.

The only people who can could possibly say "Youre welcome" either served in WW2, fought in any foreign war, or have served in the military (or the President, but thats immaterial).

I dont fill any of those requirements, and I dont believe you do either. Heck, I dont even like the guy, but Vashner could.


Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Now you know how I feel when all the pro-terrorists speak on behalf of America.




Technically since smeagol lives in the states and may even be naturalized for all I know...he could have just been thanking himself.

What I would have deemed inappropriate would have been to have said nothing.

[DarkReign]

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Now you know how I feel when all the pro-terrorists speak on behalf of America.

Why is it a personal problem? Nothing personal about it. Its clearly obvious, you have to be in some way associated with the military, in some capacity. Otherwise, youre just a civilian.


Technically since smeagol lives in the states and may even be naturalized for all I know...he could have just been thanking himself.

What I would have deemed inappropriate would have been to have said nothing.

He thanked the US. Say something to the order of "Those who died would probably say youre welcome..." I dont know. Thats top-of-my-head shit. Or, if you were personally apart of the solution, you would say "De nada".

Like I said, I am impassioned about it, but I think its relevant.

[whottt]

Why is it a personal problem? Nothing personal about it. Its clearly obvious, you have to be in some way associated with the military, in some capacity. Otherwise, youre just a civilian.


In your opinion...your unsolicited opinion I might add.


Sounds to me like you are looking for reasons to be offended...and I personally don't care.



He thanked the US. Say something to the order of "Those who died would probably say youre welcome..." I dont know. Thats top-of-my-head shit. Or, if you were personally apart of the solution, you would say "De nada".

Like I said, I am impassioned about it, but I think its relevant.


I am sorry...I must of missed the post where smeagol left you in charge of interpreting his posts...who should accept the thanks and what would or wouldn't be offensive or unacceptable.

I think you overstepped your authority there just a little bit.

I personally think that if you are criticising our country, this war and our president at this time...that you are in fact opposing our troops and you speaking on their behalf is much more unacceptable than my accepting thanks on their behalf since none of them were doing it....

Exactly what gives you that authority?


Control Freak masquerading as caring human being....

Why is it so easy for me to visualize you sitting on some tropical Island smoking cigars and controlling the thoughts and lsightest interpersonal actions of millions.

You have already shown a tendency to attempt to control and regulate the speech of others....you've got a great future as commie. Just be what you are and don't claim it's got anything to do with freedom since you obviously have trouble respecting the freedoms of others.

[DarkReign]

In your opinion...your unsolicited opinion I might add.

Sounds to me like you are looking for reasons to be offended...and I personally don't care.

I am sorry...I must of missed the post where smeagol left you in charge of interpreting his posts...who should accept the thanks and what would or wouldn't be offensive or unacceptable.

I think you overstepped your authority there just a little bit.

I personally think that if you are criticising our country, this war and our president at this time...that you are in fact opposing our troops and you speaking on their behalf is much more unacceptable than my accepting thanks on their behalf since none of them were doing it....

Exactly what gives you that authority?

Control Freak masquerading as caring human being....

Why is it so easy for me to visualize you sitting on some tropical Island smoking cigars and controlling the thoughts and lsightest interpersonal actions of millions.

You have already shown a tendency to attempt to control and regulate the speech of others....you've got a great future as commie. Just be what you are and don't claim it's got anything to do with freedom since you obviously have trouble respecting the freedoms of others.

Oh.
My.
God.

LOL

Youre a stooge. Seriously, youre comedic in value at best. Just as I thought you were, a judgemental prick. You dont know me whott, and I have never tried to edit anything, anyone says except some pretentious, over-reaching asshole accepting thanks when in fact he has in no way ever contributed to the cause he so eagerly awaits praise for.

Was it just a coincidence no one said anything except you? I dont think so.

And what the fucking-fuck did fighting the Nazis have anything at all to do with Iraq ("I personally think that if you are criticising our country, this war and our president at this time...that you are in fact opposing our troops ...")?!

Youre delusional. Yup, we are all voting for Iraq's failure. God, you are so good at that! Please, continue showing everyone the guiding light.

Pray tell, with all your vast knowledge and incredulous judgement, what do you do in real life that could possibly absorb your vast resources of wit and knowledge? Since I, as so astutely observed by you, obviously "[sit] on some tropical Island smoking cigars and controlling the thoughts and lsightest interpersonal actions of millions".

No, no, no...dont tell me. In between jobs. Got it.

[whottt]

Oh.
My.
God.

LOL

Youre a stooge. Seriously, youre comedic in value at best. Just as I thought you were, a judgemental prick. You dont know me whott, and I have never tried to edit anything,[b] anyone says [b]except some pretentious, over-reaching asshole accepting thanks when in fact he has in no way ever contributed to the cause he so eagerly awaits praise for.

That's like a murderer who has never mudered anyone EXCEPT...that person who deserved it.

How nice of you to forgive yourself for your own hypochrisy.


We should just put you in charge of everything shouldn't we....what people talk about on message boards, how they respond to comments....




Was it just a coincidence no one said anything except you? I dont think so.

I am sorry...but I must have missed the memorandum that put you in charge of everything and gave you authority on interpersonal exchanges on message boards.




And what the fucking-fuck did fighting the Nazis have anything at all to do with Iraq ("I personally think that if you are criticising our country, this war and our president at this time...that you are in fact opposing our troops ...")?!

What?


Youre delusional. Yup, we are all voting for Iraq's failure. God, you are so good at that! Please, continue showing everyone the guiding light.

You notice how you keep claiming to speak for everyone...and respond to my comments to you as "we". Not to mention telling me how I should have done what everyone else did...

How very collective of you....Need a light for that Cigar?





Pray tell, with all your vast knowledge and incredulous judgement, what do you do in real life that could possibly absorb your vast resources of wit and knowledge?

No, no, no...dont tell me. In between jobs. Got it.

Wow...

You'd make a great judge...


The irony of all this is that you are offended at yourself and you just don't realize it. That uncomfortable feeling you have up your butt right now isn't my foot, it's your own....I'll leave you to work it out.


Not only do you think yourself in charge of interpreting smeagols intentions, but my response as well ,and you also seem to think you have authority to interpret what would or wouldn't be offensive to the US Military...and the right to regulate free speech.

Damn...who died and made you gawd? You deeply caring humanitarian you.....Chill go have a Cigar...

Hey smeagol...you're welcome x2.

[DarkReign]

I said "we" because I am not the only person in the world to criticize the government. Sorry thats such a leap for you.

"Interpersonal Exchanges"? You accepting thanks on behalf of America is nowhere near "interpersonal". Merriam-Webster.com

This ha snothing to do with Smeagol. Stop dragging him into it. It could have been anyone to say "Thanks America!" and youd be first in line to say "Youre welcome!" for doing absolutely nothing...ever to deserve said gratitude.

It started as a small opinion on the matter, which you completely overreacted to (I have a feeling you have heard this all before), and we stand where we are now.

So, I will let you have the last word because I know thats very important to you (all so weird how this keeps repeating itself, no?).

BTW, you still havent offended me. The legions of wanna-be, e-peen stroking internet bullies are a tired lot. Youre a willing participant in a cliche. Grats on that.

[whottt]

So, I will let you have the last word because I know thats very important to you (all so weird how this keeps repeating itself, no?).

Thanks...I appreciate that. If you don't mind I'll get right to doing just that.


This argument was over and your ass was effectively kicked the second you intimated that I needed to have served in the military to be qualified to accept thanks for defeating communism.

Your ass was further kicked based on your lack of knowledge of the differing political views and posting history of smeagol and myself...Ooops.

TO quote smeagol...we once argued for 10 pages about Rugby.

why is it that so often those who think they know so much, are the least aware of how little they truly know.

I won't even go into the fact that you know little or nothing of my personal history in addition to the coldwar and how it was won and what I may or may not have done to play a role in that....because you just aren't worth it.





BTW, you still havent offended me. The legions of wanna-be, e-peen stroking internet bullies are a tired lot. Youre a willing participant in a cliche. Grats on that.


I post my opinion...you seem to follow me around in threads and snipe...

If I am a cliche you are easily baited by a cliche....

Congrats...

And remember...a smart man realizes he doesn't know everything...it's what separates someone who says stupid stuff while speaking from a position of ignorance...from someone who doesn't.

[whottt]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (2 members and 0 guests)
whottt, smeagol


See what you started smeagol? You instigator.

[smeagol]

Hey smeagol...you're welcome x2.

Thanks dude. You know I’m not in favor of the war in Iraq, but I do acknowledge, in the grand scheme of things, its far better having the US as the only superpower, than having to live with the alternative (the reds).


TO quote smeagol...we once argued for 10 pages about Rugby.

And I kicked your gringo ass on that discussion too, may I add! :lol



DR, deep inside (very deep inside), whottt is a lovable character.

[whottt]

Hey smeagol...are you naturalized? How long have you been here? I've always wondered that.


And thanks for giving my country some props I honestly believe that in modern history most of the time all of us try to elect the leaders we think will do the best job and be a good leader of this country, not just for us, but for the rest of the world. That may not be the way it always turns out...but I do believe that is the intent of most of us. And hopefully in the long run things will turn out the best.

I gotta admit I am still trying to figure out the Argie political mindset...

On the one hand I had you guys classified as left leaning and further left leaning(even the conservatives) and then I see you guys get on here blasting Che Guevera and Chavez and I realize I have to put some more thought(a lot more thought) into the Argentine political mind...it's a pretty complex thing.


Oh and the Rugby Argument was fun...I need to go back and reread it if it still exists lol. I think we had that argument back when the site was on EZ board though.

[smeagol]

Hey smeagol...are you naturalized? How long have you been here? I've always wondered that.

I was here between 1996 and beginning of 2000. I went back to Argentina, was there for about a year, and found a job in NYC one more time in July 2001. I’ve been here since, although I have plans to move back for good in Feb next year (I will miss the NBA League Pass!). I’ve had a green card since Oct 2004 and I need to check what my options are once I go back. Unfortunately, I believe I will lose it after a certain period of time without living in the US.

Long story short, I’m not a citizen.


And thanks for giving my country some props I honestly believe that in modern history most of the time all of us try to elect the leaders we think will do the best job and be a good leader of this country, not just for us, but for the rest of the world. That may not be the way it always turns out...but I do believe that is the intent of most of us. And hopefully in the long run things will turn out the best.

My biggest issue with the US’ foreign policy is more on the economic front. I have expressed my views on this topic in numerous threads. I can live with some of America’s military interventions if it did more helping poor nations develop. And no, I’m not talking about aid. It has to do with policies. Cutting on subsidies and tariffs would be a good start (and Europe is guiltier than the US on this topic).


I gotta admit I am still trying to figure out the Argie political mindset...

You mean, why we elect idiots such as our president and why the dude has 60 - 70% approval rate? I wonder that myself.


On the one hand I had you guys classified as left leaning and further left leaning(even the conservatives) and then I see you guys get on here blasting Che Guevera and Chavez and I realize I have to put some more thought(a lot more thought) into the Argentine political mind...it's a pretty complex thing.

Unfortunately, my country is full of Che Guevara / Castro / Chavez – loving idiots. Embarrassing, if you ask me.



Oh and the Rugby Argument was fun...I need to go back and reread it if it still exists lol. I think we had that argument back when the site was on EZ board though.

Lol

Even MB dubbed me the Latin American whottt after that my lengthy responses to your even lengthier comments.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Hey whottt, should I join the conversation?... hehehe

[whottt]

Sure, I'd like to hear your insight on the Argentine political mind as well.

[whottt]

I was here between 1996 and beginning of 2000. I went back to Argentina, was there for about a year, and found a job in NYC one more time in July 2001. I’ve been here since, although I have plans to move back for good in Feb next year (I will miss the NBA League Pass!). I’ve had a green card since Oct 2004 and I need to check what my options are once I go back. Unfortunately, I believe I will lose it after a certain period of time without living in the US.

Long story short, I’m not a citizen.

Ahh ok. I knew you had been here for a while. Good luck going to back to Argentina.




My biggest issue with the US’ foreign policy is more on the economic front. I have expressed my views on this topic in numerous threads. I can live with some of America’s military interventions if it did more helping poor nations develop. And no, I’m not talking about aid. It has to do with policies. Cutting on subsidies and tariffs would be a good start (and Europe is guiltier than the US on this topic).

Fair enough...I personally think that aid and sanctions are used often in lieu of military intervention and these do nothing to help those nations develop and are usually helpful in entrenching dictators and worsening the quality of life for the people trapped in these countries.


If the aid got to where it was supposed to go and the sanctions hurt who they were supposed to hurt it'd be one thing...but it works just the opposite so yeah...improving economic and trade conditions with countries that are in a position to do something with it would probably keep a lot of bad situations from getting worse and help some strained situations improve.




You mean, why we elect idiots such as our president and why the dude has 60 - 70% approval rate? I wonder that myself.

Oh I understand that...Socialism is excellent at combatting poverty and is a better alternative to aristocracy...but that's about where it's benefits end.




Unfortunately, my country is full of Che Guevara / Castro / Chavez – loving idiots. Embarrassing, if you ask me.
LOL...we have em here too.





Lol

Even MB dubbed me the Latin American whottt after that my lengthy responses to your even lengthier comments.


Was a fun and fondly remembered argument. :tu ;)

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Sure, I'd like to hear your insight on the Argentine political mind as well.
wow... hmmm... tell you what, I'm on my way out right now but I will definately answer that question when I get back, although that won't be until tomorrow morning http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smispin.gif Later people!

PS: DarkReign, its all good bro, wait 'till you've have a few more "whott arguments" and you'll find out the dude is alright after all http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

[smeagol]

Oh and the Rugby Argument was fun...I need to go back and reread it if it still exists lol. I think we had that argument back when the site was on EZ board though.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100&page=1&pp=26 (http://)

I remember I could actually hear you cry through my screen after the asskicking I gave you when the discussion was over :lol

[DarkReign]

I post my opinion...you seem to follow me around in threads and snipe...

This was the sole exception I allowed myself. I was wondering if youd say something along these lines...

Its hard not to follow you when you bully your way around, every, single, thread, in the political forum.

Im not following, youre just spamming your opinion everywhere. I just so happen to post in some threads, whilst you post in all threads. So, to you, everyone follows Whott.

With your obvious elitist attitude, your self-declared ass-kicking of me, and your compulsion to think I would follow you around, one would conclude you possess a humungous EEEEEEEEGOOOOOOO.

[smeagol]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100&page=1&pp=26 (http://)
The stupid link does not work. Search "rugby". The thread is called "American Sports" and it's from Sept 2004.

[DarkReign]

PS: DarkReign, its all good bro, wait 'till you've have a few more "whott arguments" and you'll find out the dude is alright after all http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

No thanks. If someone must come across first as an asshat only for me to warm to their egotism, the guy could turn out to be the Pope and I still wouldnt like him.

I dont think I have ever had an argument quite like this one. According to whott, I was pwnd, so...meh, who cares.

[whottt]

No thanks. If someone must come across first as an asshat only for me to warm to their egotism, the guy could turn out to be the Pope and I still wouldnt like him.

I dont think I have ever had an argument quite like this one. According to whott, I was pwnd, so...meh, who cares.


I think Castro is a sore loser too...Props.

[whottt]

No thanks. If someone must come across first as an asshat only for me to warm to their egotism, the guy could turn out to be the Pope and I still wouldnt like him.

I dont think I have ever had an argument quite like this one. According to whott, I was pwnd, so...meh, who cares.


And you know what?

You are a completely arrogant ass....because you seem to think the world revolves around you and if you aren't around...nothing happens.

Here's the deal dickhead...

I've listened your lame ass pontifctions about proper conduct and how they should work until I just want to puke on you.


Let me tell you a little about this board since you haven't mentally matured enough to realize that objects that are not in your site don't cease to exist.


This board was founded by two people that were banned from another board....

About half the original membership was banned from other boards, for being disruptive personalities, shit stirriers and just atypical personality types.....

And IMO, the founders of this board actually sought that type of person originally...I know I got an invite.

I've listened to other posters explain to you how this forum used to be, I've seen you just put your foot in your mouth because it is inconcievable to you that two other people could have posting and arguing history that you are not even aware of...

So don't call me egotistical you collosal ass...you're the one thinks the world revolves around you and that's why you made an ass of yourself and took a facetious dialogue seriously.

Go fuck yourself. Arrogant prick.

[gtownspur]

:corn: ......:lmao

[gtownspur]

You know what guys, it's hard to convey ones thoughts on a forum. I personally think that if DR and WHott carried this conversation in a public place it'd be more formal and civil.

[gtownspur]

Not, that i'm not one of the worst offenders in this forum to say the least.