Should Poland continue to support Bush's war on terror?

America never supported Saddam killing his own people... once again what the hell are you talking about...

We supported Saddam containing Iran... there is a difference... But you would need to be a little more intelligent to be able to distinguish this...

Now you've been owned for the 10th time... lol
Aren't you tired being proved wrong all the time?

Really, what is that difference?
And answer the question regarding Iran already, until you come up with something, anything you offer is purely diversionary.

p.s. I like how you're using my material re:ownage and using it as your own. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery!

Testify to your ownage!

queue drivel from matthiuszka in 3, 2...

By using your material, I was showing you how childish you are being... I guess that flew over your head... I forgot I need to dumb it down for you...

What's the difference......

The difference is that we didn't like Saddam killing his own people.. We despised him for it..

Despite this tradegy, we realized that we needed him, in order so that we did not have to go to war with Iran ourselves. He was needed to contain Iran for us and the benefit of middle east....

But let me guess, you still don't see a difference... maybe its too complicated for you to understand...

btw since we're counting, its the 11th time you've been owned my childish friend...

(sigh)....1!despite that tragedy your government still supported him for it and the major media in the U.s kept silent about it.
Fast forward 20 odd years and that became the justification given for invading Iraq-I'll refer you to your own work on that one:P If you don't understand the difference just ask and when i have the time i'll explain that for you.

And true to form, you've avoided the main question again
Why would the U.s. have had to go to war with Iran?

edited: "11th time" right, just take your word for it as you continue to roll in the bed you've shat in- filthy!
And, as anyone can read on the record it has been you who is continuing to copy my pattented use of "owning" of you. Check it out punk, subconciously even you know when you've been owned properly.

So that settles it-Foreigner4 the win!!!

What question? If that's the question, you forgot to ask it.... lol

Now ask it, and be more specific(like if your talking about now or in the past)... and if I feel like it, Ill answer it for you..

Score: 12th time already.... what's going on with you

US rules of engagment OKs killing civilians.
URL
Dealing with the most obvious dimension of collateral damage, that of non-combatant casualties, we’re taught how to distinguish between the two. The “high” assessment occurs when there is a probability of ten percent that the damage would amount to an estimated 30 or greater non-combatant casualties (sometimes known as “innocents”).

We can infer from this that an assessment of “low”, at least as pertains to non-combatant casualties, would cover the estimated range of 1-29.

Upon the authority of the Multi-National Corps Commander, a low collateral damage strike can be initiated. The high collateral damage strike requires the authorization of the Secretary of Defense. "

May account for disproportionate amount of civilian (innocent) deaths in this War.

That's unfortunate, but those are the facts of war...

If that was not the case, all it would take is a terrorist hiding in a crowd of innocents and he would be able to fire indiscriminatly at the soldiers..

It is the terrorists who use these cowardly tactics, the blame rests with them not American soldiers who are trying to stay alive...

No one wants to kill civilians...

btw the rules of engagement are accepted by international law... and every country in the world has something comparable... please take it up with your own government first before you try to take the moral high ground

and so do the americans so whats your point...?

Bubbawoo, whose even talking to you?

Rules of engagement... theres a difference between targeting civilians like the terrorists do and targeting terrorists who hide in between civilians like the Americans do....

if you don't see the dinstinction, then theres a problem with your analytics..

can't get enough of that stalking can you....

once again panini matuszki misses the point

well done panini matuszki

ps. i edit my post just so i can be like you

What's your point then? lol

Can't wait to hear this......

miss matilda - if the point was tied to a wet kipper and slapped around your face you would still miss it

Oh I see, you have no point......

Why am I not surprised Gary... you never do....

points are dangerous pani matinkywinky... you keep poking yourself in the eye with yours

What's you point again? oh yeah I forgot Gary you don't have one..... hehehehehe

You want to hear mine, the rules of engagement are accepted by international law... and every country in the world has something comparable... please take it up with your own government first before you try to take the moral high ground

see that's what a point is.... hope that helps..

my point had nothing to do with rules of ingagement... woosh over your head

my point had to do with cowardly tactics

if you listened more to what people say, people smarter than you and with a greater understanding of world events, you might learn a little more

I'm pointing out double standards to show that democracy, human right or similar popular excuses to justify this offensive foreign policy in fact are not on the top of the agenda.



If one country have bad relationship with another that does not matter that they are allowed to invade them. You admit yourself that American government realizing its particular interests in the region and wont restrain from using military force if needed. Such attitude cannot be welcomed by Muslim population and in effect more and more of them hate the US, some decide to join terrorist groups. If American administration will continue its irrational policy from the perspective of American national interest (I believe that this policy fits rather to some influential lobbies.) they should expect for such reactions.

UN deplores latest terrorist actions in Gaza strip -
URL
America stays silent.
19 children killed this week by Boeing, MacDonnel Douglas et al.

So remind me, 9/11 happened because ............

goals don't count after clock runs out mr. could'a would'a.

I wrote it in bold, yet you missed it, perhaps bubbawoo is correct- you've taken your eyes out with your "points."


up until this point you've established justification as:

supporting a murderous regime is excusable if it means you don't have to defend against the threat of said murderous regime's enemy neighbor. You have yet to extend an argument as to what or why that threat could be despite the question being put to you countless times.

Your explanation seems to hold that it's ok for any country to put forward policies that result in: war, torture, poverty, suffering, regression of civilization, fear, terror, despair and everything else awful in the world if it serves the interests of the elites putting forward that policy.

Consequently you seem to be arguing that human health, happiness, safety and general progress are all perfectly fine to sacrifice through political machinations.

Or is it not all people and only some people?

but please answer the original question, the one in bold, the one i quoted from my last, the one i've been trying to get you to answer time and time again:

Yeah, THAT one!

So why are you posting on this topic?



Did you stamp your foot this time?



Seanus has pointed out MANY useful contrabutions made to the world by my good friends north of the border, and what have you mentioned in return....??



No! That would be an English man!!



even Seanus agrees!



Penecilin/telecomunication/road surface. This is much more signifecant than your un-mentioned American contributions.



For sure some sort of transplant!



Only you are slagging off Scotland. And why are you doing this? Oh yeh, because they are beating you hand down with rational arguments so you digress and start name calling.



You keep quoting wilkipedia... well I'll let Johnp handle that one as you always say "great post Johnp bla bla bla"....





From where we sit outside of the USA the only contibution the US make to the world is war. As far as I'm aware the only country Scotland has been at war with is England....and I think that was mostly started by the English.

As to Scotlands military contibution they provide a significant part of the British armed forces.

poor little m'attishu... hes not so smart

bless

"Iran aggressively pursues weapons [of mass destruction] and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hopes from freedom" George Dubya - Axis of evil speech.

Once again in the Middle East, US foreign policy have shot themselves in the foot.

The Iraq war has empowered Iran more than it could ever have hoped. The Iraq war has elevated Iran to the status of power broker in the region.

It is now widely accepted that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with WMD but everything to do with regime change, putting in place a US friendly administration. This in turn would increase the US influence in the region and ensure a supply of oil for the US for the forseeable future. It is becoming clear that the opposite is happening.

It could be the case that due to the way the war was procured ( 1 million civilians killed, 4 million refugees - US may not be counting but the Middle East is ) that for any future "liberated" democratic Iraqi government to gain popular power, it would have to cut back its links to the USA.
As far as I can see there is not a democratically elected government in the middle east that supports US/Israeli policy.

That makes the news this week of the meeting between the president of Iran and his Iraqi counterpart particularly interesting.
URL

This meeting went ahead against the wishes of the US. Throughout the war in Iraq, the US have repeatedly accused Iran of backing terrorists and have meade threatening intonations towards Tehran.
So when the US withdraw from Iraq what happens ? Iran move in ( economically ), forge ties as do their Russian partners.
The result ? US influence in the region is even less than before the war and the US oil supply is even more uncertain( OPEC countries, Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain etc go with the ( oil) flow )

Just makes this war even more stupid.

It's quite ironic that Prisident Ahmadinejad is reported to have made this trip to bolster his support back home ahead of parliamentary elections later this month.

That's thrown down the gauntlet Hairball, super posting!!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts108.html, Matthias, these are highly educated Americans who see that sth is amiss.

US establishments are not engaged in fighting a war on terror, they are perpetuating the terror as part of their overall agenda, from an article

http://www.infowars.net/articles/february2007/050207FRU.htm

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2007/03/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-dead- man.html

Matty, the one directly above is what I want u 2 comment on, fishy is an understatement

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/120407_common_knowle dge.htm

Another cracker to debunk and dismiss Matty, this guy is credible and respected

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

Some form of noxious chemical spray, such as tear gas or pepper spray, was reported to have been used (in the aircrafts), how on earth??? Oh, I forgot, the Israeli security firm remembered to let the guys with canisters through the detectors

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/bushs-biggest-mistake/1816/, whoops, scandalous!!

http://www.unknownnews.net/040402911.html, well done Sibol Edmonds and Richard Clarke

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Oops!!

The lawyer, Andreas Schulz, said his clients had access to "new information" from the U.S. Department of Justice but that he was "not authorized" to tell the court what it was.

I should stop here but there are many more bombs to be dropped here

http://www.unknownnews.org/030906911.html, I couldn't help myself

My last request/proposition, let's have a debate on the PNAC as this is at the heart of the matter. This is the zionist neo-cons baby, their cherished ideal!!

Here it is, http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast.htm

one thing you guys fail to recognise - matty hasnt got it in him to admit hes wrong... even if he is smart enough to realise he is...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/allawi-20050525.htm, a less than convincing attempt to establish a connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Why? Well, because it wasn't cited by Bush's administration. Bush was frantically trying to gather evidence after 9/11 to show the link to Iraq. Efforts in early 2001 were met with limited success according to Richard Clarke, then Head of Security in America. Ad-hoc committees were convened to get the 'right' connection.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-042005.pdf, here's ur defence Matthias. All you need to launch ur case against us, I look forward to disproving whatever page u choose to cite and use in argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqoJHOSrjQo, to act like a lawyer, I will give u my side, disclosure and all that. This is Scott Ritter giving his account

This should be enough for now

Bubbawoo, your point had nothing to do with rules of engagement then why are you talking.. Its funny you say you have point but you never make one.. Your childish games are clear.. Are you not clever enough to actually come up with a point.. for ten posts you been trying to make a valid point and it hasn't worked.. MAYBE YOU SHOULD GIVE UP...and save yourself some time..

Foreignor, your the finniest of them all..you where not clear on the question.. if your talking about now or the past..learn to read so I don't have to repeat myself... btw you said you asked a question and accused me of dodging it long before you even posted it..hehehehehe.. another child like bubbawoo....13th time now...lol

Hairball, you also need to learn how to read.. if you read the wikipedia entry, you would see all the inventions... Btw America is credited with the invention of the internet not Britain.. So quit spreading lies... Also to your statement that Americas greatest contribution is war... Yes you should be lucky your not speaking German... not to mention this statement makes you sound like a kid throwing a tamper tantrom... Just shows that with your hate for America you can't aknowledge the good it does... America has made greater contributions then Scotland accept it, don't cry about itt...


To many stupid posts on this forum... Give me a sec and Ill answer yours Seanus and Szkotjas..

Szkotja wrote...

The Iraq war has empowered Iran more than it could ever have hoped. The Iraq war has elevated Iran to the status of power broker in the region.

Your right it has.... Not because the war was stupid... if it was executed properly this would not have happened... The plan was to attack Iraq and then Iran judging by the axis of evil speech, however the political will was lost after the screw up in Iraq... that is why Iran is powerful now. I blame the anti-war camp for this one.. They do not realize how to win a war

PS.. Seanus I will answer your post shortly..

I'm not even gonna start on the inventions thing, let sleeping dogs lie. Our inventions shaped the modern world, as did urs, period!! I prefer our list, u prefer urs but both of our countries have worked wonders!!

I wanted to chat 2 u about 2 characters, Sibel Edmonds and Dov Zakheim, especially the latter.

Lawrence Franklin was caught, quite right too. Pakistan, as we know, was in the middle of things but it now appears that Turkey were equally as complicit. I'm furious at the US administration for allowing US national secrets to be divulged, Edmonds won't specify what they are but she said it happened 100%.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695 .ece, this will aid understanding and give background, those darned Saudis were in on it as u can see here

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/911-masterminds-officia lly-charged-secret-trials-to-follow-videos/, check this out too Matty

no, i simply had to reword it for you as you couldn't comprehend it in its orginal form. I will also take your failure to rebuke my summary of your position as agreement to the veracity of it.

What threat could Iran have been to U.s. safety sooooo far away from your shores that American policy to support Sadaam was defensible?

answer it punk.