Well, unless the Americans drop a bomb on him or her.
<knee jerk jingoistic response for which I sort of apologize>
If other countries wanted a bigger seat at the moden table they could have been more fucking help against the soviets.
</kjjrfwisoa>
Sorry about that.
Your point, matt?
(I ask because I’m trying to decide whether to be pissed off that you said that, or whether I have been whooshed by a witty comment… please enlighten me.)
He (matt_mcl) is presumably talking about the accidental bombing of a Canadian combat unit in Afghanistan by American aircraft.
Sorry about that, by the way.
Regards,
Shodan
Wanders off singing “Blame Canada”.
Yes, I know that… but I’m still wondering what his point is.
-Americans are big old meanies who will snatch the opportunity to blow away a few Canadians when it comes along?
-The actions of the Canadian soldiers were not worthy because they were accidentally killed by Americans?
-The actions of the Canadian soldiers were not worthy because they were purposefully killed by Americans?
-The Americans are bumbling idiots?
- other?
I am stumped…
The beginnig of this thread, or when Bryan Ekers first posted, sounds like a “America uber alles”, “Only Ubermenchen should have Nukes!”
Is there any chance that a prole from another country can join Your party?
Can we support Your Fuhrer some how?
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Hold your cards please, we have a Godwin. All those who selected ‘14 hours’ please come forward to receive your prize.
I look at it the other way around: every country DOES have an equal right to produce them … IF they can defend that right against all comers. International politics is – and always will be, IMHO – ruled by the “law of the jungle”.
If only that mattered. The world has always been a brutal place.
Let’s see, which is dangerous: 1) the U.S., or 2) a country ruled by a megalomaniac responsible for wars resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Why, they both are! No difference!!
And are all resolutions passed by the U.N. of the same value?
Why, of course they are!!!
Thank God for the Guardian and its loyal, altruistic readers, I say.
The friendly-fire deaths of four Canadians hurt a lot, and I hope the American pilot has to answer for his actions, but that isn’t the point I was making.
There is a comparison to be made between Iraq in 2002 and Germany in 1938. Each has a government known for its ruthlessness and violent suppression of political opponents and each has shown a desire for empire-building. Germany could have been stopped by British action but wasn’t and a huge economic and military cost had to be paid to defeat them after they had seized huge amounts of territory.
By firm applications of sanctions and rules that the U.N. has alrready approved, Iraq’s WMD capability can be stopped. I’m concerned that if nothing is done, five or ten years from now there is going to be a massive economic cost as Iraqi nukes are used to destroy or threaten neighboring nations as its ruthless leader seekes to build his empire.
As for Henry B, you’re either an idiot or you do a damned good impression of one.
What’s this? Since N. Korea are about to have nukes, are they out of the Axis of Evil all of a sudden? Gives Saddam ideas.
Y’know, matt, I was deeply saddened when that tradgedy happened, and disapointed that the Shrub did not make more of a public apology, although I feel the expressions of sorrow from the U.S. govt were perfectly apropriate, if not as well publicized as they should have been.
Snide comments like yours, however, tend to negate those feelings, after all, we all know no Canadian ever made a tragic mistake, did they?
They also do a disservice to your own countrymen who are bravely serving with forces of different countries, protecting the freedom of all of the Americas together.
—The Americans have an elected government and a free press and if their president engaged in blatant WMD saber-rattling, he’d have reporters and opposing politicians jumpnig all over him.—
I only remember a few people jumping on Bush when he outlined his plan to allow the use of tactical nukes pre-emptively. I’m not sure what happened to that: is that plan still a go?
I still think the term WMD is used in a very sloppy way. To compare chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons as if they were even in remotely the same category of horror is a bit silly. Not to mention that lots of conventional weapons are just as effective for killing mass quantities of people as many other things. Our air-fuel bombs can kill way more people way faster than chemical weapons, and just a cruely. Osama didn’t need nukes: just a little tactical planning. It’s important not to focus obsessively on one threat to the exclusion of others. Sadam coulc play a lot of nasty tricks without WMD. Of course, his sheer stupidity seems to hold him back. If he were smart, he’d set up some way to destroy most of Iraq’s oil supplies all at once if an invasion happened.
Is there any other country on Earth that you would rather have hold the kind of power the United States has? Let’s see, Britain? France? When they were big dogs we had colonialism and the mess in the Middle East and Vietnam. The Russians? They’re doing wonderful things in Chechnya.
The U.N.? Their record in Rwanda wasn’t stellar, and Syria is on the Human Rights Commission.
The fact is, the massive amount of military power that is largely responsible for keeping the world as peaceful as it is, is in the best hands it could possibly be in.
I have one question for the masses: Why did the USA support a Kurd killing maniac in the 1980’s? If he is such a danger to world security that he justifies a prolonged US assualt (war - sanctions - war) why was he helped before?
THATS what Im trying to say. I dont want a world where Saddam has nukes, but history didn’t start yesterday. The simple argument that SH is evil and must be stopped dosn’t carry weight.
There are many maniacs in this world with aspirations for nuclear power, and I hope they don’t realise this dream. But the US cannot expect us to believe that they are doing this (gulf war II) out of some sort of humanitarian mission when they clearly ignored similar situations in the past.
America is a great country and a leader in first world civilility, but this does not give it a ‘get out of jail free’ card in regards to world politics. What is forgotten is that the US has stepped on many toes on its journey to prominance, and continues to piss many people off with its unilateral visions. Telling Europe that its arse was saved in WW2 and the Japs were slapped in the 40’s is not enough. Judge a nation on its actions. In this light the USA, while burning brighter than most, has many dark patches.
As my title says, What a load of crap!
Wait a sec…
The U.S. is a democratic, (relatively) benevolent nation who is a leading organizer of a world enitity, despite the fact that we sometimes have wavering faith in that entity. Its prudent and logical that the U.S. has chemical, biological and nuclear programs for the simple fact thats it better to own, therefore understand such weapons by possesing and studying them. If we did not posses the weapons, then someone else would. I don’t think our western allies should be too concerned with the U.S.'s weaponry as they should the weaponry of proven tyrants like Saddam.
It’s called a “mistake”. Ya ever make one?
Bryan Ekers wrote
Well, I am surely not alone about that. Brian, just look into Your mirror.
samboy wrote a good point in his thread.
With a question like: “How can the rest of the world take the US seriously?”
After this there is some normal discussion as in threads as usual.
Miller answers ironically to the question by writing:
”Well, for starters, we’ve got all those chemical and biological weapons…”
Soon after this comes Bryan Ekers answering the question:
(Bolding mine).
If Saddam would say: “…stockpiles of chemical weapons are becoming a major hassle because the decades-old containers are starting to fail. Even putting those aside, Iraqian nuclear weapons alone put them in a position to dictate terms.” , I would understand that he is a lunatic fascist, as he has elsewhere proven he is.
Later on Bryan Ekers writes:
(Bolding mine).
More saddamic or Adolf-like speech You have to look for, digging hard in history.
I am glad Bryan Ekers is not a politician, or I hope so.
Think if someone from Europe would give a statement 1938: **“As for The Fatherland Deutschland, they’re in fucking charge here and there’s nothing you can do about it. You do this, they’ll do that and they’ll continue to do whatever the fuck they like, OK?"
Just remember that the Germans were very highly educated whities and that Hitler came to power through elections.
Bryan Ekers comes to the final:
I just want to comment that as far as I know, Australia has fought very hard in WWII against the Japs.
Secondly, Your wars here and there, gives new wars and I am not so sure the world is so happy of the role USA is taking.
Everyone agrees on that we have to fight The War of Terrorism with all what it takes, but that US alone “does what it wants, and there is nothing You can do about it”, is just ultimate stupidity.
There is an American saying: “Be polite to people when You are on Your way up, because You will meet them all when You are coming down”.
There is a great wisdom in these words. And I do not need to have a crystal ball to predict that USA, “The Almighty”, will need help some day soon.
This kind of bullshit that Bryan Ekers is writing is just splittering the front against Terrorism.
Please Bryan, never be a politician!
Later samboy writes:
Exactly!
samboy writes:
(Bolding mine).
Just read some history Brian
samboy writes:
Just read some more history Brian
samboy writes:
This is just what I am thinking. Let me just add that some in USA (and in Bryan’s case one in Canada) wants to make the “Empire of the World”, so we untermenschen should just stare with rouned lips, in amaze and wonder.
The same wanted Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin. Where are they and their empires now?
(Bolding mine)
**Brian],You seem not to understand that Your ultra-conservative views, very the same the nazis had, the US policy, the extreme parts of it, just are laughable, but a serious threat the peace in the world.
If USA will keep working together with the world, it will have the positive good-will it deserves.
And guys like Saddam and his party Baath can be eliminated or bound into the position he is now = there is not many moves he can do without getting the whole world against him.
Sadly as it is, many outside the American continent sees the USA Administration as grown up children with dangerous toys.
You can call me an idiot if You wish, just promise me to read a little bit, e.g. history of the last 50 years or so, what USA has done more than beeing fighting in WWII? You can’t ride on that
ticket forever, and after that do whatever You want.
USA has supported the worst dictators in the last 50 years, and at that time they should be our friends, when they are not anymore handy, they are our enemies.
And we gather in fron of our tele-screens shouting: Love Big Brother! War is Love!
Do You really think the world is an orchestra just longing for a unpredictable conductor to appear in shining armour?
And do not come with the usual crap that USA is saving the other countries. USA does not give a shit about other countries if they do not “come up handy” for the time being.
Fortunately there is a lot of people in USA that can think at the globe as a whole. Elect them next time. Elected by people that think likewise; The globe as a unity that has to fight the evil together with USA.
Do not give the power to egoistic “We are the Power”-computer-game-players like Brian Ekers!
(yup! Bolding yours!)
Henry B, let me recommend a book to you, it’s called The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. It’s a huge book, but has lot’s of lovely information on World War II, it’s written by an American, but I hope you’ll be big enough to over-look that fact. It lays out in wonderful detail exactly how Hitler came to power, and repeatedly hammers on the fact that at the time Hitler was building up the Nazi Party most Germans hated the concept of democracy! So Adolf was aided in his quest for absolute domination, because the Germans had no interest in seeing the Weimar Republic continue. It also details that had the French gone after the Nazi’s when they marched into the Sudatenland, Hitler’s career would have been finished shortly thereafter. But they didn’t, instead, they waffled around and Chamberlain bent over backwards to give Hitler whatever he wanted, all because Chamberlain wanted to avoid a war. The irony, of course, being that because the Europeans were so willing to do anything to avoid war, that when it finally came, it was far bloodier than anything that came before. All of which could have been avoided if the Europeans had taken Hitler out early! (This is not a slam against the Europeans, as the US had it’s own anti-war movement as well, which lasted right up until Dec. 7, 1941.)