PDA

View Full Version : The 'Responsibility' of the rest of the World


Volcana
Sep 23rd, 2003, 12:06 AM
Tonight, Bush Jr will tell the rest of the world it's their 'responsibility' to spend their blood and treasure on occupation thay opposed invading in the first place. They must do this or risk 'irrelevance'. Of course, that's what we said last year. And they didn't obey us, and were rendered 'irrelevant'.

Why the hell are we asking anyone for anything?

The United States, is the richest, most heavily armed nation on earth, with a history of using weaons more terrible than any other country has ever deployed anywhere. We have more than enough money and enough unemployment to put half a million troops in Iraq and keep them there the next fifty years.

Why the hell are we asking anyone for anything?

Our president, Vice President, National Security Advisor, Secretary of War and Secretary of State have allsiad in so many words, "We're right. You're wrong. We don't need you. And we'll punish you if you don't go along with us."

Why the hell are we asking anyone for anything?

There are plenty of countries who are willling to provide Hessians for us. All we have to do is pay them. Increased foreign aid, loan guarantees, allowing American industry to relocate to those countries, stone cold payoffs. Rememeber "the Coalition of the Billing"? That's one place that the last 70 billion went, and the next 87 billion is going. Using troops from other countries as mercenaries. Tehunemployment is at levels not seen in 25 years. We don't NEED mercenaries.

Why the hell are we asking anyone for anything?

We HAVE money.
We HAVE troops.
We HAVE a large population of unemployed males to use as cannon fodder, should we need more troops.

The only reason for getting troops from other countries is to free up American troops to invade Syria and Iran (in whatever order), then take the Saudi oil fields. Let's be honest, no one can stop us. Militarily, America vs the Rest of the World is Serena Williams vs Anna Kournikova. We have the industry, the agriculture, the raw materials and the biggest guns.

Why the hell are we asking anyone for anything?

We invaded Iraq, we're occupying Iraq, and we're not giving it back til we're sure Bush's friends American oil companies, are going to making the money off that oil, not the Iraqi people. There's nothing anyone can do about. Nothing.

The rest of the world has ONE piece of leverage.

While the American army is tied up in Iraq, it can't invade anyplace else.

And while we are losing troops, it's at about the same rate men that age would die in the cities at home. (In the first Gulf War, Black soldiers were SAFER in the Gulf than they were at home.) So keeping the Army over there IS expensive, but it minimizes deaths, overall. I'm not anxiuos to see the destruction of all Federal social programs in the USA, but Bush Jr has already seen to that, with debt. Our children and grandchildren will pay for Bush's Folly, without the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs we have now.

Or the USA will default on its international debt, which I consider unlikely.

The USA is in its own personal Palestine. It's too expensive to win, it's too expensive to lose, so you stay in an untenable status quo, year after year.

Why the hell are we asking anyone for anything?

And why is OUR mess THEIR responsibility? We made the mess, we can afford to fix it, it needs to come on our dime.

Dava
Sep 23rd, 2003, 12:08 AM
Irrelevance! Oh yeah thats gonna go down a storm on the UN congress floor.

Gallofa
Sep 23rd, 2003, 12:14 AM
I think it's rather reasonable to get support from other countries. The point is that even if you are the biggest, most powerful country in the world, you can't decide the future of all the rest of us just because. I think most people understand that. Or am I the only one?

Even a country as big as USA needs the other countries support. The world is not only yours. We all live in it. That is why Bush Jr. goes to the UN.

Meesh
Sep 23rd, 2003, 12:47 AM
I just hope he doesn't ask this during Monday Night Football!

Tammy
Sep 23rd, 2003, 01:17 AM
I just hope he doesn't ask this during Monday Night Football!
lol!!!

he's such a snore :yawn:

Volcana
Sep 23rd, 2003, 02:20 AM
Or am I the only one?
You ARE the only one.:)

Even a country as big as USA needs the other countries support. The world is not only yours. We all live in it. That is why Bush Jr. goes to the UN.

Gallofa - Seriously, do you REALLY think that's why he's gone to the UN? According to Bush Jr, we have the money and we have the troops. The only reason we're letting anyone else in on it is they'rer shirking their 'responsibility'. At least, that's why the President and members of his administration are saying.

The reality is, American tazpayers are bitchiung about the price tag for the war, and so far, he hasn't come up with a reason that's worth American lives and 150 billion dollars and counting. And it turns out that not only wasn't Iraq any threat whatsoever to the United States, the administration lied about what their own evidence said.

You can almost hear Bush Jr saying "it depends on what the definition of the word 'is', is".

By this time tomorrow, we'll have the text of his speech. Should make intersting thread fodder.

Couver
Sep 23rd, 2003, 02:38 AM
Ok personally I hope my nations leader does not get involved. Like Volcana said it's the USA's mess, they can clean it up.

After all wasn't Bush adamant a few months ago, that the USA would determine what post-war Iraq would be like? And since they toppeled the former government I guess they can decide that. But now they shouldn't ask other countries to send their soldiers over their to die.

tenn_ace
Sep 23rd, 2003, 04:11 AM
good post, Volcana...


todays Guardian has asked the same questions. Bush has been warned.

Chris_Martin's_woman
Sep 23rd, 2003, 04:31 AM
Oh Bush, i just dont pay that tithead any mind:rolleyes:

Volcana
Sep 24th, 2003, 03:29 AM
Summation of Bush's speech

"We were right. You were wrong. Give us money, troops and a whole lotta shut up."

BigTennisFan
Sep 24th, 2003, 04:01 AM
Actually, since we clearly are going to have to stay in Iraq for a while, I wish that we had the political will and good sense to concentrate on that.

Europe is now so sophisticated that they are not going to fight each other again, so why in the hell are we spending money keeping our troops and equipment there? Those are resources that we could be using in our mission in Iraq. After all France doesn't have to worry about Germany goose stepping into Paris again anytime soon. And I'm reasonably sure that Russia is not likely to try and recreate the old Soviet Union.

All the other problems in the world could be handled by the UN through diplomacy and/or UN peacekeeping forces.

As for the UN itself, I wish that the US could get it to rotate around the world on a 5 year basis. For example 5 years inthe US, 5 years in France, 5 years in Sudan, 5 years in Chile, 5 years in China etc.

Unfortunately, NYC has become such a crack hoe as far as the revenue generated by the UN being there that there is no possiblity that idea will fly. But it would be nice to see. :devil: :angel:

disposablehero
Sep 24th, 2003, 04:12 AM
To me, I am still glad this war happened and Saddam went away. To me though, what Bush should do now is simple. If he wants the other major nations to assist in the stabilization of Iraq, he needs to give voting power to those who agree to help.

ys
Sep 24th, 2003, 04:19 AM
To me, I am still glad this war happened and Saddam went away. To me though, what Bush should do now is simple. If he wants the other major nations to assist in the stabilization of Iraq, he needs to give voting power to those who agree to help.

I guess he is sitting on the fence regarding that.. It is only possibly working way out of the dead end, but that would mean sharing the benefits of "rebuilding" with those participating, something that is probably not exactly what he and Cheney want.

alexusjonesfan
Sep 24th, 2003, 04:21 AM
His request wouldn't seem half bad if it wasn't coupled with his remarks yesterday about how he was right and the UN and some European nations weren't going to be given more control or authority in Iraq....so basically it's: "Give us all your money...and don't tell us what to do with it. It's your responsibility".

Sam L
Sep 24th, 2003, 06:58 AM
I hope he loses the next election. :woohoo:

Volcana
Sep 25th, 2003, 08:24 PM
Any rxns to Kofi Annan's speech?

ys
Sep 25th, 2003, 08:29 PM
Any rxns to Kofi Annan's speech?

Oh, who cares about this useless guy and his nonsense..

Halardfan
Sep 25th, 2003, 10:41 PM
Im not sure GW and Co have a gameplan anymore...if they ever did...its such a failure right now in a host of ways...

The actual conventional war can be seen as having gone relatively well, but the situation now is utter chaos.

For example, one of the key reasons the right-wingers gave for the war, was to make an example of Iraq, to show Iran, North Korea and the varous other 'evil' nations what happens if you step out of line...the theory went that these nations would come begging for mercy to the US, vowing to change their ways...

In fact, it seems the likes of Iran are only redoubling their efforts to develop weapons...they know they'll be next, so are arming all the more in preperartion for it.

So now people in these right-wing think tanks are saying that, after winning the 2004 election, maybe there should be further targets, Iran seems a current favourite...its a mess, one which my country, with a large chunk of its army in Iraq as well right now, is up to its neck in.

Colin B
Sep 25th, 2003, 11:09 PM
Europe is now so sophisticated that they are not going to fight each other again, so why in the hell are we spending money keeping our troops and equipment there? Those are resources that we could be using in our mission in Iraq. After all France doesn't have to worry about Germany goose stepping into Paris again anytime soon. And I'm reasonably sure that Russia is not likely to try and recreate the old Soviet Union.
Oh so that's why your forces are here. To keep us naughty Yoorpeens from invading each other.
There's me thinking we were just a convenient staging post, spying platform and training ground. ;)
And all those B52s taking off from Fairford during GWII must have been a reminder to us of what will happen when we step out of line!

Couver
Sep 26th, 2003, 03:13 AM
I hardly think Europe is too sophisticated to not get into another war.

Hello they are fighting over there all the time. Granted it's with words but still. What's with people and this enlightend European ideal? Heck where do you think the states is getting it's idea? You know going in and taking over lands so you can sack them of their resources? Hello from colonization, one of the worst things to happen in human history.

kku
Sep 26th, 2003, 03:26 AM
Obviously, because Europe suffered the most in the two world wars, they'd naturally want to avoid physical conflict at all costs. So in a way, they're probably more peace-loving that most other countries.

But when it waters down to money and spoils after America wins a war (read: Iraq), I wouldn't be surprised if either France or Germany would demand to take part in rebuilding Iraq and earning millions of dollars by constructing buildings, services and establishing French/German companies there.

Sure, I agree wholeheartedly that France and Germany had the right to denounce war and not support America in this instance, but I also think it's rather hypocritical that once the war is won through American and British efforts, the French and Germans suddenly sit up, take notice and see this as a chance to earn some serious cash and long-term profits in Iraq. For example, the French government would certainly love to grab a few more oil reserves for French companies and probably instill French investments from Renault and PSA to gain a foothold in the Iraqi car market. Guys, even though I think it was wrong of Bush to barge into war without exhausting all peaceful negotiations and further investigations, the bottom line is that America/Britain won the war and it's their right to have the final say on who gets to be involved in rebuilding Iraq. It's unfair and terrible that so many Iraqi children suffered from the attacks, but the Americans were the stronger power and it's always the strongest victor who gets to do what they desire. And since France and Germany were so vehemently anti-war, then they should stick by it because they have no right to suddenly switch positions and greedily expect to grab cash that are reserved for those who supported America. Period.

Couver
Sep 26th, 2003, 03:29 AM
Oh well of course when it's their own borders then Europe would certainly want peace.

Too bad they didn't have that same philosophy when they took war and conquest around the rest of the world.

kku
Sep 26th, 2003, 03:37 AM
Oh well of course when it's their own borders then Europe would certainly want peace.

Too bad they didn't have that same philosophy when they took war and conquest around the rest of the world.

And the funny thing is that it's always one or two of the European powers who were the 'good guys' when in fact, those powers were responsible for initiating conflict.

I mean, how did WWI and WWII start? Because of European desires for expansion and colonisation. Granted, Japan was also into this during those two wars, but there's no denying that European colonisation was one of the chief factors for initiating conflict.

Malin
Sep 26th, 2003, 03:53 AM
Some of you really have no clue what you are talking about, Bush is telling other countries that if they want to see any money that will come out of Iraq once it is rebuilt then they are gonna have to help. Once Iraq is rebuilt it will bring in a lot of money in Europe and these other countries better help now or they won't see any of the money.

kku
Sep 26th, 2003, 04:20 AM
Some of you really have no clue what you are talking about, Bush is telling other countries that if they want to see any money that will come out of Iraq once it is rebuilt then they are gonna have to help. Once Iraq is rebuilt it will bring in a lot of money in Europe and these other countries better help now or they won't see any of the money.

I doubt America is willing to allow France and Germany to profit from the war.

Couver
Sep 26th, 2003, 04:30 AM
So true KKU.

I'm not bashing Europe but it's a good point to consider for everyone who jumps all over the US as being war mongers and conflict starters. They are just the war mongers of this generation.

A lot of people forget that European countries did very similar things early on in their history while they were still super powers.

Heck half the things in their museum's belong to other cultures and they still won't give them back!

BigTennisFan
Sep 26th, 2003, 05:29 AM
Oh so that's why your forces are here. To keep us naughty Yoorpeens from invading each other.
There's me thinking we were just a convenient staging post, spying platform and training ground. ;)
And all those B52s taking off from Fairford during GWII must have been a reminder to us of what will happen when we step out of line!


Actually I think that the reasons we are there are outdated. It's a new world now and the US should bring all of its resources home. We need them here more that over there.

As I said before, the UN is perfectly capable of handling any other conflicts. :angel:

switz
Sep 26th, 2003, 09:07 AM
Actually I think that the reasons we are there are outdated. It's a new world now and the US should bring all of its resources home. We need them here more that over there.

As I said before, the UN is perfectly capable of handling any other conflicts. :angel:

well wouldn't that be just swell for the US. go in, drop some bombs, and leave everyone else to deal with the mess they caused. The UN headquarters in iraq has already been bombed because of the US, why don't we just leave the UN to handle the disgruntled iraqs (that is the entire population).

your post is so stupid that i would hope it was a joke, but i can't see any signs denoting the fact that it is, so sorry in advance if you were taking the piss

Tarsius
Sep 26th, 2003, 09:12 AM
Some of you really have no clue what you are talking about, Bush is telling other countries that if they want to see any money that will come out of Iraq once it is rebuilt then they are gonna have to help. Once Iraq is rebuilt it will bring in a lot of money in Europe and these other countries better help now or they won't see any of the money.
Why should any other country "see any money" coming out of this other than Iraq itself?

Colin B
Sep 26th, 2003, 10:18 AM
Actually I think that the reasons we are there are outdated. It's a new world now and the US should bring all of its resources home. We need them here more that over there.

My point is, the reason your forces are here is not so much combative as logistical. As I said we are a staging post, spying platform and training ground. Europe is still vital to your early warnings system (Colin Powell and senior millitary figures have been trying to persuade us to let you expand this role*) and GWII would have been far more dificult to execute without your forward bases here. For an America growing more paranoid by the minute, I don't think losing your European foothold would make much sense.

You never hear Nato mentioned since the cold war ended and we no longer refer to ourselves, as we did then, as 'America's biggest aircraft carrier', so many of your bases in Britain are gone (now used for grazing sheep, building housing estates and housing asylum seekers, lol), hence your need to 'borrow', amongst other bases, RAF Fairford.

* Here's a deeply subversive link :scared:

www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/fdales/index.htm

Click on 'It's role' on the left. Be warned, may contain socialist views. ;)

Rothes
Sep 26th, 2003, 10:34 AM
World Lesson #1

If we were all like Switzerland then we wouldn't have to deal into George Bush International pleas (Neutreality :bounce: )

BigTennisFan
Sep 26th, 2003, 10:28 PM
well wouldn't that be just swell for the US. go in, drop some bombs, and leave everyone else to deal with the mess they caused. The UN headquarters in iraq has already been bombed because of the US, why don't we just leave the UN to handle the disgruntled iraqs (that is the entire population).

your post is so stupid that i would hope it was a joke, but i can't see any signs denoting the fact that it is, so sorry in advance if you were taking the piss

I'm tempted to call you an idiot but I won't. :angel:

My point is that we are no longer needed in Europe. The resources that we have there can go toward our mission in Iraq. Europe can take care of itself now that there is no more Soviet threat. And all that Europe can't handle the UN can handle.

For instance why in the hell are we still screwing around in Bosnia? That's in Europe. Let them handle it. Or the UN.

BigTennisFan
Sep 26th, 2003, 10:32 PM
My point is, the reason your forces are here is not so much combative as logistical. As I said we are a staging post, spying platform and training ground. Europe is still vital to your early warnings system (Colin Powell and senior millitary figures have been trying to persuade us to let you expand this role*) and GWII would have been far more dificult to execute without your forward bases here. For an America growing more paranoid by the minute, I don't think losing your European foothold would make much sense.

You never hear Nato mentioned since the cold war ended and we no longer refer to ourselves, as we did then, as 'America's biggest aircraft carrier', so many of your bases in Britain are gone (now used for grazing sheep, building housing estates and housing asylum seekers, lol), hence your need to 'borrow', amongst other bases, RAF Fairford.

* Here's a deeply subversive link :scared:

www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/fdales/index.htm

Click on 'It's role' on the left. Be warned, may contain socialist views. ;)

In many ways I'm an old fashioned isolationist even though I know it's not really practical nowadays. But I think that we should be as isolationist as possible.

And I still like my idea of moving the UN to other countries on a rotating basis. Then all of the people who dislike the US so much could enjoy their five years of bliss in Sudan and Syria and China and ...... you get the picture. (By the way, I know that NYC would pitch a hissy fit because they've become addicted to the revenue the UN generate there.)

ys
Sep 26th, 2003, 10:41 PM
World Lesson #1

If we were all like Switzerland then we wouldn't have to deal into George Bush International pleas (Neutreality :bounce: )

If everyone behaved like Switzerland (neutrality) , by now there would be no Switzerland.

Volcana
Sep 26th, 2003, 11:23 PM
the bottom line is that America/Britain won the war and it's their right to have the final say on who gets to be involved in rebuilding Iraq. It's unfair and terrible that so many Iraqi children suffered from the attacks, but the Americans were the stronger power and it's always the strongest victor who gets to do what they desire.

Indeed. Which is why the USA should have to pay the entire cost of the war. 'To the victor goes the spoils.'

And the bill.

And since France and Germany were so vehemently anti-war, then they should stick by it because they have no right to suddenly switch positions and greedily expect to grab cash that are reserved for those who supported America. Period.

And now that Bush Jr has dropped to his rhetorical knees before the Security Council, begging to suck French, Germena and Russian ass if only they'll come up with money and troops to bail him out, they should say 'no'. Becasue they have 'no right' to participate in any part of rebuilding Iraq after refusing to participate in its destruction. We don't need them. We don't want them. Better a hundred thousand American soldiers die, then one scrap of authority be given to those dastardly French and their UN puppets.

Wonder what those 'First Baghdad, then Paris' bumper stickers are selling for these days?

Rothes
Sep 27th, 2003, 04:03 AM
If everyone behaved like Switzerland (neutrality) , by now there would be no Switzerland.

in political correctness anyway.