America: Take your missile base and shove it!

Woo Woo, like "Pull Over" type Police.

How has that become an issue all of a sudden?

I don't believe it. Some habits die hard;)

Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought you were saying how we need to be more concerned at home. my b-aa-aa-aa-aa-d

I will stick to moderating :D

May I recommend Lite beer 2 u Zgubi ;)

---

:) Not unless you want me to complain and pout.

Something you yourself do quite frequently. Pot, Kettle. Glad to meet you.


While it is apparent that to many such as yourself America is somehow the root of all evil, but on the other hand, it is not America threatening to "remove" entire nations whilst you turn a blind eye and attribute it (once again) to the Americans. Honestly, if you can tell me how a purely defensive system is a "threat" to anyone other than those with offensive intentions, please do so.


And yet, it wasn't the Americans who created your favorite nation of Israel, it was the Europeans. It wasn't the Americans colonizing the middle east and Africa, it was you British and the French. America does have her problems, but you have a bad propensity to drag out completely irrelevant accusations that have nothing at all to do with whether or not a defensive missile base would be helpful.


I see. Those who disagree with your tirade are "root'n-toot'n folks". This complete statement is both misguided and wrong. No one has said America hasn't/doesn't make mistakes. We do. What I want to know, is what does it have to do with the topic? nothing. Imagine if every time Britain had a good idea, I brought up atrocities from the Boer war, the Falklands, and the "Good 'ol Days of Empire", or Churchill allowing British to be bombed by German planes in WWII just to keep a secret decoder we stole a secret...Or if every time Russians had a benevolent idea I pointed out the massacres of millions under Stalin as evidence of their "goals". Hmm?

You seem to be a very intelligent man, but realize most of my posts are in response to ones (like some of yours) which seem unable to get away from "America is Evil" long enough to weigh the possibilities of what is actually on the table.

Just my opinion.


While such would be an interesting discussion, this is a topic about a proposed interceptor base, not whether or not you like Americans or what we have done or you think we have done in the past. You seem very full of distrust, which isn't completely unhealthy, but it proves my point. Not everything is about how evil you think Americans are. Perhaps I am the devil incarnate. Doesn't mean interceptors are a bad idea.


You on the other hand, have been there quite awhile, haven't you. It didn't protect your tubes, did it. Seems the UK government wants to license anything sharp and pointy or dangerous in the slightest. Perhaps they don't trust you. To think, many when very young used to want a chance to be on camera, just to show friends. Now I'm sure there's footage somewhere of almost all of you folk in the UK...you should be happy!


In case you missed it, we were discussing an interceptor screen designed to shoot down ICBMS and to imply you did not realize these were the missiles being discussed when one talks of WMDs etc....well you aren't fooling anyone. US missiles are pointed where they are pointed. There are treaties controlling much of it and pretty sure they are no longer targeted anywhere specifically, but if they are on their old programs, my bet would be Russia and China, much like Russia's are still targeted at the US and China and perhaps now, Europe, if they were ever de-targeted in the first place. My point was, why get all bent out of shape for the offer of missiles simply for the purpose of shooting down other missiles-a very specialized task, and hardly a projection of force, while your friends the Russians (and Iranians, too) are testing very OFFENSIVE pieces of equipment, which are also very specialized, but designed to kill hundreds of thousands, not intercept missiles??? Turn a blind eye, if you wish.


Who said anything about me wanting to see Iranian civilians suffer? Not me. You are far too intelligent to be putting words in my mouth. I assure you that the ability to shoot down an Iranian (or otherwise) ICBM will not hurt one single Iranian civilian. It simply keeps their leader's options a little more limited on capabilities to attack elsewhere. Back to our Bullet resistant vest analogy, if I gave you a Kevlar vest, it would no more hurt the guy considering shooting you than it would if I bought you a beer. It simply does not relate.


You tell me. It isn't the evil American leaders threatening to wipe complete nations from the earth, whilst developing weapons grade plutonium and ICBMs, but call me paranoid. While Poland would get the revenue from a proposed interceptor site, the interceptors are not like PatriotII's, because ICBM's would have to be hit shortly after launch or while they were reaching space; as such, an interceptor base in Poland would not just protect Poland, but in theory all of Europe from ICBM's launched from anywhere in the nearby region and perhaps, elsewhere as well. Russia's shiny new ICBM's would be considerably less effective, perhaps even worthless against Europe, which is what, I think, has Putin all spooled up. Funny, he's still in charge, isn't he.


Perhaps not. Your statement would be easier to swallow if most of your (as a whole, not individually) comments were not primarily pointing out your perceived faults in the U.S. In previous discussions we've been accused of everything from murdering civilians, torturing innocents, and everything else short of wishing to enslave the globe, but then you say "but we don't hate Americans". I guess it depends on how you define hate. It certainly isn't "like". I definitely don't agree with everyone, but I feel there are only a few voices here asking the questions like "where's your proof" or "how do you know". Not every topic, even about US offers of interceptors, is about whether Americans are involved in seedy organizations or if we have corrupt politicians. Show me one nation that isn't/doesn't. It is your apparent inability to see the difference that leads to my deduction that you hate. If all my posts were about horrors British committed in the Boer war, or the Falklands, or Sierra Leone or in the former Yugoslavia, regardless of whether they really pertained to the topic or whether they had been proven beyond a simple suspicion, you could just as easily make the same claims about me. I will not be making such accusations as a whole, simply because, by and large, the UK has been one of our greatest allies and have been in some of the same @#!tholes we have been, right there alongside us.


No need. Even without looking at the article, there is no secret we and quite a few others provided weapons and funding to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. (for the uninitiated, Iraq was the country that had *not* taken hostages, declared the USA the "Great Satan" and called for Infidel blood...]Some things, even, that today would be frowned heavily upon. Saddam was no fool, and he got plenty of supplies from quite a few places that you might be surprised if you knew. Whether it is illegal to provide supplies to a nation fighting one's sworn enemy, I seriously doubt it, as it's the way foreign policy has been done by almost every great nation since the beginning of time. The Babylonians, Greeks, Romans-all of them did it as did the British Empire, we Americans, and the Soviets. IMHO there is nothing wrong with this. America supplied England with rifles, submachine guns, fighter planes, and even ships prior to entering WWII, rather than see her completely decimated. There was a policy and will here of "hands off" and let Europe finish killing each other, again....and had the Japanese not blundered and bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany honored it's treaties (and torpedoed some ships) perhaps the US would have NEVER entered WWII. Or the war would still be going. Who knows.


There you go again pointing the finger at us for WWII. A simple reminder, the US wasn't the only nation with an A-bomb program, just the only ones to successfully use one in combat. It ended the war, at any rate. Perhaps we should ask the citizens who survived your bombing of Dresden how they feel about THAT particular plan? WWII was a total war, not some controlled conflict such as we have in modern times. Bring it up if you wish, but remember America isn't the only nation to have made decisions that cost lives. Also notice that many of the military actions you accuse us of...also involve your own forces. Not only that, in most cases they were in response to not the cause of those millions of deaths you refer to. Communist forces pouring into Korea killing all who disagree in their path, to the point arriving allied troops initially thought there were stacks of cord wood floating in the sea-it was executed civilians, tied together in bundles...anyway, those were killed by the Communist forces, not Americans. Armed Forces types are killed and kill in war. That's our lot. Civilians are completely different, on the other hand and at least WRT American forces, civilian deaths are avoided if at all possible in spite of what rumors you may have heard. There is the movies, then there are editorial commentaries, then there is the truth. Often none of these will be the same. Personal opinion, were we able I feel we should have fought the Communists even more than we did. Who says Stalin gets E. Germany or Poland or Czech Republic, after all? IMHO it should have been a referendum to the citizens, but that is the dirty nature of politics when one has unfortunate allies in order to win.


While it is only a theory that "they blew his head off" there really is a military industrial complex, but I believe it was warned against for different reasons. It seems that top generals/admirals etc. either seek to go into politics or search for employment after the military. These same generals are in a position should they choose, to use their pull in support, perhaps unfairly, of one contractor over another in hopes of employment in some high level at that contractor at a later date. It makes for billion dollar guided superweapons, which we are all told we need to prevent "collateral damage" to the wrong house, for instance, when in the old days we simply taught troops to *aim* the weapon they already have. Just an example. The US isn't the only nation that suffers from this, either, when entire contracts are given to one company over another, jobs and incomes are on the line, and some of the contractors tend to play dirty.


Not really in this case. Poland made requests for help in exchange for sticking its neck on the line and it is only fair they get it, IMHO.

Now, sure we Americans have issues to clean up at home, but this thread wasn't about that.

Seanus, you've put a good thought in my head. It's been fun ladies and gentlemen, now I'm off to have one myself.

John P.

It's a question of who is precieved as to having the " offensive intentions." It's in Polands best interest to be friends with her neigbours. This "shield" is a drict "threat" to Polands neigbours, so therefore not in her best interest.

So what have you heard John ?
100 000, 500 000 or 1 000 000 Iraqi civilians killed ?

Am i at church? who's this preacher?


It was the only nation to USE it.


Wasn't it the American President, who wanted a quick resolution to the affair, so he could fund the war in the Pacific?

This is possible, although the part that gets me here is that Russia is in no way threatened by a base that has no capability to attack anyone. Now, if Russia could demonstrate that somehow offensive (e.g. tactical nuclear weapons or some such ) were going to be deployed, rather than interceptors, I think they would have a good argument. Since that isn't the case (and at any rate Russian satellites could track the things if they wanted) there is no actual threat to Russia. Russia is just upset because it's friend Iran and it's own weapons will become less useful, IMHO.


Nice bait, but I'm not biting. We've been down that road before, and while I can only assure you that Americans do not target civilians intentionally (nor do the British, Polish, or other forces there, for that matter) when they kill each other it is not somehow our fault anymore than it is yours. Nor are the numbers you throw up really quantifiable as a result of US action. Flattening of cities by bombing raids is something from the past, and estimates based on previous wars' tactics are somewhat irrelevant, IMHO. Things are pretty quiet there these days in case you haven't noticed, and [all] our sides are turning out to be the winners. Even the Iraqis themselves, finally


You tell me. Get back into your history books and find out the actual answers and get back to us. It would seem you didn't bother to read any of our posts, not just my own. Declaring one's nation innocent of some of the things it is accused of is in no way "preaching". Get a life. The rest of us were having a gentlemanly discussion and if you do not wish to partake in our festive mudslinging at each other, there is no requirement for you to join in. Go have a beer, relax, and enjoy your weekend.

John P.

You brought it up in this thread.
Unfortunately, you cant pretend that a disproportionate amount of civilians died in this conflict that didn't need to.
Historical revisionism should not be tolerated by anyone.


On the 21st of March the US launched 1700 air sorties against the civilian population in the city of Baghdad (also used over 500 cruise missiles).
According to The Guardian correspondent Brian Whitaker in 2003, "To some in the Arab and Muslim countries, Shock and Awe is terrorism by another name; to others, a crime that compares unfavourably with September 11

Over 6000 Iraqi non combatants - the majority women and children - were killed in that attack.


No, these are facts from the war going on as we speak.


Totals for June -
31 coalition troops killed -
142 US wounded
Over 300 Iraqi deaths


Winners?????!
If you feel like a winner..............

no... we don't.

ahh i just got back from the farm so i will deal with your other points later but if they are as off as this one then i pity your analysis.


Please show me how frequently i do this (i guess i got lazy a few times). go on. and when you try to do count also the number of times i refer to country+people or country+leaders or country+military.

when you do that you can see your statement is baseless.

i'll deal with the rest at my leisure.

adieu

Get a drink, have a soda or a fizzy drink maybe even a coffee this has a major frat warning attached to it and if you make it through this then you have my condolences and admiration.

Now despite this (and there were more) explicit statement and explanation you have attempted to dispute this with an "I know you are but what am I?" type response:


Below is a response I had made exemplifying how I stress it is the expressed foreign policy coming from the u.s. government that I oppose:


However you still appear confused on the matter for reasons I can only guess at.

Now let us look at some of your next quote, made in response to my last quoted comment above:


Whoa! Stop the presses here, let's review our source some and perhaps you'll understand how perplexed I am at the line you continue to toe here. I had written this long before your above response:


Ok? Is the position I'm arguing from clear now? I don't wish to repeat myself anymore on this matter and the onus is on you to make the necessary adjustment.

But now I want to examine your full response, dissect it and see if you've made any headway in your position.


Hmmm, dare I say it's quite the selective memory you're displaying here in bold. Please keep in mind it's the existence of one more American military base abroad that I oppose. Let's go back a little bit and see what you and I both had to say before in our previous sparring matches:


I then wrote that American leaders are guilty of the exact same thing you vilify Iranians for (yes you failed to make the distinction between the leader and the people and referred to them all as a nation).


Well according to you that doesn't really matter when Americans do that though:


So looking back at your latest reply, I am amazed at the double standards you've attempted to apply and at the inconsistency your arguments have. By your very logic, Poles, if they had felt threatened (due to misinterpretation) can dismiss the ramblings of the Iranian leader as just that. You yourself have stated that it's fine to dismiss such threats as politicians are not military experts therefore it's does not serve any purpose to bring this up anymore. ok?

But, it is not an issue which Poles should be concerned with by logic of your own arguments; these threats you speak of, despite being baseless are something for people of the middle east to concern themselves with. Your interpretation of the Iranian leaders words, and in my opinion a misinterpretation, were not made towards Poles or the Republic of Poland so it doesn't matter.

The base we are speaking about becomes a threat when it has the potential to become a target or simply create friction when there was none previously. I have stated this ad nausea and grow weary of your inability to acknowledge this one of the key points I've made.

Next:


No I never said americans created Israel so that's a rather off the mark reply. I did claim that the American government has funded Israel for many many years though. If you can dispute that then go for it.


Well you find me a brit who prefers Redman Select over Redman chew and really wishes had stocked up on more Wintergreen snuff ok? But I do enjoy the ales of the isle so maybe something rubbed off, who knows? This is all besides the point.

The point being that it is the American military which is currently over involved in middle eastern and European affairs. Now you go and bring up the past but then follow it with this little gem:


Well I don't know about "bad" but my propensity to bring up the past certainly is relevent. Let's look as to the relevancy of my "accusations:"



Gee why would I have written those things? What relevance did they have? Found it!
This was what you had written:


Well it looks like many are guilty of the same thing but it's interesting to see where it all started. I'd say considering the climate in the M.E. and how it might affect Europe those are very relevant remarks and I would like to add I whole-heartedly agree with you in that British and French involvement in the M.E. also needs to be critically analyzed.

But what's your point? That we should ignore that latest American intervention and look only to European intervention?


No i believe my statement you've responded to states exactly what kind of people are "rootin tootin" chicken hawkes (you know like that little guy on looney tunes).

Whoa, here it is. Please reread:


You've probably found by now I'm simply reposting old comments and this is due mainly to your inability on this debate to acknowledge my (and quite often your own) remarks or refusal to keep them in mind when responding.


hmm I'd say that everything isn't as black and white as you're proposing and I'd be bloody angry at anyone who suggests we turn a blind eye to the precedents history has to show us. I'd also say what I've written before:



Next,


Let's see what you've chosen to base your opinion on, comments such as these perhaps?


No it appears you are the one unable to make the distinction here and my posts more than back up my position. Please give it a rest on this matter as I've given you more than ample reason to have a different opinion.


actually it proves sweet fcuk all as firstly I've never denied I am suspicious of American foreign policy and secondly your own comments attest to the very thing you accuse me of:


paranoid much?


paranoid very much?


nope. you're the one who's full of mistrust by admission of your own statements.
My reasons for opposing this shield have been grounded, observe:


ok well i'm not british (still enjoying the same pinch of cope I'd dipped when I started this longass reply thank you very much) although i was on the underground during the 7/7 events and while i don't want to get into that on this matter i do find your mocking tone inappropriate at best with regards to the situation in the u.k. it's like your actually happy their rights are being overrun just cause the same is happening to u.s. citizens. thanks for showing your colours on that one johnp.


nice cover let's take a closer look though shall we?



It looks like that wasn't the point I was trying to make at all and and actually asked for clarification. Guess you forgot, go figure.

Hmm you don't know where u.s. missles are pointed but seem to speak with authority on where the missles of other nations are pointed? Well now I am confused cause just a while ago you claimed you are low on the intelligence scale (in terms of security, i imagine you have top secret and that's about it) and didn't make any decisions with u.s. policy let alone the strategic policies' of other militaries:



Well sir I owe you an apology on this point. I mistakenly thought you had supported striking Iranian nuclear facilities, where many civilians work. I did not attribute the correct comments to the correct user. My bad.



no that was your proposition so again the burden is on you to provide some rationale for that notion.

Argh! That was a ridiculous marathon of going through old messages. Please be more consistent in the future as it's really unfair for you to make such accusations and blanket statements that I've either dispelled or simply don't match to your previous arguments.

adieu

Holy Crap FF! Have much on your mind?

Polish pres. urges quick OK of shield deal
WARSAW, Poland, Aug. 3 (UPI) -- Poland must sign a treaty on deployment of missiles and radar for a U.S. missile shield system before the U.S. election, President Lech Kaczynski said Sunday.

Russia has said if the system is deployed near Russian territory, a "military-technical" response would be in order, RIA Novosti said.

upi.com/Top_News/2008/08/03/Polish_pres_urges_quick_OK_of_shield_deal/UPI-29571217818993/

Personally, I am new here to this forum and while reading through most of this thread, (getting bored of the endless ranting by John and Foriegner) I would like to say that...

Most of you have a good idea of what is really happening and whilst you identify the true enemy against national soveriegnty, you are not entirely correct. Like an onion, the engine for forming a one world government is multi-layers and once you've thought that you have identified the culprit behind the puppets, you begin to realize that those people are too, puppets... In truth... America is only a playground that allows these people to interfere with the world, manipulating it to their whims...

The truth is that our government has been in the pockets of international bankers such as the Rockerfellers, Wharburgs, Rothchilds and the Morgans since 1913 when the federal reserve act was passed into law 2 days before christmas while the majority of congress (who would have denied the bill) where at home spending time with their families. Also, the act was penned by BANKERS, not lawmakers.

Did you know that Sen. Prescott Bush, (the Current President's grandfather) was CEO of a bank that laundered money for the NAZIs?

Did you know that The Rockerfeller's sold special additives that fueled the german bombers which in turn bombed London, to I.G. Farbin?

Did you know that Pres Woodrow Wilson, being promised the presidency in exchange for passing the federal reserve act, later wrote about his regret?

These things never make it to the mainstream, primarily because the majority of the people involved also own the Media in America...

How about this little fun fact... Try comparing Bush's speech on Terrorism to Hitler's speech on defending the 'Homeland'.

The only real thing that I have to say is that I QUESTION EVERYTHING, and am responsible for finding my own answer through research and rejecting the force-fed disinformation from our news networks.

Ever wonder why Telecommunication Corporate Conglomerates want to privatize the internet? Simply, because they cannot control the information being revealed to the public.

What needs to happen is that all the world needs to reject America as an ally and allow the country to go through another civil war where the people will rise up against the Machine of Facism that is defined as American Democracy and Fix the country.

Who is America to say that it's interests in the world are more important than another's?????

Hey it's not like anyone forced you to read it, we had an exchange going, that's what happens. But yeah, it can be tough to follow these online debates so you do have my condolences.

HOWEVER, 1)look at the thread title. 2)compare what you 've written to the topic. 3)See a match?

Maybe you could start your own thread and let this one die as it's run its' course.

Regarding your post:
that's all fine and dandy but without any proof those are baseless accusations and i could just as easily have written that the second i saw the same videos you have.


yet it seems as though what you just posted is a simplified collective regurgitation of a "lantern society" video. Again, those things you've written may be correct but at least hit us up with a link to your source. Otherwise you end up being dismissed and you only discredit your cause.

start this on another thread and you may get more bites;)

Seems like you watched "Zeitgeist" also......
some believe it, some think it is only a conspiracy theory.

..you didn't by chance have a sleep over at Crow's house when you were in Europe did you?

ROTFL


"We" all haven't said that, there are lots of Ammies here and we don't all agree either. Just like in Poland, everyone has a different viewpoint!

Sleep there, lol they are related.

Something tells me I struck a nerve....
Many of your arguments in your above post read (to me anyway) along the lines of "but oranges CAN'T be, well, orange. Look at this green apple!"


Well, you aren't American, at least (Americans do not write "colours" but leave out the "u" in US English). If you are dipping cope, well, make sure you have good dental coverage; nor is there any mocking tone in my post. You read too much into what I write. What I have done is point out the irony that your posts and others are quite quick to point out your perceived losses of freedom in the United States, or perhaps a general perception that we Americans are "root'n toot'n" folk, perhaps a little less "civilized" than people wherever you are really from.

You mention where you think I am or am not on the intelligence scale etc. honestly if you are talking about my personal intelligence, I've made no comments with regard to it. I have my opinions, and I make them on the information I have by thinking through that information. There were intelligence reports during the cold war that pretty clearly let many of us in the US know if there were ICBMs targeted in our general direction, based on strategic and psychological value. Treaties were specifically signed to *stop* aiming ICBMs at each other. This is much different than saying I (or you-unless do you?) know where Russia's missiles are targeted. I know where Putin says he will target them, but my hunch is now that he controls most of Europe's fuel, they are already targeted at Europe, in case there are future "disagreements". Make your own opinions on what you want to, including the phase of the moon. Perhaps no shield will ever be needed. This is ideal, of course. I will leave you with one thought-is being prepared for the worst truly paranoia? Also, if Putin says "if you borrow that vest from America I'm going to shoot you" how does it make America the threat? This is where I see the largest difference between our viewpoints.


Really. I think you just like bagging on America, at this point, and what you believe (for right or wrong) to be happening in Iraq. Which has nothing to do with an ICBM interceptor base in Europe.


Name one war that civilians do not die in. However, you have not quantified your implication of historical revisionism in this case.


Interestingly enough, I'd like to know how, with limited or no telecommunications networks in service, let alone electricity, how Mr. Whitaker came up with the figure you list here, or the claim of the majority of these being women and children. Headquarters of Fedayyeen Saddam-yeah, I'm sure that one was FULL of women and children, along with every troop transport, truck, and tank....Neither I nor anyone else can say no civilians were ever killed, it happens in every war in spite of efforts against this, but I do know I never killed any nor did I see any killed. My feeling is that Mr. Whitaker, based on his other statement, invented the numbers, or "guessed" to back up the sensationalism of his story. Which is just as much a lie.


Of course they are.


These numbers were probably close. To be honest 3 IED's could account for this many. As far as Iraqi deaths, as the country is transitioning back to Iraqi control, Iraqi troops are doing a lot more of the fighting with various extreme groups formerly done by coalition troops; it is not without cost.

Regardless, I'll be there again soon enough, so feel free to read all the horrors you suppose I'm doing and tell me about them the next time I return (hopefully alive). It should be good reading at any rate; everything I'm hearing tells me I'll be pretty bored and won't get to interact with Iraqis (other than their SpecOps types) nearly as much as before. A shame. Met a lot of nice people last time.

Anyway take care folks.

John P.

Not that old chestnut again....


Note the word "disproportionate" in my quote. One million innocent civilians dead .


I am not implying it, I am stating it. I have quantified it numerous times in many posts.


This is the historical revisionism I am talking about, drop all that bombs on a densely populated city and all that was hit was Saddams HQ ? C'mon.


ROFL.


Err yeah

Hey Johnny, God bless and be safe over there. I don't like the war but not everybody on this board dances a jig when you guys are hurt.

- Wahldo

what are you missewa a communist be glad America is looking out dont tell us to shove it.

go on then; show me the irony. i've done a thorough job of showing the irony in your posts. unless you can actually trace the discussion then your just babbling online.


etc? tell me more about the "etc."
you brought up the fact that you are "low on the totem pole" (regarding intelligence and no i don't mean iq or sat scores) not i, so if you don't like my references then ask yourself why you decided to supply that information.


no, you're wrong again, for the 2nd or 3rd time now i recommend you go back to my original statement and see that i clearly defined who are the rootin tootin trigger happy folks in my books, if you want to include all americans in that definition then it is not only your prerogative but your mistake as well.


that all depends on what one tries to prepare for doesn't it. in this case it's a matter of resources that would create ill will and not only that but more importantly, ultimately fail should the worst materialize imho.

you see what i did there? you see it? i showed you exactly where your arguments fail within the context of this discussion. Your failure to acknowledge this and other examples of such is something to behold.