Why does America need Europe?

[gunner]

What part of the word "British" in "British Petrolium" do you not understand?

Totally wrong.

In 2001 the company formally renamed itself as BP plc[31] and adopted the tagline "Beyond Petroleum," which remains in use today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP

It has recently, been referred to as 'British Petroleum' by the American administration for obvious political reasons.

Paul

 

[Gardener]

Yeah, let's compare our dick size. That's exactly what I had in mind ...

No fair, GG! You blokes on the other side of the pond have all that extra skin.

Most of us have received a little trim.

 

[Gardener]

Totally wrong.

In 2001 the company formally renamed itself as BP plc[31] and adopted the tagline "Beyond Petroleum," which remains in use today.

BP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It has recently, been referred to as 'British Petroleum' by the American administration for obvious political reasons.

Paul

Ah, yes, a British company that has called itself Brtitish Petrolium since its inception as a British enterprise is suddenly not British because the British board of trust running this British enterprise removed the word British from its British based name and replaced it with the non British term "beyond", resulting in a situation today where some British residents like to point out that this British company that has always been called British Petrolium is somehow something other than British, therefore the act of calling this British company by it's long standing British name instead of this newfangled non British name is some sort of act of semantic political maneuvering aimed against the British.

Got it. How perfectly reasonable.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Yeah, let's compare our dick size. That's exactly what I had in mind ...

Just saying that not only does the U.S. have more illegal and legal immigrants than any European country but we don't have viable political parties whose entire basis for existing is to hate on the immigrant population. Immigrant relations in Europe are **** compared to the U.S..

 

[Agent Ferris]

The question was not if Saddam ever had WMD or was interested in developing them, but if Iraq was "an imminent threat". The UN inspectors found no evidence whatsoever for WMD in Iraq (see links above). After the invasion, no WMD whatsoever were found, except maybe for decades old Sarin gas grenades or something like that (which, of course, didn't keep FOX News and the far-right propaganda machine from applauding that WMD have allegedly been found after all, as absurd as it is).



Saddam was a bad guy, agreed. But it was proven his Iraq posed no "imminent threat". There was no justification whatsoever for the invasion which resulted in the death of 5 times the number of civilians per year than under Saddam in the post-war period (more than 650,000 between 2003 and 2007).

Maybe you think human life can easily be sacrifized if it gives you a nice warm feeling of security, but I beg to differ. This is no video game. It's war.



And that are fine achievements. But there was no need to risk the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.



That Saddam was about developing nukes has long been debunked as reckless lie, and no expert, not in 2002 nor 2003, ever wasted more than a dry laugh to comment on that claim.

Kooks are not nice. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily justified to remove them, when that means the death of hundreds of thousands of people. Also, it's hypocritical: The US never had or have problems with genocidal kooks or even islamofascists, as long as they are their kooks. I don't see you can claim this high ground, but at the same time deliver weapons to the Saudi Arabian regime, for example.



Yes, and there was no indication whatsoever that Saddam did not comply. The UN inspectors, like Hans Blix, explicitly stated that on numerous occassions. This whole "last chance" regarding the inspection was nothing but a sharade by Bush: The decision for war had already been taken.



How dangerous could Saddam have possibly been? A small backwards country with not even 25 million inhabitants, shattered by wars and embargos, subjected to fly control zones, whose military could be shattered in roughly 4 weeks.

Yet the American far-right propaganda machine incessantly repeated the mantra that Saddam is the new Hitler. Yes, that is true, they actually said that: Saddam is like Hitler. Accordingly, any kind of diplomacy would have been "appeasement". No matter how absurd or ridiculous this kind of thought is, the brainwashed American right actually believed that.



Neither the UN nor Saddam were ever given a chance by Bush. He tried to use them as long as they'd help him supporting the war that had long been decided on already, and when that failed, Bush ignored it.



It's fascinating that a Bush supporter of all people would blame others for corruption and/or reckless behavior in favor of material interests.



Bush and Blair made it appear as if Saddam's Iraq was an "imminent threat", deliberately evoked the notion that he's right about performing another 9/11 and that he is even successful at developing nuclear weapons.

All this were extreme exaggerations based on intelligence that was most unreliable at best, or even blatant lies -- with the sole purpose of fearmongering the population into a state of mind where they will swallow any massacre, no matter its scope.

Such behavior from elected leaders damages democracy and is ethically abhorrent, because it resulted in a high bloodshed.

How exactly unreliable clues were fabricated into alleged "proof" for Saddam's activities, and what kind of systematic pressure the White House put on the intelligence agencies, can be found here:
USA: Das Prinzip Ofenrohr | Politik | ZEIT ONLINE

(Unfortunately, it's in German language. You can use google translate to read it, if you are interested. And no, to avert this ad hominem attack in the first place, "Die Zeit" is not an abscure left-wing paper, but one of the most renommeed highbrow papers on the German market, which even published a few pro-war commentaries in 2003.)

All 16 members of the U.S. intelligence community believed Iraq had WMD and continued to produce WMD, that was their consensus opinion as illustrated in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, this consensus was backed up by Mossad, MI-6, and the DGES. The entire international community believed Saddam had WMD, and though he didn't have the stockpiles it is clear today that Saddam still had the capability and the desire to produce WMD. Furthermore; it has since been proved that Saddam was conspiring with radical Islamist terror organizations (including AQ affiliates) to attack the U.S. right up until the fall of Baghdad. Saddam was a threat.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

All 16 members of the U.S. intelligence community believed Iraq had WMD and continued to produce WMD, that was their consensus opinion as illustrated in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, this consensus was backed up by Mossad, MI-6, and the DGES. The entire international community believed Saddam had WMD, and though he didn't have the stockpiles it is clear today that Saddam still had the capability and the desire to produce WMD. Furthermore; it has since been proved that Saddam was conspiring with radical Islamist terror organizations (including AQ affiliates) to attack the U.S. right up until the fall of Baghdad. Saddam was a threat.

What proof is there that Saddam was working with AQ affiliates?

 

[Agent Ferris]

What proof is there that Saddam was working with AQ affiliates?

I posted it earlier, here it is again:

The Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release entitled the "Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted)," proves conclusively that Saddam was sponsoring terrorist activities with Islamic Radical Organizations (including AQ affiliates) against the U.S. right up to the fall of Baghdad.

WASHINGTON — A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.

The Pentagon study finds, "Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime."

A long time skeptic of the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and a former CIA senior Iraq analyst, Judith Yaphe yesterday said, "I think the report indicates that Saddam was willing to work with almost any group be it nationalist or Islamic, that was willing to work for his objectives. But in the long term he did not trust many of the Islamist groups, especially those linked to Saudi Arabia or Iran." She added, "He really did want to get anti-American operations going. The fact that they had little success shows in part their incompetence and unwilling surrogates."

A former Bush administration official who was a member of the counter-terrorism evaluation group that analyzed terror networks and links between terrorists and states, David Wurmser, said he felt the report began to vindicate his point of view.

"This is the beginning of the process of exposing Saddam's involvement in Islamic terror. But it is only the beginning. Time and declassification I'm sure will reveal yet more," he said. "Even so, this report is damning to those who doubted Saddam Hussein's involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It devastates one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9-11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and vice versa."

The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. Its conclusion asks "Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States?" It goes on, "Judging from Saddam's statements before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes." As for after the Gulf War, the report states, "The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' tool box." It goes on, "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces." The report does note that it is unclear whether Saddam would have authorized terrorism against American targets in the final months of his regime before Operation Iraqi Freedom five years ago. "The answer to the question of Saddam's will in the final months in power remains elusive," it says.

Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties - March 14, 2008 - The New York Sun

Here's a rather telling document from DOCEX which shows how Saddam was recruiting suicide volunteers right up until at least 2001 to attack U.S. interests:

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

March 2001 Document: Saddam Regime Recruits Suicide Terrorists to Hit US Interests (Translation)


Page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654 is a Top Secret letter dated March/11/2001 six months prior to 9/11/2001, proves that not only Saddam Regime supported terrorists organization like Hamas and Al Qaeda as we have learned from other documents but also they were recruiting Suicide Terrorist Bombers to hit US interests. Saddam Regime was a TERRORIST REGIME and there was no other way but to destroy it after 9/11.

Beginning of the translation of page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654

In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate

Top Secret

The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
No 3/6/104
Date 11 March 2001
To all the Units

Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Air Brigadier General
Abdel Magid Hammot Ali
Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
Air Colonel
Mohamad Majed Mohamadi.
End of translation of page 6

 

[German guy]

How about a million dead and nothing gained except empowering a despot who has used WMD?
Maddie Albright thought a million dead was OK.

Look, there is a basic moral standard that says "two wrongs don't make a right". I don't question Saddam was a murderous dictator. But starting a war against him that results in hundreds of thousands of deaths is hardly an acceptable answer.

Being German, you should know Clausewitz.
Plans are plans, war is war. War is unpredicatable, and less so when the enemy hides in schools, Mosques, hospitals and uses human shields.
Four thousand brave Americans perished. Considering the task, the time and enemy, they managed to stabilize Iraq. It has a constitution, elections and a government.

It's still all but sure yet if this experiment will succeed. Is the situation in Iraq self-sustaining? When the US pull out, will there be civil war? Will the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds start killing each other? Will Iran interveen in favor of their Shia friends and become an even bigger threat? Will some Iraqi government launch a coup and turn the country into a dictatorship once again?

If any of this happens, all the people would have died in vein. For the sake of the Iraqi people, I hope it will not happen and Iraq will become a stable and free democracy. But unfortunately, that is all but save yet.

I know where the mentality comes from. I watched the German press shred Bush. I watched Schroeder play a disgusting game... see link to thread below.

OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAM
Much blame can be placed directly on the corrupt UN.
They gave Saddam hope by dirty dealing to the tune of billions. I suspect he thought he had bought off security.

See my replies in the postings above.

They were kicked out in 1998.
They were not permitted to seek WMD without games.
So Hans can claim what he does, but he could not state anything of the kind with 100% certainty... and he said so much.

So Bush started a war that resulted in the death of more than 650,000 innocent people just because it "was not 100% sure" Saddam posed an imminent threat?

When so many lives are at stake, he should better be 100% sure that he's right. The burden of proof clearly lies with the one who is playing with the lives of innocent people.

I don't know if you saw this; post #51
David Kay US Senate Armed Services Committee Testimony:
Schroeder buries smallpox report forecasting 25 million dead Germans.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/75002-why-does-america-need-europe-6.html#post1058813021

This article is a good example for what I called fearmongering and exaggeration by the right-wing propaganda machine (and it isn't surprising at all, nor has it happened for the first time that a Rupert Murdoch paper would rely on sinister, dishonest methods to further their political agenda). That's exactly the problem I see with American right-wing media: Facts don't matter for them, neither does truth, and any kind of misinterpretation and exaggeration is fine with them, as long as it supports the political right.

If you really want to know what happened, read this:

TP: Deutschland und die irakischen Massenvernichtungswaffen

(...) Was die angebliche Vertuschung der Gefahr durch Anschläge mit Pockenviren aus dem Irak betrifft (...), so kann man davon ausgehen, dass es keine wirklichen Kenntnisse über einen Besitz von Pockenviren im Irak gibt (deswegen lässt sich dies natürlich aber auch nicht ausschließen). Auch der BND hat bestätigt, keine solchen Kenntnisse zu besitzen. Bekannt ist schon lange, dass man im Irak mit Kamelpocken experimentiert hat, allerdings gibt es vermutlich nicht die Möglichkeit, diese so zu verändern, dass sie sich wie Menschenpocken verhalten, [extern] erklärte Reinhard Kurth, der Präsident des Robert-Koch-Instituts. Kurth geht überdies von keinem erhöhten Risiko aus. (...)

English:
Concerning the alleged cover-up of the threat of attacks by smallpox viruses from Iraq can be reasonably assumed that no real intelligence supporting the claim Iraq owns smallpox viruses exists (but thus it cannot be denied either). The BND [German intelligence service] too has confirmed not to have such intelligence knowledge. It has been known for a long time that Iraq has been experimenting with camel pox, but most likely there is no possibility to modify them in a way that would make them dangerous for humans, Reinhard Kurth, President of the Robert-Koch-Institute declared. Furthermore, Kurth does not believe in a higher risk.

So both the German intelligence service BND, and the most important German health institute said they don't have intelligence supporting the claim there are smallpox viruses in Iraqi possession and they do explicitly not assume there is any kind of increased risk due to the war. The latter even explicitly warned of exaggerations of these risks.

Also, I clearly remember the director of the BND was interviewed in TV when he explicitly said that they don't have the slightest evidence for WMD in Iraq, except for one single source which they consider most unreliable. He also complained that Bush's propaganda machine is putting words into his mouth, and ripping these most unreliable bits out of context, pretending they were known fact.

 

[alexa]

I certainly can remember our intelligence knew that he might use terrorists but only if he was invaded.

 

[gunner]

Ah, yes, a British company that has called itself Brtitish Petrolium since its inception as a British enterprise is suddenly not British because the British board of trust running this British enterprise removed the word British from its British based name and replaced it with the non British term "beyond", resulting in a situation today where some British residents like to point out that this British company that has always been called British Petrolium is somehow something other than British, therefore the act of calling this British company by it's long standing British name instead of this newfangled non British name is some sort of act of semantic political maneuvering aimed against the British.

Got it. How perfectly reasonable.

Don't beat yourself up over your mistake. Its not as complicated as you try to make out. It was simply a re-branding initiative after the acquisition of a few American company's.

As a side note, careful with your spelling [highlighted] i know what a 'stickler' you are for it!

Paul

 

[Agent Ferris]

I certainly can remember our intelligence knew that he might use terrorists but only if he was invaded.

No he was actively plotting to attack the U.S. using Islamist terror organizations even before the invasion.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Also, I clearly remember the director of the BND was interviewed in TV when he explicitly said that they don't have the slightest evidence for WMD in Iraq, except for one single source which they consider most unreliable. He also complained that Bush's propaganda machine is putting words into his mouth, and ripping these most unreliable bits out of context, pretending they were known fact.

The consensus view of all 16 members of the U.S. intelligence community was that Saddam had WMD and was expanding his WMD programs, this was backed up by Mossad, the DGSE, and MI-6. Today we know that Saddam didn't have the stockpiles but still had the capability and the desire to produce WMD's. Just because the on button wasn't pushed in on his WMD production plant is pretty meaningless in my opinion, especially considering that we now know that Saddam was conspiring to attack the U.S. and her interests using Islamist terror organizations right up till the fall of Baghdad.

 

[alexa]

No he was actively plotting to attack the U.S. using Islamist terror organizations even before the invasion.

Not according to our intelligence.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Not according to our intelligence.

I already posted the Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release, Saddam was collaborating with Islamist terror organizations to attack the U.S. right up until the fall of Baghdad, it's no longer even debatable.

 

[zimmer]

The question was not if Saddam ever had WMD or was interested in developing them, but if Iraq was "an imminent threat". The UN inspectors found no evidence whatsoever for WMD in Iraq (see links above). After the invasion, no WMD whatsoever were found, except maybe for decades old Sarin gas grenades or something like that (which, of course, didn't keep FOX News and the far-right propaganda machine from applauding that WMD have allegedly been found after all, as absurd as it is).

Democrats, including POTUS Clinton stated the threat on record.
When you cannot inspect, you cannot know.

Saddam was a bad guy, agreed. But it was proven his Iraq posed no "imminent threat". There was no justification whatsoever for the invasion which resulted in the death of 5 times the number of civilians per year than under Saddam in the post-war period (more than 650,000 between 2003 and 2007).

He did not let the UN prove it.

Maybe you think human life can easily be sacrifized if it gives you a nice warm feeling of security, but I beg to differ. This is no video game. It's war.

That's right, and when a madman has WMD, or plays like it, lost a war and agreed to give them up, but did not comply, then war is sometimes necessary to eliminate serious threats.
See David Kay's testimony.

And that are fine achievements. But there was no need to risk the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

You tend to forget a million or more died under Clinton and Saddam was piling up the corpses pretty high.
Some argue lives were saved over this time period.

That Saddam was about developing nukes has long been debunked as reckless lie, and no expert, not in 2002 nor 2003, ever wasted more than a dry laugh to comment on that claim.

Scientists had hid Nuke equipment. But again, when Inspecteurs de la UN get turned into Inspecteur Clouseau's... you cannot know what they had or did not have.

Iran had a clandestine program for 18-years. No laughing matter. Who is to say what Saddam had... he did not comply with UN Res. 687 or 1441... to disarm after losing Gulf War 1.

It's a bit like Hitler playing games post WWII had he lived.
Utterly ridiculous... and then Saddam gamed the corrupt UN.

Kooks are not nice. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily justified to remove them, when that means the death of hundreds of thousands of people. Also, it's hypocritical: The US never had or have problems with genocidal kooks or even islamofascists, as long as they are their kooks. I don't see you can claim this high ground, but at the same time deliver weapons to the Saudi Arabian regime, for example.

They didn't fire at planes in the NFZ, nor did they try to assassinate a US President... nor have the others used WMD.

Saddam was a threat; that according to Democrats.
BTW... Senate dems sought to have a second vote supporting the invasion... and got it.

Yes, and there was no indication whatsoever that Saddam did not comply. The UN inspectors, like Hans Blix, explicitly stated that on numerous occassions. This whole "last chance" regarding the inspection was nothing but a sharade by Bush: The decision for war had already been taken.

Say what? They were booted out in 1998. hans was in there getting treated like Inspecteur Clouseau.

Bush gave him one last chance... through the UN.
Saddam called the bluff. Perhaps because he believed the OIL FOR FOOD corruption would see him through.
I guess that and he thought Bush was Clinton.

How dangerous could Saddam have possibly been? A small backwards country with not even 25 million inhabitants, shattered by wars and embargos, subjected to fly control zones, whose military could be shattered in roughly 4 weeks.

Anthrax, smallpox, dirty nuke material.
Perhaps you think it's nothing, but a handful of butt ****ing cave dwellers managed to create havoc in NYC.

Yet the American far-right propaganda machine incessantly repeated the mantra that Saddam is the new Hitler. Yes, that is true, they actually said that: Saddam is like Hitler. Accordingly, any kind of diplomacy would have been "appeasement". No matter how absurd or ridiculous this kind of thought is, the brainwashed American right actually believed that.

Sorry, I didn't get that memo. I think you have it wrong. Bush is Hitler. Reagan was Hitler. Saddam? Peace loving, community organizing patriot as far as Mike Moore is considered.

Neither the UN nor Saddam were ever given a chance by Bush. He tried to use them as long as they'd help him supporting the war that had long been decided on already, and when that failed, Bush ignored it.

Sorry.
FAIL.
He went to the UN, he gave Saddam a chance there and a chance to leave Iraq.
You see, Saddam had 12-years of fun with the UN... after losing a war of his own making.
The UN was setup to stop the Saddam's of the world.
Bush did what they failed to do.
Rightly so post 911.

It's fascinating that a Bush supporter of all people would blame others for corruption and/or reckless behavior in favor of material interests.

What material interests?
The Iraqi's control their oil fields.
The UN, with French banks, Kofi's son and other scum were corrupt; Saddam... he was an angel.

Bush and Blair made it appear as if Saddam's Iraq was an "imminent threat", deliberately evoked the notion that he's right about performing another 9/11 and that he is even successful at developing nuclear weapons.

Bush, Blair, Hilary Clinton, Bill Clinton... and almost all leading Democrats. French and Germans agreed he had WMD. Russians too.

This is what I mean by sewer pipe. It's like Reuters and their cropped photos.

Hillary claims her inside knowledge (her husband was President) for the vote in favor of authorizing force.

All this were extreme exaggerations based on intelligence that was most unreliable at best, or even blatant lies -- with the sole purpose of fearmongering the population into a state of mind where they will swallow any massacre, no matter its scope.

It was the best intl we had.
Colin Powell is a reluctant warrior... his words I believe... and he presented the case.
When a society is closed, and the despot doesn't let you count his WMD... you do the best you can...
It wasn't just US intel either.

Such behavior from elected leaders damages democracy and is ethically abhorrent, because it resulted in a high bloodshed.

As a German you should know better. Really.
The parallels of Hitler can be made. England watched as Hitler ramped up. Saddam? He only needed to supply a few individuals with WMD. A cheap way to wreak havoc, but well within his means, and having used WMD... not something that was out of the question.

Peace in our time.
That mentality costs tens of millions of lives.
Churchill was right, Chamberlain famous for that one huge stupidity. Churchill wasn't only right BUT right for years in advance... but seen as a warmonger by pacifists that didn't want to be bothered by the hard realities.
He was sidelined politically... almost living in obscurity, except for his craftiness at staying in the know.

Bush, given the facts he had, the behavior of Saddam, the post 911 threat and environment... did the right thing.
We don't have to worry about Saddam anymore.
We broke up a black market for WMD, and Libya is out of the business.
We centralized the terrorists and killed scores of them, including heads of the Hydra.

How exactly unreliable clues were fabricated into alleged "proof" for Saddam's activities, and what kind of systematic pressure the White House put on the intelligence agencies, can be found here:
USA: Das Prinzip Ofenrohr | Politik | ZEIT ONLINE

(Unfortunately, it's in German language. You can use google translate to read it, if you are interested. And no, to avert this ad hominem attack in the first place, "Die Zeit" is not an abscure left-wing paper, but one of the most renommeed highbrow papers on the German market, which even published a few pro-war commentaries in 2003.)

Die Zeit, FAZ, Sud Deutsche Zeitung, Die Welt, ... I know them...
That systematic pressure seems to have had Germans, French, Russians and Democrats in the US believe he had WMD.
In fact, Dems were on the record when Bush was Governor of Texas.

.

 

[The_Penguin]

As world cop america gets criticized for its unilateralism. So they need the EU in order to bet some world legitimacy. Militarily, they dont need Europe they could go it alone, but the need Europe politically, in order to deflect some criticism that there behaving like Mr. jeckel. The worst part is that the EU gets sucked into these phony wars because their all NATO members and in world politics everything is complicated and hangs with everything together.

I favor abolishing NATO or kicking America out of it and giving it a new name like European Arm Forces 2001.

We don't need Europe. Just remember, when Putin gets a tad excited and maybe takes over Latvia, you're going to send your sons, brothers and fathers to help them, right? Right?

 

[alexa]

I already posted the Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release, Saddam was collaborating with Islamist terror organizations to attack the U.S. right up until the fall of Baghdad, it's no longer even debatable.

It doesn't matter. I can remember clearly that our intelligence said in it's report before the war, that it believed that Saddam was only likely to be involved with terrorism if it was attacked. We were told this after things got started of course but it was ridiculous to suggest Saddam had links with Al Qaeda. Bin Laden wanted to lead the first gulf war!

Again our intelligence said that the only fear from terrorism from Iraq would come about if it were attacked.

We were told a pack of lies. Those lies are currently the focus of an inquiry.

 

[The_Penguin]

America is doing Europe no favor by picking up the ball, their making us dependent upon a foreign power that views us with contempt and 2nd class. This can only change when we arm to the teeth and defend ourselfs alone without the little brother.

Ok, so do it. US is dependent on oil because is our fault. We're not blaming the Arabs or Canada. You're saying that Europe's overall military capability is weak? And the blame lies at the feet of US? On this side of the pond we call it "personal responsibility".

Also, aren't we the "big brother" in this relationship? Actually, I prefer the word "adult".

 

[The_Penguin]

America is doing Europe no favor by picking up the ball, their making us dependent upon a foreign power that views us with contempt and 2nd class. This can only change when we arm to the teeth and defend ourselfs alone without the little brother.

Again, this is utter absurdity. Whatever dislike of European countries there exists, it's aimed at those nations where anti-Americanism was the most pronounced. UK, Denmark and Eastern European countries are well liked. France and Germany are viewed more negatively.

So no, Americans don't view all of Europe with contempt.

 

[alexa]

I already posted the Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release, Saddam was collaborating with Islamist terror organizations to attack the U.S. right up until the fall of Baghdad, it's no longer even debatable.

and further I remember seeing some footage which I am sure was your intelligence, now where was it, possibly The Power of Nightmares, where your intelligence believed Bin Laden had a whole network, office, lodgings, computers +++ all in caves in Afghanistan.

:rofl

 

[bennyhill]

By decline I mean American sliding down the black hole.

 

[The_Penguin]

What interference? European Union countries enter wars with the US out of choice, if NATO is not involved. I think they shouldnt, but it is still a choice made by the countries involved.

Yup. Spain, Ukraine, Italy, Denmark, UK, Albania and Netherlands all sent troops. France and Germany abstained.

 

[The_Penguin]

By decline I mean American sliding down the black hole.

Although it's scientifically impossible, if by some unexplained reason the LHC were to indeed create a black-hole, Europe would be the first to go .

 

[bennyhill]

Europe is the most internationaly respected region of the world. We are the mecca of the modern world, America has dropped the ball and fell into international disgrace. You cant even stop the oil leak. Your a weak neation.

 

[The_Penguin]

What do you mean by that? In addition there is still a lot of diversity in Europe. We don't for instance have an EU army yet so our foreign policies can be quite diverse. So are you referring to all countries of the EU and if not which ones and what have they done which is to go down a dangerous and destructive path because I have not heard of it.

I sort of agree with him. The Greece fiasco revealed some pretty bad social and economic undercurrents in the EU. I doubt that the EU will fall apart, but we'll see a generation-wide lack of desire to rectify the current underlying problems.