Forums | MacLife

i went with an exlosion of anti-americanism; only because you guys dont have any support to lose

What's the consequence? ...

The vindication of the statement "Power tends to corrupt ... and absolute power corrupts absolutely ..." (John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton)

... and to the great shame of what could have been a Nation with much to give to the World and to civilisation.

If I may be so bold ... bump.

I HATE bumping.

I don't and I surprised you say you do - you bumped it.

A: Two, Turkey.

...or its government for that matter...

Wrong. I am so.

drunkard = Jayhawk
Jayhawk = drunkard

Everyone knows macul. Everyone.

A: Militarily? Two-so far, UK and Spain...possibly Turkey as they're itching to invade nothern Iraq and kick some Kurd butt.

Actually they aren't many other military forces that the US would even want to help-surely not German, French or Belgium forces, ditto the Canadians, Australians, etc...let's face it no other country-save the UK-is up to our level of military technology and most would probably be more of a hindrance than a help on the battlefield.

That's a joke, right? Not having allies is actually a goodthing?

That's strange, because the US trumpeted its coalition in the last Gulf War, and was perfectly happy to use forces from across Europe and the Mideast. Same with Yugoslavia and Kosovo.

In any event, not having allies, even if it has no military impact, is politically disastrous. It basically paints the US as not giving a damn what the world thinks, and perfectly willing to stomp on whoever it wants, when it wants, for whatever reasons it can drum up -- even if the US is not really like that, going it alone definitely promotes that image.

That's a joke, right? Not having allies is actually a goodthing?

That's strange, because the US trumpeted its coalition in the last Gulf War, and was perfectly happy to use forces from across Europe and the Mideast. Same with Yugoslavia and Kosovo.

In any event, not having allies, even if it has no military impact, is politically disastrous. It basically paints the US as not giving a damn what the world thinks, and perfectly willing to stomp on whoever it wants, when it wants, for whatever reasons it can drum up -- even if the US is not really like that, going it alone definitely promotes that image.

Jeesh, nice posting style....see/read only want you want and disregard or misrepresent what the other person has already stated. I clearly said "militarily" we don't need that many "allies" and if you can scroll (that's using the arrow thingys on the right side of your screen?) back up to the beginning posts in this thread, I have already stated that the US has in excess of 18 allies already supporting the regime change in Iraq.

Yes, in the Gulf War the US had a number of allies supplying air and ground forces but we're not talking history here we're discussing invading Iraq c.2003-please also note that the number of allied troops was miniscule compared to US forces deployed at that time. And in Kosovo-the US supplied mainly air support, whereas most of the ground troops and subsequent peace keepers were NATO forces.

Nice backpeddling with the "in any event" but it doesn't keep you from once again advancing your opinion-as you have in at least a dozen threads already-of "everybody in the world hates the Americans now".

Jeesh, nice posting style....see/read only want you want and disregard or misrepresent what the other person has already stated. I clearly said "militarily" we don't need that many "allies" and if you can scroll (that's using the arrow thingys on the right side of your screen?) back up to the beginning posts in this thread, I have already stated that the US has in excess of 18 allies already supporting the regime change in Iraq.

I guess I was ticked off because you made it seem that no one in the world was up to the American level of military sophistication. A very arrogant tone, my friend, is far from "nice posting style".

Yes, in the Gulf War the US had a number of allies supplying air and ground forces but we're not talking history here we're discussing invading Iraq c.2003-please also note that the number of allied troops was miniscule compared to US forces deployed at that time. And in Kosovo-the US supplied mainly air support, whereas most of the ground troops and subsequent peace keepers were NATO forces.

Here's the situation. You're talking solely about military assets, and I'm talking about political assets. I agree with you 100% that the US needs no allies to invade and conquer the smurf out of Iraq. Where have I ever said otherwise?

I'm talking about the ramifactions of the US going it alone. I wasn't "selectively" quoting, I was trying to draw attention to this concept. I'm trying to explain to you that it looks really bad for the USA to invade a sovereign nation despite the opposition of its allies and the UN. That will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, increase anti-Americanism beyond its already record levels. Does that not concern you in the least bit?

Nice backpeddling with the "in any event" but it doesn't keep you from once again advancing your opinion-as you have in at least a dozen threads already-of "everybody in the world hates the Americans now".

You, sir, are either sleepy, drugged, or a drooling retard. You accuse me of messing with other people's quotes to prove my point, and then you go ahead and type that utter bullsmurf.

Please, right now, link to a dozen threads where I said that. Hell, I'll tell you what, I'll make it easy for you: make it ten. No! Six! What's that? You can't? Gee, I wonder why?

Looosah!! 

They (muslims) hated us before 9/11, they hate us now and they'll continue to hate us after we conquer Saddam and eliminate Osama. One thing I've learned in my personal life that easily translates to the world situation is that you can not control what other people think about you by altering your actions or lifestyle, no matter what you do-they are going to think and react in their own self interests. Period.

This continued debate will achieve nothing.

I will apologize for maybe being a little incoherent, or "short" in the last paragraph of my last post-I was at work and unexpectedly called into a meeting. I needed to finish my post quickly lest my crappy windblows box died while I was away (as if often does).

I will also admit that my personal resolve or support for this war in Iraq is wanning day-by-day, it's just getting to be too much talk and no action. George might back down yet, which would make him even worse than his predecessor Bubba Clinton whose idea of retalliation was lobbing million dollar cruise missiles in from thousands of miles away and calling that a "victory"--"yeah, Bill really nailed that aspirin factory-that will show them who's boss!"

My sentiments.  Exactly!!!!!

snip

No hard feelings. It's easy to get annoyed in these forums! And also, the endless debating about Iraq is pretty useless. I think most people here would be happy to drop it (at least till the fighting starts), but nobody wants to give the opposition the last word.