The Iraq Thread

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frisbee @ Dec. 15 2002,05:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Militairy coup = military revolts against the governement,and assumes control of the country.Like what Pinochet did yeah.

Armed revolt isn't the same as a military coup,hence the two different terms.

Or am I wrong?<span id='postcolor'>

Thank you . Damn dictionary.com didn't have a definition, can you believe that?

[FSPilot 0]

So sue me, I misused a word.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">P.S. After that I am even more anxious to read your explanation of why Communism and Democracy are mortal enemies <span id='postcolor'>

Communism and democracy are not mortal enemys, the U.S. and democracy are mortal enemys, at least according to the truman doctrine.

anywho, communism is, more often than not, a dictatorship, democracy is the opposite of that, they let the people decide who will gain power, and only then for a period of time (at least in the U.S.).  a communist economy is essentially the opposite of free trade (or capitalism, if you like that term better) which is, essentialy, a democractic economy.

basically they're just opposites.  they belief in different things and, like most cases with religion, conflict ensues.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 15 2002,04:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">India and Pakistan have WMD, why aren't US forces barging in there "to make the world a safer place"? How about China?<span id='postcolor'>

India, Pakistan, and China probably won't use WMDs in the near future.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL No, really? That wasn't a serious comment was it?

Oh no, heaven forbid, no one could envision India or Pakistan using their nukes, could they?

[ralphwiggum 6]

ack..out for 7 hours and all i get is this?

@denoir

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Let's analyze Afganistan:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

1.go in(preferrably with missionaries)

<span id='postcolor'>

More like go in with guns blazing.

<span id='postcolor'>

and I suppose India and Africa attacked respective colonist nations before European countries colonized them right? my point is that europe's so-called previous experience is not neccesarily applicable to US.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

2.win some respect <span id='postcolor'>

Hmm. Don't think so really.

<span id='postcolor'>

hey, read my post.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

3.coerce local gov't to implement new system <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, a new system was introduced.<span id='postcolor'>

read #1, sequece does matter here. also, local gov't (taliban) no longer existed by the end of first militay action.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

4.take over the sustem or render traditional system uselessly.

<span id='postcolor'>

Also done.<span id='postcolor'>

not really. local warlords still have the power as they did before Taliban, during Taliban. so no change of system there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think what Europe still has a problem with is that the people in power still largely have their heads up W. butt. I think that right now Germany represents a good path for Europe. I think by refusing going to war with Iraq they are setting a good moral standard. I'm not quite sure however what you mean that Europe doesn't set standards. If we didn't we would have this discussion now or it would be the opposite (US criticizing Europe).

The fault of the EU is its internal division, but that has only contributed to more moderate, less hawkish policy. <span id='postcolor'>

eh? i thought at least europeans did not like current US administration's policy! Schroeder doesn't like it, Chirac doesn't like it, and pretty much rest of the europe is not happy when US talks about 'coalition'.

if europe wants to set standards(in retrospect) they would have sent IAEA and UN inspectors back to Iraq to show that they do not have WMD capability even before current inspection. yet they were not interested in it.(or didn't think about it).

@Major Fubar.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm still waiting to hear how Iraq has directly threatened America. No, I don't mean American interests (i.e. oil), but America itself. Do Iraq have vehicles that would deliver WMD to the USA (the answer to which is no, even their longest ranged rockets fall well short), or do you seriously believe a terrorist network could smuggle a nuke or cannisters of Sarin through US customs?<span id='postcolor'>

if direct threat is the only criteria, then US's indirect support of certain groups in the past also does not warrant such criticism towards US.

smuggling through US customs....what do you think US customs are capable of

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">India and Pakistan have WMD, why aren't US forces barging in there "to make the world a safer place"? How about China?<span id='postcolor'>

if we barge in, i'm pretty sure rest of the world will have fun criticising US. and when we don't US still gets criticized.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Dec. 15 2002,10:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

3.coerce local gov't to implement new system <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, a new system was introduced.<span id='postcolor'>

read #1, sequece does matter here. also, local gov't (taliban) no longer existed by the end of first militay action. <span id='postcolor'>

Um. Are you joking

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">  

4.take over the sustem or render traditional system uselessly.

<span id='postcolor'>

Also done.<span id='postcolor'>

not really. local warlords still have the power as they did before Taliban, during Taliban. so no change of system there.

<span id='postcolor'>

Big big big difference. The current regieme is held in power by USA and USA only. Anyway, I can't be bothered to list all the things that have been radically changed in Afganistan since the war, but it is a lot. Evrything from the original political structure to enforced cultural changes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">eh? i thought at least europeans did not like current US administration's policy! Schroeder doesn't like it, Chirac doesn't like it, and pretty much rest of the europe is not happy when US talks about 'coalition'.

<span id='postcolor'>

The politicians are far more Bush friendly then people are. The sad fact is that when the war on Iraq comes, some European countries will join. Hell, the Swedish liberal party leader said recently that Sweden should join a military action against Iraq even if the UN doesn't want to. It's the last time I voted for them. Just another proof of the fact that politicians are morons.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if europe wants to set standards(in retrospect) they would have sent IAEA and UN inspectors back to Iraq to show that they do not have WMD capability even before current inspection. yet they were not interested in it.(or didn't think about it).

<span id='postcolor'>

WHAT?? We were of course not interested in it since the idea of Iraq having nukes is a stupid idea. So of course we didn't bother. The only reason we support the inspectors now is a futile hope that Bush can be persuaded not to go in guns blazing! I think we set excellent standards there! (Well, apart from your mistake to think that Europe is one homogenous country. It is not. Get it out of your head. Germany set good standards, Britain did not. France set ok standards. Italy set crappy standards etc etc. We are not united in the Iraq question.)

Hell, why don't we follow your principle and invade South Korea for instance to make sure that they don't have WMD's. I mean considering the vicinity to North Korea, which is actually the same nation, it makes much more sense then Iraq. I mean they obviously are anti US too.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 15 2002,05:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hell, the Swedish liberal party leader said recently that Sweden should join a military action against Iraq even if the UN doesn't want to. It's the last time I voted for them. Just another proof of the fact that politicians are morons.<span id='postcolor'>

Wholly CRAP! What's up that guys ass? Anyway, you know what I have noticed in parliament here, the opposition will say any number of moronic and immoral things to counter the party in power just to disagree, get publicity and make the other party look bad. Opposition parties are always gun hoe because they can afford to be.

I suspect that when an opposition party actually gets to play leader, they do smarten up a lot and take similar lines of view as their predecessor party, heck that's how it has worked here as far as I can see.

Or they are all just morons all the time.

[Balschoiw 0]

As a side effect on possible uprising war on Irak the Israeli government asked germany for TPZ Fuch tanks. There are several versions available, so everyone thought they asked for the NBC versions, that are able to detect traces of NBC weapons. They were used in GW 1 and some are still in Kuwait with german personel. They also asked for patriot systems they will surely get as they are meant to protect Israel from incoming Scud´s.

BUT then the israeli government clearified it´s support request. They wanted to have the troop carrier version of TPZ that is in fact an assault vehicle. Imagine german borrowed tanks used to fight palestinians

They hopefully will NOT get them. As germany has a history in homicide I hope government doesnt assist a second one.

Israeli government is a pain in the ass sometimes cause they think whenever they point on our history guilt they will get what they want. And if they dont get it they come up with the old story again. Pretty disgusting...

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 15 2002,11:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Israeli government is a pain in the ass sometimes cause they think whenever they point on our history guilt they will get what they want. And if they dont get it they come up with the old story again. Pretty disgusting...<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe you should just become thier little financial slave? Would that satisfy the Israeli govt... probably not as greed has no boundries.

BTW: Blaschoiw, you should see what a retired native leader had to say yesterday about WW2, Israel and the US. Really funny, but now Canada will probably have to apologize for him to Sharon or some other shithead. oh here, it's on the web Speaking your mind

Okay, I'm taking this thing off topic, sorta, so I'll stop there.

EDIT: And no, I don't sympathize with Nazis either, I think it's funny that something like this came out of a guys mouth.

[DarkLight 0]

This thread is getting pretty warm, i bet 5$ that it'll be closed before 2003...

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Dec. 15 2002,11:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This thread is getting pretty warm, i bet 5$ that it'll be closed before 2003...<span id='postcolor'>

Show me the money. It will be my x-mas present then.

That reminds me, gotta buy GOTY edition before new year... that Buy nothing week is over.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 14 2002,18:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Dec. 15 2002,11:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This thread is getting pretty warm, i bet 5$ that it'll be closed before 2003...<span id='postcolor'>

Show me the money.    It will be my x-mas present then.

That reminds me, gotta buy GOTY edition before new year... that Buy nothing week is over.  <span id='postcolor'>

Uh ow, i better start bashing everone so this thread get's closed, or perhaps i'll just go waaaaay off topic.

I don't want to lose my money!

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW: Blaschoiw, you should see what a retired native leader had to say yesterday about WW2, Israel and the US. <span id='postcolor'>

I am not going to comment this as it does not suit my opinion I have on Israels population at all. I don´t sympathize with Nazi regime or upholders of Nazi thinking.

Furthermore I ´d like to get back on Irak topic again.

US and Brits claim to have prove on WMD´s. Please note that developing substances for WMD´s does not mean to have WMD´s like it is often claimed nowadays.

The developement process fro biological WMD´s requires extensive open field tests to find out how substance is spread at differnt weather and temperature conditons, humidity and so on. These test rquire the use of spray planes. Due to the 120 % coverage of Iraki territory with recon satellites these test would have been detected.

And even IF the Irak should have done such test within the last 10 years wich is VERY unlikely they still have no carrier for the substances that would make them a WMD. You may have a virus, disease or anything like that, but if you have no weapon system to send it on long range travel you have no WMD. You may mention SCUD´s, but SCUD´s are so rare in Irak that you need to search them like a needle within a haystack. And even if a handful of SCUD´s is still undetected wich is very unlikely they wont range long enough to be a threat to US.

So you have to distinguish between WMD systems and research on WMD´s.

[DarkLight 0]

Nice post, good to know all that, at least now i can defend my arguments when talking about this stuff

[bn880 5]

That's right Balschoiw (both things) but unfortunalety there are people who calim the weapons (or more like war heads) can be delivered by covert operatives. (carried in by Al-qaeda operatives etc.)

I agree they should not be considered WMD until the delivery system is there.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Dec. 15 2002,16:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 15 2002,05:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hell, the Swedish liberal party leader said recently that Sweden should join a military action against Iraq even if the UN doesn't want to. It's the last time I voted for them. Just another proof of the fact that politicians are morons.<span id='postcolor'>

Wholly CRAP!  What's up that guys ass?  Anyway, you know what I have noticed in parliament here, the opposition will say any number of moronic and immoral things to counter the party in power just to disagree, get publicity and make the other party look bad.  Opposition parties are always gun hoe because they can afford to be.<span id='postcolor'>

They are in opposition and they took quite a populistic turn. What amazes me though is how disconnected from reallity they are. There is no support whatsover with the people to join a war on Iraq. Last gulf war we sent a couple of field hospitals, and I assume that it will be the case the next time too. Then of course there will be the peace keeping afterwards. If and when it comes to that, I'll probably join.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 15 2002,12:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Last gulf war we sent a couple of field hospitals, and I assume that it will be the case the next time too. Then of course there will be the peace keeping afterwards. If and when it comes to that, I'll probably join.<span id='postcolor'>

I think you will have a lot of work to do, after everyone else is done their humane contribution. Hopefully the reminents of war won't be too serious of a health hazard... (DU, cluster bomb remains, etc)

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 15 2002,18:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll probably join.<span id='postcolor'>

maybe we'll meet

[ran 0]

i'm getting too old for that , and i'd like to see the field at least once before i totaly retire from the military

[ralphwiggum 6]

@denoir

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Big big big difference. The current regieme is held in power by USA and USA only. Anyway, I can't be bothered to list all the things that have been radically changed in Afganistan since the war, but it is a lot. Evrything from the original political structure to enforced cultural changes.<span id='postcolor'>

cultural changes are not enforced by US, but more of Afghans reverting to pre-Taliban life style. and original political structure (or at least what it was in last 20 yrs) is that warlords pretty much held specific regions and central gov't had little or no control-pretty much same now

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WHAT?? We were of course not interested in it since the idea of Iraq having nukes is a stupid idea. So of course we didn't bother. The only reason we support the inspectors now is a futile hope that Bush can be persuaded not to go in guns blazing! I think we set excellent standards there! (Well, apart from your mistake to think that Europe is one homogenous country. It is not. Get it out of your head. Germany set good standards, Britain did not. France set ok standards. Italy set crappy standards etc etc. We are not united in the Iraq question.)<span id='postcolor'>

WMD includes bio chem weapons and Iraq certainly had history of using them. so WMD check would be not a stupid idea. ever since UN inspection team got booted after CIA fucked up, i heard less about any EU countries bringing subject matter (on UN floor) often.

on the contray to your point, i think europe pretty much set little or no standards on this matter. only because Bush went nuts again, that other nations decided to make it safer. they weren't talking about it, and only responded when Bush started acting. in other words, no proactive action was taken by rest of international community, but only as product of reaction.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hell, why don't we follow your principle and invade South Korea for instance to make sure that they don't have WMD's. I mean considering the vicinity to North Korea, which is actually the same nation, it makes much more sense then Iraq. I mean they obviously are anti US(CNN article) too. <span id='postcolor'>

did i say anythinga bout my priniciples? please refer me back to my post if i did. you are lumping me in to your category of US ppl who are dogmatic.

also, read the article carefully. they had a peaceful protest. they did not go into US embassy and hold everyone hostage, they did not fire mortars either. i'm pretty sure if such protest warant US's "invasion", any european country also warants US's military action

second, did S Korea ever used WMD against N Korea? i doubt if either side attacks each other in any scale in such manner. so there is significant difference between S and N Korea and Iraq.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">cultural changes are not enforced by US, but more of Afghans reverting to pre-Taliban life style. and original political structure (or at least what it was in last 20 yrs) is that warlords pretty much held specific regions and central gov't had little or no control-pretty much same now

<span id='postcolor'>

The Taliban forces are just regrouping at the Pakistani border. They suffered in lives and weapons but are still fighting the US and other special units and Northern alliance fighters. The Taliban move has not been stopped yet and it is very unlikely that it will be stoped by any opposing party.

They already set up their next goal. Saudia Arabia. Don´t ask me for sources, simply believe me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">no proactive action was taken by rest of international community, but only as product of reaction.

<span id='postcolor'>

Untrue. Weapon inspections in Irak are on the list for a long time. If you check security council decisions you will find out that is were not the europeans blocking, but Russia.

And it´s a big difference to say that Irak has WMD´s like US and Brits do and to have the suspicion that needs to be checked. US and Russia by now are the only countries who extensively research bio weapons. They claim to do defensive research on bio weapons only. This is quite ridiculous as bio weapon research only can be done to achieve new bio weapons. The known dangerouse ones are out of US and Russia labs, so you could halt research any second when it comes to the "defensive" point.

One and a half months ago in Geneva there was a discussion on controlling bio-weapon research worldwide. The bio weapon treaty signed in 1972 is very outdated and so there have to be made some changes to it, like controlling bio weapon research by neutral commissions. You guess what the result of the convention was ? US blocked the rennovation of the treaty and did not agree to be controlled by neutral commisions. Modified virusses and diseases are made in U.S.A. For "research" reasons only. Haha !

So the actual danger of real WDM´s comes from across the sea, but not from a multiple bombed chem facility in Irak. If you wanna check latest US improvements on "defence" research check out the mutalized Anthrax virus that is able to reside in the stomach region and can be spread by excrements and small drops easily via air. Is this called defence research ?

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They already set up their next goal. Saudia Arabia. Don´t ask me for sources, simply believe me.<span id='postcolor'>

Kinda hard you just believe you when you can't spell Iraq (Just kidding around with you man)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...Is this called defence research ? <span id='postcolor'>

Yes. If we stay one step ahead of the game, we can see the result of weapons and how to counter them and help treat victims in the event someone actually does use them.

[FSPilot 0]

*gasp*

only one person replied to what i said!

I... I don't know what to do with myself... I can't nitpick everyone's arguments beyond all recognition...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh no, heaven forbid, no one could envision India or Pakistan using their nukes, could they? <span id='postcolor'>

Well, I figure they'd only retaliate with a nuclear strike. Meaning someone would have to be pretty pissed off to strike first. At least that's my opinion, I don't know what the president thinks about it.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 15 2002,07:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So sue me, I misused a word. <span id='postcolor'>

Beware of using words you don't fully understand . I can't help but going after you for doing the equivalent of calling a pizza an apple pie, and then defending that by saying that just because it dosen't have apple in it it dosen't mean it isn't apple pie...especially if it's a term which would put the argument in a whole different light .

Anyways, now that we've gotten over that, let's go back to this:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So let me get this straight, the U.S. sets up a government in Cuba, a military coup takes place and the government is destroyed, so the U.S. reponds with military force. Makes sense to me.

<span id='postcolor'>

What gives the US the right to set up/maintain a government for the Cuban people? You think this is right?!? It surprizes you that they took it down??

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Communism and democracy are not mortal enemys, the U.S. and democracy are mortal enemys, at least according to the truman doctrine.

anywho, communism is, more often than not, a dictatorship, democracy is the opposite of that, they let the people decide who will gain power, and only then for a period of time (at least in the U.S.). a communist economy is essentially the opposite of free trade (or capitalism, if you like that term better) which is, essentialy, a democractic economy.

basically they're just opposites. they belief in different things and, like most cases with religion, conflict ensues.

<span id='postcolor'>

uh....if you say so...(pointing to the bolded part)...But I see what you're trying to say. And my point is that the Truman doctrine is just wrong. Cuba has wanted nothing from the US except to be let be, and in fact it has great relationships with many democratic countries such as Canada, Spain, and basically all of Latin America. You mentioned before that the US softened up on China and Russia because "they were moving away from communism"....as wrong as that statement is, Cuba has also had reforms. Limited small private business has been legal in Cuba for much longer than in China for example. And don't forget the Pope's visit. Religion is now much more accepted in Cuba than it is in China *points to Falun Gong*. So my point is, we CAN all get along, if we respect certain differences and abandon draconian foreign policies.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Dec. 16 2002,04:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What gives the US the right to set up/maintain a government for the Cuban people? You think this is right?!? It surprizes you that they took it down??<span id='postcolor'>

Well what's wrong with it? It's obvious that the American government and economy has worked wonderfully so far.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And my point is that the Truman doctrine is just wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I agree in part. I don't think Truman should of made a blanket statement like that, but he did. It may have been a mistake.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Cuba has wanted nothing from the US except to be let be, and in fact it has great relationships with many democratic countries such as Canada, Spain, and basically all of Latin America.<span id='postcolor'>

Cuba is being let be. As a matter of fact we're not even trading with them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You mentioned before that the US softened up on China and Russia because "they were moving away from communism"....as wrong as that statement is, Cuba has also had reforms.<span id='postcolor'>

Well first off I dont' see that statement as wrong at all. It's obvious that Russia was moving away from communism, I have no idea how you could think otherwise as they've departed from that form of government. And I believe that, as China's economy changes it will become democratic. But that's just my personal opinion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Limited small private business has been legal in Cuba for much longer than in China for example. And don't forget the Pope's visit. Religion is now much more accepted in Cuba than it is in China *points to Falun Gong*. So my point is, we CAN all get along, if we respect certain differences and abandon draconian foreign policies.<span id='postcolor'>

Well maybe you're right and maybe your wrong. Yes, Cuba has made some changes, but they are still communist. It's probably just a matter of time before we forget the embargo and get along nicely.

[Jinef 2]

"It's obvious that the American government and economy has worked wonderfully so far." - FSPilot

Only being benefficial for America it self of course, yes you can say that you've helped everyone with their troubles but who is giving more, the rich lord with a hundred pieces of gold or the old woman with her life savings of tuppence?

Anyway America has an eagle as it's national symbol, a symbol of supremacy and power. But every empire that has had the eagle as it's symbol has fallen........need i emphasise?