Is the United States a Police State? (Page 6)

the real slim DEEPy: seems that the cold war has quitely resulted in a stand-still between eurasia and britannia, with britain, france, austria/germany, switzerland and russia/china pulling the strings, all in differrent directions.

caramel lady: Hi, Deep you do have a point but the U.K is defo not as powerful as it once was in the world stage. That why Britain is in two worlds with one foot in Europe and another foot alongside the U.S. You are right that the info about the so called weapons of mass destruction came from British intelligence but its on record that Tony Blair alongside others discussed going to war with the Bush administration before talking to his own party or the opposition parties let alone the British people. If your into conspiracy then Britain went to war for the Oil if not then it was to back America for retaliation for 9/11. Even though emotionally Britain was affected by that tragedy we the British public did not want to go to war.

chronology: Deep. A point many folks do not remember about Iraq, is that hundreds of bombing and strafing raids were flown by the U.S. and Britain before the invasion of Iraq enforcing the 'no fly zone' after the Gulf War. People forget that for bombing raids to take place, you need RADAR, signal scanning, etc. All of these Logistics need to be on Iraqs boarders. So the U.S. and Britain would still be camped out there right now in the deserts watching Iraqs Airspace. Either that, or they would have to pack their bags and go back to the U.S. leaving Iraq to again bomb it's civilians. While the invasion has seen tragic results, the idea that not invading would have resulted in no Iraqi deaths is laughable.

XFixYourBrainX: The cold war could have escalated to a WWIII.

IamEggman: Pokemon,
Did you say the U.S abolished slavery before Britain? If you did you are wrong. If memory serves me right Britain abolished slavery 40 or 60 years before America. In fact Britain may well have aided the south during the civil war if it wasn't for slavery.
And the U.S did take land, the United Stated was empire building at it's most ruthless. Creating a few reservations for the native Americans that hadn't been slaughtered or starved to death doesn't make it anywhere near right.
But as we all know all countries have things in their past that they are not proud of so don't take this as an anti American post.

XFixYourBrainX: Trust me buddy I'm not taking it as anit-American. We know we made mistakes in the past, ie taking land away from the Indians. As long as we convey those mistakes and not let them happen again will we learn something. Today we know this was wrong, during the time period of the expansionism of America we had different thoughts process and we were aggressive in our ways. The Spaniards conquered the Aztecs, but we didn't go to that length as the Spaniards did.

the real slim DEEPy: the american war against native indians was manipulated by the french, who convinced the peaceful and relatively unarmed indian civillian populace to carry out their war against the british empire on france's behelf. france alied with the indians, then held the indians up to honoring the alliemnent- insisting that the INDIANS fight of rifle-bearing redcoats with sticks and rocks, slings and arrows- basically- "toys", good for nothing but stunning a squirrel long enuf to slit its throat.

the true sign of a coward is using others to fight your wars for you, while hiding behind the cover of your allied pawns... whatever govenments are wupporting usama are cowards, for they use civilians from various nations to fight for them, instead of using their own armies and declaring war officially- to avoid retaliation by keeping your nationality hidden, by refusing to take responsibility for captured spies, for refusing to even attempt any spy trade or other negotiation which would ensure the prompt release of the civilian "spies"- who are willing to die for a leader who has not even the balls to give up his identity- let alone his life, for his "country"

the real slim DEEPy: anyone check on the definition of racism yet? the legal definition varies from jurisdiction to jurisduction, but the formal and original definition of slavery- and most widely accepted- is that racism is the practice of assigning certain traits to genetic factors. if the original definition of racism specified "genetic bias", then racism could NOT have existed in its true form BEFORE CARLUS LINNAEUS, the father of genetics!!!!!

anti-racism was a direct reaction to the development of the science of genetics. caralus lannaeus defined whites as "h~#w superior", and other races as "h~yx sapien", fact!!!!!!


ok, without researching it, best i can remember... first, in the 1700s, britain illegalized kidnapping and forceable enslavement within the empire, but allowed for "current" or properly acquired slaves to be bought, sold and traded, until the time of their servitude was reached. inferred from the prohibition on forceable enslavement ***within the empire*** was the loophole in the law which allowed for existing slaves to be traded also allowed for slaves to be legally purchased outside of the empire. thus, it became illegal to force a british (read, white, protestant, english-speaking, whatever) native into slavery, but FAILED TO PROTECT the rights of non-brits from forceable enslavement, an end date to their servitude, and any rights for their children to be born free.

surely, you cannot expect a law to forbid the purchase outside the empire, but it would have been a NO BRAINER to prohibit the IMPORTATION of new slaves, or guarantee the rights of children born to slaves... you could not enslave a british citizen indefinitely if you acquired him voluntarily, and a british native could only sell themselves into slavery at a price (usually, to pay off large amounts of debt). the price, by british law, established the longevity of the servitutude. by enabling (almost forcing) traders to acquire slaves from outside the empire, the new slave population of the growing colonies was necessarily exempt from british slave rights, such as a contractual end date to their enslavement, and the rights of their children to be born as free men- which proactively created a "race' of slaves, whose birth-to-death enslavement was tied directly to their non-british heritage.

as africa was the largest geograpical region not under the jurisdiction of imperialism at the time, it was anarchy. if your well dried up, and you tried to sneak water from another village's tribe, the opposing village's shaman had NO HIGHER governmental authority to keep him from declaring war, enslaving the entire village which offended them, and then going to port in order to trade your fellow africans for jamacan rum.

the loopholes created from protecting brit natives from indefinite and/or involuntary servitude but failing to establishing rights for slaves purchased outside the empire or before the prohibition was enacted ***ENABLED*** the rum traders ( largely dutch, im thinking) to buy african slaves with no right to eventual release or protections for the children of slaves from being enslaved, and it is THIS british loophole *****which failed to protect non-british citizens***** and NECESSITATED the sourcing of slaves from non english-speaking locals!!!!! and the poor relations with other imperialisms such as france, china and so on, along with the rum trade routes ****based on natural ocean currents***** is what focused the sourcing of fresh slaves soeley in africa. and the relatively anarchaic state of most all western africa, along with the chauvenisms which go hand in hand with tribalism, encouraged africans to sell their OWN RACE into colonial enslavement, while the dutch traders found themselves at just the right place at the right time, and legally bought africans from other african tribes, and them profiteered of the british prohibition on forceable servitude by selling african slaves to colinists for an exploitative price.

the real slim DEEPy: tribalism creates familial chauvenism, nationalism creates national chauvenism and cuntural superiority, imperialism creates RACIAL CHAUVENISM!!! the fact that the colonial slaves were most all african was not conspired out of racism, for the rum trade route predated the very NOTION OF RACISM by about 150 years, and was a NATIONALISTIC policy (it wasnt about your skin color or other inheritible traits, it was about being a citizen v/s non-citizen, a nationalistic chavenism which was widely accepted in the imperialist era, and is only mildly discredited even today.. the mid-1800's produced many scientific and ideological concepts which were direct reactions to the "evils" of imperialism (now, of industrialization), genetic racism being one of the prominent early progressive movements.

many other converging factors randomly aligned to turn africa into a slave exporter, the most prominent being the lack of organized central government or any consideration of human rights outside your tribe that was very obviously lacking in colonial-era west africa- and the ocean currents, in relation to the geography of the "new world". this sent the dutch rum traders right past the canary islands, and made the purchase of african slaves as easy as stopping at mcdonalds on the way home from work...

anyway, i believe that britain illegalized the forceable servitude of a british citizen pretty early on, but failed to prohibit the importation of slaves, protect their rights, their childrens rights and so on until times contemporary to the civil war.

heres the kicker, tho. so, america is racist for buying african slaves, when the race in question was due to an incidental loophole of a british bill which banned british citizens from being kidnapped into slavery- as late as the 17th century??? i mean, isnt that what the vikings did to the celts and slavs, kidnapped and enslaved any non-nordic? why did it take until the 17th centure to illegalizing human trafficing in the most civil country in the world??? uuh, because in the 17th century, THE ENTIRE WOIRLD was still in the stone ages on human rights, in no was was america an indipendent violator, hell, they bought the africans FROM other africans. guess those but the africans only kidnapped other africans, never kidnapped visiting brits, so, were the african slave sourcers racist against africans??? they only kidnapped africans; hence, this MUST be racist- to hell with a scientific definition, when your voter base has an inextinguishable VICTIM MENTALITY, there is no need for formal, objective meaning for a word, the word itself (as does the n#x&#~ word) carries so much emotional leverage over a victim mentality class that logic is lost in the fury to identify, discredit, and demand to make right the alleged "racisms", thus, the court of public opinion, in regards to anything alleged to be racist (or mysogenistic, antisemetic, homophobic, anti-muslim) is guaranteed to produce a unanimous guilty vote from the entire "minority/oppressed peoples" population",who, together, make a majority.

racal allegations are VERY serious, and have the ability to ruin a persons reputation and even career for years to come, if the allegations are made in a public forum, before a large audience. when someone says "racism", the emotional responses to the word- think genocide, black slavery, hitler, ect...) guarantee a guilty until proven innocent type situation in the court of public opinion.

next time some politician declares the opposition as "RACIST", before you get all hot in the head, stop and see if the alleged offense even fits the formal definition of racism- in regards to the specification that the prejudice, bias or opressive action be made on the grounds of "genetically inherent traits"!!!! look, family wealth is not the same as genetics- passed down ALL generations. there is no guarantee that, if my grandfather passed down a fortune to my father, he wouldnt blow it all.

the real slim DEEPy: to say that whites are incidentally opressint monorities because they are wealthy and sucessful is a RACIST STATEMENT in itself- for it implies that whites are genetically guaranteed to be wealthy. assuming that ANY trait at all is entirely inherent and exclusive to genetics is technically racist, for there is an exemption to VERY RULE. lets just say that blacks score poorer on standardized tests, lets assume that its true (dont get offended, its an analogy), oi, fine, lets say that it is fact that asians are smarter as a whole. ok, even if that is a FACT, it would still be racist to give preference to asians, for, to assume that asians are catagorically smarter, you faIL TO PERSERVE THE RIGHTS OF OTHER GROUPS, for any random asian would likely be very smart, but, randomly, could still possibly be dumb as rocks... making a dolphin more qualified for the job than the dumbest asian who applied.

technically, it is textbook racism to assign black, white yellow and red- for they are GENETIC TRAITS. so, racism can be valid??? well, rarely, and this is not the case. in this case, it is the assumptions that africans are all black, and caucasions are all white that makes it an invalid form of racism- however, if something is an undeniable FACT, how an it qualify as "prejudice"?, since the def of prejudice implies a subjective generality/assumption, whereas a fact is well objectively true to life...

the sticky situation is the fact that there are exceptions to every rule, so any "fact" of an observable genetic trait will have divergences from the rule, and THESE individuals (even if it is the 20 albino africans) are oppressed by being CATEGORIED and judged as being a BLACK who is NOT BLACK. ok, not the greatest example.

i would say that a perfectly VALID form of racism is necessitated in wartime, but this should be balanced with nationalism and cultural elements, for the most part. this being the case, if we were with war agains mexico (they have been invading our south lands at the rate of MILLIONS PER YEAR, and their govenment is extremely non-cooperative with our border security and deportation initiatives. this is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY. i realize that wars should not lead to oppression, however, is it opression to deny a mexican immigrant the "right" to join the army, if we are with war with mexico??? we may REASONABLY suspect that he is a spy or a turncoat, a subvert, like the fort hood shooter should have been detected months previous to the incident. being mexican alone is very unsteady grownd, HOWEVER, have you ever read the civil righs act of 1964? the martin luther king, equality-movement fabricated framework for unacceptable forms of prejudice??? the 1964 act specifically GRANTS EXEMPTIONS for the military in accordance to swx, nationality, and a few other factors. so, if race and nationality are intersecting, the US MILITARY has the CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to discriminate against some monorities, but not others- out of concern for wartime issues with double agent subverts applying for enlisted service. they are legally empowered, by the work of the civil rights movement itself, to discriminate in certain situations. the notion that DODT violates equal protection is BULLSHIT. the military does NOT fall under the authority of employment law, but only congress and the pentagon. NO ONE has the right to military enlistment, for the good of the coultry trumps toe right of any worthy troop. if ANY troop were to ascert that his rights were more important thAN THE CONTRIES WELL BEING, WOULD YOU think he'd make a very good infantryman? think hed win any medals, or you think hed b&#^y about "rights" of life and self-determination, when his lime of command demands him to march towards a 1000 man firing squad... why me sarge? thats not equal unless you command the female squads the same......sarge shoots mr crybaby himself

XFixYourBrainX: Deep says, "the true sign of a coward is using others to fight your wars for you, while hiding behind the cover of your allied pawns... whatever govenments are wupporting usama are cowards, for they use civilians from various nations to fight for them, instead of using their own armies and declaring war officially- to avoid retaliation by keeping your nationality hidden, by refusing to take responsibility for captured spies, for refusing to even attempt any spy trade or other negotiation which would ensure the prompt release of the civilian "spies"- who are willing to die for a leader who has not even the balls to give up his identity- let alone his life, for his "country"

I agree with this, these supporters of Osama are using very strategic tactics in the field of manipulative psychological predicted warfare.

the real slim DEEPy: aleged supporters... we dont know if they exist, but it seems highly likely, especially after we found our "ally" pakistan "unknowingly" harboring him in a fortress like 1/2 mile away from their largest military training base. i mean if someone comes and builds a fortified structure right next to your m ain military training center (very strategic location) wouldnt you chact that fortress out? and then, we snuck in, got him and left, and pakistan was pissed cause we violated "immigration law"??? wtf. as allies, whouldnt they be happpy that we reached a long term (mutually -held) military goal. if pakistan wasnt thankful thaqt we god osama, then that PROVES he was not their enemy, and they call themselves "allies"...

the real slim DEEPy: 9/11 was a trap. they WANTED the us to invade the middle east. many of those contries are very poor and opressed, thus, those in afghanistan and may in iraq were NEVER AWARE of 9/11. 9/11 was a trick to get us to declare war on islam, in order to make us appear the agressors (instead of defenders), and could be used by various mideastern govermnents to unify their citizenry against the west/israel. for many, anti-zionism and anti-westernism are tools which the politicians use to unify and distract their citizens from their own opression.

FogofWar: Caramel lady said: "But i do get your points that no group should get preference over another or that we should be grouped together in the first place."

Then why did you post about knowing more 'facts' on racism in opposition to my post which was entirely based on this concept? You are the one who brought up the race argument; not me. I merely used racism as one of several forms of discrimination out there that is a problem; and I used more than racism to show exactly that point. Why did you even start the argument if you agree?


Caramel lady said: "and where fog of war criticism of you for mentioning race and all the hate lol."

He used those figures to demonstrate to you exactly what YOU were arguing. The statistics of prison inmates in Canada is similar, but with different races….there are reasons for that; and discrimination is a major factor. Refer to my original post in the sexist topic and you will understand why.

Caramel lady said: "he probably taking his knickers out of twist."

Caramel lady hypocritically said: "Yes you are showing hatred and bullying toward me fog of war with your tag partner pokerman. when did I start personal calling u names like racist and stupid."

Caramel lady said: "What is it about me that got him in a spin I wonder."

The fact that you came into the forum to make accusations of our lack of understanding on racism; and claims that my terms (despite not being mentioned by me) were racist. Yes; in essence, you did call me racist…and then you said that I disgraced Martin Luther King by suggesting that we not give special treatment to minorities. Like I said; if you agree with the idea that we should not create separate groups to separate races; then why did you come after us in the first place?


Caramel lady; it was you that brought the topic of racism up; and it was you that stated in contrast to the idea that separating people based on genetic differences (race; s#w, etc) is only damaging to the equity cause. If you did not disagree; then why bring it up in the first place. Perhaps you merely did not understand what was being said; or you simply wanted to establish your superior intelligence on the subject because of your race; I will assume the first; and retract any statement in which portrays you as a negative racist; if you accept that your race does not give you more right to discuss racism; but merely personal experience does...of which neither you nor I knows the extent of the others experience with racism; and believe you me; despite my ethnicity being of a majority in my region; I have faced more racism than you seem to think. Racism is not limited to one race.

FogofWar: Caveman said: "I believe the US went into war in Afghanistan for more that Osama."

Good for you; I mean; it's not like Operation Enduring Freedom clearly outlined that it was more than to find Osama back in 2001 or anything….oh; wait!

Caveman said: "How can you settle to think all those lives and money was worth the death of 1 man"

How can you think that all that has been accomplished is the death of one man?

Caveman said: "Caramel Lady, don't waste your time. Pokerman, Fogofwar & Davidk will go at anyone who doesn't praise the US or look on the "positive""

Yah, after all; who would want to look at the positive hey?

Caveman foolishly said: "You say that someone is anti-American because they point out the flaws instead of laying back and listing the positive,"

No, it is anti-American to ignore any good that has been done; and only focus on trash talking and condemning them for taking action; even if it may not have been the best option. You don't like the way the US is doing it; by all means feel free to do it yourself caveman.

FogofWar: Caveman said: "but you don't see your bias remarks on other countries."

Caveman said (in response to the moral dilemma of using nuclear arms and causing civilian casualties during war): "The only army I will respect is the Soviets and their contribution to WW2. Cowards gets no respect from me."[1]

StuckintheSixties then responded: "There was an obvious reason why German civilians and soldiers were heading west at the end of the war. Being captured by the Allies meant life. Being captured by the Russians meant death. It's as simple as that."[2]

In turn, Caveman responded: "This is your own words not mine, I said: "The only army I will respect is the Soviets and their contribution to WW2. Cowards gets no respect from me. I compared nothing."[2]

Caveman also asked: "Lipton, which civilians did the Soviets kill compared to the civilians the nuclear bombs killed?"[2]

Caveman said: "By the way are you confusing the PoW of the Soviets with the Soviet PoW? Tell me your sources, let me check if there's a mixed up. Because the Soviet PoW were the PoW of the Nazis."[3]

and you do? You condemn the actions of the US nuclear bombings because it killed civilians (which you call cowardly; and say cowards get no respect from you) while stating that the only army you respect was the Soviets for their contribution to WWII; despite the USSR and their notorious policy of mass murdering civilians and POWs.

FogofWar: Caveman; your insane bias over the usage of nuclear arms in WWII led you to ignore the actions of your 'respected' Soviet Army, and to condemn those for merely trying to point out these war crimes; to which you immediately attacked these individuals for demeaning the Soviet contribution to defeating Germany; which no one did. In your ignorance; you attempted to ignore; and deflect from these crucial facts of the Soviet actions in WWII:

In September 1939, the Red Army invaded eastern Poland and occupied it in accordance with the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Later, the Soviets forcefully occupied the Baltic States and parts of Romania, including Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, as well.[4]

Soviet policy in all of these areas was harsh towards the people under its control, showing strong elements of ethnic cleansing.[4]

Polish historian Tomasz Strzembosz has noted parallels between the Nazi Einsatzgruppen and these Soviet units.[4]

Polish historian Tomasz Strzembosz has noted parallels between the Nazi Einsatzgruppen and these Soviet units.[4]

According to historian Jan T. Gross:
"We cannot escape the conclusion: Soviet state security organs tortured their prisoners not only to extract confessions but also to put them to death. Not that the NKVD had sadists in its ranks who had run amok; rather, this was a wide and systematic procedure."[5]

During the years 1939–41, nearly 1.5 million inhabitants of the Soviet-controlled areas of former eastern Poland were deported, of whom 63.1% were Poles or other nationalities and 7.4% were Jews. Only a small number of these deportees survived the war. According to American professor Carroll Quigley, at least one third of the 320,000 Polish prisoners of war captured by the Red Army in 1939 were murdered.[4]

In Poland, Nazi atrocities ended by late 1944, but they were replaced by Soviet oppression with the advance of Soviet forces. Soviet soldiers often engaged in plunder, rape, and other crimes against the Poles, causing the population to fear and hate the Soviet regime.[4]


Units of the Red Army carried out campaigns against Polish partisans and civilians. During the Augustów chase 1945, more than 2000 Poles were captured, and about 600 of them were killed.[4]

There were cases of mass rapes in numerous Polish cities taken by the Red Army. In Kraków, Soviet entry into the city was accompanied by mass rapes of Polish women and girls, as well as the plunder of private property by Soviet soldiers. This behavior reached such a scale that even Polish communists installed by the Soviet Union were preparing a letter of protest to Joseph Stalin himself, while church masses were held in expectation of a Soviet withdrawal.[4]

Between 1941 and 1944, Soviet partisan units conducted raids into Finnish territory and attacked civilian targets such as villages. In November 2006, photographs showing atrocities were declassified by the Finnish authorities. These include images of slain women and children.[4]

American historian Alfred de Zayas documents in his "Nemesis at Potsdam" (Routledge 1977, 7th edition Picton Press, Rockland Maine) and "A Terrible Revenge" (Palgrave/Macmillan 2006) the high level of rapes and shootings of German civilians in Nemmersdorf, Gumbinnen, Goldat and Methgethen.[4]

German civilians were well aware that the Red Army was attacking noncombatants from reports by their friends and relatives who had served on the Eastern front.[4]

On October 22, 1944 Nemmersdorf was the scene of an alleged massacre said to have been perpetrated by the Soviet soldiers against German civilians. Since 1991, when Russian records became newly available, scholars now generally believe that the Nazis exploited the incident for propaganda, in an attempt to increase civilian resistance to the Soviet Army advance. Some details of atrocities turned out to have occurred elsewhere.[6]

FogofWar: A significant percentage of this death toll, however, occurred when evacuation columns encountered units of the Red Army. Civilians were run over by tanks, shot, or otherwise murdered. Women and young girls were raped and left to die (as is explored firsthand in Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Prussian Nights). In addition, fighter bombers of the Soviet air force penetrated far behind the front lines and often attacked columns of evacuees.[4]

The Red Army's violence against the local German population during the occupation of eastern Germany often led to incidents like that in Demmin, a small city conquered by the Soviets in the spring of 1945. Despite its surrender, nearly 900 civilians committed suicide, fueled by instances of pillaging, rape, and executions.[4]

Although mass executions of civilians by the Red Army were seldom publicly reported, there is a known incident in Treuenbrietzen, where at least 88 male inhabitants were rounded up and shot on May 1, 1945. The incident took place after a victory celebration at which numerous girls from Treuenbrietzen were raped and a Red Army lieutenant-colonel was shot by an unknown assailant.[4]

A study published by the German government in 1989 estimated the death toll of German civilians in eastern Europe at 635,000. With 270,000 dying as the result of Soviet war crimes, 160,000 deaths occurring at the hands of various nationalities during the expulsion of Germans after World War II, and 205,000 deaths in the Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union. These figures do not include at least 125,000 civilian deaths in the Battle of Berlin.[4]

Following the Red Army's capture of Berlin in 1945, one of the largest incidents of mass rape took place. Soviet troops raped German women and girls as young as 8 years old. Estimates of the total number of victims range from tens of thousands to two million.[4]

After the summer of 1945, Soviet soldiers caught raping civilians were usually punished to some degree, ranging from arrest to execution. The rapes continued, however, until the winter of 1947–48, when Soviet occupation authorities finally confined Soviet troops to strictly guarded posts and camps.[4]

…this doesn't even begin to touch what happened to their own people during the Soviet retreat; and also does not include the actions of your 'respected' Soviet soldiers in Hungary, Yugoslavia, Slovakia, Manchuria/China, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as well as the continued prisoning of Germans and mistreatments after the war ended. Would you like me to continue caveman; or can you see the hypocrisy and bias in your 'respect' for the Soviet Red Army for their contribution to WWII; while condemning the US for theirs:

Caveman said in response to the US contribution of WWII: "US gave me NOTHING and I'm very glad for this."[7]

Caveman said: "that you can't make one simple comment without some emotional involvement from another thread coming in."

…then don't make contradicting statements in other threads caveman.


[1] http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=772986&ParentId=1287299&Page=11
[2]http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=772986&ParentId=1287299&Page=12
[3] http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=772986&ParentId=1287299&Page=13
[4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes
[5] Gross, Jan T. Revolution From Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia. Princeton University Press, 2002. ISBN *******96703-1 pp. 181-182
[6] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemmersdorf_massacre
[7] http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=772986&ParentId=1287299&Page=14

FogofWar: Deep said: "the intelligence on the WMD"" was british, i seem to think that blair was the one manipulating the situation."

The intelligence came from the UN; not any nation. It was the United Nations Resolution 1441 that led to the invasion of Iraq. There was no lie needed. It was the UN that started that; then turned against the US for doing exactly what Kofi Annan put his signature on doing.

Caramel lady said: "If your into conspiracy then Britain went to war for the Oil…"

If you are into education; then research how much oil from Iraq goes to Western nations. You'll be surprised to see the low figures. As of 2009, 71% of the United Kingdom's imported oil comes from Western Europe; predominantly Norway. 0.9% of their imported oil comes from the Middle East; most came from Libya as well.[1]

The irony of these conspiracies is that Iraq is not the major oil producer they would have you think it is….it is however; the second largest producer of natural gas. Why then is this conspiracy about oil? Because like all conspiracies; they lack a valid education.


Caramel Lady said: "If your into conspiracy then Britain went to war for the Oil if not then it was to back America for retaliation for 9/11"

I believe you are confused about which campaign you are referring to. Iraq was not involved in 9/11; nor does Afghanistan have any oil. The two motives are not/can not be connected.

Deep; excellent post on racism.


[1] http://www.eia.gov/cabs/united_kingdom/Full.html

FogofWar: Deep said: "as allies, whouldnt they be happpy that we reached a long term (mutually -held) military goal. if pakistan wasnt thankful thaqt we god osama, then that PROVES he was not their enemy, and they call themselves "allies"…"

Pakistan is technically an ally; however they have their own agenda. They can claim they didn't know Osama's whereabouts all they want; but like you stated, I hardly believe that someone cannot notice a massive fortress right outside their capital. We need Pakistan as an ally; and Pakistan knows this; so they are playing their cards. You can't really blame them for looking out for their own interests first; but if the US doesn't end up losing power like many think it will; then Pakistan may one day find themselves in hot water. The Middle East is not known for it's well thought out; and long term planning of strategies.

Deep said: "9/11 was a trap. they WANTED the us to invade the middle east. many of those contries are very poor and opressed, thus, those in afghanistan and may in iraq were NEVER AWARE of 9/11. 9/11 was a trick to get us to declare war on islam, in order to make us appear the agressors (instead of defenders), and could be used by various mideastern govermnents to unify their citizenry against the west/israel. for many, anti-zionism and anti-westernism are tools which the politicians use to unify and distract their citizens from their own oppression."

One need not look past Iran to see this. This is exactly the objective of Middle Eastern warlords. Ethnic wars have been raging there for centuries among the Sunni and Shia populous. You can bet that Iran is in the middle of planning it's dominance; and that starts with instability in the rest of the region; and anti-westernism throughout the entire Muslim community. This is why we have set out to work with Islamic parties; and why we are so adamant on establishing the Afghan National Army. This is also a major reason as to why the US wanted Iraq an ally. Iraq was one of the only major nations in the Middle East that was both Sunni; and anti-American. With Iraq now friends; the US has a more unified Sunni side, and also forces surrounding Iran; hence why we need Pakistan.

Comrade_: Fog so you disagree with my statement that the US went into Afghanistan for more than Osama? -Simple Yes or No, no bs-ing. I want you to openly say my statement was false.


-Anti-Americanism -"a relentless critical impulse toward American social, economic, and political institutions, traditions, and values."
-nothing what I've said in these forums relate to this. America is a global power and what it has done will be in the open for criticism, just as any other global power, if you don't like it then too bad for you.

I stand up for what I believe in, and if you have a problem with me questioning and pointing the ills done then maybe you should look deeper at yourself. I show the negative of what was done and you got emotional over it. Instead of improving you just want to settle for "good" that is why your politicans can rape you blindly, because you don't question anything they do, you just follow along. Good for you fogofwar. Then if that makes me anti-American then I guess I can be considered alot of "anti" stufff, perhaps anti-french and anti-Chinese too better yet perhaps I'm anti-jersey shore.

You like labelling people as racist or Anti-American when their views differ from yours? Pathetic.

Comrade_: Am I the one that stood up for justifying the use of Nuclear bombs on Japan? I believe it was you who couldn't bring yourself to accept that those bombs were not justifiable.

Twist all you want Fog, that is all you're good for, pulling words out of context, copy & pasting other people's ideas.
The Soviets contributed a lot to that war, you can't deny that. But did I sit and justify their wrongs? But you can certainly have the conscience to sit and justify 2 nuclear bombs on civilians. Orders that was given from the Government, not small soliders venting their frustration at war and doing war crimes but orders given straight from the US Government.
And you expect me to think positive on that?

Like I said, you seem intent on carrying on things from other threads and the topic was the use of nuclear weapons not the Red Army's war crimes.

All is done, Pokerman read more on your country. Fogofwar stick to COD games it fits you.

the real slim DEEPy: wait, the un counld NOT have produced the WMD intel, because i remember that colin powell had to bring it before the un. the un nust have had their own suspicious data related to the ongoing weapons inspections.

wikipedia

"The quality of the intelligence analysis has also come under scrutiny. The failure to find weapons stocks or active production lines, undermining claims by the October 2002 NIE and both President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell (Document 16, Document 27), has been one particular cause for criticism. Controversy has also centered around specific judgments - in the United States with regard to assessments of Iraq's motives for seeking high-strength aluminum tubes, and in the United Kingdom with respect to the government's claim that Iraq sought to acquire uranium from Africa.

the real slim DEEPy: iraq had been our gridging pawn since the late 60's, when the cia helped get saddam heussein in power. when saddam went awal and started using chamical weapons on his own people, we should have sent the cia back to capture him ant try him for crimes against humanity, but we needed to keep iraq as an ally because we had let iran get out of control, and feared that if we did not keep iran in check, they would eventually nuke israel and start WWIII (which is actually their goal. they beileve that if they recreate the conditions of the apocolypse, they can haten the return of jesus, thats right, muslims beileve in jesus second coming.) the beginning of the 1st persian war was sorta fishy.

kuwait, supposedly, was slant drilling into iraqs oil deposits and then exceeding opec agreed export levels- both stealing iraq's oil and reducing the overall market value of oil by exceeded agreed export levels and oversaturating the markets.

heres the fishy part

this was less than a WEEK befoer the invasion

"Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, an American ambassador, in Baghdad. According to an Iraqi transcript of that meeting, Glaspie told the Iraqi delegation,
"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts."[26]
According to Glaspie's own account, she stated in reference to the precise border between Kuwait and Iraq,
"(...) that she had served in Kuwait 20 years before; then, as now, we took no position on these Arab affairs."[27]"

this was about 3 weeks after making an international plea for foreign intervention towards a peaceful sopution of the "ecomonic warfare" tactics of kuwait.

this was also 2 days AFTER the cia put one of our fleets on alert, due to troop movement towards the iraq/kuwait. the ambassdor KNEW that saddam had full intentions of invading iraq, for the cia had already put the nave on alert. if she KNEW that he wasnt bluffing, then she should have known that by refusing to negotiate a deal, and furthermore, failing to state any objections towards military action, she was essentually leading hmm by the hand, right into the borders of kuwait. why would the executive branch allow their ambassador to offerring no opinion, not even a caution against military action? i mean, if the exacutive branch truly had no opinion, then how come after the invasion, we had a VERY STRONG opinion. the opinion that an act of war against "our allies in kuwait" is grounds for a declaration of war from us.

meh. the 2nd gulf war should have never been; however, he had long been in violation of the 1993 cease fire, and firing on our cease-fire sanctioned squadrons which were enforcing a long term no-fly zone. that would have been suficcient reasons, no need for the wmd allegations

Comrade_: BTW Fog, it seems you don't even read your own postings:

"On October 22, 1944 Nemmersdorf was the scene of an alleged massacre said to have been perpetrated by the Soviet soldiers against German civilians. Since 1991, when Russian records became newly available, scholars now generally believe that the Nazis exploited the incident for PROPAGANDA, IN AN ATTEMPT TO INCREASE CIVILIAN RESISTANCE TO THE SOVIET ARMY ADVANCE. Some details of atrocities turned out to have occurred elsewhere.[6]"

After 1991 and the fall of the Soviet Union, new sources of historical records were made available to scholars. Historians now generally believe that the Germans embellished accounts of the massacre, with Goebbels' exploiting the event to try to raise civilian resistance to the advancing Soviet Army. The historian Bernhard Fisch, in his book Nemmersdorf, October 1944: What Actually Happened in East Prussia (the first book to incorporate material from Russian records) was the first to present such an account. Fisch, an East Prussian and a soldier during World War II, had been in Nemmersdorf a few days after it was re-taken. He remembered a different scene than that portrayed by the Wochenschau cinema. He interviewed many witnesses still alive on both sides (e.g., Soviet General Kuzma N. Galitsky, former commander of 11th Guards Army).

He discovered new facts: the German army had destroyed the strong German defensive position in front of Nemmersdorf (suggesting that the civilians may have been set up as victims). After the event, the Germans did not bother to identify the photographed victims by name. Fisch further determined the following: some photographs appeared to have been altered; some victims in the photographs were from other East Prussian villages; and the account of barn doors being used for the crucifixion of women did not occur in Nemmersdorf, but elsewhere. According to the witness Joachim Reisch, the Soviet Army was in Nemmersdorf for fewer than four hours of heavy fighting in front of the bridge.

In addition to his book, Fisch's account was presented on TV by German TV Channel ZDF in 2003. He documented the total number of civilian murders at Nemmersdorf as 23 (leaving ten unexplained deaths)
"

-If you are going to quote an article perhaps you should read it in its full detail? But it's nice to see you use Wikipedia as a source after bashing it as not a good source whenever anyone uses it.