# Suicide at WTC site



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

i am not sure what to say..

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/07/ground.ze...e.ap/index.html



> NEW YORK (AP) -- A 25-year-old from Georgia who was distraught over President Bush's re-election apparently killed himself at ground zero.
> 
> Andrew Veal's body was found Saturday morning inside the off-limits area of the former World Trade Center site, said Steve Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fresh (Feb 8, 2004)

what in the hell is going on these days


----------



## skelator (Sep 12, 2004)

IMO - Some people are just in way too deep...


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

people over in the waaay east do sh*t like this all the time..set themselves on fire in public, starve them selves to death as a demonstration







but i've never heard/seen of any kind of sh*t like this happen here, kinda blows my mind


----------



## fishofury (May 10, 2003)

Wow







that's just crazy


----------



## alan (Mar 11, 2004)

attention seeker


----------



## seharebo (Jul 19, 2004)

That is crazy. Wow -- we have such great security these days... How the hell did he even get to where they found him? Another f-up.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

alan said:


> attention seeker


 yeah, he must love all the attention he is getting now that he is dead


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

how selfish can you be? Didn't even think of hie fiancee and family


----------



## shoe997bed263 (Oct 15, 2004)

wow i dont like bush but i am not about to do that. i think that u can do more good for this country by being alive than dead. i guess i will never understand people


----------



## illnino (Mar 6, 2004)

that guy took my idea, i came up with that the day after the election

jk


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

illnino said:


> that guy took my idea, i came up with that the day after the election
> 
> jk


dam kid, your makeing it harder for me to stick up for you :laugh: edit: i didn't see the j/k


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

What a f*cking selfish attention whore. I feel no sympathy for this cry-baby of a man who abandoned his fiancee, parents, and other loved ones to make some 'sybolic stance' about an election thats NOT going to be the end of the world.


----------



## alan (Mar 11, 2004)

Liquid said:


> alan said:
> 
> 
> > attention seeker
> ...


 who is the biggest twat then ?? me or him


----------



## alan (Mar 11, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> What a f*cking selfish attention whore. I feel no sympathy for this cry-baby of a man who abandoned his fiancee, parents, and other loved ones to make some 'sybolic stance' about an election thats NOT going to be the end of the world.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

alan said:


> Liquid said:
> 
> 
> > alan said:
> ...


 what the hell are you talking about


----------



## illnino (Mar 6, 2004)

thats a little too far for me. he gave up his whole life that he had ahead of him for not having to live the next four years whith that guy as prez.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

probably had some severe mental problems


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

illnino said:


> thats a little too far for me


 darn


----------



## WilliamBradley (Nov 23, 2003)

I still can't believe you guys voted for Bush..


----------



## crazyklown89 (Aug 28, 2003)

WilliamBradley said:


> I still can't believe you guys voted for Bush..


 It's our country, piss off.

sh*t, we decide our leader not the rest of the world.


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

crazyklown89 said:


> WilliamBradley said:
> 
> 
> > I still can't believe you guys voted for Bush..
> ...










dam right


----------



## WilliamBradley (Nov 23, 2003)

crazyklown89 said:


> WilliamBradley said:
> 
> 
> > I still can't believe you guys voted for Bush..
> ...


 well YOUR F^CKED COUNTRY seem to put the rest of the world in trouble, so it's our business too


----------



## illnino (Mar 6, 2004)

crazyklown89 said:


> WilliamBradley said:
> 
> 
> > I still can't believe you guys voted for Bush..
> ...


 we basically decide the worlds leader by deciding ours, cuz the us controls many other countries like the corrupt european countries(ukrane, yugoslavia, ect) and others.


----------



## sweet lu (Oct 3, 2003)

personally i like a little bush, dick and colon in my life :laugh:


----------



## sKuz (May 21, 2003)

killed himself cuz he was sad that bush was re-elected. L A M E.


----------



## dan-uk (Oct 31, 2004)

Poor bastard i almost feel sry for him


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

dumbass.

well thats one less hippie i have to worry about.


----------



## alan (Mar 11, 2004)

Liquid said:


> probably had some severe mental problems


 do you think so !!


----------



## fiaman101 (Feb 22, 2004)

I wish i could vote bush a third time just to get rid of somemore of these wackos

BUSH


----------



## WolfFish (Jun 30, 2004)

Re-electing bush is deffinately something for humanity to feel ashamed about, but i seriously doubt anyone would kill themselves over it, he must have had other issues.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

diddye said:


> how selfish can you be? Didn't even think of hie fiancee and family


 Exactly.

I sure hope my future fiancee or husband doesnt kill themselves over a silly presidential election


----------



## dwarfcat (Sep 21, 2004)

BUT i see the link for maddox in your sig. That site is funny as hell. I love his review of childrens artwork

Back on topic,
I hope this guy is burning in hell. I wish when people did this sort of sh*t news agencies wouldnt even air it. This would make his death even more usless than it already is. Then he could be sittin in hell and whining about how no one reported his story and his point was left unnoticed.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

WilliamBradley said:


> crazyklown89 said:
> 
> 
> > WilliamBradley said:
> ...


 No, its not your business. You can be conserned if you want, but you can't be pissed because you didn't get your way.


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

shes hot dude ill vote for whoever she wants me too.

j/k id still vote for bush not because i think hes great i just think he was better than kerry.


----------



## aaron07_20 (Apr 23, 2004)

Wow..its not like its the end of the world just because Bush got elected..(or is it?)

Bush isnt THAT bad he just has no clue about terrorism..hes a moron for making suddam his first priority instead of the one that attacked us, Bin laden..


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

illnino said:


> crazyklown89 said:
> 
> 
> > WilliamBradley said:
> ...


Oh, you mean like how Europe tried to push for Kerry over here? Old Europe isn't a saint, the French are in Africa right now trying to mop up just a fraction of their sh*t.


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

aaron07_20 Wow..its not like its the end of the world just because Bush got elected..(or is it?)

Bush isnt THAT bad he just has no clue about terrorism..hes a moron for making suddam his first priority instead of the one that attacked us, Bin laden..

Dude you do remember when our soldiers were in afganistan right? 
im pretty sure bush went after laden first which led him to Iraq which supported and suspectadly was hiding him.


----------



## WilliamBradley (Nov 23, 2003)

User said:


> WilliamBradley said:
> 
> 
> > crazyklown89 said:
> ...


 Believe me, it is.

everyday in the news USA and only USA..


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

WilliamBradley said:


> User said:
> 
> 
> > WilliamBradley said:
> ...


 Stop watching the news and watch some more Hanson videos


----------



## WilliamBradley (Nov 23, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> Jewelz said:
> 
> 
> > Stop watching the news and watch some more Hanson videos
> ...


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

WilliamBradley said:


> I've been to 2 concerts within 4 days, I've had enough hanson for the week, I wanna watch the news now,
> but all I see is that alcholic illiterate murderer


Yeah, Yasser Arafat is dominating the news over here too.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

WilliamBradley said:


> Jewelz said:
> 
> 
> > Jewelz said:
> ...


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

mmmmmmm Italians.... anything to make you happy


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

illnino said:


> the us controls many other countries like the corrupt european countries(... yugoslavia, ect) and others.


 Dude you lost alot of credibility there, you need to brush up on your world events quite badly


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

even if we run those countries ur saying our control over 3 countries we somehow rule the world...

right..... sure we are one of the more powerful nations but in no way do we run the world.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Am not real sure what illnino meant. Does he mean we control currupt governments in European countries? Elections? or whole countries? None of which I believe is true.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

WilliamBradley said:


> Jewelz said:
> 
> 
> > Jewelz said:
> ...


----------



## Alexraptor (Jan 30, 2003)

I support WB







(The Hotest wins







)


----------



## ghostnote (Jul 21, 2004)

Death in # said:


> crazyklown89 said:
> 
> 
> > WilliamBradley said:
> ...


 its a shame we picked a moron.. 
im moving..
any countries willing to take a political refuge?

(waits for the "good we dont need you" retort)


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

WilliamBradley said:


> crazyklown89 said:
> 
> 
> > WilliamBradley said:
> ...


 You still dont get a vote


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

ghostnote said:


> Death in # said:
> 
> 
> > crazyklown89 said:
> ...


 wouldnt want to disappoint....

GOOD WE DONT NEED YOU!


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Washington Post said:


> ATHENS, Ga., Nov. 7 -- The Georgia man who killed himself at Ground Zero was upset about President Bush's reelection -- but his biggest problem may have been his double life, a source said Sunday.
> 
> Andrew Veal, 25, was engaged to be married to an Iowa college student, whom he was supposed to see at her sister's wedding in Seattle this weekend. But Veal also had a girlfriend in Athens, where he lived, sources said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Atlanta Braves Baby! (Mar 12, 2003)

I dont like Bush AT ALL. But that would not be an option for me


----------



## Sheppard (Jul 8, 2004)

maybe he lost someone on Sept 11th.
i think he just took it way too far.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

User said:


> Washington Post said:
> 
> 
> > ATHENS, Ga., Nov. 7 -- The Georgia man who killed himself at Ground Zero was upset about President Bush's reelection -- but his biggest problem may have been his double life, a source said Sunday.
> ...


 well, sounds like he was going to do it anyway because of his "double life" so he just figured - "why don't I kill two birds with one stone and make a political statement while I am at it ?"


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

User said:


> WilliamBradley said:
> 
> 
> > crazyklown89 said:
> ...


Do you think Europe cares about your domestic issues or the fate of the troops you send to Iraq and elsewhere? Maybe, but not nearly as much as it cares about the consequences of your actions, which, no matter what you say, already have and will continue to have global implications. And we don't want to feel the consequences of the US's self-centered and thoughless foreign policy, just like it is vice versa - is that so hard to get into your skull?
If the US would mind its own business, or at least wouldn't have dragged the entire world into a downward spiral of violence and counter-violence, retaliation and counter-relataliation, and ever-continuing polarisation - Bush won't make a f*cking difference about that: if anything, he'll make matters worse.
So it pretty damn well is our business, wheter we like it or not, wheter you like it or not.

If you want us to mind our own business, stay within your f*cking national borders, mind _your_ own business, and wreck your own nation instead of letting others pay for the past f*ck-ups of your leaders and intel agencies - don't take the rest of the world down with you and your madness


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> Do you think Europe cares about your domestic issues or the fate of the troops you send to Iraq and elsewhere? Maybe, but not nearly as much as it cares about the consequences of your actions, which, no matter what you say, already have and will continue to have global implications. And we don't want to feel the consequences of the US's self-centered and thoughless foreign policy, just like it is vice versa - is that so hard to get into your skull?
> If the US would mind its own business, or at least wouldn't have dragged the entire world into a downward spiral of violence and counter-violence, retaliation and counter-relataliation, and ever-continuing polarisation - Bush won't make a f*cking difference about that: if anything, he'll make matters worse.
> So it pretty damn well is our business, wheter we like it or not, wheter you like it or not.
> 
> If you want us to mind our own business, stay within your f*cking national borders, mind _your_ own business, and wreck your own nation instead of letting others pay for the past f*ck-ups of your leaders and intel agencies - don't take the rest of the world down with you and your madness


 If you're against US policies so much, why don't you take it up with YOUR government and YOUR leaders and tell them not to get involved and stay neutral ?


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> User said:
> 
> 
> > WilliamBradley said:
> ...


 You know what you are right. The world was a completely peaceful place till the US came along. There were no global conflicts and everyone drank tea together until the US decided to get involved, and we're such and oaf that we fucked everything up for all the rest of you.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think Europe cares about your domestic issues or the fate of the troops you send to Iraq and elsewhere? Maybe, but not nearly as much as it cares about the consequences of your actions, which, no matter what you say, already have and will continue to have global implications. And we don't want to feel the consequences of the US's self-centered and thoughless foreign policy, just like it is vice versa - is that so hard to get into your skull?
> ...


 I'm not against US policy per se, I'm against the way it's conducted: if you're going to affect other countries, then you discuss the issues with other countries: you can't do it all by yourself and tell the rest to go F themselves (well, Bush showed you can, but that's not the way it should be done: you're not alone on this planet, so act like that, unless you want to end up like a paria in the end).
I know you can't argue about every single frickin' detail, because other nothing is going to happen/change, but matter with such a magnitude as invading Iraq, waging war on terrorism in its present-day form, etc. do affect not just you and those you bomb to shreds - talk to the people in Madrid if you need an example: the vast majority wa sagsint what their gov'ment did (responding to a call from the US), and yet they paid the price for it (and not those in the government: yes, they lost the elections, but not family members or friends...) And what happened there could happen in any country blindly supporting the US, regardless of what the public thinks/wants: and that's a scary though, having to pay the price for what your own leaders do in response to what the US does.

And trust me: the majority of the Dutch is against what's going on in Iraq, and more in general the way the US fights its war on terror.
We too agree that things need to change (especially now that it appears that the killing of that film maker last week turns out to be a terrorist assassination), but not the way it happens now.
Unfortunately our PM, that Harry Potter look-a-like J.P. Balkenende, has his head so far up Bush's ass he hardly realises he works foor the Dutch, and not the Americans.
So what can we do, until the next elections? Sitting it out, I guess, hoping that we don't get our own "Madrid".


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > User said:
> ...


 Is that all you can say when someone criticizes your country or government


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> I'm not against US policy per se, I'm against the way it's conducted: if you're going to affect other countries, then you discuss the issues with other countries: you can't do it all by yourself and tell the rest to go F themselves (well, Bush showed you can, but that's not the way it should be done: you're not alone on this planet, so act like that, unless you want to end up like a paria in the end).
> I know you can't argue about every single frickin' detail, because other nothing is going to happen/change, but matter with such a magnitude as invading Iraq, waging war on terrorism in its present-day form, etc. do affect not just you and those you bomb to shreds - talk to the people in Madrid if you need an example: the vast majority wa sagsint what their gov'ment did (responding to a call from the US), and yet they paid the price for it (and not those in the government: yes, they lost the elections, but not family members or friends...) And what happened there could happen in any country blindly supporting the US, regardless of what the public thinks/wants: and that's a scary though, having to pay the price for what your own leaders do in response to what the US does.
> 
> And trust me: the majority of the Dutch is against what's going on in Iraq, and more in general the way the US fights its war on terror.
> ...


 Well, that's basically what it boils down too - you're afraid of another Madrid because the Bush administration is dragging your country into the conflict. You can't do anything about the elections in the US. But you can help elect a new government in Holland that won't "have it's head up Bush's ass" as you put it, right ? And if the majority of Dutch feel the same way you do, it's bound to happen, right ? So I think your immediate concern should be addressed towards your govenment not ours.

And do you know what would happen had John Kerry been elected last Tuesday ? Well...he probably would have sent more troops to Iraq and same thing would go on.. He didn't have a clear plan fo exiting Iraq either and while he is not the one who went to war in Iraq he didn't exactly discourage it - by voting to go to war and declaring Saddam a "grave danger" because of his possession of WMDs. It also should be noted that he was calling for military intervention in Iraq since the Clinton administration, but that's really beside the point here.. I am not trying to discuss Bush vs. Kerry, I am trying to tell you that you as a country should make a decision whether to separate yourselves from our policies or stick with us no matter how risky it seems


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> And do you know what would happen had John Kerry been elected last Tuesday ? Well...he probably would have sent more troops to Iraq and same thing would go on..


He'd probably have send more troops, but not (just) American troops - I think he'd have sought contact with his (due to Bush almost former) allies and the UN - now you may or may not see that as a sign of weakness, but the fact is that one of the core problems in Iraq is the American dominance: for every non-American soldier there are at least 10 American soldiers, so no wonder they feel occupied by the US - keep in mind that the vast majority of fundamentalist sentiments are anti-_American_ (and Israel and America's immedeate allies), not anti-West in general.
Bringing other troops, based on a restored relation with Europe and the UN, might decrease the tension of the current problems (and even "might" would be worth a try under current conditions), as the troop forces would be more international in character, therefore less like an occupation force, and less an eye sore for Iraqi's and other muslims, even moderates who have as much to do with terrorism as the average American - under Bush, this is all very unlikely, as he doesn't seem to care about allies, treaties and international conventions (let's just say his remarks during the debates for example were clear enough....)

As far as our own government goes: we have elections in 2006, so we'll have to put up with our Christian-Democrat/Liberal coalition (Liberal in the traditional, European meaning is right-wing, with a focus on economic Liberalism, with as little influence of the state on economic affairs as possible).
I'm pretty confident the next elections will cause a change in leadership (our socialist party becoming the largest party again), as our current government is highly unpopular (not just because of its spineless international attitude) - an impeachment seems unlikely, though, so there's not much one can do until the (preparations of the) next elections...


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> He'd probably have send more troops, but not (just) American troops - I think he'd have sought contact with his (due to Bush almost former) allies and the UN - now you may or may not see that as a sign of weakness, but the fact is that one of the core problems in Iraq is the American dominance: for every non-American soldier there are at least 10 American soldiers, so no wonder they feel occupied by the US - keep in mind that the vast majority of fundamentalist sentiments are anti-_American_ (and Israel and America's immedeate allies), not anti-West in general.
> Bringing other troops, based on a restored relation with Europe and the UN, might decrease the tension of the current problems (and even "might" would be worth a try under current conditions), as the troop forces would be more international in character, therefore less like an occupation force, and less an eye sore for Iraqi's and other muslims, even moderates who have as much to do with terrorism as the average American - under Bush, this is all very unlikely, as he doesn't seem to care about allies, treaties and international conventions (let's just say his remarks during the debates for example were clear enough....)
> 
> As far as our own government goes: we have elections in 2006, so we'll have to put up with our Christian-Democrat/Liberal coalition (Liberal in the traditional, European meaning is right-wing, with a focus on economic Liberalism, with as little influence of the state on economic affairs as possible).
> I'm pretty confident the next elections will cause a change in leadership (our socialist party becoming the largest party again), as our current government is highly unpopular (not just because of its spineless international attitude) - an impeachment seems unlikely, though, so there's not much one can do until the (preparations of the) next elections...


 Well, that's what people say - other countries would be more willing to help out if Kerry was in charge, but how true is it ? IMO, France and Germany were bribed by Saddam with the food for oil program.. But suppose it's true, and other countries send more troops to Iraq - how does it help your cause ? Will the terrorists cease planning acts against countries who are in the coalition - just because there are now more countries in the coalition ? I don't understand why having more countries involved would help prevent another Madrid. You said - " the troop forces would be more international in character, therefore less like an occupation force, and less an eye sore for Iraqi's and other muslim" What makes you think that ? They'd still be an occupation force, they'd just be more diverse. How exactly does an average terrorist's (and I am talking about terrorists, not normal Iraquis) mind work ? "Well, American/British occupation sucked, but hey now that France and Germany are occupying us as well, we're happy" ? In Netherlands you'd still be in danger of being attacked by terrorists by supporting actions of our government. If Bush didn't care about allies, why did he accept British help ? Because they were willing


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > He'd probably have send more troops, but not (just) American troops - I think he'd have sought contact with his (due to Bush almost former) allies and the UN - now you may or may not see that as a sign of weakness, but the fact is that one of the core problems in Iraq is the American dominance: for every non-American soldier there are at least 10 American soldiers, so no wonder they feel occupied by the US - keep in mind that the vast majority of fundamentalist sentiments are anti-_American_ (and Israel and America's immedeate allies), not anti-West in general.
> ...


I really think that as soon as America soldiers are being replaced, or even accompanied by a multi-national force of troops, preferably under the flag of the UN, lots of people will put down their weapons: most people the US army fights against in Iraq aren't terrorists but people defending their home and country from what they see as an American occupation (and why American occupation: because you outnumber the rest by large). Islamic hatred is mainly aimed at America and what it stands for, and not necessarily the West in general (then how else would you explain that until 9/11, Al Qaeda attacks were almost exclusively directed against US targets?) - it's no a pleasant thought, but it's the truth - only as soon as they help the US, other countries get in immedeate danger (see Spain, Saudi Arabia or Indonesia to name a few examples).
As soon as things get more 'balanced', with peacekeeping troops from Europe, Middle East, and also more neutral countries such as those from Latin America, Asia or Africa, I think it will be a good step towards a long-term solution.
Sure, hard-line fighters and terrorists will continue with attacks, both in Iraq and the rest of the world (their main problem isn't Iraq, and that problem won't ever be solved because of whatever may happen in Iraq. In fact, I doubt we'll ever be safe from fundamentalist terrorism, currently being Islamic, the next time maybe Jewish, Christian, Buddhist or whatever - not in Europe, nor in America or where ever: it takes just a few determined individuals to do the most atricious things, and there is no and will never be a 100% water-tight protection against it, no matter how much civil rights you take away, how many countries you shell to bits, or dialoges you have with your adversaries.
But if the common soldiers/fighters put down their weapons, more precise and efficient actions can be undertaken, without the scores of needless casualties that happen now and only result in an endless downward spiral of revenge and retaliation (what currently happens is basically collective punishment for the actions of a few, no matter how considerate the Coalition operates - look at Israel what the result is: and no, it's not just the Palestines that are wrong, just like in Iraq it's not just the Iraqi's that are wrong).

Of course most of it is speculation, but based on (my own) logic and the fact that things currently aren't getting any better - I can't understand that intelligent people like you actually believe you're on the right track: things haven't gotten better because of the way the war has been conducted, terrorism isn't on the decline, and the polarisation between West (USA in particular) on the one side and the Islamic world on the other has never been as intense as now - and since Bush simply wants to keep things the way they are, it's more likely that Iraq will transform into yet another Chechnya or Palestine.
And yes, it takes time, but not forever before the first signs of improvement should become visible. And yes, violence and deaths are inevitable, but no on the scale as happens nowadays.

Why did the British help: Blair. The peope were largely against helping the US out.
Why did Bush accept help: firstly because of Blair, secondly because of historic reasons, and thirdly to not be an Einzelganger in invading Iraq: now two nations are to mainly blame (spreading responsibility/liability).


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> Do you think Europe cares about your domestic issues or the fate of the troops you send to Iraq and elsewhere? Maybe, but not nearly as much as it cares about the consequences of your actions, which, no matter what you say, already have and will continue to have global implications. And we don't want to feel the consequences of the US's self-centered and thoughless foreign policy, just like it is vice versa - is that so hard to get into your skull?
> If the US would mind its own business, or at least wouldn't have dragged the entire world into a downward spiral of violence and counter-violence, retaliation and counter-relataliation, and ever-continuing polarisation - Bush won't make a f*cking difference about that: if anything, he'll make matters worse.
> So it pretty damn well is our business, wheter we like it or not, wheter you like it or not.
> 
> If you want us to mind our own business, stay within your f*cking national borders, mind _your_ own business, and wreck your own nation instead of letting others pay for the past f*ck-ups of your leaders and intel agencies - don't take the rest of the world down with you and your madness












Consequences of our actions? What about consequences of you not wanting to take action? We can argue if it was right or wrong to go into Iraq, but now that were their, lets all try and clean up the mess up and get the hell out if we want to have the false feeling of security once again, that we all seem to love. We can argue over global implications too, but only history will tell if the Iraq war hurt or helped the world overall.

You talk about the "consequences of the US's self-centered and thoughless foreign policy" well heres something original, every nation or nations are self-centered. You could say, Europe was againest the war because you'll invested in Iraq. I'm also sure alot of people thought and still do, that Saddam was in box and didn't needed to be taken out, but rather that is true is amatter of opinion. But IMO you aren't going to solve the whole mideast Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without getting rid of Saddam and Arafat. Both support terrorism, started terrorist groups, and both payed young boys and girls to blow themselves up in coffee shops, buses and schools.



> wreck your own nation instead of letting others pay for the past f*ck-ups of your leaders and intel agencies - don't take the rest of the world down with you and your madness


I believe the US is still growing quite well, both economically and militarily unlike some countries in Europe or else in the world for that matter. I don't believe Europe has the moral authrioty to talk about past leaders and intel agencies either, considering Europe almost screwed the world twice.

I'm all for the UN and Europe helping in Iraq, and the UN will help with the upcoming elections. But right now, the UN and France seem to be busy in the Ivory Coast.


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

evolution runs its course


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> I really think that as soon as America soldiers are being replaced, or even accompanied by a multi-national force of troops, preferably under the flag of the UN, lots of people will put down their weapons: most people the US army fights against in Iraq aren't terrorists but people defending their home and country from what they see as an American occupation (and why American occupation: because you outnumber the rest by large). Islamic hatred is mainly aimed at America and what it stands for, and not necessarily the West in general (then how else would you explain that until 9/11, Al Qaeda attacks were almost exclusively directed against US targets?) - it's no a pleasant thought, but it's the truth - only as soon as they help the US, other countries get in immedeate danger (see Spain, Saudi Arabia or Indonesia to name a few examples).
> As soon as things get more 'balanced', with peacekeeping troops from Europe, Middle East, and also more neutral countries such as those from Latin America, Asia or Africa, I think it will be a good step towards a long-term solution.
> Sure, hard-line fighters and terrorists will continue with attacks, both in Iraq and the rest of the world (their main problem isn't Iraq, and that problem won't ever be solved because of whatever may happen in Iraq. In fact, I doubt we'll ever be safe from fundamentalist terrorism, currently being Islamic, the next time maybe Jewish, Christian, Buddhist or whatever - not in Europe, nor in America or where ever: it takes just a few determined individuals to do the most atricious things, and there is no and will never be a 100% water-tight protection against it, no matter how much civil rights you take away, how many countries you shell to bits, or dialoges you have with your adversaries.
> But if the common soldiers/fighters put down their weapons, more precise and efficient actions can be undertaken, without the scores of needless casualties that happen now and only result in an endless downward spiral of revenge and retaliation (what currently happens is basically collective punishment for the actions of a few, no matter how considerate the Coalition operates - look at Israel what the result is: and no, it's not just the Palestines that are wrong, just like in Iraq it's not just the Iraqi's that are wrong).
> ...


 Judazzz, you're all over the place there. Other countries do have troops in Iraq and what's happening ? Their citizens are being kidnapped and beheaded because their countries have troops there. You're right - Islamic hatred is mainly aimed at America - and its allies. By bringing more allies into the mix, the hatred will be directed towards them as well. You think it'll help diffuse the tension, I disagree. Your country will be no less safe than if France and Germany were a part of coalition. The only way it might be more safe is terrorists might be too busy planning to strike in France or Germany to worry about Netherlands.

Are things on the right track ? No, not exactly, unfortunately. This campaign could have used better planning and exit strategy. But IMO, not re-electing Bush would not change much and would not make your country any less safe


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> Judazzz, you're all over the place there. Other countries do have troops in Iraq and what's happening ? Their citizens are being kidnapped and beheaded because their countries have troops there. You're right - Islamic hatred is mainly aimed at America - and its allies. By bringing more allies into the mix, the hatred will be directed towards them as well. You think it'll help diffuse the tension, I disagree. Your country will be no less safe than if France and Germany were a part of coalition. The only way it might be more safe is terrorists might be too busy planning to strike in France or Germany to worry about Netherlands.
> 
> Are things on the right track ? No, not exactly, unfortunately. This campaign could have used better planning and exit strategy. But IMO, not re-electing Bush would not change much and would not make your country any less safe


 I've mentioned a few times before that one of the main problems is that the overwhelming US presence is the thorn in the side of many Iraqi's (and also mulsims elsewhere, feeding the animosity): if numbers are getting more in balance, people might stop thinking they're dealing with an American occupation force aided by a couple of other nations, while a multi-national force, consisting of contingents from many nations all over the world, gets the Coalition force as a whole more in balance.
To extremists it makes no difference, to your average gun-waving villager it very well could make a difference.

I think we could go on for eternity, but I do believe a regime change in the US would have made a difference, whereas you don't: maybe not short term, and maybe not for Iraq, but there's much more damage done that just disagreements over how to conduct the war on terror, and I think those problems will only deepen as long as Bush is in charge. And that worries me not just because of what might happen here, but what might happen on a global scale.
Also, I do think a multi-national and more well-balanced troop force in Iraq will improve things significantly: again, probably not on the short term, but it will in the long term, whilst at the same time preventing the world from polarising even further.

So for now let's just agree to disagree - it's time to feed the fish here...


----------



## WilliamBradley (Nov 23, 2003)

give it up Judazz.. they're americans


----------



## rchan11 (May 6, 2004)

When Tony Blair was jeered at his Parliament for supporting U.S. in Iraq, he asked them "when we are at war, who would you want to be on our side?" There was dead silence.


----------



## alan (Mar 11, 2004)

i cant believe we have all wasted so much time on some fool that the world can only benefit from his demise.


----------



## slckr69 (Feb 21, 2004)

man i dont know what u guys are argueing about. cuz there is way to much to read. but why do we gotta argue about it.. i mean cmon every country has had bad leaders. goodness. i mean it like it or not we elect our own pres. and who is chosen we gotta deal with.. and i think its awesome britain supports us. they see saddam was a threat and all though maybe they didnt want to go in they do see a benefit from helping us.


----------



## aaron07_20 (Apr 23, 2004)

slckr69 said:


> aaron07_20 Wow..its not like its the end of the world just because Bush got elected..(or is it?)
> 
> Bush isnt THAT bad he just has no clue about terrorism..hes a moron for making suddam his first priority instead of the one that attacked us, Bin laden..
> 
> ...


 What led him to Iraq? Oil Prices??


----------



## chiefkyle (May 3, 2004)

WilliamBradley said:


> well YOUR F^CKED COUNTRY seem to put the rest of the world in trouble, so it's our business too


 I think OUR "F^CKED COUNTRY" saved you guys during WWII?

Besides the point. Why did you Say "F^CKED" and not "FUCKED"?

Your singnature says:



> EMINEM: Why the f*ck would I hate Hanson? They're the only f*cking real band out there. I mean I don't like that kind of music or anything, but they're f*cking real.


----------



## chiefkyle (May 3, 2004)

I say f*ck it for real. America needs to take over every country, one at a time.

After all, this is what an American would say.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

chiefkyle said:


> WilliamBradley said:
> 
> 
> > well YOUR F^CKED COUNTRY seem to put the rest of the world in trouble, so it's our business too
> ...


And I think you're a parasite: how dare you take credit for what your forefathers did do by using it as an argument in one of your discussions. You have as much to do with our civil liberties here in Europe as you have to do with WW2: nothing.
So don't live off other people's sacrifices in the past to make yourself look good: it's rather unpattriotic, I'd say, and utterly disrespectful towards those that died for our but also your freedom...









So instead of beating the same damn horse over and over again by whining about what your forefathers did in the past, come up with something of your own, something that you actually deserve mentioning.
We don't bring up all the time that without Europe you'd still be a British colony, or that you at least owe your freaking freedom to France, of all countries...


----------

