I'm ashamed of my country

[Wojtek]

I'm ashamed of Poland.

Just today, the government said it would support Bush's war against Iraq even if the UN will say no.

Not only will we support them politically, but we will be giving some money. Total stupidness. The health system is more then begging for new money, but NO, we have to Buy new friends first... Just caus we're buying new military equipment from the Us dosnt mean we have to become their puppets, does it? Poland and the UK are the ONLY countries in europe to support the Us with their war.

Sorry, just had to express my opinion.

Full Story: http://wiadomosci.tvp.pl/wiadomosci/1,2003012133233.strona

[Conscript]

I couldn't be more proud to be Polish.

Poles know what its like to not have freedom, and I'm glad they're willing to fight and support in any way they can the freedom they once didn't have.

[keith]

just call me poland's newest huge fan. :cool:

and you guys aren't our puppets. we wouldn't ask for your support if we didn't think you were important. have a little pride in your own damn nation.

[Matt8]

I am loving the idea Poland is supporting the US actions.

[CareBear]

I know how I'd feel if I heared they'd support the US in an unsanctioned war here :angry2:
Are they following the general population with that decision?

[Unregistered]

well, i think war is the right thing in this case.

[Matt8]

Originally posted by Unregistered
well, i think war is the right thing in this case.

I agree 110% with you. We can't let something like this go without action.

[Daniel]

There are other options besides war.

[Webdude]

Poland joining a war?? Man, there must be some serious evidence we havent seen to be able to get Poland in on it. Those guys always stay completely neutral. I was surprised enough to see Australia get into it. Now seriously...if the Swiss now go and join up...you KNOW there is some serious evidence the public isnt being shown..

At the same time, I've noticed that the other Middle East countries are keeping unusually quiet. Generally half of them are all jumping up and verbally condemning anything the U.S. is doing..

[Matt8]

Originally posted by Daniel
There are other options besides war.

What are they? I don't think Sudam is going to just up and quit. We have ways of making him quit MUWHAHAHAHA :evil laugh: Ok seriously tho, i dont think anyting would work but war.

[MN-Carl]

Originally posted by Daniel
There are other options besides war.

Hello,

There are lots of options.

Who wants to be the dumb ---- to run to Iraq (passing the specially trained IRAQIE personal guards who when they've completed their training eat a dog to celebrate mind)... to tell Suddam to get his --- out of his own damn country, if not well thats okay. We're too scared of you to remove you any other way, just thought we'd ask you if you would. Would be jolly good of you to do so.

One word. Hitler.

We "England" made a very big mistake letting Hitler take Poland and other such places. We should have stopped him the first time.

Suddam took Kuiwait, we let him live. He can live aslong as he is prepaired to live peacefully and not instruct other human beings (i'm being kind here) to do his dirty work.

If I was just 2-3 years older, I would get off my arse and join the army. Without a doubt.

Peace can only be maintained when ALL parties can keep it.

There are other problems in the Middle east, such as Israel. A Palisitine state should be created. There are also other problems at hand which do not NEED to be handled via war, as they CAN go via the diplomatic route. North Korea is that such problem.

[sonichost.net]

I have to say kudos for Poland.

I was kind of surprised to see Britan's backing too, but I'm very glad to see that they are doing so.

I'm not a Bush fan by any means, however I feel he's finishing up what his daddy should have done years ago.

After seeing what he did to thousands of innocent men, women, and children while trying to take over Iran with his nerve gas it makes me sick. They're still suffering from horrible skin + lung diseases years later all because of his selfishness. :angry2:

[sonichost.net]

There are other options besides war.

Not with this man. No matter you gave him he woudln't be happy.

You can make all the agreements and rules you want to, but he isn't going to follow them. That's already been proven.

[MN-Carl]

Originally posted by sonichost.net
I was kind of surprised to see Britan's backing too, but I'm very glad to see that they are doing so.

Hello,

Per sa, Britan as a whole isn't backing a war. The people here who do not are too short sighted to see what can happen or too scared or too niave. We have firemen & women striking, for more money.

Tony Blair, however is backing the US. I believe he is right to do so. The "cause" is just. The country IraQ needs this, after this job is done. The countries restrictions will be lifted. Investment will be available. IraQ has been provided with enough food and medical supplies, however the Goverment of IraQ have "suppressed" these supplies. I suspect storing them for their own usage.

Another thing that does annoy me. Are these "anti-war" protestors. Where will these "anti-war" protestors be if we get bombed? Will they complain to the bombers? What about terrorists? Me thinks not. They will be glad of our Army/Navy/Air-force to protect them as much as possible against such. War against IraQ and removing a crediable threat to our safety and life, is valid and just. Saddam Hussien is such and his son. Its a pitty the bullet for his son didn't hit the target. Both Saddam and his son need to be removed from this earth.

[Archbob]

I'm American and I do not support this war yet--- I need to see evidence first. If they can't even show me evidence, I will not support unsanctioned war.

[Webdude]

Unsanctioned by whom? The gutless UN? Not that I agree with the case, simply pointing out the fact....but the UN is nada without the US. Most of it's equipment and troops are provided by the US. Unfair really...each member should be required to provide the same number of troops to keep the balance.

So...unsanctoned by whom? Who makes the ruling whether a war is sanctioned or not? When in history did this requirement come to pass?

On the flip side....it's possible the warheads were planted there. It's possible we could all be being lied to and Sadaam isnt all that bad. It could also be, and more probable, that Sadaam ise merely a puppet in his government and really doesnt have any control.

[MN-Carl]

Originally posted by Archbob
I'm American and I do not support this war yet--- I need to see evidence first. If they can't even show me evidence, I will not support unsanctioned war.

Hello,

There is lots of evidance to support "claims" of illegal activities of such that it violates international law. We could also point at over 20+ UN resalusions IGNORED by IRAQ !! This is the turning point for the UN. What does the UN stand for. Are the members scared?

Germany is having big economic issues. That may "impare" their judgement.

Respec of the UN is at stake. The UN clowt is at stake.

Should the UN fail to uphold its resolusions, I cannot see the UN continuing in its current form and set-up. Changes will need to be made to make the UN, be united nations. Instead of deunited nations (DN).

[MN-Carl]

Originally posted by Webdude
Unsanctioned by whom? The gutless UN? Not that I agree with the case, simply pointing out the fact....but the UN is nada without the US. Most of it's equipment and troops are provided by the US. Unfair really...each member should be required to provide the same number of troops to keep the balance.


If the population of each country which are members of the UN. The "same number of troops" would be easy.

The UK is sending 30,000 troops out of 200,000 to the Gulf. The US is sending 100,000 to the Gulf.

The UK deployment you will see is massive. They are also specalist troops such as SAS and Gurkers and Green Barrays

[Conscript]

Have you been living in a cave?

Just this weekend they found more chemical warheads in iraq and they found evidence of a nuclear program in a scientist's house.

[Matt8]

Originally posted by Conscript
Have you been living in a cave?

In short-yes. And I don't feel too safe there either.

I am a full supporter of this war. I hate wars just as much as anyone else, but how comfortable would you feel knowing you have a person that wants to blow us into the sky that has warheads just sitting around in bunkers?

Not very comfotable at all.

[Wojtek]

Originally posted by Conscript
Have you been living in a cave?
Oh, speaking of caves. They are claming they found Bin Laden's cell phone in one of his caves on with he was helding conversations with some negociator or something. :biggrin2:

[Archbob]

We are attacking Iraq cause we think they have nukes, we have not found any evidence(or at least I haven't seen any) that they have such.

I won't go to war until I see proof like this:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3902/kim_jong_ii.html

[Conscript]

LOL.

[Taboo]

huh - its the pacifist action that allowed Hitler to march into Poland !!!!

should we allow Hussein to try it again in his region???????

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by Matt8


I am a full supporter of this war. I hate wars just as much as anyone else, but how comfortable would you feel knowing you have a person that wants to blow us into the sky that has warheads just sitting around in bunkers?

You guys are so misinformed. If Hussein really wanted to blow America up, he would have done so by now. He's keeping them for self-defense, just like America is keeping their nukes for self-defense. Iraq has no less right to keep nuclear weapons than America does.

And also, do you realize how often the US has refused to pay their share to the UN committee simply because the UN wouldn't go along with their agenda? The UN is like America's little puppet -- other countries just go along with it so that they don't infuriate the US.


After seeing what he did to thousands of innocent men, women, and children while trying to take over Iran with his nerve gas it makes me sick. They're still suffering from horrible skin + lung diseases years later all because of his selfishness.
Oh, and guess who told Saddam Hussein to attack Iran with nerve gas? None other than the grand ol' United States! :rolleyes:

Oh, and Wojtek, don't feel bad about your country. Big bullies just have that kind of power sometimes. :cry2:

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by Conscript

Poles know what its like to not have freedom, and I'm glad they're willing to fight and support in any way they can the freedom they once didn't have.

Older people living in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire) can only remember what it was like to have freedom. That was 50 years ago. Then, the US came in and decided to assassinate their democratically-elected president, and put in place a leader who would deprive his people of freedom and food for more than 40 years.

[CareBear]

Originally posted by MN-Carl
There is lots of evidance to support "claims" of illegal activities of such that it violates international law. We could also point at over 20+ UN resalusions IGNORED by IRAQ !! This is the turning point for the UN. What does the UN stand for. Are the members scared?Oh well if the US is so hung up about UN resolutions being ignored then why does it continue to support Israel with military and financial aid? Israel has ignored 68 UN resolutions, invaded another country and slaughters civilians and they do have verified weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons. But whenever Israel does something wrong the US won't hesitate to use their veto. Sure Bush will "tssk" and lightly scold them in public but just give them the "heads up" when the camera's are turned.


Have you been living in a cave?

Just this weekend they found more chemical warheads in iraq and they found evidence of a nuclear program in a scientist's house.You conveniently left out the keyword "empty" there. They found empty chemical warheads. Last I heard it wasn't even determined if there were any traces of any chemicals left.


but the UN is nada without the US. Most of it's equipment and troops are provided by the US. Unfair really...each member should be required to provide the same number of troops to keep the balance.The US is happy enough to pass on it's $200 billion war bill on to other countries. And do you really think the US would allow any country or region to come close to its military power? Europe couldn't even make plans to build a commerical GPS like system without the US fuming about it.


So...unsanctoned by whom? Who makes the ruling whether a war is sanctioned or not? When in history did this requirement come to pass?There are international laws for war that dictate what's acceptable and what isn't. An unprovoked war against another country would fall under that. But then again the US couldn't care less about violations of international law. They made a nice stance about showing they're above the law when they choose to dispute the authority of the international court in Den Haag and pass a bill that would allow it to invade Holland.

[CareBear]

Originally posted by Taboo
huh - its the pacifist action that allowed Hitler to march into Poland !!!!I just read an article yesterday that made a comparison with Hitler, except they weren't referring to Saddam.


January 16, 2003—When Adolf Hitler invaded Poland, he did so under the pretext of "freeing the people". Much the same is now being said by George W Bush regarding the poor people of Iraq. America is about to "free the people" of Iraq by launching a huge and violent attack on that country with weapons of mass destruction that will kill thousands, maybe tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the name of Iraqi "freedom."

Of course George W Bush will mouth the usual platitudes such as "to make an omlette you've gotta break a few eggs" and "in times of war mistakes are made" to excuse the civilian dead, or as the American media and politicians will describe it, "collateral damage." What the American people do not seem to understand though, is the simple fact that by declaring war on Iraq and causing "collateral damge" involving Moslems, George W Bush is putting the United States of America and its allies in the greatest danger it has ever had to confront. Any other person who did this would be accused of treason.

[tandoc]

i support no war - i support no countries

i'm still trying to solve my own problems, like why my center speaker doesn't play any sound except the stupid Creative SB Test voice, and how to get my internet usage down.

i reckon they should plant serveral warheads deep into the earth, blow them up and divide the world into serveral chunks of rock and ppl and what not and let us freeze while we fly through space - that would solve everything

[zoobie]

Like it or not, "they're" gonna push Saddam out. Notice how I don't include myself because I'm just a graphics artist/videographer/musician sitting waaaay up here in the Colorado Rockies. :cool:

I also find it interesting how, here in the States, they're cutting back on social security, medicare/medicaid, and several other federally funded programs yet suddenly find a few billion $ to finance this war. :rolleyes:

I didn't vote for Bush because I was afraid that something like this would happen. I'll never vote republican as long as I live, either. :devious2:

I'm thankful, though, of where I am, who I am, and what I am. There, but for the grace of God...go I. :classic2:

[Conscript]

Mr. bin Laden, err.. I mean CareBear....


1. Israel is defending itself from terrorists. Why do the arabs care if Israel holds onto a few miles of land for their homeland? Israel is just 0.01% of the land in the mid-east, they got 99.99% of the rest of it.

2. Yes, the warheads were empty, but they still should've been declared. And Saddam hasn't yet accounted for his bio-weapons. And we know they have them because we sold it to them in the 80s. Talk about proof they have them!

3. Europe does have a GPS-like system, at least I heard something about it somewhere, I'd have to research for sure, but I am 99% sure they have something like it.

4. The International Court has no authority in the USA because the USA refuses to give up its soveringty to a bunch of liberal euroweenies, pinkos, and dictators. Until the International Court guarantees Americans their rights as presented in the US Constitution, don't count on any American participation.

[CareBear]

Maybe you should try to read what I posted again and look at what I was replying to. Three of the points you quoted you took completely out of context.


Originally posted by Conscript
1. Israel is defending itself from terrorists. Why do the arabs care if Israel holds onto a few miles of land for their homeland? Israel is just 0.01% of the land in the mid-east, they got 99.99% of the rest of it.For the same reason the world cared when Saddam decided to annex Kuwait.
Neither side is in the clear there but Israel isn't exactly working towards a peaceful solution either. When you start shooting people without reason because they're trying to get food or block and shoot at ambulances that are trying to provide medical aid, when you drive through a populated section of a city with tanks, when you've basically demolished a region back a hundred years and then say you're surprised you end up with a terrorist problem it's not that much of a surprise. It doesn't mean I agree with what they're doing.
If Israel wasn't so sure of US support and their ability to veto anything then there would have been a compromise by now.
I noticed you conveniently dropped out the fact that Israel has ignored more UN resolutions then Iraq has which was the whole point of me bringing Israel up. If those violations are enough reason to go to war with Iraq, they should be enough reasons for Israel. Since Israel isn't a "rogue" state it just isn't the main reason Bush wants a war.


2. Yes, the warheads were empty, but they still should've been declared. And Saddam hasn't yet accounted for his bio-weapons. And we know they have them because we sold it to them in the 80s. Talk about proof they have them!If they weren't empty I wouldn't be argueing about it now. If there are weapons then yes they should be dismantled but some empty shells isn't enough of a reason to just start a war.
The point there was to add the fact that they were empty.


3. Europe does have a GPS-like system, at least I heard something about it somewhere, I'd have to research for sure, but I am 99% sure they have something like it.Galileo yes. Again you missed the point why I brought it up. It was in the context of someone saying the rest of the world should match it's military capabilities with the US' so the world wouldn't have to rely on the US to do anything and my point back was that that's something the US would never allow with the Galileo project as an example. The US opposed it because then it wouldn't be able to cut off the rest world and have the GPS as an advantage.


4. The International Court has no authority in the USA because the USA refuses to give up its soveringty to a bunch of liberal euroweenies, pinkos, and dictators. Until the International Court guarantees Americans their rights as presented in the US Constitution, don't count on any American participation.Plenty of provisions were made to please the US and other countries. The US has a veto in the UN so it can postpone any trial by a period of 12 months. The international court will put a trial on hold indefinitly once the country of the accused starts its own legal investigation. So chances of anything the US stated as reasons weren't ever likely to be a problem.
What the US wanted was that only the loser of any conflict could be brought to trial, thereby the US would be by definition not ever be capable of committing war crimes. That's what my problem with the whole thing is.
If any soldier from any country - and I couldn't care less wether it's the US, Canada, a European country of whoever - commits a war crime they should be held accountable for it and face the consequences.
Plenty of countries had reservations but they understood that chances of their citizens being mistreated would be close to non existing. What the US wanted is to have its citizens above the rest and maybe you feel that way but we're all just people. Noone is more or less worthy then the next.

[conkermaniac]

I would also like to note that Israel has been greedy and has taken far more land that they were originally supposed to have. They have no right to be in Jerusalem - that should all belong to Palestine. However, I will admit that neither Palestine or Israel seem interested in making an agreement, especially not with Arafat and Sharon as the two leaders. Well, I'm not sure whether Arafat is really doing anything wrong (though he might be supporting terrorism), but I do know that Sharon is far too bellicose to end this conflict once and for all.

[MN-Carl]

Originally posted by CareBear
Oh well if the US is so hung up about UN resolutions being ignored then why does it continue to support Israel with military and financial aid? Israel has ignored 68 UN resolutions, invaded another country and slaughters civilians and they do have verified weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons. But whenever Israel does something wrong the US won't hesitate to use their veto. Sure Bush will "tssk" and lightly scold them in public but just give them the "heads up" when the camera's are turned.

Hello,

If you had read all my posts fully, You would notice that I mentioned Israel. They are a problem, we have to sort it. Israel isn't a terrorist supporter, IRAQ IS. Like it or not IRAQ cannot be friendly in its current state, except when its looking up the barrel of a gun. IRAQ can STILL go the UN route. If he DOES disarm. No WAR needed. Otherwise, WAR is the only option left or to leave him. I don't consider the latter option of the two an actual option in this case, I want to live a long war free life. I don't want this war to happen. However, I prefer this war and I would "love" to be part of it. I certainally prefer this war to having some ----ed up mis-informated --- hole walk into the city and drop a tube with modified SmallPoxs in it.

I happend to know where there are very easy to get supplies of Small Poxs. If I know this. I wonder if IRAQ does also? Oh yeah, there is some in IRAQ, opps.. my mistake. Oh yeah, then you have Russias abandond facilities.

[Webdude]

It's funny that each time I look at this, I look at it from a different viewpoint. In my current view, I am seeing that how ironic and unchanged things are now compared to past history if you simply change out the word "religion" with "freedom".

My problem is, I dont like any of the Governments. All governments do wrong, they all do good. The one thing I look at above all else is that a government's primary job above all others is to protect it's people.....something the U.S. has become extremely efficient at, regardless if we like their methods of enforcement. It does well to play our enemies on each other (Iran-Iraq), neither of those were ever true allies, they simply got played. We knew Sadaam would turn against us, but we used him to deal with Iran when we needed him to.

Keep our enemies at each others throats, and it keeps them too busy to worry about developing methods to harm us on our own lands. Sneaky, but it works. WTC happened because we got too relaxed in keeping that going on. Maybe we thought if we eased up, things wouldnt go the way we feared....but it did.

[Archbob]

It is my belief that the U.S. government should protect the citizens of the United States and not tell other countries what to do and should not take action unless it has found positive evidence that other countries are building threats to the United States(no empty warheads don't count).

Besides if Saddam had an ICBM warhead, don't you think he would have used it by now?


Now if Saddam had turned into a giant robot like Kim, then I'd be for all-put war.

[Wojtek]

I'd like to add something here.

Even if Saddam would 'dissarm',
Mr. Bush would still say the opposite saying he is just lying.
Even if the UN would show up with a rapport that would say Iraq has disarmed, Bush will still lauch an assault upon Iraq just as he said. He's the boss, He's got $, He can choose whenever to attack or no, regardless of the UN's decision.

Pathethic.

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by MN-Carl


Israel isn't a terrorist supporter, IRAQ IS.
Interesting that you should say that, considering that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin-Laden hate each other's guts. :p

[MN-Carl]

Hello,

Since when has Osama Bin Laden been the only terrorist?

IRA, ETTA, Basque Seperates, Columba Liberation Army, Chitchen Rebals. Thats to name a few terrorist organisations who'm are not OBL terrorist organisation and its fractions.

I think sending a scud missile into Israel would really make Suddam Hussein an non-friend of OBL (considering he likes Palistine). Therefor, for that reason he may like what he did. However, OBL doesn't like either Suddam or his son or at least thats what everyone seems to think. How do you know he doesn't like him? Why on earth would IraQ train terrorist's and preach (using IraQ term as goverment) terrorist against the West. Islam shouldn't be used as a tool for OBL or anyone else. Islam is a religon not a justification. We do not attack the religon, he cannot justify a "holy war" just because we may "attack" IraQ, if he likes them or not he will [b]still[/b[ use it as a tool, once again.

I believe the price on OBL head is around $15,000,000 (USD). I wonder :classic2:

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by MN-Carl
Hello,

Since when has Osama Bin Laden been the only terrorist?

IRA, ETTA, Basque Seperates, Columba Liberation Army, Chitchen Rebals. Thats to name a few terrorist organisations who'm are not OBL terrorist organisation and its fractions.


That is true, but I thought we were primarily on the topic of Islamic fundamentalist groups. I certainly don't think Hussein cares about Basque Separatist groups or the Columbia Liberation Army, but I wouldn't be surprised if he funded Palestine's terrorists. But to tell you the truth, the Palestinian terrorists aren't any worse than the Israeli army. And yet the United States continues to support the Israeli gov't-backed "terrorist" army.

[Archbob]

Conker comments on the isreali army and sadly true..

[loggerheads]

Originally posted by Webdude
Keep our enemies at each others throats, and it keeps them too busy to worry about developing methods to harm us on our own lands. Sneaky, but it works. WTC happened because we got too relaxed in keeping that going on. Maybe we thought if we eased up, things wouldnt go the way we feared....but it did. [/B]
I just love the way this implies that terrorism happens when people aren't oppressed enough.

Incidentally at the moment I am quite surprised that Bush (and indeed Blair) is(are) still so keen to have a war, when as far as I can tell the UN is doing it's job, the inspectors are inspecting, more or less unimpeded and sure their finding evidence, but not properly 100% incriminating no doubt evidence.
In my opinion if the US do start an unsanctioned war that will be the end of the UN. It may be doing a slightly poor job at the moment(apparently there are too few inspectors etc etc), but I'd rather have the brilliant in principle if poorly carried out United Nations in command than the US simply because it's big. If the US does go for unsanctioned war then it has stuck two fingers (Actually I suppose 1, americans don't seem to do 2) up at the UN and the UN will become worthless.
Also, if the USA has such concrete proof of weapons of mass destruction, then I think that either A they'd have shared the proof or B done something about it. If I knew someone who wanted to destroy my country had a nuclear weapon and was associating with people who could get it into the US and detonate it then I wouldn't be hanging around talking to the UN.
Also it would seem most ironic that we're complaining about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction when it was the UK/USA that sold him plenty in the first place. I think the US's foreign policy on puppet regimes needs smartening up.
And finally, to put this in perspective, I am not much of a pacifist, I supported the Gulf War, because Iraq attacked, I supported the Falklands because the Argentines attacked, hell for a while when it looked like they might actually catch Osama I supported the war in Afghanistan.
All of the above has probably been said before. But never mind.