Well just look at that Created 19 years ago2005-01-30 20:40:03 UTC by Unknown Genius

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html

Wadya know... the Iraqis wanted freedom after all.

okay...

Great job on giving the Iraqis freedom USA! Way to not back down and be cowardly whining bitches like some others in the world! Let the pussies of the world sit back and point the finger at America while they do absolutely nothing to make the world better, while you step up and make sacrifices fighting the evil tyrany of brutal dictators. F- the pussies who only whine and cry about USA, what are THEY doing to make the world better? That's right NOTHING. GO USA USA USA!!!!!
Signed,
A French

Kudos to the Iraqi's.

As for flip12's comments...no comment.

good job flip12

No coment indeed. And I'm FROM the USA.

Why is everyone so arrogant ;/

Why is everyone so arrogant ;/

Because they're americans.

Because they're americans.

I'm FRENCH, try taking some time off from thinking you know it all, step down off your high horse, relax your finger pointing, and instead, learn to read.

Some people act like they are so much better than others, yet they call the others arrogant. Ignorance at is pinacle.

Pfft. I agree with Rabid.

me2

...

...

But Rabid's comment was against you...

But Rabid's comment was against you

He said "No comment" so that's NO comment, not a comment against someone. And "Why is everyone so arrogant?" which is a question not a comment, and it doesn't have anything to do with me since I didn't say ME or MY country did anything so great. How is me telling someone ELSE "great job" being arrogant? See?

So you see, I agree with Rabid.

"No comment" implies that he doesn't agree with you at all but doesn't wish to say anything. That was my stance as well.

If he really didn't want to comment, he wouldn'a mentioned it. Trop subtle pour tu?

Way to not back down and be cowardly whining bitches like some others in the world! Let the pussies of the world sit back and point the finger at America while they do absolutely nothing to make the world better, while you step up and make sacrifices fighting the evil tyrany of brutal dictators.

Erm, not exactly the truth. Alexander The Great tried to change the world. Julius Caesar did. Napoleon Bonapard (since your french, please don't curse me, if I didn't spelled it right) tried, then Hitler, then Stalin and they all failed. And not just this, but they and their people were punished after that. The Greeks were invaded and enslaved by the Roman empire, then by the Ottomans and now they are pretty much nothing. Romans don't even exist anymore (german barbarians, then ottomans as well). As for France, well, atleast nothing changed. Germany was trying to achieve race purificatin and look at them now - more than 30% of the people are far from having german predecesors. The Soviet Union broke apart, and it caused half a century of depresion among the russian territories. After all these hisotrical events what makes you thinks that the US are going to have diffirent fate?

PS: I DO something to change my country for better. A good example of this is the nationalist organisation I recently started.

This is why Australia r0x. Nothing big ever happens down here.

D:

....oh god. Not another one of these pro-cabal geezers

what are THEY doing to make the world better?

Well, the death of at least 15.500 civilians since the war begun is hardly what I call "making the world better" No freedom should be placed above the freedom of life
c'est la verit

Well, the death of at least 15.500 civilians since the war begun is hardly what I call "making the world better"

But a free Irac and the removal of Sadam is an improvement. No one likes that any innocents (be it 1, the actual number, or the number you quote) got kiled, but few would argue that because innocents in Nazi Germany were killed, Hitler should have been untouched (just an example).

And since you Spanish killed many millions of innocent people, and tortured and enslaved the rest, when you invaded the Americas for gold, I find it odd that you, with so much blood on your hands, would speak out against the US who has freed the iraqis, forgiven their debts, and is helping them to stand on their own.

Besides, his question wasn't wether or not the US is making the world better, it was what are you doing to make the world better?

After all these hisotrical events what makes you thinks that the US are going to have diffirent fate?

Well the two huge differences I see between the rulers you mentioned and the US are that America is a free democratic society, the others pretty much were ruled by dictators. And all the leaders you mentioned, gained power by invading and defeating many others with their military. The US has the influence it has in the world after invading pretty much no one.

And I dont think the US wants to continue to be the babysitter for parts of the world. I have an idea that the leaders of America would like nothing more than for other contries to stand up and do their fair share of policing militant dictators, aiding poor nations, providing relief to victims of disasters, etc, etc, etc.........

yeah, they would like countries to stand up and do it themselves, but its a little hard to run your own country when there's 1000 american soldiers running the streets doing it for you.

pretty much no one? hitler only invaded france, and he did'nt actually reach britain. whereas the USA currently has armed forces occupying over 60 countries...

do the math.

Exactly.

'Oh look a potential problem in that country over there! I know, let's send a million US troops to occupy the region'

you know they're still in germany and other european countries because of WWII! 60 FUCKING YEARS, LET IT GO!

yeah, they would like countries to stand up and do it themselves, but its a little hard to run your own country when there's 1000 american soldiers running the streets doing it for you.

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I said the US would like help from other contries to police militant dictators, not help from the dictator.

pretty much no one? hitler only invaded france, and he did'nt actually reach britain. whereas the USA currently has armed forces occupying over 60 countries...

You should read your history about Hitler, I'm pretty sure you're a little off about him. And though its true that the US has forces in several countries, that's way different than occupying them. Do you consider Germany, Spain, and Great Brittain occupied countries? I don't hear these countries saying to get out, so I guess they like having them there.

You seem to have your facts mixed up about the US. You should do some independant research, and not believe everything you hear.

Listen buddy, dont mess with a scottish mind

he's right, because i'm not listening to everything i hear. i've gone out there, into the big wide internet, on the HMS google and actually explored for myself. i know that the US occupies over 60 countries, and they're not just european ones.

maybe i did get my facts wrong about hitler, i cant really remember. but did he actually get his armed forces into 60 countries? i think not.

alright, let me rehprase that:

yeah, they would like countries to stand up and do it themselves, but its a little hard to run your own country when there's 1000 american soldiers and 800 british running the streets doing it for you.

I think we (America) need to get our fingers out of everyone elses' business. It is up to the people being ruled to overthrow their own government, otherwise they can just deal.

And since you Spanish killed many millions of innocent people, and tortured and enslaved the rest, when you invaded the Americas for gold, I find it odd that you, with so much blood on your hands...

The Spanish killed millions? sure, thousands of trillions. Ask yourself why there are indian people in South America but almost none are left in North America LOL. It's because the Spanish mixed with the people they conquered, instead of wiping them out or putting them in Indian reserves... dont make me laugh!!
By the way, those Spanish have nothing to do with me. My ancestors didnt know how to read and were growing watermelons at that time ;)Only the rich went to conquer stuff (which is what is happening today by the way)

OMG!

I call for a "Serious Discussion" Forum!

Come on people - there's so much stuff people want to say, but don't because there's no proper place for it "Stuff" is too spammy

And since you Spanish killed many millions of innocent people, and tortured and enslaved the rest, when you invaded the Americas for gold, I find it odd that you, with so much blood on your hands...

Yeah, really, when you think again the spanish shouldn't have invaded Amercia, neither any other country should had. That way no US was going to mess around with the world nowdays.

You should read your history about Hitler, I'm pretty sure you're a little off about him. And though its true that the US has forces in several countries, that's way different than occupying them

Some people like to go out and kick you in the but, and others become your friends, then they fuck you real bad. In the ass. So there's no diffirence in the actions of nazy Gemrany and "democratic" USA.

Well the two huge differences I see between the rulers you mentioned and the US are that America is a free democratic society, the others pretty much were ruled by dictators. And all the leaders you mentioned, gained power by invading and defeating many others with their military. The US has the influence it has in the world after invading pretty much no one.

Just let me ask you this question: Where's the damn diffirence? All these dictatorships failed, because there were unhappiness. The american actions toward fighting terrorism and liberating countries leaves nothing else but angry people. The outcome of this? A peacefull demonstration of antiglobalism? A civil disorder? A possible civil war, a revolution? Only time will tell.

By the way, there are lots of countries still under dictatorships today. The problem is that some of those countries are very poor, they dont have oil or strategic value, so the US probably thinks their freedom isnt worth it. There are also dictators that get along well with the US, so there's no point in getting democracy there...
I know what I'm talking about since Spain was in that kind of situation for 40 years of the 20th century
No freedom force appeared to remove Franco from power. They even agreed with him to create de US base in Rota, because the US needed to be present at that strategic place (cold war reasons)
It's not about freedom or good intentions, it's about money and military presence.
Spain had a big terrorist attack last year (I was in Madrid that day) and no one said: "Lets go to war with Marocco!!, they are housing terrorists!!" (9/11 was an excuse for the already planned Afghanistan war, but it's not surprising since 9/11 was also planned, I no longer have any doubts)
You can't get rid of bees just by shaking their hive, its ridiculous

I agree with Trapt.

i've gone out there, into the big wide internet, on the HMS google and actually explored for myself.

Google is a great tool to help you find information, but if all your knowledge comes from the Internet, you're screwed. You cant possibly be able to judge an entire country and its people by spending some of your spare time looking through anti-American websites. Go to America, visit different parts of the country, meet lots of people there, learn about some of the good things the US does too, then you'd at least be in some kind of position to draw some conclusions.

maybe i did get my facts wrong about hitler, i cant really remember. but did he actually get his armed forces into 60 countries? i think not.

You act like these 60 countries want the US out. How come I don't hear these countries begging the UN for help freeing themselves from the US "invaders"? Oh, probably because they like having the troops there and they invited them to stay.

alright, let me rehprase that:
yeah, they would like countries to stand up and do it themselves, but its a little hard to run your own country when there's 1000 american soldiers and 800 british running the streets doing it for you.

That still makes no sense to me. I was originally referring to other countries stepping up and helping to remove militant dictators, support poor nations, and provide relief after disasters. I have no idea what you're talking about.

The Spanish killed millions? sure

Yes, you Spanish did, for gold. Look what Pizarro did to the Incas and Cortez did to the Aztecs for an example of what Spain was up to in the Americas.

It's because the Spanish mixed with the people they conquered, instead of wiping them out or putting them in Indian reserves... dont make me laugh!!

They may have "mixed" with what was left after they murdered, tortured, and enslaved millions of them. It's estimated that there were more than 15,000,000 Indians living in mexico arount the time Cortez reached reached it. 100 years later, there were around 700,000. In Peru before Pizarro, there were around 10,000,000 Indians. 100 years later there were only around 600,000 left. That's many, many millions, do the math.

Also, you Spanish exterminated an entire race of people called the Gaunches when you invaded the Canary Islands. These are just 3 examples of how much blood you Spanish have spilt.

BTW, it took until the 1950's for Mexico to regain it's pre-Spanish population.

So there's no diffirence in the actions of nazy Gemrany and "democratic" USA.

Right, cause the US gasses millions of it's own citizens and locks you and your family in jail, or kills you, if you say anything bad about the government. Oh, and the US also invades all its neighbors and takes all their property, etc, etc... Try to get a clue, seriously. I'm definately not saying the US is perfect, or even close, but to say theres no difference between the US and Nazi's is retarded. Quit listening to that old Soviet propiganda over there in eastern Europe, you sound foolish when you repeat it.

Just let me ask you this question: Where's the damn diffirence? All these dictatorships failed, because there were unhappiness.

There's unhapiness everywhere. To say that Greece, Rome, etc, failed because of unhappines, is quite an over generalization.

The american actions toward fighting terrorism and liberating countries leaves nothing else but angry people.

I would dissagree. First, were talking about 2 countries, not some long list of countries that the US has arbitrarily decided to invade and liberate. Second, I saw pictures of shitloads of happy Iraqis who got a say in their future for the first time in their lives when they voted the other day. Last, I would say that most of the anger in Irac is being generated by the terrorists who are shooting, stabbing, beheading, and blowing up Iraqi citizens on purpose.

The outcome of this? A peacefull demonstration of antiglobalism? A civil disorder? A possible civil war, a revolution? Only time will tell

This world is to small to be devided into so many us's and them's. One day, probably very long from now, everyone will look at everyone else as their neighbors and will work together toward common goals, instead of trying to stick it to someone else for their own benefit.

By the way, there are lots of countries still under dictatorships today. The problem is that some of those countries are very poor, they dont have oil or strategic value, so the US probably thinks their freedom isnt worth it. There are also dictators that get along well with the US, so there's no point in getting democracy there...

As powerfull as everyone thinks the US is, it just doesn't have the resources to right every wrong in the world (not that that's her mission, or should it be). So, if theres a choice between challenging 2 equally bad situations, and one has an advantage for you, which one would you choose? Let me ask you this, what great prize was the US looking for when they tried to stop the fighting in Somalia so that UN food could get through and feed millions of starving poor people? And what about the billions of dollars, equipment, manpower, and supplies the US gave to those people whose families were lost and whose lives were ruined in those poor countries because of the tsunami? It gets kind of lame hearing only b.s. negative stereotypes and rhetoric about my country when I don't see you doing jack squat to make things better in the world.

Spain had a big terrorist attack last year (I was in Madrid that day) and no one said: "Lets go to war with Marocco!!

Well no one here said "Lets go to war with Mexico and Canada" so what's your point? And didn't people from your own country claim responsibility for that train bombing? So why would you need to go elsewhere to get those responsible? Almost as bad as the rhetoric, is the sensless arguments I keep hearing.

9/11 was also planned, I no longer have any doubts

If you believe that George Bush planned 9/11 so he could get 4 more years in office, that's your right. Some people believe in the Lochness monster, bigfoot, and that Elvis is still alive. I personally do not believe anything until I've seen indesputable proof concerning it, not just speculation.

Anyway, if any of you who constantly flame America really cared about what's happening to the world, we would also be hearing about all the things you were doing to help make the world a better place. But since I don't hear anything but negative crap about America coming from you, I'll stick to my conclusion that you're just cinical bastards who take no responsibility for your lot in life and put all the blame for everything bad that happens on the US.

Sorry about the name calling, I take it back.

very well put.

No one in my country claimed responsability for the train bombings. It was made by terrorist groups from Morocco, you're a bit misinformed.

There are countries that would take much less resources to free than Iraq or Afghanistan. You just proved me right by saying the US choses the targets that will give them advantage, which was my point, thanks

By the way, I dont think you understood what I said before.

Yes, you Spanish did

Those are not my ancestors, they are the ancestors of millions of South American citizens. Every European country that had the power to do so, went to America to conquer. Not just Spain. Spain was the first since it had the best navy when it all began. It was how things worked at that time. I've never said I agree with that. It's history.
As I've already said, some mixed with the population and others just exterminated them (you havent made a comment about the Indian situation in North America so I understand you accept the facts) If Spain hadnt been in Mexico, today it would probably be just another part of the US where indians would have been again exterminated and the rest put in reserves.

I personally do not believe anything until I've seen indesputable proof concerning it, not just speculation

Yes... like all those numbers of dead indians 5 century's ago... it's probably indisputable proof, TV stations probably were keeping record of deaths and stuff Stop contradicting yourself.

And I'm going to make my position clear.
I love the US as a place to live. I lived in California for 2 years and it was great. People are nice, people take their jobs seriously and all seems to work just fine. (Monterey rocks!!)
But the foreign policy of the US is one of the worst things that has happened in the last portion of the XXth century and the beggining of this new one. There's a difference between fighting hitler when he moves into Poland, than fighting Saddam who is in Iraq, it is an internal problem, and like it happened in Spain, it's up to the people to overthrow him. No one asked for a "freedom force", the U.N was against this war... the Bush administration has also fed the fire of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict these last two years (we can talk about that too)
and a big big ETC...
Even though I dont support the current Spanish President, I'm glad he pulled the troops out. More than 90% of the population here was against the war. The former government actually participated because it signed gas and oil contracts... Maybe they hide these type of FACTS in your news, and just talk about how happy iraquis are to have daily terrorist bombings :/

Now I want to hear your oppinion, U. Genius. I'm actually learning some facts I didnt know

If you believe that George Bush planned 9/11 so he could get 4 more years in office, that's your right. Some people believe in the Lochness monster, bigfoot, and that Elvis is still alive. I personally do not believe anything until I've seen indesputable proof concerning it, not just speculation

Comparing the Lochness monster and Bigfoot to something of such magnitude is deeply isulting. How dare you rubbish off the facts, evidence and unaswered questions concerning Bush's 9/11 agenda. If you believe the official garbage they tell you about what happened on that day then you are likely to be more prone to paranormal beliefs.

It is not ridiculous to suggest that the event was planned. Scientific and logic-based investigation shows that the offcial line of events that day are totally ludicrous. Before you make cutting accusations of eccentric thinking and so on, I suggest you go and read for yourself the enqiries into the 9/11 disaster and see just how ridiculous the whole official story is. If you want to carry on believing their nonsense about 'hijackers' (most of which the FBI said were hijackers have been spotted alive in places such as Morocco) then that's fine, but in a few years time the official explanation will be over-ruled. Ashcroft, Bush and all the rest of them should be charged for war crimes and exploitation in order to remove basic human rights.

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.html

As in many web pages, you can read about the sabotage of routine protective systems that happened on 9/11. These are facts. It only takes minutes to get the jet fighters in the air to escort hijacked planes. The amount of time since they knew about the detour until the planes hit the buildings was more than enough to get the jets on the air, like the emergency procedure dictates. But of course, the plan was to let them crash, so the already planned Afghanistan war could go on and no one would oppose to it.
There are so many undisputable facts other than these. Top CIA official meeting with his Pakistani equivalent, soon afterwards this Pakistani intelligence official puts 100.000 dolars into Atta's bank account (one of the hijackers)
Another CIA member meeting with Ben Laden in a Beirut hotel in the summer of 2001, when he was already responsible for the 1998 embassy attacks in African countries...

do we really need to go on, or can you just accept the fact that it was a setup? geez, I didnt know that the day it happened, but now I have no doubts.

Stop wasting your time making long posts and sum it all up in a short post:

George Bush is an idiot who loves torturing iraqis and america sucks!

MoP, If we say that without giving out reasons, our statements would be as consistent as Bush's...
There are weapons of mass destruction in the US, should the rest of the world invade them?

Well said, Kasperg. Twice so.

Yeah, and there was that meeting of officials scheduled in the WTC on september the 11th where they were all told that the meeting was cancelled and their flights were cancelled on that day. Security officers were also told not to turn up on the day.

The pentagon was 'supposedly' hit by a Boeing 747 yet photographic evidence concludes that there are no remains of any aircraft. (The pentagon was targeted by a missile and that missile struck an area on the opposite side to where Aschrofts headquaters were - they wouldnt want to kill the guys part of the agenda). Also, the Pentagon is protected by anti-missile batteries which will target any unauthorised aircraft in the area. These defence systems were conveniately disabled on that day.

There was also the 'super passport' found in the wreckage of the two towers which conveniantly managed to remain intact and aslo belong to one of the hijackers. One of the hijackers also left his luggage with all his details in the airport (as hijackers who are about to fly a plane into a building tend to).

There's also operation Northwoods, another smoking gun, which was a stimulation of an 'an attack using a plane flying into a tall building'.

Theres so much evidence clearly indicating a deliberate government involvement.

so then...how long before the US "takes over the world"?

They won't..I will...In 6 months, 14 days, 9 hours and 28 minutes.

Hrny Goat, check out a comment made about a book published in 1997

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html

What the author says, is that the US doesnt plan to be the only world power, it wants to be the last which is a very disturbing idea. Countries would eventually disappear, and the world would be ruled by big corporations and company's (hopefully not mcdonalds )
If you actually read this article you will find that he's not just making things up

It's likely to be ruled by big oil companies since the worlds industries will need it in the for-seeable future.
Oil is in fact the main reason the united states invaded Iraq.

I personally don't like the idea of super powers. The countries should govern themselves and not other countries. I also believe that the developement of super powers in the world is inevitable and such powers should be divided again to redistribute power in a just and less dangerous way. No country should ever be able to take over the world. If I were Prime Minister (I am Canadian), as soon as Bush sent troops into Iraq I would have sent troops in to stop them. He had no right in my mind to go into that country.

America, a superpower, will eventually crumble. In order or the New World order to emerge their cannot be a superpower along side the One World Government. There will be a new depression in America, the economy will crumble.

Oil companies are not going to rule the world. The centre of global operations is actually Europe, some say the old City of London, others say Belgium. Alot of preople think that America is running the New World order, thats incorrect, it is the major European bloodlines who control. (The Rothschilds etc). This is also true of The Skull and Bones who were founded in Germany. The logo of the skull and Bones was used on the Nazi sturmtruppe uniform. Both Bush and Kerry are members of the Skull And Bones and their is no doubt that the organisation has a big influence on the New World Order.

I hope very much that you are right.

someday this world will be ruled by a bald, lazy-eyed evil genius who is obsessed with his hairless. mwahahahaha mwahahaha mwahahahaha...ok ill stop