I think this was a topic recently. Proves how worthless the U.N. Security Council really has become.

UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Friday, June 11, 2004 The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.

UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council on June 9 that "the only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," Middle East Newsline reported. "It's being exported," Perricos said after the briefing. "It's being traded out. And there is a large variety of scrap metal from very new to very old, and slowly, it seems the country is depleted of metal."

"The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags.

He said the Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe and around the Middle East. at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month. Destionations included Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey.

The Baghdad missile site contained a range of WMD and dual-use components, UN officials said. They included missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters ? the latter required for the production of chemical and biological warheads.

"It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax."

The UNMOVIC report said Iraqi missiles were dismantled and exported to such countries as Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey. In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12, was discovered in a junk yard, replete with UN tags. In Jordan, UN inspectors found 20 SA-2 engines as well as components for solid-fuel for missiles.

"The problem for us is that we don't know what may have passed through these yards and other yards elsewhere," Buchanan said. "We can't really assess the significance and don't know the full extent of activity that could be going on there or with others of Iraq's neighbors."

UN inspectors have assessed that the SA-2 and the short-range Al Samoud surface-to-surface missile were shipped abroad by agents of the Saddam regime. Buchanan said UNMOVIC plans to inspect other sites, including in Turkey.

In April, International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohammed El Baradei said material from Iraqi nuclear facilities were being smuggled out of the country.

The Weapons of Mass Deception are everywhere if you look hard enough.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice. <--That's four of them right there. :wink:

Re: What happened to the WMDs?

[quote=Balanc3]UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Friday, June 11, 2004 The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.

In April, International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohammed El Baradei said material from Iraqi nuclear facilities were being smuggled out of the country.[/quote]

This has been the biggest fear, where and in whose hands have these WMD's now landed in? Trouble will come and just think how many people will die if a WMD gets set off in a city like London or New York :shock:

well, if the USA hadn't attacked Iraq, none of this wouldn't have happened. But still, seriously, that the financially exhausted armies of the ex-soviet republics are a much bigger threat regarding the WMDs getting into the hands of the wrong people...

And what? were there no photos taken between May 2003 and February 2004. I don't like something about this report and it's not just the fact, that I could have been wrong in the past... :wink:

[quote=brakada]well, if the USA hadn't attacked Iraq, none of this wouldn't have happened.[/quote]

I don't buy that. These weapons would still be available to terrorists if Saddam was still in power. In fact he would probably be encouraging there use against the western world. Any excuse will do to attack the western world, why? because they want to give everyone a say where as regime's like the taliban and Sadman's is all about absolute control. IMHO :wink:

[quote=factorg]I don't buy that. These weapons would still be available to terrorists if Saddam was still in power. In fact he would probably be encouraging there use against the western world. [/quote]

I think Saddam was far too clever, selfish and paranoic to share his WMDs if he had any (I don't believe anything anyone says. I'm not saying that he didn't have them, I'm just leaving all the doors open :wink: ), while he was in power. The terrorist organisation, although sharing mutual hatred for the USA and it's allies (it's not like the terrorists hate the entire western civilisation... at least I hope so :wink:), Saddam and most of the terrorist organisations (palestinian terrorists excluded) also hated themselves mutually, because of different religous, social and other aspects.

[quote=brakada][quote=factorg]I don't buy that. These weapons would still be available to terrorists if Saddam was still in power. In fact he would probably be encouraging there use against the western world. [/quote]

I think Saddam was far too clever, selfish and paranoic to share his WMDs if he had any (I don't believe anything anyone says. I'm not saying that he didn't have them, I'm just leaving all the doors open :wink: ), while he was in power. The terrorist organisation, although sharing mutual hatred for the USA and it's allies ([b]it's not like the terrorists hate the entire western civilisation...[/b] at least I hope so :wink:), Saddam and most of the terrorist organisations (palestinian terrorists excluded) also hated themselves mutually, because of different religous, social and other aspects.[/quote]

No I'm pretty sure they DO hate the entire Western civilization. :?

[quote=MJDub] No I'm pretty sure they DO hate the entire Western civilization. :?[/quote]

Damn, and I had such high hopes of marrying one of Saddams daughters. She just fascinated me when I saw her on TV and I'm sure she must be "loaded". :lol:

Well, I think it's not as bad as you think. IMO they hate the nations interfering in Arab countries, why would they hate everybody else?

[quote=brakada][quote=MJDub] No I'm pretty sure they DO hate the entire Western civilization. :?[/quote]

Damn, and I had such high hopes of marrying one of Saddams daughters. She just fascinated me when I saw her on TV and I'm sure she must be "loaded". :lol:

Well, I think it's not as bad as you think. IMO they hate the nations interfering in Arab countries, why would they hate everybody else?[/quote]

It's the way they [i]are[/i]. :P

[quote=MJDub] It's the way they [i]are[/i]. :P[/quote]

Well this is a reasonable argument.

do you know why osama started hating the Americans?

After they were the greatest friends?

It wasn't alway like that. We have to thank the Bushes for that one. Father and son.

[quote=brakada][quote=MJDub] It's the way they [i]are[/i]. [size=7]:P[/size][/quote]

Well this is a reasonable argument.

do you know why osama started hating the Americans?

After they were the greatest friends?

It wasn't alway like that. We have to thank the Bushes for that one. Father and son.[/quote]

The key is :P !!!!!!!!!! Joke there my man.

[quote=MJDub] The key is :P !!!!!!!!!! Joke there my man.[/quote]

I knew that... :Who: No really, I did. well, I should have posted a few emoitcons myself...

Whatever weapons Saddam may have had are probably in Syria or Iran right now.

exactly, so wouldn't it really suck if we end up in a war in Iran or Syria next... I mean Iran is prepaired and massing troops at the border with Iraq so the can enter the country once the U.S. leaves (their gonna have to wait till '06) and we armed them with the nuclear weapons which they could turn back on the U.S. or any of its allies. [img]http://home.earthlink.net/~joshpowelson/images/icons/icon_scratchead.gif[/img]

[quote=Balanc3] and we armed them with the nuclear weapons which they could turn back on the U.S. or any of its allies.[/quote]

:Bingo: RESPECT!

At least when the WMDs were in Iraq, everyone knew where they were.

:CrackUp:

What's safer in terms of WMDs?

1. Letting Saddam have his WMDs (which might not have existed according to Daid Kay, the coalition WMD finder)

OR

2. Letting his so-called "nuclear sites" be [b]looted[/b]by vigilates and having those weapons shipped to other countries?

I'm not for Saddam having WMDs but this invasion has NOT been the way to contain them. [b]If the US was really for disarming Iraq safely, they would've put more troops on the ground to guard against this happening.[/b]

Saying "Let's topple Saddam" is all very good but doing it properly is something completely different... Something that Bush & Co have failed miserably at doing.

I'm all for liberating the Iraqis but letting Bush (a failed oil businessman), Cheney (an ultra-conservative oil dealer who voted against Mandela's release), and Rumsfeld (a former defence company director) do it is asking for trouble.

[quote=delirious] I'm all for liberating the Iraqis but letting Bush (a failed oil businessman), Cheney (an ultra-conservative oil dealer who voted against Mandela's release), and Rumsfeld (a former defence company director) do it is asking for trouble.[/quote]

This insolent spouting damn near ruined the other interesting points you made earlier. The oil dried up in west Texas, Madnela [i]was[/i] a criminal whether benevolent freedom fighter or not and whats wrong with being a defense contractor??

Anyway, its nice that the security counsel would help explain to the rest of the world that Iraq probably did have WMD EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT 1 FUCKING YEAR LATE. The damage to our reputation has already been done, the U.N. can fuck off for the rest of eternity.....a bunch of ingrateful turncoats. We have made our U.N. payments with American blood, and then the one time we need them to stand by us they help lead the biggest media circus ever known to man. Do people not fucking realize yet that leaders of other countries, whether friend or foe have a vested interest in seeing America weakened. Why do you think they love dems so much???? They are submissive and insolent and therefore make perfect patsies.

[quote=mylexicon] Do people not fucking realize yet that leaders of other countries, whether friend or foe have a vested interest in seeing America weakened. [/quote]

So when Mandela and Desmond Tutu critisise Bush, they're only doing it because they want him weakened? What would be their motive?

[quote=mylexicon] Anyway, its nice that the security counsel would help explain to the rest of the world that Iraq probably did have WMD EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT 1 FUCKING YEAR LATE. The damage to our reputation has already been done, the U.N. can fuck off for the rest of eternity.....a bunch of ingrateful turncoats. We have made our U.N. payments with American blood, and then the one time we need them to stand by us they help lead the biggest media circus ever known to man. Do people not fucking realize yet that leaders of other countries, whether friend or foe have a vested interest in seeing America weakened. Why do you think they love dems so much???? They are submissive and insolent and therefore make perfect patsies.[/quote]

Well, it's a kind of a paradox here. You claim that the UN are worthless and that they never do shit, yet were they the ones who are trying to proove now, that there were WMDs in Iraq, even after the Americans started claiming that Sadam probably didn't have them. Something stinks here, and I won't believe a thing until they find the damn WMDs. If everybody "knows" or claims to know where they are, why doesn't somebody finally find something (even American intelligence had satellite shots of blablabla, but didn't proove shit in the end). But if this is true. It's another big fuck up by the Americans. If Bush administration motives were truly to disarm Iraq, a lot of heads should fly in the military and intelligence, because the mission was a disaster. If I understood correctly, the weapons were supposed to be smuggled during the war. As I repeated this many times on the old ms, the States should first get the control of Iraq borders, and monitor all suspicious activities. But obviously they didn't (prooven by the number of foreign fighters in Iraq). Somebody should be held responsible for this definitely.

As for the international support (security council's support), I think USA could have gotten it if they would really want it. They would have to try a bit harder, and be a little more patient, but they would have gotten it through. IMO Bush just tried to show the world he can act on his own, but as the result was a bit unexpected, he failed (not entirely, though, but still failed) No world power can act alone. There have been many attemptsin the past, but all of them failed in the longterm... Well, that's just my opinion.

[quote=brakada]Well, it's a kind of a paradox here. You claim that the UN are worthless and that they never do shit, yet were they the ones who are trying to proove now, that there were WMDs in Iraq, even after the Americans started claiming that Sadam probably didn't have them.Something stinks here, and I won't believe a thing until they find the damn WMDs.[/quote]

Of course there is something stinks.....two things actually. First the American press lied for political reasons about the severity of Iraq's non-compliance with U.N. resolutions. Secondly, there is evidence to suggest that the oil-for food program is corrupt. So now the inspectors are working to try to make our actions in Iraq look justified so we don't torch the oil-for-food cash-cow.

[quote=brakada]No world power can act alone.[/quote]

Yes. World powers can act alone whenever they want. The U.S. will continue to do so as long as our allies fail to look out for our security. And besides Europeans need to realize that Americans and other nationalities do whatever they want because they have no respect for Europeans. You have 400 million people who don't work, you have politicians who won't stfu and solve their own problems, you have a bomb you'll never use and a military you'll never deploy. :Rolling: What exactly is supposed to inspire us to believe that Europe is a place worth listening to? Whether or not you choose to realize it, outside of the socialist paradise you are working so hard to construct life is evolving at a rapid pace, and its not evolving towards socialistic control. Why do you think there is a resurgence of struggle between capitalism and totalitarianism in the Middle East and Asia???? Hint: It's not because capitalism/democracy is shrinking. Around the world new frontiers are being pioneered and there are 4-5 billion people waiting to be able to pull themselves out of poverty for the first time and enjoy pursuing freedoms that we Westerners take for granted.

The only person in the whole of Europe who fucking understands that is "George Bush's personal fluffer", Tony Blair. He knows that life outside of Europe is evolving and that Europe is just sitting on the bench, looking at themselves in a fucking vanity mirror, while bitching at everyone on the field when they aren't even in the goddamn game.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it. BTW even though that sounds like a really pissed of rant, it is actually a challenge to everyone. If you want to have a say in what goes on in this world, you have to be powerful, important and respected. Whiney and beautiful just won't cut it these days.

[quote=mylexicon] If you want to have a say in what goes on in this world, you have to be powerful, important and [b]respected[/b]. Whiney and beautiful just won't cut it these days.[/quote]

[b]Very [/b]well said.

[quote] [size=6]US 'needs image makeover'[/size]

The United States could use an image consultant.

A global survey found 19 of 27 countries tracked had falling levels of approval for the US.

The Bush administration has launched several new initiatives over the past year to improve the country's image especially in the Middle East.

But foreign policy experts say the US must do more or terror groups will find it increasingly easy to find new recruits. [b] 'Propaganda machine'[/b]

The Pew Research Centre for the People & the Press conducted the study and found that the image of the US was suffering across the globe.

The author's of the study said: "True dislike, if not hatred, of America is concentrated in Muslim nations of the Middle East and Central Asia."

[b]But they also found favourable opinion slipping amongst Nato allies, in developing countries and in Eastern Europe.[/b]

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer challenged reporters to go back and look at the raw data of the report and pay less attention to some interpretations of the study's findings.

"This is one of the most stark examples of a poll whose data showed one thing and whose instant analysis showed another," Mr Fleischer said.

President Bush continued his efforts to reach out to Muslims by attending Eid observances at a Muslim centre in Washington.

Earlier, President Bush blamed Muslims increasing distrust of the US on "propaganda machines (that) are cranked up in the international community that paints our country in a bad light."

"I hope the message that we fight not a religion, but a group of fanatics which have hijacked a religion, is getting through," he said.

[b]More than image problem[/b]

But that message will only get through if the US narrows its war on terror, according to Ivan Eland, director of defence policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

"We can dampen this if we conduct a narrow war against al-Qaeda," he said.

He criticised the Bush administration for making "expansive threats" and expanding the war on terror to include the so-called Axis of Evil nations and other groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

And he said that the US should be concerned about its image abroad and "not just because we want to be liked."

[b]It is the view of the US Defence Department and the national security community that America is not using its informational power to best effect, said Daniel Kuehl, a professor at the National Defence University.[/b]

He attributes poor attitudes to the US to several factors including upset over US policies abroad including support of Israel, the growing perception that the US is acting unilaterally and "natural fear of the big guy on the block."

Ric Stoll, a professor of political science at Rice University, said, anti-American sentiment impacts the United States' ability to conduct policy abroad.

"There are any number of governments near Iraq that don't like Saddam Hussein and like to see him removed from power," Mr Stoll said, but they fear the domestic consequences of cooperation with the US.

He said the US could do a few things to greatly improve its image abroad, especially in the Middle East.

"We need to allow Saddam or Iraq to be seen as defying the UN, not just the US, and that is something Saddam will do if given enough time," Mr Stoll said.

And he added that the United States needs to address the impression that it is acting more even-handedly with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The administration needs to push proposals and concessions that are seen as more even-handed.

For instance, Mr Stoll said the US should call on the Palestinians to pursue basic, fundamental democratic reforms instead of calling for the ouster of Yasser Arafat.

[b]And he said the Bush administration needs to combat impressions of unilateralism. [/b] In the short term, it might tie our hands, Mr Stoll said, but added, [b]"If we are seen as doing what we want, when we want, we will have serious, serious problems."[/b] [/quote] [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/2548269.stm[/url]

The fact that the UN has announced that WMD's were shipped out of Iraq prior the war comes as no surprise - Israel's intel. services said that at the time and no one listened! The prime location for those WMD's has got to be Syria.

As for the BBC report. . . I'm getting a little bit sick and tired of hearing the standard mantra that the US would be better respected if they showed "that it is acting more even-handedly with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Why is it only the US gets blamed for not being even handed when the vast majority of this planet, through its inept mouth piece the UN, fail time and time again to take an even handed approcach to the Israel-Palestinian confilict.

As the old saying goes, those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

[quote=davetlv] I'm getting a little bit sick and tired of hearing the standard mantra that the US would be better respected if they showed "that it is acting more even-handedly with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Why is it only the US gets blamed for not being even handed[/quote] [b] List of U.S. Vetos at the U.N Security Council related to the Middle East[/b]

1. 10 Sep. 1972 Condemned Israel's attacks against southern Lebanon and Syria. Vote: 13 to 1 with 1 abstention
2. 26 Jul. 1973 Affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self determination, statehood and equal protections. Vote: 13 to 1 with China absent
3. 08 Dec. 1975 Condemned Israel air strike and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians. Vote: 13 to 1 with 1 abstention
4. 26 Jan. 1976 Called for self-determination of Palestinian People. Vote: 9 to 1 with 3 abstentions
5. 25 Mar. 1976 Deplored Israel's alteration of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city by most of world nations and the United Nations. Vote 14 to 1
6. 29 Jun. 1976 Affirmed the Inalienable rights of the Palestinian People. Vote 10 to 1 with 4 abstention
7. 30 Apr. 1980 Endorsed self-determination of Palestinian People. Vote 10 to 1 with 4 abstention
8. 20 Jan. 1982 Demands Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Vote 10 to 1 with 4 abstention
9. 01 Apr. 1982 Condemned Israel mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva Conventions Protocols of civilized nations. Vote: 14 to 1
10. 02 Apr. 1982 Condemned an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Moslem worshipers in the Haram al Sharif near Al Aqsa mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem. Vote: 14 to 1
11. 08 Jun. 1982 Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1
12. 26 Jun. 1982 Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut, Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1
13. 06 Aug. 1982 Urged cut-off economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon. Vote: 11 to 1 with 3 abstention
14. 02 Aug. 1983 Condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace. Vote: 13 to 1 with 3 abstention
15. 06 Sep. 1984 Deplored Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urged its withdrawal. Vote: 14 to 1
16. 12 Mar. 1985 Condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounces Israeli "Iron Fist" policy of repression. Vote: 11 to 1 with 3 abstentions
17. 13 Sep. 1985 Denounced Israel's violations of human rights in the occupied territories. Vote 10 to 1 with 4 abstentions
18. 17 Jan. 1986 Strongly deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon.Vote: 11 to 1 with 3 abstentions
19. 30 Jan. 1986 Deplored Israel's activities in the occupied Arab East Jerusalem, which threaten the sanctity of Muslim holy sites. Vote: 13 to 1 with 1 abstention
20. 06 Feb. 1986 Condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan airplane on Feb. 4, Vote: 10 to 1 with 1 abstention
21. 18 Jan. 1988 Strongly deplored Israeli attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon. Vote: 13 to 1 with 1 abstention
22. 01 Feb. 1988 Called on Israel to abandon its policies against Palestinian uprising that violate the rights of occupied Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalize a leading role for the U.N. in future peace negotiations. Vote: 14 to 1
23. 15 Apr. 1988 Urged Israel to accept deported Palestinians, condemned Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and called for a peace settlement under U.N. auspices. Vote: 14 to 1
24. 10 May 1988 Condemned Israel's May 2 incursion into Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1
25. 14 Dec. 1988 Strongly deplored Israel's Dec. 9 commando raids on Lebanon. Vote: 14 to 1
26. 17 Feb 19.89 Strongly deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian uprising and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians. Vote: 14 to 1
27. 09 Jun. 1989 Strongly deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians. Vote: 14 to 1
28. 07 Nov. 1989 Demanded Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact finding mission to observe Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian uprising. Vote 14 to 1
29. 31 May 1990 Called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli occupied lands. Vote 14 to 1 . United States casts the lone veto to block a Security Council fact-finding mission to report on abuses of Palestinians in land Israel captured in war.
30. 04 Apr. 1992 Condemned Israel for the killing of four Palestinians and injuring 50 more, 10 of them seriously, in Rafah. Vote: 14 to 1.
31. 04 Dec. 1993 Urges Israel to allow the return of 101 Palestinian Deportees. Vote: 14 to 1.
32. 17 May 1995 Condemning Israel's intention of confiscating 134 Acres of land in East Jerusalem. Vote: 14 to 1. United States blocks a resolution that declared invalid Israel's expropriation of Arab-owned land in east Jerusalem.
33. 15 Apr. 1996 Condemns Israel's closure of the occupied territories. Vote: 14 to 1.
34. 25 Apr. 1996 Condemned Israel for bombing UN quarters in Qana, South Lebanon, and the continuous Israeli attacks. Vote: 14 to 1.
35. 28 Sep. 1996 Condemned Israeli settlements in Ras Al Amud in Jerusalem. Vote: 14 to 1.
36. 07 Mar. 1997 Called for Israel to stop plans to build settlements in Jabal Abu Ghuneim (Har Homa) in Jerusalem. Vote: 14 to 1. United States vetoes resolution calling on Israel to refrain from east Jerusalem settlement activity.
37. 21- 22 Mar. 97 Condemned Israeli settlement in Jabal Abu Ghuneim. Vote: 14 to 1. United States blocks resolution demanding Israel's immediate cessation of construction at an east Jerusalem settlement.
38. March 27, 2001: United States vetoes resolution backing a U.N. observer force to protect Palestinian civilians.

And now list all the times other countires have continued to vote against Israel, regardless of the debate. List all the General Assembly votes against Israel by the same countires time and time again.

My point is why do you condem the US for supporting Israel constantly and not 85% of the world for always voting against.

Last year Israel submitted a motion to the UN General Assembly, its first ever, about safe guarding children in this region. This motion talked about safe guarding both Israeli and Palestinian children from harm. This motion was withdrawn after pressure from the Arab league ensured that it would not get passed. They only like motions supporting their children and not ours.

If there is a double standard here it certainly isn't being caused by the US.

[quote=davetlv]And now list all the times other countires have continued to vote against Israel, regardless of the debate. List all the General Assembly votes against Israel by the same countires time and time again. [/quote]

Maybe it's because only the U.S, Israel and a couple of other allies actually support their policies!

[quote=davetlv] My point is why do you condem the US for supporting Israel constantly and not 85% of the world for always voting against. [/quote]

Because 85% of the world (think the Middle East, Africa, Asia and most of the developing nations) don't support Israeli policies.

[quote=davetlv] Last year Israel submitted a motion to the UN General Assembly, its first ever, about safe guarding children in this region. This motion talked about safe guarding both Israeli and Palestinian children from harm. This motion was withdrawn after pressure from the Arab league ensured that it would not get passed. They only like motions supporting their children and not ours.

If there is a double standard here it certainly isn't being caused by the US.[/quote]

Really? :roll:

[quote][size=6]Israel proposes first UN resolution[/size]

UNITED NATIONS - Israel is proposing its first motion at the United Nations, [b]calling on the world body to protect Israeli children[/b] from Palestinian terrorism.

Israel, which has been a frequent target of UN resolutions condemning the country, says the motion will test whether the organization is balanced when dealing with Middle East issues.

The resolution calls for [b]"Israeli children to live a normal life free from terrorism, destruction and fear."[/b] The motion is similar to one submitted by Egypt last week condemning Israel for the plight of Palestinian children.

"The test will be if they pass the Palestinian one but not ours,'' deputy Israeli Ambassador Arye Meckel told the Associated Press.

Israeli diplomats said they'd be happy if the General Assembly decided to drop or adopt both resolutions.

Israel has ignored hundreds of UN resolutions condemning the country for its treatment of the Palestinians.

The General Assembly passed twenty resolutions condemning Israel in 2002. The United States vetoed most, saying they are unbalanced and make no mention of Palestinian suicide bombings against Israelis. [/quote] [url]http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/11/05/israel031105[/url]

Oh, and by the way, they dropped [i]both [/i]resolutions.

[quote=mylexicon] Of course there is something stinks.....two things actually. First the American press lied for political reasons about the severity of Iraq's non-compliance with U.N. resolutions. Secondly, there is evidence to suggest that the oil-for food program is corrupt. So now the inspectors are working to try to make our actions in Iraq look justified so we don't torch the oil-for-food cash-cow. [/quote]

Yeah, wishful thinking and a nice theory, but I think not. And did you mean the American press or the American pres.? :lol: I think the evidence of corruption was already uncovered, so I'd have to disagree with you on that one.

[quote=mylexicon] Yes. World powers can act alone whenever they want. The U.S. will continue to do so as long as our allies fail to look out for our security. [/quote]

That's a funny one. :CrackUp: When the US invaded Afganistan, a lot o countries offered their support and help (they could have done better, I agree) and the campaign had a lot more international support. But on the other hand most of the world doesn't see the connection between American safety and the war in Iraq, which is IMO ought only because of strategic and "imperialistic" reasons and world dominacy. It has no connection with American safety or security.

[quote=mylexicon] And besides Europeans need to realize that Americans and other nationalities do whatever they want because they have no respect for Europeans. You have 400 million people who don't work, you have politicians who won't stfu and solve their own problems, you have a bomb you'll never use and a military you'll never deploy. :Rolling: [/quote]

Gosh! I sure wish we had American politicians in Europe. :Naughty: Yeah, Arnold for president of the EU. He's ours, we want him back... ...yeah, right. Keep him. :mrgreen:

You definitely have an interesting opinion on Europe. Well, I think your thoughts on the hardworking American people are definitely overrated by far. Why do most american companies move or have moved their production facilities to Asia? It's probably not, because the American people work that hard. The Americans probably do make the most money though, but that doesn't mean they are the most hard-working people in the world. Far from it.

Well, here's what I think: America owes a lot of its economic success to both WW. Europe, Japan, China and Russia and a couple of other countries had to fight these wars on their own territory (Pearl Harbor doesn't count), and a lot if not most of their industrial and economy infrastructure was destroyed during the wars, thus in most cases they had to start from a scratch. (The Americans offeres a lot of help in those times, for which I appreciate them, but they probably didn't do it for "free". You keep forgetting that a lot of scientist and rich people moved to the states because of opposing to Nazi regimes (so yes, I think American economy and science should be kind of thankul to Hitler :wink: ) and they remained in the States after the war. Even after the war a lot of scientists were brought (or forced) to come to the US (rocket scientist, weapon engineers,...). And the people who came to the States were hard working Europeans... Even after the war the USA "imported" a lot of scientists and workers from all around the world while the average American rednecks kept getting fat and scratched their asses.

[quote=mylexicon] What exactly is supposed to inspire us to believe that Europe is a place worth listening to? Whether or not you choose to realize it, outside of the socialist paradise you are working so hard to construct life is evolving at a rapid pace, and its not evolving towards socialistic control. Why do you think there is a resurgence of struggle between capitalism and totalitarianism in the Middle East and Asia???? Hint: It's not because capitalism/democracy is shrinking. Around the world new frontiers are being pioneered and there are 4-5 billion people waiting to be able to pull themselves out of poverty for the first time and enjoy pursuing freedoms that we Westerners take for granted. [/quote]

Noone claims that Europe is a place worth listening to. At least I have heard of noone. If you hadn't noticed, Europe doesn't even have its own opinion regarding international politics. :roll: I am sick of people who think that Europeans are opposing the US because of their jealousy of the American "success". It is simply not true. Maybe with France that is the case (since France always wanted to be looked upon as a world super power), but other countries are IMO definitely jealous. In the past century we have learned that nothing good can come out of wars, and that the peaceful solution is always better, yet difficult to achieve. Can't the US learn nothing on the mistakes learnt by others. Must they find out everything the hard way. I have millions of problems with the EU (including their foreign politics) and I DO NOT regard the EU as an ideallistic community of "happy" peaceful countries.

I agree that capitalism is the future, but I do not see anything "capitalistic" in the War on Terrorism. Connect the two for me, as I am sure you will be able to. :wink: And there is a difference between capitalism and imperialism or world domination.

[quote=mylexicon] The only person in the whole of Europe who fucking understands that is "George Bush's personal fluffer", Tony Blair. He knows that life outside of Europe is evolving and that Europe is just sitting on the bench, looking at themselves in a fucking vanity mirror, while bitching at everyone on the field when they aren't even in the goddamn game. [/quote]

You put that well "the only person"... :CrackUp: Oh wait, there are a couple more (spain's ex prime minister, Poland's president, Slovenian foreign minister, and probably a couple of other sad US ass-kissing individuals :lol: ). Can you explain why European countries were not targeted by Al quaeda before the war in Iraq began. The first Al-quaeda (european) attack took place in Madrid, this year. And why did Bin Laden offer peace to Europeans and not Americans (as much as it was worth :lol: :wink: ).

[quote=mylexicon] So put that in your pipe and smoke it. BTW even though that sounds like a really pissed of rant, it is actually a challenge to everyone. If you want to have a say in what goes on in this world, you have to be powerful, important and respected. Whiney and beautiful just won't cut it these days.[/quote]

My pipe is already smokin'. As delirious said, you have to be respected, which isn't the case with the US today. It also can't be, when having such double standards. Co-operating with Saudi Arabia, whose citizens probably support a lot more terrorism than Sadam ever was, just doesn't make sense. And how come Pakistan is not on the Axis of evil: a country with nuclear weapons and a shaky dictatorship, which can crumble almost at any time (Alah only knows who will have the control of the red button when that happens, but he/she will probably not be a great American friend as the current president "is" or pretends to be).

So, now you go and stuff your pipe... :wink:

[quote=brakada]. Co-operating with Saudi Arabia, whose citizens probably support a lot more terrorism than Sadam ever was, just doesn't make sense. And how come Pakistan is not on the Axis of evil: a country with nuclear weapons and a shaky dictatorship, which can crumble almost at any time (Alah only knows who will have the control of the red button when that happens, but he/she will probably not be a great American friend as the current president "is" or pretends to be).

So, now you go and stuff your pipe... :wink:[/quote]

[quote]The chairman of the Sept. 11 commission said yesterday that Al Qaeda had much more interaction with Iran and Pakistan than it did with Iraq, underscoring a controversy over the Bush administration's insistence that there was collaboration between the terrorist organization and Saddam Hussein.[/quote]

[url]http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/06/21/sept_11_chair_defines_iraq_qaeda_contact/[/url]

[quote=brakada]That's a funny one. When the US invaded Afganistan, a lot o countries offered their support and help (they could have done better, I agree) and the campaign had a lot more international support. But on the other hand most of the world doesn't see the connection between American safety and the war in Iraq, which is IMO ought only because of strategic and "imperialistic" reasons and world dominacy. It has no connection with American safety or security.[/quote]

Rome did whatever it wanted to for over 400 years. Egypt did whatever it wanted to for 1000+ years; the Chinese for 500+; the British for 50 years. And all of them were stopped either by some else becoming more powerful or from internal corruption and insolence.

[quote=brakada]Well, I think your thoughts on the hardworking American people are definitely overrated by far. Why do most american companies move or have moved their production facilities to Asia? It's probably not, because the American people work that hard.[/quote]

Where the hell did you go to school? The reason Americans are moving production overseas is because of wage competition. In the United States we have raised minimum wage continually in order to compensate workers for the rise in cost of living. During this time we have helped bring minimum wage workers out of poverty but we have also cause millions of jobs to be exported to India and China, etc. because we can pay them far less, get the same productivity, and the money we give them will buy them even more than it could in the states. It has nothing to do with how hard the average American works.

[quote=brakada]I am sick of people who think that Europeans are opposing the US because of their jealousy of the American "success". It is simply not true. Maybe with France that is the case (since France always wanted to be looked upon as a world super power), but other countries are IMO definitely jealous.[/quote]

I agree completely, I don't like it when people say that Europe is jealous, because people who have learned about the ways of Europe know they are proud and happy to be different than we are. :Bingo: That's fine by me.

[quote=brakada]Can you explain why European countries were not targeted by Al quaeda before the war in Iraq began. The first Al-quaeda (european) attack took place in Madrid, this year. And why did Bin Laden offer peace to Europeans and not Americans (as much as it was worth ). [/quote]

Thank you for proving my point. Europe has been sitting on the sidelines refusing to participate in any of the controversy occuring overseas. Obviously, if Al-Qaeda is trying to stop the West they are not going to attack the bench warmer before they attack the players on the field. You should be both flattered and appalled that the terrorists offered you peace. You should be flattered because they see you sitting on the bench and they know that you are the key to their destruction. As long as they keep you on the sidelines it hurts America more, which is what they want. You should be appalled becuase it shows that they don't see you as a current threat to their cause. They don't think that Europe poses any current/immediate threat as long as they just sit there idle.

Look the entire world is like one giant nuclear family, okay? :lol: The U.S. is the dad, the EU is the mom, and all the other nations are the children. At some point neither of us will be on top of the heap, but we have a responsiblity to teach (not indoctrinate) what we have learned about creating the most powerful and wealthiest nations on earth; and obviously we are obliged to learn from our children.

Here is a little skit to illustrate our roles:

Dad: China, i thought i told you to take a fucking bath and stop being so goddamn dirty.

China: Mom said i didn't have to.

EU: Yeah, i told him he doesn't have to tonight, besides you are dirty than he is why should he have to take a bath?

:roll:

Or here's another classic.

[pakistan and india are fighting in the back seat of the car]

EU: India! Pakistan! Stop fighting right now, someone is going to get hurt.

[India and Pakistan crack up and keep punching one another]

U.S.: Goddammit you two! Stop hitting one another right now or i'm going to pull this car over and spank you both, right here on the side of the road.

[fighting stops and Mom, India and Pakistan all turn their angry sentiments towards dad for making a big scene]

Dad makes the bacon, Dad busts his ass without any thanks from the wife or kids, but he does it because he knows he has to. Mom plays a very important role, she takes care of everyone and protects them from "evil" dad :lol: Of course, the mom is much better liked by the children.....thats the way it was meant to be.....but the dad is still respected.

The problem is, in this day and age we have got a bunch of rebellious teenagers running around who are telling the mom to stfu and are picking fights with their syblings and with dad. We have to teach them our ways and let them develop their own opinions so this globe will reamain in one piece even when we aren't running the show.

The kids are growing up and their isn't much need for an old nagging bitch anymore. The kids don't need nuturing they need direction and they need financial help to get on their feet. The EU can either put their maternity clothes in the trash and put the business suit back on, or they can sit there, eating ice cream in their stupid moo-moo dresses while dreaming about the days when they were young, beautiful, and powerful.

The choice is yours. I hope you put your suit back on and start kicking some ass so that we can be equals again, and enjoy the rest of the time we have left as leaders of the globe. :wink:

If you actually read this whole thing i'm gonna give you some karma, when we get it back :D

mylexicon, that just made my day. :D The family analogy is great, and it fits perfectly.

So STFU EU and just give big daddy some sugar. :Naughty: :P

[quote=MJDub]mylexicon, that just made my day. :D The family analogy is great, and it fits perfectly.

So STFU EU and just give big daddy some sugar. :Naughty: :P[/quote]

LoL, i was waiting for the sexual remarks to start :lol: BTW everyone who reads that post should take the analogy with a grain of salt :RockOn: :wink:

I just love your loooong posts. :wink:

[quote=mylexicon] Rome did whatever it wanted to for over 400 years. Egypt did whatever it wanted to for 1000+ years; the Chinese for 500+; the British for 50 years. And all of them were stopped either by some else becoming more powerful or from internal corruption and insolence. [/quote]

Yes, but always somebody "chewed" more than they could handle and IMHO this can happen to the States, looking at the rate of military interventions under Bush's presideny. Even America does not have unlimited funds and such interventions, which are not at all that cheap can weaken American reserves. Did you ever think how could all the money for the Iraq campaign be spent to improve or boost American economy? It surprises me that you never criticize the high costs of the campaign, being the capitalist you are. History has proven that no world reign can last forever, no matter how great or clever the superpower is. If you think differently, you are wrong.

[quote=mylexicon] Where the hell did you go to school? The reason Americans are moving production overseas is because of wage competition. In the United States we have raised minimum wage continually in order to compensate workers for the rise in cost of living. During this time we have helped bring minimum wage workers out of poverty but we have also cause millions of jobs to be exported to India and China, etc. because we can pay them far less, get the same productivity, and the money we give them will buy them even more than it could in the states. It has nothing to do with how hard the average American works. [/quote]

I am well aware of wage competition. I just don't understand where did you get the idea that Americans are one of the most hard working people in the world. :?: :? And where'd you get the idea that Europeans don't work. IMO there is not too much difference in the way Americans or Europeans work... And you are treating the Europe as a whole, which is definitely not right. Europe is a community of many nations and countries, which all have a much longer history than the USA (and please don't start talking about native Indians :wink: ) and each nation has different "working habits". While the Germans are probably one of the hardest workers on the globe (I think they work a lot harder than the Americans), the Italians tend to work less and their work is usually o lesser quality. I could mention other European good and "lousy" working nations, but I won't cause I hope I made my case (Saying that there are 400 millions of people in Europe who don't work is just wrong and stupid). I would have to say that the Japanese are the hardest world workers, though. :mrgreen:

[quote=mylexicon] I agree completely, I don't like it when people say that Europe is jealous, because people who have learned about the ways of Europe know they are proud and happy to be different than we are. :Bingo: That's fine by me. [/quote]

It's nice to see that we agree on something once again. :Bingo: It's just that I thought you made a couple of posts on the old MS, that Europeans defy American actions just because they are jealus of the American super power status, but I probably misunderstood you. :wink:

[quote=mylexicon] Thank you for proving my point. Europe has been sitting on the sidelines refusing to participate in any of the controversy occuring overseas. [/quote]

Europe is not sitting on sidelines in my point of view. They never supported terrorism, and they have always acted against Al-quaeda in its own territory. I understand why some of the EU did not want to support the current American campaign in Iraq. It is not reasonable to fight terrorism or whatever the US are fighting by invading countries which do not pose any serious current threats (to the western world). As it is clearly evident in Iraq, the American campaign has only enflamed terrorists from all parts of the middle east. International terrorists were not weakened at all, in fact they seem to be stronger than ever. But I am glad too, that the EU didn't participate in overthrowing of Sadams regime, although that WAS a GOOD thing. Because being the greatest of friends with some dictators (Saudis, Musharaf,...) while acting against those who don't "cooperate" is simply hypocritical. I even wouldn't have such a problem with this hypocrisy as long as Bush wouldn't claim that his causes are righteous and sincere. I mean, WTF? There are a lot of dictators who would have deserved to be removed first (just couldn't think of a better structure of the sentence, so nevermind my English :wink:).

[quote=mylexicon] Obviously, if Al-Qaeda is trying to stop the West [/quote]

:? Stop the West? From doing what? I don't get it... What are they trying to stop us from doing? I always thought they are "rebelling"/opposing US troops being stationed in the Arab countries (Quatar, Saudi Arabia,...).

[quote=mylexicon] they are not going to attack the bench warmer before they attack the players on the field. You should be both flattered and appalled that the terrorists offered you peace. You should be flattered because they see you sitting on the bench and they know that you are the key to their destruction. As long as they keep you on the sidelines it hurts America more, which is what they want. You should be appalled becuase it shows that they don't see you as a current threat to their cause. They don't think that Europe poses any current/immediate threat as long as they just sit there idle. [/quote]

I am flattered because the EU gave Al Quaeda very few reasons to be hated for. They never (in the last decades to be more precise) stationed their troops in Arab countries, they were always trying to find the peaceful solution (although most if not all of the times they failed :( ), they voted against Israel in a couple of UN resolutions. They did not support the mujaheddines, Sadam and they did not turn their back on them afterwards. They at least tried to remain quite neutral (there may have been some exceptions but I am talking about most of the EU... please correct me if I am wrong). I understand why Arabs think the US are using them, after all America has been friends with a lot of muslim countries / leaders / groups, but mostly they turned their back on them, so no wonder they feel exploited, while on the other hand friendship with the greatest Arab "enemy", Israel seems eternal.

[quote=mylexicon] Look the entire world is like one giant nuclear family, okay? :lol: The U.S. is the dad, the EU is the mom, and all the other nations are the children. At some point neither of us will be on top of the heap, but we have a responsiblity to teach (not indoctrinate) what we have learned about creating the most powerful and wealthiest nations on earth; and obviously we are obliged to learn from our children. [/quote]

It would be a kind of a "Jerry Springer family" then, because the dad would be kind of a mother's son (more of a bastard, actually :wink:). (Jerry! Jerry!) :mrgreen: No, I get your point and a couple of nice skits, there. :CrackUp: :Crackup:

I won't quote them all to save some server space (I am saying this after I've written 100s of words :roll:@me ) :wink:.

[quote=mylexicon] The choice is yours. I hope you put your suit back on and start kicking some ass so that we can be equals again, and enjoy the rest of the time we have left as leaders of the globe. :wink: [/quote]

I agree that "mom" should start kicking some ass, but not the way dad does (he only kicks the asses of the children he dislikes :lol:) and that dad will calm down a bit and he will try to be a bit more fair with his ass-kicking... So that in the end mom and dad would meet somewhere in between and they would leave happily ever after. Sound to good to be true, but, maybe someday our greatgreatgreatgreat...greatgrandchildren will live in a world like that... :wink:

[quote=mylexicon] If you actually read this whole thing i'm gonna give you some karma, when we get it back :D[/quote]

no need for karma the pleasure was all mine... :D Actually I didn't see this in the end before I've written all my other replies.

[quote=brakada]I am well aware of wage competition. I just don't understand where did you get the idea that Americans are one of the most hard working people in the world. And where'd you get the idea that Europeans don't work. IMO there is not too much difference in the way Americans or Europeans work...[/quote]

Fine, make me go to google. [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/439595.stm[/url] This is one of many recorded instances of the average American worker. BTW it gets far worse the more money you make; especially in white-collar jobs. For instance, my dad works in excess of 80 hrs per week. And he frequently works on Saturday if necessary. Futhermore, America is the only country in the world where work follows you home and on vacation, and those hours worked off the clock aren't even reflected in the statistics.

I got the idea that Europeans don't work from all the legislation they have written to prohibit people from working to long. In france for instance they have a law that prohibits people from working over 35 hrs per week. LAZY!!!!

[quote=brakada]Europe is not sitting on sidelines in my point of view. They never supported terrorism, and they have always acted against Al-quaeda in its own territory.

I am flattered because the EU gave Al Quaeda very few reasons to be hated for.[/quote]

:Bullshit: So lame. Terrorists like you and smoke the peace pipe with you. clap you must be proud; you attack them vigorously but never make them mad.

[quote=brakada]I agree that "mom" should start kicking some ass, but not the way dad does (he only kicks the asses of the children he dislikes ) and that dad will calm down a bit and he will try to be a bit more fair with his ass-kicking... [/quote]

I know what would make things fair, let's start attacking the people we like too. That would make everything fair :o :roll: Of course we only pimp slap the dumbfuck children. Who is gonna smack their kid when they are behaving?

Little Johnny Iraq ----> :Die: <-------- Me

"Put your fuckin WMD back in the toy box, Johnny, and quit talking back!!!!!

[quote=mylexicon] Fine, make me go to google. [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/439595.stm[/url] This is one of many recorded instances of the average American worker. [/quote]

Well, I guess I should thank you for proving my point. If you had read the article, then you probably noticed these statements:

[quote]Working long hours [size=6][b]does not[/b][/size] necessarily mean improved productivity, a report on world-wide labour trends suggests. [/quote]

[quote]But while US workers still lead the world in terms of productivity, European workers [size=3][b]are closing the gap, despite working fewer hours[/b][/size]. [/quote]

[quote]But despite working shorter hours, European countries show similar rates of economic growth over the past decade to the US. [/quote]

So, thanks again, for proving my point. I hope that we would agree, that the harder worker is the one who achieves more in less time, and not simply the one who works the most hours and achieves similar or worse production results. :mrgreen:

[quote=mylexicon] Futhermore, America is the only country in the world where work follows you home and on vacation, and those hours worked off the clock aren't even reflected in the statistics. [/quote]

Yeah right. :roll: Look my father is a doctor, with a Ph. D. in medicine. He's at work every day from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. or 7 p.m. plus that he works a lot of saturdays or sundays, as well. And he's doing some extra work for his job at home, too.

[quote=mylexicon] I got the idea that Europeans don't work from all the legislation they have written to prohibit people from working to long. In france for instance they have a law that prohibits people from working over 35 hrs per week. LAZY!!!! [/quote]

So do you really think, people in France do not work more than 35 hours a week. :roll: well, you're obviously not as clever as I thought. In Slovenia people shouldn't be working more than 40 hours a week, but if you add up my father's work hours, he's working a lot more than that. It's not like people are prohibited and forced not to to work longer. Most of the people in fact do work longer. I don't really know how's this law implemented in practise, but I think it's just meant to protect the workers from being overexploited (probably refers to minimum wage workers or something like that). And as legislation differs from one European country to another, so do the working habits and it's just idiotic to claim that all Europeans don't work... :Bullshit: Read the link you posted or my quotes from the article once again... :evil:

[quote=mylexicon] :Bullshit: So lame. Terrorists like you and smoke the peace pipe with you. clap you must be proud; you attack them vigorously but never make them mad. [/quote]

According to your statement you probably never read my entire post, but anyway... Yeah, Osama has just paid me a visit and we smoked a couple of doobies together. Too bad Bush turned down his invitation. :roll: Hmm, it's better not to attack, than to attack and achieve no evident results.

What has the Coallition Campaign in Iraq improved regarding the issue of international terrorism?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!

In fact, now there are more terrorists in Iraq, than there ever were. So why join a futile campaign, which has no connection with terrorism? Sadam was a worthless puny dictator and not a terrorist.

IMO if Bush would really want to "cleanse" the world of terrorism, he would have stayed in Afganistan a bit longer and he would have finished his work there. Even Hanson claimed in one of his articles, that things in Afganistan are the same they were, and are possibly going to get even worse. And then, he would move to Iraq, Iran or whatever his fictional enemy may be next. So, I seriously doubt his motives. What is the Bush Administration doing in Iraq. They overthrew Sadam, they captured a lot of Sadam's people from their "Most Wanted" list, but didn't do shit to stop terrorism. No, they even let is spread.

[quote=mylexicon] I know what would make things fair, let's start attacking the people we like too. That would make everything fair :o :roll: Of course we only pimp slap the dumbfuck children. Who is gonna smack their kid when they are behaving? [/quote]

OK, so you claim little Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel and a bunch of other "children" are behaving. :CrackUp: :CrackUp: :CrackUp:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! They're just kissing daddy's ass. So, excuse mom for not being as hypocritical as dad is. :roll:

Daddy: Oh, little Israel. I love you so much. Little Israel: I know daddy. I love you to. Daddy: Can you promise that you will behave well? Little Israel: Sure dad, why wouldn't I. :roll: [The next day Israel misbehaves] Daddy: Why did you misbehave Little Israel: Daddy, Daddy, but the brothers/sisters started it. Daddy: Sure, I knew it wasn't you, and since you are my favourite, you are forgiven...

[Daddy then sends little Palestine to her room while Israel's misbehaviour goes on and on and on forever. Well daddy's never gonna get tough on him, so he's safe] :mrgreen:

IMO, that's not fair. Both should be sent to their rooms for not listening to daddy...