Non aggression pact.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
Ummm no. Bush is not a dictator and the US’s weapons are already built up and if he felt the same way so what, good for him. He and his organization are now suffering the consequences of his action.

---

What has being a dictator got to do with it? It's just another form of government that you happen not to agree with.

All I can draw from your statement is that you think that bombing the Pentagon was an acceptable act.

War is used an excuse for to many crimes. Killing anyone is a bad thing. Sometimes it is the only logical approach, but it should always be the last method.

SD

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith

Hey didn’t Neville Chamberlain sign a Non-Aggression pact called the Munich Pact with some guy named Hitler? He came back to England and proudly stated he had achieved “Peace in our time”. A few months later Hitler completed his total disregard for the treaty and took apart Czechoslovakia. All the while England and France did nothing. Several months after that he invaded Poland and WWII began. And you still think leaving Saddam alone is a good thing? Don’t you learn anything from history?

---

Yes, we learnt to be wary of war mongers. We have a non-agression pact with America. America has just taken apart Afghanistan and now looks like expanding into Iraq :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SurfDemon
Yes, we learnt to be wary of war mongers. We have a non-agression pact with America. America has just taken apart Afghanistan and now looks like expanding into Iraq :rolleyes:

---

What you should have learned is that you should be wary of dictators who threaten their neighbors and that doing nothing about it and being a "peace monger" eventually leads to war.

Just as England and France did nothing about Hitler. They did the same thing you propose. Sit back and hope it goes away. And look at what happened with that situation. Millions dead.

As far as Afghanistan goes they liberated that country from a brutal Taliban regime. Of course you dont want to hear about their human rights violations and brutalization of women which all ended when the US went in there and cleared out the Taliban.

I find it amusing that you seem to support all these countries that love invading their neighbors, harbor terrorists, brutalize women, gas their own people, and take away simple human freedoms. Maybe you should go there and live under that type of government....sounds like you might like it.

maybe you should grab a gun and go fight them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
maybe you should grab a gun and go fight them.

---

If my country needs me I will do just that.

Good. Be sure to be up front when the gas starts to spread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith

I find it amusing that you seem to support all these countries that love invading their neighbors, harbor terrorists, brutalize women, gas their own people, and take away simple human freedoms. Maybe you should go there and live under that type of government....sounds like you might like it.

---

Okay, this is the nub of it. The people here who are saying "don't be so eager to go to war" are not supporting these countires. It is a simplistic view to see only two sides to every argument.

America did not liberate Afghanistan. It killed thousands and the country is still in turmoil, ran by warlords and gangs. What I am saying is that war is something that should only be used after all peaceful options have been explored. The cost is incredible. Bush is far to trigger happy for my liking. Willing to sacrifice countless thousand lives for his means.

Ask an Iraqi what he would prefer. To be "oppressed" - which probably doesn't effect your average joe soap farmer, or to have members of his family killed. I think you'll find they would rather stick with being "oppressed".

As for your comments of the second world war. Britain and France etc. tried diplomatic solutions, but only when those had been exhausted (i.e. Hitler carried on invading) Britain stepped in and declared war on Germany (as an aside it should be noted that America didn't do anything about it until they were dragged crying into the war, but that is another story). Yes, with hindsight maybe lives would have been saved if they had attacked Germany earlier, but somehow I doubt it. The same war would have ensued, with the same loss of life. The bottom line is they tried diplomacy.

Also Hitler and Saddam are two very different people. Wether you like it or not, Hitler was a patriot to his country, who's aims where to increase Germany's influence and power in the world. Saddam cares not for his people, and will quite happily have them fight a bloody terrorist war against any invading force. This is not a war with a country (which can be won), but a war with a fundamentalist. If you kill Saddam, you will make him a martyr to all the would-be terrorists out there.

Let me spell this out for you: Killing Saddam will cause lots more innocent lives to be lost. You will delve further into a never ending cycle of violence. You cannot stamp out terrorism - it's not like a country where you can identify all the combatants. A handful of fanatics could kill thousands or millions of innocent people. You have to stamp out the root cause of the terrorism.

A Canadian general was on TV recently talking about how when the Canadians where in Afghanistan, the troops took time off to dig wells for locals, repair their vehicles, they collected donations of shoes and clothing from back in Canada to give out to the kids. His point was, that in 10 years time when someone comes to recruit a terrorist for war against the west, these kids and their families might remember how nice the Canadians where, and decide that maybe the West isn't so bad after all.

If all these kids see is gunships and troops, the recruiters can tell them anything they want. They can make up attrocities committed by the West etc., and these kids will believe them.

This is the root of the problem, and it is one of many effective ways of fighting terrorism (although as previously stated there will always be someone with a grudge). War breeds more terrorists and cost innocent lives. So why are you so eager to see it happen?

SD

Something else : as far as my knowledge of WW2 can I ask you why the books show that the US declared neutrality on the war in Europe rather than join it right until Pearl Harbour ?
on Sept.1 '39 was the invasion of poland and on sept.3 same year was the declaration of war of both France and Britain. I hardly call that standing by.

And don't come back with the "if it weren't for us you'd be talking german argument" because 1)It was chiefly the British (and their commonwealth forces) and the Russians who liberated Europe, the US can only 3rd (and later on) and 2)Dutch is from origin a language that came from German so in a way we're already speaking German, long before the war. Please spare me that comment.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp

And don't come back with the "if it weren't for us you'd be talking german argument"

---

Which I always find funny, because when you think about it, Brits could say to Americans "If it weren't for us, you'd all be speaking French!".

Quote:

---

And don't come back with the "if it weren't for us you'd be talking german argument" because 1)It was chiefly the British (and their commonwealth forces) and the Russians who liberated Europe, the US can only 3rd (and later on) and 2)Dutch is from origin a language that came from German so in a way we're already speaking German, long before the war. Please spare me that comment.

---

If you remember the British had to flee the European mainland and head back to England at Dunkirk. If it wasnt for the help of the United States it is likely the British would have never seen the European mainland ever again.

I know you want to believe that it was the British that won the war first and foremost being that you are from there. But I think you are trivializing the United States contribution to the war effort. Both countries I'm sure have their own slant on what happened and I have no doubt you actually believe that it was chiefly the British who won the war. But I think if you get past the whole patriotism thing and actually read what really happened you will find that the Americans contributed greatly to the fall of Germany.

I know a lot of Americans overlook the contributions of the Russains in WWII. They suffered catastrophic losses in both men and equipment and still kept on fighting. If it wasnt for the Russians the war would have likely dragged on for years to come. It would have been very difficult (if not impossible) to defeat Germany without their help.

Quote:

---

This is the root of the problem, and it is one of many effective ways of fighting terrorism (although as previously stated there will always be someone with a grudge). War breeds more terrorists and cost innocent lives. So why are you so eager to see it happen?

---

War is never good I will give you that but some times it is a necessary evil to prevent a greater evil. And I want you to understand that putting off a war today can lead to a bigger one down the road. Problems just dont go away on their own, sometimes they have to be dealt with.

Also I am against any kind of military action until it is proven Saddam has indeed broken the UN resolutions. Which I do believe will be shown. Then I believe the UN lead by the United States should take steps to see that Saddam is no longer a threat to anyone again.

The only thing I am eager to do is defend my country when I see it attacked. I dont think you would do anything less if someone attacked your country. I doubt you could hold that against me.

X

Quote:

---

Which I always find funny, because when you think about it, Brits could say to Americans "If it weren't for us, you'd all be speaking French!".

---

Oui, C'est vrai :p

X

Wally is not from the Uk...

Quote:

---

Which I always find funny, because when you think about it, Brits could say to Americans "If it weren't for us, you'd all be speaking French!".

---

Or Spanish or Dutch...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith

The only thing I am eager to do is defend my country when I see it attacked. I dont think you would do anything less if someone attacked your country. I doubt you could hold that against me.

---

Er, and exactly when did Saddam Hussaien attack your country?????

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith

and I have no doubt you actually believe that it was chiefly the British who won the war

---

Funny, but I've never thought the Brits won the war. I've always thought it was the Russians, aided greatly by the Brits, the Canadians, the Poles, teh Kiwi's, the Ozzies, the French, the Maltese, the Dutch, the Irish and yes the US and a multitude of others.

In Europe we see it as a massive joint effort in which many people sacrificed everything for the greater good.

A Canadian history teacher friend of mine once described it as being like a huge game of soccer. Everyone on both sides plays their hearts out for the bulk of the game, defending, scoring etc., then in the last 15 minutes a player comes on with fresh legs having sat on the sidelines through out the whole game and after the match claims that he won the game. (No prizes for guessing which country he was refering to).

America did it's part, and people are grateful in the same measure that they are grateful to all the other people who died in the war. But never ever be under the illusion to America won the war. The Battle of Britain stalled Hitlers Westward expansion, while the collapse of the Eastern front destabilised his hold on mainland Europe. Americans shortened the war, but it was by no means lost without them.

In many ways the US government (not it's people) are regarded as being cowardly by not getting involved at the start of the war. In hindsight, it was a good move from the US economy's point of view, as it left all the European economies devastated. After the war, Churchill said "The lights have gone out over Europe, and they will not be re-lit for another 100 years." He was right, only now is Europe pulling itself out of wartime debt.

ALL of the UN inspectors said today that IRAQ is STILL in material breach of the UN resolution. They KNOW for a fact that IRAQ had 1000's of biological and chemical weapons...IRAQ says they no longer do...but IRAQ will show no proof of where the weapons went, or how they were destroyed.

That is a breach. That alone is enough reason for war according to the UN.

IT IS NOT the UN's job to FIND hidden Weapons...it is IRAQ's job to PROVE that they no longer have them!!!! UNDERSTAND!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Nope you don't...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SurfDemon
Er, and exactly when did Saddam Hussaien attack your country?????

---

Saddam's support for terrorism can be linked to AQ, and their attacks on Amercian interests.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc
ALL of the UN inspectors said today that IRAQ is STILL in material breach of the UN resolution. They KNOW for a fact that IRAQ had 1000's of biological and chemical weapons...IRAQ says they no longer do...but IRAQ will show no proof of where the weapons went, or how they were destroyed.

That is a breach. That alone is enough reason for war according to the UN.

IT IS NOT the UN's job to FIND hidden Weapons...it is IRAQ's job to PROVE that they no longer have them!!!! UNDERSTAND!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Nope you don't...

---

Thats a good point. In 12,000 pages, u think they would be able to explain where it all went to.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc
ALL of the UN inspectors said today that IRAQ is STILL in material breach of the UN resolution. They KNOW for a fact that IRAQ had 1000's of biological and chemical weapons...IRAQ says they no longer do...but IRAQ will show no proof of where the weapons went, or how they were destroyed.

That is a breach. That alone is enough reason for war according to the UN.

IT IS NOT the UN's job to FIND hidden Weapons...it is IRAQ's job to PROVE that they no longer have them!!!! UNDERSTAND!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Nope you don't...

---

Why all the capitals???

How can they prove they have destroyed something they say they don't have. Either the UN proves that they have weapons of mass destruction, or they don't.

What kind of a scewed up legal system do you believe in. Maybe if you get charged with theft, it should be up to you to prove that you don't have the item. Kinda tricky to do isn't it.

You are right about one thing, I don't understand your point of view. I'm willing to listen though. Enlighten me, why should Iraq have to prove it doesn't have something it's claimed it doesn't have all along.

As I mentioned earlier. Saddam knows there are going to be weapons inspections, then he would have dumped all the WMD years ago. He'd be a fool not to. He won't document that because then the trigger happy states would use that as an excuse to attack (look, he's admitted to lying to us, how do we know he's not lying now?)

Try to look at this from Saddams point of view. He cannot win a direct war against the states. He knows they are desperate to attack. Why would he keep weapons of mass destruction. Do you really think he gives a ***** about launching nuclear weapons at America?? He has greater problems on his hands with his economy and people.

What's his motivation?

SD

The fact that he blames America for his poor economy, and that he seems to like starting wars which he can't win. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Saddam's support for terrorism can be linked to AQ, and their attacks on Amercian interests.

---

Er, how exactly. As far as I can see, lot's of people have been trying to make this link, yet no one has managed it? I would be very interested to see your proof.

And Saudi Arabia has been directly and openly linked to AQ. Why no retaliations there?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
The fact that he blames America for his poor economy, and that he seems to like starting wars which he can't win. :)

---

:p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SurfDemon
And Saudi Arabia has been directly and openly linked to AQ. Why no retaliations there?

---

Because there a US ally, and they aren't paying them money to go bomb America. Every country has the pests, but most are trying to remove them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Because there a US ally, and they aren't paying them money to go bomb America. Every country has the pests, but most are trying to remove them.

---

Really?

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021126-77905969.htm

I do believe he thought there intentions were for good purposes, and I don't think she handed them the money personally.

And the claim that the SA aren't doing enough is incorrect, they have a nutter on their boarder with some scuds and nuclear weapons, as well as having the largest immigrant % of pop in the world. If they go out and piss on Iraq, then people are going to get pissed. In 1990, many people in SA didn't know that they had been invaded for 8-10 days.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SurfDemon
Why all the capitals???

How can they prove they have destroyed something they say they don't have. Either the UN proves that they have weapons of mass destruction, or they don't.

What kind of a scewed up legal system do you believe in. Maybe if you get charged with theft, it should be up to you to prove that you don't have the item. Kinda tricky to do isn't it.

You are right about one thing, I don't understand your point of view. I'm willing to listen though. Enlighten me, why should Iraq have to prove it doesn't have something it's claimed it doesn't have all along.

As I mentioned earlier. Saddam knows there are going to be weapons inspections, then he would have dumped all the WMD years ago. He'd be a fool not to. He won't document that because then the trigger happy states would use that as an excuse to attack (look, he's admitted to lying to us, how do we know he's not lying now?)

Try to look at this from Saddams point of view. He cannot win a direct war against the states. He knows they are desperate to attack. Why would he keep weapons of mass destruction. Do you really think he gives a ***** about launching nuclear weapons at America?? He has greater problems on his hands with his economy and people.

What's his motivation?

SD

---

Uhhh which part of "They KNOW for a fact that IRAQ had 1000's of biological and chemical weapons" didnt you understand? The inspectors have said so..Watch the news some times, instead of arguing out yer ass. Untill he proves he no longer has them, then the world is forced to beleive he still does.


Do you think Sadam gives a flip about his countrys economy? You think he cares about his people?? Why the hell did he gas 5000 of them to death? As long as he has 45, multi million dollar mantions to live in he could care less.

What's Sadams Motivation? he's a freeking psycopath maybe??

Does anyone else see a connection between Saddem and the leader of NK? Both love to stand on a balcony and look down on people, although the NK guy doesn't do it with a gun...

Yah, sorta reminds me of somone...hmm who could it be....let me think....could it be.....mmmSATAN!? aka Hitler.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc
Uhhh which part of "They KNOW for a fact that IRAQ had 1000's of biological and chemical weapons" didnt you understand? The inspectors have said so..Watch the news some times, instead of arguing out yer ass. Untill he proves he no longer has them, then the world is forced to beleive he still does.


Do you think Sadam gives a flip about his countrys economy? You think he cares about his people?? Why the hell did he gas 5000 of them to death? As long as he has 45, multi million dollar mantions to live in he could care less.

What's Sadams Motivation? he's a freeking psycopath maybe??

---

Ah. Unfortunately I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. But it is quite apparent that you cannot keep a discussion going without degenerating into personal attacks everytime you feel it's going against you. Maybe you should run off home now crying to yer mummy because the nasty men on the internet believe that we should have proof before slaughtering thousands of innocents lives. Grow up. If you can't behave like an adult, how do you expect anyone to take your opinions seriously.

As for the psychopath answer. A psychopath is someone who enjoys or is undisturbed by the act of killing others. They still need a motive. - whether it's sexual arousal by the kill etc. or whatever. Killing faceless thousands would not appear to fulfil this need - according to physciatrist reports.

I suppose you think Hitler was a psycopath? There are two old sayings. Know your enemy, and never underestimate your enemy. You don't seem to be able to do either.

Oh, and you might want to complain to your mommy about the audacity we exhibit by daring to question the great god Bush!

P.S. I'm still looking for a small thing called "proof" of weapons of mass destruction. I'll ask again nicely if you can show many any. But I don't have high hopes that you will be able to be mature enough to give a grown up answer.

SD

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
The fact that he blames America for his poor economy...

---

Well, he's right on that, before the war Iraq was one of the most advanced arab contry in regards of education and health. But now due to the sanctions the Iraqi people are suffering needlessly.
http://www.harpers.org/online/cool_war/?pg=1

Quote:

---

Er, and exactly when did Saddam Hussaien attack your country?????

---

I was talking about people here who love to attack the US :)

Quote:

---

Funny, but I've never thought the Brits won the war. I've always thought it was the Russians, aided greatly by the Brits, the Canadians, the Poles, teh Kiwi's, the Ozzies, the French, the Maltese, the Dutch, the Irish and yes the US and a multitude of others.

---

No the allies won the war you are correct. I was just trying to address what I thought to be a minimization of the contribution of Americans in WWII.

Quote:

---

In many ways the US government (not it's people) are regarded as being cowardly by not getting involved at the start of the war. In hindsight, it was a good move from the US economy's point of view, as it left all the European economies devastated. After the war, Churchill said "The lights have gone out over Europe, and they will not be re-lit for another 100 years." He was right, only now is Europe pulling itself out of wartime debt.

---

Its funny how you can call the US government cowardly because it wouldn’t enter the war right away. The United States had pretty much practiced a policy of isolationism, meaning they didn’t mess with the affairs of other countries. Now that the US is actually doing something and taking preemptive measures you call them warmongers. I guess its the old damned if you do damned if you don’t scenario that I hear so many times. If the US attacks you call them warmongers. If they wait and something bad happens then they get blamed for being complacent and for not doing something when they had the chance.

Also from what I remember the United States helped rebuild Europe big time after the war. Ever hear of something called the Marshall Plan? The United States pumped millions into rebuilding Europe and to help its peoples recover. I guess that was conveniently forgotten as well :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Good. Be sure to be up front when the gas starts to spread.

---

LOL charming :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith

Also from what I remember the United States helped rebuild Europe big time after the war. Ever hear of something called the Marshall Plan? The United States pumped millions into rebuilding Europe and to help its peoples recover. I guess that was conveniently forgotten as well :(

---

And that had nothing to do with fighting communism :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith

Its funny how you can call the US government cowardly because it wouldn’t enter the war right away. The United States had pretty much practiced a policy of isolationism, meaning they didn’t mess with the affairs of other countries. Now that the US is actually doing something and taking preemptive measures you call them warmongers. I guess its the old damned if you do damned if you don’t scenario that I hear so many times. If the US attacks you call them warmongers. If they wait and something bad happens then they get blamed for being complacent and for not doing something when they had the chance.

Also from what I remember the United States helped rebuild Europe big time after the war. Ever hear of something called the Marshall Plan? The United States pumped millions into rebuilding Europe and to help its peoples recover. I guess that was conveniently forgotten as well :(

---

Two things here. The first is a fair point. But I would say there is a time for war and a time for diplomacy. When a country is invading other countries and diplomacy isn't working, then that is the time for war. When there is no outward aggression, and diplomacy might still achieve it's purpose, then that is the time for talking.

I believe the States missed the first one totally with the second world war, and in order to make up for being late last time, they want to be really really early this time around :)

As for the Marshall plan, do not kid yourself. The main argument for putting it through congress was that if America did not stop the starvation in Europe, the Soviets would, and many European countries would become sympathic to communism.

Don't get me wrong, it was greatly appreciated, and at the time was of great help to Europe, but it was hardly without an alterior motive.

I think it's sometimes hard for North Americans who have not been to Europe to realise the scale of devsastation to the Economy's there (which is fair enough). But bare in mind, every country has just spent 5 years using up every single resource it has. A large portion of the male population are dead. Non-war factories have been empty for 5 years (so no skilled labour), whole cities have been leveled (in particular Dresden - not exactly Britains finest hour). The cities which have survived still have had all their factories destroyed. All the countries where in turmoil, starvation was rampant. Economy's destroyed.

Even growing up as kids, we were still suffering the effects of the second world war. An aging civilian population suffering from shell shock and physical wounds. (My English teacher used to have at least one fit every lesson where he would flip out and run for cover :( ). Huge tracks of land, deemed off limits because they were full of unexploded shells (where I grew up there was a 25 square mile patch of land right behind our house that was a WWII munitions factory, when I bought a house on the east coast of Scotland 10 years ago, one of the beaches is still off limits because it was used for WWII firing practice). People would find unexploded bombs in fields (my sister in law found one). Everyone greiving for lost fathers, mothers and children.

So yes, the Marshall plan helped relieve a lot of pain and suffering, and was greatly appreciated, but it did not rebuild Europe. That is still being done to this day.

- Mind you playing in the pill boxes was fun.

SD

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
The United States pumped millions into rebuilding Europe and to help its peoples recover. I guess that was conveniently forgotten as well :(

---

As an aside, as well as what? What else did we forget? Sorry, I'm not being fecitious, just making sure we haven't overlooked anything.

SD

Hmmm seems like its become a slagging match :D :D :D :D


It took a long time for WWII to start and it could have been oppressed well before war was declared. Dont argue the point because its true!!! :D :D :D :D LOL



You all seem to have it in for America here (I am not American) and seem to keep finding faults that arent there e.g

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didnt Join WWII and werent there when it started

Then you have the cheek to moan when they are!!!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America is taking drastic measures:

well wouldnt you if you where likely to be the main target of nuclear weapons

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They have found no wmd's in Iraq:

But they were there and now Iraq cant prove where they have gone (hmmm hiding them possibly)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



p.s

It only took one man to dream of fighting a war in Europe (Hitler) and then WWII broke out, if he had nuclear weapons he would have used them without concern for damage. Does this not mean we should also be wary of somebody who says he hasnt got them anymore but wont prove it. We cant take his word for it as he fights through lies just as Hitler did when he invaded poland (He said he wouldnt when they split chechniya (Spelt wrong :rolleyes: :rolleyes:))

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK
They have found no wmd's in Iraq:

But they were there and now Iraq cant prove where they have gone (hmmm hiding them possibly)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



p.s

It only took one man to dream of fighting a war in Europe (Hitler) and then WWII broke out, if he had nuclear weapons he would have used them without concern for damage. Does this not mean we should also be wary of somebody who says he hasnt got them anymore but wont prove it. We cant take his word for it as he fights through lies just as Hitler did when he invaded poland (He said he wouldnt when they split chechniya (Spelt wrong :rolleyes: :rolleyes:))

---

I am reputed to be slow in getting humour, but this is something I have very quickly followed :D

.

BLow up Iraq, and the rest of the Islamic world.


The TV's been really crap over the christmas.

It will increase the film industry material so lets go YIPEEEEEEE!!!!!!


Oh and

*Bodwad SLAPS Honeybee

BITC*

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SurfDemon
As an aside, as well as what? What else did we forget? Sorry, I'm not being fecitious, just making sure we haven't overlooked anything.

SD

---

My only point with that is that the US does do good in the world. Seems as if some people have a 100% negative view of the United States. No one ever seems to want to point out the good it does, just dwell on what they perceive as wrong or bad.

If you look at every country on the planet all have their share of skeletons. Its just that when you are on top everyone loves to tear you down.

X

That is true.

The question you must ask yourself from the perspective of the Islamic World is :

What has the West done to improve our lives in the last 500 years?
Modern Medicine, Innoculations (I mean halh these people would not be alive if it were not for this), Modern Transport and Communications, Democracy, Trade e.t.c , e.t.c

The question you must ask yourself from the perspective of the Western World is :

What has theIslamic World done to improve our lives in the last 500 years?
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Exactly!

The fact is the Islamic world has done nothing to improve the lives of anyone in centuries and because of this they have one hell of a chip on their shoulder.

I will be more than happy to accept the mistakes of the West if these sodomites would just acknoledge our achievments.

Chances of that happening:

0.0000001%

******s