Jump to content
Washington DC Message Boards

Usa Government Sucks!

finnish creep

Recommended Posts

us is taking part of every war there is going on. they give this "freedom" killing more people than any other country! should learn other religions and try to understand them, not saying "we know what is best for you". what you ever do in united nations if you dont respect their solutions? every day more and more people start to hate your politics!


and the bombs your were used had made by uranium. nowadays plutonium. it means iraqi have 10 000 times more radioactivity ratius than you. and the childs are born have smaller hand and so.... bet they dont tell you that on the news!


so do you want to conquer the world? take all the oil? or what, control everything?


and where was the biochemical weapons you were talking about?


peace and love from finland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Barclay

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also referred to as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), obligates the five acknowledged nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, and China) not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear-weapon state.


Non-nuclear-weapon States Parties undertake not to acquire or produce nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. They are required also to accept safeguards to detect diversions of nuclear materials from peaceful activities, such as power generation, to the production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. This must be done in accordance with an individual safeguards agreement, concluded between each non-nuclear-weapon State Party and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Under these agreements, all nuclear materials in peaceful civil facilities under the jurisdiction of the state must be declared to the IAEA, whose inspectors have routine access to the facilities for periodic monitoring and inspections. If information from routine inspections is not sufficient to fulfill its responsibilities, the IAEA may consult with the state regarding special inspections within or outside declared facilities.


The NPT is the most widely accepted arms control agreement. As of early 2000 a total of 187 states were Parties to the NPT. Cuba, Israel, India, and Pakistan were the only states that were not members of the NPT.


India and Pakistan have tested and publicly asserted that they have nuclear arsenals. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) asserted its intention to withdraw from the NPT in January 2003 and claims to have a nuclear deterrent. Beyond these cases there is Israel, which has also chosen to remain outside the Treaty and operates a largely unsafeguarded nuclear program. Finally, we have Iran, which, although it is a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT, has acted in a way that betrays an aim to acquire nuclear weapons.


These observations demonstrate the urgency of the situation that we now confront. However you slice it, the challenge posed by non-nuclear weapon state noncompliance with nonproliferation obligations is the gravest challenge to the Treaty today. It strikes at the heart of the Treaty's central benefit and purpose: and that is security. We must vigorously pursue diplomatic efforts to get Iran and the DPRK to abandon their nuclear weapon programs. We have no choice on this. This should be priority number one. The recent case of Libya demonstrates that it is feasible for a country like Iran to conclude that it should abandon pursuit of nuclear weapons. And South Africa demonstrates that even after acquiring nuclear weapons, as may be the case in the DPRK, it still is possible for a country to become non-nuclear.


The U.S. has addressed all parts of the Treaty throughout the PrepCom process. Those who claim otherwise have not been listening. As always, we are prepared to provide answers to questions on Article VI. Will our answers be satisfactory in all cases to all parties? Probably not. But regardless of what you think, reaching the goals of the NPT demand no less concern about Iran's compliance with Articles II and III than about U.S. compliance with Article VI.


Iraq had well-developed biological and chemical weapons programmes which were partially dismantled by weapons inspectors after the Gulf War. The inspectors also destroyed Iraq’s fledgling nuclear weapons programme.


When the inspectors were effectively forced to leave Iraq in 1998, they were unable to account for significant quantities of materials that could be used in the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons.


From 1998, there was evidence that the Iraqi regime had recalled its nuclear weapons experts to begin work on a new programme and had attempted to obtain nuclear related materials and technology.


On the publication of Charles Duelfer's report into WMD in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the Foreign Secretary said:


'This report confirms what has been widely reported for some months now - it is unlikely that Saddam had actual stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction. That is in line with Lord Butler's conclusion. The Prime Minister has already accepted this and taken full responsibility for any mistakes that were made with intelligence that has subsequently turned out to be flawed.'


'Where this report breaks new ground is by producing extensive new evidence showing that Saddam did indeed pose a threat to the international community, in the following ways: it shows he never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. It shows that Saddam was in multiple breach of UN Resolutions; retained the intellectual capability to re-constitute WMD programmes when he could; he was pursuing to that end an aggressive strategy to subvert the UN oil for food programme and bring down UN sanctions; his strategy for sanctions lift was succeeding. Sanctions - and thus the policy of containment - were eroding. And it shows; the ISG itself concludes that Iraq was in striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime.'


'By 2000/1 Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and to undermine their international support. According to his former science adviser Saddam, by mid to late 2002, had concluded that sanctions had eroded to the point that it was inevitable they would be dropped.'


'There is a huge amount of information detailing this deception and intent, drawing in particular on interviews with former regime officials, including members of Saddam's inner circle such as Tariq Aziz. The ISG had unprecedented access to these individuals who were interviewed and answered questions in writing. Not all co-operated. But others did so extensively.'


' The ISG Report shows that Iraq successfully devised methods to acquire and import items prohibited under UN sanctions. And it shows that the number of countries supporting Saddam's schemes to undermine UN sanctions was increasing. The Iraq Ministry of Oil, with Saddam's personal approval, used a secret oil voucher distribution system to attempt to influence other nations and individuals to support Iraq's goals. This earned Iraq $2bn - part of an $11bn total that Iraq illegally amassed from illicit revenue streams.'


'Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. Iraq organised its chemical industry after the mid 1990s in a way which allowed it to conserve the knowledge base to restart a CW programme. It retained the ability to weaponise CW agent when the need arose. The ISG also found that between 1991 and 2003 the Iraq Intelligence Service maintained a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The programme included the use of human subjects for testing.'


'The report shows Saddam's longstanding desire for long-range delivery systems. In the years after co-operation with UNSCOM ended in 1998, the pace of Iraq's missile programmes accelerated, and the regime authorised scientists to develop systems with ranges in breach of the 150km limit imposed by UN Resolutions. In addition to the illegal al-Samoud II missiles exposed by UNMOVIC in early 2003, the ISG uncovered Iraqi plans and designs for ballistic missiles with ranges of 400km, 800km and 1000km. Although none had reached the production stage by 2003, Iraqi investments in technology and infrastructure lead the ISG to conclude that Saddam clearly intended to reconstitute his long-range delivery systems.'


'The Report judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam's belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view WMD helped to save the regime numerous times. The report says there is clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD development as soon as sanctions were lifted. There were no written instructions to this effect, but Saddam's lieutenants understood this was his goal from his firm verbal comments and directions to them.'


'We have accepted that it is unlikely that Saddam had actual stockpiles of WMD. It should however be remembered that it was the view of the whole international community that Saddam had WMD. UNSCR 1441 was signed unanimously. The disagreement within the international community was not whether Saddam had WMD, nor that he posed a threat to international peace and stability, but how the threat should be dealt with.'


'In turn, on the basis of this report, others have to accept that not only did Saddam possess the capability and intent to develop WMD but also that the policy of containment was not working. Sanctions were a wasting asset. He posed a threat and the world is a safer place without him in power.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TrueBrit

The reason why the Yanks have the bomb was to avert the German nuclear threat

that started in 1938.


The reason for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to save lives. Invading Japan would have been more costly to the allies than Normandy.


You may not understand this since during the "Continuation War" your country fought alongside Nazi Germany from June 25, 1941 to September 4, 1944.


Here is something that you might want to read.


This Agreement and Declaration of Trust is made the thirteenth day of June One thousand nine hundred and fourty four by Franklin Delano Roosevelt on behalf of the Government of the United States of America, and by Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill on behalf of the Government of tile United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The said Governments are hereinafter referred to as "the Two Governments":


Whereas an agreement (hereinafter called the Quebec Agreement) was entered into on the nineteenth day of August One thousand nine hundred and forty three by and between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; and


Whereas it is an object vital to the common interests of those concerned in the successful prosecution of the present war to insure the acquisition at the earliest practicable moment of an adequate supply of uranium and thorium ores; and


Whereas it is the intention of the Two Governments to control to the fullest extent practicable the supplies of uranium and thorium ores within the boundaries of such areas as come under their respective jurisdictions; and


Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland intends to approach the Governments of the Dominions and the Governments of India and of Burma for the purpose of securing that such Governments shall bring under control deposits of the uranium and thorium ores within their respective territories; and


Whereas it has been decided to establish a joint organization for the pur-pose of gaining control of the uranium and thorium supplies in certain areas outside the control of the Two Governments and of the Governments of the Dominions and of India and of Burma;


Now it is Hereby Agreed and Declared as Follows:


1. (1) There shall be established in the City of Washington, District of Columbia, a Trust to be known as "The Combined Development Trust".

(2) The Trust shall be composed of and administered by six persons who shall be appointed, and be subject to removal, by the Combined Policy Committee established by the Quebec Agreement.


2. The Trust shall use its best endeavours to gain control of and develop the production of the uranium and thorium supplies situate in certain areas other than the areas under the jurisdiction of the Two Governments and of the governments of the Dominions and of India and of Burma and for that purpose shall take such steps as it may in the com-mon interest think fit to:

a.  Explore and survey sources of uranium and thorium supplies.

b.  Develop the production of uranium and thorium by the acquisition of mines and ore deposits, mining concessions or otherwise.

c.  Provide with equipment any mines or mining works for the production of uranium and thorium

d.  Survey and improve the methods of production of uranium and thorium.

e.  Acquire and undertake the treatment and disposal of uranium and thorium and uranium and thoriurn materials.

f.  Provide storage and other facilities.

g.  Undertake any functions or operations which conduce to the effective carrying out of the purpose of the Trust in the common interest.


3. (1) The Trust shall carry out its functions under the direction and guidance of the Combined Policy Committee, and as its agent, and all ura-nium and thorium ores and supplies and other property acquired by the Trust shall be held by it in trust for the Two Governments jointly, and disposed of or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the direction of the Combined Policy Committee.

(2) The Trust shall submit such reports of its activities as may be required from time to time by the Combined Policy Committee.


4. For the purpose of carrying out its functions, the Trust shall utilize whenever and wherever practicable the established agencies of any of the Two Governments, and may employ and pay such other agents and employees as it considers expedient, and may delegate to any agents or employees all or any of its functions.


5. The Trust may acquire and hold any property in the name of nominees.


6. All funds properly required by the Trust for the performance of its functions shall be provided as to one-half by the Government of the United States of America and the other half by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


7. In the event of the Combined Policy Committee ceasing to exist, the functions of the Committee under the Trust shall be performed by such other body or person as may be designated by the President for the time being of the United States of America and the Prime Minister for the time being of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


8. The signatories of this Agreement and Declaration of Trust will, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of hostilities, recommend to their respective Governments the extension and revision of this war-time emergency agreement to cover post war conditions and its formalization by treaty or other proper method. This Agreement and Declaration of Trust shall continue in full force and effect until such extension or revision.



(Signed) Franklin D. Roosevelt

On Behalf of the Government of the United States of




(Signed) Winston S. Churchill

On Behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moi FinnishCreep,

There is nothing good about Nuclear weapons. And I hope they are never used again to resolve a conflict. But, I was not alive during the War with Japan and therefore it is impossible to guage the circumstances of using this great destructive force. But, what I do know is that Germany, Finland, and Japan are now our friends.


I know Finland is a trendsetter and has a woman for President. Finland has been a strong partner in European Union since 1995. I also know that Finland has the option of joining Nato if it wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Human

There was a documentary on Hiroshima once, I can't remember the name of the documentary, but I will never forget what an Ex Japanese soldier told a woman in the documentary about the United States using the "Bomb".


When she was saying basically the same thing that you are saying, he turned around, identified himself as a Colonel in the Japanese armed forces, and said to the women (if we "Japan" had the bomb, we would have used it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

finnish defence forces got their training from germans in 1902-1913. and next year we got independens and nazis took power in german. russia attaced finland in winter 1939.

yes we did a counter-attack to soviet union aside nazis. but only for our independency, to destroy some strategic targets.


i just hate your country becouse it goes so easily to every war. trying to control other countries and their policy. your president wants to unwear others from mass-destruction weapons and increase own. you have trained the terrorist and now they are fighting agains you becouse dissrespecting their culture and religion. in iraq it wasnt about nuclear weapons, it was about oil!


your social policy is fu--ed up and the gans are taking the streets again. every u.s citizen can buy a gun. maaaan, this sucks! take care your own!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Human

Finnish, could you please tell me what these statements mean?


your president wants to unwear others from mass-destruction ??


you have trained the terrorist and now they are fighting agains you becouse dissrespecting their culture and religion???


yes we did a counter-attack to soviet union aside nazis. but only for our independency, to destroy some strategic targets??


I just don't understand what you are saying there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry my english.


i met:


looks like nobody else should have mass-destruction weapons than u.s. and why the hell is that... you have killed more people than any other country.


cia has trained bin laden and al quaida to attack russians. but u.s f---ed up the middle east policy and turned al quaida against them. and i dont understand why you have to support israel so much..?


my country was attacked by soviet union and we attacked back. the same time than nazis. our destination wasnt conquer the soviet union, only destroy some strategic targets, so we would have better changes to keep our independency. lenin was good but stalin wanted to conquer finland back to u.s.s.r.


it was the world greatest defence victory. the big soviet union didnt get us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest Iiro

In 1963 Finland signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, prohibiting nuclear testing underwater, above ground, and in outer space; and in 1968 it approved the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It was the first country to form an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency concerning the peaceful use of nuclear power. In 1971 Finland signed the treaty banning the placement of nuclear weapons on the world's seabed, and in 1975 it joined in the prohibition of the development, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons. The United States should follow the same path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest True Brit

Don't kid yourselves. The Soviet Union carefully monitored Finland's adherence to the FCMA treaty, and Finland's awareness of this scrutiny influenced its neutral policy.

Your country had no other choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest Icantwaittoleavethiscountry

Ok, so can we hear from someone who ISN'T a complete moron? I am American and I believe my government is leading us on a Holy Crusade. Here's a clue for all you pro-American government DUCHEBAGS: Every empire meets its decline. It's time to step down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest think1st



I think you need to educate yourself before posting on boards like this that make you look stupid.


1)Honestly what would you think if someone attacked your country like Sept. 11, you dont think your country should do something about terrorism. Terrorism needs to be stopped on all levels not just in America. I also dont believe they are being terrorist because we dont understand their religion, it is because they dont like our successful way of life. They have it difficult and think we are to blame.


2)I dont like all American policies but the reason we have went to war lately is all for good causes. I believe we went to Iraq for many reasons besides WMD. Sure Bush didnt tell us the exact reasons but sometimes political leaders should come out and state their objectives. Sure people are dying but these were oppressed people that we are saving. I think we have a strong military and should use it to help other people who cant help themselves.


3) Sometimes people like you hate America just to hate us. Why do you care when our policies dont really effect you. Just curious what you are really thinking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest finnish_creep

think1st hahhaah, you are funny guy! get some education stu. schools in u.s teach only your own countrys history and politics. you dont know a damn thing whats going around you.

"we go war only for good couses". yeah right. more likely for oil. there is no way you gonna win the war in iraq. their culture and way of life is so much more older and different than yours and there is no way democracy will work there! religion is a little more different there than in western contries.


and WAR AGAINST TERRORISM!? its not terrorism, its a new way of war. they cannot put men in line and mars against your lines. they cannot do damage by that. only way they can resist you is doing "terrorism". and the funniest thing, your cia have been teaching this tactic. agains soviet union in cold war. but when you started to f--k with the islamic way of life they punched back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest think1st

You think we were just attacking muslims to attack them? That is ignorant, we have muslims in our country that freely practice. These "terrorists" dont follow their religion. I went to school with Muslim people during 911 and gave us a class on Islam. These are extremists that are using religion as an excuse. No where in the Quran does it say to openly kill Americans because supposdly we dont like Islamic people.


Also you think just because we live in America that we only learn the American side of things. If that was true than you only learn the side of things where you are from. So dont come on to American sites and try to preach to us. Plus you are talking about education and you cant spell or complete full sentences.


Here is the important topic. Who knows why American really went to Iraq? Obviously not for oil because oil prices are soaring right now. Plus Bush just put in to action to start drilling our Alaskan oil reserves. If there was so much oil in our future from Iraq than why is this going on? Answers you dont know, you just want to complain about Americans for some stupid reason. If you read my previous posts, I dont support all of Bush's grand ideas but at least we helped some oppressed people in the process. Honestly Iraq is just as much a breeding ground for terrorists places like Afganistan.


What really gets me is that you say terrorism is an act of war? That means they attacked us first according to your theory moron. We retaliated defending ourselves and now these countries reaped the whirlwind, so nitwits like you say we started the whole thing. It is pointless to argue, I respect you opinion but I will defend my country at all costs first. That is why I am making these points back to you. Honestly WHY DO YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THE US? It doesnt make since to me, or is it because we have such good freedom of speech to allow you to post on sites like these that most countries dont even allow? I dont care either way, but if you feel the inclination to ask questions such as these become a politican and quit asking American citizens for their opinion because you know how most will respond. Please reply with an educated response, instead of your stupid. Ha I quit this subject, its POINTLESS. Just plain ole America bashing.


Finnish why are you on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest think1st

Oh yeah actually the war is won. We were in Baghdad in TWO weeks. These are just pathetic attempts to cause fear. Once Iraq can defend itself, American will be gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest finnish_creep

vitun idiootti think1st...


sorry my english. lately im been reading swedish and russian. and dont you stupid ass come to tell me about studying. my cousins live in us and canada and i know about your school systems. its selfcentered bullcrap!!!


i can see you dont know anything.


i have over ten islamic friends. most of them come from iran, iraq and afkanistan. it was only matter of time when al-qaida attacked u.s. your asses have been in danger from the late 80s. but what george w dont say, you dont know. you didnt answer my question, why did they attack the world trade center... becouse your very bad diplomacy in middle east and military activity. silenced activity you hoe. u.s have been fighting over 5 islamic contries!!!!


and did you know that cia teached bin laden the terrorist tacticks? ha puto.


ronald reagan started to **thank** with saddam. and made alliance with israel. israel and palestinians are also part of this mess. your contry supports ariel sharons dictatur. and the former cold war is also included. you know russians let iran to produce uran and gave some technology, and your contry is against it. you are gonna be in deep ***brown trout*** my friend becouse china is also "with" russians.


you cannot win the war in iraq. every day al-qaida trains new soldiers and they come to fight from syria, iran etc. the war only feed al-qaidas force, they will have more money and potential. when the coalition flees from iraq, the revolution is gonna come...


nato is nothing anymore, im glad we are not part of it. and bush sucks!!


vitun kurauttaja, haluun antaa turpiin tollaselle idiootille!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest think1st

You added to your own ignorance with that last statement. What I really like is that is didnt answer me with any intelligence at all. These are all your opinions and are not supported by any evidence. Sure we gave Bin laden the weapons originally along with Saddam. It was to fight the Russians, but I want to know where you come off saying "you know We trained their terror tactics." Were you there or something? Did you see it? I bet you are going to say you know somebody who does. You are what we call a person who can back his own ***brown trout***. Also if you do know these people supposdly, maybe we should trace you ip address off of here and find where you live. To me if you know all this, it sounds like maybe you are a terrorist. Anyway enough of me being rude.


Just because your cousins live in Canada dont mean ***brown trout***. Oh yes we are talking about American schools, not the Canadian ones. Read my statements, what is going in Iraq is not war, it was over in two weeks. This is called occupation and it is temporary. You couldnt answer my oil questions, could you? Maybe you really need to bring some facts to the table instead of your gossip. Answer this, if you are from Finland WHAT THE HELL DO YOU CARE WHAT WE DO? Or do you hate America too because you are jealous that we have such a free life. Could you also list the 5 Islamic countries we are at war with right now. Also ther wasnt alot of military activity before 911, they attacked us first and you dont like it cause we kicked their ass for it. I only want intelligent backed facts in your reply. But me my guest and make yourself look stupid here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

think1st and finnish_creep,

I see that you both are quite spirited individuals. Comparisons of current world leaders and events such as the United States war in Iraq must be made carefully and with an awareness of the complexity of history. Our individual perspectives on these comparisons are shaped by differences in political point of view, personal history or age, past experience of violence or tragedy, geographical or cultural origins or reference points. The DC Message Board Project was to developed to give our global online community the opportunity to learn more about complex and difficult issues, rather than re-enacting polarized debate.



Debate is difficult - especially that of our future - Ahti Karjalainen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Iraq Vet

How do you engage in a "battle of ideas" with someone who walked up quietly and blows themself up before you get a chance to even notice them, much less have a philosophical debate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...