Post by: Ace25 on March 06, 2003, 02:36:00 PM
Post by: Skunky on March 06, 2003, 02:40:00 PM
totally agree.... Bush has a wild hair up his ass for sadam.. since his father couldn't get the job done in the first place.... Look what these republican presidents do when in office. start wars even without the UN permission...kill the economy...etc... can't wait tell 2006 to get a new prez...
Post by: kard63 on March 06, 2003, 02:45:00 PM
Speaking of Hilary anyone see that VJ on MTV? I would fuck the shit outa' her.
Post by: MartialXboxArtist on March 06, 2003, 02:47:00 PM
Anyways, I am against war. What the hell is anyone getting out of it?
Post by: capt_n_yayo on March 06, 2003, 02:47:00 PM
He makes it hard for ALOT of people inthis country w/ all this 'axis of evil' shit! 
Never liked them bushes in office. As for China, they got a SERIOUS bone to pick w/ the U.S.! These higher ups shit where WE sleep!
Post by: phantazma1 on March 06, 2003, 02:53:00 PM
Korea can throw missles at the US without going anywhere. So what?? We got 30,000+ troops in korea, 30,000+ troops in Japan, 1 million koreans, and troops stationed in the phillipeanes. North Korea has 1 million troops, and so do we. what they DON'T have in the funds to start a long war.
my gf is korean and she's really scared to go back to south korea next december, but i really don't think that this conflict will escalate to war.
Post by: DaGamePimp on March 06, 2003, 03:02:00 PM
--DGP--
Post by: johnnobts on March 06, 2003, 04:49:00 PM
Post by: reli on March 06, 2003, 05:37:00 PM
johnnobts.
and i also don't get the correlation that you try to stablish between the people here beign naive and the fact that we never went to war, are you saying that going to war like you did, will take away your naivete and open your eyes to the fact that we need more wars perhaps?
i am not following you, please excuse me i am just an uneducated fart.
Post by: Lizard_King on March 06, 2003, 05:55:00 PM
North Korea is a brilliant example of why Iraq must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons. The difference in the situation is that we actually have viable allies in the region, South Korea and Japan. Japan in particular is the third largest military spender after the US and Russia, miles ahead of China, and they are about a screw's turn away from going nuclear should North Korea become excessively belligerent. People think WWII made them pacifists; all it really did was make the Japanese want to be 100% certain that no one would ever be able to nuke them again without serious repercussions.
At any rate, in the Middle East we have no such latitude, simply because our only ally, Israel, has absolutely no negotiating leverage with its neighbours. Ergo, we must play hardball, and take care of Saddam ourselves.
All you anti-American "liberals" are so fond of talking about following the money trail when it comes to US motivations...how about applying that same logic to France, Germany, Russia, China...etc...all who profit far more from the status quo than they ever could with a functional, freely flowing Iraq.
I'm sorry, did I interrupt your "Bush is an idiot, make love not war" festival? Please return to your regularly scheduled programming.
| QUOTE |
| i am not following you, please excuse me i am just an uneducated fart. |
Is that how you argue on the playground? Does it get you far there?
All john was *obviously* expressing was his exasperation at the uniformity of view and the naive, trite manner in which it was expressed. And, yeah, in fact, if he has indeed been to war, he knows the human cost side of it, and therefore has more of a frame of reference than, say, those that live under the shelter that men like him provide.
Post by: reli on March 06, 2003, 08:02:00 PM
now tell me what is that action going to guarantee?
all you pro war boneheads do is say; let's go to war, and those of you who don't agree with the war effort can go fuck yourselves, you are just cowards and live under the protection that 'we' the 'braves' offer to you ungrateful twits.
well, you can say whatever you want but i think that we should be thinking instead about what is this war really going to settle?
is it going to make america and the rest of the world, (because remember, the reach of bush's protestant fundamentalism is according to him, ehrrr.... universal ) feel safer?
is it going to lower the level of anymosity that many nations including of course the arabs already have towards america?
just think of how would you feel if some army came from a distant country and started bombing your city's strategic infrastructure leaving you for months without tap water or electricity.?
furthermore, what's the point of a possible occupation when after months of inspections they haven't been able to come with solid evidence of anything?
i know the argument is something like, well, the irakis are moving the weapons constantly, the weapons are probably not even inside irak, and notice that we are not even talking about nukes, nukes are not easy to hide and there are no signs of activity on that front apparently.
ok, and if the weapons are that easy to move then what's is the point of a war and an invasion?
they also say occupation and killing saddam would open the way to find those weapons because irakis would start talking and telling where the weapons are hidden (duh!)
i think wars shouldn't be started based on speculation that's all, and altough i understand that the need to do something to change the state of things can lead to military action i think that fighting without a clear target in mind is plain dumb.
wars should be started with a clear idea of the results that a possible victory would award.
it's just that i can't help thinking about the latest campaign in afghanistan and the results that it yielded.
zero.
Post by: Rebel-Soul on March 06, 2003, 09:17:00 PM
| QUOTE (Ace25 @ Mar 6 2003, 11:36 PM) |
| Yup, any semi intelligent person can see that.. unfortunately, we dont even have a semi intelligent president or government. |
Ace, stick to xboxes
Nathan you are right Korea is a threat. Now this is the problem at hand. Iraq is an easy war. And we can't fight two wars at once. Especially when one is a comunist oriental country. So the idea is to get Saddam first and with some luck hope Korea does not go ballistic. Once Saddam is out of the red zone then we can focus on Korea. This is the last Problem if we attack Korea we piss off China, very bad idea. So we kinda have our hands behind our backs on this one. Bottom line we do not want to fight China it would be a devastating result. Nuclear holocaust anyone? The world would split between free worlds and terrorist groups/communism. I sum up (WWIII). So we really have to bite the bullet and prepare for the worst. 
Post by: Rebel-Soul on March 06, 2003, 09:29:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| On a lighter note, I've got a family member over in Kuwait right now (he calls it the "Sandbox"), they bought a bunch of kiddie pools and are going to take pictures of themselves in the middle of the desert lying in them.. I'll post if/when he emails them to me. |
Hey! my brother is on the Nimitz he works with intellegence. You are indeed right about our secret ops in No. Korea. I Meant really all out war.
But, ya my brother works with this imagery/reconaissance stuff. The new computer that the USA bought has a super comperter in it...500gigahertz...
that is fucking wow. there are three in the world like it. Pentagon, Topgun and Nimitz
Post by: Rebel-Soul on March 06, 2003, 10:03:00 PM
Post by: shanafan on March 06, 2003, 10:49:00 PM
Post by: Teralus on March 07, 2003, 05:31:00 AM
Post by: exstazi on March 07, 2003, 05:59:00 AM
Post by: jasonmvt on March 07, 2003, 06:02:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate |
i can only assume that since you hate bush so much, that you must love dick.
Post by: ruffles_x on March 07, 2003, 06:14:00 AM
| QUOTE (jasonmvt @ Mar 7 2003, 02:01 PM) | ||||||
well good for you. I know that helps you sleep better at night.
Yes, that is exactly what we are going to do, nuke the other side of the world. 
And I am sure that whatever country is unfortunate enough to call itself your home has never directly or indirectly benefited from the United States' foreign policies. Right. Just because you might not agree with this particular involvement gives you the right to blast the entire philosophy? |
Im not blasting it, bush itself it doing it well.
Post by: jasonmvt on March 07, 2003, 06:16:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Im not blasting it, bush itself it doing it well. |
ok, this isn't an insult, but can you clarify that a little more...
Post by: Puckster069 on March 07, 2003, 06:29:00 AM
| QUOTE (reli @ Mar 7 2003, 05:02 AM) |
| it's just that i can't help thinking about the latest campaign in afghanistan and the results that it yielded. zero. |
Zero? Tell that to the people of Afghanistan who are living free of the Taliban rule, tell that to the children who can go to school and be kids instead of learning how to kill, tell that to the women who can actually get jobs now and live a free life rather then being barely more then a sex slave, tell them that us going into Afghanistan resulted in zero.......
Post by: ruffles_x on March 07, 2003, 06:32:00 AM
| QUOTE (jasonmvt @ Mar 7 2003, 02:16 PM) | ||
ok, this isn't an insult, but can you clarify that a little more... |
forget everything, the point i like to make clear its that USA its not alone in this war, the whole world its on this one, either directly or indirectly, USA its the Biggest Market(yes the american Lifestyle market) and sure its needed so all the world economy can keep growing(its true the whole world economy revolves around that american lifestyle), but surely what bush its trying to do seems to make more harm than good, i mean imagine USA economy ends in a big slump after the war, that surely hits the american lifestyle and the whole world economy, what you are gonna do if that lifestyle ends cause of a stupid war?, i hope that isnt happen cause we need this big market so the world can keep selling you Electronics, Cars, Food, etc etc.
Post by: Lizard_King on March 07, 2003, 06:46:00 AM
| QUOTE (Teralus @ Mar 7 2003, 02:31 PM) |
| I like the new Avatar Lizard King - Much more appropriate for your "Gung Ho" Yankee attitude - But I am not going into this topic again!! Pisses me off too much!! |
Thanks...I figured the Revolutionary War navy flag was too vague for some to figure out.
Post by: Lizard_King on March 07, 2003, 06:48:00 AM
| QUOTE (ruffles_x @ Mar 7 2003, 03:32 PM) | ||||
forget everything, the point i like to make clear its that USA its not alone in this war, the whole world its on this one, either directly or indirectly, USA its the Biggest Market(yes the american Lifestyle market) and sure its needed so all the world economy can keep growing(its true the whole world economy revolves around that american lifestyle), but surely what bush its trying to do seems to make more harm than good, i mean imagine USA economy ends in a big slump after the war, that surely hits the american lifestyle and the whole world economy, what you are gonna do if that lifestyle ends cause of a stupid war?, i hope that isnt happen cause we need this big market so the world can keep selling you Electronics, Cars, Food, etc etc. |
I don't see how cheap oil and a client state to invest in is going to make America broke in the long run. Hell, if 50 years of creeping socialism couldn't do it, there is no way one war is going to do it.
Post by: Tripamang on March 07, 2003, 07:07:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Zero? Tell that to the people of Afghanistan who are living free of the Taliban rule, tell that to the children who can go to school and be kids instead of learning how to kill, tell that to the women who can actually get jobs now and live a free life rather then being barely more then a sex slave, tell them that us going into Afghanistan resulted in zero....... |
But how stable is the region? theres still a lot of warlords in afghanistan... and they're not all friendly.
My cousin was one of the canadian soldiers sent over with the coalition. While he was hunting down terrorists his direct instructions were to ignore what they called "civilian disputes" while they were hunting down al qaeda. He saw on more than a couple occasions militia groups line up people and shoot them, to sastify old tribal revenge from the civil war.
If you look for afghanistan news you'll see that theres not a lot of stability in the region and even less US involvement to sort it out. Once Afghanistan fell out of US spotlight, everyone sort of assumed it some great and happy place to live after the taliban was taken out of power. The US essentially destroyed a country for the sake of freeing the people and hunting down terroists, then left the people in the hands of their local warlord and expected everything to be "Ok".
This is why i'm against a war in iraq, unless the US is willing to fully establish a new Iraq, not just take saddam out of power then they have NO right going there. It's great to do the right thing and protect america, it's not right to destroy the stability of the lives of the people involved of the conflict.
Post by: exstazi on March 07, 2003, 08:29:00 AM
| QUOTE (jasonmvt @ Mar 7 2003, 02:02 PM) | ||
i can only assume that since you hate bush so much, that you must love dick. |
i think ur the new cock sucker in the WHITE HOUSE....Clinton had that girl and bush have you...
Post by: jasonmvt on March 07, 2003, 09:42:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Clinton had that girl and bush have you... |
if English is a second language which obviously confuses you, you may want to think twice about trying to insult someone in it...
| QUOTE |
| i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate BUSH-----i hate |
Upon careful study of your previous retorts, I can safely proffer that common sense is a foreign language for you as well.
Post by: exstazi on March 07, 2003, 09:53:00 AM
| QUOTE (jasonmvt @ Mar 7 2003, 05:42 PM) | ||||
if English is a second language which obviously confuses you, you may want to think twice about trying to insult someone in it...
Upon careful study of your previous retorts, I can safely proffer that common sense is a foreign language for you as well. |
i leave in sweden and no one tells me to speak english here so fuck off...
Post by: exstazi on March 07, 2003, 10:19:00 AM
| QUOTE (jasonmvt @ Mar 7 2003, 06:14 PM) | ||
 obviously you either didn't read, or didn't understand the meaning of my previous post. The first part wasn't to insult you because of you English skills directly, it's just that if you are going to take the effort to insult someone - it doesn't really work if you can't form a sentence in the agreed upon language. The second part was meant to insult you directly. Flooding the forum with 'i hate BUSH' a hundred times is a really clever argument that I can't believe I never thought of before! It just serves to reveal and prove that your idiocy is not mistakenly placed on your english skills, rather your lack of intelligence overall. |
i dont want to play with you any more...shut up big boy..im gonna tell my mom
Post by: exstazi on March 07, 2003, 10:47:00 AM
| QUOTE (jasonmvt @ Mar 7 2003, 06:21 PM) |
| aww..come on exstazi, you know how much your mom loves me... and she calls me 'big boy' too! |
are u my daddy??
Post by: reli on March 07, 2003, 11:46:00 AM
the taliban is alive and well thank you very much, unfortunately of course.
i would like to see terrorists hanged as much as anybody but all that bombing was as efective in taking the terrorists down as a man trying to kill flyes with an axe.
Post by: Rebel-Soul on March 07, 2003, 12:16:00 PM
| QUOTE (reli @ Mar 7 2003, 08:46 PM) |
| sorry, but the campaign in afghanistan yielded zero practical results, ok, the people might live better now (how the fuck do you know anyway, you saw it in cnn maybe?), but that war was not aimed at liberating the afghans as far as i was concerned. the taliban is alive and well thank you very much, unfortunately of course. i would like to see terrorists hanged as much as anybody but all that bombing was as efective in taking the terrorists down as a man trying to kill flyes with an axe. |
Well if that is what you think then fine. However Bin Laden is in cognito and out of the picture for the menatyme. Nothing personal but it would not surprise me if half of you treehuggers were flaming liberals and demicrats. But, there are good demicrats i am one. you kno who Ii speak of.
Post by: Rebel-Soul on March 07, 2003, 12:50:00 PM
| QUOTE (Achtung @ Mar 7 2003, 09:33 PM) | ||
The TV tells Rebel Soul. Lizzard king and all other ignorent Americans that everything is great and they are the best and did such a great job with Afganaztan and everything there just a happy little country now thanks to them and they smile and pat themselves on the back and say Man America is just so great and live in there own little box. What a sad sad life. |
Yes, I can think of one bad result. We suppressed the afganies so they could not blow you off the fucking planet.
P.S. your a deuche bag for believing the media
Post by: Rebel-Soul on March 07, 2003, 01:12:00 PM
| QUOTE (Achtung @ Mar 7 2003, 10:05 PM) | ||
You truly show your Intelligence here Rebel Soul, I have no idea how that is a response to what I said give your under developed brain time to prosses before you write something next time. |
Actually you forgot to read between the lines
in actuallity your argument is a media argument. But it seems you cant add 1+1
Post by: tuckerthedog on March 07, 2003, 03:23:00 PM
Nothing will rally people to the militant Moslem cause like losing family members and spiritual brothers. I'm sorry, but for any political stability we gain by attacking Saddam we are going to pay for in blowback from the Moslem fundamentalists. The stronger our military is, the greater their reliance on attacking us where it hurts is going to be.
http://faculty.stcc....301blowback.htm
That's a great article on why we're dealing with all this bullshit overseas.
Post by: EasterEgg on March 08, 2003, 03:40:00 AM
| QUOTE (Skunky @ Mar 6 2003, 11:40 PM) |
| totally agree.... Bush has a wild hair up his ass for sadam.. since his father couldn't get the job done in the first place.... Look what these republican presidents do when in office. start wars even without the UN permission...kill the economy...etc... can't wait tell 2006 to get a new prez... |
imho when US attacks without UN permition ,the UN will split apart bcoz "if US doesnt follow rules ,why should the other countries fo it??"
its very BAD to ignore the UN...
Post by: pjclark1 on March 08, 2003, 04:31:00 AM
Germans in Europe during WW2........didn't the russians
wait outside Berlin for 2 weeks, while their allies USA + UK
tried to get there.
Its seems that Terrorism would go away if only the USA
would stop training them. (USA is biggest terrorist state
around these days)
Saddam Hussain...put in charge by CIA
Ben Lardy.....trained and financed by CIA
IRA financed by americans
Didn't the UN tell USA to stop acts of terrorism in Niceragua??
and what about the war criminals
Magaret Thatcher (sinking of the general belgrano while it was retreating)
Tony Blair (bombing civilian news company in Belgrade)
when are they going to be brought to justice for their war
crimes (as defined by Geneva Convention)
Seems to me, where ever trouble is in the world today, its
caused by the USA. Maybe thats why the USA refused to be
part of the international war crimes court.
Post by: jasonmvt on March 08, 2003, 05:04:00 AM
Post by: Achtung on March 08, 2003, 05:43:00 AM
Post by: Achtung on March 08, 2003, 06:30:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| As for Europe and all of them supposedly having the "right way" to deal with the situation. Let's see here... in WW-II most of Europe pretty much rolled over for the Axis. And I hear France is a great place to pick up old WW-II rifles, never fired and they've only been dropped once. We at least were willing to stand up for basic human rights, something very few others (except the Canadians, Brits, and a VERY few resistance fighters in the occupied countries) were willing to do. We at least were willing to draw a line and say "no further". What were they willing to do? Hrm... let's see either raise their hands in surrender and say "let's be friends", or try to profit off of the misfortune such as the Swedes did in WW-II. We were willing to sacrifice the lives of our own people for their freedom, and they were willing to roll over and say "let some one else do it". If that ISN'T cowardly I don't know what is. Personally I think the US should become insular again like we were just before WW-II. Raise tarrifs on imported goods so companies will go back to using American workers and products made in America, start pumping oil from our own lands again and tell the UM bugger off we're out of the whole world picture. Then we'll just wait and let Saddam and Korea nuke a couple of other countries before we think about stepping in and THEN we'll ONLY step in when we are asked to. Simple solution to the whole deal just start ignoring everything else outside ourselves. That will make for a better world. |
Another person educated by American TV. Excuse me when did WWII start, 1939 and when did the United States join the war, In 1944. As your Amercian president put it back then Hitler was Europes problem not the United States.
So as my family was getting slaughtered in Poland and countless others Americas interest for 4 years prior was selling equipment and supplies to the Allies to fight the germans Prophiting from there deaths because there deaths were not the US problem. Then only when it was going to be benificial for your country they joined and fought a army that had been fighting for 4 years prior and tell there people they won the war. You ignorent Americans make me sick you go off on how great your Country is when you do not know anything about History other then what they tell you On TV. Every war the US has taken by itself it has had its Asses handed to them ie. Vietnam. Hell the french had to bail you out fighting against yourselves. America will only embark on a war when it benifits them not for the liberty of people as they say, or Humanity but to gain something from it for themselves ie the Oil. They dont give a shit about anyone or any other country but themselves( where the fuck was the US 5 years ago in Afganistan when the same things were going on to there people, how bout Sarajevo or any fucking war that doesnt have any insentives for America) Stop this garbage that America fights for freedom and oh so beautiful Liberty to give gods gift, because thats the biggest bullshit lie in the world and ever other country in this world knows that, thats why no one respects you or gives a rats ass about the States. And the reason you cant count on American product is because americans cant build shit and your country would completly die if that ever happened.
Post by: pjclark1 on March 08, 2003, 06:50:00 AM
Thank you for
Nuclear weapons and velcro
Thank you for
Using 3/4 of the worlds resources
Thank you for
executing your criminals
(beaten in numbers of executions only by the other 2 most civilized countries in the world, China and Iraq)
how could the rest of the world ever survive without these
contributions. Feel free to stay at home for the next 3 years
(but don't expect us to keep sending the oil/coal/minerals/etc.)
Post by: jasonmvt on March 08, 2003, 07:00:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| I was under the impression that Russia defeated the Germans in Europe during WW2........didn't the russians wait outside Berlin for 2 weeks, while their allies USA + UK tried to get there. |
wow, you are absolutely correct, things would have just worked out fine for Europe if the US had not entered the war. Just like they did for Russia in WWI! Did you forget the fact the Russia signed a non agression treaty with Germany only a few years earlier, much to the shock of the rest of the world? And only entered the war because Germany changed its mind and decided to attack? Did you forget that Germany had to fight a difficult war on a second front to the west because of the US? Did you also forget that Russia had zero air or sea power and without the impending forces from the western front would have suffered an even greater amount of casualties than they already had? Is your judgement of history so clouded to actually say that Stalin-controlled russia was the defender of a free europe? If Russia would have still won, do you think Stalin would have been content with just stopping at Germany with England and Frace already broken and without the US's participation? You my friend, and your pal Achtung, are an idiot. Even if your idea that the US was meaningless in the war against Germany was correct, had we not intervened, your great savior, Russia, would have controlled all of europe under the flag of communism.
Post by: jasonmvt on March 08, 2003, 07:20:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| You ignorent Americans make me sick you go off on how great your Country is when you do not know anything about History other then what they tell you On TV. |
then define for me what makes a country great? Your contempt for America only reveals your obvious resentment of a successful nation.
| QUOTE |
| thats why no one respects you or gives a rats ass about the States |
then why are you here, posting about it.
| QUOTE |
| And the reason you cant count on American product is because americans cant build shit and your country would completly die if that ever happened |
here is where the real Achtung is exposed. With a lack of options to continue your meaningless diatribe, you resort to broken english and swearing in a hope to somehow emphasize your nonexistent point. Where do your feelings of inadequacy stem from? Your country? Your lust for what you cannot and never will have? Perhaps the media? Do you hear me bashing where it is you hail from. I am sure we could all find material to do that, but what's the point? The fact that you are posting on Xbox forum (albeit a euro based one) shows the permeation of the American culture you hate so much.
Post by: pjclark1 on March 08, 2003, 08:10:00 AM
(for everyone in America as long as they were white)
Yes, that was a great war for freedom, shame it resulted
in slavery continuing in the USA for 50 years after everyone
else had given it up. Americans sure love freedom!
and has the US paid its NATO fees yet, I seem to remember
they haven't contributed for the past 10 years......I wonder
why they are still allowed to belong to the club, could it be
they are such warlike oppressors of democracy that no-one dares oppose them??
Post by: jasonmvt on March 08, 2003, 08:16:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| you clearly do not have the mental capacity to debate any of the stated facts people put against you so you |
what "facts" have you stated that are so irrefutable?
| QUOTE |
| trust me I have no lack of options to continue my statments just a knowlege that they are being wasted on people like you |
what is it that you are trying to prove? That the US is a horrible country? You are the one with the axe to grind here, not me; I am merely defending the country that I live in from the mindless zealots that seem hellbent on its demise.
What is the meaningless pro-american crap that you refer to? You refuse to acknowledge any aspects of the debate and resort to this? Yet you proclaim your intellectual superiority? I argue points that other people make; you choose to argue about the person making the point. For a refresher, I enter the argument when people make either incorrect or idiotic statements (like 'Bush is stupid' and 'US is a bunch of morons'). Then you seem to get extremely upset by someone refuting them? Would you not defend Canada if I began mounting an unfounded, uneducated campaign against it and it's people? If your opinion differs, fine, that 's the point of a debate. When your replies carry no other significance than ' you are like a 3 year old' though, you need to just hang your head and scurry away.
Post by: jasonmvt on March 08, 2003, 08:23:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| I forgot to mention the American War for Independance (for everyone in America as long as they were white) Yes, that was a great war for freedom, shame it resulted in slavery continuing in the USA for 50 years after everyone else had given it up. Americans sure love freedom! and has the US paid its NATO fees yet, I seem to remember they haven't contributed for the past 10 years......I wonder why they are still allowed to belong to the club, could it be they are such warlike oppressors of democracy that no-one dares oppose them?? |
once again another reply that offers no counter point from the previous rebuttal, just more mindless babble. Yes the US are, 'such warlike oppressors of democracy.' This is the kind of garbage Achtung says comes from a 'REAL educated person'???? And you thought education in the US was bad.
/Yells out loud 'Lizard King, why have you foresaken us!!!!'
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 08, 2003, 08:38:00 AM
| QUOTE (Nathan561 @ Mar 6 2003, 06:28 PM) |
| You see the old Georgey getting all trigger happy over Iraq, and their possible (and most probable) weapons,yet have you thought about what might happen with North Korea in the near future. They could already have, plus the ability to have more nukes in the next year or so. On top of this, They're a mean ass country as well, slagging off pretty much everyone else and becoming utter loners as well as still being officially at war with the South. To be truly honest, North Korea is the same level threat, possibly more that Iraq as for a start there is solid evidence that they are infact producing nuclear material... apparently for their own "self-denfense"... hmm.. |
I think that China can take care of their next door neighbor. They don't like the problem with N. Korea just like the rest of the world.
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 08, 2003, 08:54:00 AM
| QUOTE (kard63 @ Mar 6 2003, 06:45 PM) |
| I am totally sexist but I am voting for Hilary Clinton in 2004. Speaking of Hilary anyone see that VJ on MTV? I would fuck the shit outa' her. |
Is that so? I guess you'd stick your dick in anything.
Post by: jasonmvt on March 08, 2003, 09:14:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| I have only argued the points people respont to incorrect about history and what the US is doing |
no, you make sweeping generalizations that offer little factual basis.
| QUOTE |
| I never thought it was possible for someone to miss the point of ever single response but you have some how succeeded |
there is no point in your responses, other than to bash the US with your childlike understanding of the world, and anyone who disagrees with it. What points do you really make? As far as your 'you act like a 3 year old' quip, it serves a purpose to expose your lacking ability to formulate an educated response. I have not demonstrated that war is the only answer, for everything. I feel in this case, however, it is warranted. Once again, would you not respond the same way if I made statement similar to :
| QUOTE |
| You ignorent Americans make me sick |
against Canada? (Feel free to actually answer that question) Why are Americans "ignorent"? Oh, wait you provide all the answers in your post.....
| QUOTE |
| you do not know anything about History other then what they tell you On TV |
| QUOTE |
| They dont give a shit about anyone or any other country but themselves |
| QUOTE |
| no one respects you or gives a rats ass about the States |
| QUOTE |
| And the reason you cant count on American product is because americans cant build shit and your country would completly die if that ever happened. |
(there, I made sure to quote you some more, since you obviously can't stand to be reminded of what you said)
I admit, that last one really moved me. Probably because it made no sense at all. All of your statements are pathetic thoughts you feel the need to emit, not in anyway connected to reality. Your obvious bias has not been supported with any fact of any sort at all.
| QUOTE |
| You edit other peoples quotes so they suite your own resposes. |
ummm..... They are what you said. They are not changed in any way. It's called responding to what someone stated. You should try it some time.
| QUOTE |
| And you say you dont watch american TV |
time to check that prescription again.... when did I say I didn't watch TV?
Post by: pjclark1 on March 08, 2003, 09:21:00 AM
the next thing you'll be saying is that America really did
put man on the moon....when we all know it was a hoax.
oh
and I can't see where you made any sort of sensible reply
to either Achtung or myself. Unless you consider a sensible
reply to be an insult.
How about listing some good things America has done recently
or in the past....if you know any. (PS. most educated people don't consider killing foreigners a 'good thing')
Post by: jasonmvt on March 08, 2003, 09:24:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| jason the next thing you'll be saying is that America really did put man on the moon....when we all know it was a hoax. |
seriously, I can't stop laughing. What little credibility you had... nevermind... obviously this is going nowhere fast. Still laughing.... Achtung, you support this guy?
Post by: Achtung on March 08, 2003, 10:04:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| here is where the real |
| QUOTE |
| is exposed |
| QUOTE |
| hate bush so much |
| QUOTE |
| Upon careful study must love dick |
| QUOTE |
| resort to broken english and swearing in a hope to somehow emphasize |
| QUOTE |
| nonexistent point,I am merely |
| QUOTE |
| mindless zealot |
Once again you show it, so now I too will pick off pieces of your posts and make my response. Your right there are no points to any responses when you pick out a single part of it out of context and go off and ramble which is all you do. Like someone else said you can take this as a moral victory Im done because I just cant take your stupidity any more live in your Increadible nation which is so great and wonderful and keep telling yourself how the whole world is just so much in debt to you, keep telling yourself and In your own fantacy it can be true.
Post by: jasonmvt on March 08, 2003, 10:21:00 AM
you wasted 40 minutes of you life for that ? It's really simple. You make a statement - I quote it, and respond to it. That is the way a debate works. Hey, I can't help it if being reminded of you own stupidity upsets you. All of the things I quoted did not have their meaning changed because of their context. You make the narrow minded statements all by your lonesome, it doesn't take any creative wording to make you look like a fool. You have answered none of my arguments and failed to produce facts or opinions on specifics when challenged. At least I respond to what you have written.Here's a recap if you choose to actually discuss something relevant:
Can you not understand that when you say things like Americans are so stupid, they only know what they see on tv, etc., etc... that those are far from educated responses. All I am asking for here is some basic adherence to logic. A person who claims to have a superior intellect should not be make statements like the aforementioned.
If those statements were made about Canada (FOR THE 3RD TIME) would you not respond against them?
And finally, you support someone who claims the moon landing was faked?
Those are the questions at hand before you Achtung. If you really want this thread to head in the direction your previous post indicates, fine, I'll be more than happy to oblige.
EDIT: Oh and by the way, once again, when did I say I didn't watch TV?
Post by: falconsfan on March 08, 2003, 11:19:00 AM
Post by: Mage on March 08, 2003, 12:06:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| And the reason you cant count on American product is because americans cant build shit and your country would completly die if that ever happened. |
Oddly enough, the xbox is what? A product made by whom? Oh yeah, an American company...I'm not going to bother trying to understand the second part of the sentence, I speak English, not engrish.
Post by: Ronnie on March 08, 2003, 12:27:00 PM
| QUOTE (MartialXboxArtist @ Mar 6 2003, 06:47 PM) |
| China is training (HIGHLY TRAINED) 200+ million soldiers. Lets hope we don't piss off China. I don't know what is up Korea's ass, but they need to chill with the Nuke. Not going to do anything, but get them hurt as well. As for the US, they need to stop acting like they're the BOSS of everyone. That's what going to get us NUKED there, which I think WILL HAPPEN... Anyways, I am against war. What the hell is anyone getting out of it? |
China doesnt have 200 million+ soldiers.Damn your dumb.
The US has the largest military then russia then north korea.
Post by: Tripamang on March 08, 2003, 12:28:00 PM
Post by: Ronnie on March 08, 2003, 12:41:00 PM
| QUOTE (pjclark1 @ Mar 8 2003, 12:10 PM) |
| I forgot to mention the American War for Independance (for everyone in America as long as they were white) Yes, that was a great war for freedom, shame it resulted in slavery continuing in the USA for 50 years after everyone else had given it up. Americans sure love freedom! and has the US paid its NATO fees yet, I seem to remember they haven't contributed for the past 10 years......I wonder why they are still allowed to belong to the club, could it be they are such warlike oppressors of democracy that no-one dares oppose them?? |
And also the US did pay its NATO fees shortly after the terrorist attack.I wonder why we owed so much?
Maybe because we are the country that solves conflicts
We use our forces when NATO or the UN thinks its right.
Who got Iraq out of Kuwait in the gulf war(UN voted,US did the work)?Who went into kosovo(NATO voted US again takes action)?Who got the communist of of South Korea(WE DID GET THE PICTURE)?
If we leave NATO then NATO becomes nothing and those pussies would never help any country that is being attacked.
If we didnt go to Kuwait to get Iraq out,who would?The UK and Australia?I doubt they could handle it.France and Russia are the countries with the most to lose and thats why they oppose the use of force.
I may not think we should start a war either but when people just talk shit and say america always wants war and dont know what the hell is going to or what has happened in the past it pisses me off.
And if you dont understand,the US will not continue the Korean War because they do have nukes.And yes we are affraid,that is why the president want to kill Saddam now.I dont think we should fight for Israel or Kuwait but if some one threatens us we should act.So far Saddam hasnt but one day he will and he will have nukes,why wait?Its going to happen why not solve the problem now.
Sprechen Sie Deutsches?
No?Oh well then you're welcome.
Post by: jasonmvt on March 08, 2003, 01:38:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| http://www.hcc4u.net/union.wmv I dont know how this got missed before but this is pure brilliance courtesy of AdmStng |
well surprise, surprise - Achtung yet again avoids acknowledging anything contradictory to his banal idiocy by providing this sort of nonsense.
As Mage also pointed out,
| QUOTE |
| And the reason you cant count on American product is because americans cant build shit and your country would completly die if that ever happened. |
This is truly a qualified judge of 'pure brilliance'.
Post by: phantazma1 on March 08, 2003, 01:45:00 PM
| QUOTE (pjclark1 @ Mar 8 2003, 10:10 AM) |
| Yes, that was a great war for freedom, shame it resulted in slavery continuing in the USA for 50 years after everyone else had given it up. Americans sure love freedom! |
just to let you know, the Yi Minority group in China had a social class system that allowed
slavery up until 1950's until the Communist Party took over.
no country is perfect. you can't judge current Americans with the Americans 100 years ago.
That's ridulous. If everyone thought that way, there would be WW3, WW4, etc. because
their opinions on people won't change. Talk to your grandparents how bitter they still are
with WW1/2. My ex-gf's parents hates all Americans because of WWII, and my current gf's
parents hate all Japanese because of the conflict between korea and japan decades ago.
point is: we are the new generation, a collection of people who aren't bitter about the past.
we can move on, and that is what we must do.
Post by: phantazma1 on March 08, 2003, 01:52:00 PM
i don't agree with her, but she was damn cute. and drunk. haha
Post by: Achtung on March 08, 2003, 03:04:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE http://www.hcc4u.net/union.wmv I dont know how this got missed before but this is pure brilliance courtesy of AdmStng well surprise, surprise - Achtung yet again avoids acknowledging anything contradictory to his banal idiocy by providing this sort of nonsense. As Mage also pointed out, QUOTE And the reason you cant count on American product is because americans cant build shit and your country would completly die if that ever happened. This is truly a qualified judge of 'pure brilliance' |
If you could read, you would of read that I gave up trying to talk sence to someone that clearly has none. And as for that quote you keep going back to if you would actually read the whole thing I was responing too which you never actually do you'd see what I was referring too. And take a long look at who manufacters Xbox or any so called american product just because it says made in the USA on it doesnt mean thats who design it or manufacter it.
Post by: Mage on March 08, 2003, 03:30:00 PM
| QUOTE (Mage @ Mar 8 2003, 01:06 PM) | ||
I'm not going to bother talking about the american bashing much; waste of time. However that was one statement that I found fairly funny.
Oddly enough, the xbox is what? A product made by whom? Oh yeah, an American company...I'm not going to bother trying to understand the second part of the sentence, I speak English, not engrish. |
I said American company, not product. It matters not where it was made, but what company made it. If an American company's fabrication site is located in China, does that make it a Chinese product? I'd think not.
Post by: Lizard_King on March 08, 2003, 04:15:00 PM
| QUOTE (Wong Hung Lo @ Mar 8 2003, 05:38 PM) |
| I think that China can take care of their next door neighbor. They don't like the problem with N. Korea just like the rest of the world. |
Yes, they do. In fact, while it is difficult to find a real controlling factor over a personality like Kim v2, there is little doubt that the Chinese exercise not only a political veto but a supply side one. That's where all the weapons come from these days in that sad, sad country.
The Chicoms are playing their favourite game right now, which is essentially to allow a proxy to run amuck and present itself as the Last Great Hope For Mediation. Of course, North Korea is run by the kind of dictator that is very difficult to control due to his irrationality (Just like his father), and they seriously underestimate how far the Japanese will go if pressured. I don't know what their endgame is, but unless it is to leverage themselves into an advantageous position for military action it just doesn't make sense. I don't think they want that any more than America does, but I do think that they are trying to push the US into folding its tent up in that part of the world.
hodr
| QUOTE |
| I know this is the general discussion forum, but I think it is somewhat inappropriate to have a political discussion in a forum that is, for the most part, populated by people who gain most of their political knowledge from telivision and video games (myself included). |
I think there is a great deal of truth in what you say, Hodr. I would substitute the words "useless" and "frustrating" for inappropriate, myself, but I think we are on the same page.
meltdown
| QUOTE |
| Personally I think the US should become insular again like we were just before WW-II. Raise tarrifs on imported goods so companies will go back to using American workers and products made in America, start pumping oil from our own lands again and tell the UM bugger off we're out of the whole world picture. Then we'll just wait and let Saddam and Korea nuke a couple of other countries before we think about stepping in and THEN we'll ONLY step in when we are asked to. Simple solution to the whole deal just start ignoring everything else outside ourselves. That will make for a better world. |
I understand where you are coming from, and I even agree with some of your foundational premises. However:
1. The time for America to choose isolationism rationally was in WWI, before Woodrow Wilson and his henchmen steered us into a war where there was no moral or any other real argument in favour of either side. It's a really long discussion from there, but basically I think America had better be willing to get its hands dirty and plan for the long haul. We've been in it up to our necks ever since the filthy propaganda of the Lusitania, although some would certainly see the Spanish American "war" as a more fundamental precursor. 21st century politics, absent any balances of power, are full of vaccuums for the rationally challenged rogue leaders of the world to fill; an engaged America is the only check, imperfect as it may be. Ultimately, playing ostrich will only result in a kick in the ass like 9/11 rather than a head on confrontation. I'll take the latter any day.
2. Tariffs will not solve anything. They are negotiating tools for trade agreements, and nothing else. Impoverishing consumers and creating even more corporate welfare is a surefire plan to destroy the engine of the American economy.
3. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of residing in a separate planet from nations whose actions are intolerable on a human and a political level. We fight them on their home turf, or they will come to ours.
On a side note, upon reexamination I realize I went a bit too far in mocking Canada the country to prove my point indirectly about what it's like to see the country that you loved demonized on this board. I'm sorry, and I won't do it again, at least until another Canadian/Frenchman/etc launches a thread on how much they hate America.
jasonmvt and mage I agree, I think, although it is difficult to be clear in this particularly muddled medium.
Personally, I think a small part of the tension here has to do with Xbox's lackluster (or just plain lacking) releases in the past month or so. I caught myself preordering three more yet to be released xbox games, and suddenly realized that for the prices, I might as well get a PS2 and hook up my old Dreamcast and beat all those games I never had the patience to slog through...I find xbox-scene a lot less stressful...I think there's a link, and I suggest you all give it a try. And for those of you that really hate me, I suggest you send a thank you note to Namco for making Xenosaga..."It keeps Lizard off the boards"...
Post by: Lizard_King on March 08, 2003, 04:26:00 PM
| QUOTE | ||
I said American company, not product. It matters not where it was made, but what company made it. If an American company's fabrication site is located in China, does that make it a Chinese product? I'd think not. |
In fact, mage, that makes it Yet Another Example of the American Capitalist Pig Imperialist exploiting the third world so he can afford the alimony payments his inevitably broken American dream.
And I'll have you know that only Asians speak Ingrish; in fact, what you are dealing with here is a dialect of Canuckistani.
Jeez, mage, how many times does it have to be repeated:
| QUOTE |
| achtungIf you could read, you would of read that I gave up trying to talk sence to someone that clearly has none. |
Don't you see...this has all been a terrible misunderstanding...it turns out they were arguing for some foreign Canadian concept of "making sence" whereas you and the others were actually concerned with making sense. It's all clear now...
Post by: Mage on March 08, 2003, 04:31:00 PM
Post by: jasonmvt on March 08, 2003, 04:43:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| And as for that quote you keep going back to if you would actually read the whole thing I was responing too which you never actually do you'd see what I was referring too |
once again, your arguments would carry much more weight if the were coherent and understandable. If French is your primary language, all excuses allowed. If not, like I suspect, I recommend some remedial work, perhaps summer school?
| QUOTE |
| And take a long look at who manufacters Xbox or any so called american product just because it says made in the USA on it doesnt mean thats who design it or manufacter it. |
actually the point was that the Xbox was a product of american origin, or, the culture which you despise, which it is.
I'll put this in terms you can hopefully understand. You are an idiot. You cannot refute one single argument. You cannot support one of your misguided ideas. You cannot read, extract, and respond to one point anyone here makes. Maybe when you turn 15, your ideals and values will closer resemble reality. Maybe you need to stop acquiring your insight from the bitter elderly in your inbred family. Until then, just leave politics to the adults.
Lizard, did you catch the faked moon landing post a page or two back?
Post by: Lizard_King on March 08, 2003, 04:50:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Lizard, did you catch the faked moon landing post a page or two back? |
I just saw it, now that is some funny shit. I like how they inserted that oddly disturbing "laughing Bush" sequence...I'll vote for him again for sure,but damned if he isn't one strange looking man.
Post by: jasonmvt on March 08, 2003, 05:06:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Dammit, jason I've told you before, be up front about what your opinions are. Tell us what you really think of this guy.... |
it's the only way left to make it sink in.
Post by: Mage on March 08, 2003, 05:17:00 PM
Post by: Lizard_King on March 08, 2003, 05:30:00 PM
| QUOTE (Mage @ Mar 9 2003, 02:17 AM) |
| I bet half these people who bitch about America rush out and spend their opinion, eg money, on American products. |
I would say *all* of these people, else they would not be on the internet. But I think Anti-Americanism is just the flavour of the day for leftism....it's actually good because all the froot loops feel free to come out from under their rocks and get all that poison out of their system verbally before they burst an artery from blaming others for their flaws....soon they'll go back to hugging trees.
I think of it as the same sort of shallow irony in Communists working "within" the system to overthrow it...
Post by: Mage on March 08, 2003, 05:38:00 PM
(And before anyone comments on my thread titles, yes, they were meant to be hyperboles.)
Post by: Lizard_King on March 08, 2003, 06:02:00 PM
Post by: pjclark1 on March 08, 2003, 11:47:00 PM
OK so some of my posts were a little too difficult for some of you to answer. Here is an easy one.
Name 5 good things America has done for the world?
(good can't involve killing people or otherwise breaking the 10 commandments)
Post by: Mage on March 09, 2003, 12:19:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| My Xbox has made in china written on it. |
You're a smart person, correct? You should understand the idea that the location a product is mass-produced isn't always the location it was designed. The company that designed the xbox is an American company, therefore the product itself is an American product. Not such a hard concept correct?
So, how's that computer of yours? Enjoy your ix86-class system? Yep, IA32 (ix86) was designed by an American company. MS also. Oh, and if you don't have an IA32 class system, there's always Motorola which makes the Apple chips, both being American companies.
Many a great scientist have come from America. Linus Pauling to name one.
Henry Ford
American car manufacturer, Henry Ford (1863-1947) invented an improved assembly line and installed the first conveyor belt-based assembly line in his car factory in Ford's Highland Park, Michigan plant, around 1913-14. The assembly line reduced production costs for cars by reducing assembly time. Ford's famous Model T was assembled in ninety-three minutes. Ford made his first car, called the "Quadricycle," in June, 1896. However, success came after he formed the Ford Motor Company in 1903. This was the third car manufacturing company formed to produce the cars he designed. He introduced the Model T in 1908 and it was a success. After installing the moving assembly lines in his factory in 1913, Ford became the world's biggest car manufacturer. By 1927, 15 million Model Ts had been manufactured.
Can we feel the love? Countless Americans and American companies that have contributed to the world far more than you have. You want more?
Post by: Lizard_King on March 09, 2003, 04:06:00 AM
| QUOTE (pjclark1 @ Mar 9 2003, 08:47 AM) |
| My Xbox has made in china written on it. OK so some of my posts were a little too difficult for some of you to answer. Here is an easy one. Name 5 good things America has done for the world? (good can't involve killing people or otherwise breaking the 10 commandments) |
Your request is ridiculously phrased, as if killing people were not sometimes both necessary and good. As if a million great things done by America would affect your preconceived notions about its role in history. At any rate, your conditions are still easily met:
1. The system of mass-production as well as that of standardized parts were created by Americans.
2. The world's economy and corresponding improvements in living standards could not be sustained without American involvement, both as an investor and as a consumer.
3. The internet's groundwork was largely laid down by the American military as a fail-safe for post-nuclear war communication.
4. The Marshall plan, rebuilding Europe and Japan, preventing the economic collapse of a large part of the world.
5. Xerox, an American company, came up with the concept of a GUI which both Apple and MS used to create their revolutionary OS's.
Now, what was the point of this? You'll detail 5 things you think are bad, and so on and so forth. And if you really can't understand how the Xbox wouldn't have existed without America, as if Chinese laborers would have simply come up with it themselves, you've got issues.
Post by: Achtung on March 09, 2003, 05:01:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE And as for that quote you keep going back to if you would actually read the whole thing I was responing too which you never actually do you'd see what I was referring too once again, your arguments would carry much more weight if the were coherent and understandable. If French is your primary language, all excuses allowed. If not, like I suspect, I recommend some remedial work, perhaps summer school? QUOTE And take a long look at who manufacters Xbox or any so called american product just because it says made in the USA on it doesnt mean thats who design it or manufacter it. actually the point was that the Xbox was a product of american origin, or, the culture which you despise, which it is. I'll put this in terms you can hopefully understand. You are an idiot. You cannot refute one single argument. You cannot support one of your misguided ideas. You cannot read, extract, and respond to one point anyone here makes. Maybe when you turn 15, your ideals and values will closer resemble reality. Maybe you need to stop acquiring your insight from the bitter elderly in your inbred family. Until then, just leave politics to the adults. |
Now my responses
| QUOTE |
| God you are one stupid Individual, you are like a little 3 year old thats is saying " I know you are but what am I" you clearly do not have the mental capacity to debate any of the stated facts people put against you so you just spit out your a idiot or a morons or some meaningless pro American crap to make yourself feel good again. Like I said in my first reply I expected nothing less from people like you and trust me I have no lack of options to continue my statements just a knowledge that they are being wasted on people like you who cant see past your own nose. You have bashed anyone who has apposed your view that is how this all got started and people are not just going to sit here and listen to propaganda crap |
| QUOTE |
| I never thought it was possible for someone to miss the point of ever single response but you have some how succeeded. I have only argued the points people respond to incorrect about history and what the US is doing and not what is showing on TV to its people. In all your responses you pick one piece of a entire point which you can some how make a comment about but ignore the entire point of the response ( Look at the last 3 if you need someone to point them out) and make some comment that people are either idiotic, jealous some way of the States. You even did it above with the comment about you acting like a 3 year old saying I know you are but what am I, you even edit it to your own needs. that was not the reply nearly a point of the entire response |
Ooh how you show your advanced Adult mind, if you could actually right back something that I havent clearly commented about you before I would be in complete shock.
You blatantly just retype my comments as some kind of pitiful way to insult me, which is just amusing I know you are but what am I. I particularly like that last comment insight from the bitter elderly in your inbred family which is then followed by leave politics to the adults. Wow, what superior intellect and credibility you display with such adult minded responses. Pat yourself on the back, man you just showed me.
Post by: jasonmvt on March 09, 2003, 05:50:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Can you not understand that when you say things like Americans are so stupid, they only know what they see on tv, etc., etc... that those are far from educated responses. All I am asking for here is some basic adherence to logic. A person who claims to have a superior intellect should not be make statements like the aforementioned. If those statements were made about Canada (FOR THE 3RD TIME) would you not respond against them? And finally, you support someone who claims the moon landing was faked? |
I have asked you these questions, and other, countless times. Other people have asked you for responses as well. You never answer with anything but
| QUOTE |
| God you are one stupid Individual, you are like a little 3 year old |
all of your responses have been based on this syle of whining and bitching. If you could have provided at least some sort of argument along with your comments, that would be fine, and I am certain that myself and others would actually take you a little more seriously. You complain because I quote them, but the rest of the response I quote contains nothing that varies from the quote itself. Not one answer to one question, like I stated before. You want to talk about adult responses??? Every single response I have made, even the last one, has attempted to extort some sort of backing from the statements you have made. Re-read the thread and you will see this. And to act like my last response was so childish when ALL of yours have been that way? I clearly stated that it seemed to be the only way to relate to you; to reply in the same standards from which you post. This is why everyone that reads this thread, being American or not, understands that you are a complete joke and waste of time.
Post by: Dark Schneider on March 09, 2003, 06:49:00 AM
Yes at the moment through their blatant bluffing, and posturing , North Korea does indeed look to be more of a threat to the U.S.A. than Iraq. Infact I would agree with that statement. However you must take into account the proximety to China, and also the indication that N. Korea is so desperate for economic help/welfare that this is their best way to get world wide attention. Yes it is an odd way to do it, but effective.
Now why do we have all of our forces centered on Iraq, when N. Korea has basically callled the U.S. out to a fight, and double dog darring them to do something about it.
Pull up a map people, and look at the distance from the forces around Iraq, and then proceed to draw a line to the Korean Peninsula. Incase you cannot see it for yourself, the bases in Saudi Arabia,Qatar,Turkey are an excellent staging ground for an attack on N. Korea if need be without jeopordizing the core strength and operations of those forces. They could have an attack force landing within hours of a conflict with N. Korea if need be, and bombers are already stationed in Guam, and you damn well know there is atleast one aircraft carrier in the China Seas, and submarines with Tomahawk cruise missiles ready to deploy. These bases are close enough to get there fast, and far enough away to be safe from an attack to disrupt them.
Any responses to this should be from people with atleast a "C" grade or better in history, and tactics, not to mention geography. =)
From the staging point in the Middle East, the U.S. and British forces have a command over the rest of the world. That is why this area is so important, and that is why the troops are stationed there. Pretty darn smart of those yanks ehhh you troll bashers?
And as for all these personal attacks that I see going on here, I believe a long time ago we all voted that these were banishable offenses. What has become of this board as of late?
Post by: jasonmvt on March 09, 2003, 06:59:00 AM
I just get really tired of the, "bush sucks," and, "Americans are stupid," posts that do nothing to further or enrich the discussion. Your points are legitimate, and I thank you for that. I think you'll see that Lizard, myself, mage and others do try to reason with these zealots, only to meet with more of the same. There comes a point where there is nothing left to say to them. I am sure if one of us proffered the same incendiary remarks about their country of origin (unfounded and insulting) you would see attempts to refute them. I'm not really sure what side of this issue (the achtung's and pjclark1's, or myself Lizard and others) you are directing this at, though, so I guess that's all I can really comment on.
Post by: Dark Schneider on March 09, 2003, 07:05:00 AM
| QUOTE (jasonmvt @ Mar 9 2003, 08:59 AM) |
| Dark Schneider, I just get really tired of the, "bush sucks," and, "Americans are stupid," posts that do nothing to further or enrich the discussion. Your points are legitimate, and I thank you for that. I think you'll see that Lizard, myself, mage and others do try to reason with these zealots, only to meet with more of the same. There comes a point where there is nothing left to say to them. I am sure if one of us proffered the same incendiary remarks about their country of origin (unfounded and insulting) you would see attempts to refute them. I'm not really sure what side of this issue (the achtung's and pjclark1's, or myself Lizard and others) you are directing this at, though, so I guess that's all I can really comment on. |
You know I'm 100% behind those that defend the U.S.A. when need be =) The others are all a bunch of trollers that need to be taken care of swiftly. Those are the ones who the "banning" was being directed to.
Post by: jasonmvt on March 09, 2003, 07:13:00 AM
I can't tell you enough how refreshing it is to hear that. I mean, you made an intelligent post and how long will it be before someone responds to it with| QUOTE |
| You ignorent Americans make me sick you go off on how great your Country is when you do not know anything about History other then what they tell you On TV |
This is the kind of comment that saturates this thread, and ruins any chance of debate. My whole point is that if you are going to say things like the above quote, at least be able to support them with something resembling a fact. Or, better yet, leave the inflammatory remarks aside and actually make some sort of case for your point. The requests for common sense and logic go largely ignored, and the rabble contiue on.
Post by: Mage on March 09, 2003, 11:54:00 AM
| QUOTE (Achtung @ Mar 9 2003, 09:41 AM) |
| First I never said all Americans are so stupid, they only know what they see on TV |
Oh the irony. Americans only know what they see on TV? As if Canadians, Brits, or Germans, are somehow more enlightened and do not get their information from the press? Mind you, what do you think are non-biased sources of information. Think hard and long before you answer.
When someone reports on some event, were you there to see how it happened?
I'll leave your points to be refuted by someone else, business/finance/ee(cs) are my main areas of knowledge.
Except point 2 can be answered easily.
| QUOTE |
| What gives the United states the right to tell the world who and how they should be governed, Is that not up to there own people? what is to stop the states after the destry the Iraq government to go after ever other government that does not suppost them 100%. |
If, this was an ideal world, then countries wouldn't need to worry about such things, hell countries wouldn't exist. We'd just be the human race that spans the Earth. However such is not the case, and if there are people in this world who have enough power to do things that could signifigantly cause harm to other people, then it is fine for other countries to step in and 'de-fuse' the situation, so to speak. Or, would you rather wait until said person and/or country builds some nuclear weapons?
The actions of others can affect even those that wish not to see them.
Post by: Dark Schneider on March 09, 2003, 12:11:00 PM
You can criticise another persons country when yours is perfect.
Man is it gonna be a while before anything ever gets said again isn't it?
I find it funny how some of you think that the U.S. acts alone all by itself all the time. Nah Germany NEVER sold any materials that could be turned from regular medicine producing plants into biological warfare sites...nah. The Russians would never sell nuclear material to a rogue state like Iran or Iraq now would they? And the the French, they wouldn't sell weapons to just anyone with the cash in hand would they?
The Saudi's funding terrorist cells...no way! That's not fair..because right there I am being a racist right...can't blame the Saudi's..not like 95% of the terrorists that slammed the planes into the world trade centers were saudi murderers were they? My god that is just so unpolitically correct!
Then there's the CIA...lol..Intelligence my foot! Yeh we all know what they did, and we all know why. Yes they are supplying warlords in AFghanistan...which will turn on the U.S. at the first sign that they can. Yes Saddam was used as a pawn to destabilize the region and keep the oil prices down. He has passed his use though, and here we are now.
As far as the U.S. poking it's nose in everything, and wanting to get things it's own way. It's called business pure and simple. They do it because they can. When you have the money, the firepower, and the ability to use it when needed...you do. When someone starts fucking with your business, you show them the way to enlightenment. The Germans did it when they were on top, the British did it when they ruled the world, the French...well...they're French...what more can I say.
The world is not fair, the strong will survive, and the weak shall perish. Remember these words and you will do well.
Post by: Lizard_King on March 09, 2003, 12:25:00 PM
| QUOTE (Achtung @ Mar 9 2003, 05:41 PM) |
| 1. Saddam Hussain, put in charge and supplied by CIA Bin Ladin and terrorist cells supplied with weapons and training by the US government back in the 80's when they were then Freedom fighters, then when apose the US they are turned into Terrorists and must be taken out. Now The US is supplying other cells and other regimes with the same like pakistan to fight against them do you not think eventually they too will also have a dissagrement with the US ie pakistan on India and the US will be put back with the same problem. Do you not see the problem with this. Is this not supporting the terrorism that you say you are fighting against. |
Once again, look at the time frame. Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden were an unknown factor we were backing against a known enemy, the Soviet Union. In retrospect, it is easy to see that as a totally wrong move; however, we'd all be singing a different tune had the Soviets succeeded in establishing a dominant foothold in the Middle East and had their foot on America and the rest of the world's throat. You can bet it would have taken a good deal longer for them to collapse.
As I continually say, there are rarely objectively, purely good choices available to world leaders. Usually, all they have open to them is the lesser of two evils. In that time frame it was correct.
| QUOTE |
2. What gives the United states the right to tell the world who and how they should be governed, Is that not up to there own people? what is to stop the states after the destry the Iraq government to go after ever other government that does not suppost them 100%. |
Up to their own people? So obviously you think Saddam Hussein stays in power due to his people thinking he is doing a great job? Should we have let the French work out that whole Nazi thing themselves as well?
As to the second part of your question, there is nothing material to stop America, now or afterwards. However, unless a compelling interest can be proved to the nation, which as you can see with Iraq and Afghanistan is no mean task. I think we'll have our hands full for a good long time.
There are good questions to ask about the problems a doctrine of preemption can create, but that is a much longer discussion even than this one.
| QUOTE |
| 3. How about the terrorist acts by the US in Niceragua and assassination attempts on countless people that have done no real crime but apose the US. example Castro. |
Have you been to Cuba? Because I have, and let me tell you, the only people that think American opposition to Cuba is wrongheaded are those that have the luxury of living outside of that hellhole. I have a great deal of admiration for how the Cuban people have persevered despite half a century of oppression, but to say Castro is blameless in the equation is absurd.
Nicaragua is a very complicated situation. It is clear to those of us that have lived next door to it as I did most of my life that there were no good guys to back in that situation; however the Sandinistas were definitely more wrong, as was proved after a decade under them managed to make the country even more poor, miserable and oppressed. The Contras were no prize, either, but in the context of the Cold War the decision to support anti-Communists was an easy one for Reagan to make.
| QUOTE |
| Im willing to turn this back into a credible debate, and hope to see real answers to the questions not only by Jasonmvt but to anyone that has a reply to it and not have to see personal attacts because of someones stand on the subject. |
Personal attacks aren't going anywhere. They are a staple of an anonymous discussion like this. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, someone's attack hits a nerve, and the situation degrades. Makes you wish we were just talking about video games, sometimes.
Post by: Achtung on March 09, 2003, 01:26:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Once again, look at the time frame. Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden were an unknown factor we were backing against a known enemy, the Soviet Union. In retrospect, it is easy to see that as a totally wrong move; however, we'd all be singing a different tune had the Soviets succeeded in establishing a dominant foothold in the Middle East and had their foot on America and the rest of the world's throat. You can bet it would have taken a good deal longer for them to collapse. As I continually say, there are rarely objectively, purely good choices available to world leaders. Usually, all they have open to them is the lesser of two evils. In that time frame it was correct. |
Now I want you to know I understand what your saying and comming from, but my point to your answer is do you not see the vicious circle to this. Seeing how it back fired on them already they are repeating that mistake again supplying Pakistan with all kinds of weapons and other rebel factions to fight off there last mistake. And what happens when India and Pakistan issue escalates and the united states ignores it and Pakistan then becomes hostile towards them. Suddenly the same problem arises and countless others.
| QUOTE |
Up to their own people? So obviously you think Saddam Hussein stays in power due to his people thinking he is doing a great job? Should we have let the French work out that whole Nazi thing themselves as well? As to the second part of your question, there is nothing material to stop America, now or afterwards. However, unless a compelling interest can be proved to the nation, which as you can see with Iraq and Afghanistan is no mean task. I think we'll have our hands full for a good long time. There are good questions to ask about the problems a doctrine of preemption can create, but that is a much longer discussion even than this one. |
I want to see the same thing happen here as what happened with Yugoslavia, the problem was geniside not regime, and that was taken care of and the former government was defeted by there own people there was no force of regime change as the US is planning with Iraq. Your point of the french and the Nazi's that was a invation by the Nazis and Forced a regime change in France, exactly what the US is doing against Iraq.
Yes your right there is nothing to stop them now or afterwards, Thats why this can not be allowed to happen by the UN, because if this is suitable solution for the US then why not for any other nation to do the same. What if N korea decides well America can go and change a goverment when ever they feel is right there going to take S korea the same way and so on and so on.
| QUOTE |
| Have you been to Cuba? Because I have, and let me tell you, the only people that think American opposition to Cuba is wrongheaded are those that have the luxury of living outside of that hellhole. I have a great deal of admiration for how the Cuban people have persevered despite half a century of oppression, but to say Castro is blameless in the equation is absurd. Nicaragua is a very complicated situation. It is clear to those of us that have lived next door to it as I did most of my life that there were no good guys to back in that situation; however the Sandinistas were definitely more wrong, as was proved after a decade under them managed to make the country even more poor, miserable and oppressed. The Contras were no prize, either, but in the context of the Cold War the decision to support anti-Communists was an easy one for Reagan to make. |
The first part I do agree with you, and I have been to cuba many times and it is absolutly one of the most beautiful countries in the world. But Castro was just mearly a simple example of the US using terrorist tactics and acting as if they are Innocent of such things. My argument here was that America can not try to apear so Innocent in the eyes of the world when there past is littered with terror.
My point is Terror is not something that just happens out of the blue, terror and terrorist are created by terror and is a result of similar actions against them or having no other choice to defend what you believe in. You have to understand that in the eye of mid east and many other countries the US are Terrorist that are threatning there beliefs and way of life and defending that with war which is more terror for them does nothing to help that. You do not have to agree, this is mearly my Opinion so do not take this as a way to bash the US because I am not trying to.
Post by: Mage on March 09, 2003, 01:37:00 PM
| QUOTE (Achtung @ Mar 9 2003, 02:26 PM) |
| I'm only making a reply to Lizzard king because he seems to understand what I said above, and actually wants to carry a normal debate. |
Hahaha how funny. Do what you wish, the people who shall read this thread shall see all your posts and judge based on such. My job is already done.
By the way, my answers were valid, regardless if you choose not to accept them.
Post by: Dark Schneider on March 09, 2003, 02:21:00 PM
| QUOTE (Achtung @ Mar 9 2003, 03:26 PM) |
| And I refuse to acknowledge that sickening rant by Dark Schneider. |
Can't handle a bit of the truth that you cannot refute with insane accusations and 2 year old tantrums? Shame...
| QUOTE |
I'm only making a reply to Lizzard king because he seems to understand what I said above, and actually wants to carry a normal debate. |
Do you know the actual meaning of a debate? For you have shown little knowledge in the area for that which is required to be considered so. The past 3 pages are filled with "fanatical" and unsubstantiated "facts" by yourself.
Are you French by the way?
Oh I'm sorry...Post by: jasonmvt on March 09, 2003, 03:05:00 PM
This is much more of what I was hoping for; at least you are presenting a more thought out opinion. Much of what Lizard has said I agree with, and I really don't want to reiterate more of the same (the downfall of catching your reply a little late). I especially agree with him in regards to your 1st point about the past support of Saddam and others like him. It was a move made to deal with the situation at hand at the time. If they could forsee the future of that decision, I cannot say. It was, however, the lesser evil at the time, and certainly it is better to be dealing with Saddam now, rather than a strong, coherent Soviet Union. It was a business type move, and we put the major competitor out of business only to have the 'employees' we trained try to take their place. I know that is an over simplification, but is reinforced by the ideal that business and warfare are not all that diffrent.
as for your second point about what gives the US the right... The resolutions enacted and agreed upon by Iraq were backed by many, many countries, including Canada, I believe. The simple fact that we wish to enforce them should not ostracize us from the global community. Like I have said before, we have given them ample opportunities, and still are, to comply. The have continually blocked our efforts, lied, and attempted to make fools of us for trying. (example being the mockery of a report submitted by iraq on the status of its weapon development) Saddam understands very well that his defiance causes tension between the US and its allies and will continue to milk it right down to, and maybe even past, zero hour (March 17th).
Nicaragua is without a doubt another case of the lesser of two evils. I would think if you know the history of the country you too would choose to back the Contras over the alternative. When you ad in the cold war hysteria of the time, the choice to oppose communism, in any form, becomes more palatable. As far as Castro is concerned, Lizard is absolutely correct- the country languishes in squalor and fear, while Castro rules on unflinchingly. The Cuban missle situation also rears itself into this equation, albeit long ago, the powers at be then, are the powers at be now.
The last part, about the moon landing fellow, well.... that is just laughable, and anyone who can present such arguments straight faced loses all other credibility in the debate. You had backed him in his previous statements as being a person of intelligence, and my point was to show the error in that judgement.
I realize that you have already responded to similar points that I have made here, but I did still wanted to recognize your previous post as an honest attempt at debate. While I don't agree with the things that you are saying, it is alot easier to respect them.
Post by: Achtung on March 09, 2003, 04:41:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| It was a business type move, and we put the major competitor out of business only to have the 'employees' we trained try to take their place. I know that is an over simplification, but is reinforced by the ideal that business and warfare are not all that diffrent. |
Im sorry but I refuse to see the loss of countless innocent lives as any form of business. Go tell the tons of Mothers, Fathers sons and daughters that there innocent loved ones that were killed from war that its just business. Someone mentioned there family curently going over to fight, if they dont return tell there family it was just business. I guess thinking that way Ford made a great business decision with the pinto aswell. I hope to never live to see a day when we look at life that way.
Again this is only my opinion, Im not trying to Insualt you.
I also dont agree with the comment of it being better to deal with the "employees" or smaller rebel factions as apose to someone like the Soviets. Dealing with many small rebel cells armed with low tech devastating tactics is much worse then a Huge country having to act according to deplomatic rules. And the United States is finding that out right now. The Soviets had to worry about there place on the Internatinal stage and could not use any type of chemical or nuclear weapon without huge consequences. Not so with unknown rebels whos whole goal is to get noticed with Terror.
| QUOTE |
| I realize that you have already responded to similar points that I have made here, but I did still wanted to recognize your previous post as an honest attempt at debate. While I don't agree with the things that you are saying, it is alot easier to respect them. |
I do appreciate that.
Post by: jasonmvt on March 09, 2003, 07:07:00 PM
Never in a million years do I want you to think that I enjoy war, or that the loss of human life is to be taken lightly just because I support the use of force with Iraq. These difficult decisions are based on what threats the future holds. The idea is to prevent a greater amount of deaths down the road. The world will be better off without Saddam in it. Given free reign, do you really think that he would not develop nuclear weapons and not hesitate to use them when he had the chance (either in the Mid-East or elsewhere)? If just one nuclear weapon were to be detonated in a populated area, it would geometrically outnumber the amount of lives lost in the last conflict with Iraq and however many future battles with them may produce. What do you think the world would be like, if he say, had a hundred. The chemical weapons he produces and stockpiles will also more likely bring death to his own people faster than another conflict will. With no restrictions on Saddam, Iraq would become even more of a terrorist conduit, where known terror organizations are aided, with Iraq maintaining deniability, and making his mass destruction weapons available. If we do not finish this situation, once and for all, it sends Iraq the message that they have won, and greenlights their covert weapon production.
It seems to me that you approach this situation from the viewpoint of 'why don't we just live and let live?' And that isn't such a bad thing. Iraq, however, has never and will never see it that way. One simply cannot sit by idle, while people of this nature are allowed to develop a first-strike offense, because once they have it, they will use it.
Post by: Roy2001 on March 09, 2003, 07:50:00 PM
Post by: piscian18 on March 09, 2003, 08:09:00 PM
i lost two jobs each with consecutively lower wages ,
my bills,everything from utils to gas has skyrocketed,
i lost my trust fund to the stocks crash
its now very important to be afraid of everyone not white
(white terrorist ?no way!...oklahoma cough*kkk cough cough
there are no stores just superstores with superprices
genicide currently being commited by israel (check the non usa news groups,come on they cant all be crazy )
but its its very important to bomb the crap out of iraq who ummmm
oh yeah purchase weapon technology from us via 3rd party distributers
well whatever wave a flag live in a box usa! usa!
its so funny i could cry
Post by: Dark Schneider on March 09, 2003, 08:10:00 PM
Actually it's neither Iraq nor N. Korea that the U.S. should be paying more attention to as a threat to their status. They should be spending more time on the millions of illegals within the country that are slowly erroding the already overtaxed welfare/medical systems. Not to mention the rather quiet, but large invasion force of Mexican nationals that breach the "security" of the borders every day 24/7. When the U.S. has tackled this, among many other problems itself has within it's borders, than maybe it can start telling people what's best for their country.
As for Saddam, let's admit this now. He was a puppet that got out of hand, and now they want to erase him. Besides the Oil reserves that we know deep down are the real reasons behind all of this. Not to mention that if Iraq is defeated in a military conflict, it will become the "property" of those that conquer it. With something you own, you can establish bases of operation that cannot be told to leave, nor refused to be used when and where you want to.
Post by: jasonmvt on March 09, 2003, 08:20:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| i lost two jobs each with consecutively lower wages , my bills,everything from utils to gas has skyrocketed, i lost my trust fund to the stocks crash |
So let me get this straight,
not one person lost a job when Clinton was president?
the severity of the winter couldn't have anything to do with your utilities?
someone told you it was a good idea to place a trust fund in volitile stocks?
| QUOTE |
| there are no stores just superstores with superprices |
This hurts you how?
| QUOTE |
| its so funny i could cry |
good, wallow in the bog of self pity becuase it is always someone else's fault when you fail isn't it?
Post by: isoMonger on March 09, 2003, 08:45:00 PM
| QUOTE (Skunky @ Mar 6 2003, 10:40 PM) |
| totally agree.... Bush has a wild hair up his ass for sadam.. since his father couldn't get the job done in the first place.... Look what these republican presidents do when in office. start wars even without the UN permission...kill the economy...etc... can't wait tell 2006 to get a new prez... |
NO WHERE in the constitution does it say the U.S. needs permission from the UN to star a war with another country, I wish i would've gotten in this arguement earlier. I'm registered for the draft, not fearing it, but i don't think i'm prime draft material seeings how i'm only 18. I don't hate our government, kinda at an understanding with it, that we definately don't like each other, i hate taxes, damn. err
.....anyways, i think even though we pay for rebiulding these countries after we rip them apart, i think the citizens of those countries are the real losers in it all. I don't really know what its like having trouble finding a meal. I also think if we don't go to war and take care of some problems over there, things aren't gonna get any better. We shouldn't ignore them, but we shouldn't also keep providing aid (like food and shit) for indefinite. South Korea torques me though, i mean i kinda understand there motive of hating us for even thinkin about taken care of n korea because we are a bigger country just tryin to push them around etc etc, but i wish i knew it was a bigger motive than that
Post by: Lizard_King on March 09, 2003, 09:10:00 PM
| QUOTE (piscian18 @ Mar 10 2003, 05:09 AM) |
| hi [sob story] well whatever wave a flag live in a box usa! usa! its so funny i could cry |
No, no, I think I'll stick to just laughing, and leave the crying for things that make me sad. Honestly, if you what you stay is true, it is far more tragic that you blame BUsh for your problems rather than just yourself and circumstance. I don't see how the tax rebate could have possibly hurt you. In any case, we won't see the results of Bush's economic plans until at least 5-10 years, just as with Reagan (aside from rearmament) the real impact was not seen until a certain slimeball was in office or thereabouts.
| QUOTE |
| The last part, about the moon landing fellow, well.... that is just laughable, and anyone who can present such arguments straight faced loses all other credibility in the debate. You had backed him in his previous statements as being a person of intelligence, and my point was to show the error in that judgement. |
Who said something about the moon landing? I must have missed that one.
Post by: boris2 on March 09, 2003, 09:14:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| NO WHERE in the constitution does it say the U.S. needs permission from the UN to star a war with another country, I wish i would've gotten in this arguement earlier. I'm registered for the draft, not fearing it, but i don't think i'm prime draft material seeings how i'm only 18. I don't hate our government, kinda at an understanding with it, that we definately don't like each other, i hate taxes, damn. err .....anyways, i think even though we pay for rebiulding these countries after we rip them apart, i think the citizens of those countries are the real losers in it all. I don't really know what its like having trouble finding a meal. I also think if we don't go to war and take care of some problems over there, things aren't gonna get any better. We shouldn't ignore them, but we shouldn't also keep providing aid (like food and shit) for indefinite. South Korea torques me though, i mean i kinda understand there motive of hating us for even thinkin about taken care of n korea because we are a bigger country just tryin to push them around etc etc, but i wish i knew it was a bigger motive than that |
Of course not, dumbass,
but the US has signed the UN charter, so you would be breaking International law.. which is a terrible thing for long-term peace
Post by: isoMonger on March 09, 2003, 09:18:00 PM
hah,
that's just paper work.
-jackass
Post by: Lizard_King on March 10, 2003, 05:12:00 AM
| QUOTE (boris2 @ Mar 10 2003, 06:14 AM) |
| Of course not, dumbass, but the US has signed the UN charter, so you would be breaking International law.. which is a terrible thing for long-term peace |
How would enforcing several standing UN resolutions be a violation of international law? Because members of the security council refuse to do their jobs suddenly the world ought to go into paralysis, at the mercy of ever tyrant around? I don't think so.
Post by: jasonmvt on March 10, 2003, 06:34:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Who said something about the moon landing? I must have missed that one. |
pjclark1- on about page 5...
| QUOTE |
| jason the next thing you'll be saying is that America really did put man on the moon....when we all know it was a hoax. oh and I can't see where you made any sort of sensible reply to either Achtung or myself. Unless you consider a sensible reply to be an insult. |
Post by: Al_Ghazi on March 10, 2003, 07:22:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| How would enforcing several standing UN resolutions be a violation of international law? Because members of the security council refuse to do their jobs suddenly the world ought to go into paralysis, at the mercy of ever tyrant around? I don't think so. |
Sounds good to me - lets enforce the outstanding security council resolution on that rouge state Israel then? Yes? Israel has a secret nuclear arms project, a secret chemical weapons project, is in violation of several Security Council resolutions and is in violation of everything and anything that even resembles western morality.
What is more Israel is at present asking for $40 Billion in additional aid this year from the US... I think George Bush should give up the prayer meetings and don a yamaka and just ask Israel to fuck each and every American up the ass.
Just a thought .
Post by: Al_Ghazi on March 10, 2003, 07:33:00 AM
I am still waiting for some new games... Is Dea to Rights even worth renting from blockbuster?
Gaz.
Post by: jasonmvt on March 10, 2003, 07:37:00 AM
Post by: Al_Ghazi on March 10, 2003, 08:18:00 AM
Post by: Ronnie on March 10, 2003, 10:25:00 AM
| QUOTE (isoMonger @ Mar 10 2003, 12:45 AM) | ||
NO WHERE in the constitution does it say the U.S. needs permission from the UN to star a war with another country, I wish i would've gotten in this arguement earlier. I'm registered for the draft, not fearing it, but i don't think i'm prime draft material seeings how i'm only 18. I don't hate our government, kinda at an understanding with it, that we definately don't like each other, i hate taxes, damn. err .....anyways, i think even though we pay for rebiulding these countries after we rip them apart, i think the citizens of those countries are the real losers in it all. I don't really know what its like having trouble finding a meal. I also think if we don't go to war and take care of some problems over there, things aren't gonna get any better. We shouldn't ignore them, but we shouldn't also keep providing aid (like food and shit) for indefinite. South Korea torques me though, i mean i kinda understand there motive of hating us for even thinkin about taken care of n korea because we are a bigger country just tryin to push them around etc etc, but i wish i knew it was a bigger motive than that |
What draft?
There is no draft...
Post by: xboxmodder4life on March 10, 2003, 10:48:00 AM
Post by: Al_Ghazi on March 10, 2003, 11:30:00 AM
I turned 18 the year that 'ol Ray-Gun brought that draft registration thing into effect. I filled my card out in pink crayon and put a note at the bottom "Please forgive the crayon, but they won't let me have sharp instruments".
i got a stinkin letter from the DoD containing a blank registration card and telling me that I was going to do it right this time or I was going to jail. I whimped out and did it right. I am after all an armchair liberal.
Even stranger was that although I could drink at 18, then they passed that law that made the drinking age 21 and I was no longer allowed to go into the bars I had been drinking at.
Republicans... Bah!
Gaz.
Post by: Lizard_King on March 10, 2003, 01:29:00 PM
| QUOTE (Al_Ghazi @ Mar 10 2003, 04:22 PM) | ||
| Yawn... Gosh... What have I missed? Lizard King still pontificating and not realising that he is becoming more and more of a lone voice as the entire planet sides up against the United States? I liked this one Lizzy:
Sounds good to me - lets enforce the outstanding security council resolution on that rouge state Israel then? Yes? Israel has a secret nuclear arms project, a secret chemical weapons project, is in violation of several Security Council resolutions and is in violation of everything and anything that even resembles western morality. |
Just trying to point out how absurd it is to use a wholly situational nonstandard like this "international law" everyone speaks of...You of all people should know that the UN is no instrument of legitimacy in my view.
| QUOTE |
| What is more Israel is at present asking for $40 Billion in additional aid this year from the US... I think George Bush should give up the prayer meetings and don a yamaka and just ask Israel to fuck each and every American up the ass. Just a thought . |
Well, we'll have all that money left over from Turkey, so it should be no problem at all. If you want to start questioning US aid decisions, the list begins with near hostile countries such as Egypt. Israel is plainly our ally, and a strong Israel is greatly beneficial in keeping its rowdy neighbours, Iraq aside, a little quieter than usual. And it's 'yarmelke', fool.
| QUOTE |
| (1) Isn't it possible that invading Iraq will cause more terrorism than it prevents? |
Of course, it's possible but it's highly unlikely. Arab terrorism will continue to strike against America and its allies until the destruction of either side. All an attack on Iraq might do is accelerate Al Qaeda's timetable; Iraq is not a causal factor in their calculations but a scheduling one.
The Arab "street", the Arab leaders, and all their lackeys could not be more anti-American without doing so openly and being annihilated like Afghanistan. Removing Hussein and establishing a less oppressive regime cannot help but destabilize it's neighbours; there is nowhere for them to be de-stabilized but upwards.
General Clark is a staff officer, not a battle officer, or even a politics-minded one. He thinks in terms of immediate cost-benefit analyses, and is always attempting to accumulate resources and shift pressure as was NATO's style when they dealt with the Soviets. That does not work in an asymmetrical conflict like this one.
| QUOTE |
| (3) You point out that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that "could" be turned over to terrorists. But couldn't the same be said of Pakistan, North Korea, and dozens of other nations? And do you intend to launch pre-emptive strikes against them as well? Bombing Iraq because of what it "might" do would set a frightening precedent. Imagine the global chaos that would result if every nation followed Bush's example, and it's easy to understand how reckless a first-strike policy is. |
| QUOTE |
| (5) Why do you maintain that Iraq poses a more immediate threat than North Korea? North Korean leader Kim Jong-il admits that he has nuclear weapons capable of hitting U.S. targets, and brags that he can 'win' a nuclear war with the United States. Please explain why Americans should fear Iraq more than this belligerent, and apparently unstable, communist dictator. |
North Korea is different largely because 1. They already have the bomb, and thus military options for dealing with them would have to be extraordinarily radical and costly. and 2. They have China as a limiting factor and the 3rd strongest military in the world right across the bay (Japan, not China). The South Koreans are no slouches either. Likewise, Pakistan has India to worry about. They check each other's power.
Iraq has no regional rivals worth mentioning other than Turkey, which has always functioned in a very separate sphere from the Middle East anyway. Israel is not sufficient because it has the whole of the region in opposition to it, and very limited second-strike potential due to its tiny area (ie, Israel would ultimately lose a nuclear engagement no matter what due to its size). That kind of rogue power next to the world's largest oil reserve is wholly unacceptable.
In any case, Iraq is as much *because* of what has happened in North Korea as any other reason. I guarantee you an American client state in Iraq will do much to calm Asian dictators.
Our options for dealing with NK are limited; with Iraq, we have the option of getting rid of it before it becomes such problem.
| QUOTE |
| (4) Won't attacking Iraq make Saddam more likely to launch a biological or chemical attack? During the Gulf War, the Iraqi leader apparently decided that unleashing such devastating weapons was not in his self- interest. But this time Saddam knows he is targeted personally which means he has nothing to lose. If Bush really wants to avoid such a catastrophe, he can prove it by keeping U.S. troops out of Iraq. |
Sure, but the difference is that apart from Israel he will be launching them against military targets. In case you thought the Geneva convention was what kept the US from prioritizing chem and bio wmd's in its arsenal, the most compelling reason is that they are largely ineffective in a military engagement except for terror purposes against civilian populaces. The US is well aware of this, and is also fairly certain that Saddam is not building all this as a credible "deterrent", as there is no one in the area to deter. They are designed for a first strike of some sort.
Hold on a moment; it just struck me how unlikely it is that you came up with these questions, so a quick Google search revealed that they were actually from the Libertarian Party's Geoffrey Neale. You didn't even bother to change the wording.
They have been dealt with extensively in various places. If you want to continue to post other people's argument's as your own, I recommend you find someone else to waste their time dealing with them.
Post by: Lizard_King on March 10, 2003, 01:31:00 PM
| QUOTE (Al_Ghazi @ Mar 10 2003, 08:30 PM) |
| Even stranger was that although I could drink at 18, then they passed that law that made the drinking age 21 and I was no longer allowed to go into the bars I had been drinking at. Republicans... Bah! Gaz. |
You can thank Liddy Dole for that. One of the many Republicans-in-name-only that make the party a lesser of two evils rather than a good choice, she tied federal highway funding to the drinking age as transportation secretary, and fucked everyone. Even Louisiana had to fold. There is no justification for overregulation other than credible and temporary states of emergency, no matter which party's members orchestrate it.
Post by: Lizard_King on March 10, 2003, 02:23:00 PM
Keep in mind that the headline is blown out of proportion in typical British newspaper style.
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 10, 2003, 02:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 10 2003, 05:29 PM) | ||
Sure, but the difference is that apart from Israel he will be launching them against military targets. In case you thought the Geneva convention was what kept the US from prioritizing chem and bio wmd's in its arsenal, the most compelling reason is that they are largely ineffective in a military engagement except for terror purposes against civilian populaces. The US is well aware of this, and is also fairly certain that Saddam is not building all this as a credible "deterrent", as there is no one in the area to deter. They are designed for a first strike of some sort. Hold on a moment; it just struck me how unlikely it is that you came up with these questions, so a quick Google search revealed that they were actually from the Libertarian Party's Geoffrey Neale. You didn't even bother to change the wording. They have been dealt with extensively in various places. If you want to continue to post other people's argument's as your own, I recommend you find someone else to waste their time dealing with them. |
Hahahaha!!!! That was good. Dude got caught plagerising
I wonder if that is how he made it through school. I figured he was one of those democrap sheeple.
Post by: dude on March 10, 2003, 02:59:00 PM
North Korea has a stockpile of 2,500 to 5,000 tons of chemical weapons and is believed to be capable of producing 1 ton of biological weapons annually, according to South Korea's Defense Ministry.
The communist state's stockpile of chemical weapons consists of 17 different types that can be used to dispense nerve gases, the ministry said in a report presented to the National Assembly. North Korea can produce about 4,500 tons of chemical weapons every year, it said.
Pyongyang's army also has biological weapons involving 13 different lethal germs and viruses, the ministry said.
We are only there for the oil and to hide it under the guise of chemical/biological WMD is assinine.
Please provide a more compelling argument next time before you waste my time.
Post by: gainpresence on March 10, 2003, 03:02:00 PM
Post by: dude on March 10, 2003, 03:08:00 PM
| QUOTE (Wong Hung Lo @ Mar 10 2003, 10:46 PM) |
| I wonder if that is how he made it through school. I figured he was one of those democrap sheeple. |
Really, is that what you think? Isn't it funny Repugs resort to ad hominem attacks when they can't think of a compelling argument.
Here's your playbook:
A typical Repug refute
1) First he'll (usually a man, Ann Coulter is a transvestite) patiently try to tell you where you went wrong in your idiotic thinking.
2) If you still don't see it his way, he'll say "well Clinton did" whatever, as if that excuses this admin's failures. Or will state out of the blue that "libs" are still whining about the election when no one said anything about it.
3) When faced with logic, he will start picking apart your sentences, spelling, find some small detail and turn the debate over on that.
4) When shown how stupid his argument is, he will call names.
5) When laughed at for his childish behavior, he will start threatening violence on you and your family.
6) When thoroughly refuted, will sputter and say "Oh yeah? Well Ignore's not just a town in Russia" then slink away, tail between legs.
Try it, they all use the same pattern. It's in the Bush Admin's playbook. (Works well with reporters, too)
Post by: meltdown on March 10, 2003, 03:14:00 PM
| QUOTE (Achtung @ Mar 8 2003, 03:30 PM) | ||
Another person educated by American TV. Excuse me when did WWII start, 1939 and when did the United States join the war, In 1944. As your Amercian president put it back then Hitler was Europes problem not the United States. So as my family was getting slaughtered in Poland and countless others Americas interest for 4 years prior was selling equipment and supplies to the Allies to fight the germans Prophiting from there deaths because there deaths were not the US problem. Then only when it was going to be benificial for your country they joined and fought a army that had been fighting for 4 years prior and tell there people they won the war. You ignorent Americans make me sick you go off on how great your Country is when you do not know anything about History other then what they tell you On TV. Every war the US has taken by itself it has had its Asses handed to them ie. Vietnam. Hell the french had to bail you out fighting against yourselves. America will only embark on a war when it benifits them not for the liberty of people as they say, or Humanity but to gain something from it for themselves ie the Oil. They dont give a shit about anyone or any other country but themselves( where the fuck was the US 5 years ago in Afganistan when the same things were going on to there people, how bout Sarajevo or any fucking war that doesnt have any insentives for America) Stop this garbage that America fights for freedom and oh so beautiful Liberty to give gods gift, because thats the biggest bullshit lie in the world and ever other country in this world knows that, thats why no one respects you or gives a rats ass about the States. And the reason you cant count on American product is because americans cant build shit and your country would completly die if that ever happened. |
Um ok.. I'm going to bring up some obvious ignorant statements here that show you don't know the facts:
1. The French did no bail out the US in Vietnam, WE WENT into Vietnam to bail the French out. They were getting slaughtered left and right and asked us to come save them (again). Read some military history PLEASE.
2. As for profiting in WW-II. We were to a degree, but we weren't the ones taking money from captured jews, and using the POW camps that Germany was creating and the fortunes displaced by the Jews to make us money like Sweden was. We also were not the ones living just a few miles down the road from an internment camp saying "We never knew it was there... that stench is burning human flesh? We never knew that either". I'm not saying the Germans were evil, or bad as a whole, but they were most deffinatly cowardly, oh we know the furor is doing this but we'll still support him.
3. Russia did NOT enter Germany or even get close to Berlin till the Germans had fallen and the US, Canadian, and British forces were already well entrenched. And if you want to get particular it was Hitler's suicide that ended the war. The day after, Germany surrendered. The Russians on the other hand had been driven back all the way to Stalingrad and further before it finally ended. When the war ended they were for the most part just holding the line and not really making any advancements on the European front.
4. As for stop talking about liberty and freedom... Why? We had nothing to gain by freeing Afghanistan other than putting Al'Qaeda on the run if not destroying it? NOTHING when it comes to money. Zilch... Do you realise that currently, right now as we speak the majority of our oil is coming from South America and Russia? NOT the Arab nations as some would have you believe. Actually only about 23-28% is coming from the middle east. If we wished we could say "Ok no more oil from the middle east" and start pulling it from Anwar (if the damn tree huggers would leave us alone) or even start the wells back up in Texas and Oklahoma. So we aren't in it for the money. Although here is one funny little note you might want to be aware of. France and Germany currently have development deals in Iraq with Iraq for oil development.... If there is a war and Saddam is out of power they most likely would no longer have those contracts... Hrm.. wonder if that is influencing their vote. Sounds like they have far more financially to lose than the US does, and most likely the largest reason for them saying "No war". Sounds like while we may have trained and gotten Saddam into power, the EU nations are far more in bed with him then we ever were.... Awfully hypocritical to lamblast us then now isn't it.
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 10, 2003, 03:22:00 PM
Post by: Mage on March 10, 2003, 03:45:00 PM
Wong Hung Lo was talking about that...
EDIT: Tag mis-match.
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 10, 2003, 04:03:00 PM
| QUOTE (dude @ Mar 10 2003, 07:31 PM) | ||
When faced with logic, he will start picking apart your sentences, spelling, find some small detail and turn the debate over on that. 'Nuff said! |
At least I use my own words. You just copy and paste from your favorite communist websites. If you think that Bush is bad. Be thankfull I'm not your president. If I was president their would be less terrorist in this world. And I think Israel should take off the gloves and leave them off. Then take Afrafat and hang him from the nearest tree.
Also my hats off to Russia on how they took care of those terrorist in that theatre last year. I really love how they burried them wrapped up in pigskins
Don't forget that Saddam funds terrorism. Remember how he gives the familes of suicide bombers $50,000.
Here's something you can copy and paste. " Not all muslims are terrorist, but all terrorist are muslims".
Post by: Mage on March 10, 2003, 04:33:00 PM
Post by: Lizard_King on March 10, 2003, 05:36:00 PM
| QUOTE (Achtung @ Mar 11 2003, 01:27 AM) | ||
In defence of Dude , he not once said that the questions that he was asking were his, mearly to just answer them
which are all points I myself have been trying to get across and answered straight out. But you choose to just keep attacking him on that they are not his questions (which he never claimed they were) and dance around them rather then try and answer them. I tried to get this back into a serious discustion (as Ill plainly addmitt I acted out of anger because of earlier posts which didnt help the situation for the better) and I give Lizzard King and Jasonmvt and now Dude credit for trying aswell. But I see that there are just people waiting in the mists that have no real opinion at all other then to Insult and attack someones stance on a subject. I might not agree with the thoughts of Jasonmvt or Lizzard King but I can respect there opinion if they show the same for mine. So bottom line If you dont have something inteligent to contribute then just dont for the sake of it. |
It's quite simple. I am not willing to formulate the lengthy responses that all these red herrings will require if dude is not willing to even bother to create his own questions, and provide counter theories of how he best thinks Arab terrorism, Iraq, and North Korea should best be resolved. Take the last case...Anti-war types have seized on Kim and now their chant is "well, North Korea's a threat, why don't you do something about them"?
In any case, I did not accuse him of plagiarism per se since he did not, in fact, explicitly claim they were his. However, I do find the way in which he posted them somewhat disingenuous, much the way I felt when Al Ghazi posted like 2 pages of quotes by famous historians from an English newspaper. AG claimed them as learned sources backing his side exclusively, but only proved that he did not even bother to read his own posts since at least two of the eight had arguments closely resembling mine.
The reason that bothers me is because it wastes my fucking time. Don't just offer doubts about what is being done, offer credible alternatives with what you think the results will be. Then you have an argument.
Well, tell me, how would you handle a rogue nation with nuclear weapons? I think Bush's gradual approach is the only means availiable to us in the current situation.
It's funny how it is always those on my side of the table that are being required to defend the long term prospects of our plans; we've made it clear that we believe the war in Iraq will be relatively brief, and the reconstruction successful within ten years, since with the absence of a need for carpet bombing and no real agriculture to speak of, the country has little to lose. It goes without saying that the presence of an American client state in the midst of the Middle East, which will unavoidably have far superior economic growth and personal liberty than any of its Arab neighbours, will do a great deal for shifting the basic nature of the Middle East's problems from general disarray and violence to a more ordered state.
Now, the only truly valid issue I have seen raised about the war in Iraq is what the long term precedents that might be set by pre-emptive strikes such as this one will be, and whether they will provide a direct incentive to rogue countries to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible so that they can be treated like North Korea rather than Iraq. That is a valid concern; however I think it hinges largely on how quickly we can get moving on Iraq. The longer this anticipation lasts, the more likely it will trigger crises elsewhere. If the UN had been rightly tossed aside last year and the invasion carried out, we'd already be in the phase of reconstruction.
As an added bonus, we could have seen the leadership of continental Europe suffer a collective brain aneurysm and flock like vultures to obtain the slightest concession in the region, only to find that our allies already got the deals.
Quite frankly, the window of opportunity is fast closing. I realize the plans for the invasion were set in motion months ago and the date decided on long before that, but I question whether there is anything more to gain from waiting longer.
Post by: Ronnie on March 10, 2003, 06:15:00 PM
| QUOTE (xboxmodder4life @ Mar 10 2003, 02:48 PM) |
| when ur 18 ur supposed to register for the draft. Theres no actaul draft but incase there ever is. Your legally obligated if your a citizen of the united states at the age of 18 to sign up for a potential draft |
Sorry to let you know but you are wrong.Im more than 18 years old but when I did turn 18 I signed up for selective services.And it aint the draft...
What is Selective Service registration?
Registration is a way our government keeps a list of names of men from which to draw in case of a national emergency requiring rapid expansion of our Armed Forces. By registering all young men, the Selective Service ensures that a future draft will be fair and equitable.
And no way in hell is the draft coming back unless we attack 2 powerful countries at one time.N.Korea and China or one of those countries and Russia(We would never fight Russia but another war with N.Korea will happen soon and there buddies up above may want to hep them out like last time.So a draft is possible but dubious)
Post by: dude on March 10, 2003, 09:18:00 PM
| QUOTE (Wong Hung Lo @ Mar 11 2003, 12:03 AM) |
| At least I use my own words. You just copy and paste from your favorite communist websites. If you think that Bush is bad. Be thankfull I'm not your president. If I was president their would be less terrorist in this world. And I think Israel should take off the gloves and leave them off. Then take Afrafat and hang him from the nearest tree. Also my hats off to Russia on how they took care of those terrorist in that theatre last year. I really love how they burried them wrapped up in pigskins Don't forget that Saddam funds terrorism. Remember how he gives the familes of suicide bombers $50,000. Here's something you can copy and paste. " Not all muslims are terrorist, but all terrorist are muslims". |
Sorry Wung Ho but I am certainly not a communist and for you to infer as such is just plain assinine. As I said in my earlier post Republicans (or Bush supporters) resort to Ad Hominem attacks when there is no other avenue for them to take in their arguments and are quite frankly not be taken seriously when doing so. As far a copying and pasting goes...so what! They're valid points to be discussed, recommended or admonished but I see you have a hard time doing just that.
Were you not treated well as a kid? Maybe you still are one. Jeez, I can't believe I am even replying.
Post by: mickandthebadboyz on March 10, 2003, 09:23:00 PM
http://www.idleworm..../11/iraq2.shtml
BTW how many UN resolutions are israel breaking and why is nothing being said about it
mick
Post by: dude on March 10, 2003, 09:55:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 11 2003, 01:36 AM) |
| It's funny how it is always those on my side of the table that are being required to defend the long term prospects of our plans; we've made it clear that we believe the war in Iraq will be relatively brief, and the reconstruction successful within ten years, since with the absence of a need for carpet bombing and no real agriculture to speak of, the country has little to lose. It goes without saying that the presence of an American client state in the midst of the Middle East, which will unavoidably have far superior economic growth and personal liberty than any of its Arab neighbours, will do a great deal for shifting the basic nature of the Middle East's problems from general disarray and violence to a more ordered state. Now, the only truly valid issue I have seen raised about the war in Iraq is what the long term precedents that might be set by pre-emptive strikes such as this one will be, and whether they will provide a direct incentive to rogue countries to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible so that they can be treated like North Korea rather than Iraq. That is a valid concern; however I think it hinges largely on how quickly we can get moving on Iraq. The longer this anticipation lasts, the more likely it will trigger crises elsewhere. If the UN had been rightly tossed aside last year and the invasion carried out, we'd already be in the phase of reconstruction. As an added bonus, we could have seen the leadership of continental Europe suffer a collective brain aneurysm and flock like vultures to obtain the slightest concession in the region, only to find that our allies already got the deals. Quite frankly, the window of opportunity is fast closing. I realize the plans for the invasion were set in motion months ago and the date decided on long before that, but I question whether there is anything more to gain from waiting longer. |
Lizard:
How much will this cost in lives, material, increased tax burden and/or deficits or for that matter international relations? This shoot from the hip strategy of Bush's is frightening. I do not see where any of it is funny in asking any of these questions given that we do not know for certain the response of terrorists, rogue states or emerging free enterprise economies like China's, who, by the way consider Taiwan a wayward entity and, according to your theory of dangerous precedent will look to fold them back under their wing. What would be our response to that provocation?
Further, looking at it from a purely financial point of view doesn't it bother you that your tax dollars are going to enrich Bush's cronies in this whole affair ala the $900M being offered today to a number of American construction firms one of which happens to be a subsidiary of Halliburton (Cheney's old firm). Are the Afghans really better off now that there is really only law and order restored in Kabul and just Kabul? Who just signed a $3.2 billion dollar contract for a pipeline last December 28th and who will be the beneficiaries? You really have to question the motives of such an administration!
Post by: ppbest on March 11, 2003, 03:24:00 AM
| QUOTE (Ronnie @ Mar 11 2003, 03:15 AM) |
| And no way in hell is the draft coming back unless we attack 2 powerful countries at one time.N.Korea and China or one of those countries and Russia(We would never fight Russia but another war with N.Korea will happen soon and there buddies up above may want to hep them out like last time.So a draft is possible but dubious) |
Why you prefer war not peace? To fight with N.Korea or China or Russia is not the only way that you could come back from the hell. China will not side with N.Korea anylonger because N.Korea got too much help from China, and now says "China is no longer a real Communist country, so we leave him". Do you think someone like N.Korea can be a real friend even over 300,000 chinese soldiers died for him in the Korea War? I do not think so . But that doesn't mean N.Korea's people is bad, but the Chairman JIN ZHENGRI!! China will not help N.Korea any more unless someone like US takes the power of JIN, please note, to stop the nuke plan in N.Korea is not enough at all! Thinking about millions of people getting no enough food while JIN invited the Italian Pizza Maker for his dinner! Saddam and JIN are both shit that your goverment should kick them off, again, not the people(except Japan, there people and goverment are both shit, you will never know why, so don't ask).
So do not post something like " we should attack......" again unless you are really under 18 y, since you insiste ur over 18, that really could be serious problem.
----Do not like Bush
----LOVE Clinton
----Fuck all Muslims
Post by: Mage on March 11, 2003, 07:50:00 AM
| QUOTE (ppbest @ Mar 11 2003, 04:24 AM) |
| (except Japan, there people and goverment are both shit, you will never know why, so don't ask). |
Have you lived in Japan? Well why exactly would you say that about Japanese people? As for me, I've seen both sides of Japanese life, living in a small country-side area and then Toukyou. So I think I could understand why, unless it's just pointless hate.
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 11, 2003, 08:06:00 AM
School bans pigs stories
Mmmmmm! Canadian bacon & eggs fried in bacon grease sounds good right now. I guess I'll eat that for lunch.
Post by: Lizard_King on March 11, 2003, 11:01:00 AM
| QUOTE (Al_Ghazi @ Mar 10 2003, 08:30 PM) |
| Ho I turned 18 the year that 'ol Ray-Gun brought that draft registration thing into effect. I filled my card out in pink crayon and put a note at the bottom "Please forgive the crayon, but they won't let me have sharp instruments". i got a stinkin letter from the DoD containing a blank registration card and telling me that I was going to do it right this time or I was going to jail. I whimped out and did it right. I am after all an armchair liberal. Even stranger was that although I could drink at 18, then they passed that law that made the drinking age 21 and I was no longer allowed to go into the bars I had been drinking at. Republicans... Bah! Gaz. |
Oh, by the way, the two Senators that have put forth an (unsuccessful) motion to reinstate the draft in recent years were both Democrats, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina (the same sack of shit spearheading the DMCA and all such initiatives) and Charles Rangel of NY. So put credit where credit is due. Republicans haven't supported the draft since Vietnam.
Post by: dude on March 11, 2003, 03:15:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Their conventional forces are alarmingly underwhelming, better suited to crushing student rallies than highly motivated, well-trained Taiwanese soldiers with absolutely nothing to lose. |
A little off there:
Conventional forces
China: 2.47M in uniform
Taiwan: 0.370M " "
N. Korea: 1.082M
S. Korea: 0.683M
Tanks (MBT)
China: 7060
Taiwan: 739
N. Korea: 3500
S. Korea: 2390
Air Force
China: 3000
Taiwan: 570
N. Korea: 621
S. Korea: 555
Submarines
China: 57
Taiwan: 4
N. Korea: 26
S. Korea: 19
I would say China's military is anything but underwhelming!
| QUOTE |
| Is paying tribute to our enemies the rational approach to things? |
How was he (Clinton) paying tribute to our enemies by giving aid? Maybe the real question should be what far greater damage is Bush doing with his current PNAC diplomacy with the rest of the international community than Clinton ever did. What are these costs, financial or otherwise going to be? $1 trillion for Iraq and how would they be funded? Do you want to pay for them because surely our soon to be former allies are not going to?
| QUOTE |
| You know what really bothers me? That no one on your side of the debate even acknowledges that such financial motivations are central to nearly all of the Western government's opposition to the war in Iraq. Hell, the number one revenue source for the UN is the Iraqi oil for food program: 8 billion dollars going through their greasy little palms every year, and you think the UN doesn't have an interest in the status quo? That France isn't hinged on cheap oil? That Russia doesn't love instability in the Middle East as it makes its own oil fields that much more valuable? |
You're a little shortsighted on this one but yes, this is most likely part of the equation. You cannot debate the fact that these same governments (who have legal and binding contracts with Iraq) are willing to do this under an international mandate/blessing of the UN unlike our blatant grab for their oil. So the question then becomes who is right? France, Russia getting from Iraq what they have agreed to in the past or our militaristic go kill'em all and screw the rest of the world we're the US type of approach? It's no wonder Blair's populace is revolting against him.
| QUOTE |
| I don't think Bush's "cronies" are the motivation for his action. Your claim is wholly a subjective one, as is my belief in what his motives really are. I think it has a lot more to do wtih his management style than with what sector of industry he was most closely related with. Moreover, I don't see how oil companies benefitting from the war hurts me in any way, other than providing me with cheaper gas and oil. Last I checked, that was not a problem. |
You must own stock in some of these oil companies. Again, you didn't address my question of the plans being hatched and bid on by American companies to benefit from the aftermath of our military attacks on Iraq. The administration should just admit this 'motivation' and they would garner some respect or do you think that the over 30 former members of the oil industry in Bush's cabinet is just a fluke?
| QUOTE |
| As to the first question, yes, indisputably, Afghanistan is better off. It has always been a country poorly suited to central administration, but the fact that there are no longer totalitarian fundamentalist fringe elements ensuring that the worst of the country runs it is indisputably a good thing. It may never be a country that would be considered in tune with western standards of personal liberty and democracy, but it is certainly far more in that direction than it has been in the last 50 years. And again, America's goal is not to set up democracies in all the Arab world, political rhetoric aside. It is to find the best balance between cultural particularities of the country and stable, functional government. I don't think true democracy works in the West (fortunately, America is still mostly a republic, not a democracy), and I don't see how it could possibly function in the Middle East. |
Afghanistan is not better off from what I have heard and that law and order is only present in Kabul. The warlords still impose their will outside the capital and do as they want. Please show me otherwise.
| QUOTE |
| Show me the details of this deal, and I'll be glad to talk about it. I don't see how an oil pipeline through Afghanistan would be harmful to either my interests or to those of the Afghan people, nor do I think such a business deal was the motivation for actions in Afghanistan. You may have forgotten about 9/11, but some of us have not. |
Have not forgotten about 9/11 at all but I don't run around with this all-pervasive, sky is fallin' terrorism paranoia that the right-wing corporate media and especially the administration so wantonly shove into our face every day. Why is the administration doing this you may ask? Because Karl Rove has said so in August of last year that the administration can 'run' on the war effort and this would detract from all of his other policies that have failed so miserably.
Good quote
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war
in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor,
for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword.
It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.
And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has
closed, the leader will have no
need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry,
infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of
their rights unto the leader, and gladly so.
How do I know?
For this is what I have done.
And I am Caesar."
You may want to check out this link regarding the oil pipeline:
http://www.buzzflash...y_Pipeline.html
Post by: Lizard_King on March 11, 2003, 04:14:00 PM
| QUOTE (dude @ Mar 12 2003, 12:15 AM) |
| A little off there: Conventional forces China: 2.47M in uniform Taiwan: 0.370M " " N. Korea: 1.082M S. Korea: 0.683M Tanks (MBT) China: 7060 Taiwan: 739 N. Korea: 3500 S. Korea: 2390 Air Force China: 3000 Taiwan: 570 N. Korea: 621 S. Korea: 555 Submarines China: 57 Taiwan: 4 N. Korea: 26 S. Korea: 19 I would say China's military is anything but underwhelming! |
Again, you are using numbers for what is entirely a qualitative judgement. The size of the terrain being fought on and the significant shortage of amphibious landing craft that virtually every military other than the US has would also radically limit China's ability to wage war effectively. In the Korean War they had no problem marching hordes across the border...in this case I hope they are fantastic swimmers...
North Korea can barely feed its soldiers, much less train them effectively. They would be useful in an attritional style of warfare only, one which a modernized military opponent would render obsolete (such as South Korea). Their only hope would be guerrilla warfare, which is far more suited to defensive war than offensive.
The Taiwanese military is extremely well trained, equipped and highly motivated with a home field advantage. See Finland in WWII against the Soviets for an example of what such troops can accomplish (Vietnam is not nearly as good an example as that had much more to do with public relations than with military outcomes): not necessarily a defeat for the Chinese, but certainly an extraordinarily costly costly victory. Not to mention it would require the virtual annihilation of Taiwanese infrastructure, which would pretty much defeat one of the purposes of taking it over: economic plunder.
| QUOTE |
| How was he (Clinton) paying tribute to our enemies by giving aid? Maybe the real question should be what far greater damage is Bush doing with his current PNAC diplomacy with the rest of the international community than Clinton ever did. What are these costs, financial or otherwise going to be? $1 trillion for Iraq and how would they be funded? Do you want to pay for them because surely our soon to be former allies are not going to? |
Tribute: A payment in money or other valuables made by one ruler or nation to another in acknowledgment of submission or as the price of protection or security. (courtesy of dictionary.com)
Yes, that's exactly what Clinton was doing. As North Korea has demonstrated, not only is it humiliating and have all sorts of unintended consequences in what people think they can get away with, but it does not work.
| QUOTE |
| You're a little shortsighted on this one but yes, this is most likely part of the equation. You cannot debate the fact that these same governments (who have legal and binding contracts with Iraq) are willing to do this under an international mandate/blessing of the UN unlike our blatant grab for their oil. So the question then becomes who is right? France, Russia getting from Iraq what they have agreed to in the past or our militaristic go kill'em all and screw the rest of the world we're the US type of approach? It's no wonder Blair's populace is revolting against him. |
Your argument only holds water if you think that majority rule is inherently correct. I don't. An international mandate means that, and nothing more. What's more, how would an American company dealing with a freed Iraqi government and people (relatively) be more like robbery than the current state of affairs, where French and others' money goes straight into Saddam Hussein's pockets and into his war machine, in other words, directly into the instruments of repression of his own people?
| QUOTE |
| You must own stock in some of these oil companies. Again, you didn't address my question of the plans being hatched and bid on by American companies to benefit from the aftermath of our military attacks on Iraq. The administration should just admit this 'motivation' and they would garner some respect or do you think that the over 30 former members of the oil industry in Bush's cabinet is just a fluke? |
1. I don't think there is anything wrong with American companies planning for the postwar scenario. And I still think there is a huge difference between a possible benefit of the war and a motivation. These fall into the prior category. Same as leftists would accuse the Johnson administration of being guided by economic interests in the Vietnam war; there were plenty of good criticisms, but those were nonsense. It is a simple rehashing of Lenin's theories of Imperialism and capitalism, and such Marxist analyses of history are inherently flawed by their one dimensional ignorance of basic causality and economics.
2. I don't think the administration should dignify those accusations with a response any more than they should the accusations that the President is simply trying to outdo his father.
3. I don't own stock in any oil companies.
| QUOTE |
| Afghanistan is not better off from what I have heard and that law and order is only present in Kabul. The warlords still impose their will outside the capital and do as they want. Please show me otherwise. |
I could show you reams of photographs of Afghani women getting their driver's licenses
[/URL]
or young girls going to school in Kandahar and places other than just Kabul. (I don't really feel like bombing the bandwidth tho). Or we could talk about how it is indisputably better to have anyone other than the Taliban setting the framework for local authorities to function in...but that would make no difference as your argument is predicated on ideological rather than material concerns. Afghanistan will never be good enough for opponents of America; by my measure, it is in fact an objectively better place due to American intervention.
| QUOTE |
| Have not forgotten about 9/11 at all but I don't run around with this all-pervasive, sky is fallin' terrorism paranoia that the right-wing corporate media and especially the administration so wantonly shove into our face every day. Why is the administration doing this you may ask? Because Karl Rove has said so in August of last year that the administration can 'run' on the war effort and this would detract from all of his other policies that have failed so miserably. |
I will certainly agree that Karl Rove is a bad influence in the administration. For one thing, I am certain that the soft approach he advocates towards Saudi Arabia and local Muslim leaders in America is anything but constructive. But, as is usually the case with Bush critics, you overestimate the role advisors have to maintain your fantasy about Bush's inadequacy. Nevermind that that fails to address how such an incompetent would manage to singlehandedly lead the Republicans to a majority in a mid-term election with a recession; what that would say about the relative incompetence of his Democratic adversaries would no doubt be too frightening to consider.
What other policies have failed miserably? Are you saying that a President in a time of war would not logically have most of the discussion centered around said war? If you're about to dive into a "It's the economy, stupid" sort of argument, I suggest you take a long hard look at the time frame in which macroeconomic policy functions before you start criticizing Bush's economic plans.
I am not advocating paranoia about 9/11, merely pointing out that it is absurd to contend as you did that that was not the primary motivation for the Afghan aspect of the war.
| QUOTE |
| Good quote "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." |
My favourite part about that is when some peacenik distributed as a quote from Shakespeare's "Caesar" via email, and it went so far as to be cited as such by Barbra Streisand in one of her typically empty headed admonitions to her Democratic Senator friends. In one fell swoop the ignorance of classical literature of leftists everywhere was put on display...but I digress.
I think it is also ironic that it is supposed to have been said by Julius Caesar, or Augustus Caesar, or any of the other autocrats of the Roman republic or empire. An empire/republic based around military conquest would be unlike to have its leadership critical of war as a tool, on a moral or strategic level. Also, that is exactly the opposite of what happened to Julius Caesar...but dammit I digress again.
The Patriot act is a separate issue, if that is in fact what you are referring to, and I think we might find some common ground there. It would be wrong, however, to begin a discussion of it without noting the shared responsibility every single member of congress has for such an abomination, of all parties and persuasions, with the possible exception of neo-conservatives like Ron Paul who objected stridently but were silenced.
| QUOTE |
| You may want to check out this link regarding the oil pipeline: http://www.buzzflash...y_Pipeline.html |
Seems like pretty standard conspiracy theory fare. I still think you fail to understand the difference between causal motivations and possible benefits in addition to the real motivations. To allege that this oil pipeline, and not 9/11, were in any way a primary motivation for the invasion of Afghanistan is absolutely ridiculous.
Post by: Rebel-Soul on March 11, 2003, 04:27:00 PM
Post by: Lizard_King on March 11, 2003, 04:35:00 PM
| QUOTE (Rebel-Soul @ Mar 12 2003, 01:27 AM) |
| We try to help but we get peanuts in return I personally do not mind. To give and expect nothing in return is a great thing. |
It may be great, but it is also entirely nonexistent. Self interest is the only constant in human affairs, or in fact, any interaction of living creatures. The only choice you have is to find a commonality of interests in the long term that works.
I believe the European stance does not reflect the long term interests of America or virtually anyone in the world other than Saddam. I believe the American stance currently best reflects our long term interests as well as those of the Iraqi people (of course, that is a secondary factor in my support of American policy).
But I am under no delusions about altruism; anyone that claims it as a motivation is likely up to something they fear admitting to. Just think of all the crimes commmitted "for the greater good of man", and you will know of what I speak.
Post by: Rebel-Soul on March 11, 2003, 06:06:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 12 2003, 01:35 AM) | ||
It may be great, but it is also entirely nonexistent. Self interest is the only constant in human affairs, or in fact, any interaction of living creatures. The only choice you have is to find a commonality of interests in the long term that works. I believe the European stance does not reflect the long term interests of America or virtually anyone in the world other than Saddam. I believe the American stance currently best reflects our long term interests as well as those of the Iraqi people (of course, that is a secondary factor in my support of American policy). But I am under no delusions about altruism; anyone that claims it as a motivation is likely up to something they fear admitting to. Just think of all the crimes commmitted "for the greater good of man", and you will know of what I speak. |
Athough it does not exsist like world peace it is something to shoot for is it not?
Post by: shaklee3 on March 11, 2003, 06:35:00 PM
Post by: boris2 on March 11, 2003, 06:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 10 2003, 01:12 PM) | ||
How would enforcing several standing UN resolutions be a violation of international law? Because members of the security council refuse to do their jobs suddenly the world ought to go into paralysis, at the mercy of ever tyrant around? I don't think so. |
Have you even read resolution 1441?
Post by: boris2 on March 11, 2003, 07:00:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| At least I use my own words. You just copy and paste from your favorite communist websites. If you think that Bush is bad. Be thankfull I'm not your president. If I was president their would be less terrorist in this world. And I think Israel should take off the gloves and leave them off. Then take Afrafat and hang him from the nearest tree. |
The reason your not president is because your too stupid to be president, Aerial Sharon "cracks down" on Palestine, suicide bombings have only gone up 3 times.
Your wrong, a hard-line approach creates more problems, not less.
Post by: Lizard_King on March 11, 2003, 07:03:00 PM
| QUOTE (dude @ Mar 12 2003, 03:35 AM) |
| Lizard: Nice obfuscation so far but then again I am not one to give in to the "beat my head against the wall" therapy sessions regarding individuals such as yourself who cannot look critically at this world and what is going on it. With that I'll just shake my head and get on with more important things to do. |
Ah, of course. Well, at least you are consistent in your embrace of surrender as a strategy. Happy trails!
Post by: Lizard_King on March 11, 2003, 07:05:00 PM
| QUOTE (boris2 @ Mar 12 2003, 03:46 AM) | ||||
Have you even read resolution 1441? |
Have you? Tell me what I'm missing, don't just throw these adorable little angry faces at me. In any case, the only reason I deal with UN legalese is to point out that there is ample reason within that framework to attack Iraq. It has nothing to do with my actual reasons for supporting US policy, as I believe the UN doing something correct and moral is a function of coincidence, not an inevitable result of any decision it makes.
Post by: Lizard_King on March 11, 2003, 07:09:00 PM
| QUOTE (Rebel-Soul @ Mar 12 2003, 03:06 AM) |
| Athough it does not exsist like world peace it is something to shoot for is it not? |
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I think because it is antithetical to human behaviour and does not exist in nature, altruism is merely a myth used to justify otherwise unconscionable acts. It does not mean you cannot do good things for others; it just means you are not being honest unless you admit you are doing them because you like to first and foremost. It may seem like a trifling distinction, but I think it is really important.
Post by: capt_n_yayo on March 11, 2003, 08:58:00 PM
Post by: Lizard_King on March 11, 2003, 09:19:00 PM
| QUOTE (boris2 @ Mar 12 2003, 06:00 AM) |
| The closest it comes to conflict is "serious consequences" if Iraq fails to comply. Hans Blix has not announced that Iraq has "failed to comply" with the resolution as the US has been pushing him to do, and until he does they can't legally justifty it. This is why Bush wanted to remove Clintons sig from the International Criminal Court - he didn't want to be convicted of war crime, or in his words "politically motivated prosecutions of Americans" BTW there has been no resolutions since the end of the gulf war that legalise war. |
So essentially what you are saying is that until a weapons inspector says the magic words, Saddam Hussein has not, in fact, committed an infraction? You really, honestly, can look me in the eye (so to speak) and tell me that Saddam Hussein is in compliance with 1441?
Or does it depend on what the meaning of "is" is?
The ICC, much like nearly every other piece of UN sponsored legislation, is a joke. In fact, the concept of international law is a foolish one to put faith in. George Kennan noted in his lectures on American foreign policy that Americans have always had a tendency to try to push their allies into professions of moral rectitude rather than concrete acts, and that we continually attempt to infuse the field of foreign relations with legal concepts. He was very doubtful that such an approach was either logical or desirable.
The UN illustrates this well. Unless national governments are willing to hand over their sovereignty and create an international army and ruling body (which I don't think would be wise or for that matter all that likely, to say the least), there is no such thing as international law. Foreign policy is a question of precedents and a balance of interests, and has nothing to do with law. Morality can often have a role in it, as can ideology, but to pretend that an international criminal court would somehow deter criminal acts is absolutely absurd.
"Legalise war"? Perhaps you should inform Saddam Hussein of how illegal waging war on his own people is...or tell the French that as they invaded the Ivory Coast just a few months ago to put down a rebellion, and no one said a word. Or tell the Russians that as they wage war on Chechnya, or Al Qaeda as they wage war on the West in general. Law does not exist unless there is a social contract with a higher authority. That does not exist in international relations.
George Bush is absolutely right in not submitting to the ICC. It is patently absurd to have our human rights record up for review at the whim of an organization that put Lybia as the head of the human rights commission and was on the verge of putting Iraq on the disarmament commission.
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 12, 2003, 01:44:00 AM
| QUOTE (boris2 @ Mar 11 2003, 11:00 PM) | ||
The reason your not president is because your too stupid to be president, Aerial Sharon "cracks down" on Palestine, suicide bombings have only gone up 3 times. Your wrong, a hard-line approach creates more problems, not less. |
I say kill them all and let their Allah sort them out. You got to be French or something since you scare easy and want to give in to terrorism. Oh no, hard line approach leads to more problems. I should throw my hands up and give in to the terrorist demands. Pussys like you are the reason for terrorism. As long as they can scare people into doing what they demand then they get what they want.
If all the terrorist are dead and the ones that support them are dead. Then you wont have a terrorist problem. Russia knows how to deal with their terrorist problems. And they don't wear gloves when they do it either. Once Israel takes off their gloves and crushes the terrorist and those who support them. Then things will change for the good.
Post by: boris2 on March 12, 2003, 02:02:00 AM
| QUOTE (Lizard_King @ Mar 12 2003, 05:19 AM) | ||
So essentially what you are saying is that until a weapons inspector says the magic words, Saddam Hussein has not, in fact, committed an infraction? You really, honestly, can look me in the eye (so to speak) and tell me that Saddam Hussein is in compliance with 1441? Or does it depend on what the meaning of "is" is? The ICC, much like nearly every other piece of UN sponsored legislation, is a joke. In fact, the concept of international law is a foolish one to put faith in. George Kennan noted in his lectures on American foreign policy that Americans have always had a tendency to try to push their allies into professions of moral rectitude rather than concrete acts, and that we continually attempt to infuse the field of foreign relations with legal concepts. He was very doubtful that such an approach was either logical or desirable. The UN illustrates this well. Unless national governments are willing to hand over their sovereignty and create an international army and ruling body (which I don't think would be wise or for that matter all that likely, to say the least), there is no such thing as international law. Foreign policy is a question of precedents and a balance of interests, and has nothing to do with law. Morality can often have a role in it, as can ideology, but to pretend that an international criminal court would somehow deter criminal acts is absolutely absurd. "Legalise war"? Perhaps you should inform Saddam Hussein of how illegal waging war on his own people is...or tell the French that as they invaded the Ivory Coast just a few months ago to put down a rebellion, and no one said a word. Or tell the Russians that as they wage war on Chechnya, or Al Qaeda as they wage war on the West in general. Law does not exist unless there is a social contract with a higher authority. That does not exist in international relations. George Bush is absolutely right in not submitting to the ICC. It is patently absurd to have our human rights record up for review at the whim of an organization that put Lybia as the head of the human rights commission and was on the verge of putting Iraq on the disarmament commission. |
Youre a naziEdit: Or more precisely "neo-nazi", or the US version "neo-con"
Post by: boris2 on March 12, 2003, 02:07:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| George Bush is absolutely right in not submitting to the ICC. It is patently absurd to have our human rights record up for review at the whim of an organization that put Lybia as the head of the human rights commission and was on the verge of putting Iraq on the disarmament commission. |
Why should every other democracy sign it and not the USA?
Post by: boris2 on March 12, 2003, 02:10:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| "Legalise war"? Perhaps you should inform Saddam Hussein of how illegal waging war on his own people is...or tell the French that as they invaded the Ivory Coast just a few months ago to put down a rebellion, and no one said a word. Or tell the Russians that as they wage war on Chechnya, or Al Qaeda as they wage war on the West in general. Law does not exist unless there is a social contract with a higher authority. That does not exist in international relations. |
Why do you say stuff without supporting it? If you had ever made it to uni, you would have been expelled for this.
Some mod should close this thread... its becoming far too opinionated
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 12, 2003, 02:46:00 AM
| QUOTE (boris2 @ Mar 12 2003, 05:59 AM) |
| Actually I'm Australian, our government is one of the most outspoken "all the way with the USA" types.. a bit like Britain, but like Britain the governments popularity is suffering from it, just like every other country with an "educated" public. Meanwhile, France and others that oppose war are enjoying higher popularity. The situation is different on the USA, maybe because you follow bushes theme words "evil and "deception" too closely? I dunno, I'm actually far more worried about the USA than I would ever be about terrorism. The idea of "pre-emptive" strikes, that was the excuse Germany used to invade Poland. |
I've had these views long before Bush was in office. So don't think that Bush's words have made me think the way I do. I grew up always observing what is going on in this world. Muslim terrorist killing people over and over again. It doesn't take much to figure what this so called religion of peace is all about.
Didn't terrorism just hit you close to home a few months ago? I remember alot of Australians being killed in a terrorist bombing. You would be thinking alot differantly now if a member of your family was killed in that bombing.
Instead of opposing terrorism to embrace it because you support Saddam. Saddam is a terrorist who supports terrorism. He pays the families of suicide bombers $50,000.
Since you support the muslim terrorist who are just like the nazis and want to see every Jewish person in the world dead. I think you are a nazi. If you were to go to a nazi website you would read that they have the same views as you and Al Ghazi do. The nazi skinheads hate Israel and the Jewish people. And agree with what the terrorist do because it kills Jewish people.
Post by: froescheD on March 12, 2003, 03:11:00 AM
Post by: senator on March 12, 2003, 03:20:00 AM
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 12, 2003, 03:21:00 AM
| QUOTE (froescheD @ Mar 12 2003, 07:11 AM) |
| jesus i realy can't hear it anymore |
I agree with you. I'm sick of this thread. I hope a mod locks this thread since it's going nowhere. Everbody will have there own opinion and nobody can change it.
I get sick of politics too. A old guy I know told me how his father thought of politics. He said that if you put a Democrat and a Republican in a bag and shake it up. You could reach in and pull out a son of a bitch every time.
Post by: senator on March 12, 2003, 03:36:00 AM
| QUOTE (Wong Hung Lo @ Mar 12 2003, 12:21 PM) |
| I agree with you. I'm sick of this thread. I hope a mod locks this thread since it's going nowhere. Everbody will have there own opinion and nobody can change it. |
Yep!!! opinions are like arse holes everyone has one.....
Post by: Al_Ghazi on March 12, 2003, 04:42:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I think because it is antithetical to human behaviour and does not exist in nature, altruism is merely a myth used to justify otherwise unconscionable acts. It does not mean you cannot do good things for others; it just means you are not being honest unless you admit you are doing them because you like to first and foremost. It may seem like a trifling distinction, but I think it is really important. |
Anyone got any Freedom Fries? I need them after my Freedom Toast and then I am going to have a coffee and a Freedom Cruller Doughnut!
Yum!
Post by: Al_Ghazi on March 12, 2003, 05:41:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Anybody tell me something about where Taiwan comes from and why people speak Chinese there like Chinese people? |
Very good question! Although I must say that I am surprised by your ignorance.
Taiwan is a little known Island off the coast of Hawaii, and is ruled by the Moose Lodge. One day - in the local Big Kahuna Moose lodge they found out that Mavis (in charge of the books) was stealing all the money and spending it on herself.
A fight broke out and some people supported Mavis and others supported Mr. Tung (who had poor fashion sense but won the fight none the less). My Tung had to walk a long way though because he lived on the far side of the island
The losers retreated to Taiwan, although the Big Kahuna moose lodge still says it is in charge, the Taiwanese have some degree of autonomy.
Hope that clears it up for you!
Gaz.
Post by: Al_Ghazi on March 12, 2003, 05:54:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Since you support the muslim terrorist who are just like the nazis and want to see every Jewish person in the world dead. I think you are a nazi. If you were to go to a nazi website you would read that they have the same views as you and Al Ghazi do. The nazi skinheads hate Israel and the Jewish people. And agree with what the terrorist do because it kills Jewish people. |
I don't think you should be putting words in my mouth (to paraphase Mr. Runsfeld)
Wung-ho. You are obviouly a rather stupid person and most probably a delight to those who programmed you with movies and news media. But if it would not cause an anurism, try to have just one original thought. I understand why you are so frustrated. Assuming that is a picture of you, then you are a most unfortunate pleb. To be so ignorant and devoid of looks must be a real trial for you.
I am not anti-Jewish. I am anti-Zionist. The degree of influence over our country is huge. Zionists control the money, the news (Rupert Murdoch is not only a smelly Austrialian - he is a Zionist Jew as well) and the government.
You had hinted that there is a secret reason behind this drive to war. There is! The destruction of any threat to Israel.
Try hard - you might be able to think outside the box FOX news has made for you.
Gaz.
Post by: phantazma1 on March 12, 2003, 10:39:00 AM
Post by: dude on March 12, 2003, 01:01:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Ah, of course. Well, at least you are consistent in your embrace of surrender as a strategy. Happy trails! |
Surrender? Not hardly, but if it helps you sleep better at night by all means think that.
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on March 12, 2003, 01:17:00 PM
| QUOTE (Mage @ Mar 12 2003, 02:52 PM) |
| Ghazi starting up on the anti-zionist shit again? Wet, lather, rinse! Repeat if necessary |
I'm starting to believe that Al Ghazi is a skinhead. That is how skinheads talk. Zionist this, Jews that. If you were to go to a skinhead website and read the stuff they say. You will see what I mean.
Post by: boris2 on March 12, 2003, 03:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (Mage @ Mar 12 2003, 06:52 PM) |
| Ghazi starting up on the anti-zionist shit again? Wet, lather, rinse! Repeat if necessary |
You've managed to read all this
Post by: boris2 on March 12, 2003, 03:53:00 PM
