Bush is at it again... [Archive]

DarkMaster

09-07-2002, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by gekko
The uneducated.

No one is accusing him of anything, or looking for reasons to attack. Way back when we first attacked him he was within months of developing nukes. It's been years since then, we know he has them, or is damn near close.

And honestly, the US doesn't really give a **** if Sadaam nukes the world. Thing is, he'll take over the middle east, still not a big problem. But see, Bush is trying to get world peace here. We could just let it go and have the entire middle east controlled by Iraq. Remember, he can't actually hit America with the nukes.

Ungrateful bastards. We do so much for the world, to only get booed. I really wish we'd just care about ourself. Then we can have these sick Europeans speaking German.
actually it was my history teacher who told me about bush. either way, i think your right, we should just care about ourselves, we shouldnt have to always be the problem solvers for other people's problems. the middle-east has problems and so does northamerica, lets worry about solving our own problems first.

nWoCHRISnWo

09-07-2002, 09:16 PM

Well, if we just bombed every little country like Iraq and te rest of the Middle East where they seem to wanna fight anyway, then there won't be any of themleft to fight. Then if others get mad and wanna fight, bomb them too. Simple as grade 2. If only I was President of USA...

-apu-

09-07-2002, 10:31 PM

EVERYBODY HAIL THE LEADER NWOCRISNWO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*starts kneeling and offers to give all members of GT as sacrifice*
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Drunk Hobbit

09-07-2002, 10:55 PM

Lollipops and gumdrops for all

DarkMaster

09-07-2002, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by -apu-
*starts kneeling and offers to give all members of GT as sacrifice*
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D you aint giving me as a sacrifice!! take crono instead, i know where he lives...

One Winged Angel

09-07-2002, 11:16 PM

Lol... u guys are so ****in stupid. Bush is not goin to break up the UN just because he wants to get rid of Sadaam. The UN has disagreed on many things before. Bush is not going to break up the UN just because some people dont agree. You guys always find a way to blame all of the world's problems on Bush.

DarkMaster

09-07-2002, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by One Winged Angel
You guys always find a way to blame all of the world's problems on Bush.
true, but we gotta blame someone right? :D

-apu-

09-07-2002, 11:34 PM

No, but you gotta admit that Bush is makin some ****ed up decisions, and some even more ****ed up statements, like
"It is ridiculus to sacrifice yourself and kill innocent people over a false religion" I think that thats what he said, but thats just ludicrous, because he can't say that someone elses religion is wrong and his is right, because taht way he won't stay prez for very long.....

Heyyoudvd

09-08-2002, 01:46 AM

Why does anyone give a flying **** about the UN?

What does the UN ever do to benefity the world? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

All the UN is, is a giant orgnization filled with anti-semites and anti-americans. They have nothing better to do than criticize the US and Israel all day.

Let me ask you this: Where was the UN when 1 million Tutsies (SP?) were murdered in Africa? (I believe it was Rwanda). They were there, but Kofi Annan, just decided to pull out. Why does no one ever accuse HIM of comitting crimes against humanity?

Anyways, as I was saying, the UN is an absolute joke. For god-sake, they even have Syria on the security council!!!

Syria has the most terrorist headquarters of any country in the entire world (especially in Damascus).

Anyways, I for one, could not give a crap about what the UN whines about.

I'm glad Bush is actually taking action against Iraq. I don't see how in the world anyone can not support this.

-apu-

09-08-2002, 02:14 AM

Ummm.....i'm usually against openly saying that someones opinion is wrong but in this case, ummm....i'm gonna have to make an exception....

HOW THE **** CAN YOU SAY THAT THE UN IS USELESS!!!!!!!!!!
I'll tell you who gives a flying **** about the UN, anybody who wants peace in this messed up world, I mean for Christs sake, the UN is the biggest organizer of charaties around the world for one. Another thing, you know those boxes that they drop from airplanes over oppressed countries full of supplies???? Who the **** do you think drops those??? SANTA CLAUSE?!!?!? THE EASTER BUNNY?!?!?!?!? And Bush is a retard if he thinks that he can just start a war against Iraq without thinking of the consequences!!!!
Does he think that if he takes out Iraq, that'll be all??? That it'll just be over, just *POP* done???? Iraq has allies, they go down, allies go against US, and if the UN is gone, who the **** is going to stop all this s*** from happening??? If UN is gone, say hello to a new set of attacks that'll make 9/11 look like a joke!!!!!!!

Bond

09-08-2002, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by DarkMaster
hes just looking for a reason to start a war acusing Sadam of having nukes (even though he probly does) and he wants canadians to back him up. my ass, hes just like his father, always looking for trouble.
If you don't know anything about the situation then please just don't comment. No one knows whether or not Sadaam has weapons of mass destruction (at least the public). And we don't need Canada to help us to attack Iraq. They wouldn't be able to do hardly anything. We would have Great Britain's help and a few other countries. Guess where the majority of your weapons come from DarkMaster? I agree with gekko on most things here, we already had an intelligent discussion about this.

None of the allies want to help us attack Iraq because they are in no position to do so. Saudi Arabia is just a kingdom with oil, they are not a democracy. Iraq is a threat, but none of the neighboring countries want to actually risk their lives to save themselves. That is who Arabs are. They only care about themselves, and won't risk anything until death is knocking on their door. Attacking Iraq for us is really not a problem. The problem is that what Iran and other countries that support terrorism might do. And what even Irsael might do with the weapons we funded them to buy and build. Someone always has to take charge in the world and that is normally the United States, at least for now. We provide finical aid, aid for medications, all over the world. If you want to tell us we are bad people than we can pull all of our troops out of places around the world, stop all the aid, and only care for ourselves. Then there will be World War 3, and we will be doing just great. Several countries are defenseless without us, one being Japan.

Bush will not brake the UN, that is just plain stupid to think that. But hey, where do you think the majority of the funding for the UN comes from? Oh, you guessed it...

DarkMaster

09-08-2002, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Bond
If you don't know anything about the situation then please just don't comment.
its wut i heard, dont call me stupid, i'm just ignorant to the situation.

gekko

09-08-2002, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by -apu-
No, but you gotta admit that Bush is makin some ****ed up decisions, and some even more ****ed up statements, like
"It is ridiculus to sacrifice yourself and kill innocent people over a false religion" I think that thats what he said, but thats just ludicrous, because he can't say that someone elses religion is wrong and his is right, because taht way he won't stay prez for very long.....

Actually, coming from a country that's mostly Christians, he would stay president for a while, and I'm pretty sure most of us wouldn't give a damn. But that's not the point.

The point is you need to stop misquoting people. I can garauntee he didn't say that, because I haven't heard of it, and I watch the news channels for hours every day, trust me, it would be on. Now if you want to reword things, it's likely he said something along the lines of a false belief, or even the false religion practice, referring to radical Islam. The Al Qaeda terrorists did this stuff in the name of God, because God told them to do so in the Quaran. Think is, it really don't say that, they're just interpretting it the wrong way, thus we have radical Islam.

-apu-

09-08-2002, 12:32 PM

You just said it yourself, he said something along the lines of them believing in a "false religion or belief", and I remember when he said it live on CNN......

Mechadragon

09-08-2002, 01:02 PM

My brains not awake this early in the morning, and my debating skills are pretty bad anyway. I believe I will just watch...

gekko

09-08-2002, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by -apu-
You just said it yourself, he said something along the lines of them believing in a "false religion or belief", and I remember when he said it live on CNN......

There you go again misquoting people. Learn to read, or learn to keep your mouth shut.

DeathsHand

09-08-2002, 06:02 PM

I could see how people would wanna go and attack Iraq because it seems so obvious he has weapons of mass destruction and the like...

But what if he doesn't? :confused: And we go in and occupy the country and all because we thought something that ended up not being true...

Not to mention Iraq hasn't even done anything to us directly yet, so it's like yeah...

Basically, I could see why it seems people are so split on this issue... :burger:

I personally don't care, but a war would make the news more fun to watch...

:sneaky:

gekko

09-08-2002, 09:41 PM

We've had troops in Iraq for the past 3 months. I'm pretty sure we got good intelligence from our recon.

DeathsHand

09-08-2002, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by gekko
We've had troops in Iraq for the past 3 months. I'm pretty sure we got good intelligence from our recon.

And if all the troops are like CamFu? Then what?

gekko

09-08-2002, 10:07 PM

Then God help us all. :D

jeepnut

09-09-2002, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Jonbo298
His campaign won't work on me. Nothing has, and nothing ever will. I hate Bush. I am a full blown Democrat (even though I'm 17 and haven't registered to vote yet, but I am)

I'm anti-politician. :D

Doctor Zhivago

09-09-2002, 03:39 PM

http://dumbpics.com/pictures/14.jpg

playa_playa

09-10-2002, 01:57 AM

Iraq is a threat, but none of the neighboring countries want to actually risk their lives to save themselves. That is who Arabs are. They only care about themselves, and won't risk anything until death is knocking on their door.

It's a sad, sad day for humanity to be hearing a statement like this...

I realize that many people are angry over the events of the past year. I also realize that certain groups of people prove to be the ideal scapegoats since so many misinterpretations and bigotry regarding their cultures are evident in the media.

However, the some does not represent the whole. If we limit our perspectives and judgements on a group of people based only on the extremities that we can see (the iceberg effect as I like to call it), it is no more than bigotry and falsity.

If you recall, our country has had its share of shady happenings in the past that would entail some people to dismiss us as an evil empire. The masscre at No Gun Ri during the Korean war (where hundreds of South Korean refugees were slaughtered by the American troops) for one, proves that a country can sometimes be misrepresented by the actions of the bad few.

If you base your judgement on a group of people only by these extremities, it is called a bigotry.

Just stop it.

Bond

09-10-2002, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by playa_playa
It's a sad, sad day for humanity to be hearing a statement like this...

I realize that many people are angry over the events of the past year. I also realize that certain groups of people prove to be the ideal scapegoats since so many misinterpretations and bigotry regarding their cultures are evident in the media.

However, the some does not represent the whole. If we limit our perspectives and judgements on a group of people based only on the extremities that we can see (the iceberg effect as I like to call it), it is no more than bigotry and falsity.

If you recall, our country has had its share of shady happenings in the past that would entail some people to dismiss us as an evil empire. The masscre at No Gun Ri during the Korean war (where hundreds of South Korean refugees were slaughtered by the American troops) for one, proves that a country can sometimes be misrepresented by the actions of the bad few.

If you base your judgement on a group of people only by these extremities, it is called a bigotry.

Just stop it.
I'm basing my judgment on history, not this recent year. I don't care if you agree or disagree with my judgement. It is my judgement and that is that.

gekko

09-10-2002, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by playa_playa
The masscre at No Gun Ri during the Korean war (where hundreds of South Korean refugees were slaughtered by the American troops) for one, proves that a country can sometimes be misrepresented by the actions of the bad few.

If you base your judgement on a group of people only by these extremities, it is called a bigotry.

And what do you call it when you talk before you're acquainted with the full facts?

playa_playa

09-10-2002, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by gekko
And what do you call it when you talk before you're acquainted with the full facts?

It's called a false conclusion or sometimes a hasty generalization.

I'm not understanding the point of this post...was it made to educated me that the No Gun Ri massacre was misconstrued (which proves ironic since the official statements from the Pentagon denied any deliberate killings and refused to apologize for the incident, calling it a "tragic occurence") by me? I only ask because you don't provide an explanation. I'm a bit confused.

But if you ARE saying that my views on the No Gun Ri incident is false, provide me some facts supporting your claim. I'll be happy to retract my position should you provide a valid and sufficient supporting data.

In any case, there were more mishaps in the world history caused by the United States than just this incident. Don't get me wrong, we, as a country, did many good things. But not everything we did was just. Even if the No Gun Ri incident is different than my construction of it (which I highly doubt), there are more than enough cases of wrongdoings we committed to prove my original point.

I'm basing my judgment on history, not this recent year. I don't care if you agree or disagree with my judgement. It is my judgement and that is that.

Has it ever occured to you that some people may view us in the same light as you shine on the Arabs? I mean, the descendents of the millions of native Americans the United States eradicated must have a strong feeling about us as well in that regard.

People are people. I think it's about time we get rid of the rudimentary "us" versus "them" mentality. In any case, you are entitled to your opinion and the right to express it - whether I disagree with it or not.

gekko

09-10-2002, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by playa_playa
It's called a false conclusion or sometimes a hasty generalization.

I'm not understanding the point of this post...was it made to educated me that the No Gun Ri massacre was misconstrued (which proves ironic since the official statements from the Pentagon denied any deliberate killings and refused to apologize for the incident, calling it a "tragic occurence") by me? I only ask because you don't provide an explanation. I'm a bit confused.

But if you ARE saying that my views on the No Gun Ri incident is false, provide me some facts supporting your claim. I'll be happy to retract my position should you provide a valid and sufficient supporting data.

In any case, there were more mishaps in the world history caused by the United States than just this incident. Don't get me wrong, we, as a country, did many good things. But not everything we did was just. Even if the No Gun Ri incident is different than my construction of it (which I highly doubt), there are more than enough cases of wrongdoings we committed to prove my original point.

The point of the post was to tell you that you don't have all the information on the No Gun Ri incident. I'm just asking what you would call yourself, accusing people of murdering innocent civilians when you don't know the full facts of the situation. And you bringing this up very soon after the History Channel aired their special about the Korean War Crimes, I really hope that isn't where you're basing this all off of, but it could be coincidental.

Anyway, let's get on to the points here. Making a very long story short, here it goes. The NKPA forces had dressed up like civilians until they got behind enemy lines, then performed guerilla operations on the US troops. In No Gun Ri, the US troops were returning fire, not opening fire. Once a civilian shoots a gun, they no longer are a civilian.

If you were fighting a war, and there had been many instances of the enemy dressing up like civilians and moving with a large group of civilians before they open fire on you. Then, you're watching a large group of civilians, and people started firing upon you. What would you do? Sit there and eat a lollipop?

The bottom line in there is no evidence that US soldiers fired delibertly on Korean refugees. On top of that, there is many reasons to believe that they didn't shoot on the refugees for no valid reason. Considering that you're sitting on your ass in a chair, and they were in the middle of war, it's also very hard to realize the state of mind they were in, and understand why they would do things that they do. You're making assumptions, essentially accusing men who defend your freedom of murder, when you know nothing about it.

Looks to me like you're passing your own judgement on people.

playa_playa

09-11-2002, 01:38 AM

I am a second-generation Korean-American living in the United States. I have lived in the States for over ten years, yet I am fluent in Korean and English. I am fully aware of the culture of both Korean and American societies.

My father, who turned 56 not long ago, lived through the Korean War during his boyhood. My grandfather, with whom I had a great relationship with and regrettably passed away last year, also lived through the Korean War. I have many uncles, aunts, and other reliatives who shared similar experience during the dark times of Korean history.

My paternal as well as maternal family are from Kyung-Sang Do - the county in which the No Gun Ri incident occured. Both families have some ties to some of the survivors of the incident.

With these facts provided, let me just say that the data I have of No Gun Ri could be skewed. It could be incomplete. And it could also be problematic. However, they are far from incomprehensive to render me useless in making the decision as to whether the incident was an accident, massacre or tragedy.

I've heard quite a few stories where American soldiers opened fire on refugees during the incident. granted, they could have been North Korean troops desguised as civilians, but does that suspicion grant the soldiers to open fire without checking them out first?

Some of the survivors had told my grandfather that the shots came without warning. In fact, most of the shots were rendered this way according to what the survivors had told my grandfather.

Perhaps murder was an incorrect term to apply to this situation. Murder entails intent to kill. The gunners may have not had an intent to kill the refugees. But they fired shots at civilians without checking them out to see if they were desguised. And that, to me, is inexcusable. Can you refute this?

But let's get back to my original point: every country has its share of shady history. No country ever does the just thing all the time. I was not generalizing the United States as an evil society due to the No Gun Ri incident. As a matter of fact, I think we're in a just frame of mind despite some lapses we may have bore. However, I was pointing out that every country, whether it'd be Arab, Asian, european or American, commits wrongdoings. viewing a group of people based on these mishaps is wrong, plain and simple.

Just as I did not dismiss America as an evil nation based on the No Gun Ri (whether it'd be legitimate or not), do not dismiss a nation based on what extremities you may see.

Angrist

09-11-2002, 04:33 AM

Hmm... exactly one year ago... and Bush has started his campaign. I believe that september 11 was really good for Bush' popularity.. :(

gekko

09-11-2002, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by playa_playa
I am a second-generation Korean-American living in the United States. I have lived in the States for over ten years, yet I am fluent in Korean and English. I am fully aware of the culture of both Korean and American societies.

My father, who turned 56 not long ago, lived through the Korean War during his boyhood. My grandfather, with whom I had a great relationship with and regrettably passed away last year, also lived through the Korean War. I have many uncles, aunts, and other reliatives who shared similar experience during the dark times of Korean history.

My paternal as well as maternal family are from Kyung-Sang Do - the county in which the No Gun Ri incident occured. Both families have some ties to some of the survivors of the incident.

With these facts provided, let me just say that the data I have of No Gun Ri could be skewed. It could be incomplete. And it could also be problematic. However, they are far from incomprehensive to render me useless in making the decision as to whether the incident was an accident, massacre or tragedy.

I've heard quite a few stories where American soldiers opened fire on refugees during the incident. granted, they could have been North Korean troops desguised as civilians, but does that suspicion grant the soldiers to open fire without checking them out first?

Some of the survivors had told my grandfather that the shots came without warning. In fact, most of the shots were rendered this way according to what the survivors had told my grandfather.

Perhaps murder was an incorrect term to apply to this situation. Murder entails intent to kill. The gunners may have not had an intent to kill the refugees. But they fired shots at civilians without checking them out to see if they were desguised. And that, to me, is inexcusable. Can you refute this?

But let's get back to my original point: every country has its share of shady history. No country ever does the just thing all the time. I was not generalizing the United States as an evil society due to the No Gun Ri incident. As a matter of fact, I think we're in a just frame of mind despite some lapses we may have bore. However, I was pointing out that every country, whether it'd be Arab, Asian, european or American, commits wrongdoings. viewing a group of people based on these mishaps is wrong, plain and simple.

Just as I did not dismiss America as an evil nation based on the No Gun Ri (whether it'd be legitimate or not), do not dismiss a nation based on what extremities you may see.

You're missing one part to what I said. The Koreans began firing at the Americans, they returned fire. When you're fighting a war, you're trying to keep yourself, and the man next to you alive. When this group of "civilians" has some people take out guns and shoot at you, you're not going to try to negotiate with them, you'll shoot back. The group of refugees were also not supposed to be at No Gun Ri, so if troops saw people start opening fire, they won't sit back and play nice. This is war, we're not playing cops-and-robbers in the backyard.

I don't care if you're Korean or Canadian, the fact remains you don't know exactly what happened at No Gun Ri, so you shouldn't be passing judgement that America massacred a bunch of civilians. I don't care if you're Korean or not, you're now living in a land where people are innocent until proven guilty, and these people haven't be proven guilty. Find a better example.

playa_playa

09-11-2002, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by gekko
You're missing one part to what I said. The Koreans began firing at the Americans, they returned fire. When you're fighting a war, you're trying to keep yourself, and the man next to you alive. When this group of "civilians" has some people take out guns and shoot at you, you're not going to try to negotiate with them, you'll shoot back. The group of refugees were also not supposed to be at No Gun Ri, so if troops saw people start opening fire, they won't sit back and play nice. This is war, we're not playing cops-and-robbers in the backyard.

I don't care if you're Korean or Canadian, the fact remains you don't know exactly what happened at No Gun Ri, so you shouldn't be passing judgement that America massacred a bunch of civilians. I don't care if you're Korean or not, you're now living in a land where people are innocent until proven guilty, and these people haven't be proven guilty. Find a better example.

I don't know if you could substantiate your claim as to whether the Koreans began firing at the American soldiers first (if you cannot prove this, you are guilty of the same thing you are accusing me of). I don't know exactly where you are getting your source of information (possibly http://www.army.mil/nogunri/, which I found to be absurdly euphemistic). But I am basing my judgements of the incident on the things I have heard from people who have had contact with the survivors of the incident. I hardly think that your source of information is more accurate than the testimonials of primary evidence.

Here's another point: some soldiers - new to the war thing or whatever - were given orders to stop the refugees from passing through the area. They assumed this to mean they could use firearms - not with an intent to kill, but to war - to warn the refugees from passing through. There is not doubt that some of thse shots, in fact, killed civilians. In which case, it would be a wrongdoing.

In any case, I don't think you are arguing my main point: every country has its shady history. If you're not arguing this point and just pointing out my alleged fault in logic in providing an example to that point, that's fine. But to me, that seems trivial compared to understanding the big picture of things.

gekko

09-11-2002, 06:21 PM

I'm not saying the Koreans did fire first. I'm just giving you the other side of the story. And who's to say that they didn't fire warning shots first, but when the refugee wouldn't stop, they had to use deadly force. There's a lot of stuff you don't know, which is why you shouldn't starting blaming people until you're acquainted with the full facts, which you're not, and never will be.

playa_playa

09-12-2002, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by gekko
There's a lot of stuff you don't know, which is why you shouldn't starting blaming people until you're acquainted with the full facts, which you're not, and never will be.

I don't understand, if this statement is true - that we can never know the full facts, and since we can't know the full facts, we can't judge anything, shouldn't you judge me in saying that I've made a false conclusion?

Doctor Zhivago

09-12-2002, 05:22 PM

http://dumbpics.com/pictures/17.jpg

sdtPikachu

09-12-2002, 09:49 PM

I personally don't care, but a war would make the news more fun to watch...

I wonder if you fully understand the irony of your statement.

Bond

09-12-2002, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by FreakyBob
http://dumbpics.com/pictures/17.jpg
That is just simply not funny.... at all.

Doctor Zhivago

09-13-2002, 02:58 PM

You don't know what humour is.

DeathsHand

09-13-2002, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by sdtPikachu
I wonder if you fully understand the irony of your statement.

Not really... that happens a lot with me...

freakybob sed:

You don't know what humour is.

I agree... and when he does find something funny, he simple smiles and says "That was quite amusing."

... :sneaky:

Doctor Zhivago

09-13-2002, 07:24 PM

http://dumbpics.com/pictures/35.jpg

Oh, we won't mess with Texas, Dubbya. We won't do a thing.......

The Germanator

09-13-2002, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by FreakyBob
http://dumbpics.com/pictures/35.jpg

Oh, we won't mess with Texas, Dubbya. We won't do a thing.......

Now that was truly not funny...

Doctor Zhivago

09-14-2002, 09:29 AM

It isn't supposed to be funny. I just think that Bush has a cool truck.

gekko

09-14-2002, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by FreakyBob
http://dumbpics.com/pictures/35.jpg

What a ****ty photoshop job.

Angrist

09-14-2002, 02:56 PM

:rofl: Oh those were some good ones. :D

Bond

09-14-2002, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Angrist
:rofl: Oh those were some good ones. :D
You know what Angrist. I dare you to imagine a world without the United States. I dare you to imagine without all of our medical aid, military aid, and others. Countries would die out, others would be defenseless. I wouldn't make fun of Bush, because without his country.... well, you know.

DeathsHand

09-14-2002, 09:53 PM

The country is owned by Bush? 'Mazing...

If I'da known that earlier I would have moved...

;)

Joeiss

09-14-2002, 10:01 PM

Lol. If America didn't exist, Britain would take its place.

gekko

09-14-2002, 10:29 PM

Britain would've been crushed during WWII. Don't kid yourself.

BlueFire

09-14-2002, 10:44 PM

This is going to be a long thread... *cough*

;)

Doctor Zhivago

09-15-2002, 08:14 AM

I hate it when people try to talk about what they think are "serious issues". I'm sorry, but Gametavern seems to be a pretty crappy place politically. Maybe I should post some more funny pictures.....

Angrist

09-15-2002, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Bond
You know what Angrist. I dare you to imagine a world without the United States. I dare you to imagine without all of our medical aid, military aid, and others. Countries would die out, others would be defenseless. I wouldn't make fun of Bush, because without his country.... well, you know. Oh that's so pathetic! :rolleyes: :rofl: What if the United States didn't exist... Sure, things would be different and nobody knows what it would be like.

But what has that to do with us not liking Bush??

And FreakyBob, post some more. :D

Joeiss

09-15-2002, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by gekko
Britain would've been crushed during WWII. Don't kid yourself.

Hmm..... Do you really think so?

If there was no country of America, there would most likely be one big Canada. So, Canada would have provided even more help to the Allies, and this the Axis most likely would have been eliminated.

However... I don't think that this is necesary to talk about. I mean, there is an America, and if there wasn't, then things would be totally different, but not anything that we could predict.

gekko

09-15-2002, 10:32 AM

No worse than you.

EDIT: Where did Bob's last post go? Now it seems like I'm responding to Joeiss.

EDIT: Underneath me now I guess.

Doctor Zhivago

09-15-2002, 10:35 AM

“The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.”

“If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.”

“Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child.”

“Mars is essentially in the same orbit...Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If there is oxygen, that means we can breathe.”

“The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century.”

“I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change.”

“One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'.”

“Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.”

“I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.”

“The future will be better tomorrow.”

“We're going to have the best educated American people in the world.”

“People that are really very weird can get into insensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history.”

“I stand by all the misstatements that I've made.”

“We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe.”

“Public speaking is very easy.”

“I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican”

“A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls.”

“When I have been asked who caused the riots and the killing in LA, my answer has been direct & simple:
Who is to blame for the riots? The rioters are to blame.
Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame.”

“Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having it.”

“We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.”

“For NASA, space is still a high priority.”

“Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children.”

“The American people would not want to know of any misquotes that George Bush may or may not make.”

“We're all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to enlighten you on the mistakes we may or may not have made.”

“It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.”

“It's time for the human race to enter the solar system.”

Jesus, is this guy stupid or what?

Oh, and Angrist, here's another picture. I never knew Bush was such a master of disguise.....

http://dumbpics.com/pictures/87.jpg

gekko

09-15-2002, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by FreakyBob
I hate it when people try to talk about what they think are "serious issues". I'm sorry, but Gametavern seems to be a pretty crappy place politically. Maybe I should post some more funny pictures.....

And what is a serious issue in your world? Putting stickers on pickup trucks? I think we have found the problem. GT is made up of Canadians, Brits, Aussies, and a bunch of Americans who don't care about politics or believe everything their teacher tells them. Doesn't make for a good show. That's why Mr. Bob-I've-only-been-here-for-2-months, most things involving politics are more of a why Canada sucks and why British people add too many u's to their words, and most every polticial discussion happened long defore your time.

Doctor Zhivago

09-15-2002, 10:47 AM

Whatever, dude. I'm still cooler than you. I've gotta find some more funny pictures.

gekko

09-15-2002, 10:54 AM

Uh huh. You're 13. You're like the kids on SOCOM I play with who use names like "SHIZNIT" and then have a squeaky voice still. Generally speaking, you know very very little about politics, and your serious issues in the world involve legalizing drug use and lowering the legal drinking age. You have yet to prove me wrong.

Continue with pictures, cause your views are politics are likely not going to be welcome.

Bond

09-15-2002, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Angrist
Oh that's so pathetic! :rolleyes: :rofl: What if the United States didn't exist... Sure, things would be different and nobody knows what it would be like.

But what has that to do with us not liking Bush??

And FreakyBob, post some more. :D
Angrist, I truly feel sorry for you, I really do. Although I hope when you are older you will understand what the world is like, obviously right now you have completely no idea.

Why don't you post some 'idiotic' pictures of your leader, hm? I won't find them funny, but maybe you and Bob will.

I think the point is that they have no view of politics gekko.

Doctor Zhivago

09-15-2002, 12:37 PM

I think BLueFire helped put things in perspective by saying "This is going to be a long thread... *cough*"

For some reason, political threads always get a ton of post and traditionally are filled with a ton of irony. I say we stop this right now. We're just having the same stupid discussions over and over again.

By the way, Bond, that's actually a pretty good idea. Those pictures would kick ass. :burger:

Professor S

09-16-2002, 06:49 PM

Hey I can imagine a world without the US. Here goes:

1) All of Europe and Russia under the control of Nazi Germany. Britain was on the brink of collapse when the US stepped in a with help of allies, mainly in the way of intelligence and espionage, destroyed the then "invincible" German military.

2) All of North America under Japanese Rule. The only thing that stopped them was the Pacific Fleet. The number of American soldiers that died while pushing the Japanese back is ungodly. By the way, this also saved China's ass by doing this.

3) The Total Annihilation of Chechloslovakian Muslims. While this wasa "UN" endeavor, the majority of the troops involved were American and the UN didn't sticks its nose in until the US gave its support. They just sat there, miles away wondering what the Americans were going to do about this.

4) Millions or Possibly Billions Dead of Starvation. The US gives million of dollars and tons of surplus food and grain to Third World Nations every year, helping to save lives.

5) No Cars (Henry Ford)

6) No Planes (Wright Brothers)

7) No TVs (Invented by an American)

8) No Telephones (Alexander Graham Bell)

9) No Lightbulbs (Thomas Edison)

10) No Electricity (Ben Franklin)

11) No Video Games (Pong was invented by an American)

12) NO FREEDOM

When hearing how evil the US is from biased "teachers" and the liberal media, I have just one word of advice. DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE UNTIL YOU GET THE FACTS.

When the US initially began its fight against terorism, every country was behind us. Now one year later they seem to have misplaced their balls. Saddam Hussein is not just a threat to the United States, but every civilized nation. People seem to think that he was a very week commander, just the opposite was true.
Saddam Hussein had the largest standing army in the world, armed the weapons from the US Military. To think that he was not a danger is ignorant. The reason why the US Military dispatched him so easily was because Saddam believed that the US M1 Tanks could not cross the desert and entrenched all of his artillery fixed towards Saudi Arabia. He was wrong, and his misguided troops paid for his folly.

Estimates after the Gulf War were that it would take him 10 years to rebuild his army to its former strength. More than that amount of time has passed. He has simply refused to comply with UN regulations on weapons inspections, and the UN being the pussies that they are have done nothing about it. It is nearly fact that he is developing both nuclear and biological weapons and harboring and supporting terrorism against the US, and the UN being the pussies that they are have done nothing about it. The UN seems to have this misguided feeling that if they just ignore Saddam he will dissappear. WAKE UP! Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it. This is a man that tested chemical weapons on his own people. This is a man that enjoyed watching tapes of his prisoners being tortured to death and was even sexually aroused by it acording to his former mistress. This is a man that attempted to assissinate HIS OWN SON AND FELT BAD BECAUSE HE ONLY CRIPPLED HIM.

And you think this man can be REASONED WITH? You think this man wants PEACE? This man is a lunatic, and a lunatic in power of a country with nearly limitless wealth is too dangerous to live.

President Bush said what HAD to be said. If the UN was not going to do anything to prevent future disasters and terrorism, WE WILL. The US will not sit back and become willing targets as many of our so called allies have. If this means the destruction and temporary occupation of hostile countries, so be it. We have given everyone fair warning that if they harbor or support terrorism, they will be dealt with. Squirrels should not poke wounded bears while they are trying to heal, so Iraq needs to comply with ALL stipulations of their surrender NOW.

Make no mistake, we want the UN to back our actions, but we by no means need them to do what will be done.

If not, well, may God have mercy on their souls.

gekko

09-16-2002, 07:03 PM

^^^ Glad to know there's still some intelligence at this site. ;)

Bond

09-16-2002, 07:04 PM

That's the bottom line Strangler. That is the bottom line.

Mechadragon

09-16-2002, 10:06 PM

Ahhhhh....now I see. I need to watch the news more.

Anyway, thanks Strangler for that very informative post.

Professor S

09-17-2002, 08:46 AM

I'm sorry if I was a little harsh, but when I hear Canadians, Europeans and even uneducated/brainwashed Americans talking about things that they obviously know nothing about, it pisses me off. The reason why the UN is against the US attacking Iraq has nothing to do with Peace in the Middle East, and everything to do with morally ambiguous trade agreements.

Essentially, much of the UN has been bought off by a genocidal maniac through lucrative, over compensated trade agreements with Iraq. The UN is worried about MONEY and OIL, not peace and human life. They don't care because its not their lives on the line, ITS OURS. They prefer to make a profit and keep oil prices down, even if its at the cost of Amarican lives. That is disgusting.

I believe the US should leave the UN, which is basically a impotent puppet organization without US support, and has only served to completely F**K things up in the past. After all, what has friggin France done for us lately, besides never letting us fly over their airspace? We defend the free world, and are then treated like uncivilized, militaristic barbarians for doing so.

The UN only has as much power as people perceive it to have, and without the US that perception will be sad. Thats why if the US threatens to leave the UN, the UN will have to back the war on terror.

Angrist

09-17-2002, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by FreakyBob
“The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.”
....
...
“It's time for the human race to enter the solar system.”

Jesus, is this guy stupid or what? Oh that was great! :D

Man, you are all such patriots... :rolleyes:

Professor S

09-17-2002, 12:04 PM

Wow, way to completely ignore anything I said and just continue to ramble on incoherently.

You're from Holland, you wouldn't have any idea what being Patriotic is. You have never been put in the position to have to save the western world nor would you want it. Your country is the size of New Jersey and you have about as much political influence as the steaming load I left in the bathroom this morning.

You scoff at what we say because you have no idea what its like to have people hate you BECAUSE you are the example of freedom throughout the world. To be a traget just because you are the most powerful nation in the world. To be a target because the leaders of oil-rich countries have convinced their starving, third world people that their problems come from a country half way around the world, and not the greedy uncaring leaders themselves who only care about lining their pockets.

When the US attcked the Taliban, did ANY Arab nation offer food or money to help their Middle Eastern brothers rebuild? No, they sat on their hands and wondered what the US was going to do about this, just like everyone else. They sat on billions of dollars and did nothing.

So instead of rebutting my statements with redicculous quotes taken out of context that have NOTHING to do with the reality of the situation, how about you actually think for a second about what I said and form a valid opinion. I think if you do, you'll find you'll have either nothing to say, or you will agree with me.

jeepnut

09-17-2002, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by The Strangler
Wow, way to completely ignore anything I said and just continue to ramble on incoherently.

You're from Holland, you wouldn't have any idea what being Patriotic is. You have never been put in the position to have to save the western world nor would you want it. Your country is the size of New Jersey and you have about as much political influence as the steaming load I left in the bathroom this morning.

You scoff at what we say because you have no idea what its like to have people hate you BECAUSE you are the example of freedom throughout the world. To be a traget just because you are the most powerful nation in the world. To be a target because the leaders of oil-rich countries have convinced their starving, third world people that their problems come from a country half way around the world, and not the greedy uncaring leaders themselves who only care about lining their pockets.

When the US attcked the Taliban, did ANY Arab nation offer food or money to help their Middle Eastern brothers rebuild? No, they sat on their hands and wondered what the US was going to do about this, just like everyone else. They sat on billions of dollars and did nothing.

So instead of rebutting my statements with redicculous quotes taken out of context that have NOTHING to do with the reality of the situation, how about you actually think for a second about what I said and form a valid opinion. I think if you do, you'll find you'll have either nothing to say, or you will agree with me.

Strangler, I think you've moved beyond Patriotism. Patriotism is about being proud and supportive of your country.

You on the other hand are saying that your country is the only right one. That my friend, is being a fanatic.

Doctor Zhivago

09-17-2002, 05:29 PM

I like America and am happy to live in America...I just don't like George Bush. He has the personality of a can of beans and the intellect of Forrest Gump (For further proof of this, just read through some of those quotes). The only reason this guy is in office is because his Daddy is a rich bastard. I hope he doesn't get elected for another term.....

EDIT: YEAH, 100 POSTS, BABY!!!

DarkMaster

09-17-2002, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by FreakyBob
The only reason this guy is in office is because his Daddy is a rich bastard. I hope he doesn't get elected for another term.....
your kidding right? why does everybody assume that when someone is elected that he/she got there because of some scam or bribery. have you ever thought maybe he was elected because the American people thought he was the best man for the job? (well, he didnt have much competition :rolleyes: )

Professor S

09-17-2002, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by jeepnut
Strangler, I think you've moved beyond Patriotism. Patriotism is about being proud and supportive of your country.

You on the other hand are saying that your country is the only right one. That my friend, is being a fanatic.

When in my post did I say that the US is the only country thats right? What I'm saying is that the friggin' Dutch don't get to tell us how we should protect ourselves because they have never walked a day in our shoes. When was the last time they were attacked by terrorists? When was the last time they watched as other countries danced in the streets, burning their flag, as you were still pulling dead bodies from the rubble of a senseless attack.

Other countries aren't the new target of international terrorism, we are, and now those countries, many of which benefit from Saddam being in power, are trying to tell else what we can and can't do to defend ourselves. How does that make sense if you are an American?

My point is that Angrist shouldn't be commenting on things he knows nothing about. That is my point.

As for the UN, when was the last time they DIDN'T screw up? I seem to remember them tip toeing around Bosnia while thousands of Muslims were being systematically slaughtered in the worst act of genocide since the Holocaust until we stepped in, and folding like a card table once Saddam said "No, you can't check our weapons today. Nanny nanny boo boo."

Now we have a hostile nation that most likely has large amounts of biological weapons, if not nuclear weapons also, because we left our future in the hands of the United Nations.

A fanatic would feel a certain way while having no reason too. My feelings are based on the fact the the UN has failed repeatedly in matters of international interest only to have the US eventually come in and clean up the mess they made.

I believe that responsibility should be reserved for the responsible. The UN has proved themselves to be exactly the opposite.

I challenge you to refute the facts that my "fanaticism" is based on.

Doctor Zhivago

09-17-2002, 05:49 PM

I'm not saying that that's why he got elected, just why he was able to run in the first place. Really, the only poverty-stricken president that this country has ever had is good old Abe Lincoln. And look at what a great president he was.

The Germanator

09-17-2002, 06:51 PM

I disagree. Abe was just as racist as all of the others back in the day. He did disagree with slavery in the territories, which was the main issue, but he still believed in slavery in the south until the war forced him to think otherwise...Abe Lincoln was o.k, but he's always made out to be MUCH better than he really was. Now Teddy Roosevelt, that was a president.

Professor S

09-17-2002, 08:16 PM

Rough Riders... MOUNT UP!!!

Bond

09-17-2002, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by FreakyBob
The only reason this guy is in office is because his Daddy is a rich bastard. I hope he doesn't get elected for another term.....
Ok, I'm not even going to touch on your first comment, but he is not rich because of his Dad. George W. Bush IS rich. Look at his piror occupations, and what he has owned.

One Winged Angel

09-17-2002, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Angrist
Oh that was great! :D

Man, you are all such patriots... :rolleyes:

Shut the **** up. Your not even American. Yet you still act as if Bush is an asshole. You are just a dumbass who has no clue what is going on with us right now. This is a very terrible time for Americans, you have no idea.

DeathsHand

09-17-2002, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by One Winged Angel
Shut the **** up. Your not even American. Yet you still act as if Bush is an asshole. You are just a dumbass who has no clue what is going on with us right now. This is a very terrible time for Americans, you have no idea.

I know a number of Americans who think bush is being a big bully asshole... well that may be extreme, but they at least think he's not taking the right approach with Iraq... and they don't really like him and they never really did...

And how is it such a very terrible time for Americans? It's been a year since the terror attacks, we went in and did a great job with Afghanistan so far (at least it seems like it :unsure: ), nobody's pointing a gun at our heads, and if it ends up being a terrible time for Americans it would be because Bush moved us into it... Or something... :unsure:

At least from what I can tell it doesn't seem like a TERRIBLE TIME...

It's not one for me... At least not because of anything going on with like the country or war or something...

But yeah whatever... I think some people are going a little overboard on the whole situation, or how amazingly great the US is or something...

I'll probably just get yelled at by someone ;)

drolldurham

09-17-2002, 11:16 PM

alright, i'm jumping into this kind of late, but here's my point of view:

first of all i listened to some parents i know debate over the whole thing with other parents i know from south africa. The south african people made a good point: terrorisim does happen all over the world. obviously it's not on such a big scale, but it does happen. Things like grenades being thrown into schools happens all the time where these people come from. So from an american prespective, the idea of terrorisim was so foregin before 9/11 that we really didn't understand it personally. then it happens to us, and on such a large scale, and everyone starts freaking out.

I don't mean to bash america or americans, not at all, but i don't think it's right that we should be so exclusive about it. it's like we demand everyone's pity and attention and we're using it to an unfair advantage. I do support a countries right to defend itself, but it would be arrogant, in my opinion, to try and go about this whole thing, this whole war on terrorisim, single handedly. And from what Strangler said about the UN f-cking up, that may be true in some cases, but honestly the US has poked its nose around in some stupid ways. Consider things like somolia (ya know, black hawk down) was that really a good idea? Hell, please tell me were veitnam got us. And when you think about it, part of the reason these terrorists hate us so much is because we poked around where we shouldn't have been poking. The russians invaded afghanistan, and we came in and got the support of the afgahns to rise up against the russians. Mission completed, the US just packed up and left, leaving most of the afgahn population in poverty. I would be a little pissed if someone said "help us fight this war, and we'll uhhhh.... BYE"

of course none of this gives reason to kill thousands of innocents, but i don't think the US is making a smart move in trying to take on international terrorism, without international support and agreement.

and strangler, you keep saying that nobody knows what they're talking about. what i've said here is simply what i have heard and learned. you keep making such generalized and drastic statements about the UN... well, how do you "know what you're talking about"?

Angrist

09-18-2002, 04:10 AM

I don't have to live in the States to know what's going on there. Perhaps this will surprise you, but we actually have a lot of world news on here. Whatever happens in Germany, Great Brittain, Africa OR the United States, we know it. Everybody here was watching the TV after 9/11. Everybody followed the American elections (so we know that Bush didn't even win, Gore had more votes), and we followed Bush reactions to the terrorism.

I'm noit saying that the US isn't good, I'm just saying that they're not as good as they pretend.
And you shouldn't keep bragging about how you 'saved our asses' in WW2. So you did, but like someone here said, if the US didn't exist, another country would have been in it's place that wouldn't have waited until 1943 (4 years after the war started) to come and help. Millions of innocent Jews would have been saved. But I don't have the feeling you really care about that, Strangler. No, you're a real American!

Professor S

09-18-2002, 09:29 AM

Yopu have the absolute BALLS to blame the HOLOCAUST on America? That is the lowest, most disgusting accusation I've ever heard, and you a abortion of a human being for making it.

But then again, it fits the bill considering the US has becomes the world's police force. Whenever something bad happens in the world, the rest of the world stands by and wonders "What will those God-awful Americans do about this? If they don't step in, its all their fault." Gee, makes sense to you I guess.

What other country would have stepped in during World War 2? Every other industrial power at the time was either neutral or a part of the Axis Powers at the time (namely Russia and Japan). So what fictional, delusional, outright silly country do you speak of? Oh wait, its We-do-everything-right-because-we-are-a-figment-of-someone's-wild-imaginationistan. I've heard of them, evidently they're never wrong because they do everyhing right.:rolleyes:

Guess what? Britain didn't step in to stop them either, nor did the Catholic church or anyone else for that matter untill millions were already dead. Oh, and where was Holland during the Holocaust. Twiddling their fingers? If you want to point fingers, point them at countries who were mere miles away, had full knowledge of what was going on, and did nothing.

And when they finally did, they relied on the US to bail them out.

Hey, but its all our fault, right? We are such an evil irresponsible nation. After all, we caused the HOLOCAUST. You sir, are scum.

Before you go making rediculous accusations, why don't you try and make a little sense and get a dose of reality instead of listening to what other people tell you and then mindlessly repeating it.

I'm not asking for any International pity or anything, I am merely expecting that we receive the respect that the US deserves instead of being the world's target for criticism because we actually DO SOMETHING when things go wrong in the world.

If true evil is to do nothing in the face of need, then I guess we are the most righteous nation in the world.

Professor S

09-18-2002, 02:39 PM

I don't generally double post, but I though this would shed some light on the situation for a lot of people. I received the follwijg from a friend of mine and all accounts are verified as fact:

At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt. Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.
>
> There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
>
> He was being drilled by some senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"
>
> Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."
>
> The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"
>
> "No, sir," continued Ollie.
>
> "No? And why not?" the senator asked.
>
> "Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."
>
> "Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.
>
> "By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.
>
> "Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"
>
> "His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.
>
> At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued.

Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.
>
> "Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of", Ollie answered.
>
"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.
>
> "Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."
>
> The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown ofthe clip.
>
> By the way, that senator was Al Gore
> > >>------------------------------------------------
>
> Also: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners".

> However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and
> eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
>
> It was censored in the US from all later reports.
>
> If you agree that the American public must be made aware of this fact, pass this on.

Now, does anyone else think that the US should sit back and wait for everything to work itself out?

Didn't think so.

DeathsHand

09-18-2002, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by The Strangler
Yopu have the absolute BALLS to blame the HOLOCAUST on America? That is the lowest, most disgusting accusation I've ever heard, and you a abortion of a human being for making it.

Uhh... ascoose me, where the hell did he say that? :confused:

I'm not quite sure about some other country coming into save the stuff in WW2 if there was no US though... but you can't really say they wouldn't... who knows, maybe knowing that there isn't that great US military power there, some other countries could have all done something... *shrugs* I hate WW2 stuff and research so I'm not quite up on all the facts... but whatever...

And you completely ignored my freind's post :-o Although I guess the topic has moved away from Iraq, and to taking what Angrist says the wrong way and the bashing his views...

Least it seems to me that you misunderstood that...

Him saying he was blaming the US for the holocaust would sound something like this...

"THE US CAUSED THE HOLOCAUST BECAUSE OF *some direct reason*"...

What it sounded like he was actually saying was that there was this big war going on and the US waited and waited and waited and waited and waited and then finally said "Ok we'll join in now" and it was too late, when they could have ended it earlier...

Or something :unsure:

And just to make a little comment, just because the country has done some good things in the past and all, it doesn't mean you have to like the way it's being run today...

What if someone was just like "The US is a good country and all, but seriously I think Bush and them are making some rrreeeaaaally stupid decisions nowadays..."

Would you still yell at them with your blind patriotism about how they're wrong/scum/whatever?

I don't even really like Angrist (hey, might as well be truthful here ;) ), but it just seemed like you took what he said the wrong way, so yeah :unsure:

Professor S

09-18-2002, 04:10 PM

And you shouldn't keep bragging about how you 'saved our asses' in WW2. So you did, but like someone here said, if the US didn't exist, another country would have been in it's place that wouldn't have waited until 1943 (4 years after the war started) to come and help. Millions of innocent Jews would have been saved. But I don't have the feeling you really care about that, Strangler. No, you're a real American!

Angrist basically said that the Holocaust happened because the US didn't step in earlier and stop it. You can play all the semantics you want, but thats what he said.

And my point has never been that we do everything right, my point has been that the only reason why we do things wrong is because we tend to be only country who tries to help. Its hard to do anything wrong, if you don't do anything. While in hindsight Vietnam was a very bad idea, in the political climate of the time it was fully supported when it first started.

DH, you keep accusing me of blind patriotism when I am one of the few posters on this thread who has actually cited history and fact to back up my statements while people who argue with me use strictly opinion, media propoganda and conjecture.

As for Iraq, check my last post before thinking that I have shied away from that subject. One year ago we claimed that any country that harbored terrorism was an enemy of the free world, and the rest of the free world agreed. Now a year later everyone is knuckling under to the false notion of a "civilized resolution".

I understand that other countries have been the targets of terrorism, but to compare a random car bomb or granade to the incineration and dismemberment of thousands is insulting to me. Not to mention that the next biggest victim of terrorism, Isreal, is also under the political microscope for their defense of their people. The US is not THE TARGET for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism now that it has been shown that it can be done.

The problem lies in ethnocentric thought. We think that because the Western world has a high value on peace and human life, that every culture does and reason will win in the end. The flaw in that argument is that the Middle East has a culture that is completely different from the Western World. They are essentially a thinly tied tribes held together with religious fanaticism and violence. Their constant warring with one another has left the oil-rich countries dominated by religious and military despots and oil-less countries left with multiple factions in a constant state of struggle. Many Arabs do not know what peace is. In an interview I watched with a member of an Afghani tribal warrior, he said hge enjoys fighting, because without the fighting there wouldn't be anything left but poverty and despair.

But we still all strive for the reasonable, peaceful resolution and men like Saddam Hussein use our humanitarian nature against us. He constantly tests our mettle by refusing to allow inspectors into his fascilities, and then just when he feels that international opinion is about to turn on him, he turns around a says:

"I have a change of heart. Come in a check them as much as you want." This, of course, is after he has had months to move any biological or nuclear weapons he has to safe locations. And we all fall for it.

Mark my words, if we continue to tip toe around international opinion and allow those who have no reason to fear a durty nuke being set off in their country, we will be attacked again. And this time I fear more will wind up dead.

Deathshand, like Al Gore, your "this isn't that bad" attitude will cause innocents to be killed.

Doctor Zhivago

09-18-2002, 04:14 PM

Holy crap, this thread is still getting posts!? Someone's gotta put an end to this.

DeathsHand

09-18-2002, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by The Strangler
Mark my words, if we continue to tip toe around international opinion and allow those who have no reason to fear a durty nuke being set off in their country, we will be attacked again. And this time I fear more will wind up dead.

Well since I'm a dumbass and I hate getting into big debates about things like this, I didn't even read some parts of your post... ;)

But I decided to reply to this part...

First of all, a "Dirty Bomb" wouldn't even be a very big devistating thing... people hear the nuclear material part and they're like "Nuclear Material!? A NUKE!? HUGE EXPLOSION YADA YADA!" but a dirty bomb is just like a normal bomb laced with Nuclear Material... Sure it would kill people and most likely render a small area of wherever uninhabbitable for awhile (quite a long while), but it wouldn't be like a nuclear bomb, and it would in no way top Sept. 11th in death toll...

Now a normal nuclear bomb/device/thing is a different story... But I think that would be quite hard for them to get that in this country... :unsure:

But I dunno...

And yes we will be attacked again eventually in one way or another... Big or small... In the US or just US interests abroad... I think it's pretty much inevitable, even if we try to do something about it... Simply because there are sooo many terror cells in soooo many countries...

But whatever... I guess doing something is better than doing nothing in some situations, and yes having a "this isn't dangerous" attitude is bad in some cases, but having a "SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER YEEEEHAW I WANT A WAR W00T W00T!" attitude is too... What if you attack someone and then find out they weren't doing what you thought they were doing or whatever? Then chances are the US would think up some way to cover their asses... I'm not saying they're NOT up to something suspicious, I'm saying WHAT IF they're not... And of course you say WHAT IF they are, but saying what if they are is just as much a possibility as saying what if they aren't when nobody knows 100% for sure... And just as dangerous... don't do something and if it turns out he is up to no good, some place gets attacked and people die...

Attack them and have it turn out he wasn't doing what we thought he was doing, people die and chances are it'd give Arabs and Europeans (like Angrist ;) ) another reason to dislike Bush and stuff...

"But we still all strive for the reasonable, peaceful resolution and men like Saddam Hussein use our humanitarian nature against us. He constantly tests our mettle by refusing to allow inspectors into his fascilities"

I know this is a much smaller scale, but I constantly have people coming in and out of my room and it's quite annoying... Sometimes they could in and I'm like "I don't want anybody in here right now" Or say things like "Man I wish I had a working lock on my door"... Does this mean I'm doing something I shouldn't be doing? No, it means I don't want a bunch of people wandering in and out of MY room...

It's easy for us to just say "Well just let the damn inspectors in and all will be fine!", but Saddam might just have some big ego (or whatever it would be called) and is like "No! This is my country and I don't want weapons inspectors in!"...

Does it sound suspicious? Yes... Does it means he IS doing something suspicious? No...

And really, I think he most likely is... and I'm not necesarily against attacking Iraq... But I'm just looking at all different possibilities rather than "HE'S DEFINANTLY UP TO NO GOOD! LET'S GO IN AND TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY WHEN HE'S ALREADY LET WEAPONS INSPECTORS BACK IN AND IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF THE WORLD DOESN'T LIKE THE IDEA!"

And you'd probably argue that "Bush and them must have good proof and all that that Iraq is up to no good, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to push the idea of attacking Iraq so much"...

But if they had such amazingly good proof, why are a number of big countries still against the idea?

It seems like EVERYONE is very divided on the whole deal, and yet the people who want to attack are yelling and screaming that it's so damn obvious and we need to do it and all that... If it was so damn obvious, why are people so divided?

Bah I dunno, I hate this whole issue where people get so divided about things and bicker back and forth about it...

Whatever the US does, I just hope they do the right thing and don't make a mistake... Meaning if we attack Iraq, they better have really been up to no good, otherwise public opinion and stuff in various European countries and the middle east could go down (if it's not already low enough)...

I hate debating about serious topics :D

Edit: Oh, and I still don't think Angrist meant that the Holocaust was the US's fault, and it doesn't sound like that's "Just about what he said" to me...

Professor S

09-18-2002, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by DeathsHand
First of all, a "Dirty Bomb" wouldn't even be a very big devistating thing... people hear the nuclear material part and they're like "Nuclear Material!? A NUKE!? HUGE EXPLOSION YADA YADA!" but a dirty bomb is just like a normal bomb laced with Nuclear Material... Sure it would kill people and most likely render a small area of wherever uninhabbitable for awhile (quite a long while), but it wouldn't be like a nuclear bomb, and it would in no way top Sept. 11th in death toll...

Oh yes a dirty nuke would be the equivalent of having a rock thrown through our collective window. That makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

Now a normal nuclear bomb/device/thing is a different story... But I think that would be quite hard for them to get that in this country... :unsure:

We also thougth it would be quite hard for them to hijack our own planes and kill thousands of innocent people, so lets completely ignore the past and march on blindly into the future. Once again, that makes perfect sense.

And yes we will be attacked again eventually in one way or another... Big or small... In the US or just US interests abroad... I think it's pretty much inevitable, even if we try to do something about it... Simply because there are sooo many terror cells in soooo many countries...

Ah yes, so we should just sit around and wait for them to kill us. What a wonderful philosophy

But whatever... I guess doing something is better than doing nothing in some situations, and yes having a "this isn't dangerous" attitude is bad in some cases, but having a "SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER YEEEEHAW I WANT A WAR W00T W00T!" attitude is too... What if you attack someone and then find out they weren't doing what you thought they were doing or whatever? Then chances are the US would think up some way to cover their asses... I'm not saying they're NOT up to something suspicious, I'm saying WHAT IF they're not... And of course you say WHAT IF they are, but saying what if they are is just as much a possibility as saying what if they aren't when nobody knows 100% for sure... And just as dangerous... don't do something and if it turns out he is up to no good, some place gets attacked and people die...

If we had the shoot first ask questions later mentality, the entire Middle East would be a steaming radioctive crater right now. The fact is that Saddam is not complying with the conditions of his surrender. That is a big problem and needs to be resolved one way or another. It is obvious that the "reasonable" solution is not working.

"But we still all strive for the reasonable, peaceful resolution and men like Saddam Hussein use our humanitarian nature against us. He constantly tests our mettle by refusing to allow inspectors into his fascilities"

I know this is a much smaller scale, but I constantly have people coming in and out of my room and it's quite annoying... Sometimes they could in and I'm like "I don't want anybody in here right now" Or say things like "Man I wish I had a working lock on my door"... Does this mean I'm doing something I shouldn't be doing? No, it means I don't want a bunch of people wandering in and out of MY room...

Are you F**KING KIDDING ME? That is the stupidest comparison I have ever heard in my life. I don't even have to rebut that, it rebuts itself when you use common sense when reading it.

It's easy for us to just say "Well just let the damn inspectors in and all will be fine!", but Saddam might just have some big ego (or whatever it would be called) and is like "No! This is my country and I don't want weapons inspectors in!"...

Does it sound suspicious? Yes... Does it means he IS doing something suspicious? No...

And really, I think he most likely is... and I'm not necesarily against attacking Iraq... But I'm just looking at all different possibilities rather than "HE'S DEFINANTLY UP TO NO GOOD! LET'S GO IN AND TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY WHEN HE'S ALREADY LET WEAPONS INSPECTORS BACK IN AND IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF THE WORLD DOESN'T LIKE THE IDEA!"

Saddam's ego or whether or not he is even up to no good is not the issue here. As I have stated repeatedly in my posts, HE HAS VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HIS SURRENDER IN THE GULF WAR. That is reason enough to force him to comply. Excuse me is I hold little sympathy for Hussein's right to privacy. The man should be dead by now for his crimes against humanity.

The last time the international community allowed a hostile government to slide in terms of surrender, guess what happened? The Nazi war machine. As a part of the terms of surrender for Germany during World War One it was deemed that Germany could not have a standing army greater than 80,000 I believe (I'm not positive, but it was around that number maybe even less). When Germany annexed Austria they had a standing army of nearly 1,000,000 troops because the free world ignored Germany's blatant disregard for the terms of surrender.

This is not fiction, this is not a scarey bed time story that you tell to your kids to make sure they brush their teeth and say their prayers at night. This happened. There is a reason why there are terms of surrender. Don't think this couldn't happen again.

This will not fix itself. This will not just go away. That type of thinking has caused millions of people to die in the past, and if it does not change it will most likely happen again.

DeathsHand

09-18-2002, 06:08 PM

"Oh yes a dirty nuke would be the equivalent of having a rock thrown through our collective window. That makes perfect sense."

Wait.... are you saying Sept. 11th was like a rock being thrown at our collective window or something?

So I guess that would make a dirty bomb being like throwing a pebble at it and not even making a mark? ;o

"We also thougth it would be quite hard for them to hijack our own planes and kill thousands of innocent people"

We did? There's a difference between not even thinking they'd do something, and thinking they wouldn't be able to do something...

"Ah yes, so we should just sit around and wait for them to kill us. What a wonderful philosophy "

I never said that...

"Are you F**KING KIDDING ME? That is the stupidest comparison I have ever heard in my life. I don't even have to rebut that, it rebuts itself when you use common sense when reading it. "

Yes, it is quite stupid... I even pointed out that it was a much smaller scale, what I was saying... I was just trying to make a point that maybe he just doesn't want a bunch of people looking around his country, searching a bunch of places, etc... And I knew you'd say something like that... It would also be quite stupid if Saddam was not letting weapons inspectors in simply because he didn't want them in his country when he didn't have anything to hide, wouldn't it? It would make him look suspicious when all he had to do was let them in and get it over with... But who's to say that's not what he's doing? People do stupid things... I'm sure you've done stupid things before, havn't you?

I'm not saying that IS what he's doing, I'm saying WHAT IF... Which is basically all you're saying too... what if he does that, what if they attack us, what if this what if that, everything is just what if, which I guess is a big reason people are so divided on the issue...

But yeah whatever... I can't stand history lessons, so I think maybe I'll leave this discussion, since chances are even if someone could come up with a very good reason why we shouldn't attack or someone made you sound wrong, you'd just keep yelling about how you're right and blah blah america is good, america is god, america is never wrong, blah blah yada yada...

nWoCHRISnWo

09-18-2002, 06:30 PM

There's no use in arguing in favour of USA, everyone is always against the best anything, whether it be a sports team or a country. It's just jealousy. Bush could create a cure for cancer and save the world twenty times, but he'll still be an asshole according to people from "those" little countries, like Holland.

Doctor Zhivago

09-18-2002, 06:47 PM

B-Bush...cr-create...a c-c-cure for...CANCER!? Heh...ha ha...hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *gasp* hahahahahahaha hahahahaha *gasp* hahaha! Oh, my side hurts so badly! Though, in all seriousness, I can actually see that happening... not! :stupid:

drolldurham

09-18-2002, 08:18 PM

just a point...

although you all seem to have moved past the holocaust

and now the point:

um, a lot of people didn't know about the holocaust, or at least it's magnitude. i'm not a big history buff but i know that the americans came in to the war and *then* they started finding all the death camps. so you can't really say it's the american's fault, since they didn't know. yes, had they entered the war earlier they might have stopped the death camps earlier, but without them knowing about it, you can't blame them for "not stopping it".

point over.

you may continue the yelling.

Bond

09-18-2002, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by FreakyBob
B-Bush...cr-create...a c-c-cure for...CANCER!? Heh...ha ha...hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *gasp* hahahahahahaha hahahahaha *gasp* hahaha! Oh, my side hurts so badly! Though, in all seriousness, I can actually see that happening... not! :stupid:
Freakybob making an intelligent post? Heh...ha ha...hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *gasp* hahahahahahaha hahahahaha *gasp* hahaha! Oh, my side hurts so badly! Though, in all seriousness, I can actually see that happening... not! :stupid:

gekko

09-18-2002, 08:50 PM

:lol:

DarkMaster

09-18-2002, 08:58 PM

haha

Professor S

09-18-2002, 09:10 PM

DH, you claim to have never said things, when I quote you showing that you did, and then procede to contradict yourself in you very next post to cover your butt. Amazing.

When it comes to terms of surrender, there are no WHAT IFs... you comply, or you are made to comply. Those are the rules. You can't make up new rules because he might be making Brownies instead of Mustard Gas. Final.

DeathsHand

09-18-2002, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by The Strangler
DH, you claim to have never said things, when I quote you showing that you did, and then procede to contradict yourself in you very next post to cover your butt. Amazing.

When it comes to terms of surrender, there are no WHAT IFs... you comply, or you are made to comply. Those are the rules. You can't make up new rules because he might be making Brownies instead of Mustard Gas. Final.

And this is why I don't even try too hard to debate things...

Cuz either way I sound like an idiot....

Cuz I am an idiot ;)

:-o

Doctor Zhivago

09-18-2002, 09:23 PM

And what would you consider to be an intelligent post, Bond? I don't think there have been any in this thread. Because, frankly, there's nothing intelligent about a bunch of video game-loving kids having the same goddamn arguments over and over again. It get's old, folks. And c'mon, Bush creating a cure for cancer!? Just thinking about that makes my brain hurt (Future post from Bond: Yeah, FreakyBob, just trying to do simple addition makes your brain hurt :p). I feel pretty much the same way as DeathsHand. I don't care about politics and I don't feel like getting into stupid debates. So, I guess I should just stop posting in this thread, right.

Professor S

09-18-2002, 09:23 PM

Well, sorry if i was a little intense, but its a subject close to my heart. I lost 2 friends on 911, and another we couldn't locate until almost a week later. I have spent a lot of time researching why we need to take out Saddam and all other terrorist harboring countries because of my experience with this. The parallels are mind boggling when compared to post World War 1 Germany.

Saddam is a dangerous man, not just to America but his neighboring Arab countries as well. He has already committed genocide against the Kurds... what else does he have to do to be finally dealt with?

In the end it is just my opinion, but it is an opinion I am passionate about and have a lot of information on to support it.

One Winged Angel

09-18-2002, 10:03 PM

I've read every single post in this Thread. and ONLY Strangler knows what he is talking about.

drolldurham

09-18-2002, 10:54 PM

opinions opinions opinions

i think most of everyone posting here needs to make sure they understand what is opinion and what is rumor and what is fact.

and even the press is not always truthful

this is the last thing i am saying here.
i'm not going to read or post to this topic anymore either
cause it's true, this debate has boiled down to a meaningless nothing
especially when everyone's yelling "my opinions are the TRUTH"

and tommorow all my worries will go away ^-^

bye bye

gekko

09-18-2002, 10:56 PM

First off, coming from someone who's added next to nothing to this thread (although nothing really bad either like FreakyBob, so I don't mind), you're quick to judge everyone else.

Second, who the **** are you? I know you didn't sneak in 1000 posts without me seeing. And I have no clue what your old name was (assuming you got it changed).

gekko

09-18-2002, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by drolldurham
and tommorow all my worries will go away ^-^

Oh no, we've driven him to suicide. :eek:

drolldurham

09-18-2002, 11:10 PM

ok ok so maybe i shouldn't have said "most everyone here"
i retract that statement.

but my point is that sometimes some people (in general) need to see the difference between opinion and fact

and that what they here and see and read
is not always true.
or it may be weighted in some way to instill certain emotions.

and i know i'm a little punk ass newbie gettin all up in your faces,
so you all are like "shut up rookie! fork over yer lunch money!" *gives wedgie*

[by the way, i'm DeathsHand's friend... in real life.... and i post here sometimes, generally to the annoyance or apathy of everyone else]

which is why i'm not gonna bother this topic any more

and suicide? no.
quite the opposite
@_@ @_@ @_@

Angrist

09-19-2002, 04:47 AM

OneWingedAngel's e-mail is Pezking2@hotmail.com... I know I have him in my MSN list, just can't remember who he is... :hmm:

I never said the US caused the holocaust. I just pointed out that it took 4 years of violent war before the States acted. Just to say that you shouldn't keep bragging about how you 'save our asses'.

And Bush will neve find the cure for cancer, because he's spending so much money on his military force. ;)
No really, it's rediculous how much money EVERY COUNTRY spends on warfare. I wish they'd do something about those deceases and food shortage. Make food not bombs.

And if you wonder what Holland did during the second World War, we were invaded by Germany, although we were neutral. A lot of people were killed because they didn't wanna work in German factories to make weapons. A lot died in the 'hunger winter', because we couldn't trade or produce food because of the Nazis. We did our job with underground resistences, like sabotaging trains, stealing food for Jews-under-cover, passing information to the Alliance...

But I don't give a !@#$%^&* about what my country did. I don't care if I lived in France, United States or even Germany.

It's just too bad that you're not allowed to comment on the United States if you don't live there yourself. :unsure:

Professor S

09-19-2002, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Angrist
I never said the US caused the holocaust. I just pointed out that it took 4 years of violent war before the States acted. Just to say that you shouldn't keep bragging about how you 'save our asses'.

Once again you show your ignorance. Pearl Harbor happened in 1941. Thst only 1 year after the WWII started. Just because we weren't in Europe doesn't mean we weren't involved in the war. Also, you talk as if we were obligated to step in. The US was under no such obligation to do so. I'm not bragging so much as stating fact. So what would be better, the US hopping over the pond and sacrificing thousands of American lives to help countries that had no impact on those soldiers lives in one of the bloodiest assaults in world history, or the US not helping out at all?

[And Bush will neve find the cure for cancer, because he's spending so much money on his military force. ;)
No really, it's rediculous how much money EVERY COUNTRY spends on warfare. I wish they'd do something about those deceases and food shortage. Make food not bombs.

And as soon as every other country does the same, I'm sure the US will hop right on board. Remember, the US doesn't have a long history of starting warfare, just a long on of ending it (except in stupid wars like Vietnam where the powers that be felt that their political position was more valuable than actually winning).

It's just too bad that you're not allowed to comment on the United States if you don't live there yourself. :unsure:

I don't mind you commenting as long as what you say is accurate. Your posts so far have been filled with nothing but ignorance and conjecture as to "what might have happened". You have not rebutted one single fact I have listed or any of the historical parallels I have presented.

I highly recommend that you become educated on subject matter before speaking about it. "It is better the say nothing and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt."

As for drolldurham, you claim that everything said has been opinion. Well then what about all of the fatcs I have posted on this thread. Did you even bother to read them, or did you just decide to ignore them aand post whtever you were going to say anyway? Thats what I thought.

Angrist

09-19-2002, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by The Strangler
[B]
I don't mind you commenting as long as what you say is accurate. Your posts so far have been filled with nothing but ignorance and conjecture as to "what might have happened". You have not rebutted one single fact I have listed or any of the historical parallels I have presented. I did NOT start that 'what if...' thing, an American did.

And I know my history, I know it took years before America actually joined the Alliance.

Professor S

09-19-2002, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Angrist
I did NOT start that 'what if...' thing, an American did.

And I know my history, I know it took years before America actually joined the Alliance.

1) You did post a What if... involving the Utopian Nation that would have saved the world if America never existed.

2) Then if you know your history, you also know that America was knee deep in the Japanese and during the time they were not officially a part of the Alliance and we were STILL sending pilots and millions of dollars on supplies and euipment to the Alliance while we were fighting in the Pacific AND even before Pearl Harbor.

Got anything else Professor?

gekko

09-19-2002, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Angrist
And Bush will neve find the cure for cancer, because he's spending so much money on his military force. ;)
No really, it's rediculous how much money EVERY COUNTRY spends on warfare. I wish they'd do something about those deceases and food shortage. Make food not bombs.

Damn liberals. Bush need to increase his defense budget! War has been, and always will be the only way to solve major conflicts. No explanations for now, no time.

Professor S

09-19-2002, 03:32 PM

Gekko, add to that the fact the the US loans or grants million of dollars aand thousands of pounds of surplus food around to world to feed third world nations. I already mentioned that, BTW, but Angrist doesn't like to recognize posted facts that contradict is idealistic nonsense.

GameMaster

09-20-2002, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Angrist
OneWingedAngel's e-mail is Pezking2@hotmail.com... I know I have him in my MSN list, just can't remember who he is... :hmm:

*cough* NeonNightCloud *cough* :sneaky:

You all have a nice day now.

*applies shades*

:cool:

*flash of light*

So yeah, uhh, the U.S. is tired of of everyone expecting them to act alone in times of other's needs and stuff...

*slips out*

One Winged Angel

09-22-2002, 07:35 PM

there is one thing with Bush that is pissing me off. Like Angrist said, it's ridiculus how much countries spend on warfare. Bush is spending all of our surplus just on Bin Laden and Terrorism. He thinks terrorism is our only concern right now but we have other problems as well.

It's mind-boggling how much money he is wasting.

gekko

09-22-2002, 09:32 PM

Wouldn't exactly call it wasting. Foreign aid is a waste of money, it's not helping us at all is it? But we're spending billions on helping other poor ****s get food and stuff.

I never knew this was hard to understand, but our budget is spent on many things. Not to mention that it's te government's job to protect its citizens, and over 2500 people died in one day last year. Most people will agree that's nothing they want to see repeated, and unless you want to grab a knife out of your kitchen drawer and walk all around the desert killing these people for us, we need to spend the money.

One Winged Angel

09-22-2002, 09:44 PM

2500 died in one day?!?!?

tens of thousands of people died everyday in the US!!! There are diseases, car accidents, murder, and many other crap. He's not wasting money just because 2,500 people died.

Professor S

09-22-2002, 09:52 PM

We spend money on those things everyday, you just don't hear about it. We need to spend money of defense also.

Plus, don't you think all these problems existed before Bush? Of course, they just don't become a media issue until Buish or any other Republican takes office. Look at the huge deal about oil drilling in Alaska. If you listened to the media, you would believe they were knocking down a rainforest, and not 5 acres of land needed to build a platform using modern drilling techniques. Plus, about 100 times that amount of land has been leveled in my county in PA in the past 2 or 3 years alone, and you never hear anything about that. Why? Because then the wildlife refuge wouldn't be as effective as ammunition against Bush if people looked at it realistically.

Take everything you hear in papers and television news with a grain of salt.

gekko

09-22-2002, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by One Winged Angel
tens of thousands of people died everyday in the US!!! Why can't you be one of them?

Ahem... I mean... we're already giving money to prevent that stuff, we have for years. Giving me a $99 trillion budget isn't going to get a cure for cancer tomorrow, and we already have plenty of money invested into stopping diseases, and there's plenty more avaliable if needed. But curing cancer didn't stop 2500 healthy people from getting crushed in a building, did it?

One Winged Angel

09-22-2002, 11:15 PM

I know that, but I'm just saying bush is spending way to much money on terrorism. I'm not saying we can spend money to cure cancer, but donate more to find a cure for cancer.

Cyrax9

09-23-2002, 11:34 PM

Angrist, FYI, half of the US hates Dubya, and the other half, the "Hicks" who support "Politically-Crrect" illiterrate fools love him.

Personally I can't stand the guy, bt he is my president so I will suport him until 2004, than when I see if te world will be redced to rubble by Bush and an IDIOT Democrtat Running ofr president, ro an Intelligent Democrat (There are plenty of 'em, just liek their are some good republicans), I'll decide which leer to pull, chad to puinch, (insert other voting joke here), and chances are my vote won't be for bush (if it is, a miracle or a disaster worse than WW2 will have to have already happened), so don't wory about that, in 2004, chances are he's out of ther White House, just like his daddy whoeven was oveheard saying "Jeb is supposed to be president, George is a screw-up!" during the inaguration!

As far as Bush being "Elected", he really wasn't, the Democrats got lazy and didn't feel like counting "Hanging Chads" and what not to find out of Bus or Gore had won, and every hour you head "Al Gore won", and then "George W. Bush won" and then back to Gor, and then Bush, until Al gore finally just said "the hell with it" and gave Bush the whithouse to shup evberyone up, he's also probably hiding with Kenneth Star Right now under a rock waiting to die for making a stupid mistake, I don't know which is wose, a President who9 can't keep his balls n his pants, ro a Preident who can say "Subliminal" with out adding an extar Syllable.

As for the Uneducated about the Iraq/America thing, during the Gulf War we knew Saddam had Nukes, or was close to having Nukes ready to be aimed at all of our major cities, we kicked his @$$ once, without a problem but twice is pushing it, the reason dubya wants to attack Iraq is because we KNOW he has Nukes, why do you think one day UN Weapons inspectors are allowed to lookin in one rom, and the enxt they aren't allowed to look in that room but a formerley closed off room is now open, Saddam is just moving his Nukes,. Bio-weapons and whatnot! I say just wait until we have full proof that he has weapson to use against the USA that we can show the people before we attack him, that way we'll ahve more support to nuke saddam ourselves, we know he wants to kill us and he's the only idiot dictator who ahs blatently stated "If I get a NUke, I'm going to aim it at all the US cities I can.", even our buddy, the @44hole Osama didn't say that, Hitler didn't say that, and ever other Terrorist assole didn't say that but saddam did, so he's admited he wants to kill us on international TV! I say Nuke him and get it over with, but wait until the time is right, and that's AFTER Osama and Co. are out of the way 6 fet 8under, pushing up daisies, and so on if you get my drift, than we can go after Saddam, besides, his own people hate his guts for the most part so we have support there as well, I don't think we should declare war on Iraq right now (we're already dealing with on Manical Terrorist, we don't need to stir up a second until the first is gone or it's absoltuley nessacry), and as far as Bush's "World Peace Plan" goes, I hate to say this, but he can't pull it off, he's screwed up too much to do it on his own now, however whoever succeeds him may pull it off eventually, maybe not in 2 years, maybe not in 20, but someday.

Oh, and on a fianl parting shot, I am not a fan of Bush, I don't like his policies at all, he announces when "a building is secure", which pretty much gaurntees that any terrorist illegally getting US TV now knows that the "Secure" building is Secured and will attack another building, or the secure building so it's not secure anymore (You don't annoucne you're straegy over national TV when som Taliban maniac might be watching, it's like telling your poker buddies what's in the hand you were delt), but since I live in the US, I honestly can't say the guy should be thrown out of office illgealy by the mob ro anything, Imay hate his guts and hate his policies, but I ave to support him until the next election, than I can decide if I want to "have his sorry @$$ chueck out the White-House door", or if we should keep him around ( a highly unlikley event), but I'll stand behind him until the next election, just like I'd stand behine whatver idiot was in the whitehouse at any given time unless they themselves were terroists, and whiel bush is an idiot, no argument there, he's not a terrorist.

I hope this clears up my feelign son the president and the US Government, I don't hate republicans in general, I hate incompetant politicans, unfortunalt alot of them are republican's, alot are aslo democrats, and when I way what Clinton did for the country and how he screwed up (probably responsable for 50 billion teenage child births but blanced thew Budget), vs. what Bush did and what he scrwewed up (ignored repeated warnign about terroist attacks, couldn't pronounce several words correctly, but managed to strengthen the military), I'd have to take Clinton, if we look at other Republicans and Democrats in thorugh detail, I can find plenty of Democrats who also screwed up, it's not the party, it's the person, and Bush is just a bad person who happnes to be a republican, Colin Powqell is rather good on the other hand, and Rudy Guilaini was great for NYC, and I don't even live there and I liked the gvuy, so that's saying something.

Professor S

09-24-2002, 07:23 PM

I just hope John McCain runs again. At least he is a man with integrity.

gekko

09-24-2002, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Cyrax9
Angrist, FYI, half of the US hates Dubya, and the other half, the "Hicks" who support "Politically-Crrect" illiterrate fools love him.

His approval rating is quite a bit over the 50% mark last time I checked. And last time I checked, it was the liberals who were concearned with political correctness.

his daddy whoeven was oveheard saying "Jeb is supposed to be president, George is a screw-up!":rolleyes:

As far as Bush being "Elected", he really wasn't, the Democrats got lazy and didn't feel like counting "Hanging Chads" and what not to find out of Bus or Gore had won, and every hour you head "Al Gore won", and then "George W. Bush won" and then back to Gor, and then Bush, until Al gore finally just said "the hell with it" and gave Bush the whithouse to shup evberyone up, he's also probably hiding with Kenneth Star Right now under a rock waiting to die for making a stupid mistake, I don't know which is wose, a President who9 can't keep his balls n his pants, ro a Preident who can say "Subliminal" with out adding an extar Syllable.

Give it up. First off, Gore sucks and is a little whiney baby. He didn't say the hell with it. Bush had more votes, Bush won. I guess you're forgetting, we vote with an electoral college. Even if Gore had 100% of the people's votes, it really doesn't matter, Bush still won.

As for the Uneducated about the Iraq/America thing, during the Gulf War we knew Saddam had Nukes, or was close to having Nukes ready to be aimed at all of our major cities, we kicked his @$$ once, without a problem but twice is pushing it, the reason dubya wants to attack Iraq is because we KNOW he has Nukes, why do you think one day UN Weapons inspectors are allowed to lookin in one rom, and the enxt they aren't allowed to look in that room but a formerley closed off room is now open, Saddam is just moving his Nukes,. Bio-weapons and whatnot!We more of less stopped him once because of oil. Sadaam doesn't have, and never has had the technology to attack us.

I say just wait until we have full proof that he has weapson to use against the USA that we can show the people before we attack him, that way we'll ahve more support to nuke saddam ourselves, we know he wants to kill us and he's the only idiot dictator who ahs blatently stated "If I get a NUke, I'm going to aim it at all the US cities I can.", even our buddy, the @44hole Osama didn't say that, Hitler didn't say that, and ever other Terrorist assole didn't say that but saddam did, so he's admited he wants to kill us on international TV!First off, as the largest world power, we're supposed to lead by example. Secondly, he never said that.

if we should keep him around ( a highly unlikley event)It's actually highly likely Bush will stick around. People loved him after 9/11, and with the whole Iraq thing, we won't elect another President mid-war, and if we win, people will like him more. We're at a time where people are worried about being attacked by terrorists, Bush is building our military and attacking the "evil-doers." There's a very good chance he'll be re-elected.

what Clinton did for the country and how he screwed up (probably responsable for 50 billion teenage child births but blanced thew Budget), vs. what Bush did and what he scrwewed up (ignored repeated warnign about terroist attacks, couldn't pronounce several words correctly, but managed to strengthen the military), I'd have to take Clinton, if we look at other Republicans and Democrats in thorugh detail, I can find plenty of Democrats who also screwed up, it's not the party, it's the person, and Bush is just a bad person who happnes to be a republican, Colin Powqell is rather good on the other hand, and Rudy Guilaini was great for NYC, and I don't even live there and I liked the gvuy, so that's saying something.

First off, Bush didn't ignore warning signs of terrorosts. Our many government branches did. Don't put the blame on Bush. And don't forget that Clinton ignored these same people during his 8 years in office. And I'm surprised you like Guilaini, most people hated the guy. His only saving grace was 9/11. But walking around making people feel good doesn't make a good mayor.