For or Against the War

[Chaosfear]

n/a

[Zer0]

I wonder who voted 'Yes'?

:?: :?: :|

[Barry Clark]

I am not "FOR" war, but I do think that there is little other recourse.

[Wangoed]

I think at this point war is inevitable and also necessary, not because Saddam Hussein is a threat but because we have made him into one. Therefore my "no" vote is both futile and ig-nant. :nerd:

[Barry Clark]

Damn, I didn't even say what I voted. I voted for war being the answer only because a better one has not been presented.

[Chaosfear]

Obviously if it were clear that Iraq is a serious immediate threat the UN and the world would not be divided.

Actually in reality North Korea seems to be far more a threat than Iraq. A nuclear threat at that.

At this time I don't think war is the answer if we ever want this crap to end in the long run. No one that holds resentment that will attack us in the future and hopefully end the cycle of war. I also don't think the cost is currently worth it.

http://www.votenowar.org

[Barry Clark]

http://www.votenowar.orgLove the site. I am amazed at how much the "peace" protesters have dilluted themselves. Just because one is is not in the opinion does not make it minoirty. The opinoin of those people is far from the majority. At its lowest, the approval for war with Iraq in this country is at about 60%. THe majority is speaking at this moment in locally held rallies all over this country like the one happening in Atlanta on March 15. There are far greater numbers from these cities attending than the number that left those cities for the alternative protest.

[bryangraye]

The prime minister of my country and of britain have got there heads stuck so far up bush's ass that of course it's the only course (hmm). Another course would be no war.

The notion we 'need' to have a war completely escapes my logic, considering, apart from the obvious, they've all been so funfilled and just plain beneficial in the past.

[Barry Clark]

The prime minister of my country and of britain have got there heads stuck so far up bush's ass that of course it's the only course (hmm). Another course would be no war.

The notion we 'need' to have a war completely escapes my logic, considering they've all been so funfilled and just plain beneficial in the past.How funfilled would your life had been under Hitler's Boot?

[bryangraye]

I'm sorry, but the US has become too powerful an empire - The international community can only give a firm frowning. Absolute power should never be held by only one, otherwise that power will be abused, as we are seeing at the moment.

Well... actually, I think my life would've been pretty sweet under hitler's boot, considering my lineage.

[Barry Clark]

I'm sorry, but the US has become too powerful an empire - The international community can only give a firm frowning. Absolute power should never be held by only one, otherwise that power will be abused, as we are seeing at the moment. Not that again. WHat of the US actions makes us an empire? We don't have absolute power nor do we see ourselves that way. Why do you think that we are firsat seeking world approval for the imminent war with Iraq. Is that teh actions of an empire who has absolute power?

Well... actually, I think my life would've been pretty sweet under hitler's boot, considering my lineage.I really hope your joking. The absence of emoticon is why I am confused by your true meaning. Besides, I misspoke. It would have Hirohito's boot. FOrgot where you were and I doubt that your lineage would have saved you from him.

[bryangraye]

The fact that the Bush govt. 'prefers' to have UN approval rather than it being mandatory simply means they'd rather have less opposition, and therefore fewer headaches.

Even if the US doesn't get approval and backing, they're still going to go blow things up. So..... the approval is more or less meaningless.


If I were an Iraqi, I'd be scared for the lives of everyone I knew, and pissed at the US - kinda of reminds me of how most might've felt under Hitler.

[bryangraye]

Almost forgot... why are you even mentioning Hitler? Do you honestly believe this war is about world peace?

I think you should be more concerned about your signature than my lack of emoticons.

[Barry Clark]

Almost forgot... why are you even mentioning Hitler? Do you honestly believe this war is about world peace?
THat was in response to your statement about no war being needed.
I think you should be more concerned about your signature than my lack of emoticons.How so?

[Barry Clark]

The fact that the Bush govt. 'prefers' to have UN approval rather than it being mandatory simply means they'd rather have less opposition, and therefore fewer headaches. If you want to believe that. Sure the lack of opposition would be nice but more importatnly the unity would be better. That is my view.

Even if the US doesn't get approval and backing, they're still going to go blow things up. So..... the approval is more or less meaningless.
Yes because this man needs to be dealt with and war is the only thing this man understands.

If I were an Iraqi, I'd be scared for the lives of everyone I knew, and pissed at the US - kinda of reminds me of how most might've felt under Hitler.NEWS FLASH! The Iraqis are already scared of their dictator. Here is story for you. Two men tried to assassinate Hussein awhile back. Did they kill the two guys? No. Hussein had the whole town that they lived in massacred. The Iraqi people are so scared of the US that they were willing to revolt against the Dictator? 15 of the 19 provinces of Iraq revolted.. We, sadly, were not in a position to give it at the time. We had to get out of the situation as the Middle East getting increasingly more uncomfortable with the length of the war.The revolt was put down. The people of Iraq have suffered years of mass death at the hands of this man.

[bryangraye]

your signature - talks about enemies, killing, violence - aggression affects rational thought and judgement.

motivation for war - oil > demand for oil > money > power.

nation that can get away with doing as they see fit, against the judgement of others - empire (mainly trading these days).

extreme economic power - ability to 'influence' others - empire.

[Barry Clark]

your signature - talks about enemies, killing, violence - aggression affects rational thought and judgement.
There is no aggression in that as I see it. It is a doctrine. I attack no one. However, should you attack me, I will give a reason to never do it again. So should I lay on the ground curl up in in a little ball and cry for help that will never come because no will fight as "agression affects rational thought and judgement".
I defy you to find anywhere where my opinions are not sound.\

motivation for war - oil > demand for oil > money > power.

I have replied to this so many times I, at the moment, hesitate to even answer. Crap crap crap. If it was about oil. We would have taken the oil from the Iraqis years ago. It has already been worked out that should the Saddam be ousted, the US will not gain control of their oil. OPEC will still regulate the oil out of Iraq as it always has and it will be up to the people of Iraq to delegate the money where necessary.
nation that can get away with doing as they see fit, against the judgement of others - empire (mainly trading these days).

extreme economic power - ability to 'influence' others - empire.So we should cut all funding and aid to other countries and remove all of our businesses? Is that what you are saying? We should go back to the country that we were before WWII? Isolationist? Would you be willing to endorse that publicly? If so, I wouldn't be seen near you , because you would soon be rubbed out by members of those countries whose economy you helped destroy by removing the only thing that kept them afloat.

If you take our "empire" out of the question, then the world will suffer horribly. The world will refaction into small groups and World Wars would become the common occurrence that they were earlier last century.

[bryangraye]

If you can't see the aggression, I won't bother trying to explain.

I can see the faults in my country, and I don't care if you insult it - I may agree with you on certain issues, who knows. I think patriotism can be good, but also very dangerous - power corrupts: governments are not angels.

If you haven't realised that the world is run by money, you should study some more history - going back to the time of cavemen. And try to watch news services from other countries. Friends/relatives of mine who have visited the US have commented on the limited access to world affairs.

There are billions who share similar views - are we all nuts?

[Barry Clark]

If you can't see the aggression, I won't bother trying to explain.If you can't see the value in defending yourself definitley, then I can't explain it to you either.
I can see the faults in my country, and I don't care if you insult it - I may agree with you on certain issues, who knows. I think patriotism can be good, but also very dangerous - power corrupts: governments are not angels.You can insult my country as well. It just needs to be accurate.
If you haven't realised that the world is run by money, you should study some more historyTHat actually takes up a great deal of my life. - going back to the time of cavemen. And try to watch news services from other countries. I do that more so than watch the news from my own country. Friends/relatives of mine who have visited the US have commented on the limited access to world affairs. that is because they didn't look hard enough. It is there. I get news from around the world daily.

There are billions who share similar views - are we all nuts?Ill-informed, yes.

I am quite aware that the world is run by money. THat was my point to you. Seeing as how we are supplying the world with the necessary money to run, my question was, should we stop supplying the world in the interest of not beingf an empire.

[bryangraye]

my god you are right.

[Wangoed]

Haha, you have a poor sense of humor.

[bryangraye]

yes.

[Barry Clark]

my god you are right.Damn right. 8) :D

[Barry Clark]

Haha, you have a poor sense of humor. :lol:

[timdog]

I am for the use of military force. There is just simply no other answer.
Sadam will get one final warning. I hope he really heeds the call. I don't want to see a conflict, nobody really does, but I support the President's decisions when it comes down to it.

[Barry Clark]

I am for the use of military force. There is just simply no other answer.
Sadam will get one final warning. I hope he really heeds the call. I don't want to see a conflict, nobody really does, but I support the President's decisions when it comes down to it.I blindly follow Timdog's response as any answer similar to his must be brainwashing. *drools and gazes a thousand yards* :retard:

[Barry Clark]

extreme economic power - ability to 'influence' others - empire.No, an Empire is a ruling situation overseen ultimately by an emperor and usually involves the tying of nations that extend beyond the actual "kingdom". The US is a republic with a president who is not the hegemonic leader and that alone discredits any notion that we are an empire.

[bryangraye]

Barry, your intellect simply dazzles me. :lol:

In this increasingly smaller world, there has to be one nation that is at the top. Currently it is the US, believe it or not - your country is the most powerful in the world. If you understand human (or animal) nature, you'll understand what I mean by empire - having an emporer is a technicality, the use of power by a nation makes an empire. Being presently in this position, the US feels it is their right to command. If you still doubt the power your country holds, ask yourself why there seem to be bases stationed round the globe and was perfectly able to ship troops to kuwait in preparation for an attack - nothing could have possibly stopped this, and nothing has.

There is nothing wrong with a major power, so long as the power isn't abused. If you don't think the US has constantly and terribly abused their position you must have been living on another planet for the past half century or so.

Historically, war has always only brought death, destruction and more anger than before. If (*ahem* when) the US attacks Iraq, there will be more hatred towards your country, and hate breeds hate. How is this a good thing for world peace (and a lasting one at that)?

We should all drop our arrogances and learn from past mistakes.

[Barry Clark]

Barry, your intellect simply dazzles me. :lol:As does your quick departure to sarcasm, me. :D
If you understand human (or animal) nature, you'll understand what I mean by empire - having an emporer is a technicality, the use of power by a nation makes an empire.Oh yes, forbid you should have to be accurate. :roll:

[bryangraye]

Please read post above, updated.

[Zer0]

*Sigh*...............

Neverending...

[Barry Clark]

If you don't think the US has constantly and terribly abused their position you must have been living on another planet for the past half century or so.

Please enlighten.


(sorry I didn't use your entore quote but I felt that your whole point was summed up in this statement and that my subsequent response to your forthcoming post will state my position.)

[Barry Clark]

Although, I already responded in short I thought I would reply to all your points....mainly because I am bored at the moment.In this increasingly smaller world, there has to be one nation that is at the top. Currently it is the US, believe it or not - your country is the most powerful in the world. Well aware. If you understand human (or animal) nature, you'll understand what I mean by empire - having an emporer is a technicality, the use of power by a nation makes an empire. Being presently in this position, the US feels it is their right to command. If you still doubt the power your country holds, ask yourself why there seem to be bases stationed round the globe and was perfectly able to ship troops to kuwait in preparation for an attack - nothing could have possibly stopped this, and nothing has. Anyone of those countries at anypoint could ask the US to leave and they would. THere was nearly a request for the US base at Okinawa after a few US military servicemen had raped a girl. If the request was made and no reconciliation could be made then the US would have left. We are there by the grace of those countries being host.

There is nothing wrong with a major power, so long as the power isn't abused. If you don't think the US has constantly and terribly abused their position you must have been living on another planet for the past half century or so.I already used this one in another reply.
Historically, war has always only brought death, destruction and more anger than before. If (*ahem* when) the US attacks Iraq, there will be more hatred towards your country, and hate breeds hate. How is this a good thing for world peace (and a lasting one at that)?Yes, after all, Saddam Hussein will lead the world to peace. (?) If anyone thinks that man can be dealt with any other way is simply dilluted. The man fashioned his role as a dictator in prison while readin Mein Kampf for crying out loud. He was a mafia style hitman. THat is what landed him in prison in the forst place. The first thing he did when he took control of Iraq was have one part of the Iraqi governmental assembly killed by the other part. SHould that other part refuse, they would have been killed too. THis man understands only brute violence and nothing else.
We should all drop our arrogances and learn from past mistakes.Yes, occupying the islands around Australia in WWII to help protect Australia from the eminent invasion by the Japanese was a mistake (sarcasm). War is always wrong? Would you have rather had your country men suffer the fate of the already captured Australian and US military men at the hands of an aggressor? War is the reason, sole reason that you have the freedom to speak freely in this forum. I personally abhore war, but I understand that some things are worth fighting for.

[bryangraye]

like I said, If you can't plainly see the US has constantly and terribly abused power in the past, I'm sure as hell not going to convince you.

The US can kindly be asked to leave. hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaaaaahahahahahahahah ahaha ,..... (catch my breath) hahahahahaha ... haha ... ha he.... he .. ROTF.... LOL...

Thankyou , I haven't laughed like that in a long time.

Did the US ask permission to stay in the first place? (rhetorical question)



George Bush effectively bought the presidency and has executed ... um... how many hundreds of ppl compared to the minescule amounts in the other US states? You feel comfortable with a government that supports such a man? Want brute violence, there you go.

War is the reason we are having this ridiculous discussion. The reason I am here and using this forum, is because some idiotic white bullies came and screwed the natives. Am I proud of this history? Hell no.

Learn from our mistakes.

My countrymen? I don't consider my countrymen any more significant than I would an Iraqi. A person is a person and they all have the same rights as far as I'm concerned.

If you want to take out Saddam, ok. If you are going to fuck the country and it's people over to get to him, then we're going about things the WRONG way - everything must be done to avoid war - EVERYTHING.

And who is the aggressor in this blossoming war? Not the ones being attacked (how can they be), but the crusading coalition led by the US, Britain and Australia. Well, looks like we're the bad guys then.

Learn from our mistakes, we'd be idiots not to.

[Barry Clark]

like I said, If you can't plainly see the US has constantly and terribly abused power in the past, I'm sure as hell not going to convince you. From your posts, you lack debating skill. THat is why I assume you won't name any one specific incident. Even just one. Your 'let them eat cake' attitude sucks. What if you know somehting that i don't know? You aren't willing to enlighten? ....or can you just not name any one specific incident?

The US can kindly be asked to leave. hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaaaaahahahahahahahah ahaha ,..... (catch my breath) hahahahahaha ... haha ... ha he.... he .. ROTF.... LOL...

Thankyou , I haven't laughed like that in a long time.No problem, it is easy to amuse the simple. :D J/K
Did the US ask permission to stay in the first place? (rhetorical question)
rhetorical? why? do you not want this answered? I'll give it anyway.
The US bases that I assume you speak of, were set up during WWII. THere are a few exceptions. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and what have you. In those cases, after the old government and new governments were put in place after WWII, our continued presence was by the grace of the governments there and the land is rented. THere are cases of where the US requested expansion or relocation of a base and the host country denied it.

George Bush effectively bought the presidency and has executed ... um... how many hundreds of ppl compared to the minescule amounts in the other US states? You feel comfortable with a government that supports such a man? Want brute violence, there you go.Bought an election? You don't know enough about our election system. Next.
Texas, the state in which you speak, has historically been strict. Not just Bush. THe people there elect these "violent" people. The crime rates in Texas is extremely high. In 1998, Dallas Texas was ranked 3rd in the world for murder rate. If you are going to talk crime and punishment, you need to keep rates in their proper context. Bush, Texas, or whoever doesn't execute people for stealing candy bars or for speaking out against the government. THese were convicted murderers. They have no rights at that point.

War is the reason we are having this ridiculous discussion. The reason I am here and using this forum, is because some idiotic white bullies came and screwed the natives. Am I proud of this history? Hell no.
No one said you should be proud of that. Nor am I of the beginnings of our country. But that was a long time ago and that can't be changed now. THe best thing we can all do is try and work with what we got.
Learn from our mistakes.

My countrymen? I don't consider my countrymen any more significant than I would an Iraqi. A person is a person and they all have the same rights as far as I'm concerned. I didn't say nor did I imply that they were any more significant in the grand scheme of things. However, I used that to make it a more personal argument for you. Reason, it is a biological fact that one will think more of some one closer related than others. More of your child than your nephew, more of your countrymen than US countrymen. THat is biological fact. You may not see it consciously, but it is there. If it isn't then there is something very wrong with you fundamentally and that would explain why you have the views you do. Because at that point, nothing is worth anything.

If you want to take out Saddam, ok. If you are going to fuck the country and it's people over to get to him, then we're going about things the WRONG way - everything must be done to avoid war - EVERYTHING. So what is the right way? Please don't say, "well, not war!" because that offers nothing.

And who is the aggressor in this blossoming war? Not the ones being attacked (how can they be), but the crusading coalition led by the US, Britain and Australia. Well, looks like we're the bad guys then. You need glasses. It is people like you, I mean it, that allowed Hitler to do what he did. After WWI, Germany was not to re-arm. For a good reason and I think. Hitler disagreed and went against that decree. A few raised a stink, but most, like you , were like, "No that would make us the bad guys, he isn't doing anything wrong". The French were very strong in that stance. WHat happened to them? All the sudden the Third Reich flag was flying above their country and people were being slaughtered wholesale.

Learn from our mistakes? I did. You didn't.

[bryangraye]

From your own admission that you like debate, your title of 'master debater', frequency of your posts in this thread, together with your need to result to personal insults, and the fact there is a '...post whore...' thread regarding your activity, I have concluded that you like arguement.

I have found that the most logical and rational discussions occur between those that don't crave debate, as they say only what 'needs' to be said, clearly and concisely.

I have said everything I 'need' to say and have gained as much insight as I require. It is clear further discussion would be fruitless and I can only agree to disagree.

[Zer0]

I beg to differ.

I can vouch for Barry's posting habits. He never PW's unless it is in obvious jest. Other people have made the comments and they were also in jest.

Barry has never insulted anyone like you say. Quit resorting to such idiotic tactics in order to evade your defeat. :roll:

[Barry Clark]

From your own admission that you like debate, your title of 'master debater', frequency of your posts in this thread, together with your need to result to personal insults, and the fact there is a '...post whore...' thread regarding your activity, I have concluded that you like arguement. Personal insults? I threw no personal insults. Certainly, I didn't intend any. If you were referring to the "simple" thing, well that was a joke. If you can't take a joke, that is your problem. J/K means just kidding. If anything, you come across like a smart-ass. I will not joke to you if you are sensitive to it (sincerity). Second, I am not a post-whore. I joke about that simply because of the number of post that I have. A real post-whore has the majority of their posts with only one word or an emoticon. THat, as anyone on forum who is familiar with me will tell you, is not me. The "Master deBater" thing was imposed on me by Timdog. I didn't create it, ask for it, or even know that it was applied to my name for sometime. I think it is funny that is why I go along with it. I don't "like" argument. THat is a assessment of yours. I "like" to know as much about a subject as I can. THat is what my life is comprised of. Learning. PArt of that learning comes from debate. Not because the idea of the hunt, mind you. It is because it is there that ideas that I may not have considered will be presented to me and vice-versa. Debate is the only place where the closest thing to the truth can be found in my opinion. There are those who do it for sport and they are called "bullshit artists". That is not me. I won't talk you in circles just to watch you get dizzy. That does me no good. I want knowledge. You can't get that from a dizzy person. On top of which, my interest isn't in me being better than anyone. My interest there is in being as accurate as I can be so that if I give info to someone, it is as accurate as it can be. You find fault with that?
Besides, if you go to the General Discussion area where the "Who is the BIggest Post-Whore" thread is held, you will notice that no one as of 11:30pm Eastern Standard Time has voted me as the biggest post whore.

I have found that the most logical and rational discussions occur between those that don't crave debate, as they say only what 'needs' to be said, clearly and concisely. I disagree totally. The situation you speak of has two insecure people not wanting their ideas to be challenged of fear that they could be innacurrate. Both sides speak their peace and neither side walks away with much more than they walked in with. Debate weeds through the crap from both sides and then both walk away with not only a refined idea of their own beliefs, but new information that is refined before you take it with you.
I have said everything I 'need' to say and have gained as much insight as I require. It is clear further discussion would be fruitless and I can only agree to disagree.OK.

[Barry Clark]

I beg to differ.

I can vouch for Barry's posting habits. He never PW's unless it is in obvious jest. Other people have made the comments and they were also in jest.

Barry has never insulted anyone like you say. Quit resorting to such idiotic tactics in order to evade your defeat. :roll:Damn man, thanks. *stands honored*

[Zer0]

I beg to differ.

I can vouch for Barry's posting habits. He never PW's unless it is in obvious jest. Other people have made the comments and they were also in jest.

Barry has never insulted anyone like you say. Quit resorting to such idiotic tactics in order to evade your defeat. :roll:Damn man, thanks. *stands honored*
No prob.
He was wrong. I would have done it for anybody.

[Barry Clark]

I beg to differ.

I can vouch for Barry's posting habits. He never PW's unless it is in obvious jest. Other people have made the comments and they were also in jest.

Barry has never insulted anyone like you say. Quit resorting to such idiotic tactics in order to evade your defeat. :roll:Damn man, thanks. *stands honored*
No prob.
He was wrong. I would have done it for anybody. :wink:

[bryangraye]

Thankyou for confirming my theory.

[Zer0]

Thankyou for confirming my theory.
What theory?
You're a fool. :roll:

[Barry Clark]

Thankyou for confirming my theory.I am curious as well. THat was kind of obtuse. DO you mean the non-agreement theory at the end of your post?

[bryangraye]

My theory as to why we war at all, and in a broader sense, one small but significant part of the current state and future implications - understanding humans.

[bryangraye]

I'll let you ponder that one.

[Barry Clark]

My theory as to why we war at all, and in a broader sense, one small but significant part of the current state and future implications - understanding humans.I believe that my response in no way made clear any of the points mentioned here. Understanding humans? I willpoint out that it is you who would as well need lessons. Part of being interested in history and what it has too teach is understanding what about he human psyche that drives man to the decisions that he does. Love, lust, greed, human need to endure, all of the above. I am well versed.

[Barry Clark]

I'll let you ponder that one.I have no need to ponder as you have given me nothing to ponder. Simply dropping your opinions with absolutely nothing to clear up what I see as faults is not at all going to help your cause. I won't walk off with fault laden ideas.

Case in point in parataxis:
Going back to the "empire" discussion; I can make the analogy that you pointed to an animal; you called it a dog; I argue the point that it wasn't a dog because the claws were retractable; I further argue that its appearance in general is not cat-like; you say it doesn't matter as they are both mammals; I say then that you are correct in that they are both mammals; I follow by saying that I will not be taking my pets to your veterinary clinic.


If you are not going to help mankind with your knowledge then why pretend you care at all? That is the "Let Them Eat Cake" attitiude I mentioned.

[Breene]

Barry Clark, I think you are very accurate about world history. I think you are right about Saddam. Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was pissed at the U.S. for not snuffing out Saddam in the Gulf War. But what about the future? U.S. has grown powerful in money and we are depended on to an extent by third world countries. I can't help being afraid that we are losing the popular opinion war and that the animal we have pinned against the wall has sharper claws.

[Barry Clark]

Barry Clark, I think you are very accurate about world history. I think you are right about Saddam. Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was pissed at the U.S. for not snuffing out Saddam in the Gulf War. But what about the future? U.S. has grown powerful in money and we are depended on to an extent by third world countries. I can't help being afraid that we are losing the popular opinion war and that the animal we have pinned against the wall has sharper claws.Thank you. I try to be as accurate as I can.

I understand why THatcher or anyone for that matter including the people in IRaq who staged an ill-fated revolt would be mad at the US but I we just didn't feel that the world, particularly the middle-eastern world, would look well upon that and there was no real strategy nor was there a clear political objective for snuffing out Saddam. ALl that would have happened would be we would rid the world of Saddaam but then the factional fighting would start as were unprepared and then someone as bad if not worse than Saddam would enter. Now, we are ready.

I understand the fear that anyone would have of a world powerlike the US. Like meating a man known for his fighting skills and aggression yet you don't know enough about him to know if you would be the next target. Totally understandable. ALthough we are an agressive people, we are not interested in the world being under our thumb nor are we interested in being the sole financier. WHat if we need help at some point? If we keep the world impoverished then we will have no where to turn. If anything, we are trying to make the world of commerce reciprocol. NAFTA was a good example of that.

No worries.

[bryangraye]

I don't seem to remember mentioning dogs or cats, and you're talking about vets?

Well, if anything you reaffirmed your intelligence. As I said before, fruitless.

[mister_playboy]

I voted against.

[Chaosfear]

The prime minister of my country and of britain have got there heads stuck so far up bush's ass that of course it's the only course (hmm). Another course would be no war.

The notion we 'need' to have a war completely escapes my logic, considering they've all been so funfilled and just plain beneficial in the past.How funfilled would your life had been under Hitler's Boot?

It's funny Bush is being so pro-war when it's documented he avoided it himself.

Speaking of Hitler. The congressional record reveals that the Bush family supported Hitler. According to former US Justice Dept. Nazi War Crimes prosecutor John Loftus - "The Bush family fortune came from the Third Reich," -Sarasota Herald-Tribune 11/11/2000


http://myhero.com/hero.asp?hero=Kovic

[The Cynic]

Yes, it was George Sr.'s father who openly supported them. I've seen several articles about it. Funny, ironic, silly, sad, or just plain old fucked up?

[Barry Clark]

Yes, it was George Sr.'s father who openly supported them. I've seen several articles about it. Funny, ironic, silly, sad, or just plain old fucked up?IT was actually a great number of people that supported Hitler before what happened. Henry Ford as well. They all later recanted from what I understand.

[Barry Clark]

I don't seem to remember mentioning dogs or cats, and you're talking about vets?

Analogy.

[Barry Clark]

I voted against.Voted against what? :D

[Barry Clark]

It's funny Bush is being so pro-war when it's documented he avoided it himself.
What father wouldn't had tried sucha thing if his son was involved. At least he was in SOME branch of the military. However, so many people say that since he didn't serve in war then how should he be able to send others to war. I hear that argument and I say that wouldn't make a difference. A thought. The further back into US history you go, you begin to find US presidents not only serving in the military but hopping on horsers as president and leading the battle in person. These very presidents who had first hand knowledge of war and indeed sought it personally, would often start war for the most trite reasons. So, I don't think that matters.

Besides, that is what Bush has Powell for. :wink:

[Barry Clark]

As I said before, fruitless.Only because you seem to show no interest in cultivating it.

[Chaosfear]

It's funny Bush is being so pro-war when it's documented he avoided it himself.
What father wouldn't had tried sucha thing if his son was involved. At least he was in SOME branch of the military. However, so many people say that since he didn't serve in war then how should he be able to send others to war. I hear that argument and I say that wouldn't make a difference. A thought. The further back into US history you go, you begin to find US presidents not only serving in the military but hopping on horsers as president and leading the battle in person. These very presidents who had first hand knowledge of war and indeed sought it personally, would often start war for the most trite reasons. So, I don't think that matters.

Besides, that is what Bush has Powell for. :wink:

After his 1968 graduation from college Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam.
Not only did he avoid going to war, but the Texas Air National Guard grounded bush in 1972 for failing to submit to a drug test.

So you think it doesn't make a difference that Bush was able to avoid the war, to party. Not having any experience with war, let alone knowing (or caring about) the consequences or war. Yet he's so willing to send other peoples sons and daughters off to war, when he wouldn't go himself? Are his kids going to serve, they should be some of the most patriotic right? Or are they just going to party like their dad? How fortunate it must be to be them.

What about Cheney?
Cheney also avoided military service with deferments as a student and expectant father.

Read here if you wanna know more dirty details:
http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
That biography is actually far more incriminating than just hitler-alliances, read pages 3 and 4.

-
WAR PIGS
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds.

Politicians hide themselves away.
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah.
-

They've got money for war, look how much they were going to give Turkey alone. But they don't have money for the homeless Vietnam Vets, Vets without healthcare and the starving in America.

[Barry Clark]

THis might be premature as I have not finished reading it as of yet (no time), but I don't see how this relates to the president we have today. Maybe there is more further down the page, but all I see is talking of how President Bush's grandfather was involved with the Nazis while his son was off to fight the Nazis. Odd. But that maybe explained later. None the less, many people of this country have grandfathers that were involved in henious crimes against blacks, women, whatever. SHould their grandchildren be chided for that.


But as I said, this is all premature.

[Barry Clark]

I actually found the time. hehe. Rare indeed.

OK, although it is damning and I don't doubt its accuracy, at the moment- I will research it at a later date- I still don't see how this ties in with G. Bush Sr. and G. Bush Jr.

[Tyrant]

who do you think is the better bush ( :lol: ) George Snr, or George Jnr ?

[Barry Clark]

After his 1968 graduation from college Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam.
Not only did he avoid going to war, but the Texas Air National Guard grounded bush in 1972 for failing to submit to a drug test.
Yeah, so? SOmeone can't screw up? I don't remember all this when Clinton didn't inhale. People made cracks, but no one argued his judgement in letting 450 cruie missiles fly without warning or UN approval. Not to mention that Clinton served in NO military what so ever.


So you think it doesn't make a difference that Bush was able to avoid the war, to party. Not having any experience with war, let alone knowing (or caring about) the consequences or war. Yet he's so willing to send other peoples sons and daughters off to war, when he wouldn't go himself? Are his kids going to serve, they should be some of the most patriotic right? Or are they just going to party like their dad? How fortunate it must be to be them. You are making a class to class argument here. It is common practice that the wealthy/powerful do get more breaks than the common man. It is also normal for the rich/powerful to run countries. None of this should be a shock. I don't believe for a second that military service makes anyone better suited to send troops off. Secondly, he may give the order but he doesn't plan the missions. Powell is in charge there. People are forgetting through that argument, that this isn't sending the military into Iraq to secure cuisine. This is to stop a serious asshole who is a proven threat. Does it take someone in the military to see that?

What about Cheney?
Cheney also avoided military service with deferments as a student and expectant father.
So, that isn't a legit reason? That was a federally placed deferment. He followed the rules. THere are more important things in life than being a dumb grunt. It is also good to keep people at home and investing in their intelligence.

[mchncl]

barry why do you defend these people?

i thought you were of the opinion that a man should be selfmade and lead by example...

[Barry Clark]

barry why do you defend these people?

i thought you were of the opinion that a man should be selfmade and lead by example...WHo these days lead by example? That is neither here nor there.

The reason that offer argument in their favor is this, should a man who is guilty of simple theft be convicted of murder? Of course not. Even a criminal needs a defense so that the court doesn't impose an unusual or cruel punishment not commensurate with the crime. If someone is to be talked bad about or condemned then it should be for the accurate reasons. THat is why mobs are no longer aloud to deliver justice in this country. Honestly, if we had to find a single person that had indepth, personal experience in ever matter that a president would, or could encounter, we would never have a president. THat is why presidents have a cabinet of advisors. People who are experienced in certain fields. THat is why I say, regardless of what Bushes military experience is, he has hired the best man in the US to handle military matters for him and advise him on the best path. If we wait for a leader that leads by example complettely then we will also be without. Only a few times in recent US history have we had any leaders who do so by example. The one that springs to mind is Carter. No one wanted his example. He was a wimp. He was rid of. So unless Buddha shows up, we and no one reasonable will be holding there breathe.

FWIW, I have never voted for a president. Why? There has not been a single one I would endorse. To restate what you said, I am indeed all about leadership by example and that is who I would vote for. SOmeone who shares a similar view to mine in key areas and are everything they say they are for. Unlike your statement, I am not for someone to be self-made. Being self-made doesn't make someone a better person. I am a happy for anyone who has had a boost in life. I know I wouldn't complain. The thing is, what will they do with that boost. Will it be self serving and greedy or will it be helpful for all? THat is a similar question that would be posed to a "self-made" man. I have no intenetion of voting Puff-Daddy (self-made) for president. I personally am waiting for either Ventura and/or Powell to run.




There are redeemable qualities in everyone. Even Saddam. I don't think he eats dinner in an evil fashion. So not all bad. HOwever, the bad he has done outweighs the good and the bad is so bad that the international community stands to suffer.

[Chaosfear]

I don't remember all this when Clinton didn't inhale. People made cracks, but no one argued his judgement in letting 450 cruie missiles fly without warning or UN approval. Not to mention that Clinton served in NO military what so ever.

Yeah but Clinton was never up on a podium saying his dick was bigger than the rest of the world and trying to be pro-war. He dogged it because he knew war is bullshit, if you have the mind and patience there are always other ways before anyone attacks anyone. And I'm sure he felt bad for those who had to go.

It is common practice that the wealthy/powerful do get more breaks than the common man. It is also normal for the rich/powerful to run countries. None of this should be a shock.

I beg to differ. It's not normal/meant to be for the rich/powerful to run America. This is exactly what America wasn't suppose to become.
America was meant to be run by the people for the people.
We have an unpopular president right now with an agenda that the majority disapproves of. The majority of America AND the world disapproves of war without UN backing. If the American majority were truly behind Bush currently on this we'd probably be at war right now.

The only thing Bush has done successfully, with his I'll go in alone shit, is divide the world.

Honestly, if things were clear cut the UN would probably not be divided and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

I don't believe for a second that military service makes anyone better suited to send troops off.

At the least they have a grip on reality, of what war is really like. Not some John Wayne fantasy that war is glorious, which half these kids who WANT to go to war have no idea of, yet, hopefully never. War is brutal and ugly. From a troops point of view when bullets are flying over your head then and only then you realize politics don't mean shit.

This should always be used as a very LAST resort. Hopefully everyone stays calm and we CAN resolve this.

There have been plenty of other failures for America at war besides Vietnam. The people who think we'll win this war in 14 days are being pompous. Not thinking about the flipside or what a disaster this could become. Plus the resentment towards the US in the long run if we go to war, at this moment, which will most likely turn into future problems.

Secondly, he may give the order but he doesn't plan the missions. Powell is in charge there. People are forgetting through that argument, that this isn't sending the military into Iraq to secure cuisine. This is to stop a serious asshole who is a proven threat. Does it take someone in the military to see that?

If Saddam were truly a threat he should be assassinated. Something that could easily be done. And we don't have to risk 1000's of ground troops. From what I hear it could have already been done but it was called off, why?

Plus why are the Iraqis protesting America if Saddam is such a threat? Seriously look at this.

They view America more of a threat to their livelihood because Saddam isn't the one going to flatten their cities with 3000 bombs within the first 48 hrs. Maybe this isn't the way to go about this one?!?
America should know how to use propaganda and use it against Saddam, as he's doing to the US over there. And get his people to revolt against him. Make THEM realize what he's doing, if America is truly correct in all the allegations. But with America being more of a threat to their lives that's not going to happen anytime soon.

THere are more important things in life than being a dumb grunt.

So that's you're view of the people who serve for your freedom? They're just dumb grunts, expendable, is that it?

Do you agree with Bush to compromise freedom to defeat terrorism? So either way we lose our freedoms and they win, whether they win or not? Becoming a police state is a good thing?

If you haven't heard the latest news, a secretive new system for conducting background checks on all airline passengers threatens to create a bureaucratic machine for destroying Americans' privacy and a government blacklist that will harm innocent people. This will hold all personal information by everyone who travels for 50 years in a system called CAPPS II.

We are currently losing freedom very slowly and it's doing nothing. We are not any safer. If you think so you are a fool.
I'd rather have my freedom instead of an illusion of safety.

I'm not saying we should have no security. But when it gets to the point to where it invades privacy and treads on the constitution then we have a problem.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/HallsOfJustice/hallsofjustice.html

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

[Barry Clark]

Yeah but Clinton was never up on a podium saying his dick was bigger than the rest of the world and trying to be pro-war. He dogged it because he knew war is bullshit, if you have the mind and patience there are always other ways before anyone attacks anyone. And I'm sure he felt bad for those who had to go.Sure, no prob. You wait with the French. You know what happened last time the when the world said,"No, they aren't a threat. We shouldn't go to war". True story. Hitler happened. France was resisting war until the end. What happened next? France was under Third Reich control. All this, from a country that wasn't a threat.

I beg to differ. It's not normal/meant to be for the rich/powerful to run America. This is exactly what America wasn't suppose to become.
America was meant to be run by the people for the people.
I agree that it isn't supposed to be that way, but it is. THere is opportunity for the non-wealthy, but it isn't as readily available by any stretch of the imagination. I take advatage of some of those opportunities afforded those with less but it is limited and certainly is not to the degree of those who have more. THat is just how it is regardless of how it is supposed to be.
We have an unpopular president right now with an agenda that the majority disapproves of. The majority of America AND the world disapproves of war without UN backing. If the American majority were truly behind Bush currently on this we'd probably be at war right nowActually, polls in the US show that Bush is recieving at lowest more than 55% percent approval.

The only thing Bush has done successfully, with his I'll go in alone shit, is divide the world.
I am neither that or pro-bush/republican/whatever. That being said, I will disagree with you on his only accomplishment. Where I think he is making mistakes is with his evironmentla policies. He has backed off seeing the disapproval he got for them.
Honestly, if things were clear cut the UN would probably not be divided and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.The UN isn't divided because of some sort of ethical question. They are divided because the vocal arguing countries have deep ecnomic ties to Iraq.

At the least they have a grip on reality, of what war is really like. Not some John Wayne fantasy that war is glorious, which half these kids who WANT to go to war have no idea of, yet, hopefully never. War is brutal and ugly. From a troops point of view when bullets are flying over your head then and only then you realize politics don't mean shit. Grip on reality? You must not have met many war vets. They are people like everyone else except a few more nightmares. They have no more grip on reality than anyone else. Also, they, because of the horrors, may hesitate to long.
This should always be used as a very LAST resort. Hopefully everyone stays calm and we CAN resolve this.I still hope that will happen. However, Iraq has had 12 years to come clean. They still aren't coming clean. The UN had its way and it is not disarming them. Now it is time for another way. I say invade.

There have been plenty of other failures for America at war besides Vietnam. The people who think we'll win this war in 14 days are being pompous. Not thinking about the flipside or what a disaster this could become. Plus the resentment towards the US in the long run if we go to war, at this moment, which will most likely turn into future problems.
Sure there have been failures. Plenty of them. That is not a reason to fight for what is right. I believe the resentment won't come from the invasion. Maybe light, but not most. The most resentment will come if we don't do as promised and not only rebuild Iraq, but to bring them into at least last century. The people of Iraq have already shown that they want this guy out. 15 of the 19 provinces said so in a revolt after the Gulf War. We didn't intervine for our own political reasons, but none the less, that created resentment that lasts. I hope that if war does come as it appears it will, then we will do the right thing and help the people afterwards.
If Saddam were truly a threat he should be assassinated. Something that could easily be done. And we don't have to risk 1000's of ground troops. From what I hear it could have already been done but it was called off, why?It is illegal by our law to assissinate political figures. That is why. We are trying to ammend that so we can approach situations like Iraq with such a plan. But no one can agree on where that power should begin or end.
Plus why are the Iraq's protesting America if Saddam is such a threat? Seriously look at this.
For one sentence, that has one hell of an answer. The people of Iraq are scared to death of this man. I will give you one incident that is most clear to me. I can give more if you need so. Two young men tried to assassinate Hussein awhile back. Although, the young men were identified, Hussein sent troops to his town and had most of the people there murdered. A whole town for two men. Just for an example. THe people there are afraid to speak according to defectors.Do you see footage of Russian's protesting Stalin?

They view America more of a threat to their livelihood because Saddam isn't the one going to flatten their cities with 3000 bombs within the first 48 hrs. Maybe this isn't the way to go about this one?!?See above.
America should know how to use propaganda and use it against Saddam, as he's doing to the US over there. And get his people to revolt against him. Make THEM realize what he's doing, if America is truly correct in all the allegations. But with America being more of a threat to their lives that's not going to happen anytime soon. it isn't that easy. We have tried propaganda. It isn't infiltrating enough. Satellite dishes are now banned there. WHy? Because Hussein figured out that the people there were getting news for some other source than him. So we can't do that. We have tried the dropping leaflets thing. Even if that could be successful It is such in that country that now the people fear to even meet on such a subject.

Remember how much the people of Afghanistan protested the US going in there? I do. They were in the streets yelling. Do you also remember their faces when the Taliban got taken down? I do. They were in the streets taking advantage of long dead freedoms like a haircut.

So that's you're view of the people who serve for your freedom? They're just dumb grunts, expendable, is that it?Absolutley not. THat is not what that statement was meant to mean. Semanitc issue. The reason I said that,although I meant ignorant not dumb, was that in Viet Nam, so many young men were going off to war. Not only had most never been to college, but most had not finished high school. They knew little more than the life they had with their parents. After that, they would spend the next few years trying not to die. I somply meant that you can't get a degree from the Viet Nam war. THeir intellectual studies essentially went dormant at that point and if they did restart, it was years later after they were full grown men. Cheney and Bush were able to get an education that the troops aborad couldn't. THat is what I meant. I applaude all who serve the US military.

Do you agree with Bush to compromise freedom to defeat terrorism? So either way we lose our freedoms and they win, whether they win or not? Becoming a police state is a good thing?No on all.
If you haven't heard the latest news, a secretive new system for conducting background checks on all airline passengers threatens to create a bureaucratic machine for destroying Americans' privacy and a government blacklist that will harm innocent people. This will hold all personal information by everyone who travels for 50 years in a system called CAPPS II. THose are private companies. They can do that. I don't have to fly using the ones who endorse that.
We are currently losing freedom very slowly and it's doing nothing. We are not any safer. If you think so you are a fool.
I'd rather have my freedom instead of an illusion of safety.Interesting tactic. Telling someone that they are a fool before you get an answer. I hate to tell you bro, but you are talking about what is called big government. Who is most responsible for big government? The Democrats starting with JFK. The republicans are trying to downsize government and get the government out of public life. ANy political analyst will tell you the same.
I'm not saying we should have no security. But when it gets to the point to where it invades privacy and treads on the constitution then we have a problem.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/HallsOfJustice/hallsofjustice.htmlPatriot Act. Possibly the most misunderstood document ever with the US Constitution a tight contender. I have read both Patriot Acts. The one in place and the one proposed. The points people are bitching about are in place for only the most extreme of situations. Another thing that the PA does that no one mentions was tightening the loopholes that one could fall through. Meaning that it is now a little more difficult to get caught under that web. People seem to think it a logistical possibility for the government to track everyone or even all of the anti war protesters. It isn't logistically sound in the least and would so rarely bare fruit let alone the annual cosat of such a venture would discourage any one from using it that way. On top of which, most of that applies to non-citizens and has little to do, doing best to recall, with terrorists directly. It has more to do with tracking visa holders in this country.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin FranklinPlease understand, I am not bashing what Franklin did for this country as I am well aware that had it not been for him in France, we would not have been able to free ourselves. OK, that being said, I find it a little odd that you prattle on about integrity and you quote Franklin. He himself did not practice the very statement you quoted in his own home. He was a married womanizer and forsake his son for disagreeing politically with him. Never sad another word to his son onto the day he died.

Damn that was long.

[mchncl]

"The reason that offer argument in their favor is this, should a man who is guilty of simple theft be convicted of murder? Of course not. Even a criminal needs a defense so that the court doesn't impose an unusual or cruel punishment not commensurate with the crime. If someone is to be talked bad about or condemned then it should be for the accurate reasons. THat is why mobs are no longer aloud to deliver justice in this country"

"Yeah, so? SOmeone can't screw up? I don't remember all this when Clinton didn't inhale. People made cracks, but no one argued his judgement in letting 450 cruie missiles fly without warning or UN approval. Not to mention that Clinton served in NO military what so ever. "


we can simply conclude that both bush and clinton are people who seem not to be right for the office... why "defend" bush by this clinton comparison when he seems to be a fool too. but since you said that you wouldn't endorse any president that has been running up until now i understand that you don't support bush but simply want to tip the scales to his favour... or?

one could say that you want to alleviate bushs penalty by shoving how easy clinton got off the hook (extending your court analogy a bit)

i think we should keep absolute... not bringing in carter's wimp-qualities in the discussion at all.


(the text below isn't really related to our discussion above)
a fun incident in sweden to illustrate what i mean by leading by example:
our king carl gustaf made a speach where he stressed the importance of not expecting anything for free... that you have to work real hard to get somewhere... a lot of people got pissed off. who is talking? the king probably hasn't prepaired 1% of all the meals he has consumed... he is the greatest freeloader in this country and he is talking!

the monarchy is the last undemocratic relic in our land >:(

[Barry Clark]

I wasn't so much defending Bush but was pointing out that he is no or worse than any of the other presidents that had international support. I think it unfair that he get so much bad press and the others don't. So far, it is all the same with a few differences. The democrats want big government and the Republicans want little government and big military. WHile I am more likely to support the latter, I don't agree enough fundamentally with either to actually support them. I am wating for the proper ones.

[Chaosfear]

We could go all day and night on this stuff. hehe

Actual quotes.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_twofaces.jpg

Sure, no prob. You wait with the French. You know what happened last time the when the world said,"No, they aren't a threat. We shouldn't go to war". True story. Hitler happened. France was resisting war until the end. What happened next? France was under Third Reich control. All this, from a country that wasn't a threat.

Saddam is not Hitler. If Saddam even tried to do what Hitler did or if he makes even one mistake we could takeout his whole country in one shot, if we absolutely had to.

Actually, polls in the US show that Bush is recieving at lowest more than 55% percent approval.
Are you talking about war or his approval rating?
His job approval seems to be falling too, it's about 55%, down from 65% or so.
As far as war, the majority doesn't support an attack WITHOUT UN support.
But most people feel something must be done, eventually one way or the other.

Grip on reality? You must not have met many war vets. They are people like everyone else except a few more nightmares. They have no more grip on reality than anyone else. Also, they, because of the horrors, may hesitate to long.

I meant the realities of war.
They know what it's really like. Not like Bush who has no idea, and should be cautious of others lives not try to prove something, or these high school kids who what to go to war thinking war is cool and fun.

It is illegal by our law to assissinate political figures. That is why. We are trying to ammend that so we can approach situations like Iraq with such a plan. But no one can agree on where that power should begin or end.

But if they really wanted to do it they could. And if it means avoiding a war we should. Take out Saddam and his son. It's not like they're leaving Iraq soon, they're sitting ducks. Would you have a problem looking the other way if Saddam were dead and if it prevented war and future resentment?
I think this could be, if just for this current situation, a solution.

If you haven't heard the latest news, a secretive new system for conducting background checks on all airline passengers threatens to create a bureaucratic machine for destroying Americans' privacy and a government blacklist that will harm innocent people. This will hold all personal information by everyone who travels for 50 years in a system called CAPPS II.
THose are private companies. They can do that. I don't have to fly using the ones who endorse that.

And if they ALL endorse this how are you going to travel?
Why do they need to know someone's credit history for getting from point a to point b. They don't need that info and that's just a violation of privacy. Just a little chip here, a little chip there.

Who is most responsible for big government?
Actually they both are. Republicans support corporate big business who obviously want less safety checks/regulation from government.

The Democrats for the most part support the workers/unions and keep environmental checks and balances in place/regulation on corporations. But they too have their faults which have been documented.

It's a fucked up balance I know.

The difference between Bush and Gore is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door.- Austin Chronicle by Robert Bryce

Now look at this.
The State of Texas under Bush's leadership is ranked 50th in spending for teachers salaries, 49th in spending for the environment, 48th in per capita funding for public health, 47th in delivery of social services, 41st in per capita spending on public education and 42nd on child support collections.

At the same time, it is 5th in percentage of people living in poverty, 1st in air and water pollution, 1st in percentage of poor working parents without insurance, 1st in children without health insurance and 1st in executions.- Indian Country, 4/25/2000, Why LaDuke Wants to be Public Citizen Number Two, By Winona LaDuke

Why anyone would vote for that beats me?

Bush has undone everything, that was done in the last ten years, in two. From the economy to relations with N. Korea and the middle east to trying to loosen restraints on government giving them more power.

. He (Ben Franklin) himself did not practice the very statement you quoted in his own home. He was a married womanizer and forsake his son for disagreeing politically with him. Never sad another word to his son onto the day he died.

Well the constitution also said all men are created equal yet Washington owned slaves.
They had their faults like anyone else, but it was what they were trying to do. Lead the way for a better future for all.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_clownrushmore.jpg

I wasn't so much defending Bush but was pointing out that he is no or worse than any of the other presidents that had international support. I think it unfair that he get so much bad press and the others don't.

All the presidents in the last few decades have had bad press in one form or another.

we can simply conclude that both bush and clinton are people who seem not to be right for the office... why "defend" bush by this clinton comparison when he seems to be a fool too

Agreed. But at least you can say Clinton didn't get us into a war and kept the economy stable.

[The Cynic]

These posts are too long to read. I'm done with this thread.

[Chaosfear]

lol

[Zer0]

These posts are too long to read. I'm done with this thread.
Same here, unless the topic switches to something interesting and actually worth arguing about....


:lol: :wink:

[The Cynic]

I think our post-whoring is more interesting. :o

[Zer0]

I think our post-whoring is more interesting. :o
I think our post-whoring is more interesting :o


You were saying? :D :wink:

[The Cynic]

I think our post-whoring is more interesting. :o

[Zer0]

I think our post-whoring is more interesting. :o
Can you repeat that?

Cause, I think our post-whoring is more interesting. :o

[The Cynic]

I'm done, drive thru.

[Sonny]

:lol:

[Barry Clark]

I am gone for a day and this place gets strange. I am trying to foster hate in people as I feel it is my duty as an American and you guys come in with your communist laughter and joking.

Thanks a hell of a lot, guys. :x



:lol:

[Chaosfear]

:lol:

[Barry Clark]

:lol:WHAT ARE YOU LAUGHING AT!!!! :x



:lol:

[The Cynic]

I'm not a communist. I think some people deserve to starve.

[Barry Clark]

I'm not a communist. I think some people deserve to starve.Oh, well that is different. Now if thought everyone should starve............ :lol:

[bryangraye]

A good dictator is better than a bad democracy. Anyone have the phone number?

[Barry Clark]

A good dictator is better than a bad democracy. Anyone have the phone number?Which dictator is that?

[bryangraye]

Sultan of Brunei....but you seemed to have missed my point.

[The Cynic]

I agree with your point.

[bryangraye]

If it works. Unfortunately, it's not common enough. Damn.

[Barry Clark]

If it works. Unfortunately, it's not common enough. Damn.I didn't miss your point, you missed mine. WHat you said in the quote I used here was my point to you. If it were a possibility and it were common enough I would be behind it as well. It would be so much easier. Unfortunately, as you say, history has taught us quite a different lesson.

[Zer0]

The most recent poll showed that 70% of Americans are satisfied that we decided to go to war with Iraq. Only 20% disapprove!

Woohoo!

By the way, is it me or is Bush looking older and older faster and faster? Tis the fate of a President at war.
I remember the differing photos of Lincoln before and after the US Civil war..... :o

[bryangraye]

I think the US just might be alone in their public push for war.

[Zer0]

I think the US just might be alone in their public push for war.
I think the US may virutally be alone in fighting the war.

*highfives himself*

[bryangraye]

Barry, I don't know which tandjent (haha) you're on, but it's not the same as mine.

[Barry Clark]

Barry, I don't know which tandjent (haha) you're on, but it's not the same as mine.I don't follow.

[Zer0]

Nor do I....
:|

[bryangraye]

Exactly.

[timdog]

On the contrary, support for the war is very high here in the states. Over 70 percent. We also have 45 countries behind us.

[Cheesefish]

I can't believe 6 persons voted "For"! I really want to hear the arguments for that.

[mchncl]

On the contrary, support for the war is very high here in the states. Over 70 percent00. We also have 45 countries behind us.

you didn't have your so called "moral support"-majority within the security counsel. and your closest ally isn't united on the issue

[Cheesefish]

On the contrary, support for the war is very high here in the states. Over 70 percent. We also have 45 countries behind us.
Do you include UK in your support? Spain?
Blair supports you, yes, but he's probably the only one doing that. Britans all over UK are protesting right now, and some ministers in his own party are leaving in protest at the war. I don't count that as support. I doubt all 45 countries supports you fully, from the working class to the very president/prime minister. There's protests going on all over the world at the moment.

[Zer0]

I can't believe 6 persons voted "For"! I really want to hear the arguments for that.
:roll:
I'd really like to hear arguments from those that voted "Against" :roll:



...Wait.......No I wouldn't. :|

[bryangraye]

Put yourself in the position of the Iraqi people, you might come closer to undertanding opposition to war.

[Zer0]

Put yourself in the position of the Iraqi people, you might come closer to undertanding opposition to war.
Opposition? Do you have the Brain Worms? :|

If I lived in a small country where a ruthless old man killed those who disagreed with him, starved his people and yet ate well himself, placed people like me in locations where I could get hurt or killed, and tried to corrupt the only natural source of income for my countrymen and I, I'd already have ran to the nearest US troops and danced in the streets.

Wild, isn't it? 8)

[bryangraye]

If you believe the primary motivation for this war is liberation, you're mistaken. First and foremost, economy rules (and I don't mean the oil). Australia is going along with US because of trade concessions that will be gained. France/Russia are opposed because of investments they have in Iraq. The UN is calling it an illegal war. However, no parties are going much further than stating disapproval, because they still have huge investments in the US. Primary motivation is economy, always has been. Other goals, although they may be applicable, come a distant second. A global coalition led by the US could have 'liberated' many countries in recent times, but it was not the case - because they had nothing to gain really.

[Zer0]

And your point is? :|

[bryangraye]

It was a response to your response.

[Zer0]

It was barely a response. You told me I was wrong, then went and made a bunch of individual statements. :|

[bryangraye]

All the 'individual' statements are relevant to the whole statement. You can wonder all you like why many share similar views to mine re this war. The fact that so many oppose it should tell you something. If not, then I guess that's just how it is.

[Zer0]

All the 'individual' statements are relevant to the whole statement. You can wonder all you like why many share similar views to mine re this war. The fact that so many oppose it should tell you something. If not, then I guess that's just how it is.
What? Make a cohesive sentence.

So many oppose it?
Uhhh, 76% of our country Supports the War on Iraq. Funny though, the News just shows the Anti-War protests.... :roll:
You statement there = Invalid

[Zer0]

And don't tell me about protests in other countries. The only ones that matter are the ones in the US and Britain.
We're the ones doing all the work, we're the ones with our ass in the breeze.

[bryangraye]

My sentences are concise and clear (you seem to have understood them), so I'm not sure why you're complaining about that.

I realise support is up in your country. You seem to be forgetting about the rest of the world. If the US and Britain's opinions are the only ones that matter, they should be isolated from the rest of the world. The war affects us all - think of the bigger picture, and longer term effects than next week or next month, or even next year.

[Zer0]

The bigger picture? :roll:
As far as I'm concerned, we're over in Iraq for two reasons.
To liberate the Iraqi people...
And to destroy the threat from the Iraqi regime permenently.

Of course, there may be some smaller objectives and goals along with this, but those are the two main reasons.

[Zer0]

Why should we care about what French, Jordanian etc. protesters think? The are not involved in the war, none of their young men are getting shot. :?

They are simply bitching because they can.

[bryangraye]

That is where the majority of the world disagrees with you.

[Zer0]

That is where the majority of the world disagrees with you.
Let me reiterate....

Who cares? :roll:

[bryangraye]

We are striving for democratic societys the world over. In a democracy, the majority rules. If you believe the war campaign upholds the ideals of a democracy, you are a hypocrite. If you don't care about the democracy factor, then you'd prefer a dictatorship.

[Zer0]

We are striving for democratic societys the world over. In a democracy, the majority rules. If you believe the war campaign upholds the ideals of a democracy, you are a hypocrite. If you don't care about the democracy factor, then you'd prefer a dictatorship.
I'm still having trouble understanding you. :roll:
I've already told you, the majority of Americans support this war. Anti-War protesters are taking to the streets, thus displaying their right to.
If you think America is going to stop just because of a bunch of Anti-War protests in foreign countries, you know nothing of America.

[bryangraye]

How many times can I say this. The US is 1 country. The last time I checked, the world had a few hundred. The 'bunch' of anti-war protest, and anti-war sentiment you refer to represents the majority view of the globe. Because we are a global economy (of which the US is a part), we are as much a part of the war as you are. Speaking for my own country, the US has called Australia a 'friend'. This friend is opposed to war. The US is not listening to its friend. The friend has become bitter - no wonder there is so much anti-US sentiment floating round (even before the war).

[Barry Clark]

How many times can I say this. The US is 1 country. The last time I checked, the world had a few hundred. The 'bunch' of anti-war protest, and anti-war sentiment you refer to represents the majority view of the globe. Because we are a global economy (of which the US is a part), we are as much a part of the war as you are. Speaking for my own country, the US has called Australia a 'friend'. This friend is opposed to war. The US is not listening to its friend. The friend has become bitter - no wonder there is so much anti-US sentiment floating round (even before the war).Why are you bitter to the US as a country when it is your government who agrees to go willingly.

[bryangraye]

The US government is right now attacking Iraq. I consider the Iraqi population to be as much a friend as I would any other nation. I, along with the rest of my country, am bitter towards my government, as it has not done as our nation wished (I remind you again that support for the war here is practically unheard of - we would not be there if a vote had been taken).
Therefore, the fact that my goverment is going along with it does not hold any weight over here.

[Zer0]

:lol:
So the rest of the world is bitter and ipset that we are not listening to them? HAHAHA! Crybabies... :roll:


:lol: :lol:

[Barry Clark]

The US government is right now attacking Iraq. I consider the Iraqi population to be as much a friend as I would any other nation. SO you wish your friends to remain under the thumb of a tyrant where murder and torture are guaranteed on a larger scale than this war will produce?

[bryangraye]

I wish the US government to stop bombing the crap out of and sanctioning and dominating my friends.

[Barry Clark]

I wish the US government to stop bombing the crap out of and sanctioning and dominating my friends.So Saddam can continue to harm them directly and wholesale? What about leaving Saddam in power is n the interest of peace? (I stole that from someone, but I thought it was a well worded question)

[bryangraye]

Saddam has been mad for years, so why now.

[Barry Clark]

Saddam has been mad for years, so why now.The attempt at diplomacy was made. A cease fire in eanest was filed with Iraq's agreement. After 12 years of waiting for the UN to do somehting about this problem, we got tired of waiting and so did 52 other countries.

[bryangraye]

Still, the majority of the world does not share the war view.

[Barry Clark]

Still, the majority of the world does not share the war view.(Assuming that the majoirty of the world does disagree with this war) So the world is right in their will to let them suffer? IF that is the case, I am quite happy to be part of the world's minority. The majority will reap the benefits of our actions should we succeed wth or without any more countries joining than we already have.

[bryangraye]

As I said before to ZeroEnforcer, if the majority has concerns you should take notice - don't forget that others' opinions are just as intelligently informed to them, as yours are to you.

[Barry Clark]

As I said before to ZeroEnforcer, if the majority has concerns you should take notice - don't forget that others' opinions are just as intelligently informed to them, as yours are to you.I apologize for thinking that the needs of some severely deprived people were more important than need for better 'to do' people's want to be heard. I will agree to let them to suffer while the rest of the world is appeased.

[bryangraye]

Take note of the poll at the top of this page. You are calling us (those against war) severly deprived people.

[Zer0]

Welll....I'd say you did a fine job of taking care of my light work, Barry.

:wink:

[Barry Clark]

Take note of the poll at the top of this page. You are calling us (those against war) severly deprived people.No I didn't. I was saying that about the Iraqi people. You, me, and likely everyone on this forum doesn't have a life anything remotely resembling Iraqi life. They are by anyone's account deprived. That deprivation is forced on them.

[bryangraye]

I detected a double meaning there.

[Barry Clark]

I detected a double meaning there.Where?

[bryangraye]

where do you think? your previous post.

[Zer0]

:|

What's he talking about now?

[bryangraye]

I don't know.

[Zer0]

:lol:

Wild, isn't it? 8)

[bryangraye]

Depends what you mean by wild.

[Zer0]

What if I meant it as wet, wild, rough, slick butt-sex wild? 8)

[bryangraye]

I wouldn't say chatting on a forum is exactly exciting.

[Zer0]

I wouldn't say chatting on a forum is exactly exciting.
What does that have to do with wet butt-sex? :|

[bryangraye]

Ask yourself - you're the one who mentoined it.

[Zer0]

Mentioned what? Wet, wild, butt-sex?


Wild, Isn't it? 8)

[bryangraye]

I'm on a different tandjent than you.

[Zer0]

What do you mean? A different spiritual level? Are you high? :|

Wild, Isn't it? 8)

[bryangraye]

No, just a different tandjent, but you can think what you must.

[Zer0]

I still don't follow you. :|

Wild, Isn't it? 8)

[Barry Clark]

where do you think? your previous post.Thanks. I already knew that. WHat part do think had double meaning? I hadn't intended any.

[bryangraye]

I apologize for thinking that the needs of some severely deprived people were more important than need for better 'to do' people's want to be heard. I will agree to let them to suffer while the rest of the world is appeased.

This part. How condescending.

[Barry Clark]

ZE, I believe he is speaking in trigonometric terms when he says 'Tangent'. WHere a single point is circle meets a straight line boundry. Id on't believe there is sucha term as 'tandjent' outside of Timdog and Sunman's band.

[Zer0]

Barry, there is a thread specifically related to you.
Check it out immediately.


Wild, Isn't it? 8)


(And I still don't get what that fucking Aussie is talking about... :? :( )

[Barry Clark]

I apologize for thinking that the needs of some severely deprived people were more important than need for better 'to do' people's want to be heard. I will agree to let them to suffer while the rest of the world is appeased.

This part. How condescending.Oh, I though you meant individual words having double meaning.

It was condensending but not as a personal shot at you. It was to point out what I, and many others, see as an error in the train of though of 'some' of those who oppose the coalition actionsin Iraq.

[bryangraye]

the 'some' that you refer to are the majority of the world's population.

when I say tandjent, I mean it in the sense that arguing parties split into different directions of argument, essentially arguing with themselves. It's a common term over here.

[Zer0]

the 'some' that you refer to are the majority of the world's population.

when I say tandjent, I mean it in the sense that arguing parties split into different directions of argument, essentially arguing with themselves. It's a common term over here.
For that, I want proof. Polls etc.

Tye majority of people here in America support the war, but it's also funny the majority of protests are Anti-War.
:|

Wild, Isn't it? 8)

[bryangraye]

If you lived outside of the US, you'd see/hear about it.

[Zer0]

If you lived outside of the US, you'd see/hear about it.
That's not proof, not proof at all. :roll:

[Barry Clark]

the 'some' that you refer to are the majority of the world's population.
OK, tha tis fine, but I am only speaking of some of those. Not all. I am sure that there are perfectly good arguments for not going to war with Iraq. I just haven't heard one that would persuade me otherwise.

You still haven't addresses the point I made earlier.

Should the Iraqi people suffer just because the 'majority' of the world doesn't want war?

[Barry Clark]

the 'some' that you refer to are the majority of the world's population.
You mean like 'going off on a tangent?'

[Barry Clark]

when I say tandjent, I mean it in the sense that arguing parties split into different directions of argument, essentially arguing with themselves. It's a common term over here.You mean like 'going off on a tangent'.

[bryangraye]

I put the reverse to you: Should the Iraqi people suffer just because the US wants a war (by US I mean US led, and government led/followed at that)?

[Zer0]

I put the reverse to you: Should the Iraqi people suffer just because the US wants a war (by US I mean US led, and government led/followed at that)?
We don't want a war. Are you crazy? Or do you just know nothing about the American people?
I'm sure we're helping ourselves out in this, but moreso for the Iraqi people.

[bryangraye]

well. I consider nations that don't want to move their forces into a country to be more anti-war than those that go ahead and invade.

[Zer0]

But that still isn't solid proof. If you want to go make statements and act as if they are factual, prove it.

[bryangraye]

And you have no solid proof that the majority is for the war ( and I mean all the countries, not just US). Personally I oppose the 'shoot now, shoot some more, and when everyone's dead, try to ask a question' approach.

[Zer0]

And you have no solid proof that the majority is for the war ( and I mean all the countries, not just US).
:lol:
I never said, nor tried to say that the world was for the War. I'm not that stupid. :lol:

Look, if you're going to argue with me, listen at least. :roll:

Wild, Isn't it? 8)

[Barry Clark]

I put the reverse to you: Should the Iraqi people suffer just because the US wants a war (by US I mean US led, and government led/followed at that)?And I respond with another question, should the Iraqis suffer short term with us invading with light at the end of the tunnel, or should they suffer a great deal longer and lose more lives than our invasionwould have caused?

EIther way, they suffer but one has some hope attached and less casualties.

[bryangraye]

You should listen. Your argument is just as invalid as mine.

[Zer0]

You should listen. Your argument is just as invalid as mine.
Actually, for once in my life, I think I am saying something valid.

Your sentences are often incohesive, your points are random, and you accuse me of saying things I have not said.
Get it together or don't say anything at all.

Wild, Isn't it? 8)

[Zer0]

I think he was talking to me on that one, Barry. 8)

[Barry Clark]

I think he was talking to me on that one, Barry. 8)I got it now, thanks ZE. :wink:

[bryangraye]

Well ZE, your arguments go something like this:

ZE: blah
me: blah blah
ZE: well, blah
me: well, blah blah
ZE: what are you talking about? you don't listen and you're a fool. :D

[Barry Clark]

Well ZE, your arguments go something like this:

ZE: blah
me: blah blah
ZE: well, blah
me: well, blah blah
ZE: what are you talking about? you don't listen and you're a fool. :DTHat is most arguments here. :lol:

[bryangraye]

Barry, I honestly don't believe that this will solve problems, but rather will create more.

[bryangraye]

Well ZE, your arguments go something like this:

ZE: blah
me: blah blah
ZE: well, blah
me: well, blah blah
ZE: what are you talking about? you don't listen and you're a fool. :DTHat is most arguments here. :lol:

Therefore, ZE is firing blind when he accuses me of not knowing my own arguments, when he (I assume) always seems to have a cop out.

[Zer0]

Don't try that bullshit. Either you argue like shit, or just don;t listen.

You claimed I was saying the World was supporting the war. I clearly have not. :|

:supermad:

[Barry Clark]

Well ZE, your arguments go something like this:

ZE: blah
me: blah blah
ZE: well, blah
me: well, blah blah
ZE: what are you talking about? you don't listen and you're a fool. :DTHat is most arguments here. :lol:

Therefore, ZE is firing blind when he accuses me of not knowing my own arguments, when he (I assume) always seems to have a cop out.I was only making light of the situation. That very formula you mentioned seems to hold true throughout MeshForum. Almost all of the arguments look exactly like that.

[Zer0]

You know what? I've made over 70 Posts today! Somebody call me a loser and slap me!

Wild, isn't it? 8)

[Barry Clark]

Barry, I honestly don't believe that this will solve problems, but rather will create more.I assume you mean my earlier. (would help if you used the 'quote' button so that it is easier to keep track.

ANyways, I can see how that might be, however, I stand behind my opinion as I am sure you stand behind yours.

[bryangraye]

I never said you made that assumption. I was merely applying your rationale to the argument.

My reasoning was - I have no proof, you have no proof. The war means taking action. By taking action, you are assuming you are correct in your cause. By not taking action, I am not assuming my statement is infallible, but am not taking actions that maybe lead to unjust consequences.

[Zer0]

There you go again. I never said my cause was the right one, I never even stated my opinion. You have just inferred such...

I'm not neccessarily trying to persuade you or anybody, just offering differing opinions from Americans on an issue directly involving Americans.

[Barry Clark]

*eats popcorn and takes quick sip of soft drink*

[bryangraye]

What I meant by proof - I have no solid proof that the majority is against war, you have no solid proof that the majority is not opposed to war. And don't tell me I'm saying you are assuming that the majority is for war, because if you doubt the majority are against, you consider the possibility that the majority is with you.

[Zer0]

What I meant by proof - I have no solid proof that the majority is against war, you have no solid proof that the majority is not opposed to war. And don't tell me I'm saying you are assuming that the majority is for war, because if you doubt the majority are against, you consider the possibility that the majority is with you.
:roll:
Whatever, there you go again rambling. You have said earlier "The majority of the world is against the war".

Now you just said "I have no solid proof that the majority is against the war". You just invalidated your own argument. Therefore, I win by default. End of discussion. :!:

[bryangraye]

*eats popcorn and takes quick sip of soft drink*

yeah, I know.

[bryangraye]

Oh look, I think I see an opinion
Therefore, I win by default.

and another...

I'm not that stupid.
:shock:

[Zer0]

:|
Nonsensical idiot.

[bryangraye]

I'm sure we're helping ourselves out in this, but moreso for the Iraqi people.

ANOTHER opinion.... and I thought you said you weren't stating opinions.
:shock:

[bryangraye]

So aggresive. Aggression clouds your judgment.

[Wangoed]

You know what? I've made over 70 Posts today! Somebody call me a loser and slap me!

Wild, isn't it? 8)
OK, bragging time

the day FF broke up i made 200 posts on their old board. 8) those were the days.

[Zer0]

Well, I started this day with like 1097 Posts... :?

[Barry Clark]

You know what? I've made over 70 Posts today! Somebody call me a loser and slap me!

Wild, isn't it? 8)
OK, bragging time

the day FF broke up i made 200 posts on their old board. 8) those were the days.For 70 one apparently gets called a loser and gets then slapped. So what do we do with someone who has 200 in one day? :D

[Zer0]

You know what? I've made over 70 Posts today! Somebody call me a loser and slap me!

Wild, isn't it? 8)
OK, bragging time

the day FF broke up i made 200 posts on their old board. 8) those were the days.For 70 one apparently gets called a loser and gets then slapped. So what do we do with someone who has 200 in one day? :D
Flog him! :twisted:

[Wangoed]

but dont frag me, otherwise you'll be killed :wink:

[bryangraye]

Isn't it interesting that the poll here is almost the opposite of that within America.

[ridzi]

Politics isn't really my game...im going back to the Guitar forum now.... Barry you coming?? hehehehehe lets rock some tunes out!! :metal:

[Barry Clark]

Isn't it interesting that the poll here is almost the opposite of that within America.WHat I expected.

[Barry Clark]

Politics isn't really my game...im going back to the Guitar forum now.... Barry you coming?? hehehehehe lets rock some tunes out!! :metal:I will be there, but here as well as I am now duty bound.

[Zer0]

Politics isn't really my game...im going back to the Guitar forum now.... Barry you coming?? hehehehehe lets rock some tunes out!! :metal:I will be there, but here as well as I am now duty bound.
Damn straight you are.
:wink:

Wild, isn't it? 8)

[Barry Clark]

Damn straight you are.:wink:

Damn skippy I with it.

[Zer0]

You guys hate that "Wild, isn't it? 8) " thing don't you?
You all delete it out of the replys...


"Out of sight, out of mind" as I like to say.

[Barry Clark]

You guys hate that "Wild, isn't it? 8) " thing don't you?
You all delete it out of the replys...


"Out of sight, out of mind" as I like to say.No, I don't care. I just get to the point on replies. I remove anyhitng that has nothing to do with my reply.

[Wangoed]

i hate it :D

(not really)

[Barry Clark]

i hate it :D

(not really)It hates you. :D
(not really)

[Zer0]

Wild, isn't it? 8)

(Really...)

[Barry Clark]

Wild, isn't it? 8)

(Really...)Quite.

[Sojo]

this is more fun to watch than tv. (that I dont have)

Do you guys get monitor tan?

[Barry Clark]

this is more fun to watch than tv. (that I dont have)

Do you guys get monitor tan? :lol: No but I will need to get glasses from the radiation at some point I am sure.

[Wangoed]

i dont :(

[Barry Clark]

i dont :(Tan or need glasses.

[Wangoed]

either

i have 1 bad eye and 1 good one so it's all :) for me

[Barry Clark]

i have 1 bad eye and 1 good one Maybe from PW'ing. :D

[Wangoed]

:lol: naah, sass master, i was born that way

[Barry Clark]

:lol: naah, sass master, i was born that wayNo sight or less than the other?

[Wangoed]

horrible sight. my left eye is 20/400 and my right eye is 20/20

[Barry Clark]

horrible sight. my left eye is 20/400 and my right eye is 20/20Damn. 20/400. DO you wear a glasses with only one prescribed lense?

[Wangoed]

nope, i havent worn glasses since the 3rd grade. its just a lazy, bad eye and theres nothing that can be done for it. if the other one goes i'm done for ;)

[Barry Clark]

Is the other on being sympathetic?

[balkanboi]

I'm against the fucking war and against the fucking USA. There - done with it.

[Barry Clark]

I'm against the fucking war and against the fucking USA. There - done with it.But what about Wang's eye?


Well then, the war is against you, too. :D

[balkanboi]

War can suck my Evil dick! Lemme have 'im!!!!

[Wangoed]

my eye isnt sucking anyone's dick but my own.

[Barry Clark]

War can suck my Evil dick! Lemme have 'im!!!!It just might. :wink:

[Fece Cake]

I am glad we went to war. We need to eliminate dictators from the world.
Plus, it will help boost our economy. Despite what the clueless anti-war crowd spews forth, we are justified in using extreme force.

[Sojo]

my eye isnt sucking anyone's dick but my own.

some media of this event could earn you some quick cash

[mchncl]

Despite what the clueless anti-war crowd spews forth, we are justified in using extreme force.

clueless crowd like the better part of the security counsel?
i order to got to war i think that you need more framework than just the words "serious consequences" IMHO!

[Barry Clark]

I agree and so does Hans Blix. He has stated with out the real and imminent and true pressure of war, the Iraqis wouldn't have done as little as they did.

[bryangraye]

Isn't it interesting that the poll here is almost the opposite of that within America.WHat I expected.

Why did you expect this?

[Barry Clark]

Based on what I have seen on this forum and what seems to be the general attitude of those on it towards the situation.

[Fece Cake]

Despite what the clueless anti-war crowd spews forth, we are justified in using extreme force.

clueless crowd like the better part of the security counsel?
i order to got to war i think that you need more framework than just the words "serious consequences" IMHO!
anyways, I believe the UN is useless and since when do we need permission to retaliate? Fuck the French, German, Italians, and the UN.
This is our fight, not theirs.

[mchncl]

Despite what the clueless anti-war crowd spews forth, we are justified in using extreme force.

clueless crowd like the better part of the security counsel?
i order to got to war i think that you need more framework than just the words "serious consequences" IMHO!
anyways, I believe the UN is useless and since when do we need permission to retaliate? Fuck the French, German, Italians, and the UN.
This is our fight, not theirs.

mmmmk

[Barry Clark]

THe French and Germans have offered fair amounts of logisitc support as well as, from France, public support from the Foreign Ministry.

Hell, the French let us use their colonial land for war prep in Djibouti, Africa for this war.

[Hundswoth]

Despite what the clueless anti-war crowd spews forth, we are justified in using extreme force.

clueless crowd like the better part of the security counsel?
i order to got to war i think that you need more framework than just the words "serious consequences" IMHO!
anyways, I believe the UN is useless and since when do we need permission to retaliate? Fuck the French, German, Italians, and the UN.
This is our fight, not theirs.

ahahaha :lol:
just a further proof for your stupidity....

[Zer0]

Despite what the clueless anti-war crowd spews forth, we are justified in using extreme force.

clueless crowd like the better part of the security counsel?
i order to got to war i think that you need more framework than just the words "serious consequences" IMHO!
anyways, I believe the UN is useless and since when do we need permission to retaliate? Fuck the French, German, Italians, and the UN.
This is our fight, not theirs.

ahahaha :lol:
just a further proof for your stupidity....
And you have room to talk, Hundsworth?
Pppsshh. :roll:

[Hundswoth]

It was just for his not knowing that Italia is supporting the U.S.. :roll:

[Zer0]

It was just for his not knowing that Italia is supporting the U.S.. :roll:
Hah. And?

Still doesn't change the fact you are in no position to call others' stupid.

[Hundswoth]

ok, If it's better.....forget what I've said about his stupidity.

but I just want you to know that this person once called me a clueless kraut and that america is 200% better than that shithole Nazi country of mine. oh, and he hoped that I'm butchered by american soldiers who use my head for a bong. I didn't really want to mention that here now...

[Zer0]

but I just want you to know that this person once called me a clueless kraut and that america is 200% better than that shithole Nazi country of mine. oh, and he hoped that I'm butchered by american soldiers who use my head for a bong. I didn't really want to mention that here now...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That guy rocked, then. :lol: :lol:

[Hundswoth]

but I just want you to know that this person once called me a clueless kraut and that america is 200% better than that shithole Nazi country of mine. oh, and he hoped that I'm butchered by american soldiers who use my head for a bong. I didn't really want to mention that here now...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That guy rocked, then. :lol: :lol:


stands for your logic

[Zer0]

:lol:



You = :cry:

[Hundswoth]

muhahahaha :superrofl:

[hybreed]

since when do we need permission to retaliate?


Since you are a member of the UN (although you have just started paying the fees) I believe you have agreed to the rules of the UN.

[Barry Clark]

since when do we need permission to retaliate?


Since you are a member of the UN (although you have just started paying the fees) I believe you have agreed to the rules of the UN.If that is the case, why isn't France being brought up on a mess of charges? Living conditions alone in their colonies should be enough let alone their military actions in small African countries to change leadership.

[Zer0]

since when do we need permission to retaliate?


Since you are a member of the UN (although you have just started paying the fees) I believe you have agreed to the rules of the UN.
What rules are those? Please inform me, for I know of no UN regulations that strictly forbid any member against going against the will of the Security Council or General Assembly. :|

[Fece Cake]

ok, If it's better.....forget what I've said about his stupidity.

but I just want you to know that this person once called me a clueless kraut and that america is 200% better than that shithole Nazi country of mine. oh, and he hoped that I'm butchered by american soldiers who use my head for a bong. I didn't really want to mention that here now...
excuse you fucktard? I never said that to you. Get your facts straight kiddo. btw, Italy is not helping US. They dont want to "get involved".

[Barry Clark]

btw, Italy is not helping US. They dont want to "get involved".THey actually are. They are allowing us to lauch air assaults from their territory. That is more than some.

[Fece Cake]

btw, Italy is not helping US. They dont want to "get involved".THey actually are. They are allowing us to lauch air assaults from their territory. That is more than some.
but did they send any troops? Thats the real measure of an ally.