Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Petrarch of the VBB on November 01, 2002, 01:37:12 pm
-
I have. Yesterday was a national day of action across the UK, against a war with Iraq. the media are trying to civer it up, but it happened. I went with a mate to Huddersfield, where we met up with a few dozen others and occupied the labour party office (w00t). However, all the MPs and officials had scarpered, so we stuck stickers on it instead. After a while more people gathered and we stormed the town hall, great fun, as we occupied the council chamber, and made damn sure they listened to our case. One of the best days of my life.
-
Hell, no! I want nothing more than a long, devastating war, with the US getting its own fair share of the devastation. Right now, el gran dictator is in high power, and there's no stopping that psycho redneck- Ashcroft has revoked every single human and civil right this country ever claimed to have thought of first (and that includes air breathing, in much of the US) completely in the open, and still he's ****ign popular. If it takes the deaths of thousands to bring people to their senses and bring the new Hitler down, so be it.
-
When you say the new hitler, are you referring to Saddam, or the devil himself, Bush?
-
Bush. Saddam's his peoples' affair- if enough of them wanted him dead, he would be so in short order, and it's not the Amerikans' business to speak for them anyway. I find in unforgivably rude and arrogant to advocate the overthrow of any country one doesn't have to live in.
-
I see, well I would agree there. I wasn't so much proteseting against a war, but against the prospect of a war in which thousands, maybe millions of Iraqi civilans would be killed, and achieves nothing other than the american super-corporations taking even more oil than they already have. We have enough problems in our own countries, without having to spend all our time and money on pointless wars.
-
Oh God, another war thread... Before this gets locked let me say that the UN needs to take a role in international NON-PARTISAN peacekeeping and stop 'condemning' this act or the other.
And the US has the 8th highest standard of living in the world, not the first. :p
-
Quite, I dont want it to become a huge debate, I just want to know if anyone has been protesting at all.
-
...according to a UN poll, on other words a poll by an organization run by the US.:D
You know, technically, we have pretty much the worst health care of any first or second-world nation? Cuba leaves us standing.
And it'd take a mod in pretty serious asshole-mode to lock this. It's not spam, it hasn't come to any flaming at all yet, and the whole "I don't like political threads" excuse is just stupid. I don't like the Hot Women thread. Doesn't mean I trash it.
-
anyone who is againsed ar has gotta get checked on, think about it, all ppl do is fight. So IMO yes but no, I think we should give that son of a ***** one last chance to let us check his weapons, if he dosent let us then do what we did to japan 60 year ago(atomics arnt nukes btw) adn drop a dozen atomics on his gay ass :drevil: :p :ha:
-
if the rest of you want to wait until saddam sneaks a dirty bomb over here, fine. but i for one would rather not die of cancer when i'm 20.
-
Originally posted by Abdul
if the rest of you want to wait until BUSH sneaks a dirty bomb over HERE, fine. but i for one would rather not die of cancer when i'm 20.
The logical conclusion of this is, of course, LETS DROP A BOMB BEFORE THE OTHER GUY.
-
I protest pasifism
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I protest paCifism
Good policy. Protest warmongering whilst you're at it. Neither extreme is of any use to either this country, or this planet.
-
Bush and his cronies are completely irresponsible, contemptible and incompetent. We have an ongoing war with Al Queda that is not going well because we have STILL not been able to capture or kill Osama, so Bush decides to whip up a war frenzy to go after the guy who tried to kill his dad. Whatever.
Bush can't win the war on terror, so he decides to go after a completely different target that is simply NOT an immediate threat. Saddam knows that if he were to try and smuggle a dirty bomb into the US now while we are NOT at war with him would be suicide, because after he attacked us, we'd annihilate him.
But if we go to war with Saddam now, we'll lose all the needed support from around the world to go after Osama AND make it more likely that Saddam will use his weapons of mass destruction if he's in imminent danger of losing them or his life. Sure, THAT makes a lot of sense: start a new war because the old one isn't generating any more good press. Idiots. How about finishing the first war before starting a new one, folks? :mad:
God, I really wish Gore had won the election instead of Bush. (Oh, sorry, I forgot, Bush technically didn't win the election, he had it handed to him by the Supreme Court. My bad.) With things the way they are now, it's no wonder more and more Americans believe the country's headed in the wrong direction.
-
Originally posted by Dr.Zer0
(atomics arnt nukes btw)
Uhm... pardon me??
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Bush and his cronies are completely irresponsible, contemptible and incompetent. We have an ongoing war with Al Queda that is not going well because we have STILL not been able to capture or kill Osama, so Bush decides to whip up a war frenzy to go after the guy who tried to kill his dad. Whatever.
Bush can't win the war on terror, so he decides to go after a completely different target that is simply NOT an immediate threat. Saddam knows that if he were to try and smuggle a dirty bomb into the US now while we are NOT at war with him would be suicide, because after he attacked us, we'd annihilate him.
But if we go to war with Saddam now, we'll lose all the needed support from around the world to go after Osama AND make it more likely that Saddam will use his weapons of mass destruction if he's in imminent danger of losing them or his life. Sure, THAT makes a lot of sense: start a new war because the old one isn't generating any more good press. Idiots. How about finishing the first war before starting a new one, folks? :mad:
God, I really wish Gore had won the election instead of Bush. (Oh, sorry, I forgot, Bush technically didn't win the election, he had it handed to him by the Supreme Court. My bad.) With things the way they are now, it's no wonder more and more Americans believe the country's headed in the wrong direction.
:rolleyes: killing Osama isn't the primary goal of the war on terrorism. and if Gore had won the election he would have appologized to Osama after he blew up the WTC and offer to blow some more up for him :rolleyes:
-
Atomic bomb - atomic bomb or A-bomb,weapon deriving its explosive force from the release of atomic energy through the fission (splitting) of heavy nuclei
Nuclear weapon - nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction powered by atomic, rather than chemical, processes. Nuclear weapons produce large explosions and hazardous radioactive byproducts by means of either nuclear fission or nuclear fusion.
hmm....
-
Originally posted by Carl
:rolleyes: killing Osama isn't the primary goal of the war on terrorism.
But it is one of the primary goals of the war on terrorism. Ask anyone if the war on terrorism will be won if Osama is not captured or killed, most, if not all, people will say no.
Originally posted by Carl
...and if Gore had won the election he would have appologized to Osama after he blew up the WTC and offer to blow some more up for him :rolleyes:
Carl, you know, or should know, that this is bull****. Gore was one of the 10 Democratic senators to vote for the (First) Gulf War. He served in Vietnam, so you know he's not a mealy-mouthed pacifist. When the Serbian-Bosnia war was happening under the U.N.'s upturned nose, it was Gore who convinced Clinton to use American airpower and military force to force the Serbs to the bargaining table to sue for peace. He did the same thing again when Kosovo happened. I have absolutely no doubt that Gore would have responded to the 9/11 attacks just as Bush did. Anyone who doubts that doesn't know Gore's political record nearly well enough as they should.
-
Carl, don't be silly. That sort of crap was SORT OF funny once, a long time ago, but now many people actually believe that ****, and it's just plain scary. And depressing.
Me, I don't think things would be much better with Gore. They really were about equally bad choices- remember, the entire philosophy of the election at the time was that we were choose the lesser of two evils. I think a bloody uprising would have been the lesser evil, personally, but you jerks all stayed complacent and now you're gonna get what you frankly deserve. I'm bunkering, for now. Let me know when people aren't imbecilic cattle, and I can come out.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
He served in Vietnam, so you know he's not a mealy-mouthed pacifist.
Where his DC connections got him duty as a war reporter/photographer. Anyone who doesn't know that doesn't know Gore's MILITARY record nearly well enough as they should. Lest we forget, neither Bush nor Gore served as a soldier. Bush was in, as I recall, the Air National Guard as, of all things, a pilot.
-
A tea-drinking biscuit-munching Brit I may be, but I'd rather fight in a war with Iraq than see a dirty bomb or a tactical nuke go off in any western city, be it american, one of ours, or anywhere.
Don't misunderstand me, war is bad wherever and whenever it happens. In particular, a war in the middle-east right now would knacker any shred of political stabilty that might still be lingering, as I'm sure Sandwich will tell us. But, while a US-led war against Iraq would kill thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, millions would die if Saddam went all pre-emptive on the US.
-
Can someone explain to me why most westerners have forgotten that it's customary in a War that when you bomb someone, they bomb you back :rolleyes: Maybe if people remembered that fact then they wouldn't lend their support for imperialist conflict so lightly.
DG: There's about as much chance of the Wommen's institute attacking western cities as Saddam Hussain, unless his regieme is backed into a corner and has nothing to lose.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Where his DC connections got him duty as a war reporter/photographer. Anyone who doesn't know that doesn't know Gore's MILITARY record nearly well enough as they should. Lest we forget, neither Bush nor Gore served as a soldier. Bush was in, as I recall, the Air National Guard as, of all things, a pilot.
Correct, mikhael, Gore did serve as a photographer, but my point was that Gore was MUCH closer to the hot combat than Bush was. You have to be able to be close enough to see the combat in order to take a picture of it. But your point about neither of them serving as a soldier is valid.
Before 9/11, people kept saying Bush wasn't up to the job of being a wartime president (precisely because he had no wartime experience) and that he was a bumbling fool who kept misspeaking and had no leadership skills. That ALL changed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks when he displayed extraordinary leadership in the months following 9/11.
Gore was derided as a too-smart, lying, boring egomaniac who was incapable of delegating authority to anyone. Who's to say that opinion of him would not have changed if he had been president at the time of 9/11 instead? Carl seems really confident of his answer to this, but unless he has the ability to see alternate timelines, his assertion that "had Gore won the election, he would have apologized to Osama after he blew up the WTC and offer to blow some more up for him" doesn't seem to count for much. Go figure.
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Don't misunderstand me, war is bad wherever and whenever it happens. In particular, a war in the middle-east right now would knacker any shred of political stabilty that might still be lingering, as I'm sure Sandwich will tell us. But, while a US-led war against Iraq would kill thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, millions would die if Saddam went all pre-emptive on the US.
'Geezer is right about this. In case there is any confusion about my position, I just want to say that I DO NOT say that shouldn't go to war on Iraq EVER, just we should not go to war with Iraq AT THIS TIME. Make no mistake, Saddam Hussein WILL have to be dealt with, sooner or later. I just prefer it being later, once Al Queda has been taken care of, or at least weakened far more than they are now. You know that they are already recovering from losing Afganistan last year. A lot of them are already in Pakistan, and if they ge ahold of Pakistani nukes while we're spanking it in Iraq, we'll have lost the war on terror.
Once the Muslim fundamentalists get nukes (either from Iraq or Pakistan), we're done. If we invade Iraq NOW, without UN support, we open the door to the militants getting nukes in Pakistan. Does anyone seriously believe that (Pakistani President) Musharraf will be able to keep his nukes out of Muslim militant hands if a war on Iraq will so inflame his people to overthrow him? Jesus Christ, half the people in his own intelligence service are Taliban and Al Queda sympathizers!
No one should be convinced that the Second Gulf War will be as easy as the first because the Republican Guard will just hide in the cities, rather than get slaughtered out in the desert, like last time. I've said it before and I'll say it again: urban warfare is every attacking general's nightmare.
Trading Pakistan to the militants just to get into a quagmire in Iraq would be a horrendously stupid trade.
-
I won't get dragged into a whole debate, I will say only this:
Millions of men have toiled/suffered/died for the United Kingdom, and for the power we now have over others in the world. They made those sacrifices so that future generations would not have to. Now we see freedom threatened and our very existence threatened, not today, not tomorrow, but in the coming years when countries like Iraq develop more lethal and long range weapons. We have the military power to stop this process with minimal loss of life to our people. Cruise missile strikes, strategic bombing and limited special operations would destroy the Iraqi military machine in weeks, while causing us limited casualties to our forces. This would mean that one day, our people would not have to suffer in the bloody mud of a battlefield in a war against a far more powerful Iraq. We owe it to ourselves, and our children, to stop that war before it ever happens. We stop it by stopping murderous, dictatorial regimes like Iraq. No one denies that there are many other countries just as bad in the world. For example, China is not holiday resort, but could we realisticially beat China at the moment? No. So we do what we can. We fight the good fight where we can and save who we can. One day, we will realise all the little fights like one against Iraq will add up to one colossal victory for right, for good, for freedom - and on that day we will know we have served history and humanity well. I believe that given this argument without media dramatisation the vast majority of Brits would support it. They will eventually agree anyway though, and on that day they will be saying: We will not surrender our freedoms, we will not cower before evil we shall face it and defeat it. We shall fight. We shall win. We shall remember.
-
man, why do people keep using EXACTLY THE SAME arguments over and over again? :p I see the same ideas, frequently even in the same words, in almost every topic on this subject; in previous topics, after some argument posts, I thought I had gotten some people to admit that their same old ridiculous anti-war arguments were invalid, but I guess I was wrong. I'm not going to participate in this yet again since the same things are being said again, but it should be fun to watch anyway. :D Good thing the governments don't listen much to the rabbles, though. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Good thing the governments don't listen much to the rabbles, though. :D
It's not like the rabble listens to the governments, either.:D
-
Hell, CP's right. You're all blathering on your own little filibusters, and haven't really acknowledged a bleeding word another person has said. No wonder you all have such high opinions of your own views and intelligence.
Go ahead, lock this. It IS pretty disgusting to watch.
-
Yeah, screw it. I've said my piece, and like CP said, I've stated it mucho times already. There's no point to this thread except to piss people off, and that's something Petrarch did NOT mean to do when he started this thread.
Let's lock it up; all it will do is generate hurt feelings.
-
I doubt anyone's feelings can be truly hurt in a thread where people make only the slightest pretence to be paying attention to what's being said in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
DG: There's about as much chance of the Wommen's institute attacking western cities as Saddam Hussain, unless his regieme is backed into a corner and has nothing to lose.
Yup, which is why an attack against Iraq would have to be something of a blitzkrieg - we'd have to have won before they know what hit them, otherwise we risk the button being pressed.
And if I were you I wouldn't underestimate the WI. As far as I can tell, western civilization has been under attack by the female of the species for some time :)
[EDIT] HLP should so make Stryke an Admin :sigh:
-
:rolleyes:
Yes... he wouldn't attack unless attacked, and we don't wanna be attacked, so we'd better try to attack him so fast he can't respond. Flawless logic. Once again, lock this.
EDIT: I know. I've told them that many a time.:D
-
Stryke mate, just because the Iraqi government is 99% likely to not launch nukes unless threatened directly, it doesn't mean that they're not gonna be encouraging terrorism and nuclear armament among other anti-western regimes. Iraq is a problem which needs to be dealt with, one way or another.
-
"encouraging nuclear armanent"? It's not like nukes are a dime a dozen, and you can just get them if you really want to. Good uranium is REALLY hard to get (I should know), and no government that gets it is gonna have enough to go around. Never mind that Saddam isn't entirely trusted by his neighbors (even if they DO like him, more or less), and he most certainly doesn't trust anyone enough to help them get nukes that might someday be used against him.
There's no real evidence that he has anything to do with terrorism. He's no friend to Al Qaeda or any of the other ultra-religious groups (considering all of the mosques he's depopulated, and his rather decadent lifestyle, this is hardly surprising), and at any rate he's no moron- he knows that any fresh act of terrorism against the US is gonna be tied to him whether he had anything to do with it or not, and that a big event would be the end of his regime- if anything, he's gonna discourage large-scale terrorism as much as he can.
-
Doesn't encourage terrorism? The guy who gives thousands of dollars to Palestinian suicide bomber's families? Oh... right...
OK fair enough, that's not large-scale like some of the Al-Qaeda stuff, but still... and evidently you're not shopping in the right places - nuclear weapons are a dime a dozen if you know where to go. Getting hold of uranium and the technology to process it may be tough, but there are plenty of people with ex-Soviet weapons for sale. And that's just for starters.
It also seems that Saddam's getting on better with his neighbours these days - a couple of days ago, he re-opend the border with the Saudis. Officially, they're still not talking to each other, but it seems that Uncle Saddam has realised how important the support of other countries is - especially when they're supposed US allies. Suddenly, it's looking less likely that US aircraft will stationed in Saudi Arabia this time around, and Saddam'll be loving that...
-
'S called the lesser of two evils. Between the US and Iraq, it's a no-brainer for practically any Middle Eastern nation. Both have the bad habit of wanting to invade them, but Iraq is much less likely to successfully do so, and much less likely to turn on its allies.
And no. Absolutely not. You cannot just go out to the corner market and buy a tactical nuclear warhead, I don't care where you are or how much money you have. Russia defends its nukes to ridiculous extremes (it hasn't lost one yet), and the sattelite countries, while they do have bits of uranium-making supply here and there, never had nukes in the first place. And you can't just make them, either.
But that argument's counterproductive. Think of it this way- practically all of the countries in that region desperately want nuclear power. Getting an effective arsenal is better than the euivalent of winning the lottery. Still, next to none of these countries actually HAS one, few are even close to getting one, and maybe one country every five years GETS one. Even if it's their central expendure for years on end, as it is with Iraq.
Yeah, he supports the war on Israel. Nothign new there. It's a far cry from being able to, or interested in, mounting even the puniest assault on the US- never mind a large-scale disaster scenario such as everyone keeps envisioning. If he took every penny in Iraq and diverted it into a single attack on the US, he'd still hardly be able to do more than make a dozen or so people sick or blow up one corner of, say, the Cleveland city hall. It's like saying that the US will launch a full-scale assault on Mars, with the intent of knocking it into the Sun.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Still, next to none of these countries actually HAS one, few are even close to getting one, and maybe one country every five years GETS one. Even if it's their central expendure for years on end, as it is with Iraq.
Those odds sound reasonable enough. Unfortunately, it only takes one country with nuclear weapons to do the damage, and perhaps, as you suggest, Iraq got lucky this time.
As for buying ex-Soviet nukes - are you choosing to ignore the reports of 'hundreds' of missing weapons? Did you not read them? Or do you believe them to be American/Russian/miscellanious propaganda?
Lastly, you forgot to ask for the thread to be closed in your last couple of posts. Fair enough there's no Admins online right now, but that shouldn't stop you trying :)
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Carl, you know, or should know, that this is bull****. Gore was one of the 10 Democratic senators to vote for the (First) Gulf War. He served in Vietnam, so you know he's not a mealy-mouthed pacifist. When the Serbian-Bosnia war was happening under the U.N.'s upturned nose, it was Gore who convinced Clinton to use American airpower and military force to force the Serbs to the bargaining table to sue for peace. He did the same thing again when Kosovo happened. I have absolutely no doubt that Gore would have responded to the 9/11 attacks just as Bush did. Anyone who doubts that doesn't know Gore's political record nearly well enough as they should.
Show some respect for Gore. He invented the internet, after all.:p
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
[EDIT] HLP should so make Stryke an Admin :sigh:
Why? Being able to spout off about the evils of western society doesn't automatically make you qualified as an admin.
-
:wtf:
That... was... sarcasm...
The :sigh: smiley should have conveyed that I was getting fed up with Stryke's constant 'I know better than any world leader you can name' attitude...
Again, :wtf:
-
Uh huh. As opposed to, say, anyone else on the thread.
And whether I know better or not is irrelevant. Most world leaders, Bush in particular, have interests that are completely different than those of the people. That, and they're routinely disastrously wrong, anyway, so in a sense, yes, I'm just about as likely to be correct as any world leader.
-
Well, the majority of other posters, anyway :)
Besides, what I should have said was that it's the 'I hate this kind of thread/this thread in particular but here's my argument anyway. Now please lock the thread' attitude of many people here (not pointing me finger this time). It's the same mentality as the old VBB posters who didn't like one thread or another and repeatedly bumped said topic to make their feelings on the subject known.
Really, I should know better than to post this, because not only will I get half the community comming down on me telling me that they can post with whatever damn attitutde they please, but once we get down to this kind of petty sniping Shrike gets cross and the thread gets closed.
-
I only got annoyed by the thread because I'd stood up for it and then it turned into a crap thread. I don't see how that means I violated some secret code when, if the argument temporarily promises to be somewhat more interesting, I plunge in.
-
Wasn't just you Stryke, and it's not just this thread, either. Don't take it personally - it's three am, and I felt the need to ***** about something :)
Anyways, back on-topic (well... erm... *cough*):
For the last few months, Sky News has been posting a variation on the theme of "is a war with Iraq a good idea" on their interactive voting thingy. I'm personally getting a bit sick the same bloody vote over and over (see? Doing it again), but so far the answer has usually been around 60-40 in favour of a war of - sometimes even more heavily in favour.
What does that tell you about what world leaders want compared to their people?
-
(http://www.fattonys.com/images/upload/icon16p.gif)
-
Wowser, my desktop is high-res. I had to load that smiley into Irfan and zoom in just to read it - yay 1600x1200!
Anyways, just so we're clear - which of us had the pig up their arse?
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
Show some respect for Gore. He invented the internet, after all.:p
Oh, please, not this **** again. :rolleyes: For all of you nimrods who still believe the religious right propaganda machine, allow me to set you straight. You'll thank me for this later. Here's what Gore really claimed about his relationship to the Internet. This is a DIRECT quote of Gore's EXACT WORDS (the stuff journalists refer to when they report on what people actually said):
"While I was a congressman, I took the initiative to help create the Internet."
The word "invented" is NEVER used in that sentence. So, please, when you want to complain about this **** again, don't use the word "invented." It's a blatant misquote that makes you look like a complete moron. You guys who misquote this **** make back-country inbred yokel Bible-thumpers look like Einstein. As much as I hate to insult the Father of Relativity like that, I have to call 'em like I see 'em.
Now, to an analysis of Mr. Gore's statement. He said that he "took the initiative to help create the Internet." What was he referring to? Well, for those of you who actually care enough to do some research so that you don't fall under the spell of the conservative propaganda complex and actually decide to think for yourselves, rather than have someone do it for you, here's what Gore was referring to: while he was a congressman in the 1980s, he sponsored a bill to convert the nascent Internet, at that time only a modest military project, into a large civilian infrastructure. It was a not-well-known vote at the time, because no one knew way back then how useful the Internet would turn out to be. Gore sponsored the bill, and it got passed in Congress. And lo and behold, several years later, we now have the Internet.
So yes, people, it is TRUE (not a lie!) that if Gore had not sponsored that bill, then you and I would not now be flaming each other through our high-tech computer screens and keyboards. Isn't that nice? :rolleyes:
You morons who drag up two-year-old bull**** one-liners that came out of George "I'm a uniter, not a divider (yeah, right!)" Bush's political compost heap of corporate insiders, you all need to grow some brains and start thinking for yourselves. :rolleyes:
As long as people are going to keep flaming each other on this thread, I might as well join in the fun for as long as this thread is open. And I just finished watching George Carlin's latest HBO special (his best routine yet!), so now I'm REALLY in the mood to insult people's intelligence. Here's hoping it lasts. :D :cool: :p
-
Su-tehp, meet sarcasm. Sarcasm, meet Su-tehp. You two seem to have not met before.
:devil:
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Su-tehp, meet sarcasm. Sarcasm, meet Su-tehp. You two seem to have not met before.
:devil:
LOL! Shrike, sarcasm and I are actually old friends. We met in law school. In fact, after I got to law school, sarcasm introduced me to his acquaintances cynicism, despair and outrage. Yeah, all of us have met before. I can tolerate sarcasm well enough (we have a symbiotic relationship :D ), but his acquaintances can't take a hint and have long since worn out their welcome. It's gotten so bad that I mistake sarcasm for one of his buddies more often than I would like.
My bad, Vega, sorry. I'm still sore about Election 2000, as you have no doubt noticed. ;) :D
-
Shrike, give me admin for a few minutes just so I can get the satisfaction of annihilating this thread.
It's unholy and deserves to die.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
So yes, people, it is TRUE (not a lie!) that if Gore had not sponsored that bill, then you and I would not now be flaming each other through our high-tech computer screens and keyboards. Isn't that nice? :rolleyes:
Speak for yourself.
*hugs his modified Commodore64*
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
My bad, Vega, sorry. I'm still sore about Election 2000, as you have no doubt noticed. ;) :D
Big friggen deal. Look at Canada, where we don't have a realistic choice at the moment other than the Liberals. You don't hear me *****ing about them, now do you? :p
-
you mean like you just did
-
The worlds going to hell in a handbasket, nothing anybody can do about it. You'll never have peace in the middle east, like you won't ever have true peace in Northern Ireland. The hatred is so ingrained it's almost genetic.
I say **** politics, **** worrying about war, whatever happens will happen and no amount of lobbying will change anything. There are too many people worried about things that though they should have a say in, they really have no say at all.
It boils down to three words really: New World Order. The average person has had almost all their rights stripped from them and most people are too ignorant to realise.
(http://www.ozyandmillie.org/comics/om20001229.gif)
-
Note the title of this thread, "Has anyone been protesting?" NOT "Post all your opinions on politics, war, Bush, Gore, Saddam ro whoever"
All I wanted to know was if anyone had been demonstrating, what with Thursday being a national day of action.
-
Pretty pathetic turnout, hence the lack of anybody knowing about it, unless one read the papers. One reason possibly, is firstly, the lack of a war. As we arent at war with Iraq, nor are we planning to take unilateral action against Iraq. The only way there could be a war(assuming the resolution gets pushed through), would be if Saddamn actually interfered with the inspectors and inpeded their mission. Now, if he is no threat, he would have no reason to do that and thus, there would be no war. If he did actually stop them going places etc, then that means he is hiding something and must be stopped.
Also on this oil stuff, the war would cost the US more than it could gain through controlling Iraqi oil. Oil has nothing to do with this whatsoever.
-
So explain to me why the Shrub and his cronies have flouted every UN WMD reduction treaty?
P.S. You know they tried to pull the same stunt with Cuba, Bullying them to allow inspectors (read: spies) into the country backed up by force.
-
I must be one of the few people who doesn't have a problem with spying.
-
i sure wouldn't mind cheaper gas, considering its about $1.40/gal (or $.37/liter), espcially since the day the gulf war started a barrel of oil dropped from ~$28 to ~$15
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
i sure wouldn't mind cheaper gas, considering its about $1.40/gal (or $.37/liter), espcially since the day the gulf war started a barrel of oil dropped from ~$28 to ~$15
Geez, Phreak, here in White Plains, a gallon of gas costs about $1.70. And in Europe it's around four dollars a gallon!
Methinks thou doth protest too much. (In other words: quit yer *****ing.)
No one would mind cheaper gas, but it's cheaper where you are than in lots of other places, so count your blessings, Phreak. BTW, where is this idyllic place that you live where the gas is so cheap?:D
-
i was joking
And in Europe it's around four dollars a gallon!
i was trying to make this point too, trying to put gas prices into perspective - we dont need cheap gas as much as europeans. I think its even worse in britain ~$6-$7/gal
-
still, it can be even better, right? :D
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
BTW, where is this idyllic place that you live where the gas is so cheap?:D
The gas station up the street from my house is at about $1.40
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
where is this idyllic place that you live where the gas is so cheap?:D
i wouldn't call cleveland idyllic
-
Yeah, I wanna see an0n with temp admin privelidges!
01010 officially rocks now, for reminding me that I'm supposed to be the one saying "**** Politics". Yeah, this thread blows. You're not changing anything in the slightest by flapping your lips (flapping your fingers?), you're not saying anything that hasn't been said a million times, you're once again not even looking at most of the other posts before blasting off, and you're really not making any kind of compelling argument in the first place. Never mind that, except in the event of a draft (at which point I become intensely political, if nothing more a la certain Palestinians), none of this will have the slightest influence on any of our lives. If you didn't get the news from the paper/radio/your daddy, you'd never even know this **** was happening. Who's up for bullet tag?
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Yeah, I wanna see an0n with temp admin privelidges!
Hehe. [list=1]
- User Groups -> Add -> Uber-Me -> Edit -> Can Access Control Panel: Yes + Is Super Moderator: Yes
- User Groups -> Modify -> Administrator: Edit -> Can Access Control Panel: No + Is Super Moderator: No
- Options -> vBulletin Options -> Bulletin Board Active?: No + Reason For Turning Board Off: Mwuaha![/u][/font]
...err......I mean.....err.......
*runs*
-
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/col/files/image_bobbythekitten.jpg)
-
You're welcome........
*goes to do that at the NW boards*
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
...we dont need cheap gas as much as europeans.
We need cheaper Europeans? Well, there was that nice chick in Amsterdam who let me screw her for only a couple of Euros...:D
Of course, considering I almost got the clap on that trip, it wasn't that cheap after all...:wtf: :nervous: ;) :D
-
Nah, we just need some Europeans. So many funny hats! Hee hee!
-
:rolleyes: :wtf:
*passes out padlocks*
;7
-
[passes out the Vaseline]
[passes out in the alleyway behind the bordello]
[passes gas loudly]
-
Uhm back to the topic.
It is true. This war is pointless. If Sadam has the weapons of mass destruction, he would probably have used them by now. By the way, about the Al Quaide, I read in a Serbian newspaper when I was in Yugoslavia, that Bin Laden has been killed. One of his men said that he saw him personally dead in one of the mountains in Afghanistan. He said that Bin Laden died in the American bombing. However, I also read something in the begining of July about Bin Laden being in an american base :eek: making a plan about devestating america on 4th july. Of course this didn't happen so you can breath easier. You don't want to hear the rest of the story. :shaking: Other info is classified.
Huh what do you know? What to believe?
One more thing. It appears that Americas days of "ruling the world" will be numbered soon. :) If the Roman Empire collapsed and all other great Empires in the past, it will most probaby happen to the america too. Maybe not soon, but it will.
-
Pffft. America is not an empire, never mind what some people think.
And America never wanted to rule the world, it's just too much trouble. But we will defend ourselves if attacked, like Al Queda did. Anyhoo, I don't believe Osama is dead. Not enough facts to decide one way or the other, so it's better to assume he's alive and take Al Queda more seriously as a result. This war ain't over by a long shot.
-
Firstly: It's Al Qaeda.
Secondly: Kill the friggin thread.
Thirdly: No matter your opinions, America is trying to rule the world.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Thirdly: No matter your opinions, America is trying to rule the world.
Hmm, well Britain's done that so what the hell, as long as they leave us alone why not let the Yanks have a try at it? :D
-
Originally posted by vyper
Hmm, well Britain's done that so what the hell, as long as they leave us alone why not let the Yanks have a try at it? :D
Because when the British Empire did it, it was for land and everyone knew that's what they were doing. America uses bull**** pretense, raving about terrorism and evil dictators in some crappy-ass attempt to draw attention from the multitude of crimes and unconstitutional acts that leading American congressmen (and faggot-ass Bush) have taken part in. In my opinion Bush should be shot, not for being the dumbest man on the planet and not for bringing the world to the edge of an apocalyptic war, but quite simply for being the greatest hypocrit this spinning ball of universal ass-grit has ever known.
-
anyone notice the american flags on the guys uniforms in Starship Troopers? :p
-
Hmm, well Britain's done that so what the hell, as long as they leave us alone why not let the Yanks have a try at it?
You naively speak as if the wealth that was plundered from the colonies was equally divided amongst the British People. It wasn't, they were nearly as harshly repressed and impoverished by this supposid democracy as the Indians and the Irish.
In my opinion Bush should be shot, not for being the dumbest man on the planet and not for bringing the world to the edge of an apocalyptic war, but quite simply for being the greatest hypocrit this spinning ball of universal ass-grit has ever known.
Bush shouldn't be shot. Him, along with the entire cabinet sould have to do hard labour for the amount of time it would take them to earn what they own at the minute at the current minimum wage.
-
We know that America is trying to rule the world but do you think the other 6 billion people would like it? There would be a full scale war if that would happen so it won't happen even though US has all the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WHICH ARE OF COURSE UNCONVENTIONAL AND ARE NOT CHECKED BY THE UN. And by the way, why the **** is the america excused in the international tribunal for war crimes? That's idiotism. If all of the other countries are not excused including England, Canada and other nato countries, why the heck should the america be excused? They didn't make this court by the way and does that give the right of every single american soldier to kill freely without being punished? Is that fair? Is it ok if Bush blows up countries killing billions and not be punished?
Oh and by the way, america isn't an empire but it should be nuked for it's imperialistic, undemocratic regime and dictatorship.
-
You know what rule? Ducks. They can swim, they can walk, and they can fly, all in one. Plus they have green heads! I wanna be a duck.
-
The US is of course heading for ruling the world although they may not realize it themselves yet, but if they can conquer everything and hold it for a couple centuries, it will all be for the better anyway. :) :D
Ducks aren't bad at all either, though. :yes:
They didn't make this court by the way and does that give the right of every single american soldier to kill freely without being punished? Is that fair? Is it ok if Bush blows up countries killing billions and not be punished?
um, same reason as with anything else here; it's because they are by far the most powerful and nobody dares to stand against them, and therefore they can do whatever they please. :D (for example, the UN must comply with any US demand because if they don't have US support, they will lose almost all of their influence and become useless)
-
What about swans?
-
You Know some ducks have white heads and suffer terrible abuse from the green headded ones on the other side ot the lake :D
-
perhaps ducks have their wars also... :D
-
Dude! A duck war would be awesome! They'd have a built-in air force! Since they don't have opposable digits, the best they'd be able to do for weapons would be to drop fish on each other in air strikes and peck at random!
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
You naively speak as if the wealth that was plundered from the colonies was equally divided amongst the British People. It wasn't, they were nearly as harshly repressed and impoverished by this supposid democracy as the Indians and the Irish.
Here we go, the big bad evil empire that fuked everybody over. Lets get something clear: mainland Britain had the highest standard of living anywhere in the world during the empire. I will not deny the suffering of the lower classes, however I will not accept that the empire was the only cause. Plundered is also a very naieve term! The Empire was not built up through military power, as your description suggests, but rather through trade. Whether it is politically correct to say or not: the empire improved the lives of many nations that it opened relations with. :)
-
egg-bombing, crap-bombing... sounds like fun. we need this on PPV now.
-
Originally posted by Carl
if the rest of you want to wait until saddam sneaks a dirty bomb over here, fine. but i for one would rather not die of cancer when i'm 20.
well that a good point, since I live in the east cost(the place with all the issues) if i get nuked I relly dont care since Im aledy dead and I cant care since Im alredy dead i nthat case
-
to skulk to the originial question. yes.
I was in washington for the largest demonstration since the Vietnam War.
(http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/images/tn_saddamkill.jpg)
-
Dude! That pic's awesome! :lol:
-
the lovely whitehouse.org
not to be confused with whitehouse.com
some smart posters and other content
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The US is of course heading for ruling the world although they may not realize it themselves yet, but if they can conquer everything and hold it for a couple centuries, it will all be for the better anyway. :) :D
Oh man that's a good one. Hold it for a couple of centuries. :lol: Look dude. If that would happen (America pronounces it self the leading country in the world) and spreads it's imperialism and dictatorship, no country will accept it. You would be annihilated in matter of months because one single country (ok if you would be allied with England two countries) wouldn't stand the chance agains the other 6+ billion people. Oh yeah the nukes. Well they wouldn't help a lot because it would be the man power that would play the leading role so, they would most probably be useless. Ok let me give you an example. When we had to kick Milosevic out of the office after the elections in 2000, do you know what we did? About 6 million people came to Belgrade, infiltrated the capital (the building where Milosevic was) made chaos and Milosevic accepted the outcome. Milosevic was the supreme authority at that time. Think what would happen to America if it would get into the same situation. Boom goes the US. :yes:
um, same reason as with anything else here; it's because they are by far the most powerful and nobody dares to stand against them, and therefore they can do whatever they please. :D (for example, the UN must comply with any US demand because if they don't have US support, they will lose almost all of their influence and become useless)
No one can stand up against you? You think everyone in the world is chicken (not talking about the birds here) because you are the "Ultimate power in the universe". Pfffff...:lol: please. Ok my country stood up against you when you massacred us from March to June 1999 (hey isn't that the way of terrorism), hm ok lets mention Afghanistan since they attacked you :rolleyes: hm if I can mention Iraq and maybe some other countries,..but I don't want to go back into the past much. The point is, if it's needed, every country will stand up against you.
-
(http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/images/tn_saddamkill.jpg)
:lol: :D :D
Oh man that's a good one. Hold it for a couple of centuries. Look dude. If that would happen (America pronounces it self the leading country in the world) and spreads it's imperialism and dictatorship, no country will accept it. You would be annihilated in matter of months because one single country (ok if you would be allied with England two countryes) wouldn't stand the chance agains the other 6+ billion people. Oh yeah the nukes. Well they won't help a lot because it's the man power here that would play the main role so, your nukes wouldn't help you out much.
Sure, because that would bring about the world government we all want anyway. Everyone is accepting it even today as it spreads right now; "imperialism and dictatorship" can spread much more subtly than you think, and those who do not accept it die. And history has taught us that manpower and fanaticism is next to useless compared to the same in technology and manufacturing; no mobs are going to stand up to nukes. Sorry, but "evil" sometimes triumphs. :D
No one can stand up against you? You think everyone in the world is a chicken (not talking about the birds here) because you are the "Ultimate power in the universe". Pfffff...:lol: please. Ok my country stood up against you when you bombed us from March to June 1999, hm ok lets mention Afghanistan since they attacked you hm if I can mention Iraq and maybe some other countries,..but I don't want to go back into the past much. The point is, if it's needed, every country will stand up against you.
Of course, because anyone who does oppose gets smashed up; Iraq can be made an example of here. :D The chickens are the smart ones here; the rest get brushed away. I'm not sure what your country is, but it either didn't actually do much or got in trouble. :D (e.g. Europeans today can speak out against the US but they don't dare to go beyond a certain point or actually take action) Ultimate power in the universe, no, but ultimate power in the world today, certainly, and there is precious little anyone can do about it. |>|-|34/2 the imperialistic horde! :D ;7
-
if America realy wanted to rule the world, we could do it in a week, all we'd have to do is nuke France and Russa, then there'd be nobody with the firepower to even slow us down, the fact is we don't want to rule the world, we want to live peaceful lives with everyone else, and we want everyone to have the same level of freedom and happynes as we do, if there's a place were people are being beaten for listening to the radio, we want to go in and free those people,
in Iraq people people are drawn and quartered after watching there childeren ground into hamburger for knowing someone who has spoken aloud that they think it might be a good thing to consider someone other than Sadam as ruler of there contry. couple with that the fact that Sadam hates us for wipeing his ass across the desert last ten years ago, and his desire for nukes, and the presence of a great number of people willing to die to ensure than many Americans do so as well, and the ease by wich a nuke could be hiden on an oil tanker bound for New York and you can see why we don't want him in power.
also keep in mind the war never ended, we had a mear sece fire, not a surender, with the terms that he would not develop weapons of mass destruction, and let the UN inspect his contry for them. well, he didn't live up to that.
now, we need to do to Iraq what we did to Japan 60 years ago
(I'm not talking about droping the bomb, though it should be on the table, if only to scare Sadam)
-
Originally posted by vyper
Lets get something clear: mainland Britain had the highest standard of living anywhere in the world during the empire.
What a load of unbelievably inane drivel. I'm sure that The Super Rich of Britain lived in the Most Vulgarly Excessive way possible, that surpassed the super rich of all other nations and previous generation. The majority of the population was more impoverished than anyone else had ever been.
Originally posted by vyper
I will not deny the suffering of the lower classes, however I will not accept that the empire was the only cause.
Of course, the empire didn't make a scrap of difference to the lives of most of the British population (apart from strengthening the state, making it harder for them to revolt), it made a huge difference to the Lives of the people in the occupied territories though, a negative one.
Originally posted by vyper
Plundered is also a very naieve term! The Empire was not built up through military power, as your description suggests, but rather through trade.
Trade, yes, forced trade, and that counts as plundering. Any country which refused to trade was blockaded, bombarded and sometimes invaded. This trade starved most of Southern India and Island to death, because all of their grain had been "traded".
Originally posted by vyper
Whether it is politically correct to say or not: the empire improved the lives of many nations that it opened relations with. :)
What a load of complete crap, you're starting to sound like a daily mail columist now. NO IT DIDN'T. If by improved, you mean starved, impoverished, enslaved, occupied, humiliated then yes. Oh but it managed to convert them into Christians :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
if America realy wanted to rule the world, we could do it in a week, all we'd have to do is nuke France and Russa, then there'd be nobody with the firepower to even slow us down,
That's why Nuclear Submarienes were invented :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Bobboau
the fact is we don't want to rule the world, we want to live peaceful lives with everyone else, and we want everyone to have the same level of freedom and happynes as we do, if there's a place were people are being beaten for listening to the radio, we want to go in and free those people,
in Iraq people people are drawn and quartered after watching there childeren ground into hamburger for knowing someone who has spoken aloud that they think it might be a good thing to consider someone other than Sadam as ruler of there contry.
Ooohh goodie, let's get all emotional to make up for the complete lack of coherence and truth:rolleyes:
Who helped General Pinochet and other right wing dictators in Latin America overthaw a democratically elected government?
Who indoctrinated and armed Al-Quaeda and taliban members to terrorize other countries?
Who uses chemical weapons on cililians in nations not hostile to them?
Who refuses to send their war criminals to justice?
Who sold Weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussain even after he attacked the Kurds?
Who armed those Kurds only to pull the plug at the last minute which resulted in their rout?
Who helped Saddam Hussian to take over the leadership of his party shortly after the revolution with full knowledge that he was brutal and corrupt?
Who, until recently has forced its minorities to live in humiliation as second class citizens?
Who assassinates political dissidents even though they're totally non violent?
Who still has Politicians in the Senate that supported thin oppression? (See who's Senator for north Carolina)
Who has religious fanatics in top government positions that anoint themselvs with cooking oil upon promotion, insist upon the covering up of artwork in their pressence, think dancing is sinful, think mensturation pain is caused by a lack of faith and can be solved through prayer and belive cats are servants of Satan?
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Who, until recently has forced its minorities to live in humiliation as second class citizens?
I don't really want to jump in here, but as a Brit, you have no leg to stand on for dealing with minorities.
-
"That's why Nuclear Submarienes were invented" good point, but my point that we could take over by force if we wanted to still stands
I was talking about the American people and why we want it, our government has done things we don't like, and those responcable are no longer in power (some of them anyway)
I was never well informed about the whole Pinochet thing, could you point me to some information on it, preferably not an anti-american novel
our suport for Sadam in the eightys was becase we thought of him as the lesser of two evils (the other being Iran), we were wrong, though I still think it would have been worse if Iran had concoured Iraq (then Saudi Arabia)
"Who has religious fanatics in top government positions that anoint themselvs with cooking oil upon promotion, insist upon the covering up of artwork in their pressence, think dancing is sinful, think mensturation pain is caused by a lack of faith and can be solved through prayer and belive cats are servants of Satan?"
you wouldn't be refering to Ashcroft would you?
I don't like him ether, wich is why I would like to get all the waring done quick so we can get a Democrat back in to fix all the stuff bush has ****ed up.
btw what are you talking about in that last one,"thin oppression" NC senators are Jesse Helms, and John Edwards, and while they both sound familiar, I don't recall what there known for (not being from NC it isn't supriseing)
-
Who refuses to send their war criminals to justice?
eh? we decide what justice is. :D
Who, until recently has forced its minorities to live in humiliation as second class citizens?
:wtf:
Who assassinates political dissidents even though they're totally non violent?
Within the nation? It makes complete sense at any rate from their point of view, if they can get away with it. :D
Who still has Politicians in the Senate that supported thin oppression? (See who's Senator for north Carolina)
once again, :wtf:
Who has religious fanatics in top government positions that anoint themselvs with cooking oil upon promotion, insist upon the covering up of artwork in their pressence, think dancing is sinful, think mensturation pain is caused by a lack of faith and can be solved through prayer and belive cats are servants of Satan?
I dunno, you? :D
-
and in responce to america suporting Al Qadea I will repost my breif essay on Afganistan and our involvement, if you feel I misrepresented anything plese point it out as I feel this is a fair representation of the situation
What is now known as the Northern Alliance and the Taliban (though they were largely on the same side at the time and the names didn't change until well after this period of time) were both backed by America when Russia invaded Afghanistan and imposed a communistic puppet government. After the forces we supported pushed out Russia, we soon cut our support(biggest mistake we ever made), because they had won the war and we decided (with help from other people) that we shouldn't impose our horrid democratic values on them. You know things like, equality for women, freedom, a central government, and roads, indoor plumbing... so the place was left to fester with fighting warlords and clashes between ethnic groups. Until the Taliban came into power a few years later
The Taliban came from refugee camps in the southern regions and in Pakistan were the deplorable conditions led to a general feeling of disparity and hopelessness (which nether neither the US nor any European country seemed eager to help in). In this squalor the Taliban (or students as I believe the word means in pashtu, a reference to there strict studies of the Qaran) started to take over. They brought the promise of peace and stability, what they failed to inform there fellow countrymen was that they also brought a hard line fundamentalist Islam that subjugating the entire population. After the Taliban started to take ground the feuding warlords formed the Northern Alliance and tried to fight them back, but the Taliban were being funded by the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) which was largely in favor of the wahabi sect of Islam, and without support of there own the Northern Alliance lost much ground and the people of Afghanistan suffered under the strict laws of the Taliban. Because the Northern Alliance had failed to bring a government other than warlordism and the Taliban had succeeded, not to mention the fact that they controlled roughly 90% of the country, many nations began to deal with them. Such as the US, which had interest in shutting down opium, production and stopping the terrorist camps that were running in the country. The Taliban never had any intentions of dealing with the US but the US bought some cooperation from them on the Opium side, by 2001 opium production was nearly halted in Afghanistan thanks to the Taliban and aid from the US
However the fact that the Talaban's human rights violations especially towards women kept them from being recognized by any governments other than Iran and Pakistan, the NA was still fighting for freedom while the Taliban convinced the US that they could be a potential partner. The darkest hour of the Northern Alliance was on September 9th when two AlQuada assassins killed general Ahmed Shah Massoud in what was believed to be a preparation for the 9-11 attacks. Shortly thereafter however the NA got the supplies and support it needed from the US and pushed the Taliban from power across all of Afghanistan, there are however small pockets still loyal to the Taliban in the south/southeast.
Currently an interim government formed from the NA is being held together by the coalition forces lead by the US that supported the NA in it's victory over the Taliban. The goal is to have a fair democratic representative government that will insure peace stability and freedom for the people of Afghanistan,
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I was never well informed about the whole Pinochet thing, could you point me to some information on it, preferably not an anti-american novel
Will the federation of American Scientists do? (http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/1999/07/miller.html)
Originally posted by Bobboau
our suport for Sadam in the eightys was becase we thought of him as the lesser of two evils (the other being Iran).
If you look at the history of the Iraqi revolution you will see that is was an Arabic Nationalist response to the shocking treatment of the Arabs by the Allies following on from the Second world war. Saddam Hussain is the successor to Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr and the Stalin of the Ba'ath Party. The US helped Saddam to power because he was more keen to part with Iraq's vast oil reserves for cash than his predecessor.
Originally posted by Bobboau
you wouldn't be refering to Ashcroft would you?
I don't like him ether, wich is why I would like to get all the waring done quick so we can get a Democrat back in to fix all the stuff bush has ****ed up.
Why perpetuate a systen across the world that allows people like him into government. Yes, he's not allowed to impose his daft will on the population. But if America is a true democracy, then it would have to be said that he represents a sizeable proportion of the American Population. People holding such daft beliefs and inflicting them on their childeren make useless all the costitutional freedom.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
What a load of unbelievably inane drivel. I'm sure that The Super Rich of Britain lived in the Most Vulgarly Excessive way possible, that surpassed the super rich of all other nations and previous generation. The majority of the population was more impoverished than anyone else had ever been.
Of course, the empire didn't make a scrap of difference to the lives of most of the British population (apart from strengthening the state, making it harder for them to revolt), it made a huge difference to the Lives of the people in the occupied territories though, a negative one.
Trade, yes, forced trade, and that counts as plundering. Any country which refused to trade was blockaded, bombarded and sometimes invaded. This trade starved most of Southern India and Island to death, because all of their grain had been "traded".
What a load of complete crap, you're starting to sound like a daily mail columist now. NO IT DIDN'T. If by improved, you mean starved, impoverished, enslaved, occupied, humiliated then yes. Oh but it managed to convert them into Christians :rolleyes:
Whether you and I agree on the Empire's past or not is irrelevant - what is relevant is that if not for the Empire, the UK would not have the world influence it has today. We came out of it quite well considering the stress the empire came under during and after ww2. It served Britain well, thats all that matters to me.
-
CP, no one gives you (Americans) the authority to decide what's justice. If a man is killed by an American he is to be punished as the justice (not made by Americans) demands. Who the **** gave the authority to Bush to demmand an excuse in the International War crime tribunal. Who the **** is going to put Clinton, Madlen Albreit and Tony Blair to trial for killing 2000 Serbs in 1999? :mad2: Who is going to put to the trial the Albanian TERRORIST leaders (which are supported by AMERICA) who slaughtered hundreds of thousonds of Serbs on Kosovo and Metohia. Oh did I just say that America suports terrorism? Oh I think I did. What do you think of that?
Oh and by the way, wasn't America the one who financialy aided Al Q and Afghanistan in their war against Russia? I think Top Gun mentioned something like that.
I didn't know that America supported Sadam. Good job. :yes: *Remembers the issue of America's plan to attack Sadam*
Oh and Bobboau, on which side are you? First you say that you should repeat that you did 60 years ago and on the other hand you say that you should help countries and free them. Oh you helped us allright. Yo economically and ecologically ruined Yugoslavia, killed 2000 people destroyed hospitals, tv stations, infrastructure, homes, and other civilian objects. Oh yeah, those were "Millitary targets". Oh sure the hospital is deffinetly a military target. Am I wrong?
Get real people. Americans have killed millions, maybe even billions. They should all be put to trial and if I were there, I would sentence those responcible to death penalty just like americans sentance their criminals. I am sick of your imperialistic regime and dictatorship.
-
*tumble weed blows by*
Ahem...
So... eastern Europe, then. How's that working out for you?
-
Originally posted by Razor
CP, no one gives you (Americans) the authority to decide what's justice. If a man is killed by an American he is to be punished as the justice (not made by Americans) demands. Who the **** gave the authority to Bush to demmand an excuse in the International War crime tribunal. Who the **** is going to put Clinton, Madlen Albreit and Tony Blair to trial for killing 2000 Serbs in 1999? :mad2: Who is going to put to the trial the Albanian TERRORIST leaders (which are supported by AMERICA) who slaughtered hundreds of thousonds of Serbs on Kosovo and Metohia. Oh did I just say that America suports terrorism? Oh I think I did. What do you think of that?
Oh and by the way, wasn't America the one who financialy aided Al Q and Afghanistan in their war against Russia? I think Top Gun mentioned something like that.
I didn't know that America supported Sadam. Good job. :yes: *Remembers the issue of America's plan to attack Sadam*
Oh and Bobboau, on which side are you? First you say that you should repeat that you did 60 years ago and on the other hand you say that you should help countries and free them. Oh you helped us allright. Yo economically and ecologically ruined Yugoslavia, killed 2000 people destroyed hospitals, tv stations, infrastructure, homes, and other civilian objects. Oh yeah, those were "Millitary targets". Oh sure the hospital is deffinetly a military target. Am I wrong?
Get real people. Americans have killed millions, maybe even billions. They should all be put to trial and if I were there, I would sentence those responcible to death penalty just like americans sentance their criminals. I am sick of your imperialistic regime and dictatorship.
Jesus Christ, I don't wanna know what you think of us Brits then.:rolleyes:
-
Can you guys all please take a deep breath and calm down a tad? I don't want to close this but if it gets any hotter around here I'm going to have to.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Jesus Christ, I don't wanna know what you think of us Brits then.:rolleyes:
8r|+a|n 0wnz j00!!!!!!!1
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
if America realy wanted to rule the world, we could do it in a week, all we'd have to do is nuke France and Russa, then there'd be nobody with the firepower to even slow us down,
Now, I just noticed this comment. And I have to say I'm offended. *whistles God Save the Queen* You severely underestimate Britain's firepower, abilities and determination if you think France and Russia are your only two worries. We're your allies, not your servants - just keep that in mind when you decide to flash your military prowess around.
Thee, haughty Tyrants ne'er shall tame:
All their attempts to bend thee down,
Will but arouze thy gen'rous flame,
But work their woe, and thy renown.
Rule, Britannia, Britannia rule the waves,
Britons never will be slaves!
Right I'll just shush now... :D
-
*points at vyper and laughs*
Dude, I'm applying for the RAF, and even I think our millitary sux0rs. Without Cold War tensions, we just can't justify the defence budget we had twenty years ago... though in theory that's a good thing... I think... erm... :confused:
Tell you what we did have that was cool - the Vulcan. That was officially the sweetest bomber that ever flew, and I so missed a Discovery channel program about it the other week :mad:
-
yes, you are wrong
the Yugoslavia war was waged becase the Serbs were killing many hundreds of thousands of ethnic albainians, it was hapening, I have talked to mothers who have had there sons an hubans killed, if we (and a good chunk of the rest of Europe, in an exceptionaly rare bit of good jugement regarding a war) hadn't stoped it millions of kosivars would be dead
and yes, military targets include hospitals with solders in them, comunications, and infrastructure, that's sort of the point of a war, to make it so the other side can't fight back any more
from you reaction I'm guessing you're serbian, and as such you will have a uniqe veiw on the situation
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
*points at vyper and laughs*
Dude, I'm applying for the RAF, and even I think our millitary sux0rs. Without Cold War tensions, we just can't justify the defence budget we had twenty years ago... though in theory that's a good thing... I think... erm... :confused:
Tell you what we did have that was cool - the Vulcan. That was officially the sweetest bomber that ever flew, and I so missed a Discovery channel program about it the other week :mad:
Shhhh! Don't let the Americans here that!! I still don't think we spend enough on defence.
Wingspan : 111 ft 0 in
Length : 99ft 11 in
Height : 27ft 1in
Wing Area : 3964 sq ft
Cruising Speed : Mach 0.94 (620 mph)
Maximum Speed : Mach 0.98 (645 mph)
Range : 4,000 nautical miles
Service Ceiling : 60,000 ft
Engines : 4 Bristol Siddeley Olympus 201 or 301
Fuel Capacity : 9,250 imp gallons
Its interesting to note, that the Vulcan's concept was originally contained in the dam-busters project. The man who designed the bouncing bomb had made a big earth-quake bomb to begin with and a plane big enough to carry it - she matches a lot of the Vulcan's specifications. Unfortunately, resource shortages led to the project being rejected and the designer was sent back to make his cheaper bouncing bomb. :)
-
Politics (http://www.crimethinc.com/library/yourpoli.html)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
yes, you are wrong
the Yugoslavia war was waged becase the Serbs were killing many hundreds of thousands of ethnic albainians, it was hapening, I have talked to mothers who have had there sons an hubans killed, if we (and a good chunk of the rest of Europe, in an exceptionaly rare bit of good jugement regarding a war) hadn't stoped it millions of kosivars would be dead
and yes, military targets include hospitals with solders in them, comunications, and infrastructure, that's sort of the point of a war, to make it so the other side can't fight back any more
from you reaction I'm guessing you're serbian, and as such you will have a uniqe veiw on the situation
Yes there were Albanians that were killed in the conflict but not just by Serbs. Albanian terrorists also killed Albainian citizens because they refused to join them against Serbs. Oh and do you know who started all this, why and when? Ok I will answer those questions. As you all may know Kosovo and Metohia is SERBIAN province in The Federal Republic Yugsolavia. This conflict actually begun after the end of WW2. Hundreds of thousonds of Serbs were killed after 1950 and many more Serbs were banished from Kosovo and Metohia. Still, Serbs were the majority in Kosovo, but the number of Serbs decreased. What happened then? The Albaian drug mafia decided to go to Kosovo and thanks to the money they earned from drug smuggling, they bought weapons, trained themselves in Al Quaida training camps (which were ran by no one else but Osama Bin Laden). Now what if I tell you that America helped (opening international bank accounts, sent weapons etc...) these terrorists in their mission to kill Serbs in Kosovo. How about that? You didn't actually know that America helped Al Qaide, Albanian terrorists and other such organizations? Well of course you didn't because your governemnt would never want it's entire nation (and the rest of the world) to know about they relationships with the terrorist organizations. Then you got attacked in 2001 by the ones you helped, armed and suported. Isn't that ironic? :wink: And so when you were hit where it hurts, you then realized: "Oh now it's not really that good to help them since they attacked us. Now lets tell the world that we will exterminate terrorism. Hm..it will be so hard to kill our old friends and allies. :("
Oh and Bobboau, I forgot to mention that the hospitals you hit were the ones where the babies were born. I don't know how do you call those hospitals in English but, I am just telling you so you know. Did you ever think of those innocent babies, children, poeple that died in that bombing? Did you ever think of how did their families felt about it when they found out that some American monster hit the hospital and killed it's child, wife, husband, son, daughter or any relative? No I suppose you didn't.
You are all monsters and hopefully some day, you will pay.
-
Thunder, help!
-
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/col/files/image_captainthunder.jpg)