Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ulundel on February 15, 2003, 05:29:37 am
-
Yesterday, Bush called to our prime minister to explain him America's views plus asked him about Estonia's opinion - basically, which side are we.
Estonia has always supported the peaceful outcome but we are also trying to join NATO and USA could basically block our way to there if we do not support them in this matter.
So probably Bush said something like this...
Yo, Siim (our prime minister's first name), America and Estonia have also shared the same views but now, I heard a certain *nudge* rumour that Estonia do not support attacking Iraq. *wink* But then, you're also trying to join NATO and *wink-wink*...
He's using our damn weaknesses to find more allies! That is sick!
-
Hopefully you PM will have More Sence than Mine ( Blair )
-
no that is politics, what is sick is France and Germeny blocking efforts to prepaire defences for Turkey becase they don't want us to take out Sadam, that is one holy hell of a lot worse than us threatening not to suport you if you don't suport us, becase many people in Turkey could die in horable ways from this, Estonia joining NATO may lead to a less secure future but it does not ramp the prospects of you getting nailed for suporting you're allies in the very near future,
and besides why the hell do you want to join the North American Treaty Organisation, it sure as hell does not sound like you want to be on our side
-
We've always supported America. But after this we don't. NATO will just become useful to us - that's the main point.
-
Here we go again:rolleyes:
-
No, I don't want to have another anti-America discussion here. Just wanted to know what you guys think about this.
-
what is "this", the war with Iraq or our presureing you to suport us on it?
-
Originally posted by Barbarian
Hopefully you PM will have More Sence than Mine ( Blair )
hell, mine's john howard..
-
No, the fact that you are using our weakness to get what you want. It's like an ultimatum - wanna join NATO: support us. If you do not support us: screw you and if WW3 should come... *wink-wink* *nudge-nudge*
-
or you know it could just as easily be the other way around, your government could be saying "if you don't help us get into NATO we won't suport you with Iraq", the amount of evedence you have is inconclucive to say the lease and ether senario is just as likly from what I can see
and to be honest if your government is preasuring us, it would not upset me as much as it should, I guess I have just been desencatized by France's begging us not to take there oil from them and give it back to the people of Iraq
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
no that is politics, what is sick is France and Germeny blocking efforts to prepaire defences for Turkey becase they don't want us to take out Sadam, that is one holy hell of a lot worse than us threatening not to suport you if you don't suport us, becase many people in Turkey could die in horable ways from this, Estonia joining NATO may lead to a less secure future but it does not ramp the prospects of you getting nailed for suporting you're allies in the very near future,
and besides why the hell do you want to join the North American Treaty Organisation, it sure as hell does not sound like you want to be on our side
North ATLANTIC Treaty Organisation you droofus :p
France is not blocking efforts to prepare defence for turkey or any crap like that, we're doing that for the petrol deals we have there I suppose. Just like Bush wants to go for Irak to get those, coz he doesn't give a damn about Saddam. I really wonder what the hell you're thinking about.
-
It's wierd anyway, why USA wants our support. I bet half of your government thinks Estonia is a new porn magazine or something.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
no that is politics, what is sick is France and Germeny blocking efforts to prepaire defences for Turkey becase they don't want us to take out Sadam, that is one holy hell of a lot worse than us threatening not to suport you if you don't suport us, becase many people in Turkey could die in horable ways from this, Estonia joining NATO may lead to a less secure future but it does not ramp the prospects of you getting nailed for suporting you're allies in the very near future,
and besides why the hell do you want to join the North American Treaty Organisation, it sure as hell does not sound like you want to be on our side
I thought it was North ATLANTIC Treaty Organisation.
-
Yeah, it is.
-
Originally posted by Ulundel
Yeah, it is.
Ah good :)
-
I always thought it was american, oh well, generaly I am well informed screwed up there though, but the point I was trying to make was that NATO is basicly a bunch of contries that wants the USA to keep them safe, do not tell me the idea was not to keep the USSR at bay
I am sure 3/4ths of our people have never heard of you're contry up there with Latvia and Lithuania, maybe if I were to say one of those former Soviet contries south of Finland I might get an "oh" out of someone, there are a _lot_ of stupid americans and geography is not the most well studied subjects in our craptastic public schools,
but, beleve me when I say we realy could use your help on this one, you see you're one of the contries we, not too long ago, helped break away from the opressive USSR, we want to do a similar thing for the people of Iraq, were trying to make a point of this and you would have a rather unique perspective on being in a less than frendly contry,
the point were trying to make is that you remember what life was like when Estonia was just one of Russa's many absorbed contries, a thing the France and Germany may have forgoten
...but if you're going to turn you're backs on us, then you realy can't blame us for not wanting to help you.
I don't see this going any other way than Iraq war fighting, oh well, I've been itching for some good ole debate on the subject for months now
-
Good points you have there Bo. Just we don't like the idea of attacking anyone and like Venom said - Bush is after the petrol.
-
no he isn't, France is
and we didn't say you had to attack anyone, just let us
if you don't like dead people then you don't like Sadam, he makes them by the hudreds of thousands
-
If you want Saddam, go get him. But what does America do - bombs half of the country down, kills civilians...
-
not that many, most of them were placed there by Sadam himself, and we need to get not only Sadam but his entire ruleing groupe as well, and they are not going to come out willingly,
I garentee that unless Sadam starts packing his SAM sites with people or if he gasses Baghdad himself in his last throughs of rage (both quite likley) there will be fewer than 2,500 civilians killed at the most wich is far fewer than will die in that contry from Sadam if we do not atack
uh, I'm too tired to do this right now, my arguments are half baked and I'm going to screw up facts, please don't let this get close before I wake up again
-
[q]fewer than 2,500 civilians killed at the most [/q]
Yes far fewer because if sanctions go on any longer the number of dead Iraqi civilians will reach 800 times that. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
or you know it could just as easily be the other way around, your government could be saying "if you don't help us get into NATO we won't suport you with Iraq", the amount of evedence you have is inconclucive to say the lease and ether senario is just as likly from what I can seeq[/SIZE]
Sure we could, but America doesn't frankly give a ****,whether we support them or not. It's just a matter of public opinion, whether we support them or not, and America considers that a bonus, not a priority. HOWEVER, Estonia joining the NATO, is our primary political goal which we have been trying to achieve for the past 10 years, the key that will hopefully avoid 1940 from repeating (e.g. another foreign power invading us). So, nothing serious will come if the US doesn't gain our support, but we will be screwed, if we don't get into NATO
-
Originally posted by Darkage
Here we go again:rolleyes:
ya think?!
Amerika sucks.
-
an0n's solution to America's problems
- Fake another Al Qaeda tape saying Iraq is full of sinners
- Bomb the **** out of Bahgdahhahdad with some biological weapons
- Say Al Qaeda released the bio-weapons to coincide with the bombing and to frame America
- Bio-weapon the Afghan mountains and blame it on escaping Al Qaeda members fleeing infected Bahahagahgagagahd mere minutes before the attack
- Nuke North Korea and laugh that their reactor must've blown
- Find a new President. One that isn't riddled with bullets
-
My opinions in no way represent of what I think of Americans as individuals. There are good ones and bad ones, just like any nation. Whenever I refer to America from now on (in this post) I am refering to the politicans, not the people.
Bobbauo:
Saddam a threat?
tell me, when was the last time Saddam attacked anyone? ten years ago. Dont think that I like him, he's a dictator and a bastard, but a threat to world security he is not. He attacked one country ten years ago. Now you may remember something called Vietnam. America attacked it, and no one said anything. (well they didnt call you evil in any case). They came in, sent their troops, and started killiing people. I dont know what you call it, but I call that and invasion. And yet, America is remebered as the heros. Saddam does not have the motive to attack anyone (particularly the US or Britain or something). He is not a madman, he is a strategist. What would he gain by attacking the US. Nothing, except a crater where Iraq used to be.
People attack (or nations attack) beacuse thet have something to gain. America has oil to gain. Saddam has nothing to gain. He could be sitting on a dozen nukes, but I doubt he'll use them. Iraq has attacked 1 country ten years ago. Since then, he has not even made a move to indicate he wants a fight.
The case for War:
The inspectors have found nothing (ok like a few ten year old empty missles) to suggest Iraq has weapons of mass distruction. These guys are profesionals, if they say the have found no weapons, I dont see how you can make a case for war. In any case, what gives you the right to say "Saddam (or many other countries for that matter) can't have nukes, but we can. First of all you cannot decide how other countries should act. Second of all, even if you could, how is it that the US is allowed to have nukes or other weapons, but Iraq is not. Thats hypocracy.
American Allies:
Germany and France arent indecisive or weak, they're wise. This wisdom comes from 2000 years of history America does not have. All the European countries have been through many wars, had their civilians die, they're cities destroyed. America has never (not countinig civil war) had a war waged on its own land. They do not think war is a bad thing, since they've never seen the effects of war upon their people and land. Europe (except the UK, sorry guys but you're PM is a moron (though the Brits are quite nice as a people I hear)) knows how terrible wars are, and so is trying to avoid it.
Nato:
What makes the US think that NATO is their own personal army. NATO countries are not there because they want or need the US's protection. If America were to leave NATO, it (nato) would be just as strong, a bit more wise. You make it seem like all the NATO couuntries are little kids that want their big bro the US to protect them.
-
Originally posted by Ashrak
ya think?!
Amerika sucks.
w00t! You just won the *You gave the most retared reply* medal!
Now you may explain WHY America sucks.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
North American Treaty Organisation
It's the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation...
-
Originally posted by Darkage
Now you may explain WHY America sucks.
Just... because... :p
No really, I don't think America sucks, but their policy does. They say something similar to this:
Support us or you can suck it.
They act like they are the friggin only country in the world. Cause, mark my words on this, if the go through with this they will have so many enemies that they'll be destroyed by their own doing. They will have about 30-40% of their own pop against them, about half of europe, the entire middle east, and china & Co. won't like it too much either.
-
Ow, yeah, don't forget every friggin moslim that will go into their "holy war". And give the Al-Qaida a reason to use the statue of liberty as a runway.
-
The sad thing is, even if that happens, they still have nukes to wipe out this planet 50 times in a row.
-
hmm lets see:
1) the president is a complete idiot
2) Sientific tests hav shown that 80% of american population have lower IQ than in any other advanced country
3) Americans think they are the best in the world and that they own it
4) americans are retarded english colonists
-
*Looks over thread*
:rolleyes:
I'd like to point out something ....while you all ***** about America sucks and it's full of retards,... burn your FS disks k? They're american tools :p
"Oh I hate America! They're so stupid! What ? Oh of course I buy software from them and devote all my time to one of their games!"
Damn kids ... bigotry at it's best eh ?
:D
-
president IQ-
Bill Clinton – 182,
Jimmy Carter- 175,
John F. Kennedy – 174,
Richard Nixon- 155,
Franklin D. Roosevelt – 147,
Harry S. Truman – 132,
Lyndon B. Johnson- 126,
Dwight D. Eisenhower – 122,
Gerald Ford – 121,
Ronald Reagan – 105,
George Bush – 98.
98 is like 28 less then me
-
And like 40 less than me.
I'm not too sure about Clinton being 182. 140 is considered semi-genius and until like 1960 or something it was thought that no-one could break 200.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
no he isn't, France is
yeah right.
little course about world-wide economy and the weight of petrol: USA are the number one for petrol exportation. And that's a pb: in 35 years, there won't be a single galon of petrol left in USA. In 35 years man: you'll see it, you'll even be young enough. Then you have two big petrol rich areas in the world:
1) syberia ( no idea how you spell it in english, don't cme and ***** at me for that )
2) irak/arabia etc
Syberia petrol is difficult to exploit for various reasons. Iraki petrol, on the ther end, you drill a hole ain the ground and you have it ( that's a picture, I know it's more "costy" than that ).
Now, France has signed deals with Irak back then, and with the embargo, those deals are on hold. The USA want to go there, kill Sadam, ok. But, Oh! Great Mighty Surprise! They also clearly stated that they would seize all Iraki installations and put a (lol ) temporary governement there. What's there to seize, if not petrol installations? mmh? missiles silos? ROFL! Of course all deals with France would be broken if Iraki were to be invaded, how handy!
A temporary US government, what will it do? well it'll get the oil.
Nice Bush wants the petrol, just like anybody else.
-
how much does the dutch president Bakellende as?
-
Originally posted by Tiara
George Bush – 98.
*points and laughs*
BTW, guys, I suggest you to stop *****ing America before Shrike arrives. I just said what situation we have here and did not mean to start another any anti-american thread.
Stop it. Please.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
how much does the dutch president Bakellende as?
He looks like Harry potter but hes pwetty smart ;) He had pwetty high score at our national IQ test.
-
Originally posted by Ulundel
*points and laughs*
BTW, guys, I suggest you to stop *****ing America before Shrike arrives. I just said what situation we have here and did not mean to start another any anti-american thread.
Stop it. Please.
I'm not *****ing america, I'm defending my country from someone who has no right to judge it.
-
Honestly though Venom .... noone in this thread has the right to judge ANY country they don't reside in.
That's been my biggest complaint with these type discussions,... tons of miss-informed ppl....on ALL sides.
BTW I find it amusing suddenly we have many geniuses in here :D
-
Originally posted by venom2506
I'm not *****ing america, I'm defending my country from someone who has no right to judge it.
Quand tout renait a l'esperance,
at que l'hiver fuit loin de nous
sous le beau ci...
no-no-no-no, wrong song...
Allons enfants de la patrie
Le jour de gloire est arrivé
Contre nous de la tyrannie
L'étendard sanglant est levé etc.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
Honestly though Venom .... noone in this thread has the right to judge ANY country they don't reside in.
That's been my biggest complaint with these type discussions,... tons of miss-informed ppl....on ALL sides.
BTW I find it amusing suddenly we have many geniuses in here :D
yeah, well, I still think this kind of dicussions have no place on HLP anyway.
-
Originally posted by Ashrak
hmm lets see:
1) the president is a complete idiot
2) Sientific tests hav shown that 80% of american population have lower IQ than in any other advanced country
3) Americans think they are the best in the world and that they own it
4) americans are retarded english colonists
5) Ashrak is an idiot.
-
6) since this thread is going to get 0wned anyway, when any admin arrives, why don't we stop making it worse, and derail this subject.
-
I love this the whole "America is doing it for the oil!"
If Bush wanted cheaper oil he would lift the sanctions on Iraqi and Iranian oil, disown Isreal, and wipe out all the national forest in the United States with drilling sites.
History correction for the bright one that said only civil wars were the only wars fought on American Soil. Let's see:
War of 1812- Britian and France pulled the U.S. into this one.
Mexican War- Mexico attacked the Southern Texas borders. So U.S. forces invaded and took most of the desert Southwest that we know of today like New Mexico, Arizona, etc.
Ashrak if you don't like it then take your little punk ass self and move. Wait...what are you? Like 12. And try to be original and stop copying Stryke 9 with the Amerika bull****.
Watch the pronouns people! You! You! You! It's not me, I couldn't careless about what the American Government does.
I don't know why I bother with this, I'm about sick of it.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
6) since this thread is going to get 0wned anyway, when any admin arrives, why don't we stop making it worse, and derail this subject.
Yeah, I said that a couple of posts ago. Time to stop.
-
i think we are grown up enough to be able to govern ourselves without an admin telling us whats what (no offence but any person can judge for him/her self if they will get involved in the discussion.) and until now there have been no personal attacks.
This thread isnt anti-Amercian. Atleast its not anti-Americans (as in attaking the people). Its is a political debate.
what I meant to say (or what I meant but did put to words too well) is that America has never experienced the losses of war. Europe has suffered through countles wars and knows the cost in human lives is too high.
War of 1812. Excuse me? Britain and France pulled you into it? You showed up at the Canadian border and said "we're annexing you." Canada said no, and fought back. The war of 1812 was an attampted invasion by the US.
The Mexico War: Oh no, those Mexicans must be tough. Wow, you fought Mexico, big deal. You yourself claim that through the war you gained alot of land, and since when is Mexico considered a formidable opponent.
I love it how America thinks whoever is not against them is evil and stupid. the only person who can watch CNN without laughing is an American.
BTW do you really believe Bush is after freedom etc. Oil man, its the biggest industry in the world. America is stationing troops in the Middle East and it'll be 10 years before they start pulling out. Can you honestly be so naive as to think that America is doing this for anyone's benefit but their own.
-
Initiating war is always for personal gain...
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
1)If Bush wanted cheaper oil he would lift the sanctions on Iraqi and Iranian oil,
2)disown Isreal,
3)and wipe out all the national forest in the United States with drilling sites.
1) that wouldn't make the oil his own, would it? He doesn't want cheaper oil, cheaper oil makes less money.
2) let's not reply to that or I might throw up. Plus that would change crap, there's no oil in Israel, Israel wouldn't care, and that would be soooooooo bright to threaten one of the most powerful armies in the world. Crap, I replied.
3) there's no oil there. guess what, oil is where forests are dead. if there's a forest, there's soil renewal, hence no petrol.
Warlock is soooooooooooo right.
Not gonna check that thread anymore, have fun.
-
Originally posted by Warlock
*Looks over thread*
:rolleyes:
I'd like to point out something ....while you all ***** about America sucks and it's full of retards,... burn your FS disks k? They're american tools :p
"Oh I hate America! They're so stupid! What ? Oh of course I buy software from them and devote all my time to one of their games!"
Damn kids ... bigotry at it's best eh ?
:D
*burns all microsoft games and CD's in general*
GO linux Go linux GO GO GO linux
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
no that is politics, what is sick is France and Germeny blocking efforts to prepaire defences for Turkey becase they don't want us to take out Sadam, that is one holy hell of a lot worse than us threatening not to suport you if you don't suport us, becase many people in Turkey could die in horable ways from this, Estonia joining NATO may lead to a less secure future but it does not ramp the prospects of you getting nailed for suporting you're allies in the very near future,
and besides why the hell do you want to join the North American Treaty Organisation, it sure as hell does not sound like you want to be on our side
It's North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
-
Originally posted by Ashrak
*burns all microsoft games and CD's in general*
GO linux Go linux GO GO GO linux
Oh really .... then how are ya here ? Playing FS in your head ? And I didn't know they made Lightwave for linux,...that's kinna cool :rolleyes:
Ok here's a cookie....go play nice.
-
Originally posted by Ace
It's North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
That has been said FOUR times
-
Originally posted by Ace
It's North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Ok he's been corrected 4 times now ... I think he's got the
point :P lol
*Edit* Not enough coffee in me ...I can't count yet :P
-
What was the original subject of this thread again? *looks* I guess, like every other thread that has to do with politics of any kind in this forum, the subject is "why we hate America". Geese guys, aren't we mature enough to stop yelling at each other about why we hate one country? Let me try...
I hate the UK, France, Germany....
-
Originally posted by Hades
I hate the UK, France, Germany....
'
who doesn't?
anyway, I hate countrys.
-
Yes lets all insult the USA and while doing so allow our attention focus to be dragged away from the actions that are really hurting the people involved... :rolleyes: Christ, this is why the US Administration has it so easy.
-
Originally posted by Ulundel
Yesterday, Bush called to our prime minister to explain him America's views plus asked him about Estonia's opinion - basically, which side are we.
Estonia has always supported the peaceful outcome but we are also trying to join NATO and USA could basically block our way to there if we do not support them in this matter.
So probably Bush said something like this...
Yo, Siim (our prime minister's first name), America and Estonia have also shared the same views but now, I heard a certain *nudge* rumour that Estonia do not support attacking Iraq. *wink* But then, you're also trying to join NATO and *wink-wink*...
He's using our damn weaknesses to find more allies! That is sick!
Bush is a psycho. Do you hear me? HE'S A PSYCHO! He realizes that only america and UK are going in this war. He can't find allies because his reasons for attacking Iraq do not excist. He just wants to have some fun while his mandate runs off.
He sent his inspectors to see if Iraq has weapons and all and it seems that it doesnt. Oh come on, don't tell me that Sadam hid them somewhere so that they can't find them. Those inspectors probably have hi-res equipment to find those. So it seems that Bush is lacking support and he can't go in this war alone. Sure, he can nuke Iraq, but right after that he would probably face the court martial and start to scratch lines on the wall in the slammer. By the way, why would Estonia like to join a Terrorist organization? :wtf:
-
Shut up! SHUT UP!!!
-
Just because the US wants to take out Saddam doesnt mean everyone has to. Let the "Great Army" do its "Great Duty" on its own.
Thought the Americans can fight on their own? Why should they threaten memberships of countries if they arent supported? Thats called hitlerism, or even Bushism now that freakin American Nazi.
Sickens me to see the US threaten NATO membership on countries who wont support them. NAZIS
-
Originally posted by Hades
I hate the UK
A typing error I presume...
::leans heavily on Hades, pats Iron Softball bat in hand::
:)
-
No, I really do not hate the UK, France or Germany, I was just trying to make a point.
::shows everybody else HIS iron softbal bat, with steel spikes::
-
I think I will copy and paste my old posts more often from now in these arguments, since the exact same arguments come up every time. :D
uh, I'm too tired to do this right now, my arguments are half baked and I'm going to screw up facts, please don't let this get close before I wake up again
I can take over for you for the moment, since I can just recycle my old arguments. :D
I always thought it was american, oh well, generaly I am well informed screwed up there though, but the point I was trying to make was that NATO is basicly a bunch of contries that wants the USA to keep them safe, do not tell me the idea was not to keep the USSR at bay
This is so true. NATO is essentially a cold war relic that was formed to combat the USSR and has essentially become obsolete in today's age, especially with the diffences in opinion forming between the US and Europe. Such alliances are formed out of a common objective and a common objective alone; once that objective has been met, the alliance no longer really exists. In today's world, the objective is to fight the "terrorists," and the main nations that have an interest there are those being targeted by the same groups (mainly there is the US, Israel and India, but also some others).
No, the fact that you are using our weakness to get what you want. It's like an ultimatum - wanna join NATO: support us. If you do not support us: screw you and if WW3 should come... *wink-wink* *nudge-nudge*
Exactly, that is what every sensible nation in the world does. You take advantage of the other's weaknesses; it is common sense. :p (although in this case, it does not really matter)
Germany and France arent indecisive or weak, they're wise. This wisdom comes from 2000 years of history America does not have.
Yes, I will certainly argee that they are wiser due to their centuries of experience with these political systems. Here is the train of thought that they must be using: in recent years the US has grown too far economically and militaristically (note all this stuff about the "unipolar world"), and this cannot be allowed to continue. Therefore, they need to do something that will bring the US down so that they will have a chance of becoming the great powers of the world once again in the future, but they cannot operate in the open since they are too reliant on the US at the moment. However, they can do things more indirectly and secretively, and that is exactly what they are doing here. They know that an attack on Iraq has a significant chance of temporarily disrupting the next 9/11, and the French also have business interests in Iraq, so they must give Iraq another chance; in order to do this, they will make sure the US holds off for another month or two, which will mean that it will drag on into next year, since the scorching desert temperatures in the summer would prevent proper operation of machinery. The US on the other hand needs to finish up with Iraq ASAP so they can move on to the others. In fact, I would not be surprised one bit if it is found that the French and German governments are directly financing al Qaeda in exchange for having them leaving their own nations alone for the moment and going after the US; if they are doing this, then they are living up to my expectations of their wisdom quite well. Now note that this is no reason to think the nations are "bad;" on the contrary, I very much admire them for their skill here, as this "world opinion" is one of the places that they are getting the better of the US.
As for the oil argument, read the last thread on this subject; there is not only a good reason they are not after oil (Saudi Arabia), but also even if they were, they are trying to get some free oil, what in the world in wrong with that? :D
what I meant to say (or what I meant but did put to words too well) is that America has never experienced the losses of war. Europe has suffered through countles wars and knows the cost in human lives is too high.
Now, if you want to get into the theoretical aspect of this, look up my posts on the good old "experiential bias" topic; there is a point at which experience becomes more detrimental than beneficial to thinking due to the way it plays with emotions. For example, consider the question "is alcohol bad for you?" asked to a complete alcohol addict and a man who has never drank it in his life. The alcoholic, who has far, far more experience, will answer in the affirmative, while the other guy will answer in the negative, but who is to be believed?
And when we get into the losses of war, while some valuable people die, the majority of the deaths are the common people that are easily reproducible, a side effect of their higher percentage of the population. Then there is also the issue of whose people they are; the US should, as any smart nation will do, only worry about Iraqi people as they contribute to the well being of the US. This is the way international politics works. Then again, if Afghanistan is any indicator, the civilian casualties will likely be much less of an issue than most people think.
BTW do you really believe Bush is after freedom etc. Oil man, its the biggest industry in the world. America is stationing troops in the Middle East and it'll be 10 years before they start pulling out. Can you honestly be so naive as to think that America is doing this for anyone's benefit but their own.
Well, yes, but in a limited sense; he is after his own freedom. :D It is rather obvious that the US is doing all this for their own benefit; I don't think there is any country in the world that is stupid enough to do things that benefit other nations more than their own (well, possibly India, where I am from, but they are really messed up).
Oh come on, don't tell me that Sadam hid them somewhere so that they can't find them. Those inspectors probably have hi-res equipment to find those.
I think this statement says it all about misinformation. :D Here's how to hide a bomb: find some random place in the middle of a desert, dig a ditch about ten feet down, put your warhead in there (these things are about the size of a computer, at the most), and cover it up again with dirt. Even if all of the European population combined (over 250 million) is sent to Iraq and instructed to find it with the best technology at their disposal, chances are that they will take at least a decade to find it. If you can invent something like a bomb detector that has a fairly large radius, you will be a rich man indeed. :nod:
Just because the US wants to take out Saddam doesnt mean everyone has to. Let the "Great Army" do its "Great Duty" on its own.
Thats called hitlerism, or even Bushism now that freakin American Nazi.
Ah, it's great to finally some sensible posting around here. :nod: The US definitely should not be worrying this much about global opinion (since all countries are at their core enemies of each other, this is like worrying about Iraq's opinion on the war :p), especially when the stakes are so high; I see this as something of a weakness, only balanced out by the US's other assets. Bush is indeed a nazi, and so far he's doing a good job at it. Let us see if he can keep that up.
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
Just because the US wants to take out Saddam doesnt mean everyone has to. Let the "Great Army" do its "Great Duty" on its own.
Thought the Americans can fight on their own? Why should they threaten memberships of countries if they arent supported? Thats called hitlerism, or even Bushism now that freakin American Nazi.
Sickens me to see the US threaten NATO membership on countries who wont support them. NAZIS
So I guess now i need to shave my head eh ?
BTW where is actually proof that it was said "Support us or don't get into NATO " ?
You folks sure it's not "Support us or we don't support you're app. to join"
Not a damn person here, myself included, knows exact wording on a damn thing being said between any single freaking member of any damned Government,.....yet 90% of the ppl here ACT like they do.
Anyways have fun whining and *****ing, not that it'll do anything side from get the thread locked,.........again.
-
The thing is that even if the information that everyone here is claiming to know was entirely accurate, they can always be counted on to somehow manage to make the wrong deductions from it. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The thing is that even if the information that everyone here is claiming to know was entirely accurate, they can always be counted on to somehow manage to make the wrong deductions from it. :D
Amen on that one. I swear sometimes I think if I posted saying "hey look...it's noon here and the sun is out!" Someone ....will argue with me :P
-
You know what I like?
I like getting stoned on an late spring afternoon, sat on top of one of my local hills, just watching the world pass me by.
See, thing is, wars, death, famine, poverty, disease, racism and anything else bad you care to mention happens and there isn't a fat lot of good anyone can really do about it (at the moment anyway) so why bother.
If something worries you, get a hobby, go out meet people, stay in and chill out, whatever floats your boat. because life's just too short.
-
LOL true true :)
-
Originally posted by 01010
You know what I like?
I like getting stoned on an late spring afternoon, sat on top of one of my local hills, just watching the world pass me by.
See, thing is, wars, death, famine, poverty, disease, racism and anything else bad you care to mention happens and there isn't a fat lot of good anyone can really do about it (at the moment anyway) so why bother.
If something worries you, get a hobby, go out meet people, stay in and chill out, whatever floats your boat. because life's just too short.
That's why you/we should quit posting to this thread.
-
Originally posted by Ulundel
That's why you/we should quit posting to this thread.
Good Man :)
:yes:
-
What Happened to Germany when they wldnt support the US recently? They had been threatened, almost pushed to support or else. They wont, so the US considers them almost the enemy now, if you read and heard reports during these talks between the US and Germany, when germany stated they want no part in it, US used propaganda to discredit the Germans.
UK people (not government) overwhelming do NOT want to War with Saddam, they remember the times when they were in trouble, called for help but the US didnt come until they were attacked and threatened. So it makes snes the UK people dont want to support US, however the Prime Minister does. Funny thing is Mr. Blair cannot even get support from his own party anymore, and its my assumption the UK will pull out of the War with Iraq if the US cannot gain more allies to attack Saddam.
Another thing, does the US run the UN and NATO? if not i guess their influence and money and power is great their, to threaten other countries memberships. You guys honestly think this is some kind of rumor?
The US has NO real reason to attack Iraq, HENCE no support. This is vengeance from the Bush family. Bush Sr. is embarrassed he didnt finish the job, as he should have, so Bush JR. is using any and all excuses to attack Saddam, yet he isnt really a problem right now.
Korea is a problem, India and Pakistan are a problem (known worldwide to have Nukes) but what does Iraq have thats a threat to the world? They have the potential of cornering the market in oil and other fuels. Does India have such great potential with oil as Iraq, does pakistan, korea?
No they dont. However India, Pakistan and both Koreas need to be watched closely, and disarmed as they all pose a great threat to the world, as the USSR once did.
But money matters more then security. Bush is a tyrant and shld be recongized as such, and the minute he goes after Saddam without NATO or UN support he should be jailed as one.
But hey im full of ****, make no sense, and half the stuff i say never happened right? Well in 50yrs when the real truth comes out the Bush name will be an infamous one for the acts he is about to commit on enemies and even friends.
Bush = Tyrant.
-
no that is politics, what is sick is France and Germeny blocking efforts to prepaire defences for Turkey becase they don't want us to take out Sadam, that is one holy hell of a lot worse than us threatening not to suport you if you don't suport us, becase many people in Turkey could die in horable ways from this, Estonia joining NATO may lead to a less secure future but it does not ramp the prospects of you getting nailed for suporting you're allies in the very near future,
and besides why the hell do you want to join the North American Treaty Organisation, it sure as hell does not sound like you want to be on our side
Where was the US when Nazi German invaded most of europe? Sitting at home saying it wasnt their problem until they were dragged into the war by being attacked.
How is what Germany and France doing any different then what the US did when it was Axis vs Allies? They will wait until they are threatened to support it, as the US did.
What goes around Comes around my friends, now take ur war and fight it yourselves, Bush seems to think he can run the world, so lets see him do it alone the tyrant.
I love what goes around comes around cause its so true.
-
Originally posted by 5 out of the six billion people on earth
It's North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
yes I know I admited I was wrong
Saddam a threat?
yup, he is a nut and a vengefull mad man, you don't think he wants to kill us, you don't think he hates us more than any other human on the face of the earth, think of it he was the only person anywere to not unconditionaly denounce the 9/11 atacks.
he does not care what we do to his people, if we were to nuke Baghdad he would love it. honestly if he was woried about US retaliation do you think he would have tried to assassanate Bush(sr), what would have hapened if Sadam would have succeded in killing him, we would have absolutly leveled him and he knows it, if he was worried about oue retaliation he wouldn't have tryed that. further if a giant VX bomb goes off in NY there realy isn't any way that we would be able to trace it back to him, I can here the nagging about us not haveing evedence now.
The case for War
the inspectors are not suposed to find anything, if they are finding things they are not doing there jobs, they are never going to find anything becase they are not looking for anything,
the fact that they have not seen any weapons of mass destruction is proof that sadam has then and is obstructing the inspection procces, sadam is suposed to bring weapons befor Blix and show him how there being destroied, 1441 the eunanumsly accepted resolution said in no uncertan terms that that Iraq did have weapons and they had to prove they were destroied, to date all Blix has found is nothing wich means Iraq has proven nothing
American Allies
if you don't want to suport us I don't give a damn, you can sit back at home and let us take care of him, but I find it hard to beleve that you will let some of the things hapen but you will actualy try and phyisicaly stop us becase you have an idealistic diference with us, so I realy don't give a damn
France has systematicaly dismanteled the
UN[/SIZE] sanctions in order to get at Iraqi oil, we have done nothing but tryed to get less oil from Iraq sold,
yes we will take controle of the oil feilds first thing, becase we don need a huge black cloud of smoak covering the contry blocking out our laser guided bombs, and becase the people are going to need it to get there contry back on it's feet,
I would guess the people would rather sell it to the people who risked there necks (us) to save them rather than the people who tryed to deal with there tormentors and held there oil contracts over the lives of the people of Iraq (France)
I am defending MY contry, I have seen no evedence sugesting that Bush has any plans on Iraq,
but I have seen mountans of evedence showing France has a vested finantial interest in maintaining Sadam's position of power,
there are $40,000,000,000 in contracts to the French
-
:blah:
*gives up and leaves*
-
hmm... i wonder how long this thread will go before the admins KILL IT!!! (http://users.bigpond.com/turnsky/images/plascannon.gif)
-
not much longer:nod:
-
There's an easy way to deal with this.
[Generic Admin Name], you are a bastard of the highest calibre.
-
Well, several million people today told the leaders of the world what they thought of a war on Iraq. I want Saddam removed, but no one will convince me we don't have more effective and humanitarian (for the population) ways.
-
there is absolutly no way Sadam is leaveing power alive
prove me wrong
-
Ulundel: look man, I know this kind of talk can be unerving. However I dont see it is childish, or stupid, or uninformed or anything bad. If people wanna talk, let em
CP: until you decide to accept that human life is important, we have nothing more to discuss. People who dont value human life, who do everything for personal gain, who care nothing for others are called sociopaths. Yes the world is not fair, but it SHOULD be fair. I act in the way that things SHOULD be, because if everyone accpets tryanny, greed, opportunism, then it will remain that way. You talk of how the sneakiest, most corrupt, most bloodthirsty country is the smartest one. Well maybe, but I would rather have a country that is good and charitable and wise, you can always get more tanks.
Bob:
Saddam a threat:
according to you, everyone that is rithless is a madman. Most people who are dictators are not crazy fanatics, but rather strategists. Saddam will not do something crazy and unpredicatble because "god told him so", or because "the quaran demands it" or something. He acts in a way that he thinks will firther his political power. Excuse me, but when did Saddam try to assasinate Bush? When was Bush even within Saddam's reach. Also, if Bush got the opportunity, he would take Saddam out. If the US attacked, he would be priority 1, so yes, he is afraid. He is cooperating because he is afraid. He wont attack because he fears retaliation.
The case for war:
If the UN inspectors HAD found something, the US would be like "hes got weapons, so he must be willing to use them. We have to take him out". Now they're like "he doesnt have weapons, where are they". Explain to me what Saddam could do to avoid US suspicion. Its a no win man, and you know it.
American Allies:
Go ahead, act without the UN. See how many allies you'll have then. The UN is there to stop wars. It should have power over international matters. If you attack without the say so of the international community, its not "peacekeeping", its an invasion.
Ofcourse France imports Iraqi oil. So does the rest of the world. The US if the number one consumer of oil in the world (I'm admitting i'm not 100% sure of this statistic, but I think you can agree). If American troops go into Iraq they will not only be able to exert influence in Iraq, but the whole middle east. This is not counting the troops sent to neighbooring countries to "defend them" (the mafia also "protects" people without their consent). They must have 50000 troops in the middle east by now, and those troops will stay there and will be able to extort oil for the next who knows.
-
http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
-
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/tap/pictures/kittens.jpg)
-
they look more like lions/meeks or whatever they arecalled.. prairie dogs.
-
Just a note ... for those going with the "Now IF they had found weapons blah blah"
Ummm dude ...the problem is they did NOT find weapons. Meaning there's several bio-chem and such weapons NOT ACCOUNTED FOR.
Do you ppl NOT see a problem with a bomb that can take out a city just vanishing ?
Oh wait ... that's right ... We took it to blame Sadam ... my bad.
:rolleyes:
-
Sadam tryed to assassanate Bush (papa mind you) after the cease fire that ended hostilitys in the gulf war when Bush went on a victory lap in Kuwait, though tecnicaly I think it was after his term.
it was in 1993 I think, *googles for story*
not looking for most fair, report just to give you the idea of what happened
read (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm)
the first story I found related to the subject
if Iraq had said "all our anthrax is here go on and burn it or whatever" or if they could give a good explaination of what happened to it,
Blix has said that none of this stuff has been acounted for
if it had been we wouldn't be able to justify war with him even amung our own people (30-70 in favor today)
aggh!!! kill the kittens!!!
-
:blah:
-
They're looking for any excuse for avoiding war. Why? Because if that weapon is used it won't be used against them... it'll be used against the US. People say they symphathize with us, but they don't.
Note to you... The UN power's lie in the U.S. Pure in simple. The US has been the military for the UN. And btw, peace at any cost is a bad idea. History proves that. Ask the French what they think of Vicci France. Sure take over our country, that's cool just as long as we don't have war.
The idea of the UN having ANY moral authority is a joke when Lybia sits on the Human Rights Council.
Let's put it this way: They've found a missle that can go longer than the permitted range... iraq has said they won't destroy it. That's a material breach. They found missles used for chemical weapons that weren't declared... hmmmm that's a material breach. Do I need to continue?
Basically here's the bottom line: If Saddam uses a WMD he will target two people... Iraq or the US. What happens then? You say sorry? Yeah right you'll tell us that it was our fault. That we SHOULD have attacked.
And one more thing: I don't if you guys saw this one... but the Arab League has come out saying they are afraid of an attack against Iraq because they are afraid that it will cause uprisings in their countries. (Keep in mind everyone of those countries is not democratic/republic at all.) No wonder they don't want us to attack, they're comfertable with their power.
-
my point with the assassonation atempt was that if it had suceeded we would have nuked them and sadam knew it, so he isn't afraid of our retaliation, becase us nukeing him will only kill millions of Iraqis and not him
-
Er... no, we wouldn't have. If only because Bush WASN'T THE PRESIDENT WHEN THE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT OCCURRED.
-
Still it's an attack on a US citizen and more to the point a dignitary.
**** look how WWI was started.
I'm not saying we would use nukes... we would have done something.
-
but what gives you the right to
a) tell other countries how they can/can't act. Even if its something stupid like telling Iraq to keep their public benches clean, you just cant order other countries around.
b)tell Iraq what weapons they can/cannot have. You cant have double standards (wll you can but you shouldnt)
BTW if it came down to war US vs Europe, do you honestly think you;de win?
This is not apeasment, Saddam has shown NO indication of being a threat, or if he has, the certainly not to the US or Europe. He is not bin Laden, he is a dictator not a fanatic.
The whole point of the UN is that its aplace where countries can talk, regardless of past actions. You cant say "Libya did this, so their opinion is less worthy". America had slavery, they killed innocents in Vietnam (going into a foreign country is called invasion), etc etc. They have killed more people in the past 20 years than Libya and Iraq put together. Do you think that just becuase the wars America fought were presented as Peacekeeping (they were mostly not peacekeeping) that makes the casualties ok??
-
when you have an agreement that ended a war with a contry and they don't live up to it, you have the right to tell them to live up to there end or you won't live up to yours (ie you'll bomb them)
and if it came down to it do you honestly think you'd win?
no, Usama would win
-
(http://www.fattonys.com/images/kittens2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
but what gives you the right to
a) tell other countries how they can/can't act. Even if its something stupid like telling Iraq to keep their public benches clean, you just cant order other countries around.
b)tell Iraq what weapons they can/cannot have. You cant have double standards (wll you can but you shouldnt)
BTW if it came down to war US vs Europe, do you honestly think you;de win?
This is not apeasment, Saddam has shown NO indication of being a threat, or if he has, the certainly not to the US or Europe. He is not bin Laden, he is a dictator not a fanatic.
The whole point of the UN is that its aplace where countries can talk, regardless of past actions. You cant say "Libya did this, so their opinion is less worthy". America had slavery, they killed innocents in Vietnam (going into a foreign country is called invasion), etc etc. They have killed more people in the past 20 years than Libya and Iraq put together. Do you think that just becuase the wars America fought were presented as Peacekeeping (they were mostly not peacekeeping) that makes the casualties ok??
War with the US and Europe? We'd slaughter you. Sorry. One of our battle groups... one (and we have about 10) has more airpower than most countries combined. Also he who rules the Seas ALWAYS wins the war. The only people to have "creidible" threats to a Nimitz group was the Russians... and even then it was with a **** load of air power. You wouldn't have oil. You lose. Just acknowledge one thing... Europe is militarily weaker than the US.... probably even China. Go to my thread... It's a pretty fair view on things. Long read though.
What gives us the right? The lost a war. They AGREED to do what we wanted. They SIGNED a peace of paper saying they would. They fail to meet the contract that means they failed to meet OUR terms of peace. IE war has never concluded. This is the way the world has always worked. Sorry but wake up if you think it doesn't work that way. Europe for centuries did the same.
Do you remember a certain hostage situation in England when the SAS did a LIVE takedown? That was Iraqi terrorists. He has always supported terrorism. And who stopped him from taking Kuwait. We did. He has reasons to not like us.
True America had slavery... we don't anymore. We acknowledged we were wrong. THEY STILL DO. If you don't see a problem with that, get new glasses.
Vietnam was a fubar. I acknowledge that. **** look at France and North Africa. Way more of a FUBAR.
Yes going into a country is invasion... but when we try to support another country that is getting invaded? By your logic... we shouldn't have assisted you guys in WWII... I mean we were invading Germany. (germany was France then)
A lot of this boils down to something...
We are the world power now. You guys aren't. Not economically, not politically. You guys aren't used to having someone else call the shots. PERIOD.
-
And if I have to pull out troop numbers I will. But we could also go into technology. But it comes down to the sea... and your ass is grass.
-
they have nukes, we wouldn't be able to disable all of them,
mutualy esured destruction,
we may have a military 10 times as powerfull as all of europe, but our military has enough fire power to burn the planet to a cinder 100 times over,
wich means they have enough fire power to burn the planet to a cinder 10 times over and if they focused it at us we would have no means by wich to defend our selves,
granted they wouldn't win, but nither would we
-
I'm talking about a Non-Nuclear campaign.
And they don't have that many nukes.
-
well, without the nukes, yes we could (if we wanted to) run through Europe like a mack truck through a swarm of flys
but they do still have nukes and I wouldn't recomend them getting rid of them any time soon (despite all of this I still don't want to see Europe taken over, I do still like them a little, on an idealistic level)
-
Hmmm 'Nam ....funny guy .... FRANCE WAS THERE BEFORE THE US.
Killed Innocents...I'm just not going to bother with that ****.
Honestly I think the only way any of you kiddies would be happy ,... US just says **** the world, locks our borders and ignores your asses for a few decades and see what happens.
But then again ,... sometimes I think ppl around here just want a reason to ***** :P
-
CP: until you decide to accept that human life is important, we have nothing more to discuss. People who dont value human life, who do everything for personal gain, who care nothing for others are called sociopaths.
Whatever you call it, it is much more rational, and since (ideal) arguments are rational constructs in the first place, yours falls apart. :p Why the devil is human life so important when there are six billion on the planet that reproduce very rapidly? (not to mention that everyone is complaining about overpopulation) Sure, humans are a very important resource, but one in great supply too. This is like saying that chairs are inherently valuable, and that we should respect their existence; it simply makes no sense.
Anyway, the governments today just say this stuff to gain popular support because it is emotionally appealing; since they are still around and in place today, they must have learned the truth long ago. :D
Yes the world is not fair, but it SHOULD be fair. I act in the way that things SHOULD be, because if everyone accpets tryanny, greed, opportunism, then it will remain that way. You talk of how the sneakiest, most corrupt, most bloodthirsty country is the smartest one.
That is pretty much an unjustified assertion with a particular definition of "fair" attached to it. I can say that it SHOULD NOT be fair, and I would be just as correct as you are, so we do not get anywhere; we need a more objective and scientific way of looking at these things. And like I said in that other thread, we need to be fair to the chairs, so stop sitting on them. :D But really, there is no way to measure "should" other than what is, so if anything "should" be, it would already be so. Now you can act in this way it "should" be, but the world will still remain that way regardless of such mindsets, because people like you will not be able to compete with the "evil" guys (which will pretty much always exist as long as there is more than one human around) and will just get smashed after a while; a good real world example of this is Gandhi. Do you see my point? It's all about what produces the practical results, since in the end it is all meaningless anyway. And yes, those traits do indeed characterize the smart nations, because they are the ones who survive and come out victorious in the end; if you look a little carefully at history, you will find that the victors are the "evil" guys who manage to make the general population think that they are the good guys.
Well maybe, but I would rather have a country that is good and charitable and wise, you can always get more tanks.
Alright, but your country will be the one to get overrun by the ones with the tanks (and consequently, the wisdom). Would you rather be a fair and honorable but dead man or an evil and unjust winner? This is what today's conflict is all about, and I would take the latter choice any day.
there is absolutly no way Sadam is leaveing power alive
You tell him nicely to give up his weapons and leave the country. Or, you threaten him by tripling the number of inspectors! :D :D
-
Shrike. Close the God damn thread.
-
props on the kitten picture... that's pretty ****ed up.
-
Why thank you.
Although some credit must go to the voices in my head, if not for their tireless chattering and baby-like screams 24/7, I would not have had the inspiration for such an image.
-
Man, I go away for a day and you guys get into some rolling furball of a political argument. Take it somewhere else.