Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: TheCelestialOne on August 19, 2003, 09:40:06 am
-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/19/sprj.irq.main/index.html
Turn on the tv, its getting pathetic really...
Now, some of the Bush gov want to send more troops but if he does that some ppl are starting to believe it'll be a second vietnam. Something that seems easy but turns out to be far more difficult. This is what I thought would happen really. Things are FAR from done in Iraq.
-
**** ME!
That's so coo.....err...disgraceful.
-
whatta... christ
-
...oh dear god:(
we are edge of third world war:(
-
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
we are edge of third world war:(
I wouldn't go that far, but if these terrorists keep bombing the only institution that tried to stop/delay the attack by the Americans it does look bad indeed.
-
worst scenario would be nuclear terrorism
-
......The UN just sat back said "Stop, stop, don't do it." then just rolled the **** over when America decided the UN should STFU.
They deserve to be bombed for being so ineffective.
-
Originally posted by an0n
......The UN just sat back said "Stop, stop, don't do it." then just rolled the **** over when America decided the UN should STFU.
They deserve to be bombed for being so ineffective.
But still, its just wrong. Period.
-
I can understand why the Iraqis are pissed at USA troops, but why oh why do they bomb UN? :confused:
-
Bah... what point are they making by bombing the Iraqi UN Building?
Once again, to quote myself:
People suck!
-
Originally posted by Lt.Cannonfodder
I can understand why the Iraqis are pissed at USA troops, but why oh why do they bomb UN? :confused:
The bombed the Jordanian embassy last month. The Jordanians backed up Iraq more than any other country in the previous gulf war. Looks like we aren't exactly dealing with the smartest terrorists here. They are just going after every big building they can find.
-
It's about time people learned that Islamic radical terrorists don't hate us because of what we do, it's because of who we are. We are not Islamic militant zealots, so we are the infidels, the enemy. They will respect no boundaries, and do anything that could possibly damage the "infidels". Most of the casualties in the UN bombing were ordinary Muslim Iraqi citizens! But the terrorists didn't care. For even associating with the "infidels", they were damned in the eyes of the terrorists, anyway.
The goals of the terrorists were summed up in Star Wars: AOTC when Anakin said: "They're animals, and I slaughtered them like animals! I hate them!" That's what the terrorists think of people who are not like them. We're animals, we're the infidels, and we must be destroyed.
World War III is already beginning.
-
...So what happens next? There are more people who are not Islamic militants than there are people who are... What do we need, China to get involved with their friggin huge army? (Not that they would...)
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
World War III is already beginning.
What a pity. The rest of the post was a well thought out reasoned arguement and then you go and spoil it with this bit of chicken littling. :rolleyes:
-
It's not chicken-littling and the sky is not falling. It's just that war is brewing between the Islamic (well, parts of it) and Western worlds.
-
Never fear, mini-Hitler is here:
<---
-
Brewing is one thing. That's quite different from already starting.
-
What I mean is the fuse to the powder keg has already been lit. It's only a matter of time before it goes off.
-
Genocide is the answer.
**** being politically correct and having religious tollerance.
If most of the Islamic world decides to declare war on me, I got no problems with wiping the whole race from the face of the Earth.
Sure, call me a racist, call me unfairly religiously descriminating, but I'll be a racist with a BFG and a home that hasn't been burned to the ground by radicals.
If I see three kids in the street and I know one of them is about to throw a grenade at me, I feel entirely justified killing all three.
-
when I saw this I said to myself, thank you you stupid terrorists, now people in france and germany and russia might just stop seeing these people as freedom figters and start seeing them as terrorists
why becase they atacked the UN, and we got it on tape
/*sits back and waits for the BUSH IS TEH 1 THAT BOMD THE un!!1!111!! theorys*/
-
They're attacking institutions which gave up on trying to protect them despite international law.
The UN hasn't made any attempts to put an embargo on America or punish them in any way.
Basically, they've indirectly sided against Iraq because they value money more than the soverign rights of the Iraqis.
The UN deserve to be bombed.
-
Just hope they don't take the B5 route and start arresting on acts of sedition ;)
-
an0n mate, b'ain't no nobody going to be handing out the food and medicine if the UN leaves.
-
"Here, kids. You can starve as free people or live as UN *****es. Here, take this charity, you're not strong enough to do without it."
They didn't let the US bomb the **** out of them so they could end up under UN dictatorship.
-
OK, I gotta go to work, but an0n mate: you really ought to have lived in the damn country for a few years before you try to tell us what its people are feeling. You know, walk a mile in a guy's shoes before you judge him, and all that.
-
Pfff. I'm going by [my warped interpretations of] Nietzsches fundamentals on aristocracy when I say: I know what I'm talking about because I say I do.
-
Damn, I used to have a pic of Spock saying 'circular logic... fascinating'
-
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrn86/CARDS/TORMENTO/circular_logic.jpg)
-
no one deserves to be bombed just because they happen to be at work. Basically, they just wanting the press to keep them in the limelight in the feeble hopes that by staying there, someone will be willing to hear them and help them. They aren't attempting to make a statement.
Seems to em that they are just a bunch of posers who need to grow up and realize that the boundries aren't in the sand, but in the mind.
-
Originally posted by an0n
They're attacking institutions which gave up on trying to protect them despite international law.
The UN hasn't made any attempts to put an embargo on America or punish them in any way.
Basically, they've indirectly sided against Iraq because they value money more than the soverign rights of the Iraqis.
The UN deserve to be bombed.
With the tragic death of Sergio de Mello, your post has become one of the most offensive things I have ever read. The people at that building wanted to help the Iraqi people, not protect the dictator that oppressed them. Saddam Hussein was a monster, and deserved to be stripped naked and deep-fried penis first. By throwing your support behind the monster Hussein and saying that they should "punish" Iraq's liberators is an evil, evil thing to say. You are an enemy of Iraq and of the free world. Damn you! Damn you to hell!
-
I'm amazed you think I care about your opinion Woolie. But, seen as I've got nothing better to do until DimeLive gets around to setting up my SSH..........
........Nevermind. SSH enabled.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
With the tragic death of Sergio de Mello, your post has become one of the most offensive things I have ever read. The people at that building wanted to help the Iraqi people, not protect the dictator that oppressed them. Saddam Hussein was a monster, and deserved to be stripped naked and deep-fried penis first. By throwing your support behind the monster Hussein and saying that they should "punish" Iraq's liberators is an evil, evil thing to say. You are an enemy of Iraq and of the free world. Damn you! Damn you to hell!
I'll post more later (in regards to your other post, strangely enough) but I gotta keep up with the action, or otherwise I'll fall behind..
Don't think that the UN are angels, now or in the past. I agreed with them on the Iraq issue, since they opposed the US and opposed war. But how many times in the past have they done harm? In Yugoslavia, in 1991-1993 UN "peacekeepers" made a very nice profit selling basic food items, like powdered milk and aspirin, to a poor and starving people. A people that they helped to starve, by putting sanctions on Yugoslavia. There are many more cases I'm sure, but since I know the most about Yugoslavia, my other example is also there. In 1999, NATO, with UN backing, launched a 78 bombing campaign against Serbia, which resulted in thousands (unlike in Iraq, the bodycount was never verified, but the estimates are 1-5 thousand) of civilian deaths. These bombings were in answer to a "humanitarian crisis" which was as false and as exagerated as the evidence for war in Iraq. Its just that no one really (from the international community) cared, so the fact that the evidence was false was never widely heard.
And interesting fact: UN sanctions against Iraq ( 1991-present ) have resulted in the deaths of over 500, 000 dhildren. And thats just children, not even adults.
Every bad thing you said about Saddam can be applied to Bush, Rumseld and Co. You say that the US liberated Iraq? Well, I agree, they got Saddam out. But the answer may very well turn out to be worse than the problem. Over 7000+ Iraqi civilians are dead, and the US wants to hold on to its power in Iraq despite the wishes of the Iraqi people. I am against Saddam. That does no mean I am for the US. That does not mean I am for the UN. If I saw the US truthfully trying to help Iraqis, and giving them the right to choose their own destiny, even if that destiny wants the US out of Iraq, I would support the US and UN. In this specific case, I think that the UN are right. Or atleast, more right than Saddam or the US. I don't agree with the bombing of the UN building, but I can understand why it happened. I believe that the UN is (or should be, I'm an optimist) a good organization. But they have done some very bad things in the past, and maybe I can forgive them. But I don't think they can claim to be angels when they screw the little guys (Yugoslavia for example) but let the big guys do whatever they want (US breaking international laws ect etc)
Oh and Woolie, take my advice man: ignore Anon. He's just making trouble, he doesn't believe a word of what he's saying. If you push him enough, you'll realise that he doesn't want a conversation, he just wants a flame war. Trust me, I've tried:nod: :nod:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Every bad thing you said about Saddam can be applied to Bush, Rumseld and Co. You say that the US liberated Iraq? Well, I agree, they got Saddam out. But the answer may very well turn out to be worse than the problem. Over 7000+ Iraqi civilians are dead, and the US wants to hold on to its power in Iraq despite the wishes of the Iraqi people. I am against Saddam. That does no mean I am for the US.
The US wants to hold onto its power because Iraq is NOT a functioning society yet. If they leave now chaos will ensue because there's no government and no police. It will be years before Iraq can have any sort of stability without foreign intervention. We want Iraq to be a free, functioning democratic society that respects its people. God knows what will happen if we leave now.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
The US wants to hold onto its power because Iraq is NOT a functioning society yet. If they leave now chaos will ensue because there's no government and no police. It will be years before Iraq can have any sort of stability without foreign intervention. We want Iraq to be a free, functioning democratic society that respects its people. God knows what will happen if we leave now.
Oh and Woolie, take my advice man: ignore Anon. He's just making trouble, he doesn't believe a word of what he's saying. If you push him enough, you'll realise that he doesn't want a conversation, he just wants a flame war. Trust me, I've tried
I was too pissed to ignore him that time. Now I will ignore him. There's no point in starting a flamewar with an0n.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Genocide is the answer.
**** being politically correct and having religious tollerance.
If most of the Islamic world decides to declare war on me, I got no problems with wiping the whole race from the face of the Earth.
Sure, call me a racist, call me unfairly religiously descriminating, but I'll be a racist with a BFG and a home that hasn't been burned to the ground by radicals.
If I see three kids in the street and I know one of them is about to throw a grenade at me, I feel entirely justified killing all three.
:devil: ;7
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Oh and Woolie, take my advice man: ignore Anon. He's just making trouble, he doesn't believe a word of what he's saying. If you push him enough, you'll realise that he doesn't want a conversation, he just wants a flame war. Trust me, I've tried:nod: :nod:
Man, you're wrong on so many counts.
Also, I find it a little odd that you refer to me as though you were anywhere near being my equal.
And besides, Woolie knows all about me from WS.
-
Obviously these terrorists have got their priorities wrong. Sergio Vieira de Mello shouldn't have been killed.
-
Originally posted by Levyathan
Obviously these terrorists have got their priorities wrong. Sergio Vieira de Mello shouldn't have been killed.
His death shocked and saddened me. What kind of monster would do that?
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
I was too pissed to ignore him that time. Now I will ignore him. There's no point in starting a flamewar with an0n.
You could just say that you don't like trying to flame an0n because he rips the **** out of you every time. :p
-
Damn. First Jerusalem and now UN. I hope they don't have another bombing today....
-
I hope they level the Statue of Liberty.
Puely for the comedic value of all the "Should we rebuild it?" "Well it was French, so....".
-
Posting flamebait is one thing, mocking our most treasured institutions and symbols is another.
(http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/stfu1.jpg)
-
I actually rather like an0n's posts on politics, as they have a unique perspective and a degree of common sense seldom seen in other posts. :D
-
Woolie, stop posting moronic pictures all over the place. It ain't like we haven't all seen them enough times to make our eyes bleed...
-
Find someone for me to vent my rage and fury on. I feel like ripping an0n's organs out and throwing them at him.
-
War is not perfect, war is not clean, war is not bloodless, war is not fun. Collateral casualties will always exist, and no matter how well prepared a military is and no matter how much technology progresses, people will die. That’s simple fact.
Few people have been confronted with so many difficult decisions that affect so many people as those that have confronted Bush, and while his choices don’t always turn out to carry the best results, I’d like to see any of you try and do better. He has my respect, and unless you can outperform him in anything other than grammar, he’s earned yours as well.
Think before you judge.
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
War is not perfect, war is not clean, war is not bloodless, war is not fun. Collateral casualties will always exist, and no matter how well prepared a military is and no matter how much technology progresses, people will die. That’s simple fact.
~-=™! No, that's an appauling excuse. !™=-~
Few people have been confronted with so many difficult decisions that affect so many people as those that have confronted Bush, and while his choices don’t always turn out to carry the best results, I’d like to see any of you try and do better.
~-=™! If I could get the Republican party to rig an election for me, I would. !™=-~
He has my respect, and unless you can outperform him in anything other than grammar, he’s earned yours as well.
~-=™! I can outperform him in every aspect. !™=-~
Think before you judge.
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
War is not perfect, war is not clean, war is not bloodless, war is not fun. Collateral casualties will always exist, and no matter how well prepared a military is and no matter how much technology progresses, people will die. That’s simple fact.
Few people have been confronted with so many difficult decisions that affect so many people as those that have confronted Bush, and while his choices don’t always turn out to carry the best results, I’d like to see any of you try and do better. He has my respect, and unless you can outperform him in anything other than grammar, he’s earned yours as well.
Think before you judge.
I agree 100%.:nod::yes:
War is not like a sterile Star Trek fantasy. It is a bloody, awful thing. But often war is better than letting people suffer under the iron grip of monstrous dictators.
As for the President, he has one of the toughest job in the world. He makes extremely difficult decisions every day, and he should be respected, even if he does slip his tongue in an embarrasing manner now and then.
-
Being Insidious was at one time an art form. Now however, you just come off looking like a second rate poser. Welcome to ignore Anon. Maybe if you didn't try so hard to be uncaring, you would actually pull it off.
-
I don't dislike Bush because of his decisions involving Afghanistan or during the war. I dislike him because:
1. He made us invade Iraq when there was no immediate threat using exaggerated intelligence.
2. He treats everything as a PR stunt (this goes for most politicians).
3. He cuts the taxes when we can't afford it (into the red we go.....)
4. He wants to go and abuse the national parks/preserves for short-term industrial gain.
5. He doesn't give a **** about the enviroment.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I hope they level the Statue of Liberty.
Puely for the comedic value of all the "Should we rebuild it?" "Well it was French, so..."
I'll have to think about this one... seriously. After 'Freedom Fries' and 'Liberty Toast' who knows what could happen.
Anon's views are extremely blunt and to the point, usually offensive, but they are nonetheless well thought out and logical. (From my point of view, anyway. I'm a fascist myself.) He succeeds in pissing off a lot of people, but most of those people are pissed because they hear what he's saying and don't want to think about it. I agree with many of Anon's views, though I consider myself more tactful and don't express them as such.
Moving on... My thoughts on the bombing? I believe that the UN was castrated when the US invaded Iraq. It was founded to stop exactly this sort of thing from happening; it's now officially powerless as far as international peacekeeping goes. They excel at humanitarian aid, education, and preservation of World Heritage Sites, since that's all happy stuff everybody supports. But when it gets down to the dirty work, the UN doesn't have enough power or influence to do anything.
Now that the war is "over" the UN is faced with a problem it's faced before, and CAN handle: thousands of starving and homeless in a war-torn country. I see them as an exasperated third party trying to help rebuild things in Iraq, while the Iraqis and Americans constantly bicker and snipe at each other. Bombing the UN and assassinating their head honcho isn't going to help anything for anybody. It's a sad, pointless, tragic loss that will lead to more chaos and bloodshed in the Middle East.
But then, what isn't?
-
Originally posted by an0n
Also, I find it a little odd that you refer to me as though you were anywhere near being my equal.
:wtf: Your equal in... what?
-
KT, shut up and stop feeding the attntion whores. It was funny the first 50 times, now its just stupid. You damn well know that he's just trying to incite a flamewar.
I agree with Grey Wolf about why I don't like Bush. First of all, he stole the election. By something along the lines of 500,000 votes. Then, he manufactured evidence for the war in Iraq. Then, the killed several thousand Iraqi civilians. Then he have his friends corporate contracts to rebuild Iraq, which is dispicable (war profiteering). He's a warmonger and an opportunist. He used 9/11 as an excuse to expand American power and do whatever he wants under the guise of "fighting terorism". Oh, and thats not even to mentions his policies on the environment, on taxes (screw the poor, help the corps) aswell as that whole "screw the UN" thing.
He does have a tough job. In politics, the hardest job is to be good, despite all temptations to be otherwise. He has failed at that job. I could do a much better job as President than he has. I would, lets see:
- Not steal the election
- Not be bought out by the corporations
- Not back out of 30 years worth of non-proliferatrion treaties
- Not give thw world the finger, thereby making America the most hated country in the world
- Not go to war with 2 coutries in 3 years
- Not screw up the envirnment
- Not seek exemption from the Internation Criminal Court
- Not cut funding to education, welfare, healthcare etc etc
He is doing a lousy job. Not because he's is incapable of doing it better, but becuase he is unwilling.
-
Oh God, the ICC. You don't understand why we didn't go into it do you? There are no checks and balances. IT decides period. The thing would be a circus. Now if it was properly set up with some good checks then maybe.
-
Also, the man was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Do I retaliate and look like a bully, or sit back and look like a wimp? Hard decision.
Oh and many national parks that you're claming he wants to go into were made by Clinton. For example, in Utah. They have one of the largest coal reserves underground. It's also one of the cleaner coals. Now who's it competing with ? Indonesia's reserve. Who did Clinton get contributions from? Indonesia. Seems a little weird to me chief.
-
Look like a wimp? The world isn't a highschool football team and international politics isn't a dick measuring contest. Who gives a **** about how high American testasterone levels are. You can't simply go around the world throwing bombs because you want to be macho. War is never (okay, never say never, but almost never) the answer. Instead of asking yourselves "Why would someone go through all the trouble to crash a plane into our building, he must have a very good reason", you simply decided to take the route of revenge, and went to kick the **** out of a country far smaller than yourselves. And has anything been accomplished? The Karzai government has rule over Kabul, and thats about it. The rest is still in the hands of tribal groups and the Taliban, oth f which are gaining ground every day. bin Laden is still at lage, and Al-Queda are still as strong as ever.
Oh and, perhaps and interesting fact: The production of poppy (used to make heroin, opium etc etc) has gone up 18 FOLD since the Americans invaded. You think maybe they have a hand in that?
As for the ICC. Let me ask you something, how much sense does it make for the Court to apply to every country in the world EXCEPT America? The ICC would be an impartial court, free from American control, unlike the Hauge and others. Bush got scared that America (the citizens aswell as the politicians) would be help responsible for their actions, without the US being able to strong-arm their way out of it. You can't have double-standards and say "Americans are better than everyone else, we don't have to follow rules". The ICC would level the playing field, nothing more.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Look like a wimp? The world isn't a highschool football team and international politics isn't a dick measuring contest.
Eh, I think you just described politics as a whole :p
You can't simply go around the world throwing bombs because you want to be macho.
If ya got the bombs ya can. But the consequences are yours ;)
War is never (okay, never say never, but almost never) the answer. Instead of asking yourselves "Why would someone go through all the trouble to crash a plane into our building, he must have a very good reason", you simply decided to take the route of revenge, and went to kick the **** out of a country far smaller than yourselves.
**** that, if someone crashes a car in my backyard killing my family you can count on my getting my 4 x 4 and smash the guys head in like a tomato.
I mean, I'm against the war in Iraq as that was not in any real way connected with the "war against terrorism" and was just a plain stupid descision.
But when you see a terrorist feel free to shoot his head off his shoulders. They shouldn't go killing for their cause either. If they want to make a point don't crash a plane in a big ass building with numerous innocents. It'd be more understandable if they crashed it into the pentagon/white house alone.
And has anything been accomplished?
As I said, the war in Iraq was wrong at this time. The war on Terrorism should be the only single war they should be concentrating on. Not inciting the entire Islamic world to eventually rally against the western world. I mean its not like they are gaining any goodwill down there right now.
Oh and, perhaps and interesting fact: The production of poppy (used to make heroin, opium etc etc) has gone up 18 FOLD since the Americans invaded. You think maybe they have a hand in that?
If the US would only look at Holland. We are relaxed man! :p I mean we no such bull as major drug problems as soft drugs have been legalized. Those legal drugs are "clean" instead of your usual toxic waste they call soft drugs.
Also we have trouble with hard drugs, but not nearly as many (even in comparison of size and power) problems as the US with it.
As for the ICC. Let me ask you something, how much sense does it make for the Court to apply to every country in the world EXCEPT America? The ICC would be an impartial court, free from American control, unlike the Hauge and others. Bush got scared that America (the citizens aswell as the politicians) would be help responsible for their actions, without the US being able to strong-arm their way out of it. You can't have double-standards and say "Americans are better than everyone else, we don't have to follow rules". The ICC would level the playing field, nothing more.
I kinda agree with you on that point.
-
Originally posted by TheCelestialOne
Eh, I think you just described politics as a whole :p
:nod: That's what politics is all about.