64 replies to this topic

[Dan]

...and probably France and...

[Tetiel]

And because it doesn't have the firepower or men to do so.

Exactly

[Ives]

Seriously where the fark is the evidence that iraq was producing nukes etc? what absolute bs from the Bush government. The Gook had wanted to erradicate Hussein for ages and after 9/11 was his best opportunity. All America wants is more dominance in the middle east because its a corridoor for limitless opportunities. Hence why they have not done anything nearly towards North Korea, cos seriously wtf is the gain of invading NK?! They already have Japan, South Korea and Taiwan as positions of threat in Asia, they would gain shit all from invading North Korea thus why they avoid the shit for as long as they can.
So called peace activists US must think theya re so superior with themselves able to have as many nukes as they want cos they are such a respected nation of righteousnous and theres no way they would invade countries without reason?
Utter bs... they invade anything that would expand their economy, and are steps to global domination and monoplying every slice of shit the world has.

Bush doesn't want to take over the Middle East. Think real, and stop putting propoganda in your head.

[Red]

Bush doesn't want to take over the Middle East. Think real, and stop putting propoganda in your head.

The reason for many conflicts right now is 1 word.

OIL

Why?

By 2050, the worlds known oil reserve will be depleted so badly, we will have to ration oil.


I could swear that if I knew that, and I know that the Middle East has most of the worlds reserve, I would invade it ;/


-------------------------------------

Back to "North Korea"

How the heck is the UN punishing the DPRK(NK)

The UN is sanctioning NK of "luxury goods, military equipment, devices to assist in nuclear assembly"

How does that effect NK...in my view...Nothing?

Most of NK is poor (way below poverty rate)

Luxury Goods? (OH SRY GOVERNMENT FRIENDS...U GET NO MORE WINE)

Military equipment? (Only Russia and China really sell military technology to NK)

Devices? (we understand..)


Though if Military Action was involved...the chain of events could lead to Nuclear War

Edited by Red, 20 October 2006 - 06:23 PM.

[Ives]

The reason for many conflicts right now is 1 word.

OIL

Why?

By 2050, the worlds known oil reserve will be depleted so badly, we will have to ration oil.
I could swear that if I knew that, and I know that the Middle East has most of the worlds reserve, I would invade it ;/

Of course we want oil. But we aren't idiots. Bush isn't a barking retard, and I hate it, absolutely hate it when people spew out bullshit about him that isn't needed and only furthers counterproductive stereotypes. I don't agree with the guy, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to defend him. Bush wants oil in Iraq, yes, but he's not planning on making the Middle East the US' new bitch. Mind, I respect the opinion of volycz, but theres things that can only go too far.

Edited by Athean, 20 October 2006 - 06:27 PM.

[Red]

Of course we want oil. But we aren't idiots. Bush isn't a barking retard, and I hate it, absolutely hate it when people spew out bullshit about him that isn't needed and only furthers counterproductive stereotypes. I don't agree with the guy, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to defend him. Bush wants oil in Iraq, yes, but he's not planning on making the Middle East the US' new bitch. Mind, I respect the opinion of volycz, but theres things that can only go too far.

Crusade in the 21st century?

(History repeating itself?)

Edited by Red, 20 October 2006 - 06:33 PM.

[Hawk]

Crusade in the 21st century?

(History repeating itself?)

Dude, your taking this too far.

It is not a crusade. We are over there to make the world more secure. We had to go into Afghanistan- Those idiots attacked us. Why should we tolerate that? If someone blew up your house would you retaliate?
Iraq- We needed to remove a horrible dictator from power. Sure he may not have WMDs like we thought, but its just a little botched intel- People make mistakes and that is one of them. We needed to remove this murderer from power. This is like what I saw on the Colbert Report last night, Stephen Colbert asked his guest "Would you rather have Saddam still in power?", and the answer was "No." Exact same situation.
Would you still like Saddam in power?

This is not a crusade. This is not about oil. This is about America's security, Europes security, hell, the whole world's security.

[nox]

Dude, your taking this too far.

It is not a crusade. We are over there to make the world more secure. We had to go into Afghanistan- Those idiots attacked us. Why should we tolerate that? If someone blew up your house would you retaliate?
Iraq- We needed to remove a horrible dictator from power. Sure he may not have WMDs like we thought, but its just a little botched intel- People make mistakes and that is one of them. We needed to remove this murderer from power. This is like what I saw on the Colbert Report last night, Stephen Colbert asked his guest "Would you rather have Saddam still in power?", and the answer was "No." Exact same situation.
Would you still like Saddam in power?

This is not a crusade. This is not about oil. This is about America's security, Europes security, hell, the whole world's security.

you left out what the guest replied with.

he explained that measures could be taken, and that he agreed with the original invasion of iraq. he said that it has gone too far, and that being there now is only negative.

no one really was against invading iraq originally. there were a few set goals ;

capture saddam hussein.
oil
securing a new ally.
remove WMDs

crossed out = achieved italics="false intelligence"

why are we still in iraq? we're not the hall monitor of the globe, it's not like iraq should be our responsibility. we need to make a deal with jalal talabani (i find his last name extremely ironic) so that we will prtect them if anyone ever invades them, as long as they keep a strong supply of oil our way.

Edited by nox, 21 October 2006 - 04:39 AM.

[414de7fe6]

If the government of the country you reside in feels the need to send troops to Iraq or anywhere else, they have their own reasons - and reasons they dont have to tell you. There's obviously problems in the middle-east if soliders are being sent there and are being killed. Governments dont send people to die for the sake of it.

Far too many people question what their government does. You elect them in - they run the country and are responsibile for protecting it. If they feel something is encroaching on the country in any way, they'll deal with it. This is the one dramatic flaw with democracy - too much freedom. People need to be told when to keep their mouth shut, and when to turn a blind eye to things.

ie: US sends troops to Iraq. You feel there's no reason for them to be there. Government officials are equally as intelliegent as you are. Hence why the troops are there for in the first place. You've already hit a nail on the head - OIL. OIL. OIL.

[pyke]

you left out what the guest replied with.

he explained that measures could be taken, and that he agreed with the original invasion of iraq. he said that it has gone too far, and that being there now is only negative.

no one really was against invading iraq originally. there were a few set goals ;

capture saddam hussein.
oil
securing a new ally.
remove WMDs

crossed out = achieved italics="false intelligence"

why are we still in iraq? we're not the hall monitor of the globe, it's not like iraq should be our responsibility. we need to make a deal with jalal talabani (i find his last name extremely ironic) so that we will prtect them if anyone ever invades them, as long as they keep a strong supply of oil our way.

Why are you still in Iraq? Simple enough. Removing Saddam has put the citizens in a worse and more dangerous enviroment then they were in initially. The countries been brought to civil war. Until a police force and a decent military is established, American troops will probably remain.

If the government of the country you reside in feels the need to send troops to Iraq or anywhere else, they have their own reasons - and reasons they dont have to tell you. There's obviously problems in the middle-east if soliders are being sent there and are being killed. Governments dont send people to die for the sake of it.

Far too many people question what their government does. You elect them in - they run the country and are responsibile for protecting it. If they feel something is encroaching on the country in any way, they'll deal with it. This is the one dramatic flaw with democracy - too much freedom. People need to be told when to keep their mouth shut, and when to turn a blind eye to things.

ie: US sends troops to Iraq. You feel there's no reason for them to be there. Government officials are equally as intelliegent as you are. Hence why the troops are there for in the first place. You've already hit a nail on the head - OIL. OIL. OIL.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when you can question freedom . I don't think there is anything wrong with questioning the actions of your countries leader, but so many people have brought it completely outside the boundaries of rational thought xD

[414de7fe6]

Yeah, but put it this way: If everyone shut the bark up when they were told, and people lived their lives like normal without worrying what the government did, wouldn't life be alot better for both sides? Government doesn't have to worry about dealing with protests, and people have more time through not protesting.

Seriously, I know freedom is free and all, but it's easily abused in this day and age, because people say things that spark bigger things. If that person wasn't allowed to say it in the first place, then everything is all happy and good and clean.

[nox]

Why are you still in Iraq? Simple enough. Removing Saddam has put the citizens in a worse and more dangerous enviroment then they were in initially. The countries been brought to civil war. Until a police force and a decent military is established, American troops will probably remain.

i didnt understand what you meant by the bolding statement, but i'll reply to the rest;

the invasion of iraq isn't only for the wellbeing of the peaceful citizens, but for the entire world. he was dangerous, and still would be if he was in power.

Edited by nox, 21 October 2006 - 06:53 AM.

[Hawk]

you left out what the guest replied with.

Did you read my post, or does

and the answer was "No."

Mean anything to you?

Edited by hawk117, 21 October 2006 - 09:41 AM.

[nox]

Did you read my post, or does
Mean anything to you?

yaya stfu smartass you watched the episode, you know he said stuff after that

[Hawk]

yaya stfu smartass you watched the episode, you know he said stuff after that

And I forgot it and I cant find it on youtube because I dont know the guests name

[pyke]

i didnt understand what you meant by the bolding statement, but i'll reply to the rest;

the invasion of iraq isn't only for the wellbeing of the peaceful citizens, but for the entire world. he was dangerous, and still would be if he was in power.

He was hardly dangerous to the world. A group of rabble troops and no technology or means of nuclear weapondry? AT least he kept Al-Queda(sp?) out of Iraq xD

[nox]

And I forgot it and I cant find it on youtube because I dont know the guests name

i love stephen colbert, but he got killed by that guy yesterday . the other guest about science, and i forgot what stephen said but he tried to act smart or clever or somethin..then the guy replied with "what about science fiction" and then stephen changed the subject

[pyke]

What did I do now?

[Ives]

He was hardly dangerous to the world. A group of rabble troops and no technology or means of nuclear weapondry? AT least he kept Al-Queda(sp?) out of Iraq xD

He wasn't dangerous enough to start world problems like Lil' Kim over in North Korea, but he was still a major barking murderer that deserves to be thrown in a cell in Riyadh or Phoenix, AZ for a long, long time.

[pyke]

Invisid someones post so it looked like speaker double posted Hobo then accused him of hacking and said that he would be banned but could appeal in two weeks. Then speaker avoided the swearing filter

Nah, he just double posted . The site loads weird and people tend to resned their posts

He wasn't dangerous enough to start world problems like Lil' Kim over in North Korea, but he was still a major barking murderer that deserves to be thrown in a cell in Riyadh or Phoenix, AZ for a long, long time.

For sure ... hopefully down the road when Iraq isn't such a clusterbark, he will be rotting in a cell somewhere.

[pyke]

-yawn- Off topic ladies...

[Hawk]

-yawn- Off topic ladies...

-yawn- You know which site you are at, correct? Almost every topic gets derailed at some point in time.

The only time it doesnt is when the topic starts off in a perverted mannor, then it stays its course xD

[pyke]

*poof* Oh my it appears your guys debate in the debate has mysteriously vanished!

Sooooo, north korea sucks aye?

[Hawk]

*poof* Oh my it appears your guys debate in the debate has mysteriously vanished!

Sooooo, north korea sucks aye?

It will live on in our hearts

FYI everyone, Speaker is fat, he enjoys bypassing the swear filter, and he doesnt take the time to reread his posts.

It sure does suck.

[nox]

It will live on in our hearts

FYI everyone, Speaker is fat, he enjoys bypassing the swear filter, and he doesnt take the time to reread his posts.

It sure does suck.

i don't see a speaker on this board

if there was one, i'm pretty sure that he would work out at the gym every day !

north korea is fat, yes. fat very yes.