Iraq vs. US?

[sTuPiD-gErBiL]

Originally posted by GuruMeditation


It's a hockey zone squad? Ok I'll rephrase it.

3) It isn't a real subspace squad.

ignorance is fun.

[GuruMeditation]

<3 S-G ^_^

I like Hockey. I just don't consider it challenging.

[Fallen Angel]

Illuminati?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
It's Majestic-12 I tells ya!

[Azhran]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel
Illuminati?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
It's Majestic-12 I tells ya!

you should really stop playing deus-ex

[Fallen Angel]

Not ever...
In case that wasn't entirely clear ----> NEVER!

[War]

wtf are you talking about fallen

[Fallen Angel]

See the post above mine.
Smartass

[War]

i did but im a retard so.... you know how it goes

[Sir Gaunt]

Bush is just a stupid warmonger trying to get other companies rich by going to war. man congress dosn't even know what to do right now there all hands high.

you guys know that if Gore made it into president none of this world trade center tragedy would have never happened.

Man this kinda reminds me of the Vietnam War. Jeez that war was pointless and pathetic the only reason they kept sending troops in was to get more money from signing those contracts.
money money money whast new huh?
***************************
This thread has totally lost its point I think.:eek:

[Mattey]

After you decided to drop by.

[Troll King]

I don't think that George W. Bush being president was the deciding factor on whether or not to bomb.

Some might say that they would have prefered Gore over Bush because Gore wouldn't be so quick to react against them. He'd present a "softer" target.

[Annux]

Originally posted by Sir Gaunt
Bush is just a stupid warmonger trying to get other companies rich by going to war. man congress dosn't even know what to do right now there all hands high.

you guys know that if Gore made it into president none of this world trade center tragedy would have never happened.

Man this kinda reminds me of the Vietnam War. Jeez that war was pointless and pathetic the only reason they kept sending troops in was to get more money from signing those contracts.
money money money whast new huh?
***************************
This thread has totally lost its point I think.:eek:

What companies? What does Gore have to do with this? How is this anything like Vietnam at all? What fucking contracts? Money, money, money, what?


-- Please don't respond if you're going to puke more nonsense.

[Mattey]

THE NUKES ARE COMING!

[The Crimson King]

Just a couple of points:

(1) I've noticed that several jackasses on here on one hand condemn the United States for killing civilians accidentally in Afghanistan, but on the other hand attempt to minimize the atrocity of the WTC bombings on September 11th.

Please note (in your third-grade illegible scrawlings) that we (that's the USA, the guys that keep you and yours safe at night) have put a lot of money, time and effort into developing weapons that DON'T kill civilians. This is a direct result of one of the basic tenets of our society, that we have free and open discourse of ideas and information (through the First Amendment).

This, in conjunction with what is objectively the best form of government existing on the planet (democracy -- it's what's for dinner), ensures that we don't go around blowing civilians away en masse. We US citizens don't appreciate that shit. We're sharing, caring hands of love.

But, like the Lord, there's another side to the coin. As a nation, we appreciate wrath, vengeance, and furious anger (note the Pulp Fiction allusion). Besides that, our populace is highly educated, by world standards (and that's an understatement); we're logical, reasoning people. Thus we can appreciate the logic of overwhelmingly forceful retaliation now to prevent adversity later.

Sure, some countries have nuclear weapons. Last I checked, however, none of those countries had proven itself prone to using or facilitating another entity's use of said nuclear weapons. (Tell ya the truth, I don't think anyone on the planet is dumb enough to nuke the USA; we're abundantly clear on the point that anyone pulling that shit is going to end up as ash that makes a geiger counter tick for the next 10,000 years. Plus ya gotta understand that Saddam Houssein paid some smugglers to put a hit on G. Bush senior back in the 90's. If someone put a hit out on my father I think I'd be obliged to flex a little muscle in his direction too, given the opportunity.)

Oh, yeah. On the "starving babies?" Wow, that really depends on your point of view. Am I guilty for not sending my money to some starving baby in Zimbabwe? (Wow, wealth redistribution on a global level -- there goes the neighborhood.) (Because if I am, you are too. Let's see your receipts from the Worldwide Starving Baby Fund.) Is the USA, then, guilty for maintaining trade embargoes? Well, I guess you could say that, if you were willfully blind to the nature of world politics. Is it our fault that some country's economy can't feed its citizens without US help? Bluntly, no the fuck it's not.

Point is, the USA HAS TO deal with countries -- especially countries ruled by a totalian regime -- as entities, not collections of civilians. We have a lot more civilians here, and they're OURS (though that may not mean much to your wack-ass liberal naive world-union standpoint); kinda tough to justify sitting back in the face of imminent threat to all those US citizens.

I sympathize with civilians from adverse opposing countries. It's not their fault; they don't have elections, etc. But they (better than you) understand the dominant truth of life: IT'S REAL FUCKIN UNFAIR AND MEAN SOMETIMES. (How many people did you know that died this year?)

So, yeah. Sometimes the Dragon wins.

Cordially,

tCK

[Louis XV]

Originally posted by The Crimson King
Just a couple of points:

(1) I've noticed that several jackasses on here on one hand condemn the United States for killing civilians accidentally in Afghanistan, but on the other hand attempt to minimize the atrocity of the WTC bombings on September 11th.

Please note (in your third-grade illegible scrawlings) that we (that's the USA, the guys that keep you and yours safe at night) have put a lot of money, time and effort into developing weapons that DON'T kill civilians. This is a direct result of one of the basic tenets of our society, that we have free and open discourse of ideas and information (through the First Amendment).

This, in conjunction with what is objectively the best form of government existing on the planet (democracy -- it's what's for dinner), ensures that we don't go around blowing civilians away en masse. We US citizens don't appreciate that shit. We're sharing, caring hands of love.

But, like the Lord, there's another side to the coin. As a nation, we appreciate wrath, vengeance, and furious anger (note the Pulp Fiction allusion). Besides that, our populace is highly educated, by world standards (and that's an understatement); we're logical, reasoning people. Thus we can appreciate the logic of overwhelmingly forceful retaliation now to prevent adversity later.

Sure, some countries have nuclear weapons. Last I checked, however, none of those countries had proven itself prone to using or facilitating another entity's use of said nuclear weapons. (Tell ya the truth, I don't think anyone on the planet is dumb enough to nuke the USA; we're abundantly clear on the point that anyone pulling that shit is going to end up as ash that makes a geiger counter tick for the next 10,000 years. Plus ya gotta understand that Saddam Houssein paid some smugglers to put a hit on G. Bush senior back in the 90's. If someone put a hit out on my father I think I'd be obliged to flex a little muscle in his direction too, given the opportunity.)

Oh, yeah. On the "starving babies?" Wow, that really depends on your point of view. Am I guilty for not sending my money to some starving baby in Zimbabwe? (Wow, wealth redistribution on a global level -- there goes the neighborhood.) (Because if I am, you are too. Let's see your receipts from the Worldwide Starving Baby Fund.) Is the USA, then, guilty for maintaining trade embargoes? Well, I guess you could say that, if you were willfully blind to the nature of world politics. Is it our fault that some country's economy can't feed its citizens without US help? Bluntly, no the fuck it's not.

Point is, the USA HAS TO deal with countries -- especially countries ruled by a totalian regime -- as entities, not collections of civilians. We have a lot more civilians here, and they're OURS (though that may not mean much to your wack-ass liberal naive world-union standpoint); kinda tough to justify sitting back in the face of imminent threat to all those US citizens.

I sympathize with civilians from adverse opposing countries. It's not their fault; they don't have elections, etc. But they (better than you) understand the dominant truth of life: IT'S REAL FUCKIN UNFAIR AND MEAN SOMETIMES. (How many people did you know that died this year?)

So, yeah. Sometimes the Dragon wins.

Cordially,

tCK

Democracy my corporation-reamed ass cavity.

We literally have no control over what the administration does. Though I was glad to see Sen. Byrd from west virginia standing up for the american people in the senate today, demanding that the white house explain itself on this whole iraq chest-thumping thing.

As for your comment about hussein attempting to assassinate bush sr: Clinton already bombed Iraq in retaliation for that, as well as the other stuff we found out while using our inspectors to spy on them. (I don't think it made the news). Would you really be able to justify the loss of American lives simply to avenge some redneck's pappy? No. F that S.

You said that we have to treat other countries as entities, not collections of civilians. Well you have to consider whether or not you are really willing to sacrifice so many american lives defending against a threat that might not even exist. I'm not just talking about american soldiers, I'm referring to the american citizens that will die in the INEVITABLE September 11ths to follow a war on iraq. It WILL happen again.

Instead of wising up on the effects of our foreign policy, we're just going to intensify it and get more terrorists up our ass. of course we can NEVER be wrong - septemeber 11th says NOTHING about how fucked up our foreign policy has been for the last few decades. Yeah, right.

If Bush goes for unilateral action, he will effectively undermine the U.N. by ignoring the legitimacy of the security council. You can't invade another nation without the unanimous consent of the security council. the white house talks about the UN being the helpless league of nations etc etc, but that's what they're going to make it into at this rate. we invade Iraq, what's to stop Russia from invading Finland (:P)? or the arab nations from invading Israel collectively.. especially if Israel decides to help the US against Iraq. ISRAEL HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS. all hell will break loose. wtf? all I can say is: wtf?