MasterDrake Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 Why is it that every single one of these topics always ends up becoming "THE US IN THE BAD GUY" topics just a little question why don't we talk about some of the -*BAD WORD*-ed up -*BAD WORD*- that your countries have done in the past since time is not a object lets start
MonteZuma Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 The US did know that war crimes were going to be committed. They didn't care. Where is the evidence?I'll use one of your own quotes, it fits well.Lots of evidence here - organised for your reading pleasure: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globali...80scontent.html
MonteZuma Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 Why is it that every single one of these topics always ends up becoming "THE US IN THE BAD GUY" topics just a little question why don't we talk about some of the -*BAD WORD*-ed up -*BAD WORD*- that your countries have done in the past since time is not a object lets start Pick a country and an issue and start a thread.
MasterDrake Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 No point it will just turn into the USA is the bad guy topic just like everyone in here
Himura Kenshin Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 its not usa is the bad guy tis more like bush is
Aileron Posted July 26, 2004 Author Report Posted July 26, 2004 No, Clinton was pretty -*BAD WORD*-ed up. Every topic turns into a "US in the bad guy" arguement, because a lot of posters here have given up logic, and the only thing remaining is Anti-US hatred. They are kinda like lemmings. No matter what happens, they just want to move in one direction. It doesn't matter if terrorists win or if the world get nuked. If those event happens, they will likely make an effort to make a post blaming the US for the recent catastrophe and then turn over and die happy.
Dr.Worthless Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 Lots of evidence here - organised for your reading pleasure: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globali...80scontent.html Very good read, everyone take the time to read it. Though this all applies to past administrations. None of the information could imaginably be used in an arguement on why Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. Still none the less quite interesting information, Shows quite well that the US is not adverse to providing an enemy with anything they need to fight another enemy.
Himura Kenshin Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 alerion you got it wrong its the people still wanting bush that are acting like lemmings.
MasterDrake Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 So I am a lemming for not wanting a -*BAD WORD*- in office that will cut my pay check in have and reduce my departments funding. Thankyou I really appreciate your support for the US military . o btwLemmings - Any of various small, thickset rodents, especially of the genus Lemmus, inhabiting northern regions and known for periodic m!@#$%^&* migrations that sometimes end in drowning. For you people that didn't know
Himura Kenshin Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 yes i know i played the game . no but you'd rather have a tyrant thatll help other countries kill innocent people.
MasterDrake Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 tyrant is part a type of politcal system called Tyranny
»nintendo64 Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 The problem with "US is the bad guy". Does an administration continues the work and/or analyzes another administration past work? If each administration did this [if they don't] then they should know the position they must take. Now, for Israel and Iraq, there's a link between them, why don't you analyze both countries and put their similarities here. @Masterdrake: do you only vote for an administration for your money? are you a firm believer your interests are more important than the well being of your nation? "If not what your country can do for you, it's what you can do for your country" -JFK. @Monte: thanks monte for the information. -nintendo64
DJ muppetmaster Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 i think the UN is being too pushywhat i say is-*BAD WORD*- THE -*BAD WORD*-ING -*BAD WORD*-ERS -DJ muppetmaster-
MonteZuma Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 Lots of evidence here - organised for your reading pleasure: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globali...80scontent.html Very good read, everyone take the time to read it. Though this all applies to past administrations. None of the information could imaginably be used in an arguement on why Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. Still none the less quite interesting information, Shows quite well that the US is not adverse to providing an enemy with anything they need to fight another enemy. You seem to be back-tracking? What it shows is that the US is not averse to !@#$%^&*isting rogue dictators to use chemical and biological weapons even when this contravenes international treaties. It also shows the hypocricy of Donald Rumsfeld. For some reason he forgot to mention that he was Reagan's envoy to Iraq during the Iran Iraq war in his bio. Why would that be? Heh. When it comes to the invasion of Iraq, it seems to show why Rumsfeld was so certain that there were WMDs in Iraq. He felt so certain because he helped supply them. If I wanted to argue against the invasion I would start my investigation from 1991 and work towards the persent. All the evidence there suggests that there were no "deployable" WMDs in Iraq. As it turns out, there seem to not only be no deployable WMDs left, but it is possible that there was not even any raw ingredients of the WMDs left in Iraq.
MonteZuma Posted July 26, 2004 Report Posted July 26, 2004 alerion you got it wrong its the people still wanting bush that are acting like lemmings.Indeed. @nintendo64: no probs.
Aileron Posted July 27, 2004 Author Report Posted July 27, 2004 Hey, I support Bush for logical reasons. Unlike you liberals, I attempt to completely remove emotion from my opinions. I've had enough of this. Go to the political comp!@#$%^&* topic. Note that I am only slightly to the right. Note that Bacchus is more liberal than Stalin, and that the rest of you aren't exactly centralists either. How, exactly do I qualify as a radical lemming? I'm sick of having Marxists tell us how to run our country in these forums.
Dav Posted July 27, 2004 Report Posted July 27, 2004 Lots of evidence here - organised for your reading pleasure: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globali...80scontent.html Very good read, everyone take the time to read it. Though this all applies to past administrations. None of the information could imaginably be used in an arguement on why Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. Still none the less quite interesting information, Shows quite well that the US is not adverse to providing an enemy with anything they need to fight another enemy. You seem to be back-tracking? What it shows is that the US is not averse to !@#$%^&*isting rogue dictators to use chemical and biological weapons even when this contravenes international treaties. It also shows the hypocricy of Donald Rumsfeld. For some reason he forgot to mention that he was Reagan's envoy to Iraq during the Iran Iraq war in his bio. Why would that be? Heh. When it comes to the invasion of Iraq, it seems to show why Rumsfeld was so certain that there were WMDs in Iraq. He felt so certain because he helped supply them. If I wanted to argue against the invasion I would start my investigation from 1991 and work towards the persent. All the evidence there suggests that there were no "deployable" WMDs in Iraq. As it turns out, there seem to not only be no deployable WMDs left, but it is possible that there was not even any raw ingredients of the WMDs left in Iraq. I think that the biggest mistake was pulling inspectors out of irag when thay had founds nothing, there was intelligance that alegadly suggested WMDs but no proof that there were from inspectors and thus no concrete evedance that saddam was breaking any resolutions. Israil on the otherhand is clearly putting new settlements in the west bank ( UN tiold them not to) Thay have this wall up and wont remove it ( UN told them not to ) They still occupy the west bank and gaza ( Un told them not to ) Yet no action is taken against israil usually due to vito by the US. I am in full support of the un but i dont think that 1 nation vitoing a resolution should be allowd, i feel that with recent events in the UN such as iraq and israils defiance the UN voting system is in need of a rethink.
Bacchus Posted July 27, 2004 Report Posted July 27, 2004 I'm sick of having Marxists tell us how to run our country in these forums. marxists? where?basically we're not trying to tell you how to run your country, we're telling you to stop running other's in a silly attempt to run yours. you can do pretty much everything you want in your country, so long as you respect your neighbors...just stop acting like a patronizing -*BAD WORD*- and we can all be friends again. and i'm not a liberal, i prefer "libertarian"
MasterDrake Posted July 27, 2004 Report Posted July 27, 2004 I'm sick of having Marxists tell us how to run our country in these forums. marxists? where?basically we're not trying to tell you how to run your country, we're telling you to stop running other's in a silly attempt to run yours. you can do pretty much everything you want in your country, so long as you respect your neighbors...just stop acting like a patronizing -*BAD WORD*- and we can all be friends again. and i'm not a liberal, i prefer "libertarian" The United States response it too the recent terrorist attack against us, we are saying no we will not put up with this -*BAD WORD*- maybe you will but we wont. If the rest of the world would just quit critizing the US and maybe help particpate then we would most likely listen to what they have to say. Like alot of you say in this forum, actions are louder than words, the US declaring war on terrorism and iraq maybe bad but not as bad as the rest of the world and US allies turning there backs on the US itelf. :swift:
Bacchus Posted July 27, 2004 Report Posted July 27, 2004 That's precisely the at!@#$%^&*ude i was refering to. "We won't be proven wrong. We'll fight, fight, fight""maybe you're afraid, we're not""You turn your back on us""we're alone in our holy war but we have a mission, a goal, an objective""we rocks""The few, the proud, the marines"
Himura Kenshin Posted July 27, 2004 Report Posted July 27, 2004 I'm sick of having Marxists tell us how to run our country in these forums. marxists? where?basically we're not trying to tell you how to run your country, we're telling you to stop running other's in a silly attempt to run yours. you can do pretty much everything you want in your country, so long as you respect your neighbors...just stop acting like a patronizing -*BAD WORD*- and we can all be friends again. and i'm not a liberal, i prefer "libertarian" The United States response it too the recent terrorist attack against us, we are saying no we will not put up with this -*BAD WORD*- maybe you will but we wont. If the rest of the world would just quit critizing the US and maybe help particpate then we would most likely listen to what they have to say. Like alot of you say in this forum, actions are louder than words, the US declaring war on terrorism and iraq maybe bad but not as bad as the rest of the world and US allies turning there backs on the US itelf. :swift: ROFL the reason US allies "turn" thier back on US is becuase they know the US is doing something wrong Take your head out of your -*BAD WORD*- and see whats happening.
MonteZuma Posted July 27, 2004 Report Posted July 27, 2004 Hey, I support Bush for logical reasons. Unlike you liberals, I attempt to completely remove emotion from my opinions. I've had enough of this. Go to the political comp!@#$%^&* topic. Note that I am only slightly to the right. Note that Bacchus is more liberal than Stalin, and that the rest of you aren't exactly centralists either. How, exactly do I qualify as a radical lemming? I'm sick of having Marxists tell us how to run our country in these forums.If you spent less time pretending to be 'logical' and more time understanding emotions then you would understand why Bush has stuffed up in the War on Terror. Emotion and terrorism and politics go hand in hand. And clearly you have no idea how the comp!@#$%^&* works. Rest !@#$%^&*ured that Stalin and Bacchus have nothing in common. Btw...what was your score? Marxists? Heh. Do you check for reds under your bed? All the way with Jimmy Carter!!!
MonteZuma Posted July 27, 2004 Report Posted July 27, 2004 The United States response it too the recent terrorist attack against us, we are saying no we will not put up with this -*BAD WORD*- maybe you will but we wont. If the rest of the world would just quit critizing the US and maybe help particpate then we would most likely listen to what they have to say. Like alot of you say in this forum, actions are louder than words, the US declaring war on terrorism and iraq maybe bad but not as bad as the rest of the world and US allies turning there backs on the US itelf.There is no link between Iraq and terrorism against the US. This is a spurious argument. The world didn't turn its back on the US. The world gave the US heaps of support after 9/11. The US government turned its back on the world with the decision to ignore the UN and invade Iraq. The next step that the US should take to help reduce the threat of terrorism is to vote Bush out of office.
Recommended Posts