sunnyd Posted September 12, 2004 Report Posted September 12, 2004 saddam is my uncle polix he is really nice but bush hates him because saddam owns him in moneky fighting
Aileron Posted September 12, 2004 Author Report Posted September 12, 2004 (captial letters - you use these at the beginning of sentences.)(periods - you use these to signify the end of sentences.)(commas - use commas to signify a pause between two seperate ideas in a sentence.) Good post, but the point here was not about Saddam. It was about our "allies" who think they have a right to controll the US policy. All it has been was "US, Kosovo is in trouble, go in there." "US, Bosnia is in trouble, go in there." "US, Somalia is in trouble, go in there." And what have we got out of it? A world that knows that we are the only western power that really matters. For example, we have a North Korea who refuses to speak with Japan, China, South Korea, and Russia, but would only speak with us. We are hated for this as well. We are considered the global policeman, and residents of ghettos hate cops more than anything. It was following our "allies" wishes that brought us 9/11. You would think then, that maybe the US doesn't want to listen to them all the time. Maybe we should be en!@#$%^&*led to carry out our own policy once in a while. It is after all, our military and our lives. But no, our allies have to control, and if we do one thing that isn't the exact time and the exact way our allies want it, well we are terrible. Heck, check out the topic en!@#$%^&*led "world wants Kerry for president". So entrenched is the idea of them controlling US policy that they want to elect a president for us. Don't you guys have your own countries to run? I have my opinions of various world leaders, but I know that my opinion has no weight on that subject, and simply keep my opinion to myself.
sunnyd Posted September 12, 2004 Report Posted September 12, 2004 hey punk you dont need to tell me what i need corrected if you understand what i say good if you dont, dont post dumb!@#$%^&* -*BAD WORD*- the goverment its all bs the world's a game mofo understand aileron?
Aileron Posted September 12, 2004 Author Report Posted September 12, 2004 Maybe so, but apathy towards politics is something that everyone needs to eliminate. Many a great nation has collapsed from apathy about politics. I care too much, but too many people care too little.
Bacchus Posted September 12, 2004 Report Posted September 12, 2004 We are hated for this as well. We are considered the global policeman, and residents of ghettos hate cops more than anything. So the world is USA ghettos? nice analogy. It says much about your frame of mind and it also strenghten my position about why the "ghetto" is, and will endure, having an "anti-american" streak. You know that i'm a neighborg (spl, never remember this one..) to NY state, the province where i live is supplementing a lot of cheap electricity to USA. We happens to sleep on the on/off switch. What if we clicked it off? There's a lot of gaz and oil in Canada's plain provinces, a lot of those are sold cheaply to the USA. What if it stops Ail? We also happen to possess 6% of the world water... What will be the USA politics concerning all those? I know it won't happen, but what if the world decides to "embargo" you instead?
Aileron Posted September 13, 2004 Author Report Posted September 13, 2004 The only REAL problem would be oil. As for electricity, hey, we have too many people trained in Nuclear Power as it is. As for water, plz, with exception of perhaps Libya and Morocco, no country needs water that bad. The only real problem would be for oil, and heck, maybe if that happened we could finally get alchohol-based forms of transportation on the road. As I said, though, we would be hurt. A lot of business would be lost that way. However, the world would be hurt a lot more. Hey, the US exports food, steel, plastics, machinery, and a lot of other staple goods. Some parts of the world are being complimented by being compaired to ghettos. Not all parts deserve that !@#$%^&*le, but I didn't say all parts deserved that !@#$%^&*le. Besides, for being so caught up on a technicality, you seem to have conveniently ignored the main point of the world feeling they have a right to dictate US policy.
A Soldier Posted September 13, 2004 Report Posted September 13, 2004 It was following our "allies" wishes that brought us 9/11.Are you blaming the terrorist attacks because of foreign countries..? Heck' date=' check out the topic en!@#$%^&*led "world wants Kerry for president". So entrenched is the idea of them controlling US policy that they want to elect a president for us.[/quote']lol, you still don't get it. The article is a poll made by some company I forgot the name which asked people around the world what candidates they'd prefer to see.A new poll in 35 countries suggests that people around the world would prefer Democratic challenger John Kerry as US president over George W Bush.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3640754.stm Now, you said yourself that maybe anti-americanism might not be due to economic reasons. Why then?
MasterDrake Posted September 13, 2004 Report Posted September 13, 2004 We are hated for this as well. We are considered the global policeman, and residents of ghettos hate cops more than anything. So the world is USA ghettos? nice analogy. It says much about your frame of mind and it also strenghten my position about why the "ghetto" is, and will endure, having an "anti-american" streak. You know that i'm a neighborg (spl, never remember this one..) to NY state, the province where i live is supplementing a lot of cheap electricity to USA. We happens to sleep on the on/off switch. What if we clicked it off? There's a lot of gaz and oil in Canada's plain provinces, a lot of those are sold cheaply to the USA. What if it stops Ail? We also happen to possess 6% of the world water... What will be the USA politics concerning all those? I know it won't happen, but what if the world decides to "embargo" you instead? Step 1Declare war on canada and take the entire country overStep 2 -*BAD WORD*- the ban on nuclear power, begin by building nuclear reactorsStep 3 We got your oil -*BAD WORD*- woot(btw "Gas" is a by product of oil dip -*BAD WORD*-)Step 4Wait for all the canadians to scream at me for posting thisStep 5 NUKE THE -*BAD WORD*-ING WORLD All problems solved
A Soldier Posted September 13, 2004 Report Posted September 13, 2004 Your army can't stand canadian winters
Guest Recombo Posted September 14, 2004 Report Posted September 14, 2004 Here's a great statement seen today on CNN regarding the North Korean bomb?: "American and South Korean officials immediately played down the possibility the cloud was evidence of a nuclear weapons test, with one U.S. official telling CNN it was "no big deal" and could be from a forest fire." A forest fire! lol!! No one said the US was void of idiots....and there ya have it. But then again, saying the US military couldn't stand Canadian winters is kin to saying Canadians can't swim.
MasterDrake Posted September 14, 2004 Report Posted September 14, 2004 Your army can't stand canadian winters soilder omg I am from minnesota I think I will live $$
A Soldier Posted September 14, 2004 Report Posted September 14, 2004 But then again, saying the US military couldn't stand Canadian winters is kin to saying Canadians can't swim.You know nothing fool! Never heard of our deadly grizzly bears that kill anything that moves?? Cross the border man, and you'll know what it feels to live in winter 24/7 I'll make you visit my igloo some day.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 14, 2004 Report Posted September 14, 2004 Never heard of our deadly grizzly bears that kill anything that moves?? Cross the border man I heard that the grizzly army was controlled by remote-control by the drunken mountie brigade :/ We would stand no chance.
Guest Recombo Posted September 14, 2004 Report Posted September 14, 2004 Only three years ago, if I had to cross the border I would be heading south. Me, my friends and relatives all lived in Anchorage, Alaska. Canadian winters. haha, we'll get a suntan.
Aileron Posted September 14, 2004 Author Report Posted September 14, 2004 Well, what if we do it in the summer and only in urban areas (no bears.)?
MasterDrake Posted September 14, 2004 Report Posted September 14, 2004 or we could just shoot the bears? thats an idea hah
A Soldier Posted September 14, 2004 Report Posted September 14, 2004 I heard that the grizzly army was controlled by remote-control by the drunken mountie brigade :/ We would stand no chance.I wish I could tell you more but that's classified info:/
Aileron Posted September 14, 2004 Author Report Posted September 14, 2004 Well, what about the Canadian laspe in concentration. Suppose two sergents and two privates, the privates holding sniping rifles, from both sides encounter one another. The American sergent would say to the private. "Shoot that sniper." At the same time, the Canadian sergent would say: "Shoot that sniper, eh?" The American private would get the shot of first, because the Canadian has to listen to one more sylable before he responds. Add this up multiple times, and you see what would happen.
MonteZuma Posted September 15, 2004 Report Posted September 15, 2004 I think I see what the difference is. I was stating some facts to prove my point, while you just stated your opinion. And to say "If your friend thinks that Iraq is now a bed of roses filled with lightness and goodness" really is a low-point. I'd expect more, instead of this ad hominum.I don't know about you folks, but I had a good weekend. By the way, what is an ad hominum? Your so-called 'facts' proved nothing - except that the propaganda dished out by some western governments has fooled some of the people for some of the time. Fact: Iraq is a deadly dangerous -*BAD WORD*-hole at the moment and more Iraqis are being killed in post-invasion violence than westerners. The place is a mess.
MonteZuma Posted September 15, 2004 Report Posted September 15, 2004 The US simply cannot be worse than Hussein and you can't deny that. Therefore any change that occurred in Iraq was a step up.That is debatable, but the "situation" in Iraq can be worse now than it was then. What will follow for the Iraqis? It might not be a step up in the end.
Aileron Posted September 16, 2004 Author Report Posted September 16, 2004 Um, a didn't say whether or not they will be better off is "debatable", I said it was indisputable. That is the level of villain that Hussein was - bed enough that just about anybody can replace him and it will be a step up. I know you don't like it when we brandish our enemies as evil, but Hussein was worse than many liturgical personifications of evil you can name. For example: Hussein vs. Darth Vader Used weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction to quell a rebellion: Yes YesUsed torture to get information out of people: Yes KindaAllowed torture to be done for amusement: Yes NoWas once on the "good" side and betrayed it: Yes YesSet up his son(s) as next leader: Yes Tried toHid weapons in schools, hospitals, etc. Yes No Darth Vader is obviously a fictional embodiment of evil, and Hussein was worse. That means that Hussein was more evil than the author could either imagine or fit into the story. This doesn't automatically make those who attack him good. However, it DOES mean that he should receive no pity from anyone. It also means that whoever takes over will better practically by default. It may not be "good vs. evil", but it could be "nuetral vs. evil" or "lesser evil vs. greater evil". In all three cases, one should side with the first.
Vile Requiem Posted September 16, 2004 Report Posted September 16, 2004 A better example in that case would be Hussein vs The Emperor, Vader's thoughts were warped from a young age by politics and Senator Palpetine, and it took Vader's near death for him to see the error of his ways. Indoctrination is a perfect word to describe such an case. Evil people need to be truly evil, not misguided
MonteZuma Posted September 16, 2004 Report Posted September 16, 2004 Um, a didn't say whether or not they will be better off is "debatable", I said it was indisputable.For all of Saddam's faults, there have been worse places to live and and worse dictators in the world. An Iraqi civil war could leave Iraqis even worse off than they were then and are now. An authoritarian theocracy would be worse for the average Iraqi than a dictatorship led by Saddam. There is no guarantee whatsoever that peace, freedom and democracy will take off in Iraq, and there is no guarantee that Iraqis will be better off.
Aileron Posted September 16, 2004 Author Report Posted September 16, 2004 Vile, I admit you are the expert in Star Wars lore. Bacchus, funny. The point is if you take any evil characters in a classic good vs. evil literature can be compaired to the real-life Hussein. Its truly sick when you think about it. These characters are supposed to be pure 100% evil, and Hussein is worse! He is more evil than authors can imagine, and authors of such stories are usually very imaginative. Put it this way. The following are things the US will not do in Iraq: Execute enough people to require m!@#$%^&* gravesUse WMDsSilence all opposing opinion (any replies to this statement proves it)Set it up so that one of the next leaders is a man who has already tortured people for recreational reasons.Hide military personell and equipment inside civilian structures over the long termTake money from peasents to build a car collectionSet up a mul!@#$%^&*ude of government buildings that serve the same purpose, such as Hussein's palaces (every such building is one less building used for civilian shelter/housing, or generally something USEFULL)Use Iraqi tax dollars to put up statues of Bush Btw, this topic is about terrorists. When did we start talking about Iraq?
Recommended Posts