Insane war world! - 99.999999% probability you will die! [Archive]

Nantuko Joe

01-20-2003, 09:30 AM

lol i dont mean to be a preacher hear but this wuz all prophosized in the bible.... ;)
Um...no it wasnt. People also thought that the bible predicted 9/11. People also thought the bible predicted the assassination of JFK. It's a bunch of faulty statements which are misinterpreted and altered to fit the context of the moment. They did the same thing with 9/11 and the bible, they did it with 9/11 and Nostradamas, and they're doing the same thing here. The bible is nothing but a 2000-year-old fairytale.

And Americans will only die if we don't nuke Sadaam first. Just recently UN weapons inspectors discovered eleven empty warhead casings for chemical bombs. My question is if the warheads are empty, where are the goddamn chemicals?!

Also, chemcial and biological warfare is far deadlier than any nuke we can develop. A nuke only affects a specific area: i THINK it's a blast diameter of about a mile in diameter, and the radiation and fallout goes for many miles past that. Biological and chemical weapons can release substances that can kill off my entire tri-state area and be spread via wind, water, and other elements across the entire country.

Let's face it, boys and girls: World War III is upon us. I hate to be the harbinger of doom, but I seriously doubt that the world will live another fifty years, max. All thanks to that frigging psycho bastard Sadaam Hussein

SolidSnake76

01-20-2003, 09:38 AM

01-20-2003, 09:43 AM

You guys do realize why the US is chosing to go after Iraq and not North Korea don't you?

Lets see here... a supposed war on terrorism to stop nations that might be supplying terrorist with weapons...

Here's what we know:
- Iraq might be giving their weapons away to terrorists
- North Korea is giving their weapons away to terrorists
- Iraq might have a nuclear weapons facility
- North Korea already started up their nuclear weapons facilities a while ago
- Iraq has no ability for long-distance attacks
- North Korea is predicted to be able to hit California, and a possibility of a global nuclear-launching ability

So in other words...
- Iraq is NOT a threat
- North Korea is a big threat

Why is the US negotiating with North Korea and not with Iraq? Well... it's because of one simple fact...

The US can get away with it.
Wheras with North Korea... they've got a million troops and missles a little more far advanced then scud missles.

Bottom line.. if/when the US goes to war with Sadaam Hussein, Iraq won't be the real danger. (and the US is avoiding any and all possibilities of a real war).

Nantuko Joe

01-20-2003, 12:08 PM

this is all because of bush. he's just getting on saddam case cause daddy couldnt finish his work. i starting to think that the election was rigged, gore should of been pres. i just hope someone or something could end this dispute.
Gore? You gotta be $hitting me. Gore wouldn't do jack $hit. He'd ask Sadaam to apologize and send him a copy of his book on how to save trees.

And he's not getting on Saddam's case becasue "daddy couldn't finish his job." He's getting Saddam's case because Saddam is acting up again. Look at it this way:

Back in '91, Saddam signed a treaty that would allow UN inspectors into Iraq. Suddenly, he won't let them in. This is a clear violation if the treaty, and it obviously means he's got something hidden that he doesn't want the UN to find. He's obviously hiding weapons...and the discovery of the warheads further suggests this.

The fcuking bastard is up to something, and if we don't strike first, he will. It's that simple. We shoulda killed the fcuking cuntrag back in '91

Scorponok

01-20-2003, 12:28 PM

Ahh, I thought this was a game when I clicked on the topic. Oh well..

coolplayer2K2

01-20-2003, 01:01 PM

EVERYBODY PANIK!!!!!!!!!!

Kingryu1

01-20-2003, 01:38 PM

coolplayer. this is NOT the sort of topic to joke in... :plain:

i'm actully becomeing a bit scared. cause i live in england, and america and england are allies. so if you involved, were involved. and i wish i could go to war, but i'm still to young... (you think i'm joking about that? no i'm not. i'm willing to risk my life for my family and country, cause i got relatives in florida... and they are close to the coast... :()

01-20-2003, 01:41 PM

Nantuko Joe

01-20-2003, 03:18 PM

Back in '91, Saddam signed a treaty that would allow UN inspectors into Iraq. Suddenly, he won't let them in. This is a clear violation if the treaty, and it obviously means he's got something hidden that he doesn't want the UN to find. He's obviously hiding weapons...and the discovery of the warheads further suggests this.

The fcuking bastard is up to something, and if we don't strike first, he will. It's that simple. We shoulda killed the fcuking cuntrag back in '91
You really buy that ####? Lol...

Bush's reasons for doing this? I dunno... probably oil and/or to look good in the media. But make no mistake, politicians (including Bush), do not act upon their moral obligations (ie: "war on terrorism bs"). Nor do they give a #### if people break treaties...

The only reason they'd care about that is if they had a damn good reason for wanting them to comply with these old terms.. in this case, to look good in the media and possibly oil. If you remember, oil was the reason the US defended Kuaite.

You know Saadam allowed UN inspectors into the country and "complied" with US demand, right? That proves one simple thing... he's not going to strike first, and never intends to. He's in power because he wasn't stupid enough to go all out on the US in '91, and in fact wouldn't have invaded Kuaite if he'd known the US would retaliate. Right now, he's been trying to talk his way out of it... because he doesn't want to fight the US.

Saadam's not stupid, he wants to stay in power.
When the bastard's breaking of treaties threatens America and its allies..then yes, he DOES care about breaking treaties.

And you seriously think they're doing this for oil or media popularity? You make me sick. WE'VE GOT A PSYCHOTIC DICTATOR WITH CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS WHO CAN THREATEN THE WORLD, AND YOU THINK IT'S BECAUSE OF "MEDIA"? and what the hell do you mean "war on terrorism bs"? IT'S NOT BS! The motherfcukers attacked our country, and you think that he's not seriously trying to get back at them? WTF is with that?

And the US defended Kuwait because of oil...BECAUSE THE PSYCHO FCUKER SADDAM SET THE FIELDS ON FIRE!! BECAUSE THE MIDEAST IS PRETTY MUCH THE WORLD'S ONLY SUPPLIER FOR OIL, AND IF HE CONTROLLED THE WORLD'S OIL SUPPLY, HE'D PRETTY MUCH BE CONTROLLING THE WORLD ITSELF!

And yer right about one thing...he doesn't want to "fight' the US. He wants to bomb us so we don't have a chance to strike back with full force. For nine years the bastard complied with UN officials. Why suddenly deny them access to Iraq? He's OBVIOUSLY hiding something in the country...someting he doesn't want us to discover. He only "let" us back in when he had cleaned it up...or thought he did...which is why we found the warheads.

But to think our government is pulling this "act" for money or media...is just plain fcuked up. Sure, the US government is corrupt, and fcuked up, but it's not THAT fcuked up.

Yer post makes me sick...it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. How could you say that about the US?

montalvo

01-20-2003, 03:37 PM

princevegetam

01-20-2003, 04:05 PM

stupid americans, the recent crap just pisses me off more.

why the #### do you think almost every part of the world is protesting against war? you think they're retards? they all know exactly the kind of fliped up game that U.S. is playing. and #### it man, if U.S. had proof that iraq had weapons of mass destruction why haven't they let it out yet? protect their sources? if the proof were good enough in the first place, then their sources wouldn't need protecting.

americans(mainly that retard named bush)=igonorant bastards who are worse than the iraqis. because they just don't care about "peace". they only care about the oil from iraq. why the #### do you think the U.S. doesn't attack North Korea for having all this nuclear ####? why do you think the U.S. is ignoring them while they talk all this #### about the U.S.? it's cause the U.S. would gain NOTHING from attacking north korea. no oil, no resources, no power, no nothing. and the U.S. has to sacrifice more resources for a war on North Korea because they have an obligation to supply the ppl in North Korea with food. it's good for their image.

bullpoop americans,

die die die

:angryfire: :angryfire: :angryfire:

SolidSnake76

01-20-2003, 04:09 PM

and now he's starting to raise suspicsions on saudi arabia. such a jackass.

the US is very friendly with saudi arabia. why? its is the country with the most oil. if we go to war against them, i dont know what congress is gonna do but we cant afford it. and dont say 'we can just drill in alaska'. those environmentalist are trying to stop congress from doing so.

and if we go to war with iraq and take over, he will level his oil fields as an act of vengance. then what? problem is the US gets into too many global affairs.

montalvo

01-20-2003, 04:17 PM

Roll

01-20-2003, 05:28 PM

That is enough! We don't need a war inside the forums, Nantuko, Vegetam, 2000warrior.

iori

01-20-2003, 05:35 PM

[quote:post_uid6="Yasback"][/quote:post_uid6]
craza......

Nantuko Joe

01-20-2003, 05:39 PM

#### this war. #### president bush.
Why the #### does america always gotta be involved in something?
I dont support this or any war.
All this war is about is controling the oil fields in iraq. Bush doesnt give a #### about any of us.
If we get attacked, he gets to safely be up in air force one or some high security base while everyone is getting killed.
I think this is gonna start up world war 3 or some ####.
F U C K WHAT YOU HEARD

F U C K what I heard? GODDAMN FCUK WHAT YOU SAY!! This fcuking war is NOT about some fcuking oil fields! You fcuking closed-mided fcuks think that just because you fcuking THINK you fcuking know what's going on! You have no fcuking idea! This is not about america being selfish. This is about America trying to protect the rest of the fcuking world. And you ask why america always gets involved? If america didn't get involved with World War II in Europe, the Jews would be an extinct race and Hitler would be running the world. Only thanks to AMERICA did the fcuker commit suicide and we saved the rest of Europe (and the world). If America didn't get involved in the Persian Gulf, Saddam would be in control of over 75% of the world's oil supply, which would make him a fcuking dictator of the world! Do you really want to be taking orders from Hitler or Saddam? I didn't fcuking think so!

why the #### do you think almost every part of the world is protesting against war? you think they're retards? they all know exactly the kind of fliped up game that U.S. is playing. and #### it man, if U.S. had proof that iraq had weapons of mass destruction why haven't they let it out yet? protect their sources? if the proof were good enough in the first place, then their sources wouldn't need protecting.
americans(mainly that retard named bush)=igonorant bastards who are worse than the iraqis. because they just don't care about "peace". they only care about the oil from iraq. why the #### do you think the U.S. doesn't attack North Korea for having all this nuclear ####? why do you think the U.S. is ignoring them while they talk all this #### about the U.S.? it's cause the U.S. would gain NOTHING from attacking north korea. no oil, no resources, no power, no nothing. and the U.S. has to sacrifice more resources for a war on North Korea because they have an obligation to supply the ppl in North Korea with food. it's good for their image.
bullpoop americans,
die die die

:angryfire: :angryfire: FCUK YOU AND WHATEVER RACE YOU FCUKING ARE, YOU FCUKING DOOSHBAG!! FCUKING RACIST BASTARD! STOP TRYING TO PUT THE BLAME ON AMERICA, AND FCUKING BLAME FCUKING IRAQ AND FCUKING SADDAM HUSSEIN! HE'S THE FCUKIING PROBLEM, NOT US, YOU FCUKING PIECE OF $HIT!! SO DON'T YOU FCUKING DARE TO TRY AND FCUKING BADMOUTH AMERICA! DON'T YOU FCUKING DARE TO FCUKING LABEL ALL AMERICANS AS YOU ARE DOING, YOU FCUKING GODDAMN MOTHERFCUKER!

and now he's starting to raise suspicsions on saudi arabia. such a jackass.
the US is very friendly with saudi arabia. why? its is the country with the most oil. if we go to war against them, i dont know what congress is gonna do but we cant afford it. and dont say 'we can just drill in alaska'. those environmentalist are trying to stop congress from doing so.
and if we go to war with iraq and take over, he will level his oil fields as an act of vengance. then what? problem is the US gets into too many global affairs.

THE US ONLY GETS INVOLVED TO PROTECT THE WORLD FROM FCUKING DICTATORS LIKE SADDAM HUSSEIN! BUT EVERYBODY FCUKING THINKS THEY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, THINKS THAT AMERICA IS THE BADGUYS! AND IT FCUKING PISSES ME OFF!

G_GUNDAM

01-20-2003, 06:39 PM

just read the bible for goodness sake ??? all of us are going to hell anyway :angryfire:

and for me........im going to hell with gasoline in my draws :angryfire: :laughlong: :laughlong:

SolidSnake76

01-20-2003, 06:44 PM

you are a true american.

the US aint the bad guys, but what i saying is that they should let the UN handle their business unless they ask for help. the US may be trying to keep world peace but like a bunch of countries around the world hates the US. with that incident in china involving the spy plane and fighter jet, china probaly hates the US too.

Americanbadass

01-20-2003, 07:12 PM

:( Yes the bible prophoseis r coming true as we speak for instance examples:
1.first clone baby was born
2.euro money had already started
3.666 type of coding has been ilustrated on dogs @the stated (or some parts)
4.were gonna have a big ass war soon (world war3 posibily)
5.And te fact that some states r actually trying to take the( in god we trust) sign off the dollars and cions.
e.t.c
ps:i sugest u shouid read the bible more often maybe the last chapter of the bible which will tell u wut is going to happn real soon!!

Finnegan

01-20-2003, 07:43 PM

Ok children you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I have researched this topic for over a year now, and have written several papers on it. The fact of the matter is all you peaceniks are hypocrites because Saddam is the antithesis of peace. He has slaughtered over 1.5 million of his own people(women and children included), some of which he tested his chem and bio weapons. He sponsors terrorism much like the Taliban did and openly praised the Sept 11 attacks. He is a terrorist, we suspect ties to 9/11 and the recent Ricin arrests in England. He tried to assassinate President Bush Sr. in 1993, this is a fact and Clinton bombed his ass for it, we should have gone back to war with him then.

Now back to the matter at hand. Weapon inspections are a friggin joke and Saddam knows it. How can you expect a few people driving around in SUVs in a country the size of California to find chemicals that can fit in a shoebox. The concept is ridiculous. We KNOW he has weapons. We KNEW in 1998. We SAW them in 1998 and we're about to dismantle them when he kicked us out violating a UN treaty. Clinton did nothing except launch 70 or so tomahawks. Saddam laughed again. Now what happened to these weapons we SAW in 1998? Well if he destroyed them he could show us remnants. If he sold them he could show us transaction papers. They sure as hell didn't magically disappear. So the conclusion is he has them. Now you may ask WHY attack Saddam? Well we would be helping the Iraqi people first off. Also to protect the region and Western civilation. He sponsors terrorism against the US, Engliand, Israel and more. He was and probably still is paying Palestinian families 25,000$ to sucide bomb Israel. Once he gets nukes he will hold the region hostage and claim all the oil for himself. He will threaten to nuke Israel or Kuwait if his demands aren't met. He will sell weapons to bin Laden. He will slaughter the Kurds up north and the Shi'ites down south, performing an ethnic cleansing of his country as it were, probably with nukes. He willa lmost definately invade Kuwait for its oil and possibly Iran. He is a mad man and must be removed to ensure the saftey of the free world and stabilit in the region.

If we don't act now thousands, maybe millions, more lives will be lost in the future.

Finnegan

01-20-2003, 07:52 PM

Also I'm not saying peace is a bad thing but realistically speaking peace is a fairy tale. As long as two people disagree there will be discord and strife. And sometimes you have to make war to make better peace in the long run.

Also this whole matter does effect me DIRECTLY. I am enlisted in the Army so I of all people do want a peaceful solution but it doesn't look like that is going to happen. I am looking at the matter realistically, and I would be willing to fight in Iraq to remove Saddam if it comes down to that. I remember Sept 11 all too well.

Nantuko Joe

01-20-2003, 08:14 PM

Well said, Finn...well said...

Dan Hibiki

01-20-2003, 10:09 PM

Um...no it wasnt. People also thought that the bible predicted 9/11. People also thought the bible predicted the assassination of JFK. It's a bunch of faulty statements which are misinterpreted and altered to fit the context of the moment. They did the same thing with 9/11 and the bible, they did it with 9/11 and Nostradamas, and they're doing the same thing here. The bible is nothing but a 2000-year-old fairytale.
Well, it isn't specifically WRONG, either. Think Nostradamus. He made enough predictions that he had to get a few right. The bible also VAGUELY describes events before the Apocalypse (book of Revalations if I'm not mistakened).

Oh, and the world won't end. If Saddam uses chemical weapons or nukes on any of our troops, the entire world'll look away if we drop a couple of hydrogen bombs on Baghdad. Also, Iraq's weapons aren't exactly ICBMs. They don't have intercontinental range. Hell, he has trouble hitting our ships out in the ocean, and they aren't that far away.

The world isn't going to end. Perhaps just a small part of it will be annihilated, but it won't end.

SSJKarma

01-20-2003, 10:35 PM

BE REALISTIC... WORLD WAR III !?!

no way... why ?
because us CANADADIAN are refusing right now !
the US have been asked us and try to make us ENTER in the war just because we are allied with them !
first minister CHRETIEN said... :"i refuse to let my country enter into war just because were allied, its unconcievable !"
so knowing that... canada won't go in war !

second: the big bad FRENCH country's did the very same and refuse to get involve in this stupid war.
you see, a WORLD WAR II is possible only if about all countries are involved which is definetely not the case right now.

to be honest... only the AMERICAN BASTARD wants the war just to show they got better weapons.
sorry for the word bastard but you know i'm talking about the president ok...
come on, saddam had been doing that kind of #### for almost 10 years... so come on, what makes you think he can really do what he's suppose to do ?

when the war will be upon me, i'll be glad to say you were right... but until the SUPPOSED WAR begin, there is nothing to fear from anyone ! you something that's called BLUFFING, yes he got the WEAPONS, but every other countries has them too and saddam know that if he strike then everyone, and i say it, everyone will be against him ! don't you think it would be stupid of him to go into war knowing that... NO ! he'll try something like 9/11 who couldn't be prevented because it was a COWARDLY attempt which is the only way to attack the US without being discovered !

surely this war is going to happen... but it is definitely not a WW3 because only the USA wants that stupid war to happen !

Roll

01-20-2003, 10:52 PM

Why didn't you guys listen to me... why? Is it because you have such an ego that you have to prove to each other that you are right? Is it because you try to find out what is really true? What is it? Tell me. All you people have done in this thread so far (besides a few) is argue about something that hasn't happened yet. You can't predict what will happen in such a diverse realm... at least not accurately. If and when the war happens, then it happens, and we'll all go our seperate ways. If it doesn't happen, we'll all go our seperate ways anyway. But until that war ever happens, please don't go off and blow your heads over this! It isn't right, it isn't healthy, and is definitely not needed!

besides... I want to keep whatever peace I can in this world...

Edited By Roll on Jan. 20 2003 at 02:55

Nantuko Joe

01-21-2003, 04:36 AM

Well, it isn't specifically WRONG, either. Think Nostradamus. He made enough predictions that he had to get a few right. The bible also VAGUELY describes events before the Apocalypse (book of Revalations if I'm not mistakened).
Oh, and the world won't end. If Saddam uses chemical weapons or nukes on any of our troops, the entire world'll look away if we drop a couple of hydrogen bombs on Baghdad. Also, Iraq's weapons aren't exactly ICBMs. They don't have intercontinental range. Hell, he has trouble hitting our ships out in the ocean, and they aren't that far away.
The world isn't going to end. Perhaps just a small part of it will be annihilated, but it won't end.

Ooh...VAGUELY...

Let's all get scared ppl...a 2,000 year-old book is predicting our doom...woe is me...pfft

And the world would most definately end. We would use nukes. Iraq (and its allies) would use nukes. Any of our allies that decides to help us would use nukes. Take nuclear winter, add a few plagues (from the chemcial and biological weapons), and the world is pretty much done for.

BE REALISTIC... WORLD WAR III !?!
no way... why ?
because us CANADADIAN are refusing right now !
the US have been asked us and try to make us ENTER in the war just because we are allied with them !
first minister CHRETIEN said... :"i refuse to let my country enter into war just because were allied, its unconcievable !"
so knowing that... canada won't go in war !
second: the big bad FRENCH country's did the very same and refuse to get involve in this stupid war.
you see, a WORLD WAR II is possible only if about all countries are involved which is definetely not the case right now.
to be honest... only the AMERICAN BASTARD wants the war just to show they got better weapons.
sorry for the word bastard but you know i'm talking about the president ok...
come on, saddam had been doing that kind of #### for almost 10 years... so come on, what makes you think he can really do what he's suppose to do ?
when the war will be upon me, i'll be glad to say you were right... but until the SUPPOSED WAR begin, there is nothing to fear from anyone ! you something that's called BLUFFING, yes he got the WEAPONS, but every other countries has them too and saddam know that if he strike then everyone, and i say it, everyone will be against him ! don't you think it would be stupid of him to go into war knowing that... NO ! he'll try something like 9/11 who couldn't be prevented because it was a COWARDLY attempt which is the only way to attack the US without being discovered !
surely this war is going to happen... but it is definitely not a WW3 because only the USA wants that stupid war to happen !

First off, the US doesn't WANT the war to happen...if anything we want to avoid it...but if Saddam keeps breaking his treaty and we continue to find warheads and other tools of war in Iraq, it's inevitable.

Secondly, you saying that it's not a WW3 just because Canada and France won't get involved is BS. You say "for it to be a WW3, every country needs to be involved?" EVERY single country wasn't involved in WWI. EVERY single country wasn't involved in WWII. Yet because karma said so, and because Canada and France won't fight, it won't make it a World War. Pfft...

RIGHT NOW not all countries are involved...but if ANYTHING happens, in an instant, it will become a full-out war.

nosoul4evr

01-21-2003, 05:58 AM

lol i dont mean to be a preacher hear but this wuz all prophosized in the bible.... ;)
ummm..then why mention it?...I'll not "let loose" into ya about this one...( no has the time to read the amount of insane ramblings I could spew about alla that....thats also same reason I didnt post in the "creation of the universe" topic )

Back on topic...The War....ppft political B.S. crappola!

Yasback your over melodramatic ramblings either speak volumes of your own fears of death...or you are one of those kinda people that either intentionaly or un-intentionaly create "the maddness" of the mass's,by becoming to involved,or easily blinded what you see,hear, and are informed by the public,and are probably just another "blind sheep".
By the way you made your post....you sound like a "doom sayer"...Take that crap else where.

War is war...it happens every day and every where....I have seen like 4 or 5 of them my self...ja know what happens?

The bad guys pay for their infractions of justice.
And a "handfull" of guilty,heroic,and inoccents die.

NOT the millions upons millions of deaths as you seem to fortell and see in YOUR own narrow and limited view of the world and how "the machine" works.

Ja know what...the United Nations have enough "fire power" to turn ALL their enemies home lands into glass parking lots...there would be no war.
The U.N. could just pass it off as a "large scale" nuclear testing....that just so happen to eliminate a few "#### heads" as well.
They would worry about the repercussion afterwards and deal with them as neccessary.

Watch and see...this "war" is just another 'flash in the pan of history'....NOT Armagedeon.

The fortellings of the Bible ARE NOT happening.

30 years ago a sequence of event happened...all the religous people cried "It's the end of the world!"
10 years ago another sequence of events happened,every one cried "It's the end of the world!"
5 years ago an Asteriod was mistakenly predicted to come within the "danger zone" of Earth, everyone cried "It's the end of the world!"

Look around people...were still here.
We've been here for a couple 100 thousand years...and we arent going any where all to soon.

So just sit back,shut up,and watch the show.

Besides.....If your religous...and DO die by the hand of another mans actions. Then fear not little one...your going to the right place.

And if in MY narrow view of things on a cosmic scale that encompassing everything is wrong...well..."See ya on the flip side!"

Edited By nosoul4evr on Jan. 21 2003 at 14:33

Finnegan

01-21-2003, 06:19 AM

Did anyone even read my reply? I guess its kind of hard to argue with a bunch of 13 year olds who don't even take the time to read a valid response.

nosoul4evr

01-21-2003, 06:34 AM

YES! and I am not 13 ( just in case ya didnt know )

You make valid points that can not be argued...the solution is very simple..bring the standard of living up in Iraq/Isriel so the people arent so desperate.

IE: The 'free world' needs to just start taking control of deffient nations, and force free law into those lands...It truly is that simple...idealy

Terrorism takes place everyday...it is...'natural' to terrorise...it is...animalistic....primal.
I know that sounds a little strange...but it's true.

Humans like to think we are "above" these subconcious animal behavours..but we arent.
These traits are just exposed in a much more technical manner...because we are a much more evolved animal with a way more elaborate social structure...as well as being the ultimate tool users. wich allows us the ability to express these animal behavours in a much different and larger scale than our lesser evolved cousins.....essestialy...there are base desires that push us to do the things we do...and we do these things just to fullfill these desires so we may put to rest these feelings and to be at ease with our selves.

some of us "just cant control our selves"....and it just so happens to be that people like this are in positions of power in the world...and they fail to see how fullfilling their own desires effect the realm around them in the long run....they "see their ultimate goal" achive it,but fail to see how it will effect the realm after ther passing...All they care about is the "now" and the "me" of fullfiling their desires "there way" wich is the only way to complete fullfill the desire "the way it was meant to be"...wich is the way that "feels right"....even if it does mean the death and destruction of "things that are irrelivent" to that person fullfilling their dream....

(....Bah screw it..im done..i hate getting political,religous,and philisophical on the net...i can go on and on for hours.)

Let the drivel continue.....

Edited By nosoul4evr on Jan. 21 2003 at 11:16

Nantuko Joe

01-21-2003, 09:32 AM

Did anyone even read my reply? I guess its kind of hard to argue with a bunch of 13 year olds who don't even take the time to read a valid response.
It's not that, dude. It's that some of these ppl (not referrinig to ya, nosoul) don't want to be proven wrong, and therefore when they see the possibility that they're as wrong as they can be, they ignore it.

01-21-2003, 05:58 PM

Nantuko: Yes.. it is was a clear violation of the treaty... and well, is that really a just cause for war? Look back 100 years ago, when America was first emerging as a world power. The United States goes to war to defend "oppressed" Cubans from their Spanish rulers. A few months later, a peace treaty is signed, but no Cubans are even allowed to have a say in the provisions. Even during the war, the Cubans are kept from fighting. And because of that great Platt Amendment that the Americans forced Cuba to sign, the US was given a free ticket to re-invade and force their own whims upon Cuba whenever necessary. Another instance in New Granada (Columbia), where New Granada wouldn't sell land for 20 mil. for a canal to be built across the North/South American connector, the US began a "revolution" in without a single cassualty, the New Granada's army was bribed, and Panama was formed and sold the land... and all this in violation of of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, in which the US and Britain promised neither country would maintain control of an intercontinental canal in the Americas (such as Panama Canal). Or if you want something a little more recent, how about that Treaty of Versailles that insisted that WWI was all Germany's fault, completly neglecting the fact that all of the European powers allowed the disaster to come about, and maintaining that Germany could only have a small standing force, scarcely the size of a militia, as well as pay enourmous amounts of money to the Allies, resulting in nearly a world-wide depression.

*And as a side note, the Allies were responsible for the complete destruction of the Ottoman Empire (insited rebellions), creating much of the chaos you see today.

Anyways, my point is this: Treatys are broken all the time, they're an impermanent thing to "keep the peace" for a while. The winning countrys (such as the Allies in WWI), determine the treaties, and decide the provisions to be as unfair at whim. The Pursian Gulf treaty proves all of this by showing not only the point made by Finnegan, that it is impossible for a band of inspectors to actually find these weapons, but also outragous that one country (the US) would violate another country's soverienty by enforcing such an idiotic act for the sheer reason that "we won, therefore we can do whatever the #### we feel like."

my second point: The idea of the US, or any country being able to police the world is ridiculous. Saadam is brutal, a dictator, and by all means, psycotic. And where does the US fall into this? Aside from keeping out cars going... no where. Some sort of "world council", such as the UN? The best thing you've got... but no mater what you chose (abstinance, interferrence, some "world court"), unpredictable #### can and will happen in any case, and the best approach should try to be as unbiased as possible.

my third point: Helping people? Give me a break... I know sending food and radios via air droop may sound good and all... but what people in Afaghanastan, Iraq, and the ###### places of the world need is commerce. Fix that, and at least they've got a chance at not ending up with 6 million people starving during the winter. But why doesn't the US do that? As big and down on monopolys as the US is, it's just being a hypocrit. By this constant policing the world, it is the world monopoly, and doublessly will do everything in its power to keep it that way. If other countrys are all of a sudden making their own cloths and soda factories, then the US commerce goes way down the #### hole.

I don't expect you to believe anything I've said here today, just try and interpret it without being clouded by all those years of propaganda. :biggrin:

Finnegan: Yes... all good points. Don't be fooled by what I've been saying in this topic... by all means, he does deserve to be removed, I have made no opposition to that. Everything I have problems with is US policy.

Just one question though... how would ousting him actually help the Iraqi people? Usually when one facist dictator is taken out of power, (and perhaps even a provisional government put in place), history has shown that these don't tend to last in economically poor countries, and soon another military leader rises and takes over (such as what happened with Germany following WWI). The successes that we have had turn into places like Japan and South Korea... economically benefiting, but still under US "guidance" and protection, completly succeptible to outside attacks (North Korea for one).

Edited By 2000warrior on Jan. 21 2003 at 20:59

tupac2westsider

01-21-2003, 06:47 PM

OH MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

look at all the iraq war debating ive been missing :laugh:

tupac feels really happy know.

ill debate when i come back from mexico, i havent been keeping track of US politics since i left. i think most people that are in favor of going to war with iraq dont have a firm grasp of both sides of the war. most people are just one sided and wont even consider knowing the other side of the story.

i think this whole war is drivin by oil. just look at redneck bush, you cant just look at his face and not say hes an oil tycon. This whole world is driven by money $$$$$$$ the US is on top and wants to stay on top.

ill dabate later............

i got tired and i dont think ill have enought money to stay in this cyber cafe for another hour :laugh:

when i come back from mexico its on!!!!!!!

SolidSnake76

01-21-2003, 07:04 PM

well..........since ya know so much............i gonna let ya.......keep hacking in the CIA files.........and.........debate.

al i know, is that:

-some countries are ready for war.
-emtpy warheads found in iraq.
-bush is urging the UN and UN weapon inspectors to..do stuff.
-bush was already ready for war.
-bush is raising concerns on saudi arabia.
-saddam really needs to be killed.
-saddam could destroy his oil fields as an act of vengance.
-if iraq dont disarm, US will strike like the klumps at a buffet table.

Finnegan

01-21-2003, 07:54 PM

We could easily appease Saddam and get all the oil we wanted form him, this isn't about oil. This is about terrorism and a psycho with nuke who will sell them to terrorists. Remember Sept 11 people? We have to strike first from now one. And yes when you win a war you get to tell the losing to country to do whatever the hell you want, they lost, tough #### for them. And thirdly we would be helping the people we wouldnt just remove Saddam and leave we would install some form of democratic government and monitor it for years later.

SolidSnake76

01-21-2003, 08:00 PM

i know this isnt about oil but still. beside, the US gets most of the oil from the mid-east.

Finnegan

01-21-2003, 08:21 PM

Let me propose this analogy about why Treaties must be adhered too.

After WWI Germany was in ecnomic and political shambles. The country was ruined, people had no money, no jobs. That is when the Nazis rose to power and began violating the Treaty of Versalles (sp), which was passed at the end of the first world war. No one payed any mind, the world watched idlly, "condemning" but not rising to action. Germany built up their army, paying no heed to the Treaty they said they would follow. The army built up and one thing led to another and the Germans invaded Poland. The entire second world war could have been avoided if we had just done something other than sit with our thumbs up our asses while Germany piled up weapons much like Saddam is doing today.

Fight a small war now or a big war later, the choice is upon us today.

Nantuko Joe

01-21-2003, 09:09 PM

i know this isnt about oil but still. beside, the US gets most of the oil from the mid-east.
As does the rest of the world. If Saddam controls the oil, he controls who gets oil, which would basically be controlling the world. But if you read Finnigan's posts, you'd realize that oil has about .5%-1% to do with this current conflict.

SSJKarma

01-21-2003, 09:38 PM

ok...

even if oil was thew cause let me get this all straight forward ok !
the three major place in canada that has LOTS of OIL !
the three province in the center, they don't have much in WATER but has a lot in OIL. which makes me think the way of saying that NOT ALL OIL IS FROM THAT STUPID IRAQ !!!!!!!!!

now, because iraq would have no more oil to share wouldn't mean anything to economic because IRAQ is far from being the only place which have OIL. it will only spoil their own natural ressources ! so what's the point in destroying the only thing they have ?

next: like i said... if bush is doing anything to stop that SUPPOSED war, then why is he taking so much pathetic attempt at trying to stop it ? i mean, he could just go kill saddam and no one would know, but no ! he use pathetic and useless measure which make saddam ever angryer and make him FASTEN war eruption !

so, yeah... i still think he really wants that war ! after all, the name GEORGE WAR BUSH has been here for way longer then this debate ! and we all know WAR BUSH is ALWAYS going for the war instead of anything... why because the americans love to show off like DAN HIBIKI does !

oh... look here we got better weapons then the whole world !!
oh, my gosh your money has got down the drain... ours is the highest.
all those stupid things the US says makes me sick !
i mean, we know the US is very strong, now why have the president always vatardise the fact ?

as for what i already said once !
LET IT HAPPEN !
i mean, come on ! nosoul said it himself... how can you say such things that the world will end when it has been more then 300 years that people said we were suppose to die !

the bible ?
what a stupid thing now... if i refer to that very same bible, i hardly have the right to go to the bathroom without going to hell ! so i ask, what can be true in a more then 200 years old book that has been TRANSCRIBED for more then 300 times ?

have you ever played the phone game with that much persons ! see how the original text is completely none existent at the end ! 300 persons that transcribed it with their own comment, so it resolves in PATHETIC book that makes no-sense at all in our days !

like no soul said... don't care about it. live your life like normal and if you die cause of that war, then at least you'll have lived your life good !

end of subject... now someone please close that damn ####### stupidness thread please !

Nantuko Joe

01-21-2003, 10:22 PM

ok...
even if oil was thew cause let me get this all straight forward ok !
the three major place in canada that has LOTS of OIL !
the three province in the center, they don't have much in WATER but has a lot in OIL. which makes me think the way of saying that NOT ALL OIL IS FROM THAT STUPID IRAQ !!!!!!!!!

now, because iraq would have no more oil to share wouldn't mean anything to economic because IRAQ is far from being the only place which have OIL. it will only spoil their own natural ressources ! so what's the point in destroying the only thing they have ?

No shiznit. But Canada cannot supply the ENTIRE WORLD with oil like the middleeast can. The middleeast supplies over 70% of the ENTIRE WORLD'S oil supply. 70% can not be made up by underground undersea drilling and your Canadian oil supplies.

And genius...Iraq doesn't HAVE any oil...it's all in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (I think). Iraq has about as much oil as my car.

next: like i said... if bush is doing anything to stop that SUPPOSED war, then why is he taking so much pathetic attempt at trying to stop it ? i mean, he could just go kill saddam and no one would know, but no ! he use pathetic and useless measure which make saddam ever angryer and make him FASTEN war eruption !

Oh yeah...no one would notice the fact that a dictatorial overlord in Iraq is threatening the US one day and suddenly, mysteriously disappears.

so, yeah... i still think he really wants that war ! after all, the name GEORGE WAR BUSH has been here for way longer then this debate ! and we all know WAR BUSH is ALWAYS going for the war instead of anything... why because the americans love to show off like DAN HIBIKI does !
oh... look here we got better weapons then the whole world !!
oh, my gosh your money has got down the drain... ours is the highest.
all those stupid things the US says makes me sick !
i mean, we know the US is very strong, now why have the president always vatardise the fact ?

WTF does america have to do with Hibiki? Yer just pulling shiznit out of yer ass now. Because Bush has a nickname means that he's automatically gonna make the worst of it, advertise america's strength, and brag about it? Um...no...

as for what i already said once !
LET IT HAPPEN !
i mean, come on ! nosoul said it himself... how can you say such things that the world will end when it has been more then 300 years that people said we were suppose to die !
the bible ?
what a stupid thing now... if i refer to that very same bible, i hardly have the right to go to the bathroom without going to hell ! so i ask, what can be true in a more then 200 years old book that has been TRANSCRIBED for more then 300 times ?

The only thing I agree with you on. The bible supposedly predicted the end of the world in the year 2000. We're still here. The bible supposedly predicted the end of the world 300 years ago. We're still here. The bible has supposedly predicted a lot of stuff...which never came true. The bible is nothing more than a 2,000-year-old fairy tale...a story book.

end of subject... now someone please close that damn ####### stupidness thread please !

Umm...no? Just because yer done speaking doesn't mean it's the end of the subject. It just means the rest of us don't have to listen to yer BS anymore.

SSJKarma

01-21-2003, 10:35 PM

you know this is a stupid topic, i know it, we all know it !
why ?
because it is a ####### damn retard who happen to make PROPAGANDA about something called THE END OF THE WORLD which we all know he's false about it !
now close that topi someone !

if you want a debate about US and other counrty, suit you ! but don't come saying stupidities like WERE ALL GONNA DIE IF THAT WAR ERUPT ITS THE END OF THE WORLD !

because we all know that even if ALL the nukes are fired, then there will always be survivors that we all know will still be here 75 years after the nukes exposions ! so whats the point of saying stupidities like that ?

now, think what you think... but look in the history iof the US, they are SHOW OFF and they are the biggest there is in history !

mastaq

01-22-2003, 01:18 AM

all i know is im just listening to eminem and im getting pissed to the point im loving it and i want to go blow some ###### up damn all this bullpoop in the world why does it happen why cant the people who know what to do be in office why cant things be like they used to be all i know is you people are scared.. all this damn rambling.. if we die we die.. i dont want to die.. but we all have to die some time.. and the world will come to an end some day.. everything has a begining and an end.. :angryfire:

Nantuko Joe

01-22-2003, 02:41 PM

because we all know that even if ALL the nukes are fired, then there will always be survivors that we all know will still be here 75 years after the nukes exposions ! so whats the point of saying stupidities like that ?

now, think what you think... but look in the history iof the US, they are SHOW OFF and they are the biggest there is in history !
Um...no. If every country fired their nukes, the entire world would become uninhabitable due to the massive radiation and nuclear winter. We'd have a global-wide nuclear winter, the radiation would spread EVERYWHERE, and the only things that would be left alive would be spiders and cockroaches. Everything else would be dead within a matter of years after the nukes are fired.

And why is the US a showoff? We're showoffs because we fought for our independence against Britain? We're showoffs because we fought to free the slaves? We're showoffs because we fought to save the world? We're showoffs because we are going to fight to stop terrorism?

princevegetam

01-22-2003, 03:05 PM

Nantuko Joe

01-22-2003, 06:07 PM

save what world? most terrorism crap only happens against the U.S.(gee i wonder why)? you didn't free the slaves, they freed themselves. independance against britain? more like a rebellion. if U.S. wasn't so far away from britain at the time, you would never have succeeded. and all that beating and harassing of loyalists back in those days for their patriotism to britain? U.S. used to be a good country, but after the USSR died, no one was left to keep the americans in check.
Terrorism mostly only against US: Terrorists hate America for one sole reason: We are free. They hate our freedom, it's against everything that they stand for. They hate that we're free to express ourselves, free to say what we want, free to speak our mind. Blacks, whites, chinese, polish, men, women, WHATEVER! In america we're all equal, and there is no official government racism/prejudice/sexism towards any group, and the Terrorists hate it. Therefore, they bomb us. Therefore, we'll kick their asses.

America Freeing the Slaves: Umm...you either don't know US history or are an idiot. The USA fought against the CSA to free the slaves. If it wasn't for the USA, the south would still be a separate country, and the blacks would still all be slaves. No offense to black people, but the slaves didn't free themselves. Sure they HELPED the US free them, but they didn't to it themselves.

Independance from Britain: Umm...the US was founded by people seeking FREEDOM from British oppression. What does Britain do? They follow the colonists and try to control them. Guess what? They got their asses kicked. It was only a rebellion in the eyes of the British. The US was fighting for its own freedom from oppression: freedom that they had sought a hundred years prior, yet was still denied them by the British. The US had two choices: fight against the British or suck it up and deal with it. The US made the right choice and fought. If we didn't, let's just say that the fact that burgers would be replaced with "fish 'n' chips" would be the least changed...

Keeping America in check: Oh right, AMERICA needs to be kept in check, no one else. Not Iraq, who is stockpiling and hiding chemical and biological weapons in their country to most likely use against the US. Not Cuba, who almost started WWIII for hiding nuclear silos on Cuba...ready to be launched at the US. Not Russia and China, which were prepared to spread Communism across all of Asia and Europe. But America, the country that fought to free the slaves, to end terrorism, to stop communism, and to fight for its own freedom, AMERICA is the one who needs to be in check.

You're obviously delusional.

princevegetam

01-22-2003, 07:13 PM

SolidSnake76

01-22-2003, 08:44 PM

terrorists do not hate freedom, they do not hate equality, they are humans just like you and me.
oh really?

then during the reign of the taliban, why did men have to keep thier beards big and long? why did women have to stay in isolation for their entire lives, or so? why did the people of afghanistan did what the taliban tell them to do? does that sound like freedom?

~virtualfighter~

01-22-2003, 09:00 PM

owww.... mannnn.... its "america: great contry or curupted fcuk?" all over again...

anyway, last time i debated i was against america. and dont get me wrong, i still am but, i feel america should do somethng about irak. i was watching a show n biological warfar. the part about iraq made me sick. killing there ownppl. Childeren, men, wemon. dead on the streets. THERE ROTING FLESH BEING PICKED AT BY RATS it made me sick.

oh, and nantukuko, an atom bomb doesn't just afect on part of a contry, one bomb willl destroy everyone, and everything in Iraq. not at once, in time. first, if anyradiation goes into the water, dead. if radiation goes anywhere near the farms, dead. if any radiation hits the oil. dead... slowyly, the wole Iraqy government/citizens die. but, it takes 20+ years, so this will give them plenty of time to drop 5 more on us. :D

Nantuko Joe

01-22-2003, 09:16 PM

fool, do you even know what communism is?
why do you think cuba/iraq all go after america? and not france or britain, or some other country?
terrorists do not hate freedom, they do not hate equality, they are humans just like you and me. what they do hate, is america's support for israel. what they do hate is america's constant meddling in their affairs. more than half of the muslim/arabic world hates the U.S. for this crap. america Created the terrorists

Let me see...you say that the terrorists don't hate freedom, yet in terrorist countries, women must wear head-to-toe robes. Women cannot go into public without the company of a male (even a 5-year-old boy). If a woman is seen in public without a male companion, she is killed.

When the US went into afhanistan and got rid of the terrorist Taliban government, the women were free. The women could go outside alone (or with a group of women, not in the presence of a man). Women could show their faces, their bodies. But no...you're right...the terrorists don't hate freedom...even though they pretty much outlaw freedom in their own countries...they don't hate it...right...

oh, and nantukuko, an atom bomb doesn't just afect on part of a contry, one bomb willl destroy everyone, and everything in Iraq. not at once, in time. first, if anyradiation goes into the water, dead. if radiation goes anywhere near the farms, dead. if any radiation hits the oil. dead... slowyly, the wole Iraqy government/citizens die. but, it takes 20+ years, so this will give them plenty of time to drop 5 more on us.

Um...are you still living in the '50s?

We don't have atom bombs anymore. We have nukes. Each of our nukes has about 5-10x the power of the Hiroshima atom bomb. Either way, the thing about radiation, and global winter...I ALREADY SAID IT, so there was no need for you to tell me what I already know and already said.

Yasback

01-23-2003, 09:17 AM

what the hey?

all these sensible intelligent posts (posted for the first time on this forum)

why?

because of me :D i started this topic.. lol this is so amazing :buttrock: wow yey!!!

hey guys, i'm going home now (i'm at college right now: time: 5:00pm) but thanks for your opinions and i am really appreciative about them.. thank you :) ]

i shall read them properly pretty soon so i can add my opinions too since i am the one who wanted quite challenging remarks,

anyway seeya guys, take care :laughlong:

01-23-2003, 12:26 PM

Aight... I'm purposly skipping the 5th and 6th pages for a reason... I CAN'T READ YOU'RE BLOODY POSTS! Are Nantuko Joe, Dan Hibiki, and Finnegan the only guys who know how to post here? I just can't deal with all this SSJKarma rambling and Yasback.. whatever the hell that's supposed to be.

Eyes hurting... ok, well anyone who's posted there can just ignore what I've got to say here since it's directed to Finnegan:

2 points here...

1. The US has had a policy of striking first since the Revolutionary War. I know this may sound forgien to you, but here me out:
- Revolutionary War: 1st attacks began before the Declaration of Independence was ever written... colonists attacked British who were marching off to round up milita supplies, and well, the collonists attacked. The US clearly made the 1st strike there.
- War of 1812: The US wanted to expand in Canada.. plain and simple. US aggresion lead to war, not this impressments (which btw the British aggreed to stop.. before the war even began).
- Mexican War: Again... started by the US. US agression to "defend" Texas, which "won it's independence" from Mexico by illegal US immigrants, provoked Mexico to defend its borders... and so the US won again.
- Civil War: Lincoln intended for Fort Sumter (not sure how it's spelled) to get attacked. He did this by sending supplies to it... after the fort was attacked, he assembled the US army and struck first in the Battle of Bull Run.
- Spanish-American War: After the Maine blew up near Cuba (where it had no right to be in the first place, and wasn't even attacked by Spanish), the US attacked the Spanish in Cuba and the Phillipines (once again, probably misspelled).
- Panama's revolution against New Granada: Not a single person was hurt... and the US "aid" to the nation arived ahead of schedule (before the revolution).
- Filopiane Revolt: US conquered the Philipines instead of "setting them free" as they so justly did to Cuba, and so... they made sure to do the exact same thing they fought the Spanish for doing a year or 2 ago.
- WWI: At what point was the US mainland invaded? Never. The US struck before Germany or Austria-Hungary could ever have a chance to (of which neither country had any intentions... it was just a huge diplomatic mistake, filled with military miscalculations).
- WWII: Pearl Harbor... which belonged to the US because what reason? A McKinley Tarriff increases the tax of imports to the US back in the mid/late 1800's, so some rich sugar cane farmers get together and overthrough the Hawaiin natives for cheaper sell of sugar (same reason for intervention in Cuba in Spanish-American War btw). Anyways, here the US was struck first... and all because they had thier Pacific Fleet stationed somewhere where the US shouldn't have owned in the first place.
- Viet-nam and Korean Wars: US troops stationed in these countries got under fire... but still, the US was not invaded in any way. Not really wars the US wanted to get involved in though, much unlike all of the previous wars. I guess this and WWII are the closest to the US mainland actually came to being "defended" as the reason the US was fighting the war.
- Persian Gulf War: Kuait = probably misspelled :biggrin: . But it was/is also a large supplier of oil, and once Saddam took it over, he had 25% of the world oil if I'm not mistaken? So... since the US had absolutely no threat towards itself, other then perhaps higher gas prices... it attacked first.

Anyways, if you havn't already guessed, the point I'm making here is the US has always, and will almost certainly continue to use it's "military defense" not to defend themselves, but to attack first. There's nothing wrong with the tactic... so far it hasn't failed, and seems to leave the opponent with no way to win. I just hate the fact that so many people believe in "defending out nation" when in effect they'd only be defending someone else's nation.

2. The Treaty of Versailles (is almost certainly misspelled), as you said... left Germany in ruins. It's most productive centers were bereft of it, it's colonial empire was gone, and it was demanded to pay homage to the nations which won... Which lead directly the rise of the Nazi regime as the political power in the nation. The irony here is not is Germany didn't cause this to happen by simply disobeying they Treaty, the Allies caused it by making the treaty so utterly impossible for Germany to adhear, that it caved into a depression that was unsurpassed in the world (to give some of the others reading this an idea, 1 dollar = 6 million german marks, at one point)... and there was no one left to fight the Nazi facism that dominated the nation. This should sound a bit like the Bolshevik revolution... since both were facist regimes that took over an economically poor nation and turned it into an industrial power house. But anyways... because of the treaty of Versailles, WWII's stage was set.

I agree that nations should follow treaties that are set, but the nations that force these treaties upon other nations should make certain that what they're asking of them is realistic. The UN inspecting for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is unrealistic, and was bound to fail, and I only have those people who wrote that part in the treaty to blame for what's happening now.

Edited By 2000warrior on Jan. 24 2003 at 01:30

Nantuko Joe

01-23-2003, 01:17 PM

1. The US has had a policy of striking first since the Revolutionary War. I know this may sound forgien to you, but here me out:
- Revolutionary War: 1st attacks began before the Declaration of Independence was ever written... colonists attacked British who were marching off to round up milita supplies, and well, the collonists attacked. The US clearly made the 1st strike there.

Finnigan helped speak for me, so I'll return the favor and do what I can:

...because the colonists had to endure years upon years of British tyranny and unlawfulness in the country they formed to ESCAPE the British tyranny in the first place. There's only so much you can take before you snap.

- Civil War: Lincoln intended for Fort Sumter (not sure how it's spelled) to get attacked. He did this by sending supplies to it... after the fort was attacked, he assembled the US army and struck first in the Battle of Bull Run.

If I were you...I wouldn't try to start a debate about the Civil War with Finnigan. You don't know what yer getting into...

- WWII: Pearl Harbor... which belonged to the US because what reason? A McKinley Tarriff increases the tax of imports to the US back in the mid/late 1800's, so some rich sugar cane farmers get together and overthrough the Hawaiin natives for cheaper sell of sugar (same reason for intervention in Cuba in Spanish-American War btw). Anyways, here the US was struck first... and all because they had thier Pacific Fleet stationed somewhere where the US shouldn't have owned in the first place.

Umm...no. The japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because the US didn't support them in their invasion of Manchuria and China. They also attacked because since the US didn't support their invasion, they either suspended all trade with Japan or increased tariffs (can't remember which one.) Hardly a reason to bomb a base and kill hundreds of americans.

And America purchased Hawaii...THAT'S why we were there in the first place. Since we purchased it, it is ours. Since it's ours, we had every right to position our ships and whatnot there.

And about WWII Germany...Germany DID attack the United States directly...it's just that not may people know about it. If you want, I can tell you how he did it, too.

- Viet-nam and Korean Wars: US troops stationed in these countries got under fire... but still, the US was not invaded in any way. Not really wars the US wanted to get involved in though, much unlike all of the previous wars. I guess this and WWII are the closest to the US mainland actually came to being "defended" as the reason the US was fighting the war.

The U.S. entered the Vietnam war because they were in support of South Vietnam. South Vietnam was a democracy (what the US stands for) and the North was a Communist regimen, and was attacking to try to take over the south. If YOU were Eisenhower/JFK/LBJ, I SINCERELY DOUBT that you'd sit on your heals and watch a democratic government be overrun by Communists.

- Persian Gulf War: Kuait = probably misspelled . But it was/is also a large supplier of oil, and once Saddam took it over, he had 25% of the world oil if I'm not mistaken? So... since the US had absolutely no threat towards itself, other then perhaps higher gas prices... it attacked first.

Actually, the middle-east (Saudi Arabia more specifically) supplies over 60% of the world's oil. Now, the US was smart and began to think ahead:

Would YOU want 60% of the world's oil being controlled by a phsyco maniac named Saddam Hussein?

2. The Treaty of Versailles (is almost certainly misspelled), as you said... left Germany in ruins. It's most productive centers were bereft of it, it's colonial empire was gone, and it was demanded to pay homage to the nations which won... Which lead directly the rise of the Nazi regime as the political power in the nation. The irony here is not is Germany didn't cause this to happen by simply disobeying they Treaty, the Allies caused it by making the treaty so utterly impossible for Germany to adhear, that it caved into a depression that was unsurpassed in the world (to give some of the others reading this an idea, 1 dollar = 6 million german marks, at one point)... and there was no one left to fight the Nazi facism that dominated the nation. This should sound a bit like the Bolshevik revolution... since both were facist regimes that took over an economically poor nation and turned it into an industrial power house. But anyways... because of the treaty of Versailles, WWII's stage was set.

So why did they start a mass holocaust of homos, gypsies, Jews, and other minorities, killing over 10 million, 100% innocent men, women and children?

Also, we attacked against Germany because Hitler, the fcuking madman that he was, wanted to conquor the world. And the people of Germany of that point weren't that smart, I may add. Think about it: The guy that all of Germany rallied behind, the guy who said that 'the ideal human is a large, strong man with blue eyes and blonde hair, and that everyone else is inferior" had...brown hair and brown eyes. And the ppl rallied behind him.

I agree that nations should follow treaties that are set, but the nations that force these treaties upon other nations should make certain that what they're asking of them is realistic. The UN inspecting for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is unrealistic, and was bound to fail, and I only have those people who wrote that part in the treaty to blame for what's happening now.

How is the UN inspecting unrealistic? They've found biological and chemical weapons in there in years past, and recently found chemical warheads. If you ask me, chemical and biological warheads are a serious threat. Saddam is a madman, and we have every right to make sure that he isn't stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. He's not resonsible enough to have them. The USA and Russia are. I mean, c'mon. Have the US or Russia killed over 1.5 million of our own people testing nukes and such? Thought not.

marvel911

01-23-2003, 02:36 PM

Why is it that only America has these problems?

MasterX05

01-23-2003, 03:15 PM

America has the most power and plus other ppl are hating on us.

~virtualfighter~

01-23-2003, 03:29 PM

nantuko, tell us the story of when the germans atacked the Us, i want to know, for further use.

SolidSnake76

01-23-2003, 04:13 PM

yeah, tell him about the zimmerman telegraph. hell i say it.

the US was getting torward stepping in WWI[or whichever one u talking about], so germany made a deal with mexico.

if the US enters the war, help germany attack the US and u get a piece of the US back.

i know my history, but i still cant understand why the US still entered besides that incident. oh and germany never attacked the US.

and joe, let finnigan say sumthing about the civil war so i can give him a piece of my mind.

01-23-2003, 05:16 PM

Nantuko Joe: You clearly missed the point of all that. Please remind me at what point I said any of those wars that you just quoted were unjust?

Regaurless of my own personal emotions, I was discussing 1 very simple thing... strategy for "defense". You remember reading Finnigan's posts right?

Remember Sept 11 people? We have to strike first from now one.

By calling up previous US wars, I've shown that the US has in almost every single case struck first.

And as for your actual comments...

...because the colonists had to endure years upon years of British tyranny and unlawfulness in the country they formed to ESCAPE the British tyranny in the first place. There's only so much you can take before you snap.

Ok... so they didn't have representation. So what? That made several rich radicals want to separate, and by the time the war broke out only about 30% of the population wanted war, with the majority either not caring or being undecided (which would have been after the Boston Massacre and the Intollerable Acts). Remember the time period, people who were rebelling were against the coast (these triangular traders), and had been disobeying the Navigation Acts for quite some time. In fact, I believe I read a census that 95% of colonial America were yeomen farmers, and wern't even effected by these tariffs? So you might call the founding fathers "smugglers", since that's exactly what they were. And fyi, imperialist America became the same as the British, if you remember why the US even owned Hawaii and the Philopines in the first place. Rich people bitchin' about the Navigation Acts actually being enforced where your entire Glourious Revolution lays. I suggest you find a History teacher who's indifferent, and will cease sending this constant flow of propaganda down your throat.

Umm...no. The japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because the US didn't support them in their invasion of Manchuria and China. They also attacked because since the US didn't support their invasion, they either suspended all trade with Japan or increased tariffs (can't remember which one.) Hardly a reason to bomb a base and kill hundreds of americans.

And America purchased Hawaii...THAT'S why we were there in the first place. Since we purchased it, it is ours. Since it's ours, we had every right to position our ships and whatnot there.

And about WWII Germany...Germany DID attack the United States directly...it's just that not may people know about it. If you want, I can tell you how he did it, too.

Why don't you read that thing you quoted? You should find it quite clear I listed 0 reasons why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor :biggrin:

As for why the US owned it? Well here's a short excerpt from my History book:
[quote:post_uid0="History Book"]
The interest of the United States in the Pacific and the Far East began in the late eighteenth century, when the first American merchant ship dropped anchor in Canton harbor. After the Treaty of Wanghai (1844), American merchants in China enjoyed many privileges and trade expanded rapidly. Missionaries began to flock into the country

01-23-2003, 05:36 PM

yo guys, in case you did not realise considering you've been wasting the time of your life concentrating on this game, accepting it as YOUR sole purpose in life.. (knock knock) :buttrock:

but we have a problem intensifying on this planet which will decide your fate!

ok world hysteria has begun.. the war on iraq is definite and drawing near! millions of innocent people will die.. not just in iraq but also in america! pretty soon, the whole world and since there are many parts of the world of tremendous rows over land and fighting between creeds.. the world has changed and its time we prepare for this ugly change!

whats your opinion about this world disorder? how do you propose to support the prevention of this war if you want to prevent it.

seeya guys!
:( ya sadly

the gas will get more expensive cause Iraq wont give us any and the prize will go 75% higher...

america messes around with every single country thats the worst thing...

no offence but once every country will team up and blow up USA ...
just a local guess :D

SolidSnake76

01-23-2003, 06:51 PM

The United State's pretext for attacking Iraq in the first place was pathetic. In it's entirety, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait only mimics the irony of how the US came to be such a powerful nation. Just look at your history... the Mexican-American war, the Spanish-American War, the Louisiana purchase, the Siox/Indian Wars, the Philopines, Hawaii, , etc.. etc... These are all instances of the US gobelling up smaller and weaker people/nations for the United State's sole benifit. Oppresion of other people and forcing other nations to comply with US dominance because it became an industrial giant have all been common place in the United States. And I can't help but point out the irony of your "great nation" by showing that it's nothing more then a common fraud. Fair to its people by all means. Fair to other people, it has never been.
what idiot told u that?

the louisiana purschase: france needed money and offered the land to the US.

The Panama Revolution: a canal was desperately needed due to what happen during the spanish american war. the US was gonna built, but columbia wouldnt allow it, even after roosevelt offered $10,000,000 plus $250,000. what jackass would decline that much money? so they had the pple of panama, which hated the oppression, fight back and the US aided with one battleship. or two, i not sure how many.

Hawaii: another damn purschase. no force was even used.

The Siox/Indian Wars: now right there the US was wrong.

i want to know what jackass told u this since u reserched.

01-23-2003, 09:15 PM

No jackass told me that... it's all my own deductions about how the US has opperated.

the louisiana purchase: France didn't even have a single troop in the territory, and it was givin to France before that by Spain... which in turn had 0 troops in there and only "owned" the land due to fruitless claims that dated back to the age of exploration. The only owners of that land were the native americans that lived there. This purchase only lead to the destruction of their lives and continued American expansion into Mexican territory.

The Panama Revolution: At what point were the people being oppressed? And at what point did the US all of a sudden own Colombian territory? Answer to both questions: never. The US ####### bribed the Panamese to revolt. Notice how the casualty rate was at 0? Yeah, they really felt strongly against their oppressors... the US friggin instigated the whole thing. It was a big scandel, cooked up by some of J.P. Morgan's men and Roosevelt (and others I can't recall).

The US just had to have their way, and after offering 40 mil. to the French contractors to build a canal through New Granada, they offered half that much (20 mil. plus 250 grand per year after that for... can't remember how long) to New Granda to purchase the land. Seeing as the French got a hell of a lot more, they refused (in hopes to get more money).

At some point in your reasoning, does it seems logical enough to go ahead and break the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty (mentioned earlier in this debate), and force the US will upon another nation? And you know what this was used for don't you? Increased mobility of the navy.

Hawaii: Reffer to that except from my history book I took so long in typing up just for people who like to argue with me :biggrin:

But thanks for mentioning that I researched it :biggrin:
It takes a lot of time to actually look up some of this crap, since no one else feels like getting their facts right...

Edited By 2000warrior on Jan. 24 2003 at 00:16

Yasback

01-24-2003, 01:28 AM

Yasback

01-24-2003, 01:31 AM

man but i still can't believe it.. everyone is posting all these serious posts to the cutting edge of importance in this forum.. thanks to me.. wow!!!

yey.. should feel proud :)

bloodpack

01-24-2003, 05:42 AM

[quote:post_uid8="Yasback"]because of me :D i started this topic.. lol this is so amazing :buttrock: wow yey!!![/quote:post_uid8]
BCOZ OF YOU?

hey kid, i already did this kind of topic

check in here (http://nferno666.sytes.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=7977)

Yasback

01-24-2003, 10:28 AM

(yawns) boring dude ???

alamgir

01-24-2003, 10:32 AM

well one thing i just hope the war isnt against just muslims becos i am a muslim and there r a lot of racist people out there who r racist against muslims

01-24-2003, 12:17 PM

stupid 2000warrior, assuming you're so umm.. thoughtless, my last post was just a mere compliment to all your contributive posts to this topic i started.. thats all :angryfire: ;) even a little kid could understand that..

i read your posts and i'm intrigued.. but dang, i have to go college now (man i come online oftenly just before i go and just before i leave college: weird ??? )

ok ok.. i will add my posts soon.. honest i will.. i think 2000warrior has become too precious of this topic.. but i'll have to jump in soon because i believe i have all the facts and files to my disposal which will make you understand properly.. 2000warrior, joe and all.. you're doing great with the back up of your quotes but i think its time you let me hop in.. lol!!!!!!! :buttrock:

ps: as a scientist myself, i just would like to add that iraq does not pose any threat at all according to the lack of rescources it contains! the possession of weapons of mass destruction are CRYSTAL CLEAR in north korea..

reason why america failed to act against that "obvious" threat is unknown.. but i can assure you.. this war is not for the possession of oil.. you can consider another big difference..

anyway seeya guys, definitely post in the "best posts" soon..

chow :alien:

Uh.. you see, this is what I'm getting pissed at.

You're making the same mistake everyone else is and not READING my posts. It's obvious you're skipping/skiming over it because if you HAD read it, you'd notice the only time I mentioned your name was that I skipped over you responses (now read), because your posts lack something vital for me to comprehend them....

U NEEDZ MORE SENTANCE STUCTUR

____

Stupid yasback, assuming you're so umm... thoughtless, my last post(s) was just directed towards other people, and NOT you. Even a toddler could understand.

I read your posts and i'm getting brain damage from their lack of information and their continued childish behavior. But dang, I have to disbelieve you're going to college because these posts look like they're made by an 8 year old.

ok ok... I will git off your back if you make a concited effort to quit acting like a kid, and act your claimed age. I think if you want to "hop in", by all means, do so (notice there are no set teams in this debate or anything).

ps: if you are a scientist, I find it very hard to believe seeing as your posts lack any structure of any sort and contain about 0 subject matter to the debate at hand.

Reason why America failed to act against that "obvious" threat of North Korea is CRYSTAL CLEAR (they actually pose a threat and DO contain weapons of mass destruction, and might actually use them, wheras the US knows Saddam doesn't even rival that capability).

Edited By 2000warrior on Jan. 24 2003 at 15:18

machine1

01-24-2003, 03:32 PM

if we need to go to war i say we do it. why wait? why give iraq a chance to attack us in an ambush... if we go there and surprise them we can win, but if bush keeps waiting, they will attack us in surprise, sadam is a crazy man he will do anything to be dominant ,

he is not someone u can trust, he will want to get the us outta their way, war happening---- its gonna happen, but we can get a head start, so i say bush uses common sense and prepares hisdam army to go to war before they attack first

01-24-2003, 08:54 PM

this is all BS ..USA sux

Nantuko Joe

01-24-2003, 10:31 PM

this is all BS ..USA sux
You suck

bloodpack

01-24-2003, 11:49 PM

[quote:post_uid2="Yasback"](yawns) boring dude ???[/quote:post_uid2]
so you think war is BORING huh?!
wait till a nuclear warhead lands on top of your house :p

Yasback

01-25-2003, 04:31 AM

some of you people are the most sadly mistakened people on earth!

finnegan: despite all the compliments given to you, i strongly disagree of what you said! you said "either its a small war now or a big war later".. how stupid! as thick as you are, you may not realise that its a small war which leads to a big war eventually! do you really think the world will accept the ruthless actions of w.bush and america against iraq? of course not! they will get involved which will indeed trigger world war 3!

the simple proposal is to avoid war at any cost since it cannot resolve any matter!
some of you people in this forum are just so dumb! doesn't it say on the news that the un inspectors have repeatedly searched iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction but in fact non have been found? in return, america proposes to begin a war by making stupid excuses.. since they do not have evidence against iraq! america are the dumb fools!

iraq does not pose any threat one way or another: saddam hussein has even fooled americans: remember just before the gulf war when saddam inflated those balloons (that looked exactly like tanks).. 1000s of them.. lol.. america used satellites to spy on iraq and were fooled because to them they looked exactly like tanks.. so they got afraid!!! america got worried and an immediate action was taken to withdraw their troops and tanks: it was even reported on the news showing saddam all powerful because they were scared!
lol scared for nothing.. this shows the stupidity of america: the thick nation!

iraq possesses no weapons of mass destruction in any sense! stupid america has its eyes all over the world and yet they cry like fools! iraq cannot even import food or medicine from surrounding countries because of america! this is why iraq is dying of starvation.. so america are the savages! not iraq!

besides if this war begins.. america will prove to be "the savages yet the cowards".. because fighting a war against a nation who is starving and of high infant mortality rates will prove america a weak nation! threatening the sick is an act of cowardness! surely you can say with all that oil, saddam can afford all the food and water to feed and take care of his people.. but like i said.. he cannot because america have put iraq into sanctions so they cannot import food or medicine.. even from neighbouring countries.. surely, they receive money by trading oil.. but america has convinced countries not to export/import at iraq.. its as simple as that.. finnegan: so you were wrong! the savage here is america for the death of millions of iraqis!

saddam did not test his weapons on his own people! thats all propoganda! you americans are misconcepted because you hear the news which is owned by america! and surely it is bias! if you did not go through some effort to verify the news, all of what you said is pointless! its just a pack of bias lies!

seeya! :alien:

Yasback

01-25-2003, 04:40 AM

look 2000warrior, i did read your posts.. but i cannot agree that what you said is correct!

like i said, you've been reading the news and have been convinced without you verifying it! i am not the one who initiated this suggestion.. its what comes on tv which concerns the stupidity of people.. umm maybe like you!

you just expect everyone and myself to read your posts and agree to them.. yet you reject ours which my "genius" mind states that some of ours are correct!

i don't have to read your posts.. but listen, america are provoking this war and are determined to start it even that now they don't have evidence on their side! you must understand this! saddam has allowed the un weapon inspectors to enter iraq and in result, no weapons were found and this has been going on for months in demand by america.. so there you have it.. even you do not have evidence to support this war to begin and if you think you have.. you have not been verifying the news you're been hearing.. simple!

chow :buttrock:

coolplayer2K2

01-25-2003, 05:27 AM

SolidSnake76

01-25-2003, 08:25 AM

if u hate americans and u have relatives in ohio, then u hate them too. thnk about what u said.

and toronto aint that close to detroit.

Yasback

01-25-2003, 08:40 AM

look, i don't hate americans ok? i have many good american friends and all so calm down!

but what i hate is seeing americans talking tough against other countries yet they cannot look at their own! you can clearly see it! corruption and disturbance in society!

laters

SolidSnake76

01-25-2003, 08:58 AM

i understand what u mean, but its only like half or most americans that are prejitus[however u spell it]. they can talk about how america is better than others and they pay high amount of taxes. and the blacks still face rasictism. i got cursed out by this white bitch while stopping my bike at a red light in manhattan and she was crossing. but i wasnt gonna let her walk by talking to me like that. i said 'get ur old f**king ass out of the street'. it happened in november.

~virtualfighter~

01-25-2003, 01:01 PM

alot of ppl are saying that te usa atarted the revolutionary war.... but no one knows. they were staring each other down.. like 30 minutes later, one group shot a bullet. does anyone have any research one how gave the shot the was heard around the world?

01-25-2003, 05:04 PM

1st thing... edit your posts (quit double posting, it's just annoying).

look 2000warrior, i did read your posts.. but i cannot agree that what you said is correct!

When did I ask you to agree with me? Since when have you put any valid arguements that I have been adressing with my posts?

like i said, you've been reading the news and have been convinced without you verifying it! i am not the one who initiated this suggestion.. its what comes on tv which concerns the stupidity of people.. umm maybe like you!

:laugh:
So you mean to tell me that your "genius" mind couldn't even figure out that I have been using a history book for my resource? I don't watch the news '.' <--- "period"

you just expect everyone and myself to read your posts and agree to them.. yet you reject ours which my "genius" mind states that some of ours are correct!

Uh... no, I don't. I didn't even expect you to reply to them because...
FOR THE LAST TIME, THEY WERN'T DIRECTED TOWARDS YOU

I don't expect anyone to believe what I'm saying... I just don't intend for them to argue with the facts that I bring to attention. You'd gather that IF you read my posts (ie: not skim over).

i don't have to read your posts..

And thus you display the sole reason for your inefficientcy in debating and your abnormal superpower to not know what the #### you're talking about.

but listen, america are provoking this war and are determined to start it even that now they don't have evidence on their side! you must understand this! saddam has allowed the un weapon inspectors to enter iraq and in result, no weapons were found and this has been going on for months in demand by america.. so there you have it.. even you do not have evidence to support this war to begin and if you think you have.. you have not been verifying the news you're been hearing.. simple!

Since I'm still in the pissed off mood from your post, I'll enlighten you with some of my very own ahh... "genius" mind, and spare you Nantuko Joe's wrath... for the moment :biggrin:

US provoking the war? Wow... how... obvious. :biggrin:
No weapons found? For someone who talks about the news 24/7, you watch it less then I do (no wait, I don't watch it, I just hear stuff through my hist. teacher).

If you'd been paying attention to your specialty of news, you'd know that some warheads were found in Iraq that wern't listed in that (what was it? 600 page book of weapons in Iraq? ). You have noted that the UN inspectors have been ffinding more weapons that wern't on that list (besides warheads) don't you? You did read Finnegan's post about it being a "joke" to actually expect the UN inspectors to actually find these weapons didn't you?

And now you're hearing this arn't you? Git off your lazy ass and go watch that news that you're so damn fond of, because you clearly don't have any concept of these matters of which you speak.

WWIII isn't coming with Iraq, they're not that advanced, they don't have that many "powerful" allies, and the "western democracies" sure could use that oil. :biggrin:

coolplayer2K2

01-25-2003, 05:44 PM

snaky i mean snake my relatives are born from canada and now moved to ohio st and i dont deserve to die im too younge

Nantuko Joe

01-25-2003, 06:00 PM

snaky i mean snake my relatives are born from canada and now moved to ohio st and i dont deserve to die im too younge
There are a lot of ppl who died young and didn't deserve it. Five of my closest friends died within the past three years, and they didn't deserve it. However, that didn't stop them from going. If you die, then you die. I know it sucks, but hey, it's tough ####. Ya can't stop it, so just deal with it.

As for the debate itself, I'm withdrawing myself from it. I find it too time-consuming and too stressful to be arguing with racist bastards who THINK they know what the fcuk is going on in the world but don't have the SLIGHTEST idea. Ppl like Yasback (ruthless actions of Bush and the US on iraq? What the fcuk kind of pot have YOU been smoking) and others who sit there and make racist comments like "I hate america and all americans" and #### like that really piss me off. It pisses me off even MORE that we're saying this shiznit online, and it pisses me off that because we're not physically in a room together, I can't beat the living fcuk out of some of you for some of your comments.

To all of you who hate america: Fcuking deal with it, because we're the greatest fcuking country in the world and there's nothing you can do about it.

To all of you who hate america, and LIVE in america: Tough shiznit. Like it or leave it. If you hate america so much, go over and live in Iraq or something and see how you like it over there.

To all of you who continue this debate and try to show the two groups of assclowns that are listed above: good luck. Take it from me, it's harder to argue with a bunch of ppl with the IQs of toaster ovens than it sounds.