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 !

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.

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

dubya tee eff 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...

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.

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.

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 !

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:

[quote:post_uid0="SSJKarma"]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 ![/quote]
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?

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.

[quote:post_uid0="princevegetam"]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.[/quote]
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.

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

[quote:post_uid0="princevegetam"]terrorists do not hate freedom, they do not hate equality, they are humans just like you and me.[/quote]
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?

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. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>THERE ROTING FLESH BEING PICKED AT BY RATS</span> 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

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...

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.

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:

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Why is it that only America has these problems?

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

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

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.

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.

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?

[quote:post_uid0="Finnigan"]
Remember Sept 11 people? We have to strike first from now one.[/quote]

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...

[quote:post_uid0="Nantuko Joe"]...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.[/quote]

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.

[quote:post_uid0="Nantuko Joe"]
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.[/quote]

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

[quote:post_uid0="Yasback"]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![/quote]
:( 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

[quote:post_uid0="2000warrior"]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.[/quote]
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.

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

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:

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 :)

[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

(yawns) boring dude ???

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

[quote:post_uid0="Yasback"]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:[/quote]

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

You're making the same mistake everyone else is and <span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>not READING my posts</span>. 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....

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>U NEEDZ MORE SENTANCE STUCTUR</span>

____

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

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

this is all BS ..USA sux

[quote:post_uid0="wrestlemania"]this is all BS ..USA sux[/quote]
You suck

[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

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:

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:

[quote:post_uid0="Kingryu1"]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... :()[/quote]
but im so close to america im from canada toronto and toronto is super close to detroid i hate u americans and i got realatives in ohio st

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.

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

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.

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?

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

[quote:post_uid0="Yasback"]
look 2000warrior, i did read your posts.. but i cannot agree that what you said is correct!
[/quote]

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?

[quote:post_uid0="Yasback"]
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!
[/quote]

: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"

[quote:post_uid0="Yasback"]
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![/quote]

Uh... no, I don't. I didn't even expect you to reply to them because...
<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>FOR THE LAST TIME, THEY WERN'T DIRECTED TOWARDS YOU</span>

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).

[quote:post_uid0="Yasback"]
i don't have to read your posts..
[/quote]

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.

[quote:post_uid0="Yasback"]
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!
[/quote]

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: