Insane war world! - 99.999999% probability you will die!

[Finnegan]

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]

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]

[quoteost_uid0="Finnegan"]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.[/quote]
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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Finnegan]

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]

[quoteost_uid0="SolidSnake76"]i know this isnt about oil but still. beside, the US gets most of the oil from the mid-east.[/quote]
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.