Micheal Moore is a bit on the 'otherside' and likes to stretch the truth a lot =/
http://www.mooreexposed.com/
Computer Science Canada A letter to Mr. Bush |
| Author: | greenapplesodaex [ Sat May 15, 2004 6:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | A letter to Mr. Bush |
*please excuse my spelling and grammer Hello, Mr. Bush: You seem pretty determined about sending your man to the front for no freaking reasons, Sadam has been captured, so call back your soldier, they serve no more purpose there anymore. You're actions have left a fine mess in their country and please dont tell us that you're army is gonna fix it, because they can't! That's right! You probably dont even know what they are doing right now. The leaders are always the last to know, like abusing prisoners, locking people up for no freaking reasons... and this (no blood, go ahead, watch it) http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=dontloot.wmv this video reviews everything a solider with weapons can do in a place where the laws dont apply to them, everything but justice! Have a good day, Mr. Bush P.S. If you want to avoid soldiers getting killed, there's a way, LEAVE THOSE PEOPLE ALONE! |
|
| Author: | jonos [ Sat May 15, 2004 7:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You need an education. The soldiers are serving more purpose than what Saddam's government did before the war. Bush's mess is not as bad as Saddam's mess. Locking people up for no reason? Maybe they shouldn't try to steal weapons from soldiers, supply depots, or police stations. Maybe they shouldn't point automatic guns at soldiers. Maybe they shouldn't steal. The actions of a small group of soldiers does in no way reflect the actions of the entire US Army. Are you going to condemn the whole Canadian military because of some assholes is Somalia killing two innocent civilians? Are you going to condemn the whole German people just because of Nazism? greenapplesodaex Quote: P.S. If you want to avoid soldiers getting killed, there's a way, LEAVE THEM ALONE!
What the hell are soldiers supposed to do? They fight wars, they defend countries, they don't just sit in on a barracks getting drunk and using up tax money. |
|
| Author: | Paul [ Sat May 15, 2004 8:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That doesn't matter, the point is, they had no reason to crush the car beyond they enjoyed crushing things with their big toy, and this was an excuse to do it, albeit a weak one. Its small incidents like this that causes some people to have negative feelings towards americans. The people were looting wood! Its not hard to explain to people not to loot, or is the average IQ of people in the American army below 90? |
|
| Author: | jonos [ Sat May 15, 2004 8:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You can tell a teenager not to do marijuana but they are still going to do it. |
|
| Author: | Paul [ Sat May 15, 2004 8:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
By ur reasoning, you can tell saddam to surrender, but he doesn't. Which makes it alright, and that means invading iraq is what... overreacting? |
|
| Author: | jonos [ Sat May 15, 2004 9:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It doesn't make it alright. I'm not condoning it. I'm just saying that they are in many cases not going to listen to you. Saddam didn't surrender, that wasn't alright in the circumstances so America fucked him over. It was over reacting to destroy the persons car. But we also don't know who they were stealing the wood from. It could have been an army installation that critically needed it, or a family who needed it to rebuild their home, or a school that was being rebuilt, we don't know. |
|
| Author: | roer [ Sat May 15, 2004 9:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
News is biased, your never going to see what the real Iraqi people are like unless you go there. Bush screwed up, Saddam was a nutcase and Osama is hiding 300 metres underground, what are you going to do about it? |
|
| Author: | jonos [ Sat May 15, 2004 10:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Except that journalism schools are schools for leftist thought, rendering the media leftist (like the CBC). If we always see Iraqis as following some insane holy man or partaking in rallies that remind us of fascist Germany, then of course we are going to believe what the news source wants us to believe. News Corporations want things that will get people to watch their channel or read their newspaper, so stories of impending anarchy in Iraq is the news of the day. So is the real Iraqi thinking that the US is good or bad? No one knows because the Media portrays things in ways that will sell. I know I'm sounding like an Anarchist, but this is true. The CBC won't even apologise for saying blatant anti-Israely and anti-American comments on a supposed neutral newscast. |
|
| Author: | roer [ Sat May 15, 2004 10:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I read in "Dude, Wheres My Country?" by Micheal Moore that a media group did a study on the War In Iraq media and found out that in an entire day of broadcasting on NBC that there were 96 pro-war comments/interviews and 1 anti-war, made by Micheal Moore at the Oscar's. |
|
| Author: | jonos [ Sat May 15, 2004 10:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well that is Michael Moore, and really, he says something is pro-war if it is not blatantly anti-war. I haven't read it, but someone who has said that the book says that the US is stealing large amounts of oil from the Iraqis, and only the UN is stealing the oil. That is all just my unfounded opinion though. |
|
| Author: | roer [ Sat May 15, 2004 10:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Micheal Moore is a bit on the 'otherside' and likes to stretch the truth a lot =/ http://www.mooreexposed.com/ |
|
| Author: | jonos [ Sat May 15, 2004 10:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Haha, that is pretty funny. I thought you were going to yell at me or something...  |
|
| Author: | Maverick [ Sat May 15, 2004 10:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I see the right wing propaganda has been effective. You people saw the U.S hasnt taken any oil, how the fuk do u know. They most likely have. But know it seems things arent workin out as well as bush wuld've thought. Why with his soldiers a$$raping iraqi prisoners and the iraqis actually fighting back like they shuld. The us is finally getting a taste of its own medicine |
|
| Author: | jonos [ Sat May 15, 2004 11:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I thought the soldiers were only putting the prisoners in sex positions, not actually raping them. If they were stealing gas, then why are gas prices high. The only people stealing gas are your beloved UN crooks. |
|
| Author: | roer [ Sat May 15, 2004 11:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The reason gas prices are high is because theres been an accident at a huge refinery or something along those lines, I'm not even sure anymore damn media  |
|
| Author: | Dauntless [ Sat May 15, 2004 11:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
jonos, can you really justify it? Can you convince us? Provide us with an argument that holds some water? Your leaps of logic, like the comparison between small groups of Americans not reflecting the whole, and small groups of Canadians reflecting a whole, are not apt comparisons. How many times have you heard of other countries doing things like these? Canada, maybe once now? For me, at least. But as for the U.S., let's count the incidents: 1) Entire civilian populations killed in Vietnam 2) Fighter pilot bombs Canadian troops in Afghanistan 3) Abu Gharib prisoner abuse 4) "Don't Loot" video Those are the ones that come to mind. It seems like a pattern of behavior to me; bravado, arrogance, etc. As for Nazism, Germans are mortified by that era, and learn from it. I can't see how Americans have learned from their mistakes in war. As for "what are soldiers supposed to do then"? Well..that's just brilliant. You could have less soldiers...Then they could get jobs and contribute to the economy. I could think of many things better than sending them into battle for the sake of having something to do. And Food for Oil? How bad can it be? The UN can't be expected to give food for free all the time... And it has the potential to make oil prices cheaper, giving countries more liquid capital to use, to perhaps support third-world countries (or make war on them.....). Besides, the U.S. may not be stealing oil now, but when they install a president that owes the U.S. a favour, oil prices will probably go way down without the U.S. itself mining a single drop... If it's the last thing I do, I'll make you see. |
|
| Author: | poly [ Sun May 16, 2004 12:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
What's happening in Iraq is a joke. There's an upcoming election against a strong John Kerry, Bush needs to please the people no matter what to try and gain majority votes |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Sun May 16, 2004 12:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I would have to say that the time to stop fighting is long passed, and if the americans leave now it would do much more harm than good. The key now is for Bush to stop worrying about getting re-elected (let's pray he doesn't) and getting this whole thing sorted out. |
|
| Author: | greenapplesodaex [ Sun May 16, 2004 7:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | reply |
the thing is, now that they have cought sadam (and lets not forget that their main quest is to look for massive destrutive weapons which they have found non), what are they still doing there? those americans soldier are getting attacked everyday, call them back, dont keep sending them out there to die! they do nothing over there anymore. those soldiers dont even speak their language, how can they possibley make things better? the way they are keeping things "in order" will only create more hates and bigger mess. what do you think the driver from the video will do now? he just lost his cab, to feed his family, he'll have to steal more! dumba55 soldiers! And dont forget, every once in a while, u.s. will bring up the 6-4 thing in china. for god sake, that was like 15 years ago, it's not like we shoot people on a daily bases. we didnt have rubber bullets back then, what would you do if you are in the army and people with hoes and hammers come running at you? (of course, shooting your own people was wrong, but it was out of defence.) and look at them, bombing our embassy in ... (um.. forgot wich country); their plane crushed ours at our boarder line, i believe our pilot was never found, and bush refused to even apologize; they send satellite everywhere to spy on other country, that's rights to them, eh? and you know what? they used uranium bullets in this attack (because it's heaver, better at pericing through armors, but it's still somewhat radioactive, even though the radioactivity is almost harmless), but can you image what kinda of bull u.s. will give if they were attacked by uranium bullets? Arrogance! that's what they are! |
|
| Author: | Paul [ Sun May 16, 2004 10:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes that brings up the airplane incident, an obvious spyplane in Chinese airspace, makes one of the Chinese fighters crash... and yet he does not apologize, how bull$hit. Our history room is full of "vote john kerry" posters  |
|
| Author: | jonos [ Sun May 16, 2004 11:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes, lets start up a UN program where the UN recieves oil and Iraq gets food and water that is much needed. Instead, what we get is a program in which we get oil, but Iraq gets stuff like sanitation for swimming pools and photographic lab supplies, as well, we see the perfect french, russian, and british politicians recieving oil money through this - along with the PLO and even the director of the oil-for-food program. Yes, let's set this up to help the Iraqi people so a few people can benefit. GreenAppleSodaEx did not say anything about decreasing military size. He gave the impression that he seriously thought that soldiers were supposed to just stay in their respective countries in their barracks. If the US did not have a large military then how would they be able to peace keep all over the world. Just because they went into Iraq doesn't mean that that should over-shaddow everything that they are doing in the world. Led Gulf War I, lead Afghanistan (were the first ones in), lead Haiti (also the first ones in), they were in Lebanon, etc. Their large military ensures our having a small military, as well as European countries having a small military. What would the UN have done in the Gulf War without the US? Canada could not do Haiti all alone. The lack of Canadian military problems: Canada has not been in all the places the US has on such a large scale. Canada is not innocent in Vietnam, over 60 000 Canadian went to fight in Vietnam and they were sure part of what ever went on their. And fighter pilots killing Canadian soldiers? That happens within the American Army all the time, do you remember at the beginning of the Iraq War when the first casualties of war were with vehicle malfunctions and friendly fire incidents. Or maybe it's just because Americans hate Canadians so they go and shoot them up. Yes, Germans have learned from their mistakes. Now they don't do that stuff for their country, or have you forgotten pictures and stories about how synagogues need guards. Your History teacher could get fired for those posters. Teachers are not supposed to use their position of a way of influencing student opinion. |
|
| Author: | Dauntless [ Sun May 16, 2004 1:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
green apple...we've already told you why they're still there; they need to follow up on their invasion; they're pulling out soon anyways.. that's not the problem. They should have never went. And jonos...the Iraqi people could be getting nothing for their oil; not that I've seen anything that proves what you're saying about his program.. Does it matter if they were the first ones in or not? The Gulf War was a result of Iraq invading Kuwait... Haiti was in response to a cry for help... Afghanistan was because they were attacked by bin Laden. Those are NOT pre-emptive strikes. Iraq was. And as to the fighter bombing retort.... my jaw dropped when I saw what you said.. When you said it as if it was a justification... Quote: And fighter pilots killing Canadian soldiers? That happens within the American Army all the time, do you remember at the beginning of the Iraq War when the first casualties of war were with vehicle malfunctions and friendly fire incidents. Or maybe it's just because Americans hate Canadians so they go and shoot them up
Oh, ok, well since it's not Canadian troops, I'm okay with it. Buddy, people are still dying because of this unjustified war in Iraq. Bodies are piling up on both sides of the conflict because the U.S. said to its allies that if you're not with us...we'll be pissed at your ass. Quote: The actions of a small group of soldiers does in no way reflect the actions of the entire US Army
Quote: Yes, Germans have learned from their mistakes. Now they don't do that stuff for their country, or have you forgotten pictures and stories about how synagogues need guards.
That's pretty American thinking right there; a double standard. Somehow if a small group of American soldiers do something, it does NOT represent the whole, but since synagogues need guards, the country of Germany is anti-semitic. Have you seen Germany getting any lebensraum lately? Have you seen Japan building a Greater Asia Co-prosperity Sphere again? What about the U.S. fighting other people's wars? Again...I challenge you to justify the U.S.'s hypocrisy. |
|
| Author: | jonos [ Sun May 16, 2004 4:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Justify US wars? I think I have on two separate occasions given evidence to the good they are doing. Is that not enough? Forgetting what you believe to be an immoral war, is not what they are doing enough to justify their staying in Iraq for the length of how ever long they are needed. As to my hypocrisy, I was choosing your logic in questioning Germany. Where else in the world, other than the middle east, are armed guards needed at synagogues? The French, the Germans, the Russians, they all believed that Iraq had wmd, even without the US's rather flawed evidence. So just because the US went to war on it, they are the only country (along with Britain) who don't get off the hook. Iraq's weapons or technology could have easily gone to Libya. I have to go have supper. |
|
| Author: | Maverick [ Sun May 16, 2004 10:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: reply |
greenapplesodaex wrote: what are they still doing there? those americans soldier are getting attacked everyday, call them back, dont keep sending them out there to die! they do nothing over there anymore.
Wait a tick, arent the United states soldiers the best in the world. How could any of them die? |
|
| Author: | jonos [ Sun May 16, 2004 10:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Actually man to man, a Canadian soldier could fuck over the average US soldier. It's just that we spend too much on one soldier, and spend too much money on free Canadian flags and sponsorshit stuff as to make our military seem like a waste of money in upkeeping. |
|
| Author: | Maverick [ Sun May 16, 2004 10:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Canada doesnt need an army of more then like maybe 10,000 men for peacekeeping and shit. There is like a 99.9% chance that we will never get attacked and if we do then the US would just come in and kick some ass. I dont like the US, but if we were ever attacked they would have our back right away so we shouldnt be too harsh on them. |
|
| Author: | jonos [ Sun May 16, 2004 10:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
cough cough hypocrite cough cough America, no matter what they say, would be protecting us for their own protection. Who wants a dictarship beside them when they could stop it. If Mexico were to become a dictatorship, the US would be there even before anarchy were to start. |
|
| Author: | Maverick [ Sun May 16, 2004 10:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Lol we still are they're closest allies probably along with the UK after this Iraq scam. |
|
| Author: | jonos [ Sun May 16, 2004 10:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah probably. We're like the little kid who needs punishing (mad cow) and they are the parent. |
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Sun May 30, 2004 6:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
OK people, some of you are blatantly ignorant and very misinformed. Here is how it all sits: 1. Theodore Roosevelt, during his presidency, made a deal to protect the Saudi Kingdom in exchange for a discount on oil. Because of this, the United States has an average gasoline price of $2.051 per gallon compared to an average of around $5.50 per gallon in Europe (USD). 2. Saddam Hussein was a cold blooded murderer as well as both of his sons. They would rape a woman right in front of her own husband. This, and many other actions, needed to be stopped! 3. It was recently found that Saddam's government really did have biological weapons of mass destruction. President Bush was right! 4. US Soldiers and Marines in Iraq are simply doing what they originally set out to do - take over the Iraqi government and rebuild it. The reason there are still ambushes and deaths is because some Iraqi's are still loyal to their old way of life - which is gone. 5. The US is there to make sure that the Iraqi citizens can live a peaceful way of life that lets them live the way the International Human Rights Committee of the United Nations originally intended. 6. The United States economy, as of today, is BETTER than it was before September 11, 2001. In fact, it hasn't been this good since August of 2000. 6. For you to be ignorant enough to not be able to think for yourself and follow what other people say is the most scary thing that I can think of today because misinformed people like you are who are going to make the United States take a nose dive right into the ground. Please! Think for yourselves and do research before you make a vote that you regret! President Bush has done a great job and has done exactly what he set out to do. |
|
| Author: | Paul [ Sun May 30, 2004 7:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
kasl_33 wrote: OK people, some of you are blatantly ignorant and very misinformed. Here is how it all sits:
1. Theodore Roosevelt, during his presidency, made a deal to protect the Saudi Kingdom in exchange for a discount on oil. Because of this, the United States has an average gasoline price of $2.051 per gallon compared to an average of around $5.50 per gallon in Europe (USD). Sounds like gang protection fee to me |
|
| Author: | Dauntless [ Sun May 30, 2004 7:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'd like to see some other sources that say what you say. |
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Sun May 30, 2004 8:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
One source of this is The Economist Magazine which happens to be pretty liberal, yet I would bet that anyone who knows anything about Roosevelt would know this. Plus, even if this weren't true, why would our gas prices be so low? |
|
| Author: | Dauntless [ Sun May 30, 2004 8:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Not that; that doesn't sound very far-out. Let me address the points I have grievances with: 2. Why did they say they went into Iraq because of WMD? Which leads me to.. 3. That sounds like something like that would be pretty big news. Why hasn't anyone heard of it? 4. No qualms here, but it would've been money and time and lives well spent elsewhere if they hadn't gone there in the first place; but wars make better headlines than peacekeeping. 5. So then why Iraqis? The United Nations opposed the invasion of Iraq anyways. 6. I laugh and snort!!! Firstly because you said we're ignorant to not think for ourselves.... We don't even live in America, and we wouldn't have a vote even if we did, I think we're all under 18. Besides, apparently your only source is one single magazine. And finally...gas prices could be low because of the U.S.'s own oil. Canada's gas prices are low too, and we're not the U.S. |
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Sun May 30, 2004 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The reason the Weapons of Mass Destruction find did not make the headlines is because of the Liberal Media. The Liberal Media made such a point to smear President Bush because they didn't believe that the WMD's existed. Now that they were proven wrong, they have their feet in their mouth's and don't want it to come out too much. Now, you may all be under 18, but as of Tuesday, June 1st, I will be 24. The reason I know so much about all of this is because (a) I am a college student majoring in Political Science and am very deeply informed, and (b) I am a former US Marine who has been there and done that and I knew exactly what we were doing when I was in the Middle East. |
|
| Author: | Dauntless [ Sun May 30, 2004 8:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm sure not all the media is liberal. It would've got out somehow; stations like the BBC would have no reason to keep it under wraps either. Besides, articles like this on your website show your bias pretty clearly; this is disgusting. Quote: To the Liberal Media - Thursday, May 13, 2004 at 18:21
Although it is against the laws of the Geneva Convention to humiliate and harass prisoners of war, I don't believe that there was anything wrong with what the American Soldiers and Marines did to the enemy P.O.W.'s. Think about it, we have had people killed in our own country yet the media is sticking up for the enemy! Who the hell are these hypocrites who call themselves Americans? I would say put your family and nation ahead of anything else before you go an open your big mouth about what our great president is doing wrong! Bill Clinton was dishonest and had problems. George W. Bush is honest, trustworthy, loyal, and patriotic and is doing the job that Clinton should have finished! If I had my way, the media who badmouths their own country's way of solving problems because "we should just let the enemy take over all of us," would be deported to the enemy to see what would happen to them. The enemy HATES Americans no matter what we do because most of us are Christian and we have our Western Culture which is hated by the Middle Eastern Enemy. Open your eyes and get with the program! Bush wasn't honest; he lied about his reasons for invading Iraq. Even if he didn't, a good but lying president is better than an honest dimwad. And notice the section I've highlighted; HOW THE F*CK can you be so hypocritical? Man, if any country is allowed to treat their enemies in inhumane manners, then why did you dicks even invade Iraq? All they did was treat their citizens (political enemies) to a stay in a gas chamber. And let's go on the premise they had WMD; all they wanted to do was kill some Americans; that's okay, with your logic. Political science major; I'm watering down my words when I say that that's a joke. You'll be a perfect politician. I could've respected you as a Marine who just did what he was ordered to, but if you believe shit like that, I can't. |
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Sun May 30, 2004 9:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dauntless wrote: I'm sure not all the media is liberal. It would've got out somehow; stations like the BBC would have no reason to keep it under wraps either.
The fact is that this did come out through the media in multiple places. It just depends on where you are and what your media's opinion is on all of this. As far as the President lying, there is no singular reason for us going to invade Iraq, but by them having WMD's, them and their affiliates invading our country in the first place, and them declaring a holy war on the United States, we had to take care of them. |
|
| Author: | Dauntless [ Mon May 31, 2004 7:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560449.shtml Quote: 3. It was recently found that Saddam's government really did have biological weapons of mass destruction. President Bush was right!
I find that the quote and the report aren't congruent. The fact that one artillery round with traces of what could possibly be nerve gas doesn't mean that Saddam had tons of them; they could've even been imported. Some quotes from the article: Regarding the other occurence of chemical weapons Quote: Earlier this month, some trace residue of mustard agent, an older type of chemical weapon, was detected in an artillery shell found in a Baghdad street, a U.S. official said Monday, speaking on condition of anonymity. The shell was believed to be from one of Saddam's old stockpiles and was not regarded as evidence of recent weapons of mass destruction production in Iraq.
Quote: U.S. troops have announced the discovery of other chemical weapons before, only to see them disproved by later tests.
Quote: The former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, said it was possible the shell was an old relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-1990s.
Kay, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press, said he doubted the shell or the nerve agent came from a hidden stockpile, although he didn't rule out that possibility. Former U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, speaking to the AP in Sweden, agreed the shell was likely a stray weapon. |
|
| Author: | guruguru [ Mon May 31, 2004 4:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: The fact that one artillery round with traces of what could possibly be nerve gas doesn't mean that Saddam had tons of them; they could've even been imported.
Are you saying that Iraq may have imported it? Wow... that could possible the stupides thing they could do. Bush is looking for them, so I don't know... why don't we just import the stuff hes looking for! Wow... |
|
| Author: | templest [ Mon May 31, 2004 7:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
People, the US needed oil, Iraq had it, and this happened: Bush: "Sweet, uhh, tell the UN they's gots' erm, nucular weapons in's they's hideouts and we nuke'em!" Secretary of Deffence: "How about we do all that except the nuke part?" Bush: "Sure whatevah, Where's mah rubber duckie? I needs a bath..." Secretary of Deffence: "... in your 'bucket-o-fun', sir" Bush: "Ohh yeh, yeh, thank'yee." Secretary of Deffence: " You're welcome, sir". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's the exact same thing that's going to happen when they run out of drinkable water in the next couple of years and they come crawling up into Canada... (New York Times, May 31st 2013) *Canada unleashes suicide-bombing beavers to the White House, the US respond's with all they've got (New York Times, Sept 9th 2014) *U.S. Starts water for oil program, Canada get's sweet, life sustaining oil, US get's water *911 day is fast approaching, have you bought someone you love a present yet? Great deals from Wal Mart and Old Navy inside... Someone tell me I'm wrong. |
|
| Author: | Dauntless [ Mon May 31, 2004 8:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hey guru, you retard. What about all the insurgent attacks? Why would insurgents care about fckin Bush? They just want to kill Americans. How the hell is it not possible that they got it from somewhere other than Iraq itself? And Templest: you're wrong. Why beat a dead horse? Why try to squeeze blood from a rock? The issue has been discussed to death; the U.S. hasn't TAKEN oil. Oil For Food or whatever has taken oil. Why are gas prices so high? Because we have more oil, oil from Iraq? No. My biggest pet peeve is when people fantasize about things like politics; satire is fine when you're right, but it irks me to see stupid satire. |
|
| Author: | templest [ Mon May 31, 2004 8:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: My biggest pet peeve is when people fantasize about things like politics; satire is fine when you're right, but it irks me to see stupid satire.
Politics was meant to be a joke... You mean you never figured that out?  |
|
| Author: | Dauntless [ Mon May 31, 2004 8:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hehe. Does this mean you have no reply, o Templest, my Templest? |
|
| Author: | templest [ Mon May 31, 2004 8:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
By the way, I don't give a fuck if the US or if Satan, or if the fucking koreans snuck into Iraq to start stealing oil. It was started because the US started attacking shit, and some guy (from U.S.?) said: "shit, there's profit in this". EDIT: The Iraqui's are still getting cheated out of their oil, no matter how you look at it, and it was started by the U.S. RE-EDIT: Don't taunt me, I'm not in the mood. RE-RE-EDIT: You're honestly telling me, that the U.S. has always done things in good faith and NEVER fucked anyone over for their own benefit? *Psssssssssssh*, Who's naive now? |
|
| Author: | Dauntless [ Mon May 31, 2004 8:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Here's what my standpoint is, what I've thought most people could establish from everything I've said about the US. The war in Iraq is wrong because a) The U.S. lied about its reasons for invading Iraq b) The U.S. went against the UN resolution after Iraq was searched for WMD and none were found c) The U.S. feels like it can justify it now as a war for freedom...which smells like they're grasping at straws. d) Good American husbands, wives, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, have died in Iraq because they started a war they shouldn't have. I don't like when a) people use sensationalized facts or fantastical stories to try and be sarcastic about it...the roleplaying isn't needed. b) people say the war is justified; I haven't heard anything original yet. c) the U.S. goes by the Truman doctrine and not the Monroe. |
|
| Author: | templest [ Mon May 31, 2004 8:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dauntless wrote: Here's what my standpoint is, what I've thought most people could establish from everything I've said about the US.
The war in Iraq is wrong because a) The U.S. lied about its reasons for invading Iraq b) The U.S. went against the UN resolution after Iraq was searched for WMD and none were found c) The U.S. feels like it can justify it now as a war for freedom...which smells like they're grasping at straws. d) Good American husbands, wives, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, have died in Iraq because they started a war they shouldn't have. I don't like when a) people use sensationalized facts or fantastical stories to try and be sarcastic about it...the roleplaying isn't needed. b) people say the war is justified; I haven't heard anything original yet. c) the U.S. goes by the Truman doctrine and not the Monroe. That's pretty much exactly what I think, although we could all do with a little humour now and zen. |
|
| Author: | Dauntless [ Mon May 31, 2004 8:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't mean to be a miser, but I get enough "humour" from goddamn Republican Rob "The Metrosexual but actually a bisexual or homosexual" W. at school...and I hate it cuz he spreads the false sentiments by being a goof about it. |
|
| Author: | jonos [ Mon May 31, 2004 9:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What the hell is going on here. I leave for a little bit to actually try and enjoy life, and I come back to this! On the eve of a Canadian election!!! Where are the threads saying that the Conservatives are racist homophobes and the Liberals are the best managers of our money. What the hell! People are still going on about the US just because it is here. Well, if the US made up the WMD, then it looks like Germany and France did also, though they did not act on their intelligence. They thought they had the weapons also - without the help of the Americans. But people forget this. Where are the people to back up my racist, shizzle-ass, motherfucking state of being? Yes, the US went against the UN but an organization with countries like Sudan on a fucking human-rights council, I'm sure that holds very little clout. But that is just my ignorant, war-mongering self virtual speaking. Yes, George Bush seems to like to change his reasons for going to war... but! Saddam was bad, had terrorists in his country, blah blah blah. Yes, you are still right though. But grasping at straws is still better than falling on one's ass (I may have not gotten the meaning of that thing). You don't like it when people say the war is justified? Well your arguments are not the most original either. I'm not too familiar with either doctrine, but the Truman doctrine was a sign of changing times (late 1940s and after the two great wars), while the Monroe doctrine was during the US's isolationalism (? spelling). I believe that the Monroe doctrine would also exclude peace keeping in Africa and the Middle East and other places. I masturbate every night! I justify war! I like to kill Iraqis! Fuck the arabs, man! I am racist (sarcasm is hopefully an understood concept). |
|
| Author: | Dauntless [ Mon May 31, 2004 9:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Soviet Union and China are in the UN too, aren't they? They're both not unblemished politically either; tons of countries aren't. But Iraq shouldnt' have happened; their military budget could be reduced and used on things like peacekeeping rather than warmaking, on fighting AIDS rather than fighting Iraqis....that is, if America would be what it is today without its war machine fuelling a chunk of its economy. And the US led the charge. The Nuremburg trials basically say that the leaders are directly responsible. The Truman doctrine states that the US will provide military and economic support to any country under a dictator or oppressor, and give them democracy. I just don't believe that democracy is such a great thing that starving people, or soldiers for that matter, should die so the US can sprinkle it like fairy dust everywhere. And I'm interested to have a thread like you mentioned. Make it so, PFC Jonos. |
|
| Author: | jonos [ Mon May 31, 2004 9:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What thread? I put so little thought into this that I forgot... a sign of my fragmentation. I am making headway, you are not as scathing as you were before. In the fight against AIDs I think that the African dictatorships should be doing something for their starving people instead of robbing them of aid, jobs, food, medicine, and other things that make the wheel of a country turn. I say fuck the African dictators first, then fuck the US. In conclusion, your ideals and values are what make you a softcore socialist (? maybe) and makes me a fucking racist fascist bent on raping all the women of the world. |
|
| Author: | Dauntless [ Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm not scathing down here...I was pretty mad up there ^ |
|
| Author: | jonos [ Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, a lot of your points were insane now that you mention it... 8) |
|