Your view on Iraq

[Mawwle]

Just wondering what most of you think about the current situation with Iraq. And also what do you think about the french and germans and their recent actions.


http://www.boortz.com/soldierofsurrender.jpg

http://www.boortz.com/french.gif

Mawwle

[Fistanthalas]

The Middle East should just be one giant oil well. I'm not prejudice at all either, we should kill ALL dune coons, regardless about how they feel twords us. Of course that wouldn't solve anything cause like half of the sand crawler population lives here in the US now anyway...

[yaarii]

I find it quite entertaining to look at how stupid and gullible people are. I mean honestly, did anyone think Iraq was a threat 5 years ago? 10 years ago? Nope. But with clever political maneuvering, and funnelling the aggression 9/11 produced onto Iraq via the media, the US has managed to convince most of its population that Iraq is now some sort of threat. Forget that it has no links to Al Qaeda whatsoever, forget that every time they invaded a country it was with the US's blessing (even Kuwait). Hell even the "evidence" they deliberately killed their own civilians is doubtful to anyone who has done any research on it - Halabja is the main case cited. It was a city of 70,000 or so people, 5,000 of which died in a chemical attack in 1988. What you won't hear mainstream media telling you is that the Iranians seized the city before the attack (it is very close to the Iran-Iraq border), and that nobody is even sure it was Iraqi chemical weapons that were used as the Iranians used chemical weapons quite frequently as well. Even IF the Iraqi's used chemical weapons at Halabja, they can be counted as collateral damage, as that is exactly what the US would do (and has done in the past - vietnam anyone?).

But hey, forget all that, CNN or Foxnews says Iraq is a threat to the world with their 40 year old tanks and missiles with ranges of several hundred kilometres. Oh yeah, and don't forget their nuclear weapons they have but no one has proven exist. Or the chemical weapons no one has proven exist. etc etc.

So yeah, basically most people are morons who have no clue on foreign relations whatsoever.

[Mawwle]

Saddam and many people in Iraq want to kill Americans, and will do so given the chance.

As far as i am concerned, nuke em all and let god sort em out.


Mawwle

[Vallidus]

Yes, i think iraq would make a mighty fine pane of glass~

[yaarii]

Originally posted by Mawwle
Saddam and many people in Iraq want to kill Americans, and will do so given the chance.

As far as i am concerned, nuke em all and let god sort em out.


Works in reverse too, you know.

[Eager]

Salient point.

[Tdayyen]

lol and people wonder why america is hated /boggle

[Darwoth]

i dont wonder, jealousy and envy are nasty things.

[yaarii]

Jealous and envious of what exactly? Your shit health care system? Your high crime rate? Your seemingly endless stream of religious rednecks?

People hate america because they are fucking with their lives, if you and your military fucked off back to North America no one would have a problem with you.

[Mawwle]

If we and our Military had back the fuck off a long time ago, you'd be speaking german right now. And who knows what other sadistic bastard would have tried to take over the world and force his religious principles on you and everyone else, or what race he would have decided was "inferior" and eliminated.

YOu made intelligent arguments in the financial debates, although i dont agree with them, they were at least intelligent.

Here you sound like a blithering idiot. Get this strait.... The U.S. didnt start this shit, the radical muslims did. They are the ones that killed thousands in new york, they are the ones that bombed the uss cole. They are the ones that run bombs onto busses full of people in isreal. If we are guilty of anything, its forcing freedom on people. Yet theses people attacked us. They fucked up, bad. And now they are ALL going to pay.


Not to mention that most of yoru argument is based in lies...


FACT: the weapons inspectors job was to verify that Saddam had disarmed, NOT to search for weapons, but to gurantee that saddam has destroyed the ones he claims he destroyed.

FACT: Some of the evidence brought back by the inspectors includes over 3000 pages from an iraqi scientists home DETAILING his CURRENT AND ONGOING nuclear weapons program.

FACT: Even though it is not really thier job to be searching for weapons, but rather for the evidence of the destruction of them, they inspectors how now found DOZENS of chemical carring warheads and missles. Several of wich were filled with mustard gas and other chemical agents. Saddam says "oops, i forgot about those"


After watching Colin Powell's speech, youd have to be a real moron to not see what saddam is up to. And if you think for one minute that he would not use a nuke to either kill or blackmail, your and idiot. If the world had listened to people like you when hitler was around.........(<<<<<bangs his head against a tree)




Mawwle

[yaarii]

Originally posted by Mawwle
If we and our Military had back the fuck off a long time ago, you'd be speaking german right now. And who knows what other sadistic bastard would have tried to take over the world and force his religious principles on you and everyone else, or what race he would have decided was "inferior" and eliminated.

By the time the US seriously intervened in the European campaign in ww2, the Soviets had well and truly routed the Germans. D-day was more about stopping the Soviet Union from taking over continental europe than stopping the germans (who had been doomed since early '43).


YOu made intelligent arguments in the financial debates, although i dont agree with them, they were at least intelligent.


Thanks, you make some decent points as well, and likewise, I don't agree with them... :)


Here you sound like a blithering idiot. Get this strait.... The U.S. didnt start this shit, the radical muslims did. They are the ones that killed thousands in new york, they are the ones that bombed the uss cole. They are the ones that run bombs onto busses full of people in isreal. If we are guilty of anything, its forcing freedom on people. Yet theses people attacked us. They fucked up, bad. And now they are ALL going to pay.

I agree AL QAEDA are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and should be brought to justice. 3000 innocent lives is not something that is nice. However, I fail to see the connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein - he had nothing to do with it in reality. He may be a dictatorial leader of an authoritarian (though not totalitarian) society, but then there are a shitload of countries in similar positions and the US isn't doing squat about them.


Not to mention that most of yoru argument is based in lies...


FACT: the weapons inspectors job was to verify that Saddam had disarmed, NOT to search for weapons, but to gurantee that saddam has destroyed the ones he claims he destroyed.


They haven't actually found any weapons, bar some empty chemical warheads (keyword being EMPTY), and a single missile that supposedly breaches the 150km range limit. Hardly weapons of mass destruction....


FACT: Some of the evidence brought back by the inspectors includes over 3000 pages from an iraqi scientists home DETAILING his CURRENT AND ONGOING nuclear weapons program.


Err I guess you aren't up with nuclear physics. You need an operational nuclear facility to enrich U-238 into U-235 (ie weapons grade uranium). Iraq doesn't actually have any facilities to do that, they were building one in 1982 but the Israeli's bombed it. Not to mention, they have no reliable delivery system, they cannot actually test any nuclear weapon they could ever make without international condemnation etc. Kinda hard for a nuclear program to progress under those circumstances.


FACT: Even though it is not really thier job to be searching for weapons, but rather for the evidence of the destruction of them, they inspectors how now found DOZENS of chemical carring warheads and missles. Several of wich were filled with mustard gas and other chemical agents. Saddam says "oops, i forgot about those"

That is more than likely true. Iraq isn't as organised as the media would have you believe, the north is controlled by the Kurds, the south by Shi'ite Muslims and the middle by Sunni muslims loyal to Saddam. As well, the military is disjointed and hasn't been able to repair a lot of its infrastructure due to a weapons import ban. In other words, it's not so much a case of Iraq hoarding so called "wmd's", its more a case of they forget to destroy them.


After watching Colin Powell's speech, youd have to be a real moron to not see what saddam is up to. And if you think for one minute that he would not use a nuke to either kill or blackmail, your and idiot. If the world had listened to people like you when hitler was around.........(<<<<<bangs his head against a tree)


Ok look, Iraq is nothing like Germany of the 30's. I've been over this numerous times with people who have tried to make this association.

Germany was the second largest industrial power on the planet. Iraq is the 40th today. Greater Germany had a population close to 80 million, today Iraq has barely over 20 million. Germany had no trade sanctions, Iraq does. Germany had many home grown military industries to make weapons, Messerschmidt, Dornier, Foke-Wulfe, Henschel, Krupp, Porsche, Maybach, etc. Iraq has none of these, almost all of their military technology has been imported, and 99% of their weapons are old, outdated Soviet weapons from the 60's and 70's. Hardly a threat to anyone, hell they couldn't even defeat Iran when they had backing from the US itself! Saddam can't even control the Kurds and the Shi'ite Muslims in his own country now!

As for Colin Powell's speech, it was phony. The aerial photography of a supposed weapons plant was proven to be fraudulent when a team of journalists actually went to the supposed weapons site and found a few Iraqi's sitting around doing exactly fuckall next to empty buildings. The only thing Powell introduced was the idea that Iraq had a portable weapons program mounted on trucks, with no actual evidence to back up his claims. All he had were a few computer generated images of what the US thinks the trucks might look like (if they even exist).

Hardly convincing to me, but hey, you can draw you're own conclusions. Keep in mind, I remember all the US fuckups in foreign policy, the funding of right wing rebel groups, the CIA assisted coups against democratically elected leaders (Allende in Chile, anyone?), and all sorts of shit the US has been involved in over the years. I simply don't trust them anymore, the US administration are self-serving and, imo, corrupt. I take what they say with a large grain of salt.

[Mawwle]

I am at work, dont have time for areal reply, but just wanted to let everyone know the everything is going to be ok now...

Things are going to work out now....

Saddam just passed a law banning weapons of mass destruction.

All is cool with the world once again.


Mawwle

[yaarii]

Yeah it's past midnight on friday night here and im totally wasted (8x 5mg valiums + plenty of alcohol), so I was having a bit of trouble with replying to you anyway.

And while im wasted I may as well say this - Mawwle I know you come from a different political and socio-economic point of view, but you are one of the smartest opponents I've debated against. Most people, on both of our sides, are idiots, and you transcend that with some pretty decent arguments. So props from me for most of your arguments.

And yeah, when i recover from this night, I'll be back to reply to anything you put forward :)

[Hamadryad]

The US didn't enter WW2 till near the end. Canada had a much larger influence.

[Darwoth]

lol, im not going to bother trying to counteract 12 years of foreign revisionist schooling but suffice to say that the brits, who were begging american farmers and hunters for guns since they were in such short supply and for us to get involved as they were being destroyed by the germans, and the russians, who were issued 15 rounds per soldier and 1 rifle per 3 (yes folks that little blurb in the beginning of "enemy at the gates was true) and who lost around half a MILLION soldiers for the battle of berlin alone had it all under control, the united states didnt help at all!

and not only that, but the united states did NOT singehandedly fight and defeat the japanese!

and indeed, CANADA of all countries had more influence on the war than the united states did!

give me a damn break, im not going to say youd be sopeaking german if it wasnt for the united states because the allies would have won eventually simply because the germans were attacking everybody and they bit off more then they could chew especially with russia, but it would have been a decade or more longer before the war would have ended and all countries involved would still be decimated to this day over it.

when history revisionists get on and spout off whatever their america hating teacher vomited forth from the textbook it makes me wish we had just knocked off the japs in retaliation for pearl harbor then gone back home and let you assholes fuck with the germans for a decade and lose a generation in the process.

shit if we hadnt gotten in when we did there probably wouldnt be any jewish people left, hence no israel, hence no ragheads pissed off because we are "allies" with them!

but im not getting into this as that will end up a half dozen page exchange on its own.


as for iraq i have several viewpoints.

1> i do recognize most of the shit coming out of the government for the lies and propaganda it is, at this point it is a war for oil and nothing more, iraq has had the same weaponry it has now for decades and they have hated us foir a lkong time now and havent been a threat until the past few months *yawn* if bush would come out and say "hey we are fucking up iraq because they want to stiff us on the oil prices that WE developed the ability to pump in their shithole of a country" id say no problem.

however this disguising it as a terrorist hunt pisses me off.

2> i DO believe hussein has chemical weapons and is trying to get nukes, and he will use them against the united state eventually when he them properly developed/enough of them. for that reason alone we should topple their country.

however i think north korea who has a well developed nuclear weapons program, is just waiting for the chance to overrun south korea, threatened the united states just LAST WEEK with a "first strike" and has as big of a phsycho in power as hussein is would be a better target if we are going around cleaning house of unstable well armed america hating regimes.

3> our military is not in a condition for a war with iraq, thanks to being gutted by the clinton administration and the dozens and dozens of remote outposts where our soliders are stationed around the world for whatever ridiculous reason the politicians thought up ("peacekeeping" missions and the like) we are spread so thin its ridiculous, the huge effort attacking iraq will involve WILL destabilize the ENTIRE WORLD which could have catastrophic effects, what if they dont just roll over and surrender this time?

they are digging in in the citites now, have armed the CITIZEN POPULATION and are prepared to fight a protracted urban fight, this is not going to be like the desert storm where our tanks and apaches obliterated them in the flat wide open desret, this will be mogadishu on an epic scale against military professionals with suitable weapons, not a horse of underfed negroids.

and if they fight this time there is the huge potential for getting into a protracted war, which if that happens china could make a move for taiwan, north korea for south korea, india and pakistan, the entire raghead world against israel, sleeper cells at home coming through the wide open mexican border could cause domestic problems at factories and the like and the shit could hit the fan real fast.

the entire country are bogies, we should seriously just nuke the whole fucking thing and be done with it, OR do nothing and let israel do it for us which theyve been desperately wanting to do for some time.

we also need to let the world sort out their own fucking problems and mind our own borders, of course if we did that our enemies would be elated, and instead our "allies" would be pissed off that we arent carrying them in the international scene anymore.

damned if you damned if you dont, its long past time for the countries "leadership" to develop a fuck the world approach to foreign olicy and cut all foreign aid, domesticize our production needs, pump the alaskan reserves while putting the money we spend maintaing order in the mideast into alternative energy research, boost the military with special attention to nukes and renewed interest in the star wars program, and let everyone else do what they want, without us.

i got off on a ramble so excuse me if this isnt as coherent as
normal.





oh, almost forgot, i think the reason france and germany other than not liking us anyway and being countries full of people like yaari that critique every action the united states takes are so against us invading iraq is they dont want us to discover whatever illicit dealings theyve been having with iraq, food for thought.

[Hamadryad]

Not too many people in Canada are "America Haters" even though you guys are constantly shitting on us ;P Our teachers didn't therefore tell us the US entered the war near the end because they hate you, it's cause it's kinda the truth ;P Canada = owned by England (sort of) makes sense they helped them out from the beginning :-)

[Darwoth]

i dont dislike canada, canda is probably the country i like the most other than the united states i just dont like the way canadians in a lot of the provinces seem to be grossly similar to crapifornians (unrealistic leftwing bleeding heart outlooks on things)

if canada had such a great influence as you claim then cite some examples, and cite canadian examples not english ones.

[Hamadryad]

Canada played a large role in many of the battles in WW2, although it seemed like Britain often used them as canonfoter :p – They sent Canadians for the most part to defend the British colony in Hong Kong in 1941 even though it was going to fail, the Japanese had something like 50,000 soldiers. Canadians were involved in the raid on Dieppe, and the liberation of Holland among others (hence tulip festival in Ottawa each year cause they love us).

If you’re talking general influence on the world, well, we had the first transatlantic message, hockey, basketball, the telephone was invented here…

Canada is the US’s largest trading partner, and vice versa. Our economies are tied together although I don’t know the exact percentages for the US, for Canada the US is 87% of our exports and 64% of our imports (from my commerce class ;P)

Canada Arm http://www.mdrobotics.ca/canadarm.htm <--- Repaired the Hubble Space Telescope

Etc etc, I’ll think of more later ;P

[Mawwle]

Yes, Yes, and at the moment you could fit Canada's entire military into a football stadium :)



Mawwle

[Mawwle]

I Appreciate the compliment Yarri, no time for a real response though, had a very hard day at work and i am very tired. GOing strait to bed heh. And for a Liberal, your a pretty damn good debater yourself, we just have different viewpooints on many things.


Mawwle

[Arri Skywolf]

World War 2 started in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, and the United States entered the war two years later. The war ended a little less than 4 years (August 1945) after the United States entered the war after declaring war on Japan (December 8, 1941). How is that towards the end of the war? it's more towards the beginning than it is the end.

[Darwoth]

yeah adding to the point arri just made i checked and the battle of stalingrad between the russians and germans was fought between August 19 1942 and February 2 1943, now during this tiemframe the germans were halfway into russia and held a good portion of the country. perhaps ol ww2 history scholar yaari over there who stated that the russians had the germans routed by the time we entered the war could explain this one?


hamadryad, ok so how do does guarding the british colony in hong kong and having a few units participate in joint operations with other countries add to having more influence on the war than the united stateses d day, countless operations in the european theater and making up the majority of the air support since the brits airforce was annihilated by the luftwaffe in the early years, singehandedly defeating the japanese who would die before surrendering and openly tortured any soliders they captured and were the last hold outs, developing and using nukes for the first time and other things i cant think of at the moment.

[Mawwle]

Heh, yea the nuke sure changed their "never surrender" attitude.

But i guess a mushroom cloud the size of hiroshima is enough to change anyones mind :)


Mawwle

[yaarii]

Actually, dipshit, I said the germans were routed by 1943, which was true (they were on the backfoot from Stalingrad onwards, they only mounted one large counter-attack after Stalingrad and it was majorly fucked up and defeated - Kursk), and that D-Day (June, 1944!) was necessary not to defeat Germany (who had already been pushed almost out of russia by this time) but to stop the Soviets from conquering all of Europe on their march towards Berlin.

America did play a part in getting the Germans out of North Africa in 1942 (though they had some fairly embarressing defeats because they were combat newbies at the time), but couldn't manage to get them out of italy in 1943 or 1944, that front was essentially stabilised.

Overall, it was the USSR who most decided the outcome of WW2. Japan was easily overcome by the US simply because the US had so much more industrial capacity than Japan. On the ground Japan used very outdated tactics and weapons, the only thing they really had going for them was their military "order" of fighting to the absolute death.

I would say the following countries had the most impact on the war in this order

1) USSR (1941-1945) - defeated Germany almost single handedly.
2) USA (1941-1945) - defeated Japan almost single handedly.
3) UK (1939 - 1945) - took on Germany from the very beginning, fought them in africa for years, contributed largely to the D-Day landings.

Of course, there were a lot of other countries that provided smaller amounts of assistance, Australia and New Zealand provided as much as we could (Australia actually fielded around 300,000 soldiers in europe AND the pacific), as well as Canada, Free France, Poland, the many resistance groups within Europe (French Resistance, partisans in Eastern Europe). In the Pacific area, both Chinese forces fought the Japanese in China (Jiang Kai-Shek's Nationalists and Mao Tse Tung's Communists).

So yeah, I haven't said the US did nothing, but I'm not buying this "USA saved the world" crap. Everyone put in as much as they could.

And keep this in mind - if it wasn't for the Atlantic, the US WOULD be speaking German today.

[yaarii]

Also Mawwle, I'm not a liberal!

[yaarii]

Originally posted by darwoth
give me a damn break, im not going to say youd be sopeaking german if it wasnt for the united states because the allies would have won eventually simply because the germans were attacking everybody and they bit off more then they could chew especially with russia, but it would have been a decade or more longer before the war would have ended and all countries involved would still be decimated to this day over it.

This is bullshit. The was would have lasted no longer than 1947 without US or British support, the Soviet Union simply had more troops, more industry and could essentially flood the battlefield with t-34 tanks.


when history revisionists get on and spout off whatever their america hating teacher vomited forth from the textbook it makes me wish we had just knocked off the japs in retaliation for pearl harbor then gone back home and let you assholes fuck with the germans for a decade and lose a generation in the process.

Well considering the only things the US did between December 1941 and 1944 in Europe were -
1) Bomb civilian targets, with almost zero effect, as german production actually increased over this period
2) Help the Brits clear the Germans out of North Africa and back into Italy, where the Germans then held off the US and Brits until the end of the war.


shit if we hadnt gotten in when we did there probably wouldnt be any jewish people left, hence no israel, hence no ragheads pissed off because we are "allies" with them!


Doubtful.


as for iraq i have several viewpoints.

1> i do recognize most of the shit coming out of the government for the lies and propaganda it is, at this point it is a war for oil and nothing more, iraq has had the same weaponry it has now for decades and they have hated us foir a lkong time now and havent been a threat until the past few months *yawn* if bush would come out and say "hey we are fucking up iraq because they want to stiff us on the oil prices that WE developed the ability to pump in their shithole of a country" id say no problem.

however this disguising it as a terrorist hunt pisses me off.


I agree.


2> i DO believe hussein has chemical weapons and is trying to get nukes, and he will use them against the united state eventually when he them properly developed/enough of them. for that reason alone we should topple their country.


But he hasn't ever attacked the US. This is what is stupid about you're argument. When Saddam took over Kuwait (with US permission I might add), he could easily have swept through Saudi Arabia....but he didn't. He just kept Kuwait, and when the US attacked there were no counter-attacks. In fact, nearing the end of the war, Saddam accepted peace but the US DIDN'T and attacked his troops that were FLEEING Kuwait.

AND he was launching SCUD's (which he doesn't have anymore) against Israel....tipped with conventional warheads despite the fact that he had chemical and biological warheads ready to go.


however i think north korea who has a well developed nuclear weapons program, is just waiting for the chance to overrun south korea, threatened the united states just LAST WEEK with a "first strike" and has as big of a phsycho in power as hussein is would be a better target if we are going around cleaning house of unstable well armed america hating regimes.

North Korea can't takeover South Korea with conventional weapons. They don't yet have any missiles that can reach the US mainland (not including Alaska), though they are developing them. As for their nuclear program, nobody really knows how far they are along. They could already have a couple of warheads, yet they could also be years away. You see, North Korea follows a philosophy called "Juche", which basically means they are HIGHLY isolationist, making it hard for anyone to find out what the fuck actually happens inside there.


3> our military is not in a condition for a war with iraq, thanks to being gutted by the clinton administration and the dozens and dozens of remote outposts where our soliders are stationed around the world for whatever ridiculous reason the politicians thought up ("peacekeeping" missions and the like) we are spread so thin its ridiculous, the huge effort attacking iraq will involve WILL destabilize the ENTIRE WORLD which could have catastrophic effects, what if they dont just roll over and surrender this time?

The US's military budget never went under $US250,000,000,000 under Clinton, hardly being "gutted". The US has always had tremendous capabilities militarily, even under Clinton. And the amount of US soldiers overseas is actually pretty small compared to the overall number you guys have.


they are digging in in the citites now, have armed the CITIZEN POPULATION and are prepared to fight a protracted urban fight, this is not going to be like the desert storm where our tanks and apaches obliterated them in the flat wide open desret, this will be mogadishu on an epic scale against military professionals with suitable weapons, not a horse of underfed negroids.


Nobody knows how the battle will turn out. Despite my usual hatred of US decisions (with reason, I don't hate the US for no reason), I'm pretty sure they can quell Saddam's Iraq. As for what happens next, well that could be a bit tricky. See, the Kurds in the north want their own country, the Shi'ites in the south want to be united with Iran, the Sunni's in the middle want to pick whoever they want as their leaders. So nobody in Iraq actually wants any of these exiled Iraqi opposition groups to come back and take power.


and if they fight this time there is the huge potential for getting into a protracted war, which if that happens china could make a move for taiwan, north korea for south korea, india and pakistan, the entire raghead world against israel, sleeper cells at home coming through the wide open mexican border could cause domestic problems at factories and the like and the shit could hit the fan real fast.

China won't move on Taiwan because they value western trade too much. North Korea isn't capable of winning a war against South Korea. India and Pakistan thankfully had MAD (mutually assured destruction), so it is unlikely they will have a war any time soon. As for the entire "raghead" world, in case you haven't noticed, it is HIGHLY fragmented, both nationally and ethnically. I doubt any sort of super-Islamic nation is going to exist anytime soon.


the entire country are bogies, we should seriously just nuke the whole fucking thing and be done with it, OR do nothing and let israel do it for us which theyve been desperately wanting to do for some time.

Are you talking about Iraq? If so, Israel doesn't have the military capabilities to knock out Iraq...they don't have a land border with them and would have to invade Jordan first.


we also need to let the world sort out their own fucking problems and mind our own borders, of course if we did that our enemies would be elated, and instead our "allies" would be pissed off that we arent carrying them in the international scene anymore.

Just make sure you don't have dipshits like Bush that fuck up situations all the time. Clinton actually did fairly well, he helped the peace process in Northern Ireland, came fairly close to solving the Israel/Palestine issue (he actually wanted middle east peace to be his lasting legacy), not to mention the eviction of Serbia out of most of the Balkan republics (admittedly, he did fuck it up at the start). Somalia was a fucked up incident as well, but overall in my opinion Clinton wasn't bad on foreign affairs.


damned if you damned if you dont, its long past time for the countries "leadership" to develop a fuck the world approach to foreign olicy and cut all foreign aid, domesticize our production needs, pump the alaskan reserves while putting the money we spend maintaing order in the mideast into alternative energy research, boost the military with special attention to nukes and renewed interest in the star wars program, and let everyone else do what they want, without us.

Problem - the US relies too much on the rest of the world. Most of your computer parts are most likely manufactured in Taiwan, your clothes in China or Vietnam, etc etc. Take a look at how many Japanese cars are on your roads. AND the US relies on foreign markets to sell it's goods, everything from movies to cars to capital industrial goods etc. If you think the US can just isolate itself 100% you are mistaken.


oh, almost forgot, i think the reason france and germany other than not liking us anyway and being countries full of people like yaari that critique every action the united states takes are so against us invading iraq is they dont want us to discover whatever illicit dealings theyve been having with iraq, food for thought.

What illicit dealings? Do you have some mysterious new information?

btw the reason for Germany not approving of war with Iraq is because they recently had a federal election based on that issue, and the people voted for a government that said "no war with Iraq"

The french have had trade ties with Iraq for decades and also have oil deals when the sanctions are lifted. These would be voided if the US went in and "took" the oil.

The russians are owed many billions of dollars by the Iraqi regime, mainly for weapons purchased prior to the 1991 Gulf War. They don't want to see that voided either.

Pretty good reasons for not wanting war imo.

[Mawwle]

at this point it is a war for oil and nothing more

Actually i disagree here. The primary reason is i have seen no credable evidence to support it. And we dont get that much oil from iraq anyway. Only about 5% of our imported oil. In fact from what i understand, we intend to take over the oil fields for a "set period of time" and use the proceeds to rebuild iraq and set up a government that the people of iraq can agree on.(and one that is friendly to us of course). I also dont have a problem with keeping enough of the proceeds to pay us back for the war, whatever it costs.

I truly believe that saddam IS a threat to the US, as he would most certainly attack us with a nuke if he gets one, and he is most certainly trying his damndest to get one. That alone is enough of a reason to take him out IMO.

If we are hiding behind any false reason for going to war, it is the fact that saddam is in material breech of resolution 1441. Now dont get me wrong, technically he IS in material breech, and we DID say "you better dot every i and cross every t or we'er gonna fuck you up", but so far, nothing very significant has been found.
But I think most people know its there, somewhere.



But he hasn't ever attacked the US. This is what is stupid about you're argument.

Hitler never attacked the US, but i doubt anyone would say we should not attacked him :)

When Saddam took over Kuwait (with US permission I might add), he could easily have swept through Saudi Arabia....but he didn't.

Now don't exaggerate things. We did not give him "permission" to invade kuwait. We simply said "we have no dog in that fight".
But then after he invaded them, we decided differently. Now i agree this was a bit rude on our part, kinda funny even, but would you smoke a joint in front of a DEA agent just because he said "i dont care" when you mentioned doing so?

The U.S. has been the world police for quite sometime(something i dont always agree with). Saddam should have known kuwait would ask for help, and if asked, we will almost always help. He set himself up for that one.

And as for Saudi Arabia, they were next on the chopping block , guarentee it.


I'll finish this later, going out to Eat :)

[Illusive]

North Korea can't takeover South Korea with conventional weapons. They don't yet have any missiles that can reach the US mainland (not including Alaska), though they are developing them.

I've just recently read that North Korea has successfully developed missiles that can reach the west coast of the United States. Forgot whether it was Time or CNN.

[yaarii]

Originally posted by Mawwle
Actually i disagree here. The primary reason is i have seen no credable evidence to support it. And we dont get that much oil from iraq anyway. Only about 5% of our imported oil. In fact from what i understand, we intend to take over the oil fields for a "set period of time" and use the proceeds to rebuild iraq and set up a government that the people of iraq can agree on.(and one that is friendly to us of course). I also dont have a problem with keeping enough of the proceeds to pay us back for the war, whatever it costs.

You forget one thing. It's not about the US government owning the oil, it's about US oil companies getting the contracts to drill for that oil, and then sell it. It's just a commodity.


I truly believe that saddam IS a threat to the US, as he would most certainly attack us with a nuke if he gets one, and he is most certainly trying his damndest to get one. That alone is enough of a reason to take him out IMO.

Britain, France, the Soviet Union, China, Israel, South Africa, India and Pakistan all tried their darndest to get nuclear weapons too.

Why aren't you saying "China took over tibet for no reason, it could be us next!"? Or "Pakistan supports anti-Indian rebels in Indian held Kashmir! They are clearly supporters of terrorism and will nuke america!"?


If we are hiding behind any false reason for going to war, it is the fact that saddam is in material breech of resolution 1441. Now dont get me wrong, technically he IS in material breech, and we DID say "you better dot every i and cross every t or we'er gonna fuck you up", but so far, nothing very significant has been found.
But I think most people know its there, somewhere.

Thats bullshit. Just because you think something could be there does not make it so.


Hitler never attacked the US, but i doubt anyone would say we should not attacked him :)

Let me repost my comparison between Nazi Germany and modern day Iraq that rips that argument to shreds -

"Ok look, Iraq is nothing like Germany of the 30's. I've been over this numerous times with people who have tried to make this association.

Germany was the second largest industrial power on the planet. Iraq is the 40th today. Greater Germany had a population close to 80 million, today Iraq has barely over 20 million. Germany had no trade sanctions, Iraq does. Germany had many home grown military industries to make weapons, Messerschmidt, Dornier, Foke-Wulfe, Henschel, Krupp, Porsche, Maybach, etc. Iraq has none of these, almost all of their military technology has been imported, and 99% of their weapons are old, outdated Soviet weapons from the 60's and 70's. Hardly a threat to anyone, hell they couldn't even defeat Iran when they had backing from the US itself! Saddam can't even control the Kurds and the Shi'ite Muslims in his own country now!"


Now don't exaggerate things. We did not give him "permission" to invade kuwait. We simply said "we have no dog in that fight".
But then after he invaded them, we decided differently. Now i agree this was a bit rude on our part, kinda funny even, but would you smoke a joint in front of a DEA agent just because he said "i dont care" when you mentioned doing so?

Well you gave him permission to invade Iran, then supported him. When that war went all wrong, and Saddam ended up broke he needed quick cash. So he built up his forces along the Kuwaiti border and waited for the US response. That response was "We have no defence ties to Kuwait", in full knowledge from not only satellite images but CIA intelligence that he was going to invade. And he did invade. Ie the US is partly responsible in the first place because if you said no, theres a good chance he wouldn't have gone ahead with it.


The U.S. has been the world police for quite sometime(something i dont always agree with). Saddam should have known kuwait would ask for help, and if asked, we will almost always help. He set himself up for that one.

But you guys said you WOULDN'T help!


And as for Saudi Arabia, they were next on the chopping block , guarentee it.

Umm, Iraq was sitting around for almost 6 months after they took Kuwait and they made no attempt at all to take Saudi Arabia. How long were they going to wait? A year? A decade? A century?

[yaarii]

Originally posted by Illusive
I've just recently read that North Korea has successfully developed missiles that can reach the west coast of the United States. Forgot whether it was Time or CNN.

Wrong. The longest range missiles that North Korea have tested have been their "No Dong" missiles, with a maximum range of 1,500km's, or in other words, barely over Japan.

They are thought possess a missile called "Taepo Dong 1", which has a theoretical maximum range of 2,850km, which is still nowhere near the US. This missile has never been tested.

It is also thought they are developing an advanced version called the "Taepo Dong 2", with theoretical maximum ranges above 10,000km with very light payloads.

However, in light of the fact that they aren't actually doing any testing, and have barely got a missile over Japan, I highly doubt they have a system with a range to reach the US (9000-10000km's) operational. It sounds to me more like a bit of scaremongering than actual facts :)

[Arri Skywolf]

They've already developed the Taepo Dong 2, but that Taepo Dong hasn't been tested. :P (Not small joke from the Daily Show :) )

Also, anytime the U.N. security council wants something done militarily, they don't ask France to field troops, warplanes, warships, etc. They don't ask Germany (Which is a part of NATO, but has no veto power in the security council of the U.N.). They don't ask Russia, who has a large STARVING military. They don't ask China (Harro isolationists). Guess who fields more troops than any single country during any U.N. security council resolution. That's right, the United States.

[Mawwle]

You forget one thing. It's not about the US government owning the oil, it's about US oil companies getting the contracts to drill for that oil, and then sell it. It's just a commodity.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? or is this just opinion.

I have to believe that George W. is truly concerned about what he states, because he has never given me any reason to doubt(hasnt been caught in a lie, unlike clinton who was caught in NUMEROUS).

I know a lot of people dont like him, but so far he seems very genuine to me, i have no reason to doubt him.


Mawwle

[yaarii]

As far as I'm concerned it is about oil. Why do I think that? Well not only Bush himself, but half of his advisors have been involved in the oil industry. Hell even Bush's granddaddy (good old Prescott Bush) sold oil to Hitler right up until the US declared war on Nazi Germany.

Iraq is just like MANY countries on the planet that have oppressive, occasionally aggressive regimes....the only difference is one thing - oil. Otherwise the US would be marching into half of Africa etc.

btw don't you find it entertaining that the North Koreans have well and truly put the US in their place? They've basically told the US to fuck off or it's total war, and the big tough US has been reduced to "oh we'll try to solve this through peace talks". Way to go North Korea!

[Arri Skywolf]

Yaarii if you think that the will of the international community is what should govern the actions of the United States, then why are you cheering on a country that has said it will disregard any resolution put forth by the U.N., the U.N.S.C. and the I.A.E.A?

[Arri Skywolf]

Btw, does anyone really give a fuck about what Australia does?

[yaarii]

Your enemy's enemy is your friend. Quite frankly, the biggest threat to world peace at the moment is the US, imo. They must be stopped.

[Tdayyen]

australia has a very small military force.. but yes people do care what they do.. im pretty sure from the start that only australia and britain decided to follow the US into war regardless of the UN

[Mawwle]

I have no doubts we will deal with north korea in due time. I even believe we could handle N korea and Iraq at the same time. Hell you could probably throw pakaistan, iran, and a couple more countries in on that and we could still handle it. But why should we? ther is no rush. N korea isn't going anywhere.

The whole reason That fruitcake in N korea is beating his hands against his chest atm anyway is because Bush named Afghanastan, Iraq, and N korea as the axis of evil shortly after september 11th. Afghanastan is pretty much dead, looks like Iraq's regime has a very short lived future, and he thinks he is next.

And this whole, "the US must be stopped" i find extremly dissappointing. The US helps more people in this world that all other countries combined. The US gives more money to foreign aid than any other country. When a Country asked for help for whatever reason, its the US that is there first and formemost. Who do you think gives the most money to the UN that is so blatently anti American?

The people of the United states want freedom and peace above anything else, and when either is threatened, we are extremly ready to take up arms against that threat. That is how i feel, and that is how most Americans i speak to feel.

I still love the commentary written by gordan sinclair back in the 70's..............................


America: The Good Neighbor.

Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars! into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.

I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon -! not once, but several times - and safely home again. You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake. Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

Stand proud, America!


Mawwle

[Mawwle]

And one mroe thing on North korea. Have you not noticed that they have stated that they want to negotiate with the US, not the un, not ANYONE but the US. Why do you think that is? Thats an easy answer, because that is where the money is. They want to pressure the US into giving them money and help because their people are starving. Kim Jon il is a desperate man using desperate measures.

Too bad he doesnt really understand the American people, all he really had to do was say "hey my people are starving, is there anyway you could help me out here", and America would more than likely be there.
\

Mawwle

[Gink]

hamadryad, ok so how do does guarding the british colony in hong kong and having a few units participate in joint operations with other countries add to having more influence on the war than the united stateses d day, countless operations in the european theater and making up the majority of the air support since the brits airforce was annihilated by the luftwaffe in the early years, singehandedly defeating the japanese who would die before surrendering and openly tortured any soliders they captured and were the last hold outs, developing and using nukes for the first time and other things i cant think of at the moment.

I just thought i'd like to comment on this, typical american viewpoint.

notice the line, "the united stateses d day"

Now don't make me go there, this was not "the united stateses d day" as you put it, 2 beaches for the US, 2 for Britan and 1 for Canada. Thats not all US bub. SHAEF was made up of english, americans and canadians, all organized and incorporated together. The invasions would be alot more difficult without the aid of british ULTRA systems, and the canadian raid on dieppe (which discovered many problems with current landing procedures). It was NOT a all american afair.

Most americans base their d day info off a fucking dumb film called saving private ryan. Which really tends to piss me off, because ignorant americans tend to blow off the sacrifices of any other nation save themselves.

If you want to go into casualty listings.

American casualties on Omaha and Utah.
-Around 54,000 men landed.
-Around 2,700 men killed.

British casualties on Gold and Sword.
-Around 54,000 men landed.
-Around 1,030 men killed.

Canadian casualties on Juno.
-Around 21,400 men landed.
-Around 1,300 men killed.

And despite having the same casualty ratio per troops landed roughly as the Americans, Canadians STILL managed to make it the furthest inland, the fastest, of any of the three nations.

Second off, "the brits airforce was annihilated by the luftwaffe in the early years" is not entirely true. The brits WON the battle of britan. They prooved they could control the skies, and did, preventing operation sealion.

Also, the canadians contributed greatly to the war effort in Italy, it was called "Canadas war in the mountains". Also, don't forget when the american paratroopers were seperated in the battle of the bulge, the first, and most persistant (the US army wanted to wait for patton) volunteers to attempt a rescue were the canadians.

Atleast we can both share the glory of the black devils, a canadian/american special ops group, quite famous, theres even a movie about them, some good reading too.

[Mawwle]

I was watching a documentary on D-day just a few weeks ago. There were a couple of reason we got beat up so badly on Omaha beach. First of all the air raid from the nigh before which was supposed to "soften up" the defenses and was also supposed to drop special "fox hole digging bombs" missed. Thats right, fog was so heavy the night before D-day on the omaha beach area that the planes all bombed over 1 mile inland. And created plenty of fox holes, for the germans :)

Another big reason for the failure at Omaha was an entire unit of amphibious tanks sank on their way to the shore(due to large waves and high wind speeds). Part of this documentary took you a few miles off shore where the 30+ tanks still sit today. Even without the foxholes that wre supposed to be there, if that unit of tanks had made it to shore, they would have provided tremensous coverage for the ground troops. As it stood they had 400 yards of emptiness to cross to get to any cover.

The other beaches did;nt fair near as badly as omaha due to the fact that their unit of tanks made it to shore as planned.


Mawwle

[Arri Skywolf]

Canada only had like 45,000 casualties during the whole war.. and if you think that it's because they're such good fighters, you're fairly delusional. Canada mainly guarded shipping lanes between North America and Europe...

[yaarii]

Originally posted by Mawwle
And this whole, "the US must be stopped" i find extremly dissappointing. The US helps more people in this world that all other countries combined. The US gives more money to foreign aid than any other country. When a Country asked for help for whatever reason, its the US that is there first and formemost. Who do you think gives the most money to the UN that is so blatently anti American?

The US actually gives the LEAST amount of foreign aid as a percentage of GDP compared to any other western country. The only reason you come out on top is because you have a larger population, and hence, larger economy, than the rest of the world. If america only had the same population as the UK, or France, or Australia, it would be giving far less than those countries in foreign aid.

And as for the UN, just because you give the UN the most money doesn't mean you can BUY it's support. If the US does something blatantly stupid and unpopular (ie wants to attack Iraq now), then people are going to tell the US to fuck off. Hence the other day there were the biggest protests the world has ever seen, solely against the US attacking Iraq.


The people of the United states want freedom and peace above anything else, and when either is threatened, we are extremly ready to take up arms against that threat. That is how i feel, and that is how most Americans i speak to feel.

Perhaps you should tell your government that then, because they seem to be gearing up for war in the middle east. And this doesn't even include the shit they've been involved in in the past (bay of pigs, funding rebels fighting the sandanistas, funding a right wing coup against a democratically elected president in chile)...and this sort of shit happens right up to today, where the US is funding the columbian government to FIGHT the FARC and also right wing paramilitaries. So much for wanting "peace" and "freedom".

And I snipped that stupid arse kissing article, nobody ever posts it except americans, which indicates how far foreign opinion of the US has gone from the heady days of the Cold War when people actually believed the US was here to save the world. The past 12 years has revealed a darker, far more selfish US, that clearly doesn't give a fuck about anyone but itself.

[Mawwle]

And how do you feel the rest of the world would do if we pulled our reigns up now. Brought home ALL our troops, stopped ALL trade, stopped all foregin aid, all assistance of any kind and let the terrorists of the world overrun the severly under militarized areas of the world such as canada, australia ect.


Many americans are pushing towards this. We are tired of helping, and then being shit upon. Ever damn time someone asks for help, we are there. Using our money and american lives to help, and then we are bad mouthed by the rest of the world for some reason or another. I for one would be happy if we just closed our borders 100 %. Let the rest of the world fend for itself.

Mawwle

[yaarii]

Originally posted by Mawwle
And how do you feel the rest of the world would do if we pulled our reigns up now. Brought home ALL our troops, stopped ALL trade, stopped all foregin aid, all assistance of any kind and let the terrorists of the world overrun the severly under militarized areas of the world such as canada, australia ect.

1) The US economy would collapse before the rest of the planets, by a BIG margin.
2) Nobody CAN invade Australia, we live right next to the largest muslim nation on the planet (Indonesia), and still not even a single aggressive act against us. We are protected by our geography, just like the US is.


Many americans are pushing towards this. We are tired of helping, and then being shit upon. Ever damn time someone asks for help, we are there. Using our money and american lives to help, and then we are bad mouthed by the rest of the world for some reason or another. I for one would be happy if we just closed our borders 100 %. Let the rest of the world fend for itself.

Hey it's your grave. Remember, the rest of the planet has the oil, good, cheap labour etc etc that the US economy relies on. Prepare to be "fucking poor" (thats a technical term) if you 100% isolate yourselves.

And yes, the rest of the world CAN take care of itself, you act as if we actually NEED americans stationed everywhere....there isn't any stationed anywhere near Australia and we are managing quite fine. Canada faces exactly no threat because of their geography. Europe is uniting and should it be actually attacked could easily waste any Islamic or whatever invasion.

So yeah, feel free to fuck off - it'll mean the end of the US as a superpower.

[Mawwle]

Heh, actually we could very easily be self sufficient. The reason we import most of our oil is so we dont use our own supplies. I forget how much oil the US has in reserves, but it was a LOT. Not to mention the amount we still havei n the ground.



And besides that, the US has certain goals it wants to accomplish. The primary one being freedom for anyone who wants it. We have the most powerfull military in the world, so all we HAVE to do is go enforce whatever we want wherever we want. But we dont do that.

If we really just wanted the middle easts oil, we would simply take it. If we wanted Austraila's ummm kangaroo's, we would come take them, and nobody could stop us.

We have this power, yet we do NOT use it for evil purposes as so many in the past have, and as so many in the present WOULD if they had the same power.

What do you think Kim jong il would do if he had the might of the US military? Saddam ?? Damn near any muslim??

And what about even YOUR country austrailia? I'd be willing to bet they would try to enfoce THEIR moral principles on the rest of the world. Suddenly we would all be forced to live like socialists, or die. Freedom is something i hold very dear and am more than willing to fight for when threatened.

Can you honestly say to me that you DO NOT think saddam would launch a nuclear strike against the US if he had the capability. Or perhaps sell one to people that would if the price was right? I think you would have to lie to yourself to answer yes to this question.


Mawwle

[yaarii]

Originally posted by Mawwle
Heh, actually we could very easily be self sufficient. The reason we import most of our oil is so we dont use our own supplies. I forget how much oil the US has in reserves, but it was a LOT. Not to mention the amount we still havei n the ground.

I don't think you have enough to be self-sufficient in oil, remember in 1973 when the OPEC countries cut off oil supplies to the west, and there was then a major recession? That indicates that the west (including the US) doesn't have enough oil to supply it's own markets with without importing it.


And besides that, the US has certain goals it wants to accomplish. The primary one being freedom for anyone who wants it. We have the most powerfull military in the world, so all we HAVE to do is go enforce whatever we want wherever we want. But we dont do that.

Yes you DO do that. You are doing it RIGHT NOW in Columbia (military aid to keep the civil war alive and kicking). You are doing it RIGHT NOW to Cuba (trade sanctions to prevent the Cubans from raising their standards of living). I could go on...


If we really just wanted the middle easts oil, we would simply take it.

That's what the US is trying to do right now...


If we wanted Austraila's ummm kangaroo's, we would come take them, and nobody could stop us.

Well you certainly love buying our uranium (australia is very mineral rich). If you came and tried to take it you'd end up with 1) Trade sanctions from Europe (we're allied to them you know) and 2) a war of attrition, we aussies (the actual people, not the politicians) don't walk to the US beat.


We have this power, yet we do NOT use it for evil purposes as so many in the past have, and as so many in the present WOULD if they had the same power.

So explain to me why you are funding the Columbian government to FIGHT the rebels rather than hosting peace talks to STOP the fighting?


What do you think Kim jong il would do if he had the might of the US military? Saddam ?? Damn near any muslim??

Irrelevant, as due to their geo-political situation, the Middle East will never be as unified as you think it is. As for North Korea, their economy is a basketcase, they can't support any decent military, so your point is totally irrelevant.


And what about even YOUR country austrailia? I'd be willing
to bet they would try to enfoce THEIR moral principles on the rest of the world. Suddenly we would all be forced to live like socialists, or die. Freedom is something i hold very dear and am more than willing to fight for when threatened.

Australia is virtually uninvadable. The only ways in are through the desert near the top in the middle, or through the jungle at the top on the eastern side. Both "entrances" have absolutely no infrastructure to host any sort of military campaign. Any invader would be forced to have supply lines stretching thousands of miles through empty desert just to get to any of the populated parts. AND our populated areas are in hilly, tree'd geographic areas....very easy to defend, and very hard to conquer.

So yeah, I'm not scared in the slightest.


Can you honestly say to me that you DO NOT think saddam would launch a nuclear strike against the US if he had the capability. Or perhaps sell one to people that would if the price was right? I think you would have to lie to yourself to answer yes to this question.

I do not believe Saddam would launch a nuclear weapon against the US unless the US attacked him first.

Anyway, this is irrelevant, Saddam doesn't have any nukes and hasn't been anywhere near close to having them in 15 years.

[Malignancy]

Yarii is precisely the reason that a piss-ant country like France has more respect than Australia. Australia is simply a pit where the English sent their rapists, idiots and useless members of society. We should send ours to Africa...wait we got ours from Africa (sigh).

EC

P.S. I do like Australian women however...love that accent better than a Scottish one.

[Mawwle]

I really dont know much about the columbia issue, so i cant comment intelligently on that. But as for australia being uninvadable? heh

1 carrier and 1 assault ship is probably all we would need to take all of austraila. Not that we would, i mean you guys aren't exactly out there running suicide bombs onto busses with civilians and children on them. Nor are you offering payment of something like 50,000 dollars to the family of anyone who DOES do this (you know, kinda like the 50g's saddam offers to the families of homocide bombers).

I cant remember the exact figures, but i know the US is only pumping oil out of a very small percentage of land suspected to contain oil. The documentary i saw on it (quite some time ago, maybe 2 years) said something to the effect of "the US buys more oil than it produces in an efforct to keep maximum storage and production capabilities in the event of a 3rd world war."

Anyway, this is irrelevant, Saddam doesn't have any nukes and hasn't been anywhere near close to having them in 15 years.

I disagree is all ic an say here. The evidence found thusfar suggests otheriwise. More than likely we will all know for sure in the near future.

Now here is a question.....

Lets suppose your wrong, saddam does have thousands of liters of vx nerve agents, 30,000+ chemical warheads, dirty nuclear bombs, and multiple other "banned" weapons.

Now keep in mind, he was defeated on the battle field, and he surrendered. As part of his surrender agreement, he AGREED to disarm and allow inspections to prove the destruction of those weapons. So now we have someone who was defeated, and then fails to live up to the treaty he signed.

1. Is this reason to go back in and use force to disarm the weapons he promised he would destroy?

2. Is the presence of the weapons alone ,in the hands of a tyrant such as Saddam enough reason to do the same?


3. Should the victor in a war allow the defeated to NOT abide by treaty agreements?


Now these are hypothetical questions, i just want to see how you would feel if i could use my magic mirror and show you all the weapons he is hiding.


Mawwle

[yaarii]

Originally posted by Mawwle
I really dont know much about the columbia issue, so i cant comment intelligently on that. But as for australia being uninvadable? heh

1 carrier and 1 assault ship is probably all we would need to take all of austraila. Not that we would, i mean you guys aren't exactly out there running suicide bombs onto busses with civilians and children on them. Nor are you offering payment of something like 50,000 dollars to the family of anyone who DOES do this (you know, kinda like the 50g's saddam offers to the families of homocide bombers).

My comments on this regarded the rest of the world's ability to invade Australia after the US theoretically leaves the world scene and 100% isolates itself.


I cant remember the exact figures, but i know the US is only pumping oil out of a very small percentage of land suspected to contain oil. The documentary i saw on it (quite some time ago, maybe 2 years) said something to the effect of "the US buys more oil than it produces in an efforct to keep maximum storage and production capabilities in the event of a 3rd world war."

In world war 3, the US as we know it will be dead. I highly doubt that several thousand nukes will leave any production abilities on the mainland of the US.


I disagree is all ic an say here. The evidence found thusfar suggests otheriwise. More than likely we will all know for sure in the near future.

The evidence thusfar? You mean the 13 EMPTY warheads? The one missile that was tested and exceeded the range limit by about 20km's? Wow if they made several thousand more gain's like that they'd have a missile capable of hitting....India!

Iraq is so fucking impotent its not even funny, the notion that they are a threat to anyone is ludicrous...I mean Saddam isn't even a threat to the Kurds and the Shi'ites in HIS OWN COUNTRY anymore.


Now here is a question.....

Lets suppose your wrong, saddam does have thousands of liters of vx nerve agents, 30,000+ chemical warheads, dirty nuclear bombs, and multiple other "banned" weapons.

Now keep in mind, he was defeated on the battle field, and he surrendered. As part of his surrender agreement, he AGREED to disarm and allow inspections to prove the destruction of those weapons. So now we have someone who was defeated, and then fails to live up to the treaty he signed.

1. Is this reason to go back in and use force to disarm the weapons he promised he would destroy?

No, it's a reason to disarm him via peaceful means. Unless he actually decides to attack someone, I see no reason for war.


2. Is the presence of the weapons alone ,in the hands of a tyrant such as Saddam enough reason to do the same?

He is a tyrant only so far as it serves the US's aims. Why weren't you calling him a tyrant in the 80's? After every chemical attack in the 80's, the fucking Republicans covered them up! Even members of the current administration were involved (Donald Rumsfeld being one).

Btw, why aren't you moving against North Korea? They have a "tyrant" in control of a military thousands of times more potent that Iraq's, who most likely now has nuclear weapons as well as other WMD's. I don't see the US rushing into that conflict.


3. Should the victor in a war allow the defeated to NOT abide by treaty agreements?

Nope. He should be disarmed, and thats exactly what weapons inspectors do, disarm everything they find. The big bonus here is that weapons inspectors don't go around killing civilians and calling it collateral damage.


Now these are hypothetical questions, i just want to see how you would feel if i could use my magic mirror and show you all the weapons he is hiding.

Look mawwle, I don't think you are THAT gullible. It seems like you've taken the bait - hook, line and sinker. I mean honestly, the US has THE best intelligence network on the planet now, they have satellites monitoring everything that happens in Iraq, spies within Iraq, defectors who give them information, spyplanes constantly doing fly-overs....and the BEST case they could come up with so far is some COMPUTER GENERATED pictures of a SUPPOSED wmd developing truck. They couldn't even produce one photograph of one.

Now that is, quite frankly, about the most pisspoor case I've ever seen for a war. And I can't believe that you are stupid enough not to even question any of the supposed "evidence". I mean the Brits published a document that was basically the thesis of a US university student, then they changed the wording to make it sound even more dangerous.

C'mon mawwle, use your brain here. There is no smoking gun, there never was. And I'm going to laugh when the US invades Iraq, finds NO wmd's, then realizes its just got itself involved in a BIG mess involving Kurds, Sunni's and Shi'ites because nobody actually realized that Saddam kept those 3 groups unified into one country....etc.

[Mawwle]

In world war 3, the US as we know it will be dead. I highly doubt that several thousand nukes will leave any production abilities on the mainland of the US

Your forgetting our missle defense system that is currently in production :)



The evidence thusfar? You mean the 13 EMPTY warheads?

Actually i was refering to the nuke program and the 3000 pages of documents detailing their CURRENT nuke program. The documents were recent and quite complete. These were all found at one of the iraqui scientists homes.

And as far as the 13 empty warheads, that was just ONE find. There has since been several finding of chemical warheads, some empty, some not. I know just last week the inspectors found 10 more warheads, 5 of wich were filled with mustard gas.


No, it's a reason to disarm him via peaceful means. Unless he actually decides to attack someone, I see no reason for war.

And just how do you suppose we do that? first of all the inspectors are not detectives. They are there for ONE reason and that is to confirm he has destroyed the chemical weapons he posessed. So far they have been UNABLE to prove this. Iraq will not provide ONE person who took place destruction of thousands of litres of vx nerv agents. Iraq will not provide the location this destruction took place(as traces of the chemical would tend to lend proof of its destruction.)

When the inspectors were kicked out in 1998, it was known fact that he had thousands of liters of chemical weapons of various sorts, and 30,000 + warheads to carry these chemicals. Now he is telling us that after the inspectors were kicked out he destroyed all the banned weapons and chemicals and we should just "trust" him. Now do you really think i am to believe that after 12 years of lie's and deciet, after 12 years of hiding these weapons and playing cat and mouse, he has simply destroyed them out of the goodness of his own heart.

Saddam will not provide the proof of the destruction of the warheads and chemicals because he is hiding them. There is no other explanation.

You could triple the number of inspectors, even go to 1000 + inspectors, and saddam could still easily hide them for years to come. For all you know they are under a small utility shack in the middle of a village, where a massive underground warehouse lies. Or in the basement of a hospital or asprin factory or any of a million other locations that 100 men will probably NEVER find in their lifetime.

Besides that, the inspectors have done their job. THeir job was to verify the stuff has been destroyed. They cannot verify this, so their job is complete.

One day we will know for sure who is right. Either the US will invade and find the weapons and chemicals or find nothing. Or the US will not invade and some city will find out first hand of Saddams chemical or nuclear capabilities.


My biggest beef is your making it sound like the US is nothing but an evil empire out to conquer the world and kill anyone they dont like. If those were truly our goals, we would have attacked LONG ago. And not just Iraq. There is no doubt IF we simply wanted to conquer and destroy, we could have started and succeeded a long time ago. Hell, all the middle east would be ours by now, and there wouldnt be many rag-heads left.


The big bonus here is that weapons inspectors don't go around killing civilians and calling it collateral damage.


We could fight the entire war from the air. Why dont we? There is only one answer to that question, to save IRAQI lives. Fighting a ground war will certainly not save American lives, only civilian Iraqi's. Do we get ANY credit for this in the world opinion? Of course not. As soon as the war starts we will be dropping hundreds of thousands of meals to IRAQI citizens. How many "evil conquerers" go around giving food their enemies, and takeing every possible precaution to minimize the amount of collateral damage? Yet WE are the bad guys?

Do you think for an instant saddam would drop food to us if he started to attack? Do you think for an instant that he would ONLY hit military targets? Hell no he wouldn't, he would try to kill as many civilians as possible. In fact he would probably choose civilian targets OVER military ones, in an effort to break our will.

One thing for certain changed on september 11th. We are no longer willing to let tyrants and people who threaten the lives of innocents to be in control. We used to let them do their own thing as long as they stayed out of our way. But with the death of 3000 american civilians, things changed, forever.

mawwle

[yaarii]

Originally posted by Mawwle
Your forgetting our missle defense system that is currently in production :)

It's a peice of shit. Not only does it miss almost half the time, but they're only going to have what...10 missiles in Alaska by 2004? Even China itself has well and truly more icbm warheads than that, and they are continuing to develop their multi-warhead 3 stage ICBM's.



Actually i was refering to the nuke program and the 3000 pages of documents detailing their CURRENT nuke program. The documents were recent and quite complete. These were all found at one of the iraqui scientists homes.

Nuclear program = useless without nuclear facilities. He could assemble the finest selection of engineers and nuclear physicists the planet has ever seen, and would still get nothing out of it.


And as far as the 13 empty warheads, that was just ONE find. There has since been several finding of chemical warheads, some empty, some not. I know just last week the inspectors found 10 more warheads, 5 of wich were filled with mustard gas.

Mustard gas? That shouldn't even be included as a wmd, I could do more damage with a 155mm artillery peice or even an AK-47.



And just how do you suppose we do that? first of all the inspectors are not detectives. They are there for ONE reason and that is to confirm he has destroyed the chemical weapons he posessed. So far they have been UNABLE to prove this. Iraq will not provide ONE person who took place destruction of thousands of litres of vx nerv agents. Iraq will not provide the location this destruction took place(as traces of the chemical would tend to lend proof of its destruction.)

No the inspectors DO destroy any banned weapons they come across, they are not merely there for confirmation, they take a pro-active role in disarming Iraq. The reason why all you war freaks lie about it is because you want to invade.


When the inspectors were kicked out in 1998, it was known fact that he had thousands of liters of chemical weapons of various sorts, and 30,000 + warheads to carry these chemicals. Now he is telling us that after the inspectors were kicked out he destroyed all the banned weapons and chemicals and we should just "trust" him. Now do you really think i am to believe that after 12 years of lie's and deciet, after 12 years of hiding these weapons and playing cat and mouse, he has simply destroyed them out of the goodness of his own heart.

Do you have proof he has these? Think about it for a minute...you are saying he is hiding 30,000 (!!) warheads, we are talking a football stadium size of weaponry, not to mention warheads have to be kept in proper storage, monitored etc. Then there is the actual "wmd's" (chems and bios), they can't just plonk them in a bunker and thats that, they have to be constantly monitored and in the case of bio weapons, cultured.

So far, inspectors have found nothing, and the US has proven nothing.


Saddam will not provide the proof of the destruction of the warheads and chemicals because he is hiding them. There is no other explanation.

Or he could just be getting pissed off with the US. He does everything they tell him to do, yet they still whinge and whine like little babies.

By using your logic, I could have a nuclear weapon hidden right here in my bedroom, because by not admitted it, it means I must be hiding one.


You could triple the number of inspectors, even go to 1000 + inspectors, and saddam could still easily hide them for years to come. For all you know they are under a small utility shack in the middle of a village, where a massive underground warehouse lies. Or in the basement of a hospital or asprin factory or any of a million other locations that 100 men will probably NEVER find in their lifetime.

More bullshit. Inspectors don't just "look" for weapons, ie turn up at a random facility, take a quick look around and leave. You are very uninformed. They have state of the art technology AND intelligence to aid them, and still they turn up virtually nothing.


Besides that, the inspectors have done their job. THeir job was to verify the stuff has been destroyed. They cannot verify this, so their job is complete.

Total bullshit. The inspectors aren't just inspectors, they destroy any banned weapons they find. They did it for 7 years straight. Do some fucking research on the topic mawwle.


One day we will know for sure who is right. Either the US will invade and find the weapons and chemicals or find nothing. Or the US will not invade and some city will find out first hand of Saddams chemical or nuclear capabilities.

More bullshit. Iraq has never attacked anyone without US permission, there is no evidence he would attack another country with a nuke especially considering the retaliation would wipe him and his country out.

Go back and do modern history 101 and find out what "MAD" stands for.


My biggest beef is your making it sound like the US is nothing but an evil empire out to conquer the world and kill anyone they dont like.

Yeah thats pretty much it.


If those were truly our goals, we would have attacked LONG ago. And not just Iraq. There is no doubt IF we simply wanted to conquer and destroy, we could have started and succeeded a long time ago. Hell, all the middle east would be ours by now, and there wouldnt be many rag-heads left.

Bzzt wrong. That would crucify the US, trade sanctions would be put up and the US would just turn back into the shithouse backwater it was before 1945.


We could fight the entire war from the air.


Bzzt wrong. Take modern history 101, you can't win a war from the air.


Why dont we? There is only one answer to that question, to save IRAQI lives. Fighting a ground war will certainly not save American lives, only civilian Iraqi's. Do we get ANY credit for this in the world opinion? Of course not. As soon as the war starts we will be dropping hundreds of thousands of meals to IRAQI citizens. How many "evil conquerers" go around giving food their enemies, and takeing every possible precaution to minimize the amount of collateral damage? Yet WE are the bad guys?


You are the bad guys because you ARE STARTING THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE, STUPID.


Do you think for an instant saddam would drop food to us if he started to attack? Do you think for an instant that he would ONLY hit military targets? Hell no he wouldn't, he would try to kill as many civilians as possible. In fact he would probably choose civilian targets OVER military ones, in an effort to break our will.


Saddam isn't the one starting a war. Iraq has been involved in 3 wars since Saddam took power.

Iraq vs Iran. Iraq recieved US money, diplomatic support no matter what they did. They dropped chemical weapons on civilians, but the US instead of criticising them, covered it up. Way to go america, fighting for freedom...and death by chemical weapons?

Iraq vs Kuwait. Iraq was given the go-ahead by the US to invade. They did invade. The US then suddently did a backflip and decided they didn't like that.

Iraq vs US. Iraq didn't even start this war, the US did.

So basically, we have a history of Iraq COMPLYING with the US.


One thing for certain changed on september 11th. We are no longer willing to let tyrants and people who threaten the lives of innocents to be in control. We used to let them do their own thing as long as they stayed out of our way. But with the death of 3000 american civilians, things changed, forever.

Yeah things have certainly changed alright. The average american's iq dropped about 20 points, half of your country actually thinks Saddam is involved with Al Qaeda (they are actually enemies, despite the recent supposed bin laden tape).

And whats more, americans seem to have altogether forgotten who actually attacked the US in the first place. They were Saudi's and Egyptians. I don't see the US rushing in to those countries. Their organization is based around Al Qaeda, a shadowy terrorist organisation....who were attacked once, ESCAPED, and are now on the loose and could be planning fuck knows what kind of attacks, but one things for certain, the US isn't chasing them very hard anymore.

So yeah basically, you took the bait. I'm surprised someone of your intelligence could actually be fooled by what is mainly propaganda and VAGUE speculation.

If someone came to you with a business proposal and said "I need funding to build a brand new kind of computer. However, I don't have a factory, any employees, I don't know how computers work and I don't have any blueprints or even a business plan. All I've got is this broken peice of an Apple II and what looks to be a melted 5 1/4 inch disk. Will you invest in my project?" Would you? That's Saddam's nuclear program.

[Gink]

Just thought i'd add.

Arri, the Canadians participated on the front lines in nearly every major allied advance. They were a driving force in the war in Italy, as well as northern europe and rhineland.



Oh, and the reason the tanks sunk, is because the Americans refused to use the new british modified tanks (Called Funnies) that had full body skirts that folded down when they landed. This prevented the tanks from getting waterlogged in rough seas, as well, they all contained very usefull tool for assaulting a fixed position.

One being the Crab, which was a sherman with a large metal pole with chains attatched, that would spin and detonate mines at a harmless distance. Another, was the AVRE, which had a large bridge that could fold down to pass over anti tank ditches, and a churchil fitted with a flamethrower, towing a large fuel tank behind called the Crocodile. And my favorite, the churchill with a massive 290mm mortar equipped on it, that would cause massive destruction on the beach bunkers.

[Mawwle]

Do you have proof he has these? Think about it for a minute...you are saying he is hiding 30,000 (!!) warheads, we are talking a football stadium size of weaponry


The proof is he had them, he admitted he had them, the weapons inspectors said he had them. Then the weapons inspectors were kicked out BEFORE they were destroyed. And now we are supposed to just take his word that they are gone, EVEN though he will provide ZERO evidence they are gone. Maybe you believe everything Saddam says. Maybe you think he is a saint, i dont know, but i for one think he is a liar after watching his actions and failure to comply with over 17 resolutions over the past 12 years.

And again, your talking a football stadium yea, in an area the size of california. With caves and thousands HUGE and small buildings that could easily hide such weapons, or hide and underground complex that stores such weapons.

And what do you say to the recent intercepted mesage where saddam told his generals to "go ahead and use chemical weapons on the americans if they attack". How the hell is he going to do this if he has no chemical weapons?

Mawwle

[yaarii]

Originally posted by Mawwle
The proof is he had them, he admitted he had them, the weapons inspectors said he had them. Then the weapons inspectors were kicked out BEFORE they were destroyed. And now we are supposed to just take his word that they are gone, EVEN though he will provide ZERO evidence they are gone. Maybe you believe everything Saddam says. Maybe you think he is a saint, i dont know, but i for one think he is a liar after watching his actions and failure to comply with over 17 resolutions over the past 12 years.

The burden of proof is on the US to provide evidence that the weapons exist. The resolutions don't say "attack if you can't find weapons but suspect he has some", they say "if he has those weapons they must be destroyed."



And again, your talking a football stadium yea, in an area the size of california. With caves and thousands HUGE and small buildings that could easily hide such weapons, or hide and underground complex that stores such weapons.

So basically you are saying that you will clutch every last straw in order to justify your claims.

Does this mean you believe aliens visit the earth because there is no proof...but nobody can monitor the entire sky? Or maybe the Russians have developed cold fusion, how do you know until you've checked ever last square inch of siberia?


And what do you say to the recent intercepted mesage where saddam told his generals to "go ahead and use chemical weapons on the americans if they attack". How the hell is he going to do this if he has no chemical weapons?

He didn't say to use chemical weapons, he said to use all means necessary. You are again falling into the trap of believing the US administration without once questioning what they've said.

Haven't you wondered that if they really do have those supposed wmd manufacturing trucks that there should be at least one photo of one? Haven't you ever wondered how Iraq is supposed to get develop a nuclear weapon when it doesn't have any nuclear facilities to refine uranium and plutonium into weapons grade material? Haven't you ever wondered how much of a threat Iraq is when the longer range missiles they have reach barely 180km's (110 miles)? Start questioning your government or forever be a stupid, illinformed lemming, Mawwle. I'm serious - the deeper you dig, the more rot you find. I KNOW you are intelligent, but I just cannot understand how you think their 180km range missiles, without nuclear warheads, are a threat to anyone. I mean they can't even reach Riyadh, let alone Israel. The threat to the US is exactly 0%. Think about it.

[DArkfrost187]

Another Yaarii,Darwoth,and Mawlee political debate thread !!!!!

You guys know what's considered entertainment to me ...let the debate continue !!

*grabs some popcorn*

[Mawwle]

The burden of proof is on the US to provide evidence that the weapons exist. The resolutions don't say "attack if you can't find weapons but suspect he has some", they say "if he has those weapons they must be destroyed."

You are completely wrong. Go read resolution 1441. It is very clear that Saddam is responsible for proving he destroyed the weapons everyone knows, and he admits, he had. He has not shown ANY proof.

Incidentally, the 16 resolutions before 1441 said the same thing, all of which he has broken. The resolutions VERY CLEARLY put ALL of the responsibility on Iraq.

Having said that, i can see that i can't change your mind, and you cant change mine. Therefore we will have to wait a few weeks until after we have removed saddam and see what exactly we find.


My guesses are

1. Underground storage facilities with Tons of chemical weapons and warheads (i feel even more strongly about this after today's statement from a former lead Iraqi scientist)

2. I dont think we will find any true nuclear bomb in development, but i do feel we will find information and items relating to dirty bomb technology.

3. Contracts to france for 60 billion in oil (and you say we are in it for oil? laugh)

4. Evidence that germany has been selling iraq weapons in violation of sanctions placed against iraq for the kuwait thing.


Mawwle

[Tdayyen]

everyone knows saddam has broken all sorts of rules.. but why so concerned now? lots of other places have broken rules too..mostly with americas help...fact is.. america wants to attack him.. they will do it regardless of what happens.. all this stuff is just bs to justify the war and to get backing from the UN.. dont make out that america gives a fuck about people "freedom" and peace and shit

[yaarii]

Originally posted by Mawwle
You are completely wrong. Go read resolution 1441. It is very clear that Saddam is responsible for proving he destroyed the weapons everyone knows, and he admits, he had. He has not shown ANY proof.

Do you have any evidence of this? Please don't tell me you are quoting FoxNews and you actually have a URL containing the entire resolution 1441 document?


Incidentally, the 16 resolutions before 1441 said the same thing, all of which he has broken. The resolutions VERY CLEARLY put ALL of the responsibility on Iraq.

Yeah blah blah, it's all Iraq's fault. If the US wasn't so fucking pathetic at intelligence and special ops you wouldn't even be concerned about Iraq.

Oh he broke all the rules! Big fucking deal, where was the US when Rwanda broke the rules? Oh thats right, they don't have any oil, so half a million innocent people slaughtered is ok.


Having said that, i can see that i can't change your mind, and you cant change mine. Therefore we will have to wait a few weeks until after we have removed saddam and see what exactly we find.

Damn right you can't change my mind. I'm not some fucking brainwashed, FoxNews watching pleb who can't think for themselves. I know enough about foreign politics to realise this war against Iraq has NOTHING to do with weapons of mass destruction and EVERYTHING to do with the US failure to get results in the war on terror so far.


My guesses are

1. Underground storage facilities with Tons of chemical weapons and warheads (i feel even more strongly about this after today's statement from a former lead Iraqi scientist)

Even if that was "found", I would still seriously doubt it. Remember, the winner writes history...


2. I dont think we will find any true nuclear bomb in development, but i do feel we will find information and items relating to dirty bomb technology.

Doubtful.


3. Contracts to france for 60 billion in oil (and you say we are in it for oil? laugh)

Yeah and we all know the US would never change its foreign policy for oil....*cough* kuwait *cough*.


4. Evidence that germany has been selling iraq weapons in violation of sanctions placed against iraq for the kuwait thing.

Do you have any proof to back this up?

[Arri Skywolf]

He said his guesses. He doesn't have to provide proof because it's a guess, meaning he didn't say it was fact and that he could be wrong. It doesn't mean that he's stating it as a fact and that it's the written word of god.

Of course we can all identify with France's position. They make their case real well with most of the European Union backing up the United States and France throwing a hissy-fit and giving veiled threats to potential EU members.

Also if you think that Australia is not invadable, then you must believe that the Maginol(sp~) line was a successful safeguard for France against the Germans in World War 2.

[Mawwle]

Do you have any evidence of this? Please don't tell me you are quoting FoxNews and you actually have a URL containing the entire resolution 1441 document?

Just go to any search engine and type "resolution 1441".

It was only a few pages long, very easy reading, but it does refer to several of the previous resolutions and say that iraq must also abide by those. And yes i did read the entire thing before making my last reply. I had heard from several sources that it was Saddams job to provide the proof, the burden was all on him. So i read it for myself, and then posted my statement.

ANyway, gotta get to work (thats is that place people go to EARN a living :) )


Mawwle

P.S. I just bought a new 4 bedroom house sitting on a 1 acre lot :) Moving in a few weeks.

[yaarii]

Originally posted by Mawwle
Just go to any search engine and type "resolution 1441".

It was only a few pages long, very easy reading, but it does refer to several of the previous resolutions and say that iraq must also abide by those. And yes i did read the entire thing before making my last reply. I had heard from several sources that it was Saddams job to provide the proof, the burden was all on him. So i read it for myself, and then posted my statement.

Yeah I found it earlier. Doesn't actually give permission for a military strike as such. It more stresses the disarmament of Iraq rather than an attack on Iraq (which the US is stressing).


ANyway, gotta get to work (thats is that place people go to EARN a living :) )

Sometimes I feel sorry for people like you. You play nice in a system where anyone can break the rules. You are certainly smart enough anyway, but hey, it's your loss.


P.S. I just bought a new 4 bedroom house sitting on a 1 acre lot :) Moving in a few weeks.

Grats, I just bought a new car (Hello TT supra :) )

[Chauliodus]

Why do they need "permission' from anyone?

Their a sovereign nation, they can do as they please.

[Mawwle]

Grats, I just bought a new car (Hello TT supra )

Didn't you mean

"some nice hard working taxpayers just bought me a new car"???
(<<<<punches below the belt )

Mawwle

[Trayia]

Hey Mawwle! How you doing?


I think the US has a good case against Iraq. That's just my opinion. If you trust Saddam before you trust the US, then you have some serious issues. He can't be trusted. But I would have to say North Korea seems like more of a threat to us at the moment. They keep talking about how they would beat us in a nuke war. That's a little scarier. They are actually looking to start something. Maybe they are just calling our bluff. Who knows.

[Gink]

Also if you think that Australia is not invadable, then you must believe that the Maginol(sp~) line was a successful safeguard for France against the Germans in World War 2.

The Maginot line would've been a whole lot more successfull had the germans not just went around it. It only covered the border between Germany and France, and the Germans just went through the wide open hole in belgium.

[Arri Skywolf]

Exactly my point, sir. :)

[Gink]

Oh....I must look like a know-it-all idiot....

*steps down*

Forgive me, i've been delusional and running a fever of 104 since yesterday morning.

[Arri Skywolf]

I watch the History Channel alot :(

[yaarii]

Originally posted by Mawwle
Didn't you mean

"some nice hard working taxpayers just bought me a new car"???
(<<<<punches below the belt )

Partly. I get welfare, I have a legit part time job (heh they pay me $US17/hour to do pretty much nothing), and I have another not so legit part time job.

See I've realised that capitalism is about screwing as many people as possible in order to get ahead, and since I've adopted that philosophy I've been able to not only buy everything I want, I work less than other people and I tend to screw them up anyway.

Life is great :)

And as for the maginot line, thats quite different to Australia's defences. It's not so much that we have an impenetrable line, Indonesia (if they bought enough landing craft, which they don't have) could theoretically land at the top of Australia with almost no opposition.

The PROBLEM they then face is that they are literally 2000km's away from the rest of populated australia, so it creates a self-defeating logistical problem. If they rush towards the south west (a little populated pocket with a city called Perth), they need to cross over 3000km's of desert.

Now here-in lies the problem. In order for them to keep their troops going from Darwin to Perth supplied, they need trucks to deliver supplies (fuel, food, ammo, replacement parts etc etc). The further they get away from darwin, the less supplies they get because the trucks have to travel further and further. Eventually it gets to the point where they can't actually go anywhere.

As for the east coast, it would be a bitch to take, it's very hilly, forested. We have nutcase christian fundamentalists up north who live in compounds waiting for armaggedon (lol..), down south the military would basically play guerilla warfare against the under-supplied and over-worked invaders.

So yeah, it's basically unworkable. The only country with the ability to successfully invade Australia is the US, who could invade from the EAST. And we are allies with them, so not much chance of that happening.

[Tdayyen]

australia can be invaded its just that it would be a real pain in the ass to do it

[EinnnimD'Bane]

Well, I'll assume the role of the typical redneck american here... just for you Yaarii.


Bomb all of the sand niggas. Fuck the gookers over in Korea... North and South. Fuck the Nazi loving SOB Germans, and the French as well.

Drop bomb, ask the questions later. Saddam poses a threat.. kill him.. not that difficult for me to figure out.

Allow'n it to get too polotical just makes more headaches, and more discussion. No need for talk.. just finish...

Einnim D'Bane

[DArkfrost187]

So Yaarii your about telling is your proud to be a lazy piece of shit ???

Pieces of shit get chosen for war fast fool. Australia also is involved with us.

I won't be surprised if your in that hot desert soon....hey now you can be a real PKER !!!!
:D

[-kAmIkAzY-]

i agree and disagree with most of ur posts, i agree with the fact that we should just bomb fucking iraq, and afghanistan, and any other place where terrorists are hiding out at, but we shouldent just kill all the innocent ppl like "sand niggers and gooks". my dads from lebenon and im half american, so im half "sand nigger" but i dont give a shit because id ont care about little things like that, if we dont have some sand niggers in our country who will serve u at 7-11? who will pick u up when ur left stranded without a ride... kill the terrorists not the innocent, they should just snipe sadam or plan some little special co op mission and blast his ass, they need to stop discussing the subject and just fucking do something already, otherwise iraq will end up hitting us with some shit. oh and another thing, iraq knew that the U.S was going to come and search their weapons for nuclear or biochemical weapons, iraq knew about this months before they were going to check, they had time to hide all this shit in their caves and underground, god fucking U.S shoulda just surprised inspectioned them. Why does life have to be so fucked up? honestly im hoping something happens, im hoping a nuke comes and lands on me im tired of putting up with all this bullshit, just fucking do it already,



-Mahtar{55 Wizard RZ}
-Allikka{58 Rogue Rz }
-Zarriner{52 warrior RZ}

[DArkfrost187]

Yah I want to die so baddd !!! Nuke come kill me now !!! Get it over with !!!

Wow your cool Kamikazeee,you watch too much mtv,and listen to too much slipknot {Not that they arent the shit,which they are}

Hey weren't you the kid that hacked 400 accounts ????

[EinnnimD'Bane]

Ya hes the douchebag that hacked a bunch of acnts. He was played Zarriner or soemthing like that. SOme suck ass dwrf warrior. Hes a tool. Go back to Lebenon so our nukes can hit you too...

The 'real' Einnim...

I've no passion, and show no mercy.

[-kAmIkAzY-]

slipknot are the shit arent they? :), zar was my main at first btw, then got banned for rl threats, wutever i was just giving my opinion on the subject, i didnt flame u guys after u posted, so wutever, btw if neone plays cs and u think ur hot shit at it, im me on mudvayneojs or kamikazycs , ill whoop u up guud,

[yaarii]

Sid you're just jealous that I'm more successful than you. And I don't live in a shithole ghetto like you either.

As for Australia supporting the war on Iraq, I'm all for our CONSERVATIVE leadership supporting the US because they are committing political suicide. Also, we don't have conscription so I doubt I'd be in the ME, especially considering that within a year I won't even be living in australia according to the govt (hello tax-free income!) :)

[DArkfrost187]

ROFL More successful Yaarii ??? OMG I just spilt my ghetto beer on my gangsta pants !!!!

Bro I own my own nightclub now for your info,and I live in a pimp ass crib in one of the richest hoods in Ohio 15 minutes from Cleveland.

What are you smoking ??? How is your ass more successful working partime,and collecting from the Government like some piece of shit sloth to society ???

Bro I work,and I work hard unlike your lazy ass. Your a subhuman man.
God doesn't like Sloths,it's one of the seven sins to mankind.

I hope your mullet wearing,jobless ass burns in fucking hell....

Your a waste bro. How is someone successful taking instead earning.

I know that ther majority of people that are hard workers,and doing something productive in their life are shunning you left and right.

Your a bum,your a loser,and a waste to society.

Anyone that doesn't work in my devil book is a bum .....

Fuck Yaarii, I hope your lazy punk ass doesnt end up in America. We don't need no more bums.

Kamikazeee I don't give a fuck if your a Cory Taylor fanatic as I am. Your a piece of shit thief that hacked accounts.

Einnim D'Bane glad to see an old schooler Dber posting.....much props :D

[Mawwle]

I don't think i have ever enjoyed reading a good old fashion "darkfrost flame" as mush as the last one, lol.

And Yarrii, for someone who loves socialism, you sure do seem awefull happy about "tax free income". I suppose though , like most socialists, your only happy when its OTHER people that have to pay the bills, and not you.


Mawwle

[DArkfrost187]

Mawwle how you been homie heh
:D

[yaarii]

Yeah sure you do Sid, it's the net, why not make up an even better lie - you own a nightclub, rofl! Weren't you just some ghetto stripper a few months ago?

As for my tax-free income, it's my protest at my taxes being spent on the fucking rich, all that happens now is that they cut welfare/health/education to pay for subsidies/tax cuts for the rich.

I don't like the system, so fucked if I'm going to contribute. And unlike most of you right-wing morons, I'm smart enough to know how to FUCK the system (for example, with clever use of a friend's new zealand id, I am going to make myself non-existant to the Australian Tax Office, and all it requires is 1 day to go to NZ and have my passport stamped). And that isn't the half of it. I have a legitimate job that I use as a cover for every single scam I do. Why do I own a $40k car? Well if I was unemployed it would be suspicious, but I can just claim I saved up with my legit job's income etc. Not to mention the fact that I have a helluva lot more FREE TIME, because non-legit income is so much more profitable per amount of effort. Mawwle I'm guessing you work 40+ hours a week? Guess what, I work less than 20, including my legit job.

If you really hated the system that much, you wouldn't contribute. I remember you talking about how if all the rich people stopped contributing it would fuck people like me, well go on I say. I'm doing exactly the same thing, theres no fucking way I'm gonna be flipping burgers for $13/hour at mcdonalds and giving YOU a healthy profit. In case you haven't noticed, I fucking hate the current system :)

So yeah basically - sid, you are all talk, and mawwle, you are also all talk.

[DArkfrost187]

Yes I do Yaarii heres the facts fool. I stripped for 8 years,and went 3 with two other friends on opening a club.

Now know your role and shut your outback,mullet sporting yapper. Facts fool,and listen good, Kangaroo hugger.

My father is a wealthy man,and owns everything he wants in Real Estate,so do the math.

Also I picked a location near one of the best campuses in Ohio,so shut your mouth

I made lots of ks from dancing,a dancer makes lots of money fool.

Mawwle also is a successful man with a wife,and kids,and a damn good job.

So no we don't come on here and lie that we made it good in life. Man if I was a laazy bum like you are,and leached off the government I wouldn't even come on here bragging about it.

I would be fucking embarrassed to tell the people on EQ that I am a piece of shit to society.

If you ever wanna see my club,take a bath,and come to america,and I'll hook you up with a Fosters,but nothings freee....do I look like the Australian Government ???

:p :p :p

[yaarii]

So in other words, your daddy set you up with a nightclub. Well done, you just made yourself look like a spoilt brat.

And you, being the complete and utter dipshit you are, failed to see my point. I don't contribute to society because I hate the way it is structured, do you get it? I could hold a middle class job, buy a family sedan and a boring house in suburbia, but I choose not to. I live in a relatively expensive inner-city yuppie area, I have 3 incomes which ALL screw the system, and generally just do whatever the fuck I like most of the time. Now that is living with principle, unlike you, who is just a daddy's boy. I wonder how long it'll be till your nightclub goes broke due to your constant stupidity?

As for Mawwle, he doesn't hold is principles high enough. He bad-mouths being taxed and how much the system screws him, yet he won't actually do anything about it. He just continues to whine and pay tax. (oh and btw Mawwle, a 4 bdrm house on a large lot isn't uncommon here, hell theres 2x 5bdrm houses just across the road from me with city views etc). I mean ffs Mawwle, if you really wanted to show the system it's unfair, go buy yourself a huge plot of land out in montana and become a non-contributor to society and live off the land. But I know you won't, because you're nice luxury car is too precious, and your hdtv, and your cable tv, and your nice house with all the amenities etc. Funny, huh?

[Trayia]

I'd rather look like a spoiled brat than a lazy bum who doesn't work. :)

[yaarii]

Maybe you should learn to read, because I've already said multiple times that I work.