USA has gone mad

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 15, 2003, 4:16 pm

Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the council it would be impossible to give Iraq a clean bill of health unless it provided more "proactive" cooperation by shedding light on the status of several banned weapons programs.

Blix spoke to reporters before briefing the Security Council on the progress of inspections and assessments of Iraq's 12,000-page weapons declaration, which he and other inspectors have said leaves many questions unanswered.

Ahead of the briefing, Blix said "a more profound reading" of Iraq's weapons declaration confirmed inspectors' initial impression a month ago that it was incomplete.

"We think that the declaration failed to answer a great many questions," he told reporters.

He said Iraq had not replied to his requests for the answers made since the declaration. "Iraq may have more to say. I hope so," he said.

"Iraq's cooperation with inspections to date has been legalistic and superficial," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte told the council behind closed doors, "but it is far short of the genuine cooperation the council had demanded."

Yep, Iraq sure is fully cooperating. And questioning inspectors w/o one of Saddam's soldiers present? The Iraqi goverenment said they could, but each person had the option of refusing. Somehow I doubt it's much of an option.

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » January 15, 2003, 4:21 pm

From CNN:
President Bush made clear that he was losing patience with Saddam. Bush told reporters the burden of proof is on Iraq -- not the inspectors -- to produce any weapons of mass destruction it might have.

Hmmm - guilty until proven innocent? I'm not saying Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, but what are they suppose to do if they don't have any when Dubya insists that he won't relent until they hand them over? How exactly is Iraq suppose to prove they don't have any if they don't have any?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 15, 2003, 4:41 pm

A very good start would be to explain what they did with the ones they were given, and explain how they dismantled the manufacturing facilities the inspectors made note of just a few years back.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 15, 2003, 4:45 pm

Wulf,

Telling the inspectors where the weapons are cached would in no way stop a war.

I'm sure it would garner the U.S. more support for forcefully disarming Saddam, but I fail to see how proving the weapons exist would STOP a war. Revealing the information would have the effect of them being moved immediately and make them much harder to target and destroy.

Now if we could prove they DIDN'T exist, that would stop a war. Proving they exist would only be a justification for pursuit of hostilities.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 15, 2003, 5:00 pm

Fallanthas wrote:A very good start would be to explain what they did with the ones they were given, and explain how they dismantled the manufacturing facilities the inspectors made note of just a few years back.

Well obviously, they used quite a few of them on the Kurds.

Many of the facilites were destroyed by american bombs in the Gulf War.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 15, 2003, 5:04 pm

That takes how much documentation to demonstrate?

We are getting zero answers on either point.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » January 15, 2003, 5:06 pm

Brotha wrote:Saddam has time and again ignored UN resolutions. To everyone saying "Let the inspectors do their jobs", guess what- SADDAM ISN'T LETTING THEM. He's NOT giving unfettered access and the UN inspectors are being held up. Whether you think us being in Iraq is immoral or whatever is irrelevant. The UN has made resolutions that Saddam is NOT complying with, nor will he comply with.

Check out your claim which you called FACT (sic). None of your quotes backs up this claim. All of those dealt with the US' new thing about "pro-active cooperation" which deals with paper trails, not the actual inspections. IMO the US can STFU about proactive cooperation when they are moving 250000 troops to the region.

The inspectors have not been denied or delayed at all since they've gone back in.

Fallanthas wrote:Now if we could prove they DIDN'T exist, that would stop a war. Proving they exist would only be a justification for pursuit of hostilities.

Bingo.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 15, 2003, 5:08 pm

Fallanthas wrote:That takes how much documentation to demonstrate?

We are getting zero answers on either point.

From what I have read, most of the weapons and facilites have been accounted for. There are however some discrepancies.

Saying that the weapons inspectors have gotten "zero answers" is a gross exaggeration.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » January 15, 2003, 5:15 pm

The article would carry more weight with me if the author further explained why being the oil business makes people untrustworthy by default.

I mean if you can't have a history in the oil business and run for politics then hell, half of Texas is disqualified.

Bush opponents implying that these guys did something underhanded and were trying to sweeten up some multilateral deal with the illuminatii to secure precious oil resources, are arguing from a laughable soap box.

Maybe they've watched to many X-files episodes.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 15, 2003, 5:16 pm

You're right Forthe, I couldn't find a quote showing the inspectors were being held back anywhere. I read/watch a ton of stuff and could have sworn there was a time when I read this, but I could be mistaken. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong...

The fact still remains though, that Iraq is not fully cooperating and living up to it's agreements.

From what I have read, most of the weapons and facilites have been accounted for. There are however some discrepancies.

Some discrepancies meaning thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons not being accounted for? Weapons that when inspectors left in 98 they saw w/ their own eyes?

Post by **Xouqoa** » January 15, 2003, 5:19 pm

http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/FP/projects/nucwcost/madm.htm wrote:The carrying case for the W54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM). The SADM had a yield of 0.01, or 0.02-1 kiloton and was operationally deployed between 1964 and 1988. The entire unit weighed less than 163 pounds (74 kilograms).

The explosive yield on the SADM is very very miniscule. Certainly enough to kill people and destroy a few buildings, but not large enough to do the widespread devestation that terrorists would like to see. In comparison, the two bombs used in WW2 had an explosive yield of 20,000 tons. It would take at least a 1 megaton bomb to devestate a city probably, and a single (or small group) of people aren't going to be able to transport it openly without notice. A more realistic concern is a "dirty bomb" which could quite easily be made to fit in a small container such as a suitcase.

Edit: kiloton to megaton.. whoopsies.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 15, 2003, 5:28 pm

Even dirty bombs aren't that big of a concern, Xou.

They would have to be detonated ariborne in order to create a long enough plume to affect more than a small area.

Don't forget though, a truck would make a handy delivery device for most of Europe. This isn't about whther we can be attacked in the U.S.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » January 15, 2003, 5:29 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:The article would carry more weight with me if the author further explained why being the oil business makes people untrustworthy by default.

It is called conflict of interest.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 15, 2003, 5:31 pm

Some discrepancies meaning thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons not being accounted for? Weapons that when inspectors left in 98 they saw w/ their own eyes?

Sorry, I'm gonna have to call you on that.
Please provide some factual evidence that THOUSANDS OF TONS of bio/chem weapons are unaccounted for.

*edit*
And not some links to 4-5 year old articles.

Post by **Xouqoa** » January 15, 2003, 5:34 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Even dirty bombs aren't that big of a concern, Xou.

They would have to be detonated ariborne in order to create a long enough plume to affect more than a small area.

Don't forget though, a truck would make a handy delivery device for most of Europe. This isn't about whther we can be attacked in the U.S.

Detonated airborne or from the top of a large building... airborne would be best but from a building or even on the ground would still have some pretty negative effects.

And yeah, a truck would be pretty easy for somewhere in Europe.. I was talking about the portability of a bomb to get it over here, though. Again, it's not impossible... just somewhat unlikely.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 15, 2003, 5:40 pm

Xouqoa wrote:
http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/FP/projects/nucwcost/madm.htm wrote:The carrying case for the W54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM). The SADM had a yield of 0.01, or 0.02-1 kiloton and was operationally deployed between 1964 and 1988. The entire unit weighed less than 163 pounds (74 kilograms).
The explosive yield on the SADM is very very miniscule. Certainly enough to kill people and destroy a few buildings, but not large enough to do the widespread devestation that terrorists would like to see. In comparison, the two bombs used in WW2 had an explosive yield of 20,000 tons. It would take at least a 1 kiloton bomb to devestate a city probably, and a single (or small group) of people aren't going to be able to transport it openly without notice. A more realistic concern is a "dirty bomb" which could quite easily be made to fit in a small container such as a suitcase.

Umm notice it had a changable yield from .02 to 1 kiloton? This means it is in fact a 1 kiloton yield weapon. 1 kiloton is 1/10 of a Hiroshima, and it would cause significant damage setoff in a metropolitan central area.

If you meant to say "It would take at least a 1 MEGATON bomb to devestate a city probably" rather than kiloton, your assumption is partially correct, but 1000 tons of tnt ( 1 kiloton) would seriously smack any major urban area. Not to mention that one tenth as bad as Hiroshima as a standard is rather devastating.

Post by **Xouqoa** » January 15, 2003, 5:45 pm

Oops, yeah I meant Megaton.

I saw the .01 or .02-1 kiloton notation but thought the 1 was just marking it as in "one hundredth of one kiloton" or "two hundredths of one kiloton", not that it was adjustable.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 15, 2003, 5:51 pm

Brotha wrote:Do I need to start fucking quoting Blix and other inspectors? I know the popular thing on this board is to do google searches to look uber.

yeah all those fucking gimps that substantiate their arguments with supporting facts. hahaha losers

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » January 15, 2003, 5:54 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:
Brotha wrote:Do I need to start fucking quoting Blix and other inspectors? I know the popular thing on this board is to do google searches to look uber.
yeah all those fucking gimps that substantiate their arguments with supporting facts. hahaha losers

lol lamers wasting their time researching. all u have 2 du is say FACT IN CAPS LIKE THIS and that makes it true.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » January 15, 2003, 6:03 pm

Forthe,

The job of President covers all things American. So if someone previous to the presidency worked in ANY industry by your definition they'd be in a conflict of interest.

Think about it, if Bush and friends were cooking up some shady dealings with Iraqi oil the press would be all over it like rabid jackels. If it was true where's the headlines? This implication is more rationally explained as an bitter opinion columnist throwing a temper tantrum.

Pilsburry · Post by **Pilsburry** » January 15, 2003, 6:36 pm

I can't beleive someone here said they aren't spoonfed anything?

Have they even met anyone who has been to Iraq? For all they kno the media made up Iraq and Saddam is an actor. The media and Goovernment owns you. There is very little you see/read in the media that you can trust 100%.

Now granted a hoax like a make-beleive contry would probably be outside of thier reach, but certaintly the majority of information we are hearing about these issues with Iraq can be atleast exaggerrated and some items just plain not true.

Even if they claim it as a fact and back it up with more "evidence" the evidence can be in fact be another lie or exaggeration.

So sure maybe you don't take a popular side or you thought about it more in depth.....but we are all spoon fed.

Besides that statement I have little to say about this except one thing.

If we didn't mess around in other countries affairs so much, the majority of the uneducated bomb-vest wearing mother fuckers in the middle east wouldn't know we exist. There is a reason for the 9/11 incident, we keep playing king of the hill and someone else wants to be the king of the mountain and stand on the top, sure it has no fucking meaning, but that's what they want to do. If we weren't up there yelling and taunting like jackasses they would push someone else down off the top of the hill.

How many terrorist attacks from outside oranizations does an isolationist type contry deal with? Like Switzerland?

Sure they are less famous around the globe.....I don't think they give a shit. And I think that type of attitude is great.

Hey, do you know what region has the 2nd largest amount of crude oil after the middle east? USA baby. This definately wasn't about oil.

We could easily decrease the amount we depend on fossil fuels if we had to (and should). We don't all need big SUV's to ride around in solo style with us and our wallet or pocketbook as the only other cargo. We don't need preformance racecars to go on roads where going 0-60 in less then 10 seconds is called running in to the guy behind you. We don't need a car capable of going 150MPH to go 4 miles away behind a line of traffic moving at 60 MPH.

Americans (and I am one) are retarded. We have huge egos and violent tendancies (mainly to keep our ego fed it's critical to kick some ass periodically). We have to have the biggest, we have to have the fastest, and we have to have other people look to us in awe.

If the neighbor kids want to go out in the backyard and sling ice balls at eachothers heads, that's thier parents business. If we go out there were bound to have consequences like getting sued. Everyone is always looking for someone to put the blame on, best just not to even look in that direction, put up a tall fucking fence.

If an iceball comes over that fence and hits you, your family member or your window.....walk to the coat closet, get your baseball bat, walk around the fence ask who did it......whoever confesses or is pointed at, bash thier brains out. It won't happen again, not by that kid. If you can't figure out who did it, swing until your arms are tired...go inside and have a cup of hot chocolate.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 15, 2003, 6:43 pm

Hey, do you know what region has the 2nd largest amount of crude oil after the middle east? USA baby. This definately wasn't about oil.

World Crude Oil and Natural Gas Reserves, January 1, 2001
In billions of Barrels:

United States 22.0
Mexico 28.3
Venezuela 76.9
Russia 48.6
Libya 29.5
Nigeria 22.5
China 24.0

America's consumption of crude oil is roughly 9 million barrels per day.

Do you still think this has nothing to do with oil?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 15, 2003, 6:53 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Forthe,

The job of President covers all things American. So if someone previous to the presidency worked in ANY industry by your definition they'd be in a conflict of interest.

Think about it, if Bush and friends were cooking up some shady dealings with Iraqi oil the press would be all over it like rabid jackels. If it was true where's the headlines? This implication is more rationally explained as an bitter opinion columnist throwing a temper tantrum.

sure. but since the President, the Vice President, the National Security Advisor, etc all have made millions of dollars from that particular industry, it is different than just one person.

No it doesnt mean they have any untoward intentions, but it is a legitimate thing to be skeptical about.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 15, 2003, 6:57 pm

Fredonia Coldheart wrote:From CNN:
President Bush made clear that he was losing patience with Saddam. Bush told reporters the burden of proof is on Iraq -- not the inspectors -- to produce any weapons of mass destruction it might have.

Hmmm - guilty until proven innocent? I'm not saying Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, but what are they suppose to do if they don't have any when Dubya insists that he won't relent until they hand them over? How exactly is Iraq suppose to prove they don't have any if they don't have any?

Don't you people read these posts before you say the same thing over and over? Saddam is already guilty in the eyes of the UN from failing to prove he doesn't have anything. Nothing was done about it to this point except embargos and such.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » January 15, 2003, 7:14 pm

Sure be a sceptic, more power to you, but that columnist speaks as if his unproven gut feeling is true. This serves to lessen his credibility.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » January 15, 2003, 9:13 pm

I was doing a couple of Google searches, you know, to look uber and all, and I actually found some very entertaining tidbits...

http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html

Here's a story from 1998 that provides some more info regarding the above link...

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/15/un.iraq/

I wanted to find something about Scott Ritter, but I'm not sure which side of his waffle is the truth, if either of them are.

In the immortal words of Samir in Office Space ... THIS IS A FUCK!

(edit: speling > me)

masteen · Post by **masteen** » January 15, 2003, 10:36 pm

Of course this is about oil. It's just not ALL about oil. Hussein has been thumbing his nose at the UN for years.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » January 16, 2003, 2:21 am

Scott Ritter is anti-american.

edit: oops un-american my bad.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 16, 2003, 7:08 am

Nitpick:

Hiroshima Bomb (Little Boy) had a yield of 12-18 Kilotons
Nagasaki Bomb (Fat Man) was 20 Kilotons.

Biggest bomb ever detonated was a USSR Fusion (Hydrogen) Bomb with a yield of 58 Megatons.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » January 16, 2003, 8:49 am

Brotha wrote:Saddam has time and again ignored UN resolutions.

Israel and even the US have ignored UN resolutions in the past. By your logic the UN should invade about 30% of the countries in the world.

Midnyte wrote: Saddam is already guilty in the eyes of the UN from failing to prove he doesn't have anything.

One of the things I learned in my 5 years of studying philosophy is that non-existence cannot be proven. Just as I cannot prove that God does not exist, Saddam cannot prove that his weapons do not exist. The burden of proof falls on the shoulders of those who support existence. All Saddam can do is say "I don't have them, come and see" which is exactly what is happening right now.

Your argument, just like your president, is an utter failure. You have 3 points for your argument.

1) You link Iraq to 9-11, yet 15 of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, an enemy of Iraq. Why are we not breathing down Saudi's neck? <cough> Oil.

2) You claim of a threat of WMD, yet N. Korea is a MUCH MUCH bigger threat to the security of the US and/or even the nations surrounding it, like S. Korea who is our ally. But the N. Korea situation is a sticky one, isn't it? That kind of war, although actually noble and just, would cost way more American lives, and there's no "Spoil of War". <cough> Oil.

3) You claim that Saddam is a bad bad man cuz he gases his own people. Let's not forget that half the continent of Africa is littered with people like Saddam Hussein. Let's not forget that tyrants like this exist on every single hemisphere on the globe. You don't see us rushing to the Congo to help those poor starving people. Hmmmm.... <cough> Oil.

Every single one of your claims is so saturated with hypocracy that it sickens me. Surely, there is a better use for the mighty alliance of the United States and God.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » January 16, 2003, 9:03 am

Xyun wrote:You don't see us rushing to the Congo to help those poor starving people. Hmmmm.... <cough> Oil.

They aren't starving in congo. <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2661365.stm">UN condemns DR Congo cannibalism.</A>

Congo is a fucking embarrassment. I don't support interferring with the civil war but the UN already has observers there. If we find evidence of some of the insane crap being done to civilians by either side we should be prosecuting them.

Even threaten military consequences, emphasize to both sides, if they don't give up this shit. Diplomatic condemnation of cannibalism is fucking stupid.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » January 16, 2003, 9:23 am

hahahhahahahaha

Are you saying that we should take military action in teh Congo??

But there's no oil there!!

This is a humanitarian pipe dream, the US does not stand for what is good, they stand for what is profitable.

It's all about the Benji's baby.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 16, 2003, 10:37 am

Xyun wrote:hahahhahahahaha

Are you saying that we should take military action in teh Congo??

But there's no oil there!!

This is a humanitarian pipe dream, the US does not stand for what is good, they stand for what is profitable.

It's all about the Benji's baby.

You stupid fucking cumslut, I guess I went to fucking Rwanda because it had oil, I guess we went to Ethiopia because it had oil. Buy fucking clue or STFU.

Drolgin Steingrinder · January 16, 2003, 10:39 am

Puddle said:

Iraq has the international threat potential of American Samoa

Pud, if you know Samoseus like some of us do, you wouldn't make such a statement lightly. He is a potential threat to all living beings everywhere...

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 16, 2003, 10:58 am

I went to fucking Rwanda because it had oil, I guess we went to Ethiopia because it had oil

No you went on UN missions.
I'm not trying to belittle anything that was done there but don't pretend it was done out of US altruism.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 16, 2003, 11:22 am

vn_Tanc wrote:
I went to fucking Rwanda because it had oil, I guess we went to Ethiopia because it had oil
No you went on UN missions.
I'm not trying to belittle anything that was done there but don't pretend it was done out of US altruism.

And dont pretend it wasnt

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 16, 2003, 11:25 am

Kylere wrote:You stupid fucking cumslut, I guess I went to fucking Rwanda because it had oil, I guess we went to Ethiopia because it had oil. Buy fucking clue or STFU.

Those were UN actions. And if you actually were in the military instead of lying about it for some false credibility you'd realize that.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 16, 2003, 11:30 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:
Kylere wrote:You stupid fucking cumslut, I guess I went to fucking Rwanda because it had oil, I guess we went to Ethiopia because it had oil. Buy fucking clue or STFU.
Those were UN actions. And if you actually were in the military instead of lying about it for some false credibility you'd realize that.

It dosent matter if it was a UN or just US!! There were US troops there helping and im willing to bet OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS more US Troops then others not to mention money.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » January 16, 2003, 11:35 am

Parachuting a box of soup is slightly different then erraticating the warlords and making the place safe, but gj on your humanitarian missions in Africa you frothy nincompoop. You have done nothing to counter what I said tho.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 16, 2003, 11:43 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:Sure be a sceptic, more power to you, but that columnist speaks as if his unproven gut feeling is true. This serves to lessen his credibility.

Adex, I agree with you that the column is absolutely biased. It's an opinion piece, and should be interpreted as such. Same as listening to a talk radio guy like Rush Limbaugh. Personally, i think that it is over the top and I agree with you, i assign more credibility to those who can restrain the vitriol into a more fact driven argument (even if that isn't always my strong suit!).

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 16, 2003, 11:47 am

Cartalas wrote:It dosent matter if it was a UN or just US!! There were US troops there helping and im willing to bet OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS more US Troops then others not to mention money.

In UN operations, UN countries send soldiers to where the UN tells them to go. There were at least a dozen countries' forces in Rwanda. The only countries I've ever seen the US government involve themselves in out of a sense of altruism were all UN operations. All the rest have been clusterfucks like Vietnam and Lebanon that gave the US their reputation of international bullies. Usually the armed forces are there to put out fires the CIA started.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 16, 2003, 11:52 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:
Cartalas wrote:It dosent matter if it was a UN or just US!! There were US troops there helping and im willing to bet OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS more US Troops then others not to mention money.
In UN operations, UN countries send soldiers to where the UN tells them to go. There were at least a dozen countries' forces in Rwanda. The only countries I've ever seen the US government involve themselves in out of a sense of altruism were all UN operations. All the rest have been clusterfucks like Vietnam and Lebanon that gave the US their reputation of international bullies. Usually the armed forces are there to put out fires the CIA started.

I agree with you on some of the points, The U.S. does make some bad decisions in there foriegn policy as do other countries. But to continue belittling everything the U.S. does and not giving them credit on all the good they do is getting old.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » January 16, 2003, 12:13 pm

And you Xyun, have fallen into the logical fallacy of yelling "Well Bobby did worse to his frog!" after your mother caught you cutting the legs off of your frog.

Grow up boy. Life doesn't work that way. You take what action you can, when you can.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 16, 2003, 12:18 pm

And dont pretend it wasnt

Um, what? You really missed the boat on this one little fella. Now get off this thread before you get roadkilled.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » January 16, 2003, 12:19 pm

I guess I should realize that what I see as blatant fucking hypocracy is what you see as the epitome of good will towards men.

One man's shit is another man's dinner.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 16, 2003, 12:40 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:
Kylere wrote:You stupid fucking cumslut, I guess I went to fucking Rwanda because it had oil, I guess we went to Ethiopia because it had oil. Buy fucking clue or STFU.
Those were UN actions. And if you actually were in the military instead of lying about it for some false credibility you'd realize that.

You slimy worthless piece of fucking trash, how dare you even IMPLY that I did not serve the country that I love even with all of it's faults. I guess your goal here was to anger me, and guess what, you have accomplished it, congrats. Fucking ignorant liberal pansy piece of shit who gives a bad name to all canadians.

I have known whores with more intellectual capability than you possess on a good day.

Oh yeah, guess what, we were not the only country with troopies in Vietnam, you ignorant fluff.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 16, 2003, 12:43 pm

Xyun wrote:Parachuting a box of soup is slightly different then erraticating the warlords and making the place safe, but gj on your humanitarian missions in Africa you frothy nincompoop. You have done nothing to counter what I said tho.

What you said was that we only do things in self interest. If that was true, we would pull out of the UN, take over a few oil producing nations, and nuke whoever bitched about it until they glowed in the motherfucking dark.

However we spend billions on foreign aid, spend time and blood of our soldiers, and take flak from dumbasses right and left for trying to help out the world.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 16, 2003, 12:44 pm

Oh yeah, guess what, we were not the only country with troopies in Vietnam, you ignorant fluff

duhhhh... really?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 16, 2003, 12:59 pm

You aren't fooling anyone kylere. so solly that counterstrike doesn't count as serving your country. anyone with half a brain that reads the horseshit you post can tell you haven't been outside your state line, much less another country. There's nothing more fucking pathetic than tom clancy armchair militants like you. The fucking michigan militia would laugh their asses off at you if you tried to join.

save the BS. you insult the real men and women that serve in the armed forces for their country every time you speak about them. talk like that is for them, not internet blowhards like you that can't even tell the difference between a united nations police action and a US military operation.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 16, 2003, 1:13 pm

Kyoukan,

No sense in arguing with you, you have shown in the past the even in the face of irrefutable evidence you will maintain the belief that you are right and the world is wrong.

I served the US Army from June 9th 1988 to June 8th 1996, in the ranks of Private to Staff Sergeant, holding two MOS's and a instructor and airborne qualifier. Simple fact.