Why Bush is a coward

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 5, 2003, 1:25 pm

Because they are still in violation, still researching and procuring material to build more nukes.

Miir, that has got to be the most slanted piece of bullshit ever written. They did not remove the seals and cameras to produce electricity. They removed them as a threat. The fucking cameras do not affect the operation of the plant and the damn thing still isn't producing any electricity.

the IAEA has gone the length of clamoring about the
DPRK's "serious violation" to please the United States and threatening to
bring it to the un security council.

Fuck that. These bastards have been thumbing their noses at the security council over this issue for a decade and it's the US's fault that they are getting pressured? Here is a clue. they have been getting heat from the security council since nineteen-fucking-nintey-three!

Grow some nuts and try to see things from something other than an anti-US point of view.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 5, 2003, 1:31 pm

Zamtuk wrote:I have a question. Why did we quit sending NK oil?

Good question.

The seals were intact and the monitoring cameras were still in place at the yongbong facility when the heavy fuel shipments from the US were suspended in November.

The KEDO, that comprises the US, the European Union (EU), Japan and South Korea, is an international consortium administering the 1994 nuclear agreement with the DPRK. Under US pressure, the KEDO has also announced a decision to suspend fuel oil shipments to the DPRK from December

Some more interesting stuff:

It will be noted that the US drastically delayed the construction of the light water reactors it had promised to build, worked out a plan for a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the DPRK and listed the latter as part of an 'axis of evil.'

The US gravely insulted the spirit of the UN charter by listing a UN member nation as part of an 'axis of evil'. It also violated the basic spirit of nuclear non-proliferation by singling out nuclear-free states as the targets of pre-emptive US nuclear attacks

I'm aware of the proDPRK bias in those quotes, but it's no worse than the pro-USA bias seen in this thread.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 5, 2003, 1:34 pm

Grow some nuts and try to see things from something other than an anti-US point of view.

You have no issues with spewing youre pro-USA statements, but when someone dares to post a differing opinion, they are automatically tagged 'anti USA'?

I see you've bought right into the 'dubya' mentality.... if you're not with us, you're against us. I bet, you're gonna start listing 'miir' as part of the axis of evil now.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 5, 2003, 1:40 pm

Not at all, Miir. Dubya makes plenty of mistakes, and he has really fucked up on the DPRK issue. I don't have any problem pointing this out.

It will be noted that the US drastically delayed the construction of the light water reactors it had promised to build, worked out a plan for a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the DPRK and listed the latter as part of an “axis of evil.”

The US gravely insulted the spirit of the UN charter by listing a UN member nation as part of an “axis of evil.” It also violated the basic spirit of nuclear non-proliferation by singling out nuclear-free states as the targets of pre-emptive US nuclear attacks

I think you better give your source, because this is 100% horseshit.

1. The US did not delay the building of the reactors. The other members of KEDO haven't coughed up funds to build the goddamned things. Also, the north and south have butted heads in two serious incidents in the last six years and brought the whole project to a standstill both times.

2. The 'plan' for pre-emptive attack exists for every nuclear-capable country. It's called war strategy and contingency planning. Don't go off about NK being a non-nuclear country. They have reactors, they have at least two nukes and have spent the last five years procuring material to manufacture more.

You need to pay more attention to where you get your information from. The non-nuclear statement alone makes your source look utterly ridiculous.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 5, 2003, 1:46 pm

The non-nuclear statement alone makes your source look utterly ridiculous.

As stupid as Bush labeling a UN member as part of the 'Axis of Evil'?
As stupid as Bush provoking a nuke-capable country by stopping shipments of heavy fuel and having pre-emptive attack plans leaked?

The world does not revovle around the USA.
There are other sides to the story.
Putting your hands over your ears and screaming 'IM NOT LISTENING' doesn't improve your clarity.

I already stated that I know those quotes have an inherant bias.
Are you unwilling to accept the posibility that your USA based opinions might be tainted with a similar bias?

Post by **Xouqoa** » March 5, 2003, 1:53 pm

masteen wrote:Teh Axis of Evil speech was the single stupidest thing that Dubya did. At least we got a fucking hilarious SNL skit out of it...

Gummy Bears... yup, in the Axis of Evil!

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 5, 2003, 1:56 pm

As stupid as Bush provoking a nuke-capable country

So now they are a nuclear-capable country?

Make up your mind.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 5, 2003, 2:01 pm

Fallanthas wrote:
As stupid as Bush provoking a nuke-capable country

So now they are a nuclear-capable country?

Make up your mind.

Look man, stop being so eager to flame me and try to read what the fuck I am posting.

I posted a direct quote of an article with the simple comment of it being non american point of view, and you blast me like I was saying it was my opinion. I'm not slinging shit, I'm presenting other sides of the situation.

My opinion is irrelevant, I'm having too much fun exposing you as a closed minded, anti-anything-that-isnt-pro-usa, chest thumping, dubya follower who seems to think the USA can do no wrong.

Post by **Xouqoa** » March 5, 2003, 2:07 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:I was thinking about that today. I heard Ari Fleischer (that fucking glib little worm) on the radio today saying that Bush is ready to walk away from the security council if he doesn't get his way.

If he invades a foreign country without consent of the security council, isn't the UN obligated to defend that country?

It also amused me to hear that Bush is going to take his ball and go home if he doesn't get what he wants. It's kind of sad to see the president of the united states do the political equivalent of throwing an international tantrum. I guess that is what happens when you are the son of a billionaire who's had everything he's ever gotten handed to him on a silver plate.

This is one of my biggest concerns too. Bush keeps saying that the UN must disarm Iraq or risk becoming obsolete... I wonder if he means obsolete because he plans on invading Iraq anyway, and doesn't think the UN will try to stop him.

It would certainly be an interesting predicament if it did... I sometimes wonder about the mental prowess of Mr. Bush.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 5, 2003, 2:14 pm

He used the word "irrelevant" rather than obsolete.
An organisation representing pretty much every nation on earth, irrelevant. It's an astonishing thing to say but then the Bush Administration has been shooting it's mouth off pretty carelessly on all fronts lately.

Never mind the politics of the situation, I have grudging admiration for the French and Russians for taking a stand against the view that the security council should just rubberstamp whatever cowboy bullshit military activity the US fancies.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » March 5, 2003, 2:22 pm

I just had a mental image of Dubya giving the U.N. "THE HAND".

"Talk to the hand 'cause the face ain't list'nin'!"

Bush should make a movie with Queen Latifah, along the same lines as the one coming out with her and Steve Martin...call it "Bringing Down the White House".

miir · Post by **miir** » March 5, 2003, 2:26 pm

TALK TO THE HAND

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 5, 2003, 2:30 pm

Look Miir. I am doing my best not to flame you personally. I am pointing out that the position you are taking and the sources you are quoting don't agree at all.

By the way, I am still wating to see a source for those quotes.

Your source says the US has formulated nuclear pre-emptive strike plans for a non-nuclear country. You turn around in your very next post and admit that NK is nuke-capable.

Either you don't believe your own source or you aren't vetting your sources closely enough.

There is a large difference between posting a non-US point of view and posting an anti-US point of view.

As for being a chest-thumping Dubya fanatic, did I not just post that he screwed the pooch with that dumbfuck "Axis of Evil" crap? I also think he will make a serious mistake by going to war with Iraq AGAINST the UN.

Note: I do not mean waiting for UN approval for millitary action. That bunch of fools can't decide ont he lunch menu until well after dinner is over. I mean he would be a total ass to declare war if the UN tells him such a move would align him against the UN.

Let me make it easy for you.

1. Hussien needs to go. He has zero support outside his own country, and he is a friggin despot to his own people.

2. NK needs to shut the hell up and spend some of their annual budget feeding their people instead of building nukes.

3. Dubya needds to hire someone else to make speeches for him.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » March 5, 2003, 2:30 pm

USA now has 300,000 troops in the vicinity looks to me like all the questions regarding weapons of mass destruction will be answered shortly.

This will have to play out on CNN etc, live in order for the USA to have credible proof I would think.

It is a shame that in this day and age armed conflict seems to be the only viable alternative given the uncooperative nature of the Iraq government "lets give in just enough to keep world opinion on our side".

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 5, 2003, 3:00 pm

"lets give in just enough to keep world opinion on our side"

Inspectors found missiles. Iraq claimed they didnt break any rules. Inspectors say they do. Iraq destroys missiles i.e. complys.
The next day there are airstrikes.

Iraq reveals decommissioned and buried anthrax shells and destroys them more thoroughly. i.e. complies.
Then more troops are moved to the gulf.

Is it any wonder world opinion stays on his side?

I'm fully in favour of disarming Iraq through UN inspections while retaining the possibility military force should it become necessary.
But can anyone really expect the Iraqi regime to do anything other push the limit of the definitions of the rules laid down against them?
Telling someone to eat a plate of shit is just fine but the US's insistence that there will be war unless they smile sweetly and ask for seconds is just ludicrous. So is the talk about Iraq supporting Al-Qaeda because they refuse to throw out an enemy of an enemy who is in town for medical treatment, even though they don't much like each other.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 5, 2003, 9:54 pm

It is a shame that in this day and age armed conflict seems to be the only viable alternative given the uncooperative nature of the Iraq government "lets give in just enough to keep world opinion on our side".

No, it is a shame that you are such a fucking moron that you think the only viable alternative is war. If your balls were the size of your mouth, you'd be on the battlefield.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 6, 2003, 12:59 am

Xyun wrote:No, it is a shame that you are such a fucking moron that you think the only viable alternative is war. If your balls were the size of your mouth, you'd be on the battlefield.

What battlefield Rambo? There isn't even a fucking war.

And yes, I guess I just did stick up for Atokal.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 6, 2003, 1:47 am

War is NEVER the only option but there is a time for Peace and a time for action.

To those of you in Europe, anyone remember Nevil Chamberlin? or did you not get that far in History class?

At the time the US was VERY isolationist, not wanting to have anything to do with anyone unless they had to. We had enough problems here at home... However over a period of years the League of Nations listened to people like Nevil Chamberlin and others doing nothing about Hitler until it was too late. I'm not saying the British were wrong, at the time we were ALL guilty of ignoring the problem or beliving "good intentions" of others.

If History has taught us ANYTHING it's that most of the time people DO NOT change. From the UNs own psych profiles and reseach all we know that Saddam tortures his own people and has lied to the World time and time again. He gased thousand of his own citizens. Not solders but women and children. Some would argue that the US allowed this to happen because they didn't oust him in the Gulf war. Well sorry folks that wasn't the mission. Should we have gone ahead and removed him then? probably so, then we wouldn't be having this conversation now and many more innocent people would be alive.

Some of you probably think... ah Marb just buys hook-line-and-sinker into the American Media, BULLSHIT. Even as I proud American I know we have stuck our nose in many places we shouldn't have and done things for our own agenda (eg Iran, Guatamalla etc...) However I don't think this is one of those times.

On a final note lets look at Saddams War machine... Russian Tanks, Russian Planes, French Planes... hmm... Just like WW1 was a Family Fight between the Royality of Europe (to which Germany paid the ultimate price as the Allies set in motion Hitler's rise with the treaty). This back an forth bickering at the UN isn't about human lives, the UN KNOWs what Saddam is doing. The Frence and Russians don't give a damn about what is happening to the people in Iraq, they are taking care of the people in France and Russia... is that wrong... probably not. Hell we did it 60 odd years ago too... but look what happend. Do I think we don't have an agenda now? No I'm not that stuipd. Our agend is to keep Americans from being killed try to bring a little bit of stability to the region, which we will profit from greatly after the rebuilding effort I'm sure. But along with that, maybe as a side note but probably first in the minds of the actual solders is the idea of stopping the pain. More people disappear in Iraq each year than anywhere in the world... and the goverment (as noted in the UN Investigation) employees Rapists for subversion of both men and women. Not the place I want to rase a family...

Turning a blind eye to the murder of innocent people is never the right thing to do. Maybe it's me but Saddam follows too closley in the footsepts of Napolen, Hitler and Stalin... all of whom we now, hindsight being 20/20 and all, consider tyrents and should have been removed from power by whatever means... Can you people arguing against war really not see that? <sigh> who knows, I could be wrong.

Marb
"...looks around for rose colored glasses"

PS- Please fogive the spelling errors, Sudafed, NyQuil and Robotussin make one kind of woosey...

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 6, 2003, 2:07 am

The rundown of NK/US

Pretty interesting stuff here, that should resolve some of the debates here. (READ: Some)

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 6, 2003, 2:08 am

the only proof I've seen of saddam harming his own people is when he used chemical weapons on kurdish seperatists in norther iraq when they tried to declare their independence against the government.

by all accounts Iraq is one of the most moderate and free societies in islamic culture in the middle east.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 6, 2003, 2:19 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:by all accounts Iraq is one of the most moderate and free societies in islamic culture in the middle east.

I'd like to see the sources on that one.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 6, 2003, 3:26 am

what the hell? you need a "source" on the condition of an entire fucking country?

Hammerstalker PE · Post by **Hammerstalker PE** » March 6, 2003, 3:26 am

Xyun is a good judge of balls since he has them resting on his fucking chin all day.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 6, 2003, 6:08 am

You're right, I am a good judge of balls and yours are pequeno.

Kesafateh khar beshoo'ur nafahm

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 6, 2003, 6:46 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:what the hell? you need a "source" on the condition of an entire fucking country?

Since you're not "an entire fucking country," yes. Where did you get that information from?

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 6, 2003, 6:55 am

Why the U.N. headquarters is located in New York

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » March 6, 2003, 7:13 am

....try to bring a little bit of stability to the region....

Hate to burst your bubble, however, stability will not come from the US. The Arab community will make damn sure of that. They will not stomach seeing Iraq become a puppet state of the U.S. If any stability is to come to the region after Saddam's ousting, it would have to come from some sort of joint governing body among the neighboring Arab countries.

Besides, I think the US has proven that its track record for totally fucking things up speaks for itself (Noreiga, Castro, Pinochet, to name just a few).

More people disappear in Iraq each year than anywhere in the world... and the goverment (as noted in the UN Investigation) employees Rapists for subversion of both men and women

Not that it's really a big issue, but I am skeptical about the former remark. As for the latter, Iraq isn't alone in terms of this sort of punishment. I believe Pakistan and Afghanistan (among a few) have also been under the spotlight for this sort of thing. Read
this article if you forgot about this incident.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 6, 2003, 7:24 am

Pahreyia wrote:Since you're not "an entire fucking country," yes. Where did you get that information from?

fucking HUH?

why do I need a "source" to quote on the political and social well being of an entire nation? are you stupid?

look at middle eastern countries

which are living under draconic theocracies and shariah law?

which allows other religions than islam to practice freely?

which are police states where even free movement and gathering together in groups larger than three is sometimes restricted

which force women to wear clothing that covers their entire bodies and faces, and forbids them from getting an education, voting (if there are even elections), owning property, picking who they want to marry or even driving a car?

sorry I don't have a fucking link for you to click on which rates how free middle eastern nations are on a scale of 1 to 10. sometimes we have to learn things for ourselves though.

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » March 6, 2003, 7:57 am

Don't forget that Baghdad was one of the most well educated cities in the middle east. Amazing what some bombings and years of trade embargos can do to a country.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 6, 2003, 8:03 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:
Pahreyia wrote:Since you're not "an entire fucking country," yes. Where did you get that information from?
fucking HUH?

Those were your words.

why do I need a "source" to quote on the political and social well being of an entire nation? are you stupid?

No, just consider me not as well informed as you are, and interested in your source material.

look at middle eastern countries

Oh, ok... So what you meant to say is that your opinion is that Iraq is more moderate than most islamic countries. Ok.. That makes sense.

which are living under draconic theocracies and shariah law?

which allows other religions than islam to practice freely?

which are police states where even free movement and gathering together in groups larger than three is sometimes restricted

which force women to wear clothing that covers their entire bodies and faces, and forbids them from getting an education, voting (if there are even elections), owning property, picking who they want to marry or even driving a car?

Doesn't sound very free to me... except the practicing of other religions, which I see as a step in the "more free" than other islamic countries direction, but not much.

sorry I don't have a fucking link for you to click on which rates how free middle eastern nations are on a scale of 1 to 10. sometimes we have to learn things for ourselves though.

Ok, so that's all you had to say. I'll start looking it up.. Meanwhile, feel free to keep making unfounded arguments, or start backing your statements up. I'll welcome your input either way.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 6, 2003, 8:07 am

What Kyou was saying is that Iraq generally doesn't do those things. She is correct in stating Iraq is one of the most westernized countries in the region.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 6, 2003, 8:21 am

Xyun wrote:What Kyou was saying is that Iraq generally doesn't do those things. She is correct in stating Iraq is one of the most westernized countries in the region.

I still have yet to see where that equates to moderate and free. Or any place that backs up those points. I can recall watching a CNN documentary on Iraq that protrayed the country as very cut-and-dry Islamic. Definately better than Afghanistan was, but by "western" standards, pretty damn repressive.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 6, 2003, 9:17 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:
Pahreyia wrote:
Since you're not "an entire fucking country," yes. Where did you get that information from?

fucking HUH?

Those were your words.

Iraq is "an entire country". Kyoucan isn't. The state of an "entire country" is pretty easy to observe from readily available data in a multitude of places not least your average school geography book. You don't need to quote chapter and verse of any particular article.

Quote:
look at middle eastern countries

Oh, ok... So what you meant to say is that your opinion is that Iraq is more moderate than most islamic countries. Ok.. That makes sense.

No no no. If you measure a few easy to recognise factors it is obvious that this statement is true. Opinion doesn't enter into it.

Quote:
which are living under draconic theocracies and shariah law?

which allows other religions than islam to practice freely?

which are police states where even free movement and gathering together in groups larger than three is sometimes restricted

which force women to wear clothing that covers their entire bodies and faces, and forbids them from getting an education, voting (if there are even elections), owning property, picking who they want to marry or even driving a car?

Doesn't sound very free to me... except the practicing of other religions, which I see as a step in the "more free" than other islamic countries direction, but not much.

Well that's the fucking point. . .
Of the 5 points listed Iraq is guilty of only one - a police state. The others "don't sound very free" (your words). Bingo! They aren't very free. They are practised to a greater or lesser extent by most muslim coutries in the region EXCEPT Iraq.
Catching on yet?

Quote:
sorry I don't have a fucking link for you to click on which rates how free middle eastern nations are on a scale of 1 to 10. sometimes we have to learn things for ourselves though.

Ok, so that's all you had to say. I'll start looking it up.. Meanwhile, feel free to keep making unfounded arguments, or start backing your statements up. I'll welcome your input either way.

To be honest your total failure to grasp what Kyo was saying here makes me wonder if you'd understand even after being spoonfed.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 6, 2003, 10:44 am

If History has taught us ANYTHING it's that most of the time people DO NOT change

And since Saddam has never been directly linked to any terrorist activity, why does Bush seem to think he's the biggest terrorist threat in the world?

Saddam tortures his own people

He gased thousand of his own citizens. Not solders but women and children

The Kurds are Saddams enemies.
Makes no difference to him that they also happen to be iraqi.

Jews and Palestines both live on the same postage stamp size plot of land and they have been murdering each others civilians for decades.

On a final note lets look at Saddams War machine... Russian Tanks, Russian Planes, French Planes... hmm... Just like WW1

Are you that fucking stupid?
Both Russia and America were funding Iraqs wars.
How did Saddam gas all those Kurds? Thats right, with chemical weapons made in the good ole USA.

Turning a blind eye to the murder of innocent people is never the right thing to do

This is not about human rights violations.
Is the USA going to invade china next because they have been guilty of more human rights violations in the past 20 years than any other contry in the world?

Maybe it's me but Saddam follows too closley in the footsepts of Napolen, Hitler and Stalin...

You've been brainwashed by your media and your government into thinking that Saddam is the antichrist.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 6, 2003, 10:50 am

Iraqis have an incredible amount of freedom when compared to countries like Saudi Arabia or Kuawit.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 6, 2003, 10:52 am

Thats not saying much~ Thats like saying someone in medium security prison has more freedom than someone in a maximum security prison. Big fucking deal, your still in prison getting anal raped...eh Masekle~

miir · Post by **miir** » March 6, 2003, 11:41 am

Gurugurumaki wrote:Thats not saying much~ Thats like saying someone in medium security prison has more freedom than someone in a maximum security prison. Big fucking deal, your still in prison getting anal raped...eh Masekle~

It's all relative.
People are always trying to place western standards on people from other cultures.

It may seem to us that Iraqis are repressed and have no freedom.... in acutality, Iraq is frowned upon by most of it's muslim neighbours due to their secualr govenrment and religious tolerance.

Christians are allowed to practice their religion in Iraq.
They would be arrested and thrown in prison if they tried that in Saudi Arabia.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 6, 2003, 11:44 am

I think we can agree on one thing, it is unfair...although their "belief" allows for it.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 6, 2003, 11:58 am

What battlefield Rambo? There isn't even a fucking war.

Can be debated I suppose. There are 4000 special forces inside Iraq atm and bombing runs happen almost daily.

I disagree with comparing 1930s Europe to the current situation. During the 1930s Europe demilitarized a lot, and did not rebuild it in time. This is not happening now. Also, the whole world was different since there were still several major powers. Now, we only have one: USA. Germany was in the 1930s (as was Japan) a major power and threat military wise. Iraq is not, and it can be argued that North Korea is more of a defensive nation than offensive.

I personally see more differences than similarities between pre-WWII and our current situation.

He gased thousand of his own citizens. Not solders but women and children

And during the Civil War Americans killed Americans. It is what happens in a Civil War. It's ugly.

Stability in the Middle East wont come from USA, the region hates the country too much. To stabilize the region you need to solve the Israel/Palestine conflict, and I personally believe it wont happen without major UN involvment with a major peace keeping force.

If you want to look at a country with less freedom than Iraq look no further than your best buddy Saudi Arabia. Which, btw, is the largest terrorist sponsor in the world...

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 6, 2003, 2:32 pm

I don't think Iraq is a police state either.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 6, 2003, 2:36 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:I don't think Iraq is a police state either.

I'm pretty sure Iraqis can move around freely within Iraq.

Arsecn · Post by **Arsecn** » March 6, 2003, 8:31 pm

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 6, 2003, 9:07 pm

DO you guys enjoy beating your head against a brick wall because thats what your doing.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 7, 2003, 7:42 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:
I don't think Iraq is a police state either.

I'm pretty sure Iraqis can move around freely within Iraq.

Sure but the B'athe party runs a secret police system that surpresses political opposition. While not exactly the meaning of 'police state' it was closer to that than not, IMO.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » March 7, 2003, 7:59 am

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 7, 2003, 11:40 am

At least a brick wall can provide aesthetic value.

This discussion has become simply inane. Those who wish to bury their heads in Saddam's ass will continue to do so, no matter how many containers of KILL YOUR ASS IN A HEARTBEAT gas are dug up out of the sand at his feet.

Enjoy yourselves, folks.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » March 7, 2003, 1:49 pm

Xyun wrote:
It is a shame that in this day and age armed conflict seems to be the only viable alternative given the uncooperative nature of the Iraq government "lets give in just enough to keep world opinion on our side".
No, it is a shame that you are such a fucking moron that you think the only viable alternative is war. If your balls were the size of your mouth, you'd be on the battlefield.

Listen closely boy,

Your family fled a bad situation (IIRC) and moved to the United States of America so you could have a better life. You piss and moan daily about how horrible the country you live in is and the government that runs it. You then shoot your big fucking mouth off about me heading off to some imaginary battlefield to prove my point.

Based upon this logic you should pack your little bag, your peace signs, t-shirts with USA suxorz and don't forget the big fucking target on your ass, go to Iraq and be a human shield put your imaginary balls on the line or STFU.

Hammerstalker PE · Post by **Hammerstalker PE** » March 7, 2003, 1:59 pm

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

Listen closely boy,

Your family fled a bad situation (IIRC) and moved to the United States of America so you could have a better life. You piss and moan daily about how horrible the country you live in is and the government that runs it. You then shoot your big fucking mouth off about me heading off to some imaginary battlefield to prove my point.

Based upon this logic you should pack your little bag, your peace signs, t-shirts with USA suxorz and don't forget the big fucking target on your ass, go to Iraq and be a human shield put your imaginary balls on the line or STFU.

The difference between you and me toker, is that while you have spent all of your life in peace and relative comfort, I have spent mine striving to attain and keep what you have. You on the one hand, have no clue what war involves, and the closest you'll ever come is playing paintball with your other adolescent friends. Me, on the other hand, well I've heard bombs explode outside my house, I've heard gunfire that went on for days at a time, I've had to hide under houses, in attics, and numerous other places in order to... STAY ALIVE, all this before I reached the age of 7. War is what destroyed my family, war is what took my father, war is what made the entirety of my life a fucking struggle.

Now that I have attained freedom and realizing all the sacrifices my family and I had to make to get here, I don't take it for granted. In fact, I exploit it. And guess what? I will fight and die for it. That would be a cause worth going to war for. You say that I complain about how horrible this country is, but you can't back up this claim because I NEVER FUCKING SAID IT. The government? You are goddamned right I'm going to complain. I'm going to protest every little thing I disagree with because that is my damned right, and I fucking earned it.

"A government by the people, for the people".

This idiotic government is going to war for an unjust cause. The only just causes for war in my mind are self-preservation or liberation. No sane American believes their life is directly threatened by Iraq. Furthermore, Iraqis don't want to be "liberated" and certainly not by the United States. Since neither of these criteria are met, I have to conclude that this government's war is wrong. By wrong I mean it is contrary to conscience, morality, and law. It is evil, immoral, wicked, unfair, and unjust. I only see the aftermath. I see how they will have done to others what was done to me. I see a generation of Iraqis, Muslims, and middle-easterners growing up to hate America as a result of this, and I see more terrorism, more hate, and more war. And all of this because a corrupt politician weaseled his way into power and forced his beliefs on the world. How is it that so many people do not see this and I do?

I figure the reason is that I exercize logic when I come to these conclusions. It is humorous to me that bafoons like you throw around the word logic like it's your favorite baseball. If you knew logic, if you understood logic, if you studied it (as I have), then you would realize that your belief regarding this matter is just that, a belief. But go ahead and follow the God that failed, go ahead and be a burden to humanity, and when all is said and done and both of us have died, you will be in heaven and I will be in hell.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » March 8, 2003, 9:19 am

your maschera is running.