Funks Challenge -2 of 3- World Police - ends Mar 20th

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 21, 2008, 1:23 pm

2- The U.S's role as the world police (should we continue helping/getting involved with conflicts around the world or keep to ourselves.)

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 21, 2008, 3:49 pm

I have no problem with the US involved on important issues.. As long as it's a unanimous decision by the other countries of the world to do so. The United Nations seems to becoming less important with each passing year.

However I don't think the US should just go in and do what they want wherever and whenever they want.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 21, 2008, 4:02 pm

What Aslanna said minus 100% agreement. Nothing would ever get done if it needed 100% agreement.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 21, 2008, 4:54 pm

By unanimous I mean by a clear majority. I never said (or meant) 100% agreement.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 21, 2008, 5:03 pm

Aslanna wrote:By unanimous I mean by a clear majority. I never said (or meant) 100% agreement.

Okay, but unanimous implies 100%. I'm cool with majority.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 21, 2008, 7:07 pm

Have to agree w/ Midnyte on the definition...

I think it's a little naive to think the US will act outside it's own interests, I'd be happy if they just stopped trying to pretend we should be grateful.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 21, 2008, 7:23 pm

Ok, fine. I ammend my post to clarify that I meant a majority and not 100% agreement.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 21, 2008, 7:51 pm

I actually believe it is a good thing the US has taken it upon itself to police the world. We are a rich nation. Filthy fucking rich. Sticky nasty drippy soiled our pants rich. We can afford it. So lets do it. If every conventional war from here on out is a 100 hour rush through followed by years of occupation, then the price is by far cheaper than revisiting ole dubbyadubbya-two.

circa 3300 american dead > 700,000 dead.

700,000 Iraqis (if that is the number) > 20 million (russians) in the old days.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 21, 2008, 7:56 pm

Noysyrump wrote:I actually believe it is a good thing the US has taken it upon itself to police the world. We are a rich nation. Filthy fucking rich. Sticky nasty drippy soiled our pants rich. We can afford it. So lets do it. If every conventional war from here on out is a 100 hour rush through followed by years of occupation, then the price is by far cheaper than revisiting ole dubbyadubbya-two.

circa 3300 american dead > 700,000 dead.

700,000 Iraqis (if that is the number) > 20 million (russians) in the old days.

That would be impressive, if it was in some way vaguely related.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 21, 2008, 8:18 pm

That would be impressive, if it was in some way vaguely related.

How is it not related?

We are the 'world police' not to make sure noone does bad things, but to maintain the status quo. Keep Taiwan free. Keep a balance of power in the middle east. Keep china's expansion purely economic, and not spacial. All enforced, with a 340 billion dollar a year stick.

As I mentioned in another thread, what would have happened in 1990 had we not been the big boy. Hussein's invasion of Saudi Arabia could have been succesful. Thus funding a larger and better Iran/Iraq war, thus creating a super power in the middle east, wich would have continued to grow, and had we not been able to stomp them like we did, it could have been a loooooong drawn out war to stop the persian/arabian from expanding to ottoman empire size.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 21, 2008, 8:29 pm

Noysyrump wrote:As I mentioned in another thread, what would have happened in 1990 had we not been the big boy. Hussein's invasion of Saudi Arabia could have been succesful.

Kuwait. Not Saudi Arabia. He figured he had a chance at getting away with that. To consider invading SA would have been completely mental.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 21, 2008, 8:36 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Noysyrump wrote:As I mentioned in another thread, what would have happened in 1990 had we not been the big boy. Hussein's invasion of Saudi Arabia could have been succesful.
Kuwait. Not Saudi Arabia. He figured he had a chance at getting away with that. To consider invading SA would have been completely mental.

Google Khafji. It is a Saudi town on the border. It was intended to be a major invasion. It failed, because weeks of bombing had destroyed or crippled Iraqi communications. The Saudis were then able to repell the attack with relative ease.

here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khafji

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 21, 2008, 8:54 pm

Right, the 700k Iraqi's killed in the last few years are not related to 1990, or to WWIII

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 21, 2008, 9:03 pm

Zaelath wrote:Right, the 700k Iraqi's killed in the last few years are not related to 1990, or to WWIII

Well not directly. You are correct, in a manner os speaking. The point I am trying to make, is that it is ONLY 700k. Had this been not a one sided contest, the numbers would have been far worse, on both sides. I'm not in any way justifying the deaths, Im trying to say they are actually quite low as compared to previous wars. Circa 2 million Viatnamese between 65 and 71? Almost the same time span and numbers are LOWER.

Be right back gotta check that Vietnam number.

Ok I'm seeing 1,100,000 on http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html wich may refute everything I've just said...

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 21, 2008, 9:11 pm

HAHA, sorry had to post this. A comparison of US casualty rates between this war and....

Bill clinton's presidency.

When we can liberate a nation with the world's 4th largest standing army suffering fewer casualties than we suffered during the "era of peace" in the mid to late 1990's, the world should take notice.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 21, 2008, 9:22 pm

It is rather difficult to find Iraqi casualties on the web, apparently few people care. But this sight http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx used published numbers to get circa 40k. That's far lower than your 700k. Where did you get your number?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 21, 2008, 9:23 pm

where were they dieing? (during Clinton)

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » February 21, 2008, 9:32 pm

Ok, your image with no source means jack shit. However, why would you compare the whole Clinton presidency to just the Iraq war? What about Afghanistan? or everything else?

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 21, 2008, 9:33 pm

Fash wrote:where were they dieing? (during Clinton)

Training, accidents, minor attacks (such as Serbia, africa)

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 21, 2008, 9:33 pm

Noysyrump wrote:HAHA, sorry had to post this. A comparison of US casualty rates between this war and....

Bill clinton's presidency.

When we can liberate a nation with the world's 4th largest standing army suffering fewer casualties than we suffered during the "era of peace" in the mid to late 1990's, the world should take notice.

It's less than convincing that the numbers are even accurate in that graph, when the axis has been manipluated blatanty to give the visual impression that the casualties are dramatically lower than the are.

Perhaps you could google "right wing propoganda" and just vomit that onto the board to save Midnyte the trouble later?

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 21, 2008, 9:34 pm

Aardor wrote:Ok, your image with no source means jack shit. However, why would you compare the whole Clinton presidency to just the Iraq war? What about Afghanistan? or everything else?

I posted that because it was funny. I'm not championing it. Afgan numbers are fewer than iraq, in what I've seen, but not negligable.

EDIT: rereading this post, I noticed It makes it appear that I think US deaths are funny... I DO NOT. it's the idea of comparing per year deaths of this war vs 'peace time' clinton years concept that I thought funny... dont hate me.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 21, 2008, 9:43 pm

Perhaps you could google "right wing propoganda" and just vomit that onto the board to save Midnyte the trouble later?

But it is acceptable for everyone else to post their 'left wing propoganda' it seems.

The Iraq Body Count (IBC) figure of 80,419 to 87,834 civilian deaths reported in English-language media (including Arabic media translated into English) up to 10 January 2008 includes civilian deaths due to coalition and insurgent military action, sectarian violence and increased criminal violence. The IBC site states: "it should be noted that many deaths will likely go unreported or unrecorded by officials and media."[7] For the 4th year of the war between 20 March 2006 and 16 March 2007 the Iraq Body Count reported approximately 26,540 civilian deaths.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties ... since_2003

Perhaps that is what your 700k number is? Yes I'm still searching... and beating the horse...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 21, 2008, 9:51 pm

Year Total serving Total deaths Total deaths/ 100K serving Hostile deaths/ 100K serving

1993 1,849,537 1,213 65.6 n/a

1994 1,746,482 1,075 61.6 n/a

1995 1,661,928 1,040 62.5 n/a

1996 1,613,675 974 60.4 0.1

1997 1,578,382 817 51.8 n/a

1998 1,538,570 827 53.8 n/a

1999 1,525,942 796 52.2 n/a

2000 1,530,430 758 50.0 n/a

2001 1,552,096 891 57.4 0.2

2002 1,627,142 999 61.4 1.1

2003 1,732,632 1,410 81.4 19.9

2004 1,711,916 1,887 110.2 43.1

Non-hostile deaths can include those caused by accident, illness, homicide, suicide, terrorist attack, or other undetermined causes.

Bah. Table came out shitty. Her's the link. Actually, it's anti-conservative media I got this from. Nosy's numbers are way off.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702230005

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 21, 2008, 9:51 pm

AHAH!

The Lancet study's figure of 654,965 excess deaths through the end of June 2006 is based on household survey data. The estimate is for all excess violent and nonviolent deaths. That also includes those due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc.. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were estimated to be due to violence. 31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%). A copy of a death certificate was available for a high proportion of the reported deaths (92 per cent of those households asked to produce one).[10][11][12]

700k is the number for total deaths, including dieing of old age, getting shot for stealing your neighbors wife, and eating bad pork.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 21, 2008, 9:53 pm

that graph in proper proportion, half scale:

the only reason i find this interesting is comparing that to the amount of anti-military hysteria for the same time periods.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » February 21, 2008, 10:07 pm

Noysyrump wrote:AHAH!

The Lancet study's figure of 654,965 excess deaths through the end of June 2006 is based on household survey data. The estimate is for all excess violent and nonviolent deaths. That also includes those due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc.. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were estimated to be due to violence. 31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%). A copy of a death certificate was available for a high proportion of the reported deaths (92 per cent of those households asked to produce one).[10][11][12]

700k is the number for total deaths, including dieing of old age, getting shot for stealing your neighbors wife, and eating bad pork.

Your statement isn't backed up by the quote I'm afraid... it clearly states EXCESS deaths due to the war were measured, and the 601,027 number is due to VIOLENCE.
The actual number of excess deaths due to the war including non-violent is the 650,000 number, so 50,000+ people died non-violently than would have otherwise (poorer infrastructure, etc.)

Admittedly this is a survey and not an actual count, but it's probably not more than a factor of 2 off (95% confidence interval is ~180,000). Physical counts on deaths in Muslim countries are notoriously under-reported due to the religious demands for quick burial, so this is probably the best way to get reasonable numbers. By the way, go read up on this study if you want some tales of courage... they had to do some crazy shit to get the interviews while retaining a "non-biased" sample.

Animale

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 21, 2008, 11:21 pm

The Lancet study's figure of 654,965 excess deaths through the end of June 2006 is based on household survey data. The estimate is for all excess violent and nonviolent deaths. That also includes those due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc.. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were estimated to be due to violence. 31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%). A copy of a death certificate was available for a high proportion of the reported deaths (92 per cent of those households asked to produce one).[10][11][12]

Its says AND in there. Now what makes it excess? an average "over anual deaths prior to invasion'? Well that number would not include deaths caused by the previose political machine, as those would have been hidden and kept quiet. My little snippet is just that, taken directly off of wiki, so I did not see any (if one was present at all) definition of excess.

But blamming lawlessness on us is a bit extreme. Or degraded standard of living. If those numbers ARE to be included, then they should be included in all wars. How many people died in vietnam between 66 (corrected from 65) and 71? Including any non combat related deaths stemming from the war? Now that we will never know. But it still holds my main arguement solid. Us maintaining half of the worlds power will keep war related deaths down, in the grand scheme.

In 1 single year, 1993 (because its all I could find

) at 2 million deaths ANNUAL within the United states, of wich 400,000 die from smoking related health problems. One year. Well if it takes 5 years to kill 700k in iraq with bombs, guns, and war. Hell we are doing good. (wich is equal to the numbers of deaths do to misuse of prescription drugs over the same time period, roughly... a good comparison for the eugenics thread.

)

http://www.hpolicy.duke.edu/cyberexchange/deaths1.pdf

Animale · Post by **Animale** » February 21, 2008, 11:30 pm

Noysyrump wrote:
The Lancet study's figure of 654,965 excess deaths through the end of June 2006 is based on household survey data. The estimate is for all excess violent and nonviolent deaths. That also includes those due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc.. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were estimated to be due to violence. 31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%). A copy of a death certificate was available for a high proportion of the reported deaths (92 per cent of those households asked to produce one).[10][11][12]

Bolded the pertinent part for you. Point stands that it doesn't say what you think it says.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 22, 2008, 12:04 am

Irregardlessly.

Reading up more on that "survey". it doesnt appear to be worth the TP it was writen on, when even the Iraqi's scoff at it.

The Lancet surveys are controversial largely because their mortality figures are much higher than those in other reports that used different methodologies, including those of the Iraq Body Count project, the United Nations, and the Iraqi Ministry of Health. Out of all the Iraqi casualty estimates so far, the Lancet surveys two of the three peer-reviewed estimates on the total Iraqi civilian deaths following the invasion. The Lancet surveys have been supported by many epidemiologists[5] and statisticians, as well as the September 2007 ORB survey. ORB used a survey method, as did the Lancet authors, and ORB also produced a high estimate of Iraqi deaths. However, the Lancet surveys have been criticized by the US and Iraqi governments, the Iraq Body Count project, epidemiologists, demographers, Iraq-war journalists and others. See the sections below on "criticisms".

They "surveyed" small areas then just multiplied the numbers to match total population. Now if they "chose" an area that saw heavy fighting, and bypassed areas that saw no fighting, they could control thier numbers....

So, still stands, where does 700k come from?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 22, 2008, 12:21 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:

Year Total serving Total deaths Total deaths/ 100K serving Hostile deaths/ 100K serving

1993 1,849,537 1,213 65.6 n/a

1994 1,746,482 1,075 61.6 n/a

1995 1,661,928 1,040 62.5 n/a

1996 1,613,675 974 60.4 0.1

1997 1,578,382 817 51.8 n/a

1998 1,538,570 827 53.8 n/a

1999 1,525,942 796 52.2 n/a

2000 1,530,430 758 50.0 n/a

2001 1,552,096 891 57.4 0.2

2002 1,627,142 999 61.4 1.1

2003 1,732,632 1,410 81.4 19.9

2004 1,711,916 1,887 110.2 43.1

Non-hostile deaths can include those caused by accident, illness, homicide, suicide, terrorist attack, or other undetermined causes.

Bah. Table came out shitty. Her's the link. Actually, it's anti-conservative media I got this from. Nosy's numbers are way off.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702230005

That article makes me sad in the pants. That someone would try to compare apples to oranges to make cheap political points off the death of servicemen.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 22, 2008, 11:44 am

Agreed.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 22, 2008, 2:30 pm

That table makes like zero sense to me. I imagine those are US deaths, but then say non-hostile deaths include homicide and terrorist attacks.... wtf?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » February 22, 2008, 3:00 pm

Noysyrump wrote:Irregardlessly.

Get off my kool-aid motherfucker.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 22, 2008, 8:55 pm

Truant wrote:
Noysyrump wrote:Irregardlessly.
Get off my kool-aid motherfucker.

Heheh, old times.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 26, 2008, 3:13 pm

Aslanna wrote:I have no problem with the US involved on important issues.. As long as it's a unanimous decision by the other countries of the world to do so. The United Nations seems to becoming less important with each passing year.

However I don't think the US should just go in and do what they want wherever and whenever they want.

This. Unilaterally invading countries filled with oil is not a responsible way for the worlds superpower to act. It also loses/has lost an incredible amount of legitimacy by ignoring the UN. Which was set up for a reason that some people seem to have, quite frankly, dangerously forgotten.

I have absolutely no problem with a country as powerful as the US using its incredible armory, diplomacy and financial strength for good. That however is and never has been the issue. The issue is when the US acts in a subversive, morally repulsive manner for its own ends, to perpetuate a negative interpretation of "American Freedom" around the world, that is hypocritical and ...well...there's little other words for it other than undemocratic and murderous.

Noysyrump appears to have absolutely no idea what the Lancet study entailed. The methodology used for that report, which comes from an unbiased source by the way, is the same methodology used the world over for conflicts that do or do not involve the United States. No one ever said it was perfect, but to scoff at it shows a unintelligent misunderstanding on the actual internationally accepted methodology used to figure out deaths in conflicts. I suspect someone here should probably read a bit more widely before trying to sell a point.

As for scoring points off the death of servicemen, there are a number of you that have done that exact thing when it involves civilian deaths (noysy's posts are a perfect example) - that is a double standard that definitely does not fly, except apparantly, in the USA. I don't really understand why, it's hypocritical in the extreme.

Anyway, the fact that so many of you fail to understand the dangers in an all powerful world police force, given the differences in culture, history and lifestyles seen on this planet, is pretty mind boggling to say the least.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 26, 2008, 4:41 pm

Noysyrump appears to have absolutely no idea what the Lancet study entailed. The methodology used for that report, which comes from an unbiased source by the way, is the same methodology used the world over for conflicts that do or do not involve the United States. No one ever said it was perfect, but to scoff at it shows a unintelligent misunderstanding on the actual internationally accepted methodology used to figure out deaths in conflicts. I suspect someone here should probably read a bit more widely before trying to sell a point.

I did read. I read about 15 reports that estimated 40k - 60k, and ONE that estimated 700k

As for scoring points off the death of servicemen, there are a number of you that have done that exact thing when it involves civilian deaths (noysy's posts are a perfect example) - that is a double standard that definitely does not fly, except apparantly, in the USA. I don't really understand why, it's hypocritical in the extreme.

I was trying to state a point, that a large power differential leads to LOWER war related casualties. Simply comparing previose wars to our current one. I'm not scoring points, if I was, I lost this game 4 years ago...

Anyway, the fact that so many of you fail to understand the dangers in an all powerful world police force, given the differences in culture, history and lifestyles seen on this planet, is pretty mind boggling to say the least.

I understand the dangers. I do not agree with many of my own governments policies. But historicly speaking, 'Americans' have shown a huge amount of restraint and compasion as a whole. Example: WW2, Invasion of Germany. Russians partake in wholesale rape and pillage. Frenchmen partake in a large amount of "revenge" murders. The US tried to treat ex-servicemen with as much compasion as possible, and then Gifted the countries of the continent huge amounts of resources and cash to help rebuild.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 26, 2008, 4:54 pm

I did read. I read about 15 reports that estimated 40k - 60k, and ONE that estimated 700k

and which of those is the one used and accepted internationally in all conflicts except Iraq as the normal methodology for documenting death rates - and which ones are randomly unscientific?

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 26, 2008, 5:08 pm

im gonna have to go with the one that actually went with morgue records and death reports on file etcetera. not the one where someone asked 20 people "how many people in your family died" then multiply that to match total population... thats just me though.

sorry no caps, eating atm

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 3, 2008, 2:39 pm

Colombia launched a military strike that crossed borders into Ecuador killing 17 members of the militant group, Farc. Ecuador was not aware of and did not approve this strike.

Ecuador, the country that actually has a reason to be pissed off, is quiet.

Venezuela, in what could prove to be just a publicity stunt, has closed the Colombian embassy and sent 10 tank battalions to their border... threatening war if Colombia was to infringe on their border.

Some media outlets have already raised the possibility of the U.S. intervening.

In certain situations, like this one, I don't support the idea of being the World Police. Why should we care if Columbia and Venezuela go at it?...

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 3, 2008, 3:22 pm

Um...Ecuador has been pretty fucking far from quiet about it. And Columbia only got the go ahead because the US will have been involved in some form.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 3, 2008, 3:27 pm

Fash wrote:Why should we care if Columbia and Venezuela go at it?...

Surely you're joking? And Nick is right, Ecuador hasn't been quiet about it's border violation at all.

That said, it's a tough nut when rebels/insurgents hide on the other side of a national border. Do you break international law and attack them there, or let them continue to operate from relative impunity that way (in these cases the other government is often either unable or unwilling to do anything about the problem).

Ditto:

Turkey -> Iraq with the PKK
Israel -> Lebanon with Hezbollah

P.S. Nick - can you elaborate on "And Columbia only got the go ahead because the US will have been involved in some form.".

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 3, 2008, 3:40 pm

Ashur wrote: That said, it's a tough nut when rebels/insurgents hide on the other side of a national border. Do you break international law and attack them there, or let them continue to operate from relative impunity that way (in these cases the other government is often either unable or unwilling to do anything about the problem).

Yep. See the failure of Pakistan to successfully rid its borders of Al'Quaida + Bin Laden etc. As for Columbia and that area in general, the US has its mitts all over the region, and much like the failed Venezualan coup of 1998 (was it 98? I can't be bothered checking exactly when that was now because I'm eating dinner) the US will be orchestrating this, if not entirely, then to a degree of some sort. I thought that was common knowledge?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 4, 2008, 10:20 am

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23435878/

Colombia: Chavez, rebels in 'armed alliance'
$300 million Venezuelan payoff to rebels alleged

updated 3:25 p.m. CT, Mon., March. 3, 2008
BOGOTA, Colombia - Colombia’s police chief on Monday said documents found on a slain rebel’s laptop computer suggest Venezuela recently paid $300 million to Colombia’s largest guerrilla group, perhaps in exchange for the release of six hostages.

Other documents show the rebels had appeared interested in buying uranium, Gen. Oscar Naranjo said at an explosive news conference where he lashed out at Venezuela and Ecuador for the financial and political support they have provided to Colombia’s leftist rebels.

“When they mention negotiations for 50 kilos of uranium this means that the FARC are taking big steps in the world of terrorism to become a global aggressor. We’re not talking of domestic guerrilla but transnational terrorism,” said Naranjo, without giving more details.

...

Much more at the link above

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 4, 2008, 4:48 pm

The FARC exchange isn't news at all. It's been common knowledge for ages.

The rest is nothing but conjecture (not that I'm a fan of farc or anything, but it is just conjecture).

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » March 4, 2008, 4:50 pm

When your two little brothers are wrestling, you let them, when someone throws a punch, you step in. It's that simple.

Should we do something about this now? no. But defenitly we need to make our presence fealt to keep it from escalating. Venezuela has been rattling it's saber as of late, and they may use this as an excuse to steel-mah coffee beans!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 4, 2008, 5:43 pm

Noysys, you are everything that is wrong with America today

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 4, 2008, 5:57 pm

Nick wrote:Noysys, you are everything that is wrong with America today

You continue to make shitty comments in a challenge where you were supposed to be a decent person for 30 days.

Go fuck yourself. Why doesn't Ireland go help these poor people then? Who the fuck are you to continually pass judgement on every god damned thing the US does? Go screw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 4, 2008, 6:22 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Nick wrote:Noysys, you are everything that is wrong with America today
You continue to make shitty comments in a challenge where you were supposed to be a decent person for 30 days.

Go fuck yourself. Why doesn't Ireland go help these poor people then? Who the fuck are you to continually pass judgement on every god damned thing the US does? Go screw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't think Barrack Obama would approve of this message!

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » March 4, 2008, 6:23 pm

Oh dont get mad at nick, he's just confused. He's only talkin smack for the sake of talkin smack. If he had a valid point, he would of made it. But he didnt, so it's just smack talk. And you dont need to jump to my defense on that, Nick and me goeeeesss way back. You know, when we actually played that game.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 4, 2008, 6:25 pm

Hey Mid,

the challenge was between me and anyone who wished to get involved. You didn't have the gumption, or the balls, to give it a shot, so if I were you I would fuck up and crawl back into whatever shitty little cave you came out of.

As for Noysy, he and I are old pals, and are capable of knowing that we aren't actually being total cunts to each other. So please, fuck up, and fuck off, or take the challenge up and grow some balls.