VeeshanVault

What's a better solution? A viable solution. One we know will work. History has shown time and time again that war works when you want/need to change things.

So... what is YOUR solution?

1. Kill you
2. ...
3. World peace

kyoukan type-R wrote:1. Kill you
2. ...
3. World peace

/agree

We send your sorry ass to Iraq. With you out of the way the world would be free from your faggotry and we'd go back to steamrolling like norm.

We may fuck ourselves.

I'm sorry Kyoukan, #1 should be "tying Searyx to a Cruise Missle and watch him take off"

kyoukan type-R wrote:1. Kill you
2. ...
3. World peace

you're an absolute fucking genius.

so, what's your solution to world peace?

Genius.

What's phase two?

kyoukan type-R wrote:Genius.

thanks, now answer my question

Weren't you killed by a stapler?

Spangaloid_PE wrote:thanks, now answer my question

you really expect me to come up with a solution for world peace? or what? you will "own me" for it?

wow you are a whole pile of stupid aren't you?

TeurdeCT wrote:Weren't you killed by a stapler?

uh...no

typical BS outa kyoukan. Always wants to talk shit, but when it comes down to crunch time, she just avoids the question.

kyoukan type-R wrote:

Spangaloid_PE wrote:thanks, now answer my question

you really expect me to come up with a solution for world peace? or what? you will "own me" for it?

wow you are a whole pile of stupid aren't you?

yea, i'm a dumb ass, now answer the question.

you really expect me to come up with a solution for world peace?

No. They expect you to answer (or ask you to answer), given the following:

1. Iraq has WoMD and/or is building/developing WoMD.
2. S.H. is an expansionist regime
3. S.H. has steadfastly refused to disarm Iraq of its WoMD and abandon their further development.

What alternative do you see to war?

I suspect 2 options they will not accept are:

1. Iraq has no WoMD and has no intentions on building them, so just let them be.
2. Continue the present course outlined by the U.N.

It may be that 1 or 2 (or both) are your answers, in which case, you all will have to continue to ignore each other. Personally, I think most folks opposed to the war either don't accept as fact that Iraq has WoMD and is continuing their development or are simply opposed to the use of violence under any circumstances, and though it seems doomed to failure, believe that diplomatic efforts are better than the only remaining alternative - nothing at all.

I don't personally care about your opinion on the matter, since I view this whole discussion like I view abortion - the persons on opposite sides can't even agree on the question being asked, so arguing against each other's possitions rationally is simply impossible. But you seemed to be wanting to answer the question posed, but misunderstanding it to have something to do with world peace, so I thought I would lay it out for you in more precise and hopefully simpler terms. Enjoy.

No, Spangeloid wanted to know Kyo's solution to world peace. Whatever the fuck you just typed makes no fucking sense at all when compared to this thread.

To Spangeloid,

What is your solution?

If you can't answer then STFU (READ: shut the fuck up).

Zamtuk wrote:No, Spangeloid wanted to know Kyo's solution to world peace. Whatever the fuck you just typed makes no fucking sense at all when compared to this thread.

To Spangeloid,

What is your solution?

If you can't answer then STFU (READ: shut the fuck up).

i never said that what we, the US and it's allies, are doing is wrong. nor did i say that world piece was the solution to the present ordeal.

there for, i have no need to give a solution to world peace.

again, you have no clue

Nuke all them mother fuckers down. Only way to make world pieces

No clue about what? Is that the only phrase that you can sputter out of your shithole known sometimes as a mouth? Maybe the shell shock of that staple has gotten to you. Switch to Swingline motherfucker.

Zamtuk wrote:No clue about what? Is that the only phrase that you can sputter out of your shithole known sometimes as a mouth? Maybe the shell shock of that staple has gotten to you. Switch to Swingline motherfucker.

i have more, but the no clue phrase fits for the majority of the people that post here. they truly have no clue.

You have no clue, he has no clue, she has no clue. I really doubt the world is sold out of clue.

Aaeamdar wrote:

you really expect me to come up with a solution for world peace?

No. They expect you to answer (or ask you to answer), given the following:

1. Iraq has WoMD and/or is building/developing WoMD.
2. S.H. is an expansionist regime
3. S.H. has steadfastly refused to disarm Iraq of its WoMD and abandon their further development.

Spangaloid_PE wrote:

kyoukan type-R wrote:1. Kill you
2. ...
3. World peace

you're an absolute fucking genius.

so, what's your solution to world peace?

oh

If you choose to interpret Spangaloid's question (reasking Searyx's question) as world peace, litterally, in light of the clear context in which this entire post has been made, then I am not sure what to say.

ok maybe becuse i am shitfaced atm taht doesnt make any sense.

Zamtuk wrote:No clue about what? Is that the only phrase that you can sputter out of your shithole known sometimes as a mouth? Maybe the shell shock of that staple has gotten to you. Switch to Swingline motherfucker.

Good advice coming from the office depot salesdick of the month. Keep your mamma on a leash boy and I am sure Spang would not have become a motherfucker.

You guys need to be careful about wanting to wage war to settle every disagreement, you do realize how rediculous that is, right? To answer your question about what solution to world peace the liberals may have...There is no complete fix for the middle east, there are only patchwork solutions that are not quite as busted to hell as the next guys solution. I don't think we will ever see everyone in the middle east hitting the streets in a massive celebration of having found 100% peace, love for thy neighbor, and tolerance.

Sometimes there really are no answers. Remember when your calculus teacher threw in that ONE equation that had no solution, and no one ever got it right? Some peoples answers were creative and well thought out with logic and rules, ended up with partial credit, while others simply left it blank and recieved no credit whatsoever. In the end though, their answers were both wrong, one just happened to be more wrong than the other.

There is your answer.

Atokal wrote:

Zamtuk wrote:No clue about what? Is that the only phrase that you can sputter out of your shithole known sometimes as a mouth? Maybe the shell shock of that staple has gotten to you. Switch to Swingline motherfucker.

Good advice coming from the office depot salesdick of the month. Keep your mamma on a leash boy and I am sure Spang would not have become a motherfucker.

ROFL OMG!! If i keep this up maybe Atokal might put my avatar in his in some witty rendition!!11! ROFL! Office Depot salesdick of the month was the own, ouch you got me! Seriously do you have your son (who is plotting running away im sure) come up with these flames or do you do it yourself then give your self an air hi-five after a job well done? Anyway go back to writing momma jokes, those are so fresh, I really don't know if I can keep up.

kyou, what a nub

Yeah, I'd reccommend you guys stop talking about the situation. It's pretty obvious that you can't argue about it sensibly...(but then again neither can most people). I'm of the opinion that if this continues it will probably spiral into a flamewar, and while exciting, and all, the aftereffects are usually very bad.

-=Lohrno

Zamtuk wrote:

Atokal wrote:

Zamtuk wrote:No clue about what? Is that the only phrase that you can sputter out of your shithole known sometimes as a mouth? Maybe the shell shock of that staple has gotten to you. Switch to Swingline motherfucker.

Good advice coming from the office depot salesdick of the month. Keep your mamma on a leash boy and I am sure Spang would not have become a motherfucker.

ROFL OMG!! If i keep this up maybe Atokal might put my avatar in his in some witty rendition!!11! ROFL! Office Depot salesdick of the month was the own, ouch you got me! Seriously do you have your son (who is plotting running away im sure) come up with these flames or do you do it yourself then give your self an air hi-five after a job well done? Anyway go back to writing momma jokes, those are so fresh, I really don't know if I can keep up.

CAPS and !1!!! and ROFL well done man, good form, you are a veritable god.
Have a nice day Einstein.

I capped three things you fuckwit. And all of them were acronyms. Keep it up though, your humorless attempts at trying to berate me are succeeding with flying colors. Please go back to obsessing over Kyoukan because you obviously are lost without doing so.

Obviously the solution is to kill everyone on the planet who disagrees with us. Because they're "expansionist regimes" and all, and we have to protect our continent-spanning empire from their attempts at world domination.

I think some of you should read again the first TWO posts, only first two please.
The clue is somewhere in there.

Ennia wrote:I think some of you should read again the first TWO posts, only first two please.
The clue is somewhere in there.

the 1st post was a question

the 2nd post was an answer

i am assuming you think the 2nd post is the correct answer, yes?

please note the name of posters

yes the answer was very VV-like

WTB 1 clue. Willing to trade Drustwyn's purple striped thong for it.

...see above moron. It is the answer!
The diplomatic way was and should ever be the answer. Of course the diplomatic way is not so simple to explain and to execute like your very limited "shoot em all" theory. It's hard work but the only choice. Target and shoot is just mega dumb. If you start to shoot you have stopped thinking and that's like a bankrupt for the modern world. Action-reaction. You remember? You stopped thinking as well and use this simple "nukem" theory because everything else is beyond your brain and you saw it on Fox of course...lol. War should be no answer unless you get attacked (unprovoked) and have no other choice. If it was provoked you may change your own behaviour and think about this and that you may have done wrong. But this needs the abilty to look objective at your own actions.
To claim Iraq has such weapons of mass destruction is one thing. To prove it is already more difficult so your question is wrong in the first place. You can't use unproved things as facts in a discussion just becaue you believe Fox government channel. That destroys the very basic possibilty to discuss-can you understand that? Beside that-even if he has those weapons still somewhere (neither you or me know it) how big is the risk that he attacks the US. Get real. Iraq is so weakened as a result of 12 years embargo but then again there is that oil which is so interesting and the US is even more dependent on that oil than other countrys are. North Korea and all the other countrys do not have oil-how surprising. Also the USA has no problems to make deals with China and thelike which kick human rights the same way like Iraq does.
The very basic thing you can ask for before a self-announ ced world policeman is going to kill thousands of people are some proofs-there is-nothing. And the real reason is obvious realizing that fact.
You obviously can't understand the basic problems which lead to terror attacks and such so make your homework and then we might again speak to each other. Your way of thinking is to sad simple for me and that's no flame. It's exactly how I feel.

who the hell are you talking to?

and before 9/11 who thought Al-Quada was going to fly commercial airlines into US buildings?

9/11 is the reason the US has lost its patience. we don't wanna see another 9/11. i know i don't anyways. according to the heartles bastards on these boards, death is ok, infact its common place to make jokes about it and write scripts for SNL. i might be alone when i say "we" don't want another 9/11.

we can't afford to wait for diplomacy.

"Because it obviously worked over the past 12 years...Nope, we didn't try diplomacy at all."

How many Iraqis tried to kill or harm you in the last 12 years?
Beside that polemic question-diplomacy is nothing that ends at a certain point when a cowboy and his crew decide so-it's a process-prolly a long one. At least in a modern civilisation. And of course whatever happens there is no point to break international law like the current US gov did. And yes, diplomacy worked. Slowly ok-but to claim it didn't is simply wrong. Of course killing thousands of people now is a solid option.


"This is why your arguments have no credibility or grounds to stand on. You have absolutly no clue about Americans."

I don't judge about americans as a whole. I have quite a few american friends who are nice and good educated people also because their parents could afford private schools. The problem is the current government and a not too small dumb crowd following them blind without having independent information in many cases. That is dangerous. Just try to look what happens outside of your country and all is fine. Believe it or not-I even met US americans who didn't know where europe is-but of course I am sure they know all about the history of europe and even more about the history in the gulf region-prolly...haha. Ouch- ok I know this is an extreme but it's unbelievable that this is really possible. I am glad that there are still critical people like Michael Moore. I don't care if he is too fat-that's a problem he shares with lots of americans what you can see when you walk through the streets. That's sad enough but has nothing to do with his brain.

"You also have absolutly no clue about anything related to Iraq to presume that the embargo is what weakened Iraq, or that it was only weakened because of it, or since it's inception."

Uh? Thanks for you having a clue and for this pointless comment. We can also discuss if the sky is blue if we start to dicuss this.


"Proving my point. You base things on feeling, not facts. You are entitled to your feelings, however wrong they are."

Proving your point? lol-It remains your secret how a sentence like "It's exactly how I feel." in that context is a proof that my arguments are based on feelings. How silly is that? omg, go to school again. I already proved here that I am very well informed about global things now and in the past while I still have to listen to crap like "but they have those weapons, yes yes!, Because uncle George said so". Phew, that's mind boggling.

again, who the hell are you talking too?

so Saddam didn't harm many Americans but what about the thousands of his own people that were killed after the 91 war because they surrendured (sp perhaps...2.5 GPA at work)

the 2 suicide bombers that said no because they didn't want to die for Saddam.

if this fucker is willing to kill his own people, what makes you think he won't try to kill Americans or any other country.

asking nicely didn't work, diplomacy could have taken as long as humanly possible. the fact is, Saddam must go down.

When did al qaeda and saddam have anything to do with each other? What threat did saddam pose? 9-11 was a completely different animal. There is no relation between the two. Why is it America's job to save Iraq from it's leaders?

and before 9/11 who thought Al-Quada was going to fly commercial airlines into US buildings?

What the fuck is Al-Quada?
Isn't that the Austrailian airline?


Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have had a long history (2-25 years) of terrorist attacks against the USA and American interests around the world. There were strong suspicions that bin laden would pull off a grand scale terrorist attack on American soil. The attacks on 9-11 were within his MO and I doubt they came as no surprise to anyone in the CIA.

The Baath party and Saddam Hussein have no history of any terrorist attacks against the USA. Up until a few years before his invasion of Kuwait, the US government had very close ties with Iraq and actually helped fund their war efforts agaisnt Iran and keep Saddam in power. Iraq has the only secular govenment in the middle east.

if this fucker is willing to kill his own people, what makes you think he won't try to kill Americans or any other country

To illustrate the sheer stupidity of that statement:

Those fuckers in China are willing to kill thousands of their own people, what makes you think they won't try to kill Americans or any other country.

9/11 is the reason the US has lost its patience. we don't wanna see another 9/11.

Um, what exactly does Iraq and Saddam Hussein have to do with Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and anti-american terrorism?

Say what you will about the war in Iraq, but I'm really getting sick of the moralistic argument. Don't bullshit me and pretend for a SPLIT SECOND that this war is about "liberating" the Iraqis from Saddam. That's a crock of shit.

The bottom line is that we selectively decide who gets to be 'liberated,' and who doesn't. The Saudi regime, for instance, is equally oppressive toward its people. The Saudi government kills as many innocent civilians as Saddam does in Iraq. The difference? The Saudis are our 'allies,' and they sell us their oil willingly. So there's no need to liberate their people! Even closer to home: the Mexican government is corrupt to the core. Mexican presidents for the last few decades have starved their people, while living like kings off the aid money they receive from other nations. But I don't see us going into Mexico to take out Vicente Fox. The same could be said about Venezuela, from whom we receive the lion's share of our crude oil. So long as those governments cooperate with us, we're more than happy to overlook the way they treat their people.

Give me a break. If we're actually going to use the liberation argument to justify this war, then we need to apply those standards to every country with whom we have ties.

Just come clean and admit that this war is about oil. Admit it's about cleaning up our prior mistakes in the Middle East. Admit it's about anything you want, but don't try to peddle that liberation bullshit.

Chidoro wrote:When did al qaeda and saddam have anything to do with each other? What threat did saddam pose? 9-11 was a completely different animal. There is no relation between the two. Why is it America's job to save Iraq from it's leaders?

While there is no smoking gun. I believe there has been more than enough evidence to show a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I know that Osama hates Saddam but he hates America more and I think given the chance he would buddy up to Saddam to get some Americans.

Also Saddam has been very vocal about paying to the families of suicide bombers.

Saddam is going down one way or another. Hopefully it won't drag the rest of the midle east into the conflict. I think that once we have the Saddam regime busted down then we need to let the Iraqis handle their own affairs. Try and get legal elections as soon as possible. I also wouldn't mind seeing Iraq broken into three different countries, one for the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south.

If we want real peace though we need to withdraw all support from Israel and other arab countries. If we take a stance against sticking our noses where it doesn't belong then the arab countries will be much more tolerant of us. Our constant meddling in Israel and other middle east countries has caused most of these difficulties.

Of course none of these things will actually come to pass and I wouldn't be surprised if we went after Syria or Iran next.

Deward

Deward wrote:Hopefully it won't drag the rest of the midle east into the conflict.

On the plus side, I don't think it's possible for the Middle Eastern nations to hate us any more than they do now. We've got nothing to lose!

I also wouldn't mind seeing Iraq broken into three different countries, one for the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south.

That's a noble sentiment, but it's also an extremely arrogant and paternalistic one. You're assuming that we know what's best for the various peoples in Iraq. If history has shown us *anything* about the Middle Eastern conflict, it's that dividing up parcels of land and allotting them randomly to stratified ethnic groups only leads to generations of territorial conflict. Not to mention lingering resentment toward the U.S.

If we want real peace though we need to withdraw all support from Israel and other arab countries.

Israel isn't an Arab country. It's about the farthest thing in the world from an Arab country.

If we take a stance against sticking our noses where it doesn't belong then the arab countries will be much more tolerant of us. Our constant meddling in Israel and other middle east countries has caused most of these difficulties.

Exactly. Which is precisely why your afforementioned idea (about dividing up Iraq) won't work.

Please understand that I'm not flaming you here. I agree with you 100% in principle, and I think you've got a decent understanding of why things are so fucked up today. On the other hand, you raise some minor issues that, unchecked, could lead to catastrophe. The solution -- and I think we can both agree here -- isn't to continue monkeying around in Iraq. It's to let the Iraqis solve things by themselves.

Diplomacy has gone the way of the dinosaur in the post Cold War world. I, for one, am very scared.

This is Vietnam all over again. The same people that justified and believed in that war 30 years ago are the same people that support this war today and also will be the same people that support any future wars. Maybe not the exact same people, but they same type of people. It's kinda funny in an unfunny way.

Fairweather Pure wrote:This is Vietnam all over again. The same people that justified and believed in that war 30 years ago are the same people that support this war today and also will be the same people that support any future wars. Maybe not the exact same people, but they same type of people. It's kinda funny in an unfunny way.

What's sad is that we're probably losing this war just as badly as we lost Vietnam. There are probably countless untold American casualties right now, and the facts won't come in until years after the war is over.

The same thing happened during Vietnam. Every day, all the news reported was how many Viet Cong we killed, and how handily we were winning that battle. It was only years later that even the media couldn't keep blinders on in the midst of the horrific embarassment we were suffering.

I believe there has been more than enough evidence to show a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda

When you say 'Iraq' do you mean the Shiite Muslims in the south who are despised by Saddam? Or do you mean the Kurds in the north whom the USA have manipulated for the past 12 years to incite riots and rebellions against Saddam?

Also Saddam has been very vocal about paying to the families of suicide bombers.

Saddam openly supports Palestine.
Saddam would like nothing more than to see the Jews leave the middle east.
Saddam is not alone in those feelings.. many regeimes in the middle east support and encourage suicide bombers in Isreal.

Hopefully it won't drag the rest of the midle east into the conflict

Too late for that, skippy.

I think that once we have the Saddam regime busted down then we need to let the Iraqis handle their own affairs

Yeah, and we can all turn a blind eye while the Shii, Suuni and Kurds kill each other off by the thousands in massive bloodbaths... each hoping to control what is potentially one of the richest countries in the middle east.

I also wouldn't mind seeing Iraq broken into three different countries, one for the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south.

I'm pretty sure those regions will retain thier current status... I fear for the christians in Iraq when the muslim factions start vying for control. They will either have to flee or be imprisoned/slaughtered.

Millie wrote:

Fairweather Pure wrote:This is Vietnam all over again. The same people that justified and believed in that war 30 years ago are the same people that support this war today and also will be the same people that support any future wars. Maybe not the exact same people, but they same type of people. It's kinda funny in an unfunny way.

What's sad is that we're probably losing this war just as badly as we lost Vietnam. There are probably countless untold American casualties right now, and the facts won't come in until years after the war is over.

The same thing happened during Vietnam. Every day, all the news reported was how many Viet Cong we killed, and how handily we were winning that battle. It was only years later that even the media couldn't keep blinders on in the midst of the horrific embarassment we were suffering.

Although I cannot prove you wrong, and you cannot prove your point, I disagree with the "countless untold American casualties" statement you made. The media would love nothing more than to show us being slaughtered so they can get their pulitzer. Also, if Americans were being slaughtered countlessly, don't you think the Iraqi media would be airing that just as they did the half dozen marines that were executed? What better propoganda tool than to show a field of dead American soldiers? Again, I disagree 100% with your statement. It's almost like you want us to be slaughtered so you can say I told you so, at least that's the way you come off.