IRAQ time to smoke USA

All this 'oh oh, it'll hurt the economy' stuff is all just crap anyway. Most of the time you will find that the economy would carry on fine if politicians didn't say that it wouldn't. If the government didn't say that stock prices were going to drop because people are holding onto their shares then it wouldn't, people would continue trading as normal. Most of you have absolutley no idea how much you are manipulated by your political leaders.

It's like the 'material breach' of Iraq. There has been no material breach, Iraq has done nothing wrong. But if the US government say it enough times maybe you will all believe that there has been. People are stupid, Americans are retards.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

 
What the hell, I didn't get that 'it'll hurt the economy' from the government. It's not bullshit because a draft where every adult male has the same kind of probability of being drafted, would result in people who run businesses at the top of the chain to possibly be out of power. America isn't full of mindless factory jobs anymore. Many jobs take special skills that require a certain level of education that can't be replaced by women, or people exempt from the draft.

 
speaking of economy, i'm just bringing up something that was mentioned earlier about where war is fought... today it is fought through the economy. not through nuclear weapons because that's ridiculous. if one country bombs another with nukes, they will get it back ten fold. and the earth will no longer exist. so HAVING nukes is just a symbol. so that's why the US is so interested in overtaking Iraq. because oil = money = power.

 
for example: taking over another country's land isn't as important anymore as taking over their market share. ie. multinational corps.

 
Gravtec, I wasn't talking about the draft.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

 
So Iraq just announced that any economic or trade sanctions put in place by the US will be treated as an act of war, ooooh, bring it on

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

 
dude, your so right, PROSTITUTION ROX!

R. Kelly, R. Kelly, I wanna lick yo bawl sweat

scuse me, escuse me, i need to get by now
 
haha, Gravteck, I'm just quoting the newspaper bro

And Supilot, America would get the buttraping of the century if they attacked North Korea.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

 
'So Iraq just announced that any economic or trade sanctions put in place by the US will be treated as an act of war, ooooh, bring it on'

Korea. not Iraq. Thought I'd point out that little mistake.

-Andy

/.

PPP... yes

'When you say 'I wrote a program that crashed Windows', people just stare at you blankly and say 'Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*'.' -- Linus Torvalds
 
ok maybe he made a mistake (or so andy says) but there are trade restrictions on Iraq. lots of 'em.

-Mike

'Isn't 14 legal for everyone?' - Dave Pauls
 
ah yeah, slight typo there, cheers Andy.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

 
MIKE. i was just pointing out a typo, dont take it like I'm arguing a point. He was talking about North Korea's threat of war, not about trade sanctions.

-Andy

/.

PPP... yes

'When you say 'I wrote a program that crashed Windows', people just stare at you blankly and say 'Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*'.' -- Linus Torvalds
 
okokok enough war talk already this thread was made for ANTI - WAR talk, theres plenty of other threads for that shit.

Peace out, and yes prostitution does rule.

Lagwagon. Is it legal to marry a band?
 
okay just curious here but how can you talk about 'anti war stuff' without talking about war?

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

 
that's a good question. u know what a just as good, if not better a question is? -> why do people care about the television program: The Bachelorette??? i mean, have our lives really become this trivial; that we get satisfaction from watching the false lives of other people on TV?? (after all, it all boils down to oil...)

 
HAHAAHHA, right on bud. But yeah, those programs lick sweaty nutsacks. Except for the Bachelor when there were like 50 chicks there, that was kinda cool, I woulda had them all at the same time but then when it started to narrow down it got kinda gay, woo.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

 
North Korea has no oil

Iraq has oil

North Korea has nuclear weapons

Iraq probably does not

Why does Bush want to fight Iraq?

The answer is in the above facts (those of which are not random facts pulled out of my ass)

 
You don't know that Iraq doesn't have nuclear weapons. You certainly pulled that out of your ass.

However it doesn't really matter, here are the options:

1) Iraq has nuclear weapons, USA attacks

2) Iraq has nuclear warpons but says they don't, USA attacks.

3) Iraq has nuclear weapons and says they do, USA attacks.

4) Iraq has no nuclear weapons but says they do, USA attacks.

5) Iraq has no nuclear weapons and says they don't, USA accuses of lying and attacks.

So no wonder Saddam and the entire middle East is fucked off with the stupid USA. They have no God damn choice. It doesn't matter what he says he's probably gonna get his ass shot off anyway.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

 
No it isn't pulled out of my ass. My Political Science prof with over 40 years of democratic experience would not pull a fact out of his ass. Did you read the 'probably' part of my sentence? Iraq probably does not have nuclear weapons. Wouldn't they have found them by now?

 
Your political science professor is not a CIA operative, nor an Iraqi nuclear scientist. Therefore it is not a fact, it is an opinion. You people have problems distinguishing facts and opinions.

-Andy

/.

PPP... yes

'When you say 'I wrote a program that crashed Windows', people just stare at you blankly and say 'Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*'.' -- Linus Torvalds
 
Well, isnt an educated guess a hypothesis, i.e. an OPINION

-Andy

/.

PPP... yes

'When you say 'I wrote a program that crashed Windows', people just stare at you blankly and say 'Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*'.' -- Linus Torvalds
 
Yeah and then you called it a 'fact' in your final statement. Obviously your professor is a shitload smarter than you are. Go take some grammatical and anti-contradiction classes, maybe they'll help some.

And why would they have found them by now? What makes you think that the weapons inspectors are more capable than the people trying to hide the things. I'd say it's highly probable that Iraq has nuclear weapons, and why the hell shouldn't they?

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

 
opinion is usually a more personal view, like 'I feel we should attack Iraq.' It is commonly (i.e. aggregate, general) thought that Iraq has no nuclear weapons. That's our best educated guess. You could use either but I think educated guess is a better choice.

 
I also think 'educated guess' is a better otpion. But how can you declare war over an 'educated guess'. CRIMINAL! haha.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

 
yeah there's no evidence, no UN support so that is why I say no. plus if you take away the motive to attack and help initiate a new government (which will be easy once they are no longer opressed because opressed people tend to latch onto hope - Saddam is a hero to them) rather than creating more dispair and conflict then the whole situation changes.

there are tonnes of chemical and biological weapons that Saddam had in his posession after the gulf war. tonnes were found - there is definitly more out there and one gram of bochilism (sp?) can kill 1 million people. Before the UN inspectors were kicked out (not sure what year) they found planes equipped with spray nozzles and 80 pounds of anthrax each. So yes, if by prior actions and evidence you can see that there are most likely biological or chemical but as of now there is no evidence. and untill there is any the focus should be on changing policies towards Iraq and changing thier govenrment.

MOOONBOOOTS

-Mike

'Isn't 14 legal for everyone?' - Dave Pauls
 
so where did it all go, you don't just throw shit like that in a dumpster. i doubt saddam would abandon the fruits of a program that took him a shitload of money and time to produce.

'This one goes out to all the virgins...thanks for nothing!!' -- Miles D.

I ski for Head.
 
To Phattim,

Obviously my prof is smarter than me, he is a prof after all. All I did was simply lay down facts which should be obvious by now. Everyone has a right to his or her own opinion. What I wrote was my opinion. If I don't agree with someone else's ideas, I don't tell them they are 'stupid'. I try to take a middle ground perspective. Even if it is hard, I try to look from the opposing point of view as well. Where is the respect? We are all of the human species, we just come from various backgrounds and have different ways of thinking.

Also, you say that I'm supposed to take some 'grammatical' classes. I have a Linguistics degree. I was using descriptive sentences which are sentences used in casual speech as opposed to the prescriptive type which you are trying to correct my casual speech with. Sorry for any confusion.

 
This problem is not limited to nuclear weapons, and personally i dont believe he has them. What he does likely have is biological and chemical weapons such as sarin, vx, and a host of nasty viruses including various smallpox varients. A plauge would have a far greater effect than the one or two nuclear weapons he may or may not have.

'You never hear Newt Gingrich say: Now why dont these hos just back up off me. I mean let a player play'
 
It's not debated that Sadamm has had intentions in the past of unleashing chemical and biological weapons. They did find planes equipped with spray nozzles and systems that are meant to do such things.

I'm also hearing stuff like 'The US has nukes, why can't the others blah blah blah.' Well it all has to do w/ the nuclear nonproliferation treaties. I'm not sure of all the details, but there were 5 countries that had nukes when they signed it were allowed to have nuclear weapons, and they are cleared nuclear weapons states: United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom. There are also non nuclear weapon states, at this current point in time I think that total is 187. When these countries sign the treaty they agree to to forgo developing or acquiring nuclear weapons, and it is actually the job of the nuclear weapon states to pursue general and complete disarmament. This is why Korea pulling out of it is such a big deal.

 
5-alive, thanks, I now understand what you were staying.

gracteck. Don't you think though that it's rather unfair that a treaty (which was most probably written and enforced by the 'big boys', USA, Russia etc. should be made law like that? The way I see it is that the bigger nations are oppressing the smaller ones. Read it how you will but I think that if someone, say the USA, has the 'right' to have nuclear or biological/chemical weapons, then why shouldn't the little guy also? Just seems like generally fairplay. Sure they're worried about their own asses and 'World Peace' and blah blah blah but come on. It's like one set of rules for the USA, Russia, England and another for anyone else.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

 
It doesn't matter if it's fair, the countries are agreeing to it by signing it. Look at it this way. You have 5 countries that have a certain capability. If one country gets a little crazy, four other countries have the power to keep them in check (kinda sorta). Would you rather have this, or 187 more countries with these weapons and it all haywire.

 
a little theory called darwinism would apply here...

'You never hear Newt Gingrich say: Now why dont these hos just back up off me. I mean let a player play'
 
Gravteck. I guess you're right in that respect. It is better to have a policing body to keep everyone in check but it still seems like a seperate set of rules for one group and another set for other countries. But yeah, you made a very good point.

Also, who's going to keep people like the USA and Russia in check? I think that could become a great concern over the next 10-20 years or so. If leading people like Bush keep abusing their power then what can the world really do? It would either lead to a group of countries teaming up and saying back off or one hell of a bloody war. And sure there is NATO, UN and the World Court etc etc but the military backbone of both NATO and the UN is primarily made up of US forces.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

 
Well I think the fervor of war can only last for so long, sure some people are excited now, the typical blind american (oh yea blow the shit out of him). Eventually it loses its novelty and I think people will tire of it, and a more grounded president will exist. Everything in history has always been an opposing reaction to strong use of government power. Look at late 18th and early 19th century France. The wars and revolutions in France started off as an opposition to imperial power. But then the Republic failed to do everythign they wanted and the people reacted in an opposite way again and putting more of a imperial monarchy in place again. I think it's just gonna go back and forth for a little bit, and by the time this is over, and we have anohter similar conflict again, the situation will begin mor diplomatically than it did this time.

 
dude...thats 18th and 19th century france...give me a break. times have changed a little bit since then. yes history does help us from making mistakes, but to say something like that makes no sense. you have to look at what context france was in at that time my son.

Taste Death. Live Life.
 
Yea I'm looking at what context it was, and this was Napoleon's attempted conquest of the Europe. We're doing the same thing warring abroad (in an attempt to influence another nation, this is indisputable). My point had nothing to do whether going to war here is right or wrong. This all has to do w/ the populous's opinion of it's own government. I was trying to show Tim or whoever that the trend doesn't tend to perpetuate into some ultimate extreme. On the contrary, the public eventually reacts opposingly to governmental structure and policy. I was trying to show that this incident is most likely an isolated 2 or 3 year ordeal (at max I'd think), and then the voting public will call for more moderate policies and do so through the election system. There wasn't anything complicated or out of context in comparing the reaction of France's people historically versus what I expect ours to do.

 
who needs to keep the USA in check? nobody...we are good people and are humanitarians that do whats best. ;)

Taste Death. Live Life.
 
HAHA, for yourselves maybe.

I think what gravteck is saying is essentially correct. Look at Vietnam for example. And how that turned around and went horribly wrong.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

 
There is NOTHING good to be said about what happened in Nam. Let's please not get into any sort of argument about that. The administration fucked that whole campaign.

 
Right on dude. That was one hell of a disaster.

Do you guys reckon a conflict in Iraq could turn into the same kind of situation. I mean, I assume Iraq doesn't have nearly the resources that the Viet Cong did or that it's armed forces could move so freely through the country but it could go the same way maybe. I guess the USA also has a lot of expertise in desert warfare, whereas they went into the jungle knowing all of jackshit.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~

#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#

*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*

@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top