| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105
Comments:
<0> `426Hemi: Can you elaborate anti-Americanism to me? :)
<1> Linus, ok, so Bill Frist?
<1> whats the difference?
<2> OcDoc: No, Pinochet was the guy that Chile ended up with after we got rid of Allende.
<2> Pinochet was "our guy"
<3> why would frist, whos not heading up natl security dept, make such a statement?
<4> personally I think most of the third world toilets should suffer under dictatorship under they grow enough balls to put a stop to it any way they can
<1> LOL!!!
<5> belja: scared of WW3? dont think of it as a war, think of it as a population readjustment
<1> *snore*
<0> deaddog: It's words like these that make me scared. :)
<4> atarax: so you thought there was a big difference between Pinochet and Allende?
<0> deaddog: To think that in the 21st century, people, AND AMERICANS of all people, think like that.
<5> a genetic mulligan
<3> since frist doesnt pull those strings it would not represent the US's position
<6> belja who do you picture being on the 2 (perhaps more?) sides of a ww3?
<7> Linus-, because anyone alledges something doesn't mean it's true, given to the international press also doesn't mean it's true. He can be removed, and no doubt he's been dressed down for his actions.
<2> OcDoc: Well, the biggest difference is that Allende was elected.
<5> belja: you know I'm kidding right?
<4> well, fascinating as this is, I better get to work
<4> laterz
<5> l8r
<1> Linus please explain to us how the security minister got his job to begin with?
<8> work?
<8> damn
<8> I knew I was forgetting something
<3> I'm not saying his allegations are true, that is not my point at all
<0> KoBushi: I'm going to reply to that merely by pointing out that you just made a fool of yourself. Neither of the world wars had anything even close to 2 sides.
<9> belja: yes; one must deal with the times in which one lives.
<3> my point is this riff is not a good sign
<0> KoBushi: Obviously, you're confusing WW2 with the Cold War.
<1> Although the United States said no mosque was attacked, Shiites blamed the military for killing 22 people Sunday. Jawad al-Maliki, a lawmaker from the United Iraqi Alliance, said the Shiite bloc had canceled Monday's session of negotiations to form a new government because of the raid.
<8> WW2 axis vs allied
<5> retroactive species abortion?
<3> another bad sign
<1> so? what is Jawad al-Maliki's job again Linus????
<8> oh
<0> KoBushi: The problem with a world war is that there is no order anywhere, and anyone can justify an attack on anyone by any bull**** methods available, and the US has officially started that.
<8> thats right, we are not supposed to use a history book.
<0> Imagine N-Korea and Iran using the same justification as the US towards Iraq.
<7> Linus-, your point is to exagerate any situation in Iraq that could further your anti war stance :-)
<2> what's more important, democracy or freedom? It's possible that people could elect a highly controlling government (say, a democratic theocracy), or that an appointed ruler could be very libertarian
<6> belja uhh... I said 2+, and ww2 was essentially 2 sides
<5> belja: we attacked Iraq to enforce un resolutions
<10> is there a good channel here that discusses stocks/investing?
<0> The US not only creates and possesses WMDs, it's the only country in history to have ever used them... on civilians.
<9> no, we haven't 'started' anything. We're dealing a bit too late with a set of issues that had been ignored for 30 years.
<0> And the US has explicitely stated that it's gonna attack anyone who opposes them.
<5> afganistan we attacked because of the terrorist main bases were there
<3> "At evening prayers, American soldiers accompanied by Iraqi troops raided the Mustafa mosque and killed 37 people," Abd al-Karim al-Enzi, minister of state for national security, said.
<5> how are these bad reasons?
<0> Using that rationale, isn't it fair game for Iran to attack Iraq, then?
<8> belja Twice
<0> Or Turkey? Or Israel?
<7> belja, well someone has to lead
<8> bellhaven not even close
<1> ohhhh, wait, you know who is the best eye witness on the scene they have????
<0> deaddog: The UN enforces UN resolutions, you enforce US law.
<3> Abd al-Karim al-Enzi, minister of state for national security
<1> Muqtada Al-Sadrs AID!
<1> So **** you
<1> hahahhahahahahahahahha
<0> deaddog: You are not the world's police. Try to get it into your thick head.
<1> Mister "death to America" himself, Mister murderer himself
<2> The US is going to attack anyone who opposes them that doesn't have nuclear weapons, which is why it shouldn't seem surprising that everyone's scrambling to get their hands on them
<5> difference between Iran and Israel is that Israel does not send suicide bombers into crowded iranian markets
<9> belja: no, anyone who acts in a way directly contrary to our interests will be countered by any of a number of measures, only one of which is military.
<0> deaddog: It's reeeaaally simple, really. When you're in California and you break California law, you are picked up by a Californian police officer.
<7> Linus-, he can be removed if needed.
<5> belja: then who the fugg is?
<0> deaddog: When you go to another state, the police over there has to deal with it, with proper complications.
<5> someones gotta get the kids in line
<6> belja I see, so basically you have no reason to think a ww3 might happen, no idea who would be involved, and are just genrally worried with no basis for that worry.
<8> I always get a kick out of how the US's use of Nukes to end ww2 is cast as some single act of terror so losers can paint the US as evil, and then gleefully ask, "What are you going to do if China does that?"
<0> deaddog: And when you break a federal crime, the feds come after you. AND WHEN YOU BREAK A UN LAW, THE UN COMES AFTER YOU!
<0> deaddog: Not the ****ing California police!
<7> belja, I told you about those caps
<0> TheTailor: Sorry about the caps, forgot myself.
<5> belja: all evidence to the contrary
<0> TheTailor: Yes, no excuse, sorry. :)
<3> on your knees
<5> The UN should have gone after Iraq, where were they?
<2> We haven't invaded North Korea because "diplomacy still has a chance", we haven't invaded because invading them doesn't have a chance.
<3> sh/it/ower/ave time
<0> atarax: No, you haven't invaded them because it doesn't suit your economically and strategically.
<0> There's no oil in N-Korea.
<0> Well, none worth taking anyway.
<2> true
<9> belja; and it's also more of a Russia-China-Japan problem, regionally speaking
<7> belja, what has 'taking' got to do with anything?
<2> deaddog: It's become apparent that Iraq apparently didn't need to be gone after.
<8> no oil in korea?
<8> thats a shame.
<9> their major issue vis-a-vis the US is missile and WMD proliferation
<8> atarax actually, that is not the case.
<0> TheTailor: ...uhm, it had nothing to do with the discussion, just that there wasn't enough oil there even worth taking, thus not worth fighting for. :)
<5> You seem to forget, we were attacked and lost alot of people in New York, if you think that we are gonna let that slide you are sorely mistaken, America will have her vengance
<6> belja the UN has no troops to enforce it's laws with, there aren't UN-spcific military personel. Member nations contribute them. Mostly the US and UK, but others to of course.
<7> belja, it's not about oil
<8> atarax do remember Regime change in Iraq was US policy way back in 98.
<2> deaddog: you seem to forget that Iraq had absolutely zero to do with any of it
<5> and thats the simple truth, we are getting back at those who attacked us
<0> deaddog: Then attack Afghanistan and chase Osama bin Laden with the full support of the United Nations as you had. Iraq has nothing to do with that.
<9> except it does
<0> deaddog: Iraq didn't attack you, never even threatened to attack you, and as even you could comprehend now, COULDN'T attack you.
<9> hence the CNN article's points.
<0> Even if they had a hint of a reason to do so.
<5> Iraq supported the bastids, Iran supported the bastids, we will get them for that
<6> If the Iaq war was about oil, then they've sure done a bad job considering some places in the southeast US are still having shotrages and above national average pricing.
<5> so help my Christian God
<2> we're not getting back at those who attacked us, we're going home and beating our kids because we had a bad day at work
<11> well now with the papers being released, thats not all true, we are finding out
<9> it was and is about more than Iraq; see, that's why it's a *regional* problem.
<6> You'd thnk 3 yrs would be enough to get some of that oil over here :)
<7> belja, but Iraq did support terror and we were technically at war with them, removing Saddam and installing democracy is a knife in the heart of fundi Islam
<8> War on terror, Saddam's Iraq was a terrorist state. the math is pretty simple for anyone who is not blinded by hate for either Bush or War.
<7> belja, so we have absolute justification being there
<0> TheTailor: Quite on the contrary, it only goes to show the Islamic fundamentalists that they need a fundamentalist state more than ever... as Saddam Hussein and his government was secular and had absolutely nothing to do with Rradical Islam.
<8> long list of reasons really
<8> and since we found the WMD, its all over but the crying
<0> TheTailor: By that standard N-Korea has justification to attack you.
<5> America will not be all touchy feely 'lets try to understand why they did it and go to therapy' BS that the EU and the rest of the world goes in for. We will prevail against those who would see us destroyed
<2> Iraq would be a lot better off if we brought Saddam back
<0> TheTailor: You're also technically at war with N-Korea.
<11> saddam said he was a devout muslim
<7> belja, it also shows they aren't getting one, as even the people of Islam don't want it or them.
<8> atarax that is the logical conclusion to the Donkeys talking points
<7> belja, NK's time will come.
<5> and God willing, we will prevail, in peace and prosperity through the essence and purity of our natural fluids
<0> TheTailor: Oh, God. How many world wars does it take?
<1> i think the worst disservice we have done to ourselves is not treating the Iraqi's more harshly, we SHOULD be raiding their damn mosques, we SHOULD be putting boots in their ***es when needed
<7> belja, as many as it takes.
<1> stop playing nicey nice and kick some ***
<5> exactly
<0> deaddog: I know people get banned for referring to certain history here, but that line would actually be very typical of Hitler.
<5> quit being such a fruit and go kick some azz! you know you want to
<2> Saddam said he was a devout muslim because he needed to use religion to get people angry at the US.
<8> yeah, i have to admit, leaving the mosque's alone is not wise.
<8> Political correctness run amok.
<2> he was never a devout muslim
<1> Darth EXACTLY
<5> belja: that cam from a movie called Dr. Strangelove
<0> deaddog: I **** you not, I watch Hitler tapes and read his speeches, in German and in English, and that's in fact exactly his character. :)
<0> deaddog: Oh!
<0> Heil Strangelove! ;)
<5> a Stanley Kubrick film
<8> we all know which buildings would be the first to fall if the roles were reversed.
<7> belja, how do you know people get banned for referring to history?
<0> Stanley Kubrick... thank God he never had power. ;)
<5> General Jack Ripper! it was a joke bro.
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#nhl
#politics
project managers are useless
#debian
#windows
#beginner
#nhl
#politics
#goal
#qmail
|
|