Outpost Universe Forums
Off Topic => General Interest => Debate => Topic started by: OP2Patriot on April 10, 2003, 04:00:32 PM
-
I'll find the real statistic thats current, and unless there's been a terrorist war in israel, that statistic is wrong. How can you believe it?
Israel Defense Forces statistic. Of course, if you accuse me of propaganda, we will get nowhere.
---philipu2001
-
Well we aren't getting anywhere anyway, thanks to you! Reply at Ez's forums! cause that's where the whole thread is. I'll reply to your thing in EZ's board.
-
Reply here or debate ends. In that case, I would declare a victory in your unwillingless to debate at a place that I'd rather debate, other than that slow Outpost Congregation.
---philipu2001
-
WILL YOU GUYS CUT THIS OUT ALREDY!!! We are in Bagdad!!! the regime is practly topled, THERES NOTHING LEFT TO DEBATE ABOUT!!!
-
We were debating about Israel, shift in topic. Yes, it is over. I have another report of possible weapons of mass destruction. What may be plutonium was found is Iraq. I think it is probably plutonium, because US engineers found it, and the US practically invented Plutonium. Hopefully no dirty bombs got shipped to Syria or Iraq. I am still right about the WMDs.
---philipu2001
-
Jesus, man. You declare your the winner if I don't reply. What a freaking pussy, you won't go to the other thread and reply to me. Your the one that wants to bring the debate here and try to force me to post here, which has worked, and then you say that I pussy out! If anything your the one who would pussy out by moving the thread without me complying.
Anyway, if you want to be declared the winner of this debate. Then your the winner, I'll crown you myself.
Lets start the debate.
The war isn't over cause the iraqi's still have control over the norhtern cities. And we'll never get closure till they get saddam and his damn sons, but we know how good the US is at getting individuals. I wonder, how are the gonna change the topic from saddam to whatever?
Yeah, you might be right about the WMD's but your still wrong about the intent. They have WMD's and as a country they should be allowed to, (debate that too if you want), but you miss the point. They never even used them against the allied forces. I can only think of 2 things, they never had the intent to use'em or they just don't have the ability to use them. Use your intellegence to give me another reason.
How can you say the US practically invented plutonium? I don't get it. Plz explain to a newb.
I think you meant to say that you hope no dirty bombs get shipped to syria or iran. I just hope that no terrorism happens in the continental US. That would suck.
-
Every country should have WMDs? Only responsible nations should be allowed to have them. Saddam is dead. The regime is scattered. The remnants of the Iraqi military are fighting for themselves, not a regime anymore. The war is practically over, there is no way a draw can develop, and we have achieved most of the conquering tasks.
They never even used them against the allied forces. I can only think of 2 things, they never had the intent to use'em or they just don't have the ability to use them. Use your intellegence to give me another reason.
You haven't heard, the special ops confused the enemy and prevented them from using the weapons. There isn't that many details available, because they used tactics which they may want to use again.
The US practically invented plutonium. We know how to make it and how to use it. We even had a monopoly, until some Soviet spies got the secrets of nuclear weaponry.
We have the Department of Homeland Security working to prevent terrorist attacks. Terrorists can succeed with a plot, but the question is, will they succeed?
---philipu2001
-
Ha, I don't think the special ops are that good. When the war just started, he could have used his short-range missiles and put some chemicals on them and launched them at the invading troops. He could have just saved them till the allies got to the gates of baghdad, and by thta time they'd be ready to use. It's a political question, saddam would have told his military guys what to do, and they wouldn't act without his authority. Obviosly he pussied out and ran away, what I'm trying to say is that he left them his last commands, probably not to use them. Anyway, you'll just think of some bull thing, so why didn't he launch some scud missiles into israel? I thought he hated israel like all the other arab countries?
Who exactly 'invented' plutonium? I don't think it was some guy that was working for the US or even in US interest. But, I'm not sure.
I don't know how you can get so much comfort from the homeland security, all they do is kick the muslim students out of the country.
-
Why else are the called special ops? They are the best of the best, and they are really good. There were some missiles found with chemical warheads that were ready to fire, but never were. Here is some more reasons why those WMDs may have not gone off:
1) Bush announced that any person setting off a WMD would be treated as a war criminal.
2) Vietnam. We eventually pulled out for political reasons, so Saddam may have figured that we would eventually turn back in this war.
3) Saddam may have been lied to. In Hitlers last days, his top cronies told him that Germany was winning, and had Hitler give commands for imaginary armies. There is the possibility that Saddam believed that Iraq was really hurting America, like the disinformation minister of Iraq told us. Saddam, figuring he was going to win, saw no good reason to tilt his hand.
4) Saddam's command structure was weak. Thousands surrenduring to coalition forces and the bombings may have damaged the command structure, by removing his top guys, making it near impossible to issue the chemical weapons order.
5) Special ops. My pick, because the military said so.
---philipu2001
-
Thats 5 reasons, you have a good brain. Well I don't have time to fight about them now. But his command structure is good, not weak, because it's made up of his family and close friends. The 'thousands' surrendering are from the ordinary army. And the rest are pretty weak reasons too, cause anyone knows if the US is gonna get you, your screwed.
-
There are several articles out there on the special ops's involvment. Newsweek had an article on it, I heard. Anyway, I am about to say something that will make the 22% of the country's people that don't support war or Bush heads explode:
George Walker Bush is a genius. By defeating Iraq in three weeks, other 'countries' of the axis of evil are willing to talk. They saw what we did. They saw the statue fell. They know they will pay if they do not comply with US demands. Iran is willing to open relations with the US. 70% of Iran wanted relations with the USA, according to an election poll. Then the people in power then tryed to kill as many of those 70% as possible. North Korea will talk with the USA and the PRC.
Now we have Syria. First, they got oil from Iraq illegally in exhange for Syria providing Iraq with some of those weapons of mass destruction. We recently cut off the pipeline feeding oil into Syria. New-er-bie, do not wine. Syria already has plenty of oil without Iraq's oil being included in the equation. Syria is showing no signs of complying, and they will probably be next, considering talks with North Korea goes good, and North Korea obeys the terms of the treaty that will be struck. (Communists have this thing about not obeying treaties when they have the chance to get away with it)
And you know what, a lot of the Bathe party people who went to Syria, we ain't gonna find 'em there. They've gone to to France! France is helping the Batheos, so that the Batheos won't blab out what France has done for Iraq, unbeknownst to the American public. That doesn't surprise me so much, but if France doesn't give up those Batheos, we should go in there, for the third time! How can a country we saved three times hate us is a bit amazing. They didn't play that big of a role in the American Revolution, other than sending over weapons and a little men. The only major thing was that they blockaded Yorktown so that Cornwallis would not escape, thus making him surrender.
Summing up, Syria and France must comply with US demands or else. Some say that when we were attacked on Black Tuesday (9/11), it was the beginning of WWIII. This may become that, if those that back up terrorism do not step down and give up. We will have no tolerance of any anti-American terrorism in the making or being carried out.
---philipu2001
-
Why would I whine about syria? Show me where I whined man or shut up.
As for Syria what are you gonna say that the ruler is oppressive and the people need to be 'liberated'?
The iraq war in 3 weeks? In only 3 weeks! Wow, what an accomplishment, considering everyone one of those damn 'experts' thought that it would be over way quicker.
Bush is a genius. He got the whole country off the sucky economy and osama. 2 birds with 1 stone, can't argue that, he's a damn genius.
And the axis of evil countries saw the statue fall? Are you kidding me? Is this suppose to symbolize something, damn american propeganda, making mountains out of molehills.
"Communists have this thing about not obeying treaties when they have the chance to get away with it"
Yeah, so does Israel. Now you go whine about it. Again, I love how you post stuff against communists but you don't even see that israel your ally does it too. So your a hypocrite.
Okay heres the good part.
When did the US save France 3 times? I'm stupid right so plz tell me.
This proves your hypocrisy/double-standard, jeez man. You say that france should be thankful to the US after all this time for saving it. Well, why aren't you grateful to the Frenchies for helping the US in the american revolutions. You won't argue with me that it was the most important war, right? Why aren't you grateful to the people that helped give america freedom? All they did was send some men and some ships right? Yeah, but your good at downplaying thier part. If they didn't blockade the coast so Cornwallis couldn't escape then he would have left and the war wouldn't have been won so easy. After they got him, the US won. So in reality the Frenchies did help the US a lot, not cause of the men they sent or how many ships, but how the used them. But you don't care about that right, it's all numbers to you.
And france dosen't hate america. Why would you say something like that. They were against the war. The US just made a big deal about it cause they vetoed the UN resolution. Phil, the US was 'whining', I bet you don't know how many times the US used it's veto power? Of course you don't, and you don't care.
-
As for saving France three times, I said, "if France doesn't give up those Batheos, we should go in there, for the third time." There have been two times before that. WWI, where the Germans were able to swing in their armies from the Russian front over to France. America got in before the Germans were going to breakthough. WWII, our troops were vital to the liberation of France in that war. Hitler already had England in a corner.
The iraq war in 3 weeks? In only 3 weeks! Wow, what an accomplishment, considering everyone one of those damn 'experts' thought that it would be over way quicker.
Bush said at most 5 weeks, when the war started. Who are those "experts" you speak of? Are they the armchair tacticians broadcasting for the media? Three weeks is very quick. With the war over, more people are willing to invest, improving the economy. (You do remember how well buying was at the beginning of the war?) The only invasion I can think of at the moment that was quicker is the invasion of Poland, which lasted nine days.
Yeah, so does Israel. Now you go whine about it. Again, I love how you post stuff against communists but you don't even see that israel your ally does it too. So your a hypocrite.
Are you going to personally stop Israel? Who is going to enforce those treaties you speak of? See, the UN is too weak to back up those. Israel seems to be your only big point. Israel is breaking those treaties for their survival. Israel's Prime Minister has stated that a Palestini state is an enivitibility. Did you know that, or where you readind something else? Let's point the stick at Syria, and their illegal occupation of Lebanon.
Now for the French. Let me see here, now if we went on an "you owe me" basis, then France owes us one. Who said I wasn't grateful for their involvment in the revolution? You must be very mad to call me names. Now for a fair exchange, I shall call you ignorant. I meant the French admistration hating us for the war.
The UN is of little significance for now, and should be abolished. What has the US vetoed? I bet you don't keep tally on what President Bush has vetoed. Are you so busy with keeping score for your side, you fail to see how well my side is doing?
I have been right more often than you, new-er-bie. I was right about the WMDs. I was right about the Al-Queda link to Saddam. I was right about the war will be short. What were you right about when it came to the war? If you have been proven wrong, how do you know you are not wrong now?
---philipu2001
-
Okay Phil your right and I'm wrong. No one really proved the iraqi-al qaeda link. Just some US propeganda, and they didn't find any WMD's. They only found chemicals that they thought were weapons, but could have been pesticides. I never found out what they really were. If your right all the time, give me a link to a source so you can prove your point.
I bring up israel because it violates UN treaties, and even if you think the UN sucks, it's still there and it's still important. Don't go saying that communists do it when a country you support does it, thats gay. And I know that sharon actually said some good stuff. We'll just have to see what happens.
Israel seems to be my only big point, duh its to prove you wrong. Okay lets go back to syria. What should I say, you say something and I'll say the opposite, OK?
Yeah I'm ignorant, I already know that. At least I'll admit it.
The UN only becomes useless when countries think that they can do anything they want. They don't think about it and just do things in haste. The UN represents the intellegence of the world, I guess intellegence should be abolished.
I don't mean to call names, It just comes out. Plus it's still a piss off that you forced me to this forum! So many people were/still are at the old forum. Divinding the op2 community in half.
-
Articles time:
The economy: http://www.forbes.com/home_asia/newswire/2.../rtr942006.html (http://www.forbes.com/home_asia/newswire/2003/04/16/rtr942006.html) (Forbes)
Al-Queda link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ws/khodada.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html) (PBS)
http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,69...,591439,00.html (http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,591439,00.html) (UK Guardian)
http://query.nytimes.com/search/article-pa...752C1A9679C8B63 (http://query.nytimes.com/search/article-page.html?res=9B01EED81E39F93BA35752C1A9679C8B63) (NY Times[You may need to register])
Weapons of Mass Destruction: http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020916-28573872.htm (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020916-28573872.htm) (Washington Times)
http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:HUnpe...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:HUnpebHwmNoC:www.csis.org/stratassessment/reports/WMDIraq.pdf+iraq+weapons+of+mass+destruction&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/scud_info/scud...1en172/iraq.htm (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/scud_info/scud_info_refs/n41en172/iraq.htm)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl...aphic022298.htm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/graphic022298.htm)
http://www.canada.com/national/features/ir...2F-332ECED238DE (http://www.canada.com/national/features/iraq/story.html?id=2CEEEE95-DB20-42C0-912F-332ECED238DE)
I got more from where that came from. Want more? Dividing the OP2 community in half? Oh no, you had to continue the debate here? BOO HOOOOO HOOOOOO. For goodness sake, get over it! I prefer this place because it is too slow over at Ezekel's. You are upset BECAUSE I MADE YOU DO IT. You didn't have to do it. It takes me one minute to load the home page there. Two minutes to load a forum. Three minutes to load a topic. Four minutes to post. I actually timed all this. It is a major inconvience for me to post over at Ezekel's forum.
See, here's the problem with UN treaties, no one is going to enforce them. US treaties will be enforced. Who would you prefer. The UN does not represent the intelligence of the world, but the 'intelligence' of the world who are actually a part of it. FDR started it, but us conservatives are against it. The UN is a front for the New World Order.
I listen and watch liberal and conservative news. Do you, new-er-bie? Have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh? Nah, you'd be too bored about his proof that the Democrats are stupid. You couldn't stand the overwhelming hard-core right wing fundamentalist 'propaganda.'
I was stating the communinsts don't try to keep treaties when not being watched. I did not say that they were the only ones to do it, and I said the communist remark in parenthesis, as to not make it a major point.
Israel, they are doing what is necessary for their survival, when they didn't make the first move. A few or so wars had the Arab countries attacking Israel. Israel is more of a victim than Palestine, and act in the best interest of their country, unlike dictators who invade countries for money and resources.
Do you want more, because I got more.
---philipu2001
-
Wow thats a lot of articles, I'll read them later, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.
People would follow UN treaties if countries like the US didn't go around vetoing stuff immorally just cause it's thier ally. The UN would have more power if people listend to it and tried to compromise. Phil its like the US, the people give the government power. The president and stuff can be elected if they do a good job, or they'll lose if they suck. The government can't just kick people out of the country cause they feel like it. The UN's like that, the countries give it power. The UN can kick people out of it's organization and put sanctions on them and other stuff. But I'll agree with you that the UN isn't perfect, no one is. It sucks because it's so easy to manipulate. Like in the security counsil there was like a couple of poor african countries, and when it comes time to vote for war and stuff, do you think that they're gonna vote in the US's favor? Of course, who would risk losing US aid? And what's this whole "New World Order"? That you keep going on about.
No Phil I can't say that I watch liberal and conservative news, or Rush Limbaugh. Why are you so gay with that guy? Phil almost all the news companies are a for-profit bussiness, and if you don't know money runs the world, and whoever pays gets what they want. And everything can be said as propeganda. Anything can be bent and switched up to reflect someones view. News is propeganda, maybe unintentionally, maybe light propeganda but theres still some bias, or whatever. Can you believe that? Or do I suck at saying it. The only person that I would every really believe about anything is someone who's a first hand witness to it, but I would much rather be there in person to ever talk about it. Do you think that we know half the stuff that goes on in iraq? Or even the world? Were locked up in our little bubbles, we can't see it all man.
I don't have a problem with israel, it's not a bad country. But the fact is that the prime minister did say some good stuff about a palestinean state. But the fact also is that he's a war criminal. I don't think that's cool. And why would the arabs invade israel to get any resources? Man thats the dumbest thing I ever heard. They don't have bull there, maybe a tiny bit of any resource, but other than that it sucks. Do you think the british would have given them a 'good' peice of thier empire?
Propeganda is when the allies go into bagdad and topple the statue, thats supposed to be 'symbolic'. What I wanna know is, if they're so happy they got liberated why did only a couple hundred people come out in a city of like 5 million people? Of course you wouldn't have thought that, cause all the news camera's were focused in really close so that it would look like there werre many people there. Someone even told me that those people cheering werre iraqi resistance guys flowin in by the pentagon and that special ops restricted the area, so it was all just a show. I don't know if thats real, and I don't think the US is that gay, but who knows?
-
Only a couple hundred came out, because the rest still feared Saddam. You give me too little credit. In a recent poll conducted by the media, 56% of Americans want the US out of the UN. The New World Order is out to conquer the world. They've been in operation for the pass two hundred years or so. They create crisises where they can pass some of the policies they want. One of their goals is to cut the world's population down to less than a 1/2 billion. Has to do with "purifying," the human gene bank. Adolf Hitler himself was a member of the New World Order. Thankfully, he did not suceed in conquering the world. You need to read more about it, since the New World Order is something you seem to know little of.
The toppling of Saddam's statue is symbolic in its own way. It sends a message to the world, do not mess with America. Why wouldn't special ops cheer at the toppling of the statue? Am I out of some loop or something? However, the Syrians, unlike Iran and North Korea, are not willing to talk with America. This is partially due to Syria being run by the Bathe party. They give Palestini terrorists the bombs they use to terrorize the Israeli population. Oh no, you are likely to reply to the last sentence I type. Israelis at young ages, are taught what to do in cases of a chemical attack, or other terrorist activities. The Palestinis are taught to blow up Israelis. Anyway, new-er-bie, what do you think we should do with the remnants of the Al-Queda network? (Sudden change of topic I know, but I need to hear your opinion, so I know how to treat you further of the topic of terrorism, with your, "Bush Doctrine gives excuse for Israel and Russia to do what they have done.") The Israelis are doing the wrong thing for the right reason in my opinion, that reason being to destroy the sanctuary of anti-Israeli terrorists, and defeat terrorism to the point where it cannot strike back. I didn't say that the Arabs have tried to invade Israel for resources. They are upset that a country with Jerusalem as its capital (or Tel Aviv, according to the UN), a city that is a holy city for many different nationalities, is in the control of Jews.
As for Rush Limbaugh, his only bias is that he is very conservative. You should listen to him, that's all. He gives a lot of proof on how he is right, which he is always right. Now for that statue might not being real. Seems to go in with the hollywood war theory. If the war didn't happen, then why did the "information" minister of Iraq commit suicide when Baghdad had fallen? Is that a rumor published by multiple media publications, or a thing that actually happened? New-er-bie, you say that you are just trying to be the opposite of what I say. Then does not mean that you personally disagree with some of what you say, or everything you say? I am debating for the side I'm actually on.
---philipu2001
-
Well you figured it out, some of the stuff I say I don't really care about, just have to give the other side. You know, keep the debate going. ;) There I replied to your last line. :)
Iraqi info minister killed himself? Pathetic, I never knew.
Yeah I don't know much about the "world order" or whatever. People are stupid, would it be so bad if someone took over the whole world? If they were a good leader, then I wouldn't care, but who knows. People waste their time fighting about worthless stuff, terrorists aren't gonna kill the US. Aid's is, teen pregnacny is, corruption is, rape is, crime is, you get the point. Humans are the biggest parasite to this planet. Sad but true.
As for al-qaeda, they're taking the wrong approach. After the took afganistan I would have helped it a lot more and actually rebuilt it like promised. That way people wouldn't become terrorists. I would loosen up isaeli checkpoints and stuff. The problem isn't wasting al-qaeda neccesarily, it's containing it. "Containment", you should know what that is with all this communism stuff. Think about it, if no one joins al-qaeda how will it work. Not even if people just join it, they have to be completely dedicated and willing to use thier lives. al-qaeda uses propeganda too, and probably is recruiting so much now. I would help the people around the world to make the US have a better image and a more fair image, I would stop the hypocrisy in foriegn affiars, and focus on the stuff and not bite off more than I can chew.
Phil people are always gonna mess with the US no matter what. Even if it flexes it's military muscle. The US is like a bully, pick on the weakest kid.
-
Then why would the little kid pick a fight with the bully? I beg to differ with your analogy, we were provoked. So the lives of the 5 1/2+ Billion people mean nothing to you? If humanity is really a paracite, then why not kill yourself and make the host feel better? You are upset with the death of innocents, yet you call humanity a parasite. Of course, this springs off of evolutionary ideology I happen to disagree with.
Here's my opinion with what should be done with Al-Queda: destroy it. Kill or imprison every last member. Simple enough. If there is no Al-Queda left, how could Al-Queda hurt us? Containing Al-Queda is like trying to contain a bomb explosion with no protection, you are going ot get hurt. If no one joins Al-Queda, then what about those who are still a part of it? There will always be people that will hate the US, for our idealogies, culture, or how great we are as a nation.
---philipu2001
-
No people are cool, but there's so many bad people in the world. People like that piss me off, they give all people a bad name, like terrorists give muslims a bad name. People are just a parasite becasue all they care about is themselves.
"Of course, this springs off of evolutionary ideology I happen to disagree with."
No it dosen't spring off evolutinary ideology, what I was trying to say is that people are so screwed up these days. Guess I said it in a bad way.
Your opinion is to kill everyone member of al-qaeda? And you think that's simple? Yeah right, the US can't kill Osama or even find Saddam, thier intellegence isn't perfect. So your idea is pretty far off. Your right if they all were dead then there would be no problem, but as history proves as long as the US is at the top theres always gonna be someone to hurt it. It's easier to 'contain' it by helping people around the world, plus your helping people. :) You've never been to a third world country I'm guessing? You've probably never even been to a poor part of the US? You still think the US dosen't have poor people? You should see the way they live, and you'll wonder why it's so easy for them to waste thier lives.
-
I meant simple as in a simple idea, easy to grasp. It's the best way to solve the problem, and likely way to take to longest. Containment way be the easiest, but will it solve the problem? If we would have keep trying containment with Iraq, they'd get around to nuking us sometime. We were talking about Al-Queda, not terrorism in general. Maybe someday, we will not have to worry about terrorism, but for now, it seems terrorism is going to be here forever. But remember, 5 years before the USSR fell, if you told someone the USSR would fall in 5 years, they would not believe you. As long as we are committed to defeating terrorism, we are making America a safer place for future generation. Those who fear reprecussions from the Iraq War are only looking in the short term, while what the USA is doing now is for the long term.
There is nothing wrong with helping people. There are plenty of not so privelaged people out there. Usually this is a result of not being able to succeed enough fiancially to have a livable income. With a bit of a cash and some classes, we could make those people productive members of society. Now only if there were more jobs out there. The market was going to go down anyway. The profits in the stock market were reported 30% higher than they were actually were during the Clinton Administration, thus the current economic state was unavoidable. America is also a land of promise, where those who have the skills to be great can be great, unlike other countries where you just inherit your parent's social status. You should read about Carnegie some time. I've never been to a third world country, but I know those who have. The great thing about America is, you can make money off about anything. If you really care about the poor and unprivelaged, then donate to a local charity.
There is this one case in court (or will be in court) that is ridiculous. Let me explain. There was this 450+ pound man, who wanted to apply for a job at McDonalds. They turned him down, because he'd scare off the customers. (You can figure out why) So sometime later, he has a heart attack. Now his family is suing McDonalds for killing the fat man. Maybe this isn't the best example. There are so many different types of buisnesses in America, unfortunately rich lawyers seeking a landmark case in American history is one of those buisnesses.
---philipu2001
-
I forgot to say this in my previous post that the US attacked iraq unprovoked. The little kid didn't pick a fight with the bully. Iraq just got accused and then invaded.
If told someone that had any brains that the USSR would fall in 5 years they would agree that it would fall but don't know how soon. They know how the communist economy sucks, and the world runs on money.
First off, not in all 3rd world countries you inherit your parent's social status. Just cause they're 3rd world countries dosen't mean that they're still like that. They're lots of smart people in 3rd world countries, it's just that the jobs in those countries pay less than they would in the US. Hearing about something from someone is different than seeing it yourself. But I remember when my uncle went to saudi arabia he said that it was different than the US but not worse. He said it was nice how there wasn't that much security at stores and stuff. There it was understood that if you went into a store it was to buy something, not to steal. Too bad we don't have that here.
"The great thing about America is, you can make money off about anything."
Well I see what your saying, but I think it's also the bad thing. In the US you really can make money off anything, thats why there so many prostitutes that are forced into work. They have nothing else to make money off except...you know, do 'work' for some horny guy.
As for McDonalds and those court cases they're just for people to make easy money. 1/3 of America is like obese cause of fast food like McDonalds making thier food so unhealthy. But the real reason is probably cause people are so lazy and don't excersize or anything.
-
Wasn't it provoking enough that we could see Iraq helping those helping us? You may say they have no link to Al-Queda (there was a link between Iraq and Al-Queda, but that Iraq is no more), but that does not mean Iraq supports other terrorist groups. If they would make one atom bomb, give to some terrorists, sneak it past security, KA BOOM, we'd have a castrophie. Homeland security might stop it, but it would be safer to prevent the bomb from ever getting into terrorist hands. With all the info from the CIA we got, you have to wonder what other dirty secrets the USA knows about Iraq. The place where they found the weapons-grade plutonium, there was radiation where it was found. If it was not plutonium, where was it from. Now for those 3000 boxes of white powder that may be chemicals, you have to wonder why the chemicals are with anti-dote and manuals for chemical warfare. Maybe they were having a jihad against insects.
Now for shoplifting in America. If there was a harser punishment other than a slap on the wrist (like at least 20 years in jail) maybe we wouldn't have to worry of shoplifting more often. In Kuwait, for example, steal, and you lose your right hand. Steal again, and I guess your other hand. (Although, you would be branded the first, and not very smart ot do it a second time) In my opinion, its how they punish those who steal is why in Arab countries there is less penalties for stealing.
Maybe I should have said, the great thing about America is, if are just able to work hard enough, you should have a very healthy income. The only bad thing is, that if you work very hard, you become one of the top 50% that pays 96.06 percent of the taxes (IRS Statistics from 2000, I got charts). New-er-bie, right now, we are bearing the fruits of America. We inherit the pros and cons. That is we got politicians, to make America a better place for the future. Then there is disagreements on how it should be done, so then there is the basic division of conservative and liberal.
Here's a basic way to say the difference between the two philosophies. Liberals, they do something to the people, like Welfare. Conservates, they do something with the people. "Give a man a fish, and he will have a meal, but teach a man to fish, and he shall eat for life." ---Confusious (If I misquoted, correct me) However, there is no such thing as a free meal, someone pays for it. There is so much welfare spending, if we could cut it, we could work more on making new roads, larger tax cuts, and improvements for the future. Another difference between the two philosophies is the size of government. Liberals want a bigger government, and conservatives want a smaller one.
---philipu2001
-
Well you can call it whatever you want but the war on iraq was unprovoked. Just cause they had stuff or even if they were helping other people dosen't mean they were provoking. Understand what provoking is. The US was the aggressor, at least admit that much. Thats why the whole world pop. was against it, cause it was unprovoked. I'm sure if they provoked the US then the world would be behind us, or even if the government did something and blamed it on them.
Wow we have our own debating thread!
Yeah maybe your right about the shoplifting thing, but you gotta admit that the society in the US is really corrupt. Maybe you aren't and your friends are but so many people here are. When my uncle went to saudi arabia he was like amazed that people were so nice. But he didn't really meet so many natives, he met some other muslim guys that I guess went there too. America has some gay laws, like porno, homosexuality, and gambling and other stuff that screws up america, and drinking...but lets not get into that.
Man every chance you get you try to make liberals sound worse than conservatives. I hate these stupid political parties that you categorize people into. I don't care much for this bull, bigger/smaller gov works better and worse in different situations. First you don't even say what liberals support bigger state gov? federal gov? If you didn't already know the US gov is pretty damn huge, it's got like 300 depts, and then they just added homeland securtiy. Bigger gov isn't always bad like you make it out to be, it gets more jobs.
And yeah I know hard work pays, I get enough of that from my dad.
-
Big government is bad. Originially, this country was founded for only two things: defense and justice. The public schools were originally made for poor people, but now a majority of the children go to them. Welfare, people should not be forced to pay for the misfortune of others. There are charities out there. My parents often give to charity. Not everyone would give to charity, but charity should replace welfare, not welfare replace charity. Then there is some rediculous spending going on. Cut all of that, and we will have more money flowing around, creating a stronger economy. I am deliberately a hard-core conservative, thus my posts reflect on my views. Liberals support a bigger federal government. Conservatives support a smaller one.
There are bad things in America. Stricter laws, enforcements, and more intelligent juries! How many times does a jury sympathesis with the criminal, because of the harsh environment he grew up in? I'm short on time, and will continue later.
---philipu2001
-
Ooooooooooooohhhhhhhh, all this time I thought the US was based on individual freedom, silly me!
-
I should have said they were the original two roles for the government. My mistake. This war is the continuation of the War of Terrorism, and there was anti-American terrorists based in Iraq.
---philipu2001
-
Okay, but who was really anti american in iraq? It was more like america's anti-iraq.
-
Al-Queda was in Iraq. Some other ones, they were Syrian and Iranian terrorists. The evil regime of Iraq is no more, so America can't be anti-Iraq!
---philipu2001
-
Well america helped iraq and then just turned on it. They were like bend over buddies and then america went all anti iraq.
-
We were never really buddies with Iraq. The enemy of your enemy is your friend. That policy was the policy we used so that we could send Saddam weapons to fight Iran. But like Afghanistan, Iraq turned. They invaded Kuwait. Then we led a coalition to stop Saddam from invading other countries. We did not go all the way to Bahdad, due to world opinion.
The war the US just fought with Iraq could be seen as a continuation of the Gulf War. We only did half a job, and left. We did not remove the regime. It is also a continuation of the War on Terrorism. After 9/11, the US cannot leave those alone that aim to hurt America, but must confront the regimes that support terrorism and the terrorists themselves.
---philipu2001
-
First off the US used the iraq. They influenced iraq to attack iran. The US gave it weapons, yeah chemical weapons to use against iran. And when they used'em the US didn't even speak out against it. Yeah your gonna look bad cause you supplied the weapons but at least condemn their damn use. You don't see what I see man, when the chemical weapons are used in the US's favor then it's okay, when it's a potential threat ot the US it's evil. What are american lives worth more than irani lives? I'm asking the wrong guy. ;)
And the US was never there to stop saddam from invading other countries. Sorry I have to show the US in a bad light, and tell the truth. The US only got involved becuase of kuwaits oil, if iraq controlled it then they would control to much.
And what's this about terror? War on terror? Well terrorists create terror, terror = fear. And the war on iraq, made baghdad a free for all city. Thugs, robbers, criminals all loose. The US war on iraq, made terror in baghdad, so is the US a terrorist? Yeah it is, but I'll wait for a clever response. It's worth mentioning though, from me, that the US does help the civilians with aid and stuff. But they make curfews and won't allow civilians to leave the city. They won't allow civilians to leave a city without water, electricity and full of thugs and criminals.
-
They were only enemies to America at the time. I did not say I approved of the policy. If I were president at that time, I would not have given any weapons to Iraq. Actually, we are supposed to hate the minority in control of Iran, not the majority. I got good news. Syria is willing to talk now. Now if they turn over some of them WMDs, we'd be a bit better off. So new-er-bie, you think that the war just fought was for oil?
What happened in Baghdad was only temporary. With no system of currency, Baghdad went into a barter economy, thus they looted so that they would have something to barter with. It's not like it has not happened here. You have to look at the long term, and things will get a lot better.
---philipu2001
-
Yeah but you don't see the things from all the points of view. You have to admit that the US sucked in baghdad, they can't control the city. The first gulf war was for oil, so the kuwaiti's could have control of it back. You wanna argue about that?
Besides....how do you know baghdad went into a barter system, where you there?
-
I should ask where were you? Whatever currency that was issued by the Iraqi government became useless, so how were they supposed to put bread on the table? What was the US supposed to do, they had just defeated the regime, would you have expected them to start printing a currency or fly one in? They have been flying in US Dollars for a few days or so.
---philipu2001
-
Oh yeah I guess it makes sense. And no I didn't expect the army to print money for them, but I did expect them to continue electricity and clean water flow into the city and give'em aid in food and stuff.
You know what we should do, we should have a huge chat with all the people that wanna be in the debate and then post the stuff here? Stupid idea? Cause then you don't have years to figure out clever responses! Not saying that you do, but it would be easier.
-
I do have a secret chatroom made for my novellas website, although you can't get to it through the novellas page. It is http://www.freewebz.com/philipu2001/chat.htm (http://www.freewebz.com/philipu2001/chat.htm) We could arrange a time. Some of those Iraqis didn't get clean water and electricity in the first place.
---philipu2001
-
That chat room sucks you have to download stuff.
It dosen't matter if they didn't have water in the first place or not, once the US took over baghdad they have to provide that stuff for the pop. Your supposed to protect the pop. and give them stuff like that, I think, according to UN resolutions but not sure which ones. Oh yeah, the US is too good for the UN. ;)
-
Oh, new-er-bie, read these:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/1185...7_safire22.html (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/118547_safire22.html)
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=5241 (http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=5241)
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030422-14988126.htm (http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030422-14988126.htm)
Ah, follow the money, and you will see why France, Russia, and the UN were against the US in the Iraq War of 2003. It's a scandel folks! There was more to that food for oil program than we knew.
---philipu2001
-
Whats your point?
Did you reply to my post? Cause I don't get it, or are you just changing the subject?
-
The only thing to say is that there are some things that can't be accomplished in less than 72 hours, and in the long term, there will be water and electricity.
---philipu2001
-
Maybe they can't get electricity and water in 72 hours, but they could at least keep the city from becoming lawless. I mean they could like put martial law there, they have the army men.
-
Maybe they were playing liberator. They did quickly establish a volunteer Iraqi police. I guess they were a bit busy with getting Bathe party officials. I probably don't know as much as I like about day-after invasion government as I would like.
---philipu2001
-
Man just admit that they're plan wasn't perfect, and that they screwed up in the city!!!
-
I didn't say that they were perfect. Saddam already had the city screwed, so it was a barrel of dynamite about to go off.
---philipu2001
-
How did he have the city screwed? I don't think thats fair to say. The bombs screwed up the city. They dropped like more bombs in the first day or 2 days in the war than they did in the entire gulf war 1. Tell me again saddam screwed the city.
-
Let's just say he was bit of a resource hog and a lot of the wealth in the city tilted towards him. Fair to say? The world isn't fair. I'm not saying the army couldn't have done a better job with ruling Baghdad, but what happened there really shouldn't be too shocking. We've had looting in America here too, usually after big championship games.
---philipu2001
-
Yeah he did keep an unfair share, but he was the evil dictator right? Anyway, the santions that the US imposed through the UN after the first gulf war wasted iraq, lets argue about that.
-
Gee, you didn't read those articles. What wasted Iraq was the Food for Oil program. It was supposed to give food to the poor people of Iraq, instead all the funds and food were given to Saddam and his Bathe Party. So Saddam was happy to give the French and Germans oil, he got stuff. The UN got at least 1 billion off the "commission" on the oil, and the French and Germans are rolling in dough. Let's talk about that. Why do you think the French and Germans don't want the sanctions lifted now?
---philipu2001
-
Hey man they were just doing 'business', just kidding don't take that seriously.
Before the first gulf war iraq had the best education system in the region and 1 of the best healthcare systems. Only people that were loyal to saddam got stuff, he did make sure that baghdad was well off. Under sadams tyranny at least he could control baghdad, there wasn't all this looting bull. But still I can't say that cause he did do too much bad stuff, and as for the french and germans they're just opportunists, like the US. You said it yourself the world isn't fair, get used to it.
-
I was saying that the UN, Germans, and French were more at fault. It seemed that you blamed the US entirely for the current condition of Iraq. Just opportunists? It seems you were not entirely enformed about what was going on. I only found about the Food for Oil Scandel on Tuesday, and word about it got out on Friday. In your portrayal of "evil," it seems that you did forget the French, Germans, and the UN.
Most of the looting wasn't for goods. It was people looking for records of their lost relatives. To see where they were if they still were alive, and what fate they met. Why wouldn't they want to know about their families. Also they were taking back in a sense what Saddam took from them and to have bread on the table. However, I'd like it if they get their looting limited former Iraqi government buildings, not hospitals and muesums.
---philipu2001
-
"Also they were taking back in a sense what Saddam took from them and to have bread on the table"
---philipu2001
Around here we call that stealing, you can word it however you want.
If the US did it's aid job then they wouldn't need to put food on the table.
Looting for family records? Bull, since when are family records kept in museums? They did loot for personal gain, t.v's artifacts, anything worth money, you name it.
And I think the US is to blame for the current position in iraq, they made iraq how it is. The war machine, they supplied it to waste iran, and then turned against it. Germans, French, UN, whoever made money off it, they would've never got involved if the US didn't use iraq like it did. The US started this all by using iraq to attack iran, maybe you were misinformed? Or maybe you don't wanna be informed....
-
The only blame the US should have is for not finishing the job in '91. Then a lot of problems would have been avoided. I didn't say that muesums would have records:
However, I'd like it if they get their looting limited former Iraqi government buildings, not hospitals and muesums.
I said I wish they wouldn't raid muesums. Me thinks you spent 1 minute typing. Read my posts s l o w l y before replying. You think the French, Germans, and UN played a small part in their sceme, it seems. Billions and billions of dollars flowed to the French, Germans, and Russians. (I forgot the Russians earlier) I'm short on time, so I have to go now.
---philipu2001
-
Yeah but the US started this whole thing.
-
You are arguing with "the US started this whole thing!" For something to start, like a war, two parties usually have to be involved. If the second party, in this case Iraq, was more cooperative, then we would not be arguing.
---philipu2001
-
Okay well your saying that it was between iraq and the US. It wasn't, the first gulf war was about iraq and kuwait, it had nothing to do with the US. The US only got involved cause of it's 'good will'. And even before that, the US created the iraqi war machine. How could they be so stupid to think that something like the invasion of kuwait wouldn't happen when they encouraged iraq to invade iran and have a a war for so many years. How could they be so stupid to think that after they armed bin laden that he would just always be a mindless follower of the US. Phil, iraq and bin laden used the US, just like the US used them. They all had thier motives. But in the end it all comes down to the US supplying them, if they never got supplied they couldn't have done so much damage at such a high scale. All I'm saying is that all this was created by the US. Am I wrong to think that?
-
As I said before, a sad result of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy. Not much more can be said, other than those were other administrations, and this Bush probably wouldn't try that policy. (Unless you think he is a dumb cowboy, although he is purty smart, getting a harvard degree and all) History will tell who Bush really is, not the critical media.
We were looking out for our best interests and the best interests of the world at the time, and to prevent Saddam from going into Saudi Arabia and getting more oil. Considering that Iraq had the third biggest army in the world at the time, the world really wanted the US to go in. Yes, the US could be considerable a major (or maybe the) factor for Iraq, but there are also other factors to consider. Iraq could have chosen to be peaceful and soforth, but they weren't, so they had to be dealt with. The US is a major factor in the world, and for that reason I am not an isolationist.
---philipu2001
-
We were looking...to prevent Saddam from going into Saudi Arabia and getting more oil.
---philipu2001
Thats the stupidest thing I ever heard. I mean seriously man, what is he gonna do with more oil? Sell it to frenchies through the UN (remmeber they're all evil) for some cash?
You don't impress me by saying bush got a harvard degree. It's the same thing with all these damn saudi princes, they get all these oxford 'educations' and get degrees from these big name colleges. And what do they learn? Nothing, they paid they're whole way through. It just makes them look good, they're still idiots. ;)
Iraq could have chosen to be peaceful, you say. Yeah but also like you say the US is a major influence in the world, and they influenced iraq to be aggressive. Iraq is full of oil, so even if it wasn't a war for oil, it'll pay itself off. It's got like 3 major different ethnicities, so it's easy to break up. The muslims there are mostly shiy' ate, did I spell it right? So they could go the way or iran. It's all a political screw up, how are they gonna make a government there? I can't believe I'm saying it, but you know it was kind of good with saddam, everything wasn't perfect, but it worked. It's like getting rid of 1 evil and then worse evil coming after that. I'm glad he's gone, I won't sleep better at night thinking I'm safe, I'll sleep better at night knowing those iraqi's are safe. But seriously, how are they gonna make a government there, when they can't even get afganistan up and running? Whats your opinoin phil?
-
It's shi'ite. In Afganistan, the contractors won't start for some reason. That is why the Bush administration picked a couple a companies to work on Iraq, and one of them was the same company that built the Hoover Dam. There were some mistakes made with Afghanistan that hopefully will not be made again with Iraq.
Saddam with control over a lot of oil, he'd could have some control on gas prices and the economy. Usually when a place is invaded by dictators, that are after the money. power out, ups kicking in, wrapping up buisness
-philipu2001
-
Shi'ite, oops my bad.
In iraq it's a whole different story, you don't need to fight for companies, they'll come to you to ask to work in the iraq oil fields. They fight so they can drill, they want the business.
Saddam already controlled a lot of oil, he just couldn't use it to his gain, legally that is. If the saudi's didn't help bin laden what makes you think they'll help saddam, after all he's iraqi not saudi.
"Saddam with control over a lot of oil, he'd could have some control on gas prices and the economy. Usually when a place is invaded by dictators, that are after the money. power out, ups kicking in, wrapping up buisness"
Whats the difference when a democracy does it?
I'm sure you heard about how the economy sucks nowadays. Lets talk about the euro. The euro beat the dollar, I'm talking before the war. Iraq started using the euro as it's oil currency, making it higher than the dollar. When the Us goes in with the US dollar which do you think will be worth more? If tobacco companies, alchohol companies, and pharmecutical companies don't care about lives just as long as they make thier money, what makes you think that the US cares about anyone else as long as it makes its money.
This is how the article says it:
Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency, but Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros, and profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the EU and its euro back into the sea and make America's position as the dominant economic power in the world all but impregnable.
Oh yeah, you cleverly avioded the question of how you think iraq's new gov. is gonna be like? Need more time to think? Just say so, cause I'm sitting here waiting!
-
Iraq's new government will more likely be a bit un-American, but probably not hostile. I did not say that Saudis would join Saddam, I said Saddam would take over the Saudis. More and more countries are accepting the American Dollar was their currency. (Some Central American and South American countries) Last I heard, Mexico was considering to change its currency to the dollar. All the better for us if we can monopolize oil. "Ye who has the oil makes the rules." Outpost Forums 4:5. Honestly, if this war was for oil, all the better for us. If you don't like it, sell oil cheap to other people's of the world. New-er-bie, what buisness of yours to defend the Euro? Why debate currencies? The economy has grown 1.6 percent of this year. It hasn't gone down, but up. And with the war over, the economy will get better. There will be more job oppertunities. BREAKING NEWS: Hard evidence of Al-Queda and Iraq link found.
---philipu2001
-
Whoever said I defended the Euro? I just used it to prove my point. And even if I did, what's it to you?
The economy sucks, it might have gone up a little, and that might be good enough for you. But it's not as good as it was before.
If the war couldn't get the economy up like crazy then what makes you think it'll just magically happen after the war?
What I was trying to say is that the US is unfairly making an influence grab. Their currency sucks, so they can't get it up playing by the rules, so to beat the euro they go and invade someone. Yeah it's good the US has the oil, that'll help the economy, but the ethical question is if it was a war for oil is soildiers lives worth the oil? Don't you remember seeing the "no blood for oil" signs at all those protests? Or did your daddy say that all that bull? j/k
How is there supposed to be more jobs just cause the war is done? Maybe in iraq, but how in the US. Plz explain to me?
You actually think that some south/central american countries taking up the dollar is gonna matter? They have like a revolution everyday and a new gov the next, how stable.
What hard evidence? I R A Q and A L - Q A E D A, they both have Q's right? Got that from a politcal cartoon, no time to find it though.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/26/...q.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/26/sprj.irq.britain.iraq.ap/index.html)
That is from CNN, the people who had their own reporters tortured by Saddam, but didn't see it as newsworthy, and held their anti-war stand. The proof for the link!
In the course of history, the economy has always had an upward trend. You say it is bad now, but it will get better, and is getting better. You are complaining about a job in progress in my opinion. It seems you fail to look at the long term. The US Dollar is one of the most stable currencies of the world, and the temporary currency of choice for the interim government of Iraq. Ethics questions? Was the war worth it? We liberated Iraqis and have proof that those Iraqis try to ship away and destroy their WMDs as soon as we came in. Imagine it, if we had not followed through, they would not have destroyed some of their WMDs. You do remember the cyanide and mustard gus dump into the Euphrates River, right?
The world economy is in a bad state, so technically ALL CURRENCIES MIGHT SUCK BE YOUR CRITICAL STANDARDS! (Sorry, I had to get that out of me, I'm tired of people saying the economy is really bad off and so forth, even though it is getting better) In history, they will remember that the economy was bad for this period, but they will remember, it got better. The downward trend started before Bush even got into office, meaning that Clinton was still in charge. If you ask me, it is sort of irresponsible to leave a mess like that to clean up. (Also, if you ask me, I'd say that the Clintons should not have looted the White House before they left)
Don't you remember seeing the "no blood for oil" signs at all those protests? Or did your daddy say that all that bull? j/k
See one rally with 20 people, you've seen them all. Besides, what type of education do most of those protesters have anyway? They hate Bush, therefore they must stop what he does.
How is there supposed to be more jobs just cause the war is done? Maybe in iraq, but how in the US. Plz explain to me?
Short term, there will have to be people to fill the vacant places of those in Iraq. Thus, more hirings. Long term, the economy is getting better, more money, more jobs. (Unless those you have jobs oppress the unemployed by getting 2x their salary, however an unlikely scenario, just made for humor-sake) From what you have been telling me, the governments in Central America will be more stable than Iraq.
You want to war with cartoons? I got cartoons. In conclusion, I see your critism as pointless, because there are already people to work to solve the current problems, and they are paid to do it right. Think in the long term, not the short term. Good chess strategy, and works for many other games. Why would it not work for real life? Yes, there are things that must be done in the short term, but they shouldn't always be for the short term, but in most cases be for the long term.
---philipu2001
[size=8]Edit: NOTE TO XFIR, Why must the / m e command exist? It is pointless, and will hurt my link posting.[/size]
[size=8]Edit: Link fixed.[/size]
-
[ Hmm.. the / me command is being problematic.. I shall remove it. ]
What would you like me to say new-er-bie?
Yes, I think Saddam was a rutheless leader. He would kill anyone who was found to be Thinking about bad things toward him. The Iraqi people saw his face no matter where they looked. Could you imagine seeing the same face everywhere you looked? Including in your cup of coffee? Or favorite movie?
As for money related issues, I say let all the stock investors figure something out.
Have you seen the latest news? How the Iraqis are now calling the US a "leader much like Saddam" in effect? They are mad because we won't let them loot and destroy and kill. They want their own government that has no ties to the US. They want us out of there... What are they trying to hide?
-
See one rally with 20 people, you've seen them all. Besides, what type of education do most of those protesters have anyway? They hate Bush, therefore they must stop what he does.
There you go generalizing. Every protestor's gotta be stupid, they all have to hate bush, they're not being 'patriotic'.
Dammit xfir, you post about the / me thing, but you can't write a little about this topic!
I'm not complaining about the economy or job trends, your just saying the economy's getting better, I'm saying that the amount that it got better dosen't even matter. Since you like to go with history, history proves that during and after wars, economies go up. And they don't just improve a little, they get up there.
All currencies might suck, but what was happening was that the euro was beating the mighty dollar, can't have that happening now can we?
Man your still with the WMD's, even if they did have'em what makes you think that they would use them against the US? The US was the instigator, they were the 'badguys'. All this propeganda to make them look like liberators is probably what your seeing. Yeah they did a good job getting rid of saddam, but why do they make it out like they went in there to liberate? They don't give a damn about the iraqi's, and everyone knows that.
-
Why do I have to repeat myself? Anyway, earlier I said that the war was for the WMDs. The Iraqi liberation is a side effect of the war.
The Iraqis may want autonomy over there own affairs, but before we leave, we better make sure those autonomous people do have no ill plans to the US. We liberated the Iraqis to remove their former regime that was a danger to America, and set up a better government in its place.
There I go generalizing? I saw one, then the one after that one was like the one before that, and the one after the one after that one was like the one after the one that was like the one before that and so forth. I did see different protests, but they are all very alike. Who said it was not patriotic to use your freedom of speech? What is unpatriotic is the fact they tie up traffic and are a civil disturbance.
---philipu2001
-
What WMD's? They're still looking for them.
As you say the iraqi's want autonomy over thier governement, they also want control of thier oil, but you know thats not gonna happen.
Yeah your generalizing, so was I saying that anyone that speaks out is being 'unpatriotic'. We all do it, you just didn't catch me, don't cry about it man, just admit that you do it. Yeah it's civil disobedience, when they tie up traffic, but thats not the majority of the protests. Just a couple of people that wanna get run over, it's not like you see the 100,000 people marches blocking traffic. You saw the bad side of the protests, most of them were peaceful. And I'm sure you only saw the US ones, they're were protests going on all around the world. Don't try to downplay the protests as some stupid demonstration that don't even have the right permits to do the damn march or whatever. :angry:
What took you so long to post anyway? :blink:
-
BWA HA HA! It is so good to be so unilateral! (That is because the other side is stupid, that is why I am no longer a liberal) The peaceful ones I don't see on TV, probably because less bad stuff happens on them. Now, there were more pro-troops rallies than peace demonstrations, why didn't those pro-troops rallies get on TV? The current theatre of politics I am talking of now is the US, not France (in your response to world protests, yes there were others in the world, but most were in France).
WMDs, we have the cyanide and mustard gas dumped into the Euphrates. We find a place with high radiation levels, and preliminary tests suggest suspicious elements were weapons-grade plutonium. We've got the 300,000 boxes suspicious chemicals with the chemical warfare manuals and the antidote. We have conclusive evidence that Saddam tried to destroy and ship off his WMDs. We've found a subway made for "moving chemical weapons around." We know for sure the WMDs were there before we got there. If you doubt some of what I said, show me an article with contradictions to what I just said.
Who said it was not patriotic to use your freedom of speech?
I was talking about the hostile protests, the ones on the news, being violent. It seems interesting other than debating with facts, you've launched a personal attack. Did you run out of "facts?"
What took you so long to post anyway?
I couldn't post on Sunday night because of some forum error. Some of us do have a life, so I won't criticize waiting 24 hours for you to post.
---philipu2001
-
Some of us do have a life, so I won't criticize waiting 24 hours for you to post.
---philipu2001
Ouch. Weren't you the one that said that you got most of your social contact from the forums? Yes Phil, your so interesting and cool that I have been waiting 24/7 at this forum. Seriously, don't you see that I'm always logged on? ;)
I live on the east coast of the US and you live in georgia, so we have the same time zone. I usually do all my homework on the computer at night, and of course while I'm doing work I'm also at a bunch of forums. I do my work and also post, so as I'm doing work I wait for the replies.
Since your posting an article about the WMD's, take a look at this site. No it's not a long article, it only takes a sec to look. http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ (http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/)
And there is no real proof, hard evidence that they're were WMD's, just the US's word vs. iraq. There have been plenty of times when they thought they found something and they were wrong.
Most of the peace protests were in france? Man you gotta watch t.v. and learn to pay attention, open your eyes. Maybe you didn't hear, or maybe you don't care but here goes... There were peace protests in spain, austrailia, US, germany, south korea, and of course france. I'm not sure but 1 time there was like 1 million protestors, maybe in australia or spain. Most of the peace protests were definetly not in france, maybe you just think that cause the french gov. is so agianst the war. The gov is different than the people, you get me?
No I didn't launch a personal attack on you. Every little kid online thinks he has balls, and tries to act macho and tough, I just think it's gay. How can I debate with facts? What I was trying to prove, there were no facts for, or I don't know about it. Maybe cause it's my opinion!!! I'm allowed to say my opinion right? Jeez man, chill out. I could say that your launching the attack on me.
-
AAAAAG! I lost my post, because I browsed off to get some articles. This is for the special ops success:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/200304...07-78970959.htm (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030407-78970959.htm)
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/n...war-side07.html (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0407war-side07.html)
Weapons of Mass Destruction:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131713.asp (http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131713.asp) (Nerve Gas, this story was a bit hard to find)
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main..../ixnewstop.html (http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/wpois06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixnewstop.html) (Chemical Euphrates dump)
(Read very carefully before replying, then show me your evidence)
You are keeping tally on the protests? I'm talking about the harmful ones. Like the destructions of McDonalds in France, due to protestors. (http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032103/content/rush_is_right.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg) Are you personally going to start your own vomit-fest? (Remember the one in San Francisco?) There are peaceful ones, but those aren't on TV that much. No, I see enough TV. There is too much garbage on there. (I'm not talking about the news) I watch NBC for my TV news.
I'm conservative and proud of it. If you are offended, then try not to be offended. If people would take less offense to things, we'd have less kangaroo court trials (good for the people, bad for the lawyers) and a lot of "racial discrimation" blather would not be heard. I have not been brainwashed. I have spent my lifetime picking my political views, and it turns out, conservatism is right, liberalism is wrong. Offended?
---philipu2001
-
I'll listen to you and won't reply till I read the articles. But I don't have time, and it's pretty late so I have to go.
As for the French protests, you can't say that they were all violent. Your just taking a couple of bad examples and generalizing. Not all frenchies are like that, I know you hate them, but have you ever met someone french? Not someone "french" kid in school that grew up in the US, but someone that lived in france? They have a brain of thier own and know how to think, their country dosen't need US aid so they have the balls to say what they wanna say knowing they won't get screwed, economically. But as for the mcdonalds thing, the economy part can be argued. But seriosly, there's always gonna be some violent protest, just like there's always gonna be civilian casualties in war. You don't see me crying about every civilian the US killed in afganistan, in iraq; and yeah they killed a lot.
I'm not offended by your stuff. I don't care what you are, liberal / conservative.
You say "racial discrimination blather" like it's all fake. Being a white boy in the US I'm sure you haven't experienced it, but if you were black you probably would have. Even in the US, the greatest nation in the world (Phil's opinion :rolleyes: ) stuff like that still goes on. Yeah some of it's exaggerated, but some of it's not.
-
You haven't read my articles. I never said they were all violent. Where did I say something to the extent of, "all of them are violent. You are trying to use things I didn't say against me. And you still have not try to show me your "evidence." And you keep on saying, "Oh, well, I guess you don't know the other half of the story," or something to that extent. Did you know minorities have been richer during the Bush administration than the Clinton Administration? Oh, do you want the article? I have posted more articles, yet most of what you debate with is more opinion based than backed up. There will always be discrimination, but only harmful discrimination should be censored. (Not the type where that n word is said, and they lose 9 days of work. In that case, they are incapable of handling what comes their way, and is their fault for the lost work)
---philipu2001
-
:P Yeah but your implying that french people only protest like that. But other than that, yeah your right, I screwed up, sorry.
Well as for the articles I read the WMD's articles. The first article is what they think they found in a mobile lab thing. There are so many articles like that and so many mobile labs, and yet they still don't have any hard evidence. They still get 'positive' tests, and then when they get the experts to do them, they come back negative. You really must believe that there are WMD's in iraq just cause bush said so.
And you still have not try to show me your "evidence." --Phil
Well it's 'innocent until proven guilty'. Or did you not know that? That's how it is in the US, and of course your gonna say that with iraq it's different, we all know the US's double standards. But there still isn't any real hard evidence. And I don't need to give you any articles, I don't need to prove anything. You need to prove with your dumb articles that they found something. And you can't so you post some dumb little chemical thing that they're not even sure of. To this day they still haven't found any real proof, believe me man if they did it would be all over the news. The gov would shove it in the face of france and germany just to show them they were right. At the begging of the war bush said it was to get rid of the WMD's, and then later he changed the reason to 'regime change'. Don't waste your time giving me some gay articles, if you really believe that they have WMD's then wait and when it's all over the news shove it in my face. This isn't a little kiddie thing where I say that they dont' have any and you say they do. If you wanna prove it, then prove it, and until then they are innocent and you should shut up with these stupid articles that you hold so high. Man, think before you your stuff, cause it's pissing me off. :angry:
I got a whole paragraph out of him just by calling him a white boy. :P
Maybe I came off too strong? It's not gonna get anywhere if you say something about me and then I start crying, lets stick to the issue at hand. Advice to me more than anyone else.
-
Since Phil thinks anything that I say isn't credible and he loves articles heres 1 found that fits my side:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2082419/ (http://slate.msn.com/id/2082419/)
"Remember Saddam's weapons of mass destruction—the ones whose concealment justified the invasion of Iraq? A week ago, the Washington Post reported that 38 days after entering Iraq, the United States had "yet to find weapons of mass destruction at any of the locations that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited in his key presentation to the U.N. Security Council in February." We hadn't even "produced Iraqi scientists with evidence about them." The only thing Bush said we had learned from interrogating Saddam's scientists was that "perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some."
What about Saddam's links to terror? Bush repeated Thursday that the Iraq war had "removed an ally of al-Qaida." Really? According to the Post, U.S. officials "have not turned up anything to support Powell's claim to the Security Council that 'nearly two dozen' al Qaeda terrorists lived in and operated from Baghdad." A Los Angeles Times investigation of the al-Qaida affiliate touted by Powell found "no strong evidence of connections to Baghdad" and concluded that the group lacked "the capability to muster a serious threat beyond its mountain borders." Saddam didn't even "control the region where the [group's] camps were located."
"
-
Sgt. Todd Ruggles, a biochemical expert attached to the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne said, "I was right" that chemical agents Iraq has denied having were present.
Chemical tests for nerve agents in the warehouse came back positive for so-called G-Series nerve agents, which include sarin and Tabun, both of which Iraq has been known to possess. More than a dozen infantry soldiers who guarded the military compound Saturday night came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to very low levels of nerve agent, including vomiting, dizziness and skin blotches.
The first was from a chemical expert in the first article.
And the second article, what do you have to say of the mustard gas dumped into the Euphrates? Maybe the mainstream media doesn't want to make a big deal of it. Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean it exists. Too bad Saddam tried to destroy and send off must of the WMDs, then finding them would have been a bit easier, but we've found them. We've found the dumped chemicals, we've found plenty of suspicious things, we know for sure the WMDs were there very shortly before the war. Innocent until proven guilty, but there is enough evidence already for a verdict. Just because this wasn't on the mainstream news does not mean it is not true.
That article is written by the ignorant. Saddam didn't even "control the region where the [group's] camps were located."
That is pretty lame and old statement. There is definite proof of the link, how do you think the dictator that killed relatives doesn't know about a terrorist camp he was helping out. Obviously Saddam and Al-Qaeda had a partnership, or did you not read my article?
---philipu2001
-
Jeez man, you won't trust anything I say so I get an article and you won't believe it. I'm thinking your never gonna believe it no matter what. Even if I'm right and theres all the evidence in the world. In that case I can't change you and there's no point in trying.
Those articles you gave me are everywhere. The army goes in and sees a moblie lab or whatever and order tests. Yeah some come positive only to be checked agian as negative. There still is nothing proven!
I think it's pretty lame how you deny everything I say and say that Iraq has WMD's and a definite al-qaeda link. Do some research, and intellectual knows that nothing's proven. And as for al-qaeda it's just common sense.
"We've found the dumped chemicals, we've found plenty of suspicious things, we know for sure the WMDs were there very shortly before the war" --Phil
No we don't know for sure WMD"s were there before the war, there you go assuming.
I agree that just cause it wasn't on mainstream news dosen't mean it's not true, but once in a while the public has to be reminded of the truth that they didn't find anything in iraq and bush looks like an idiot. You can't stand that can you?
We hadn't even "produced Iraqi scientists with evidence about them." The only thing Bush said we had learned from interrogating Saddam's scientists was that "perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some."
According to the Post, U.S. officials "have not turned up anything to support Powell's claim to the Security Council that 'nearly two dozen' al Qaeda terrorists lived in and operated from Baghdad."
A US official said that about the terror link, at least someone in the US gov knows and can't be brainwashed by bush.
Seriously, I think you just don't wanna be wrong. Or don't wanna believe that they didn't have any WMD"s or al-qaeda link. You don't wanna believe the the US went in just becuase it felt like it. Becuase it wanted to just change the regime. Why do you think the whole damn world was agianst the war. You don't see the real picture cause you live in the US and are surrounded by the media that will always be behind bush. ANd whatever you say you are liberal/conserative probably has something to do with it too. But I should say this cause it'll just piss you off more and you can say the same about me. Come on man, open your eyes. You have to see things from the international point of view. Not the UN view, and not the US view. The fair international view. :blink:
-
So much for the lost posts here.
---philipu2001
-
Well lets start a new thing.
First debate is if we should start another one.
Yeah cause it's funny.
and cause it get's Phil's post count up...
-
Hey, your post count goes up too, and I don't complain! I don't know if it is worth starting up again, after "losing" our arguements.
---philipu2001
-
I'm not complaining, If I was than I would say that your post count goes up unfairly cause I would want a higher post count. To complain, I would have to care about post counts, yours or mines, and I don't. I'm just saying that it'll work to your goal (when the rpg is back) of getting your thor thing.
-
Okay, instead of just three or for paragraphs, while don't we write essays. First essay is about how you think the current political system is, and try to keep no bias. The first one should be shortest. The second one is about who is right, and third is why the other side is wrong. New-er-bie, do you have any objections to you being liberal, and I conservative for this part of the debate. Also what issues would you like to discuss. I personally want to do some national ones, unlike the Iraq debate we have been doing. In these essays, we don't attack the person for what they think, but the actual ideology.
---philipu2001
-
Damn phil, your the one that says I have no life. But seriously, I don't have time to write all these essays. I hate writing essay's unless it's something I care about.
what political system?
I feel like your getting a head start. <_<
-
Well, then pick you don't do the first essay, but eat from Freedom bread, or Freedom fries. Maybe I put more thought into things like politics than anyone else on the forum.
---philipu2001
-
Post your essay and I'll see if it's worth it. :D
Damn I'm so stupid. I should give you topics (my homework) and you'll write the essays. :D Perfect!
Your in the 10th grade right? This sucks, why didn't you propose this before, I got like 7 weeks of school left.
-
For us 4 1/2 homeschoolers (Which is just me) it doesn't take long to write essays. Just pick polital issues for my second and third essay.
---philipu2001
-
Isn't it cool to be homeschooled? Does some teacher guy come to your house? Or do your parents teach you? I always wondered, how do they do it, at least in georgia...how do they 'check' on you. To make sure your learning stuff, do they make you take tests? Going to school sucks, you have to wake up early, but the rest is fine.
Political issue number 2: why the US is good?
Political issue number 3: why the US sucks?
-
<!-- Off-topic -->
7 weeks!?!
I have like 6 days left!
I'm in 11th grade.
<!-- /Off-topic -->
You've switched from the entire "war" debate to essays?
Um.. ok.
-
He dosen't wanna talk about it anymore...
So your a junior, upperclassman. 6 days! Your so lucky man. I have a little more than 7 weeks, but I don't want it to come to an end, I dont' want to take the finals. :( And I don't wana become a junior, no more time to play around, then I really have to start caring. :( Sucks.
-
<!-- More off-topic -->
Well, we have semester tests starting Thursday, so I should be studying.. but I usually do well without studying...
<!-- /More off-topic -->
(See, I am staring to involve basic coding in my posts... oh no, <HTML>!!)
-
<Off Topic>
Me like HTML.
As for checking in, we just send copies of our good work in.
</Off Topic>
I'll finish the essay soon. I've been a bit more busy on the novel. We've sort of overdebated Iraq, and where we were was lost.
<Off topic>I did make a trailer. Does anyone want to see it? It's in an AVI file compressed within a RAR archive file</Off topic>
---philipu2001
-
All you have to do is send in your good work? Thats awesome, but what happens with stuff like the SAT's. Do you still take them?
-
I'm taking the SAT next year. I took the PSAT this year. I'm a freshman, and I am doing Geometry, which is one year ahead of the public system. I usually take the ITBS each year, but this year I'm taking the Stanford. Also, they will know if you spent enough time in one way, BECAUSE OF THE GRADE YOU GET ON ONE OF THESE END OF THE YEAR TESTS. I'm tired. I just saw the Matrix Reloaded. Pretty Awesome. I saw the teaser for Matrix Revolutions, after waiting through 10+ minutes of credits, and credit music that gave me a headache. (I'm not a big music fan anyway) The public education system is a void where billions of dollars disappear, and the thing that counts is if you apply yourself to your work, otherwise, you may end up having bad grades.
---philipu2001
-
I took my ACT recently. I got a 28 (Out of a 36). I also took my ASVAB and PSAT. I did exetremely well on the ASVAB, and I keep getting messages about how I did well on my PSAT too.
(This topic has officially evolved to school)
-
Ah, isn't it a great day. I woke up this morning, listened to my news program. Hmm, France mad at US. Tourism down over there. Things cost 30% more there. Philip mad at guy who said Euro stonger than dollar. That guy made big deal about it. France use Euro.
YES THE EURO MAY BE STRONGER, BUT THINGS ARE CHEAPER HERE. Why the dollar has been devalued: so that people buy more things here, and we have 6 percent unemployment, they got unemployment in the double digits. I feel better now.
---philipu2001
-
man it's been so long since I checked this thing, I almost forgot about it...
-
This is to those who thought we never should have went to liberate the Iraqi people. First do you believe that we should have joined WWII to help save the Jewish people. Well the same thing was happening in Iraq, if you disagreed witht he dictator, in this case Sadam, then you were killed. And don't say that's not true, because they've shown the killing fields on the news. We're not in it for the oil, we're in it to save people. Bush tried to get oil from Alaska, but the Democrats stopped his bill in Congress, THEN the say he goes to war for OIL?!?! Listen If no one else in the world is going to stand up for justice, then maybe the world really is doomed...but if we take a stand we might be able to someday have world peace. Even if Sadam isn't connected with Bin Laden (I believe he is), our Armed Services did the world a favor by removing this remorseless, and ruthless man.
James "JR" Koban AKA Cyborg-X versio 3.3, Yoda, Luweeg64, and Fluff-e
-
Yes.. I still hear people say that we went over there for the oil.. but as of yet, I don't see any changes in our Oil supply..
-
if anything, baised on the current price of gas around here, its been going down lol
-
Exactly, and the peace activists (FREEDOM PROTESTERS) say that Bush is a Nazi...well that makes no sense, because Hitler was a Nazi, am I not correct? And Hitler persecuted(executed) the Jewish people. Then during the Gulf War (some ppl calling it Gulf War I) Sadam launched missles at Israel, which is predominantly Jewish. so the Armed Forces removed Sadam from power they were helping, not hurting the Jewish people, which I think negates the statements that Bush is a Nazi.
-
I agree. I think that the war protestors are wrong in saying that Bush started the war for oil. We're the ones that want import teriffs to support local national business.
-
we did NOT go over there for oil!
Those idiots that actually think we did must be on drugs or something, they need to have their head examined.
Like Xfir said, there is no change in our oil supplies.
We went to Iraq to drive out that oppressive idiot Saddam Hussein... Who cares whether they found WMD's or not in Iraq, the primary purpose of it all was to get rid of this threat to US security.
I agree with you Luweeg. All this is is some stupid people that are just afraid that "violence is never the answer", well, if those oppressive idiots overseas won't listen to a higher power (aka, the US, Britain, etc) then they have to die the hard way.
I think those anti war people - if they hate the US and other "pro Iraqi war" countries so much - should go live in a oppressive communist country.
The reason for war and anti terrorism activities to uphold the American dream and democracy throughout the work.
If I have offended anyone, please let me know.
-
well, i think u meant learn the hard way instead of die the hard way, and i completely agree with you, those idiots over there should listen to a higher power, or they will learn the hard way.
-
Yeah....we have to police the world now....there is no other superpower. So we have to stand up for the little guy.
-
Yeah, true.
The only other countries that *might* stand a chance against us are:
Russia - they're huge, economically. Also they have control over the ISS.
China - they have the largest ground troop in the world - Also Burma/Myanmar and those other places in Tibet might support them if we were to get into conflict with them.
N. Korea - broke Nuclear treaty.
Japan - who knows? they probably could've won WW2 if not for the A-bomb.
-
well japan wouldnt have won WW2 even without the A-bomb, its just without it we would have had to invade Japan, adn tens of thousands of Americans would have been killd
and now Japan has no army because of WW2, but we back them with our military
and with that war, were not standing up for the little guy, were standing up for ourselves, and if those anti-war people want us to continue to crawl, they have another thing comming
-
I personally believe there were just reasons to go to war. Iraq was supporting terrorism. Iraq was a threat to America. Even though America is an ultrapower, that does not mean we should coexist with nations that fund terrorists. Diplomacy is not always the solution. Leaving Saddam alone would have made things worse. Procrastination is not something that should be done when dealing with terrorist nations like Iraq.
As for liberals, there is no nice way to say it, but they want to undermine this country's defense and economy. They want to cut military spending, and weaken businesses.
-
very true, are the democrats trying to repeat history?
they alredy tried that crap with hitler, and what did it get them? WW2!!
you do not back down to dictators, you must overthrough them, wich is exactly what Bush did, and I thank him for that
-
Yeah, true.
The only other countries that *might* stand a chance against us are:
Russia - they're huge, economically. Also they have control over the ISS.
China - they have the largest ground troop in the world - Also Burma/Myanmar and those other places in Tibet might support them if we were to get into conflict with them.
N. Korea - broke Nuclear treaty.
Japan - who knows? they probably could've won WW2 if not for the A-bomb.
Russia - Well, their economy is in the crapper, by the way what is the ISS?
China - If they wanna go, well I think we might still got some nukes left over from the Cold War
N.Korea - Only problem is that they're too close to South Korea for Nuclear Arms
Japan - I agree with Beta, we woulda just had to lose more troops, but we still would've won
I don't really think they're are any countries out there that have the power that America has today....
And people should realize that we now live in a smaller world than it was during World War II, we can't just let the terrorists have their way, we have to have an active part in the world community and if the leaders of a country are not behaving responsibly, then we should help them. When those buildings went down two and a half years ago, our role in the world changed and people don't understand that. We can't just let them run rampant without punishment, we have to have them see the light of justice, and show them that every action has a reaction. The invent of planes, the internet, and mass transportation have made the world a smaller place. If we continue to ignore the world's freedom, then we're doomed. I just wish that there was some opposition, some catch 22, so if somehow (knock on wood) a democrat would get elected president, and tried world domination or a dictatorship (like Franklin Delano Roosevelt :angry: ), then there would be some safegaurd. Or if the president wouldn't stand up for democracy (which President Bush IS doing :D ), then someone else would. God Bless America!
-
ISS = International Space Station...
The big thing they're building up there :rolleyes:
The successor to MIR B)
The chinese are building a big solar pump (big laser) in space too :)
They're gonna use it to break water into hydrogen on a floating station somewhere down there on the ocean...
The hydrogen will then be used in the creation of fuel cells...
And no it's not an ion cannon...
(a bit offtopic so please ignore)
Russia could use the ISS for many things in times of war...
-
England Pwns
Nuke em up good
gogo - http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php)
-
Russia could use the ISS for many things in times of war...
All they could really use it for is to see if moss grows in space...or send up two, three, four, possibly (cramped) five people, to repopulate the earth. There's not really that much to it, but what could they really do with it. I guess we gotta kinda rely on them now that we're kinda downed with manned space flights, since last year.
LOL I saw that movie before Lev, saw it back in Oct, and the English are like: Bout that time chap? Righto.
-
and the English are like: Bout that time chap? Righto.
haha. v funny
/me goes 2 watch
-
bit off topic are we?
well I dont see much of a reason for a debate if were all on the same side, so unless somone wants to argue against us and get their butt chewed off, I dont see much more point to this topic lol
-
Um... I think the war is wrong? lol Too many people are dying!
(This does not state my REAL opinion, but someone has to fight for the comunists.. *Cough* I mean Democrats...) lol :P
Plus Bush just went into the war just for oil...
-
Well, why hasn't the gas price gone down then? LOL
-
lol. I lost. See? that's y the socialists, i mean comunists, i mean democrats have no place in the debate. It's 3 opinions all fighting for the same theory!!!
-
Whoa noone supporting the commucrats? Unheard of. I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere for someone to argure with. And all Russia could do with the ISS is set it in a diteriorating orbit and hope it hits the US.
-
that was the point of the space mirror. lol.
I'll set up a poll really quick. :P
-
Whoa noone supporting the commucrats? Unheard of. I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere for someone to argure with. And all Russia could do with the ISS is set it in a diteriorating orbit and hope it hits the US.
They probably couldn't even do that right, with their workers(because they are lazy, because their is not incentive for them to work), and luck, it'd probably hit the MOTHERLAND, lol right in the Kremlin too!
-
Actually i think the Russians are very skilled in rocket techniques (although littered with failures) and they are one of the main contributers to the program...
Not to mention they built a more advanced/steadier optical window then the US did which even had a leak into space which they had to fix...
Also the ISS could be used as a relay for communications and even jam/break different satellites... As it even has it's own shuttle at most times... (designed for re-entry though)
But that's just speculation as i dont know much of the ISS but im sure it could be used for several (possibly harmful, including the above mentioned ones) purposes...
-
I dont see why they would use the iss as a weppon of any sort, it is incomplete and is strictly a cavilian project, there would be no point of spending billions of dollers to put a radio jammer in space when a $100,000 satilite could probly do a much better job
and in the case of them doing anything like that, in the current hightented times, somthing like that could be considered a act of war, and shall I remind people that the world still has nukes, and alot of them
-
At the moment, chemical weapons are a bigger threat then the nukes, chemical warfare could take the world out several times faster then nukes could, that is if just as many chemical weapons were launched as nukes, the wind would carry both, well, i don't know, maybe the radiation would get to the people before the viruses in chemical weapons, i really don't know.
-
Are you takeing about chemical or bio weapons
-
bio, scuse me
-
What exactly is the difference?
Biological weapons are virsuses right
and
Chemical weapons are gases and posions?
-
yea, thats basicly wht the dif is, one is viruses and bacteria, the other are poisens and gases