shadygroovedc Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by revaluation I didn't see the article..post the link.I think shady's referring to Life here though. I agree, if Singapore wants to cane people for stealing, or if California wants to impose it's "3 strikes" law, fine. But fundamentally it does not relieve them of their life. Unless they break the Social Contract and relieve another human of THEIR life. Then I say go ahead and fry the bastard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by shadygroovedc Unless they break the Social Contract and relieve another human of THEIR life. Then I say go ahead and fry the bastard. But thats also considered very barbaric in many othe cultures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jroo Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by tinybutterfli yes but a lot of people will die in that one blink. I'm not going to get into a why we should go to war v. why we shouldn't go to war argument here. I wish there were better ways to resolve things but I also wish I could still run around in underoos at age 27 so... don't mind me cant we all just get along?war! huh! what is it good for? obsolutely nothing!we train to preserve peace, and kill who needs killilng. its really that simple. you know, i dont think i can get used to this civilain life. i may join up again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jroo Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by jroo cant we all just get along?war! huh! what is it good for? obsolutely nothing!we train to preserve peace, and kill who needs killilng. its really that simple. you know, i dont think i can get used to this civilain life. i may join up again. i cant wait to see what that new 21,000 pound bomb will do!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaguero Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by jroo i cant wait to see what that new 21,000 pound bomb will do!!! create a new parking lot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadygroovedc Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by jroo cant we all just get along?war! huh! what is it good for? obsolutely nothing!we train to preserve peace, and kill who needs killilng. its really that simple. you know, i dont think i can get used to this civilain life. i may join up again. We're totally getting along. Nothing wrong with a little healthy discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicman Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by shadygroovedc To think any person is infallable is stupid. Chirac won't always make the right decisions. Bush won't always make the right decisions. But politically, it's safer to not do something than to put yourself on a limb and go with your convictions and take action. This war could completely backfire on Bush and he'd be ruined politically. But arguments aside about money, oil, re-election, it's agreed upon by the people around Bush that since the terror attacks, he has made it his number one goal of his presidency to make the US a safer place. Maybe some consider him incompetent, maybe some consider him a moron. But I consider people with balls like Bush and Blair who will go out and take action when no one else will, to be better leaders than guys like Chirac, who just sit on their asses more concerned with political fallout than actually taking action against what they believe in their hearts is the right thing to do. he aint got no balls. bush lacks them. why isnt he getting tough with the north koreans? maybe because he fears in engaging china? irak, as a war, is a win-win situation. the US will prevail. the Iraqi army will be wiped out in no time. US wins war, Bush is popular, reelection next year with the slogan "we won the war' hiding an economy in recession, a 200 million deficit in education, rising unemployment. 'cojones' is what he lacks. or maybe he doesnt have any reelection agenda on his mind when he's pressuring the securuty council to pass this resolution ASAP. get tough with the Saudi's who's $$$ funded the 9/11 terrorist attacks. he aint got no balls. he knows that Suadi royalty is key in keeping some control over the Middle East.get tough with Iran, who also has a nuclear program well underway, or is he to scarred to send in troops to a country with very fanatical and extreme Muslim population, the largest in the area of well over 100 million. the Vietnam syndrome has been around for sometime. Grenada, Panama, Irak, they will only engage in situations where they will win, not in all places where it counts the most. US public opinion wont back a long war. public opinion was adverse when US troops engaged in Somalia, we all saw those images. put those troops in an area as North Korea, who just might be a step away from having a nuclear arsenal in the very near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicman Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by revaluation whoa whoa whoa! We're not talking about ties versus turbins or cars versus bicycles. Some things I don't agree with but I can let it pass as "cultural difference", such as no accountable judicial system, or even some severe punishment for some crime. But this is not about a cultural norm: this is the blatant, systematic, institutional oppression and submission of the entire female population including murder and rape. That should offend the human senses not just American ones.Perhaps American slavery was just a "cultural norm" that should have been overlooked? i wouldnt be surprised if similar practices are also in place in countries and regions that are US allies. Saudi's probably do similar stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadygroovedc Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by vicman he aint got no balls. bush lacks them. why isnt he getting tough with the north koreans? maybe because he fears in engaging china? irak, as a war, is a win-win situation. the US will prevail. the Iraqi army will be wiped out in no time. US wins war, Bush is popular, reelection next year with the slogan "we won the war' hiding an economy in recession, a 200 million deficit in education, rising unemployment. 'cojones' is what he lacks. or maybe he doesnt have any reelection agenda on his mind when he's pressuring the securuty council to pass this resolution ASAP. get tough with the Saudi's who's $$$ funded the 9/11 terrorist attacks. he aint got no balls. he knows that Suadi royalty is key in keeping some control over the Middle East.get tough with Iran, who also has a nuclear program well underway, or is he to scarred to send in troops to a country with very fanatical and extreme Muslim population, the largest in the area of well over 100 million. the Vietnam syndrome has been around for sometime. Grenada, Panama, Irak, they will only engage in situations where they will win, not in all places where it counts the most. US public opinion wont back a long war. public opinion was adverse when US troops engaged in Somalia, we all saw those images. put those troops in an area as North Korea, who just might be a step away from having a nuclear arsenal in the very near future. You're right. Iraq is an easier go, so we're going in there first. N.K. is a bit more dicey, but I guarantee you if they don't disarm we'll go in there too. You gotta pick your battles. He's using Iraq to set U.S. policy. And that policy will apply to N.K. and any other country that poses a threat to the U.S. or their allies. As with any president, history will be the judge. Just because nothing's happening now doesn't mean something won't in the future. Bush has huge balls. He's from Texas. They don't do anything small in Texas (except Tini). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinybutterfli Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by shadygroovedc They don't do anything small in Texas (except Tini). awwww... and yee haw and stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicman Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by raver_mania In situations like this, with a dictator in place and to avoid war, probably yes - disgusting as it is, it'd save lives in the long run.However, not in situations where the people support their leader. see raver, here is where it gets a bit messy. i'm convinced that most Iraqi's would probably be glad in getting rid of Saddam if given the choice. like in Cuba, where they have a 100% voter turnout and 100% of the people vote for the Communist Party who then reelects Castro, these people if given the choice would probably want to get rid of him and the overall system while keeping some of the things that the system has given them.and i think a good meassure of this would be the amount of soldiers that were desserting during the last gulf war when they were presented with a choice of either perishing for their leader or desserting. this will probably be the case again.this said, since there possibly cant be an vote in Iraq now, what to do?i'm convinced that Saddam should go. what they do after him is what really remains murky. put another military dictator that suits US interest? wasn't that Saddam 20 years ago? because the last thing they would also want is to have Iraq end up being a fundamentalist state, with Iran just on the other side of their border. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicman Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 btw, where is eggmok? he started this thread and didnt have anything to say. f*cking anarchist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadygroovedc Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by vicman btw, where is eggmok? he started this thread and didnt have anything to say. f*cking anarchist. He and Jroo are probably off drinking each others' sweet nectar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eggmok Posted March 12 Author Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by raver_mania I don't support Saddam but I don't support war either. Something more covert and clandenstine...convert top military figures, more spying and then having special forces go in and take Saddam AND his sons out.I do not support mass bombing of civilian areas. i would agree but by law, the us cannot assinate any world leader or head of government. no more covert stuff like that, only information gathering. i would think that the us will only bomb strategic locations. there are many reports that saddam is moving civilians into those areas to create a human shield. what benefit is it to bomb civilian areas. i read about the 21,000 lbs. bomb, wtf . . .at least with the bombing, there will be less us casualties vs. the ground war . . .the deadline is next week correct . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadygroovedc Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by eggmok i would agree but by law, the us cannot assinate any world leader or head of government. "Assinate"? You and Jroo WERE hanging out just now, weren't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shlongus Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 war or not we goin to maimi!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadygroovedc Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by shlongus war or not we goin to maimi!!!! Hahahaha! True dat. Well, some of us, at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eggmok Posted March 12 Author Report Share Posted March 12 did anyone read that article that one of the main reasons of the war is to have a u.s. presence smack dab in the "middle" of the middle east . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eggmok Posted March 12 Author Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by shadygroovedc "Assinate"? You and Jroo WERE hanging out just now, weren't you? oh fawk, assassinate, i have ass on the mind jroo . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadygroovedc Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by eggmok oh fawk, assassinate, i have ass on the mind jroo . . . Yeah. Whatever. Assination, cocksination, you probably enjoy it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revaluation Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 To say that you shouldn't look at one problem just because you have others is self deafeating. Not to mention that what we are doing in Iraq is trying to prevent another N. Korea. the Koreans have nuclear weapons which necessarily gives them a seat at the table. We are trying to stop Saddam from having that seat as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revaluation Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by eggmok did anyone read that article that one of the main reasons of the war is to have a u.s. presence smack dab in the "middle" of the middle east . . . ya, i read that in Michael Moore Monthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eggmok Posted March 12 Author Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by revaluation ya, i read that in Michael Moore Monthy what do you think, makes sense . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicman Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revaluation Posted March 12 Report Share Posted March 12 Originally posted by eggmok what do you think, makes sense . . . sorry, I shoulda done that after my comment...Michael Moore is an ultra-hyper-conspiracy theorist....I think we already have a presence in the ME, which is why we no longer have two tall buildings in NY. America is not an empire. Show me one shread of proof that we have ever or ever will dominate countries in the way Ceaser, Napolean, or Hitler did; the way Saddam tried to do. In the last century we had ample opportunity to colonize countries, but we never did. All we ever do is liberate, give their government back to the people or anybody willing to democratize and then pour dollar after dollar into their economy. Sometimes we fuck up, sure, and give it to the wrong people, but we don't colonize.Germany?Japan?Korea?Grenada?the Balkans?Kuwait? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.