Hahaha, the Pravda rocks...

can't cope with freedom of speech? you might want to leave the US then ...

In English, yes. But unfortunately Al Qaeda isn't a bunch of men in bowler hats poking people with umbrellas.

grow up :)

dude, next time you come out of your bomb shelter, look me up so I can laugh in your face.:1orglaugh

LOLLLLLLLLLLLL:thumbsup

Interesting read. Like some predicted, the US is having a hard time in afghanistan (because of guerilla tactics) just like the USSR did:

http://argument.independent.co.uk/co...p?story=375608

The CIA blew up the space shuttle... Its some how linked to taking all the oil in the world, It has to be

what leftist drivel.
:1orglaugh

If you are a student try consulting a dictionary for info about the diff between "facts" and allegations. Allegations arent always wrong, but they aint FACTS. And if things are so "obvious" to you about all this you must be some kind of psychic.

by calling it leftist, you're showing your own bias and inability to be objective about important news matters

what he said may or may not be true. if there's evidence, then it is true

that's why it's important to have an open mind. if you can't even consider an event from a different point of view, some people call that narrow mindedness.

some people might even call it ignorance :)

That's about the mosted fuckeup statement you made. Give your sources for your reasons. You talk big about facts. PROVE IT :321GFY

Wrong. You are not informed.

That is not what the US said, that is what 1441 says. Resolution 1441 explicitly places the burden of proof on Iraq to prove that they destroyed the remaining WMD's that they had in their possession in 1998. The burden of proof is not on the USA, the UN, or the inspectors. The inspectors are not in Iraq to find WMD's, they are there to oversee the destruction of the remaining WMD's Iraq still had in their possesion in 1998, as well as to see that they have dismantled their capability of producing WMD's.

Iraq has stated that they destroyed the remaining WMD's from 1998 but have not presented one single piece of proof that they in fact did destroy the remaining WMD's from 1998. They claim that when they destroyed the remaining WMD's from 1998, they also destroyed the paper work for the destruction of the remaining WMD's from 1998. Do you buy that story?

Even if they did destroy the paper work for the destruction of the remaining WMD's from 1998 their would be in existence physical proof of the destruction. They have failed to provide this proof.

Even if they did destroy the paper work for the destruction of the remaining WMD's from 1998 their would be those scientists, engineers, personell in general, that helped to destroy the remaining WMD's from 1998. They have failed to produce the people involved in the destruction of the WMD's remaining from 1998.

1441 places the burden of proof upon them and they have failed to produce the proof, thus a major breach of 1441.

So do not tell other people to inform themselves, when you are just posting BS.

That was one of the dumbest statements I've ever seen on this board.

Good job! :thumbsup

I can't help it if you don't have the intellect to read something, see there are no facts attached to it and dismiss it out of hand.
Calling it ignorance only draws attention to your own limitations.


but hey, we can't all be me can we?

watching people who always think they're right, has a car crash quality to it

you know they're going to fuck up, but you just can't look away... :)

If you been in this business for any length of time, you'd have given up and looked away years ago, understanding it just won't happen.
being a know it all noob, you've yet to learn.

everybody gets it wrong sometimes

if you don't agree, then you're wrong about that

and that's a fact, whether you like it or not :)

I'm not "everybody" and I have 5yrs of proof backing me up :winkwink:

Would ANY of you treehugging, sealpupsaving, longhaireddopesmoking, flowepower, conspiracytheoryloving, commiepinko, givepeaceachancesaying, furcoatpaintspraying, oneworldgovernmentwanting, combustablenginehating, Berkleygraduated, vietnamveteranhating, pussies ever do anything to help protect your freedom.

Did 9/11 not prove to you that they will take the fight to us unless we strike first. You think this is about oil? You guys will always look for a reason not to fight, even if your life and liberty are at stake. But you will be the first to spit on the people who are willing to take a bullet so your sorry ass can continue to burn the flag.

Exactly :thumbsup

Some don't seem to get the fact that he is the one in violation.

I am leaning more and more towards "Invading Iraq"

:eek7

Very interesting read that America's success (or lack there of) in Afghanistan isn't quite what people believe it to be. But the overall gist of this article was that even if we could justfiy attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, we couldn't win the battles - this is just not true.

To all the MassiveCocks on this thread.

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

Read 1441.

We ARE going in, and there is NOTHING you can do.

Carry on bitching now :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Perfectly stated.

No point in the 'carryiny on bitching' stuff...but their link to 1441 isn't working (probably over loaded). Can anybody paste it here? Or AIM or ICQ me?

I think I speak for everyone here, when I say that I'm delighted you made the effort to register, just so you could post that.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

you're so jealous

I've never seen a clearer example of penis envy

:1orglaugh

See that was funny :thumbsup

Ahh, you mean like bush, who is (evidently) a DESERTER; http://www.awolbush.com/
Or cheney, lott, delay, gingrich, limbaugh, and the rest of the chicken hawks who want this war (slaughter) so bad? http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
Is that who you mean?

I new I should have saved it the other day :(

Try it tomorrow, it's an interesting read to say the least. And it CLEARLY puts the onus on Iraq.

12clicks -- I challenge you.

Please state your predictions here, in this thread, on what will happen during the next six months regarding:

North Korea
Iraq

How does that sound?

I'll book mark it, and check back in August.

If you're correct, no one on this board should *ever* question you again about anything.

How does that sound?

If you're always right, then here's the litmus test. Personally, I'm intrigued... :)

Nevermind, just got it...took 3 minutes or so to load.

Here's another link to it. It loads much faster.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm

Yer full of it. How in the world does anyone prove a negative? If I destroyed something 5 years ago, how in the world do I prove that? By showing some paperwork? That proves that I destoyed it? You say they should show physical proof of the destruction. Like what - some melted down scraps of iron?

The UN was totally and completely bullied into resolution 1441 by the US. The US is the 800 lb gorilla of the UN. As much as Russia, France and China whine about it, they know that in the end they have to go along if they want to at least have a nibble at the spoils of war (oil!). So they go along with these ridiculous resolutions. They know that the US plan is ultimately to invade.

And if UN resolutions are so sacrosant, what about the UN resolution that condemned the US invasion of Panama in 1988? Is the US only required to follow those UN resolutions that it agrees with? What about the endless string of UN resolutions that have been passed against Israel but which the US and Israel continue to ignore? Should the rest of the world invade Israel and the US for their decades-long flaunting of UN resolutions?

Doe the word hypocracy mean anthing to you?

It is time for to change your handle from theking to thejester.

:Graucho

Your ignorance keeps showing more and more, I don't even know where to start...so I won't. Take a look back and look at what you're saying, logically. You act like all these nations are in on one huge worldwide conspiracy to get some oil; give me a break.

They are but it's not exactly a conspiracy. It's all out in the open. All major industrialized nations need oil in order to sustain their economies. Oil is a rapidly depleting resource. The middle east has the largest remaining oil reserves on the planet. And you are surprised that the strong nations are bidding to grab it?

Read your history books. Nations and empires have ALWAYS warred for the control of naturual resources. America itself would not even exist if Columbus was not trying to optimize spice routes in the 15th century. Whether it's gold, diamonds, spice or oil - war is about grabbing as much of the primary resource as possible in all historical periods.

Here ace, do yourself a favor and educate yourself. Start by reading books, dammit.

Read this book by Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor. He pretty much lays it out in terms that even GFY webmasters can understand!

The Grand Chessboard

Are you so slow that you don't yet get it. They agreed to this. So now they are bound by it. This was the UN if I am not mistaken. So since he was dumb enough (surrendered) to this because he felt that "Hey, what a deal, I will just sign this and say I will but I won't . Dumb contract.

Problem is the jokes on him, as well as you. You are so full of this we never landed on the moon malarky it's almost a pity :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

This is about national security. It is about a country being ran by a dictator who is a known mass murderer, a known human rights violater, who happens to have enough biological and chemical weapons to kill millions. Its about a country ruled by a dictator that ignores the international community. Its about the threat of terror. Can we really afford to take the chance of having a terroist organization obtain weapons of mass destruction from a unstable country?
The oil in Iraq may play a issue in the cost to rebuild Iraq. Nothing more.

Oh. You mean George Bush? Then why are we invading Iraq instead of the US?

:winkwink:

North Korea????

Syria? Libya?

Actually bush is doing his job. After 911 with extremly high support he vowed to defeat terror. The war has just started. Would you rather see someone in office who ignores the situation completely, letting the terror networks grow to a even larger problem?

If this prevents even the smallest chance of me turning on the TV and having to watch 1000s of innocent men, women, and children dying from a biological terroist attack with weapons from Iraq, then its worth it. The chance of this happening doesnt need to be possible, no matter how small of a chance.

Pakistan first.

Ok, your concerns are notable. But do you really have any reason to believe that whatever govt we INSTALL there will be any more stable? After all, it doesnt appear that saddam has done anything aggressive in the last dozen years, maybe because he knows he would be crushed if he did. And do you really think that doing this will result in less terrorism and not more? Nobody is saying saddam is a cool guy, but think about what you are saying here. This will result in more trouble, not less.

fighting terrorism is not a 'war', it is a daily social reality

terrorism will always exist, just like drugs

society and politicians have to adjust to those realities, and minimize or live with them as works best

as an example: the 'war on drugs' isn't exactly being won is it now? :1orglaugh

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"
-- George W. Bush, September 13, 2001
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
-- George W. Bush, March 13, 2002


"I'm tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired and shot, nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded, who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell."-- General William T. Sherman Michigan Military Academy June 19, 1879

Reguardless, the current goverment in Iraq has been given enough chances to comply with the demands of the international community. It has become unfortunately obvious that Iraq has no intentions of following the resolutions.
Sadam doesnt have to be aggressive as far as anyone here knows he could of already disturbuted weapons to terrorist groups. The point is that he shouldnt have them.
As far as a new goverment that we install being more unstable, that is unlikely. But for example if you hire a employee that doesnt do the job and replace him with a worse one. Eventually you will find the man for the job. I guess I can put it that way.