see? theres another problem with you anti this and anti that people. You automaticaly assume I have a fuckign president, and if you knew any better you would know that retarted can be spelled both ways

You sounded American, how close is your home from the border?

it doesnt matter, I have my own opinions and they arent necesarily the same of my alcoholic leaders. and how did I sound american? seriously, by saying "cry me a river" ?

uh-uh-uh,
being Serge's bitch is a bitch, ain't it?

;-))))))

Serge, you are not an American - you are a Russian.

And why the comments about his deceased wife? Not exactly mature, not something that would be accepted in an offline adult conversation? Its not like you will gain any respect by making these comments.

Joe I couldnt agree with you more. theking (aka thefascist) has also ridiculed the fact that my 7 month old was killed in an auto accident. These pricks represent a small minority of how Americans really are and the reality is their beliefs go against the true America. They have no problem with censorship, government spying on its own people, and the thrashing of the constitution unless it involves the 2nd amendment. They are the REAL threat to America and are the reason people like you have the attitude they have towards Americans. These people will do whatever it takes to push their 'moral' agenda including lie, cheat, and fix elections. People are starting to realize what is going on and their power will be short lived, hopefully before any real damage is done to this country and the world.

1) I am American, I am more american than MOST Americans here,
who just were born in USA,
something which they can't help it.
I've CHOSEN my country,
BIG difference

2) I am not looking for respect,
USA is not looking for respect of iraqies,
we just do what gotta be done, that's all.

Joe6sux started psychological warfare,
I beat him to the pulp,
I always do that,
and I don't give a flying fuck what it takes to do it.

Learn from the master
;-)

You are a fucking liar. You have repeated this lie multiple times. Show the fucking thread where I have ever said anything about your kid.

theking,
this is how those fucking bleed heart liberals operate:
"Repeat the lie over and over again 'til people believe it"

what else is new under the sun?

My political stance is that of a moderate, with liberal leanings, but when it comes to my country being attacked verbally, physically, or virtually any other way I am a hardcore conservative. I am a hardcore conservative when it comes to the military as I favor maintaining a large military (I have been opposed to the cuts in force that have been made since 1991) and military R&D. I also am in favor of reinstituting the draft for multiple reasons.

Joe I share your cynicism regarding W's crusade against Iraq. But instead of arguing against the war in a constructive and rational way, you chose to symbolically burn the US flag. With your expert knowledge of US culture you would've known in advance that this would insult a great many Americans. It seems to me that this act has has reinforced the views of the right-wingers and alienated many of the Americans who might otherwise have supported you. So what was the point in that? Did you honestly think anything constructive would come from it, or were you just trying to start another Joe Sixpack VS USA flame war? If it's the latter, congratulations you were extremely successful :thumbsup But if it's the former you might want to reassess your strategy :2 cents:

we are close

Groove, fuck joe,
I'd like to hear you and why are you against the war with Iraq.

to help you with your reasoning, here is the latest.

Inspectors found cluster bomb in Iraq which can be filled with bio and chemical weapons

I'm against war under any circumstances except as a last resort and much as I despise Saddam Hussein and everything he stands for, I don't believe all non-military alternatives have been exhausted yet.

I also oppose the US unilaterally (ie without UN support) attacking a sovereign state that isn't a clear and present danger to the US. I think that this will set a VERY dangerous precedent and is likely to upset the balance of power between countries around the world. Basically the US is rolling the dice and the whole World will have to live with the consequences.

Furthermore, I think that if the US was serious about addressing the REAL danger posed by rogue nations they'd be focusing on North Korea. Those lunatics have nukes, they have missiles and only last week they threatened to nuke NY! But hey, Korea doesn't have any oil and they do have the capacity to inflict massive US casualties. So it's probably best not to pursue a military solution with the North Koreans.

That in a nut-shell is the basis of my cynicism. But I certainly don't have any sympathy for Saddam and his supporters, I look forward to their downfall!

Groove,
I understand your position and only wish others were able to express themselves logically and eloquently as you.

I agree about the "balance of power" issue.

I disagree on North Korea,
they WILL be dealt with,
one country at a time.

As for NK's promise to inflict pain...
I believe it's a wishful thinking.
Quite often playing poker I bluffed my way out,
and this si exactly what they do now,
IMO

Thanks for the compliment :)

*nodnod* For better or worse, the USA is currently the World's only superpower and whatever precedents it sets, other nations are likely to follow. And only Allah knows what will happen to the complicated balance of power between the Middle Eastern States!

You're probably right. But my point is, why Saddam now? What's the urgency? Why not let the inspections run their course? I think it's more about the US wanting to secure a reliable oil supply and have a platform to do some nation-building in the Middle East.

I definitely think it is posturing at the moment. But my point is that North Korea COULD nuke NY if they wanted to, wherease Iraq could not. You tell me which country is the real threat?

I don't say I'm fully against the war but what solution does the US have for after the war?
Nothing so far.
Only speculations.
Who knows who gets in power there or maybe a big civil war will start that can take years.

I love "who knows" argument...
there is only ONE thing in life which is 100% certain and goes according to plan...

we ALL gonna die,
everything else has variables nobody can fully forsee.

Oh... and while I'm on the topic of cynicism...

Why is it that the the two countries who sold Saddam most of his arms, namely the UK and USA, are the countries most keen to dissarm him in the name of World peace?

And why is that two of Iraq's largest trading partners, namely Russia and France, are two of the most vocal opponants of war in the name of World peace?

You're probably right. But my point is, why Saddam now? What's the urgency? Why not let the inspections run their course? I think it's more about the US wanting to secure a reliable oil supply and have a platform to do some nation-building in the Middle East.
********************************************

US has reliable oil supplies...
USA itself,
Mexico,
UK,
it's not all about oil this time,
it's about the FUTURE and setting precedent:
you fuck with the bull...

NONE of it be happening now if it wasn't for Sept 11th,
kicking sleeping tiger in the nut is NEVER a good idea

well,
USA made a mistake ...time to correct it.

Even the CIA does not think Iraq was involved in 9/11! Whereas right-wing think tanks have been advocating another war against Iraq to secure reliable oil supplies for several years now (ie way before 9/11). Without Middle East oil the US would be screwed and Saudi Arabia is not an ally that the US likes being dependant on. Hell, where do you think most of the people behind 9/11 were from? They were Saudis!

following your logic,
we would be much better off attacking Saudis, but we do not..
why?

Even the CIA does not think Iraq was involved in 9/11!
**********************************************

I am not privy to REAL
CIA reports,
do you?

The US currently needs the Saudis. If the US can secure reliable supplies from Iraq they will no longer be needed.

why do we need saudies?

they are not armed as good as Saddam,
we could have occupy Saudies much faster than we can Iraq, Saudies are easier military target and more profitable, if we follow your logic...

and still we don't.

WHY?

if it was all about oil,
pronouncing Mexico 51st state would be cheaper than war in Iraq...

if referendum was hold tomorrow in Mexico,
they would join the Union in a heart beat

I do know that Donald Rumsfeld instructed the CIA to find evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and they were unable to do so (or at least that is what the CIA Director has said).

I also know that if the USA were able to produce convincing evidence of Saddams involvement in 9/11 all of this debate about the US's right to invade Iraq would be null and void. The US would have been attacked and would be free to declare war under international law.

Serge, I seriously doubt that you'd find anyone in George W's administration who would dispute the need for a reliable oil supply from the Middle East. They'd simply argue that oil is not the motivation for their attack on Iraq. As for Mexico, the US already has reliable access to Mexican oil, they don't need to own it. I'm not talking about the US owning the Middle Eastern oil either, I'm simply saying that they want reliable access to the oil for a favorable price.

don't we all?

don't we all?

I can't argue with that! :thumbsup

It's much harder to get support for invading any ally than it is to invade a country that you've already fought a war with! Besides half of the chiefs in the current administration worked for George Senior. There's grudges to be settled!

Also the US won't want to take-on the Saudis until after they've secured an alternative oil supply. I believe the Saudis ARE on the US hit list, but like you said, one country at a time :)

Because he has acted irresponsibly with those weapons and he poses a threat that must be nullified. And don't ask "how" and "why" etc... these points have been addressed ad nauseum here, it's common knowledge. Again, this has been addressed ad nauseum already. Those countries are the ones that have the biggest existing oil contracts with Iraq, and they obviously stand to have the most to lose if a new (and democratic) government is installed.

I'm not sure why they assume that their existing oil deals WOULD be put in jeopardy or cancelled, but that's me being the eternal opimist I suppose.



Groove -- I'd say "you've GOT to be kidding" about those questions, but sadly I can tell that you're not. Oh well.



Let me ad one further item here....
I am for peace as well, but not at "all costs". Peace at all costs is no peace at all. Threats to world peace and security need to be dealt with. Invaders need to be dealt with (gulf war, Kosovo etc). Irresponsible use of WMD need to be dealt with. I would LOVE it if Saddam and Iraq would come to their senses and start acting like a reasonable, friendly, caring country with a kind-hearted democratic government that works to the benefit of it's people and gets along with it's neighboring countries. But that's not likely to happen, thus I support aggressive action to solve the issue, hopefully once and for all.


I heard on the morning news that Cretien (our Canadian Prime Minister) has announced publicly that "there is no need for war in Iraq, because we have already won the battle, we had dem surrounded and boxed in"......
I apologize to the USA on behalf of my country's idiot leader. Trust me, he does NOT speak for all of us.


Btw, apparently it's Usama Bin Laden's birthday today.

Huh? WTF?

Q1) The UK and US gave Saddam arms to attack the Iranians. The US even gave him anthrax and chemical warfare technology ie. the very same weapons that now represent such a grave threat to World peace! Why is it unreasonable for me to be cynical about the fact that the US and UK are now about to launch a war to disarm a despot that they armed!

Q2) I implied that Russia and France were trying to defend their economic interests, NOT "World peace" as they claim. Your comments seem to support this argument.

So who the fuck are you "kidding"? :321GFY

You're trying to compare 12+ years ago to now. It won't work. During the Iran-Iraq war things were different, and the USA obviously felt it was in the best interest at the time to even the playing field. Tell me.... who was helping Iran at the time?

That's like the jerks who say the US gave weapons to Al Quaida during the Russian occupation of Afganistan. Well DUH, of course they did, because <i>during those times</i> it was felt that Russia's invasion tactics were not right. I'm sure there are tons of very political and strategic reasons why countries back certain other countries at certain times, but fuck man, TIMES CHANGE.

The answer to your question should have been obvious.

And what's with the "huh? WTF?" thing? Did you not think anyone would take a moment to actually answer your questions? Okay, possibly I misread that particular question. If, as you say, we are in agreement on that one then I stand corrected. Everyone is so touchy lately.

"this too shall pass"

The meddling that seems appropriate at any point in time (eg. supplying illegal/banned weapons of mass destruction to a brutal dictator, or declaring war on a country that has not even threatened to attacked you) can turn around and bite you on the ass a decade later. And YES the US frequently facilitates the death of people when it thinks that killing them is in it's (not necessarily the World's) best interests. And since Saddam does not present any legitimate military threat to the US at this time, I wonder what's motivating them? There are many answers to most questions and it's extremely naive of you to presume that you know them all!

You said:

That was not an attempt to refute my questions, it was an attempt to ridicule them. And Christ you didn't even read them properly before ridiculing them! Are you seriously surprised that I found the comment offensive? Given your comments about Joe Sixpack's attitude I'd say that was kind've hypocritical! :2 cents:

Pretty easy to arm-chair quarterback from the cheap seats. Funny, it occurs to me that the POTUS has all sorts of intel reports at his desposal that his decisions MUST be based on.... which makes me wonder what brainiac critics like yourself are basing YOUR wisdom on.

Here we go again with the "you've got to be kidding" shit. There are so many ways that a country like Iraq can "pose a threat to the US" it isn't even funny. Are you going to ask me to point them all out to you? Holy shyte boy, who's naive here?


Maybe you should have saved your two cents bro. Quite whining about the light ridicule I gave you. It was meant to show that the answers to your questions should have been obvious. When answers to questions are obvious, that usually means the person asking them hasn't been paying much attention. I have no idea what you're talking about with the reference to joe6. Why bring stupid side-arguments into it?

And I fucking said "my mistake" about that second question already, so what is your problem that you can't just accept that and move on?

You're strangely quiet today.

my punching bag is gone and I am quite subdued in the abscence of the dirt bags to punch
;-)))

And I suppose you're privy to some top-secret information which is only available to key players like yourself?

:1orglaugh Are you honestly attempting to argue that US Presidents in possession of military "intelligence" have always made the right decisions?

:1orglaugh That's a bit rich coming from a guy who was ridiculing questions that he hadn't even read correctly.

You me and a lot of other people at GFY get irritated by Sixpack's tendency to ridicule and attack people who have a perspective contrary to his own. You are one of the chief critics of Joe's behavior. So it struck me as ironic that you felt the need to ridicule my questions just because you don't share my views.

I'll move on when you stop presenting bogus, irrational and irrelevant information to prove that it was appropriate to ridicule my questions. Christ, you've basically conceded that you agreed to half of what I said, so how is it reasonable for you to keep asserting that my questions were worthy of contempt and ridicule?

I thought they were rhetorical questions not meant to be answered and you thought he was seriously asking, hence him taking offence when you thought he didn't know the "obvious" answers.

Noooo - If I sell you a gun - that does in no way mean I would not try to stop you from trying to shoot me with it.

That was an easy one.

Yep, they were rhetorical questions :)

But that fact was apparently lost on CDSmith.

Who cares what Joe's political beliefs is?

If you have a flag in your sig he can have an upside down one in his. Maybe your flag offends him as much as his offends you.

Debating on a forum is one thing but taking it personally and getting into huge flame wars out of it is just plain stupid. You're right wing I like Marx and you like Reagan. Who fucking cares, it's the damn internet. We're all in the same business, let's not mix that with our personal lives.

This reminds me of my IRC war days, thank god I've grown up a little since I was a freshman in high school :glugglug

When did Saddam threaten to attack the US?

You were talking about the U.S. arming Iraq as though where he got his weapons somehow should matter in disarming him.

I was just pointing out that wasn't the case.

I think it's a given fact that Saddam is a "threat" - to a lot more people than just those in the U.S.

That is not what I said or meant. I have never suggested that Saddam should not be disarmed. I was simply suggesting that there's an irony associated with the fact that the two countries who provided Saddam his weapons of mass destruction (ie. the US and UK) are now the ones leading a military invasion to take the weapons of mass destruction away from him.

Saddam is a threat to the people of his own country, but he is presently in no position to invade another country. What other country is he threatening to invade? Who is he going to use these weapons against?

If you're arguing that the US should invade Iraq to liberate them from a despotic dictator, then I guess the US will also need to invade most of the other countries in the Middle East, including its so called allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

If the USA was concerned about the wellfare of Iraqi citizens, they wouldn't have economic sanctions that prevent them from getting medicine. Fact is however many people die at the hands of Saddam over there, more are dying because we won't let them import medicine.