I have a question for those asking after such places as Sudan, Somalia and the like...

Should the US run in there and fight with them... Now look closely here, these so called Warlords have shoulder fired arms, bits of artillery and things like that...
We ARE but one country here and can't fight 25 fronts at a time without drafting all the available males in the USA...



OR, should we go after someone who has SOPHISTICATED weaponry such as chemicals, germs and possibly more?

Your choice... do you want the US to step on bugs or take out the one laying the eggs?

I work with well over 200 people, most of which are under 24 or so, never even FIRED a gun. let alone been shot at. They are FULL of ideas... all of which are so stupid that they aren't worth the air it takes to expel them.

I see the same clouding of issues here. As CD said, we tried to HELP in Somalia... we got shot to pieces... what did we do? Backed out when if you have ANY clue in your heads... you know we could have leveled that country. Who in H*LL made it OUR freaking job to clean up the messes that everyone else starts?!?!

Ridley Scott presents... BLACK HAWK DOWN

It makes me laugh when revisionists use pop culture to rewrite history.

That's great:Graucho

I think it was only me asking after those places. Now CD already said that at least they tried to go to Somalia, which was good. And I agreed to that.

However, stating that USA primarily wants to intervene just help people in other countries is a false statement IMO.

If you agree, we have no debate here

Here we go... the gist of the leftist argument. We should all be helped by the government! Why doesn't your government PAY the poor so they don't starve!! How come everyone isn't paid equally??!! There should be no rich and no poor, only middle class for everyone!!!

HA

Soul, my point is that people here are free to become ultra-successful or ultra poor. It is their choice. Even if I lost my house, family, income, everything, rest assured I would get back on my feet in time. And my argument to you is, why is it the government's responsibility to go above and beyond what it already offers?..... Welfare, funded programs, job-retraining programs, food banks, funded soup kitchens etc etc etc. In a trulycapitalistic society people are free to change their lives, or not.

And I am glad that I live in such a country. Many other countries of the world are still trying to adopt certain communistic principles and ways of thinking, yet they complain that USA and Canada have everything so easy etc. It's bullshit. Communism simply doesn't work, this fact has been proven out over and over.

I doubt he has the majority support from Congress or the Senate much less the rest of the world! Hope he doesn't try something where it's just the US and no one else. I don't believe it's the right time. Of course there is NO right time when it comes to terrorism. It feels lonely at the top...............:(

not even dubya is foolish enough to start something on 9/11 -- if it does go through it will be after for sure. why even question it. if he does something on 9/11 then hes a bigger jackass than i thought. dont forget, those speeches last year were NOT written by him, but by someone else, so they shouldnt jack his popularity up at all..

If you think that then you know less than shit about North Americans. At least the ones I know, and they all watch and learn from various news sources daily.

And baywatch was over like 5 years ago. We don't even get reruns showing here right now.

How many ;)))))))))))))'s do you need to see that I may not be so fucking serious here?

What happens when a big Porn company online tries to police this industry?

Everyone attacks him.

Nobody likes to think there's somebody better then them.
And thats how most countries feel now.

they got nukes and we attack we are fucked:helpme

i said i wont post, but i'm doing it :p

Communism doesnt work of course and i dont like communism as I don't like communists. What I'm saying is that capitalism is everywhere and you're doing bad to equate it only with canada and usa reffering it as a short of priviledge. Also Im saying a war will be against the common good of the average american and there are far more important things that the political games a dumb president wants to play.

Why would I want to refute my own statements?

ha ha, idiot. You are beginning to debate like Kman. You are getting rather arrogant and snotty with me now, aren't you?

Come look down your nose at me. And bro, I don't see you supporting the shit you're spewing either. Tell me why turning a blind eye on a crisis waiting to happen like Saddam is a good thing. C'mon, tell me. I'm waiting, oh great Vancouver boy.

Hey, you want to bring attitude into this, so be it. I'm up for anything.

Mika... I don't agree with what you perceive as why we get in to these things. Just pray that your country never has to put out that call for help. :)

After all... your country has no oil correct?! :winkwink:

Lots of oil.
It's imported from Iraq, though, so DO NOT MESS with Iraq :1orglaugh

Nonsensical analogy at best. This industry is governed by local laws as well as certain US and international laws. Criminal acts on the net have proven to have serious consequences for webmasters that choose to flout the rules of basic right and wrong.


I was equating your local community with the world community, and in this regard it is similar. Case in point: When all those countries under siege were calling out for help to the world, whom do you think they were calling to? The USA of course. The only country that has the might and the sense of duty to act.


Letting Iraq go on thumb-nosing the US weapons inspectors, letting them stockpile deadly gasses, chemicals, germs and possibly nukes, is about the dumbest thing we as a free people can do. Turning a blind eye is just plain nuts, and WILL (quote me on this) come back to bite the whole world in the ass if we do it. The time for positive action to rid the world of this threat Saddam poses has been long-overdue. As Gem said, do we keep stepping on the bugs or do we crush the head of the serpent?

Hey! Anyone have any ice cream?! We're all out. :(

their nukes cant get us man

U.S has plenty of Oil we Just never wanted to tap our own resources. Long term advantage

Hear me out. I'm calling you a fuckstick. BUT THAT IS THE LAST TIME I WILL INSULT YOU. The arguments have turned rather infantile at certain times and I want it to stop.

From here on out we will continue to debate like normal adults. Furthermore, I will allow you to continue to speak to me as long as you acknowledge that I have won the argument.

LOL! Dude.... the point is still mine. the war is about oil. Are you denying that?

I got Reese Peanut Butter Cups Ice cream. Its got big chunks of peanut butter cups in it.

http://www.kidztown.com/img/reeses_paper1.jpg

Maybe its just me but I don't think anyone wants to launch nuclear war. Its all about big business and who has the biggest cock fight.
I agree with the US protecting itself but we also stick our nose in other peoples business that we shouldn't.

There is alot that goes on behind closed doors that we don't know anything about.

Seems like a lot more people in here know the REAL TRUTH. All about the oil....

Well said. There is a lot of relevant information that we simply don't have access to.

For example whether the Iraq really has nukes or not, and whether they have good missiles to carry those nukes - to Israel, Europe or even ballistic missiles.

We don't have this info but I'm sure someone has.

:thumbsup

Never trust anyone who got arrested for stealing a Chrismas tree :winkwink:

WOW.... A stunningly relevant NEWS STORY breaks during this thread...

US 'was partly to blame' for terror attacks'

Now I believe this to be a rather steamy story especially this time of year. I do not agree with the story, and it is peculiar that this just came out within days of the anniversary.

Wonder where they got their numbers? On the 'Today' show I believe it was, this morning or yesterday, they had a poll result that showed that the for, against and undecided percentages were very close together, both in the polls for with UN help and without. All in the high 20's to low-mid thirties.

Polls, p'tooey... depends on where you take them and the age range of the participants. :glugglug

True, but I'm going to believe the Financial Times before I believe NBC.

It's a shame that's what international media has come down to.

CD that's the fucking funny part. They just got it. ahahhhhahhhahhaaaaa

Bleh to Baywatch and the Dow Corning girls...

We're waiting (impatiently I might add) for Richard Dean Anderson to sign the darn contract to reprise MacGyver!!

Posted by CDSmith, Canada
Replied by Milos Berg, Berlin, Germany

>> Kosovo--- Need I really continue on here? <<

No, because you obviously don?t know anything about it.

>> The Serbs were invading,... <<

The Serbs weren?t invading but defending its own land. The holly land. This is where first South Slav settlers set their first settlements back in IX century. The only place on Earth that has older Christian Eastern Orthodox churches than Kosovo is Halkidiki (spelling...), Greece.

This was Serb land for centuries. In 1392 Turks invaded the Balkans. That year The Battle on Kosovo happened. South Slavs were outnumbered and the Turks occupied the most of the Balkans.

It lasted for more than 4 centuries. Some of the Asian tribes arrived and stayed. Most of them were concentrated in the area were Albania is now.

Some Slav inhabitants were not strong enough to take the Turk oppression and they converted to Islam. Those are ancestors of Bosnian Muslims.

Kosovo and Metohija in 20th century: Before World War I, 90% of population were Serbs. During that war, Serbia lost 30% of its population, so the new ratio became 75:25. After the
World War II and another 1.5 million of lost Serbian lives, the new ratio was 60:40.

After the war, Albania became a monstrous communist cage, worse than anything has been seen in eastern communist block. New state of the South Slavs, socialistic federal Yugoslavia, has been accepting Albanian refugees from Albania. Newcomers mainly populated Kosovo and Metohija and Western Macedonia.

This, combined with Albanian demographic explosion turned Kosovo and Western Macedonia into what you all have been ignorantly presented by CNN and BBC: to a small piece of land somewhere on Balkans, populated by innocent muslims fighting for their basic civil rights.

The truth is that Albanians from Kosovo enjoyed the same civil rights as all others, they just have not been allowed to proclaim their own state - which they started to ask for as soon as they outnumbered Slav population, in early 1960s.

>> 3 million people begin running for their very lives to the nearest border, and they cry to the world "Help!! HELP US!! We are being oppressed!! <<

There were around 2 million people on Kosovo in 1991. Around 1.7 million Albanians, 200,000 Serbs and 100,000 Turks, Macedonians, Croatians, Bosnians etc.

Oh, yes - they cried for help. For help to build the monstrous semi-state modern Europe has ever seen. Drugs, arms, slavery... all the worst kinds of crime tripled since 1999 and are happily exported to the European Union and ? say cheese ? USA and Canada.

>> Our wives and daughters are being raped, our people are being slaughtered!! Help USSSS!!!" <<

That?s right, that?s what they said. Cry babies.

I remember the marsh of Albanians through the streets of Munich back in 1998. I remember 15 years old kids yelling - ?We will kill them all! Long live great Albania?.

[Great Albania, by the way, is supposed to spread from South Serbia (including big Serbian city of Nis through Macedonia (including the capital city Skopje) to Aegean Sea (including 1.5 million people large glorious Greek city Thessalonika). They are deadly serious about this and you can see the maps in every primary school on Kosovo)]

And then what? ?Help us?? Well, don?t fuck with Serbs. Don?t fuck with a war hardened army with military tradition older than first word written in Albanian.

Last week, at the trial in Hague, some ?witness? is swearing that he saw Serb jets bombing a refugee convoy. Then his was informed that those were NATO planes and that it was mistake confirmed by NATO officials themselves. ?No, those were Serb planes, I?m 100% sure?.

The other ?witness? witnessed that Serbs slaughtered the whole family in some village. Then Milosevic?s lawyers founded the same dead family happily enjoying the hospitality of Sweden.

Show me the proofs, show me the links on the web, show me articles about mass murders.

As war started Albanians just flew away on their own. They had no serious loses.

>> and yes good people of the world, that's right.... the US-of-of-fucking-A, along with UN and CANADIAN forces go in and again kick ass for the good of humanity. <<

UN has never approved what NATO has done there. By the way, nice allies you?ve got, CANADIANS :)

Kick ass? In 78 days Serbs lost 1000 soldiers and 13 tanks. Guerilla forces where completely wiped out. Same for raging hordes from Albania that dared to step in. Real NATO looses yet have to be revealed.

Milosevic was a dictator and deserves to be in prison indeed (not in a foreign prison, though) but defending Kosovo makes him a hero. The reason that GLORIOUS Serbian Army left Kosovo were seriously growing damages inflicted on industrial and civil facilites by bombings within the rest of the country.

>> Thousands of Canadians and Americans pitch in food, blankets and raw goods to send over to those people <<

That?s nice. They?re sending you some good heroin in return ;) Macedonian Slavs helped them out a lot too. They?re paying them back by preparing new war (for freedom) in western Macedonia.

Hey, did you know, Serbs had a friends to help them out too. Ask my crazy :) and brave cousin ?Tex Viller?, he?s a freaking war veteran. On March 19, 1991, he left his cozy apartment in center of Berlin and came over to Serbia to fight for the homeland of his grandparents. He?ll confirm that Serb Army had volunteers from all over the world.

>> and we took in several thousand refugees as new citizens here as well. <<

Good! Keep up the good work! :)

copy, paste, done

pheuh if i'm crazy, he's boring :1orglaugh

Who gives the fuck about Serbs????

Hmmm where to start this...

We're now supposed to be an 'enlightened' civilization, right? (At least the West is) Granted the past has alot of baggage that will be brought forward. We should LEARN form the past but not let it interfere with the forward mpvement of todays society.

Take the Native Americans for example... they have basically successfully integrated (albeit forced) into todays civilization. And before the naysayers spring up, there ARE more Indians living off of the reservations than in or on them.

What I'm trying to say is, we can't be letting what even happened a 100 years ago affect us to such a degree that it interferes with the forward movement today. IE: if we allow the past to overcome us, then Germany, Japan (fill in the blank) are still the Wests enemies, right? Native Americans will be launching new raids for horses,.. errr cars in this day and age. Instead of leaving their moccassins to thumb their noses at the target of their theft, they'd today leave their horses as they drive off in your Lincoln SUV. lol

We at SOME point as this so called modern civilization have to let the past go when it comes to the betterment for all of us in THIS day and age.

Granted it will be hard and we face alot of challenges since there are alot of third world countries that haven't "kept up with the changing times". There still ARE Native Americans in Central America that are afraid of having their pictures taken etc. Do they bear arms to fight against todays society? Not for the most part. The middle east isn't so far behind that they *really* want to do away with us. (Look at the videos of them, wearing US rock group Tshirts, and a status symbol is a zippo lighter of all things. lol

Will we have to go to war to pull some of them into 200x? No doubt we will. Is that a GOOD thing? No, on one hand but for the good of the World it will be a necessary thing. OR we will face the wrath of their backwards religious leaders for another century and they will have their backwards converts to carry out their ill will towards things they cannot understand.

Look at Japan, only a couple hundred years back they refused Westerners access to their country. Preferring to trade with us through China etc. They got forward looking leaders and that all changed. They forged ahead and are one of the leading 'Modern Civilizations'.

Saddam? A different cookie there. He wants all that the West offers and at the same time harbors a Hitler like will to carry a heavy hand over as many people that he possibly can. He is the mental case that makes a 100 of these dinky wannabe warlords look like ONE local neighborhood bully. We have to (or someone does) rout out those reallllly bad ones, and the little pipsqueaks will either fall into line OR be taken out.

I am sure there are or will be future leaders in most all of those third world countries that will come to the forefront to lead their peoples into the future. Not in OUR lifetimes no doubt. But it will come. If civilization stops its forward movement, then the Human Race will be either doomed or thrown into a form of dark ages more befitting our stature as opposed to the 1200's or whatever year they started back then. Can we say Mad Max? :winkwink:

Hope some of that makes sense. It was running in the back of my mind while I slept and I don't have alot of time to put it in to words. :)

The fact is that Saddam cannot be reasoned with. Like Hitler he sees compromise as weakness. You tell him what he needs to do, and you tell him what you'll do unless he complies. And you have to be willing to go through with that, failure to do so only encourages him to go further.

Do we need to take immediate military action against Iraq? That depends on how great a threat he is in the short term, and convincing evidence has to be produced before that happens. But the fact is that we need, at the very least, to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq, with unrestricted access.

Iraq has been offered favorable terms for that in the past, and refused them. Now we need to give Saddam a simple message; live up to your agreements, or face the consequences. :2 cents:

rose, an immigrant from God-knows-where, now a citizen of Canada, certainly isn't supposed to give a fuck about anything

you?re supposed to care only about your periods, mortgages and behavior (so they don?t kick you out) , honey-pie :1orglaugh

"Tex".. It's a shame someone doesn't rein in YOUR behaviour instead of letting you run around like an *ss. Oh thats right, mum and dad are at work and you figured out the password to the family computer again didn't you. Little boy.

Holler down to the corner and tell mum to come make you some warm cereal for lunch and you'll feel all better after a nap. :ak47:

This debate is enjoyable to read. I love a good debate :-)

I think the question in this poll is "Will Dubbya attack Iraq on September 11th?" In my opinion he will not. He does not have the necessary support. Even if we were to dismiss as irrelevant the fact that our allies do not support such a move, he still lacks the necessary support.

Case in point: Dubbya's own father's three top foreign policy advisors are heading up a charge to try to defeat the current administration's policy! James Baker was George Bush the Elder's chief of staff and later his secretary of state and he has called for delays until the UN can do weapons inspections in Iraq. Brent Scowhahahahaha has long been considered to be the "other voice" of the elder Bush...he even co-wrote the elder Bush's memoirs. He has come out against the current administration by saying that we must wait until Iraq attacks us first before we attack them. Lawrence Eagleburger, one of the elder Bush's prime diplomats, has said we must not do any pre-emptive strike against Iraq until there is undeniable proof that Iraq is ready to strike us with nukes.

Not only does Dubbya lack support from these men, but his own secretary of state, Colin Powell, has shown much reserve about taking any military action against Iraq.

Many prominent Republicans, including Dick Armey, have come out against the notion of attacking Iraq.

In the ongoing polls, American support for attacking Iraq has been steadily eroding.

Given this political atmosphere, Dubbya knows that it would be political suicide for him to unilaterally go forward with such plans without first getting the blessings of the U.S. Congress and the American people.

So, no. The administration will not attack Iraq on September 11th or anytime in the near future. It would simply be a very stupid move politically...and let's face it, Dubbya is, after all is said and done, a politician :-)

I love this thread.....it's like an ID card for WAR HAWKS. All you have to do is read the thread and BLAMO right away you know who in here has a small cock...er sorry...i mean who wants to start a war.

Here is another piece of particulrarly stunning NEWS....I may be right. Read On.

Today (September 4th) Dubbya is at it again....

"Calling Saddam Hussein a "serious threat," President Bush said today he would "seek approval" from Congress about taking action against Iraq and vowed to make the case against the Iraqi leader on the international stage as well. "It's something that this country must deal with," Bush said, "and today the process starts about ... our future and how best to deal with it."
"

And notice that not once was I ever refuted by these WAR HAWKS. It's about OIL Stupid.

bwahahahahhahaha

did you think of that all by yourself or you just quoted another intelligent keyboard warrior?

can i have a spank too? lol

you?ve been polite enough tho
still thinking you?re a nice guy who?s just picking the wrong side
please prove i'm wrong ;-))


on a more serious note

if you disagree with me and got some counter-arguments to spill out, lemme see them
i'll reply in the same manner and perhaps will agree w/ you on the end of discussion

Sorry Tex... you got it all wrong from the start... I'm not a guy. :winkwink:

so saying, its plainly in my sig under the nick... if you aren't observent enough to see that, then why would I think you could be observent about any of your other observations? :Graucho