Iraq or N. Korea? Or neither?

Who should America strike first, Iraq, N. Korea, or niether?

  • Iraq

    Votes: 16 32.0%
  • North Korea

    Votes: 7 14.0%
  • Neither

    Votes: 12 24.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 6.0%
  • Who cares? They'll just end up bombing Canadians again anyway.

    Votes: 12 24.0%

  • Total voters
    50
Originally posted by LeHah
Because America has people in office whom we don't have to worry will run off and start a private war. America has nukes because we, the people, trust our officals enough.

If you don't like it, fine. Move the fuck to Canada.

1) No, we don't.
2) Canada isn't much safer, especially with Amphetamine laced USAF ground attack pilots. Say, most of those planes can carry tactical nukes...
 
Originally posted by LeHah
Because America has people in office whom we don't have to worry will run off and start a private war. America has nukes because we, the people, trust our officals enough.

If you don't like it, fine. Move the fuck to Canada.

firstly, your statement move to canada is the most solely UNAMERICAN thing possible, the entire concept of the american government, is that the people speak out and voice their ideas and CRITISMS of the government so that ideas and concepts are constantly revisited and re-evaluated. To tell all who disagree with you to move out is the equivalent of saying "lets start a facist dictatorship".

and We have people who we dont have to worry will start a private war? hmm now considering that there are only 2 countries on earth that actually agree with us about going to war with iraq, israel and england, with the UK begining to back away from complete support of the US, and france having stated that without question it will veto any question about action against iraq in the security council, it means that if the US does attack iraq, whether you think it is right or wrong, it IS a private war, a war between the US and Iraq.

another thing, Aries, the ultimate authority on the english language would in the minds of most educated and knowledgeable people be the OED, the Oxford English Dictionary. Also just to note, the exact definition you stated was ambiguous as to whether or not it meant, "unlawful and malicious OR premeditated" (its exact words actually) or "unlawful and malicious or unlawful and premeditated" it is open to interpretation, and ill interpret it my way. Either way if we attack iraq it is an aggressive war making it an unlawful war making the soldiers killing people murderers by yours or my definition. I would also point out that it doesnt state who's law. Unlawful could mean violating actual laws set by a nation/the international community, or it could just as easily mean the laws of nature/the laws of morality/god's laws/ All of which give a totally different spin on what it means to murder.

Also to note israel's leader did facilitate the murder of thousands of people who are technically (according to international law) israeli citizens, back in the 1980s he allowed terrorists to enter a palestinian refugee camp, knowing that several thousands of the palestinians would be killed, i believe it was about 2000. So yes i would say that they are a worse offender than Iraq. Why doesnt the US want to bomb them to the stone age? because they dont have any oil.
 
it's funny how Napoleon goes on about how he hates dictators and facists, and yet his forum handle is the name of the most infamous facist dictator of the 18th and 19th centuries, oddly enough, from france...

don't want to glorify war or anything, or take over the world, or create an empire across all of EUROPE...

also, there is NO difinitive governing body over the english language. it's a living language, hence subject to change.

and french citizen's have a strong dislike for arabs, resulting from the large number of arab political refugee's in france. call me racist if u must, but i've heard this from numberous people from france, and my french professor, who recently came back france. the french are just dragging their feet, as per usual, they'll come around.
 
Originally posted by Napoleon
and We have people who we dont have to worry will start a private war? hmm now considering that there are only 2 countries on earth that actually agree with us about going to war with iraq, israel and england, with the UK begining to back away from complete support of the US, and france having stated that without question it will veto any question about action against iraq in the security council, it means that if the US does attack iraq, whether you think it is right or wrong, it IS a private war, a war between the US and Iraq.

don't count on anyone vetoing anything untill the inspectors present their report

another thing, Aries, the ultimate authority on the english language would in the minds of most educated and knowledgeable people be the OED, the Oxford English Dictionary. Also just to note, the exact definition you stated was ambiguous as to whether or not it meant, "unlawful and malicious OR premeditated" (its exact words actually) or "unlawful and malicious or unlawful and premeditated" it is open to interpretation, and ill interpret it my way. Either way if we attack iraq it is an aggressive war making it an unlawful war making the soldiers killing people murderers by yours or my definition. I would also point out that it doesnt state who's law. Unlawful could mean violating actual laws set by a nation/the international community, or it could just as easily mean the laws of nature/the laws of morality/god's laws/ All of which give a totally different spin on what it means to murder.

dude, give it up. all your doing is trying to extend this further than it has to go. you have already been proven wrong, so just deal with it

Also to note israel's leader did facilitate the murder of thousands of people who are technically (according to international law) israeli citizens, back in the 1980s he allowed terrorists to enter a palestinian refugee camp, knowing that several thousands of the palestinians would be killed, i believe it was about 2000. So yes i would say that they are a worse offender than Iraq. Why doesnt the US want to bomb them to the stone age? because they dont have any oil.

Israel-2000, Iraq-a hell of a lot more than that, plus they killed them with chemical weapons. yeah, i can see how israel would be the worse offender.
as to the US not taking action against israel, are you really that naive to think that we would turn against one of the few allies we have in that region?
 
Originally posted by Aries
well, the inspectors said that the warheads were in good condition. that means they have either been built recently or maintained. and you don't build or maintain chemical weapon warheads unless you have or are in the process of obtaining chemical weapons

I'm sorry, but I doubt a warhead in a munitions storage facility will degrade in quality too much if it's been there for a couple of years...
 
TC's right, munitions are kept in strict environments, mainly as u don't want one going off..., and to ensure quality. an example that proves this point, the US used bombs from WW2 in korea, Vietnam, panama, and even the gulf war.
 
those bombs were maintained, that's my point. the environment it's in doesn't do that all by itself. there are people that help with that, and inspect to make sure that the bombs stay in good condition
 
Originally posted by Napoleon
firstly, your statement move to canada is the most solely UNAMERICAN thing possible, the entire concept of the american government, is that the people speak out and voice their ideas and CRITISMS of the government so that ideas and concepts are constantly revisited and re-evaluated. To tell all who disagree with you to move out is the equivalent of saying "lets start a facist dictatorship".


You're being redundant. I AM USING THAT SAME PRIVLAGE YOU ARE. It is an honor to speak my mind freely, and it makes my opinion just as valid as yours. I think you should get the fuck out if you don't like it simply because you don't like it.

have people who we dont have to worry will start a private war?


Yeah, we certainly have a ton of ranking officers and NCOs just looking to run a destroyer into Russia and blowing St Petersburg to the moon. The president is an elected body, his ass is grass come next election though we won't do any better with the likes of Joe "I'm a self-rightous dick" Lieberman in office if he wins.

hmm now considering that there are only 2 countries on earth that actually agree with us about going to war with iraq, israel and england, with the UK begining to back away from complete support of the US, and france having stated that without question it will veto any question about action against iraq in the security council, it means that if the US does attack iraq, whether you think it is right or wrong, it IS a private war, a war between the US and Iraq.

Yeah, I remember how Churchill was the only SOB to have the brain capacity to see the Nazi party as a threat to the free world. And was he wrong?

Fuck France. No real offense intended toward our wine-making buddies, but the only small indication that the French has an army is the Pepe Lepue episode where he joins the French Foriegn Legion. The french people also have to live down building a massive wall which was flown over by the Germans. I don't see them pulling any Douglas MacArthurs out of their hats. Besides, they have enough problems with legalizing hookers and bailing out Canal +.

another thing, Aries, the ultimate authority on the english language would in the minds of most educated and knowledgeable people be the OED, the Oxford English Dictionary.


That's subjective. I'm pretty sure that book lacks the term "MTV" in it, which I've seen in a number of dictionarys since the early 1990s, including Webster's.

Either way if we attack iraq it is an aggressive war making it an unlawful war making the soldiers killing people murderers by yours or my definition.


So we're to sit on our ass and let another 9/11 happen? Let me think about this a second... NO. You're not Ghandi, so stop trying to act like you're a humanitarian. You're just as conformist and capitalist as everyone else here. You'll never find morality or justice in war, just poverty, horror, blood and offal.

I'd rather have all the terrors and pain of war than living a sedated and worthless life in some WASP neighborhood.

I would also point out that it doesnt state who's law.


"I am the law! This is my scepter! By this Ax, I rule! If you like not my kingship, come and take it from me!"

So speaks Robert E Howard's Kull in "By This Ax". Laws are too subjective and ambigious to hold much meaning anywhere else except where they are implemented in civilization. Barbarism must always ultimately triumph, as civilization is just a whim.

All of which give a totally different spin on what it means to murder.

I a stand-offish sense, there's only one completely uncontionable act: rape. Murder can be justified, robbery, purgery, contempt of court or any number of "crimes". Rape, however, has no moral defense.

So yes i would say that they are a worse offender than Iraq. Why doesnt the US want to bomb them to the stone age? because they dont have any oil.

Well, lets see, this one place that has a lot of oil? Yeah, they use their money to buy illegal arms and threaten all of western civilization. I wouldn't give 5 and a half shits if it was France or Sweeden or, christ, some baltic nation were doing all this. But Iraq has proved time and again to be a loose canon. Someone has to finish this shit; just carpet bomb the goddamned country already and pick up the survivors later.
 
Yes, Maniac II, the French truly are horrible bastards for having an opinion different than yours.

(don't bother looking for the post I'm replying to, people - it's no longer here)
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Yes, Maniac II, the French truly are horrible bastards for having an opinion different than yours.

(don't bother looking for the post I'm replying to, people - it's no longer here)

You like picking on me dont you :D :rolleyes:

Just kidding
 
Thanks for brining up Churchill LeHah.

I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.
Writing as president of the Air Council, 1919 (Guess what- he's talking about the Kurds!)


One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations."
From his Great Contemporaries, 1937

It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organising and conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King.
Commenting on Gandhi's meeting with the Viceroy of India, 1931

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,849122,00.html

Statecraft brings out the best and worst in all our leaders.
 
Churchill also hated femminism, reporters and anyone else who annoyed him. I say, good for him! After all, he only help save the entire f*cking world.
 
You forget LeHah, once you've done your good for mankind-you get to be completely torn apart by the people who enjoy the benefits of your labor.
 
Originally posted by Skyfire
You forget LeHah, once you've done your good for mankind-you get to be completely torn apart by the people who enjoy the benefits of your labor.

Of course, thats just the way people are....:D
 
listen to this....

A little political review, a time to think &remember...

From a Navy man...

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000;
President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel;
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel;
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000;
Clinton promised that those responsible! would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors;
Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.
 
Back
Top