|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 17, 2005 13:56:54 GMT -5
The idea that eveyone should get on is not naive the idea that everyone could get on is. that sentence could have done with some punctuation but i get what you mean! lol However i disagree and i think you missed the main point of my post. Who say's everyone should get on? Who's to say whats right and wrong? its a massive, massive world with many different beliefs, cultures, religions and opinions. And in many ways they contradict each other no one has the right or ability to say - your belief is wrong and i am right, therefore you should back down and we will all get along. That is simply not the real world. Mainly because of religion i guess. How can Israelis and Palestinians get along when they both claim the religious right to a certain land? Sure us outsiders immeadiatly say 'compromise' - but who is willing to compromise their beliefs? to betray their god's will?? to compromise their morals?? Its all far too easy to say everyone should get along, peace and love, etc. but its also far too easy to ignore reality
|
|
|
Post by mape on Nov 17, 2005 13:57:16 GMT -5
"America rid the western world of nazi's, led the way against the communist Soviet Union and now leads the way against terrorists. In each case they made mistakes along the way - but i dread to think what the world would be like if America hadn't made a stand." thank you and amen , I don't see anyone on here complaining about US actions which history shows us were correctly taken, all the armchair generals of the world are complaining about things we really can't know yet, but hey we're in the free worldt so we should be allowed to do that.....hmmmmm, isn't that what America has been fighting for all along ? Why would anyone complain about what they have done right? Wars have to be fought when the time is necessary. Take WW1 and WW2 for example. It's what has been going on recently that is in question i.e. destroying Iraq wasn't necessary. If America proclaims itself to be a champion of freedom, democracy etc then why do they continue to forge ahead with their current brand of foreign policy? and can someone explain to me since when was only America part of the allied forces for world war 2?
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 17, 2005 14:19:36 GMT -5
lol nice choices you had there. Hmmm but how bout comparing america to other countries such as Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany etc would you be as willing to stick with your choice ? oh come on - get real! i see you trying to slip Canada into a list of real countries! thought you could get away with it huh? im calling out you and your fake ass crappy country!!! i knew someone would pick on my list of countries there - but my point was trying to get at the larger picture.... its about nailing your colours to the flag - are you for an american president who, despite many faults, promotes freedom and democracy? or are you for the other guys? we are being made to choose whether to take a stand or not. And im with bush in saying that we should make a stand as for america in world war 2 - everyone knows they didnt win it single handed or anything like that! the brits and the russians and others made massive contributions. but everyone should recognise that america comprehensively and ultimately ended Hitler's rule and the war in a way no other country did. they didnt have to make a stand, but they did. they did what they thought was right. Same goes for the Cold War. That is why America should be held in high esteem and given the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Nov 17, 2005 17:56:23 GMT -5
no offense to americans, but it does my head in the way they are given credit for riding the world of nazism, for a start, america on there own, if faced with the threat of nazism, would be crushed, it was the unification of the world, that stopped the nazis, a global effort, (as well hitler making some short sighted mistakes, such as not invading the UK when given the chance, and the underestimation of the Russians)
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Nov 17, 2005 17:58:25 GMT -5
terrorists everywhere? talk shite mate, how many times have the US came over to my part of the world to tackle terroirsm? Answer? None but maybe if oil was discoverd in tyrone theyd discover an interest well they feigned enough interest to keep the irish-americans just about happy enough and that was it. All politics, welcome to this joke of a world we live in!! BUT BACK TO LIVE4EVR's ORIGINAL POINT... i can't stand arguing with this chap. he's got to be the most naive, "believe-what-my-media-wants-me-to-believe", person ever on this forum. this is the boy who tells us to prepare for nuclear attacks because Ramadan is on. FFS. and don't get me wrong, i'm no michael moore campaigner or such & such, in fact i think he's a twat... but live4evr.... you sir, are an idiot .............and i'm not even going to argue that point any further (why is it generally the only people that annoy me on this forum happen to be 18 or under?!!) [edit: Dom, not having a go at you, keep up the good work man!] thats because i have the mental age of and 40 something, manic depressive on steroids and redbull
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 17, 2005 18:36:07 GMT -5
you make some good points as always DS, but the fact of the matter is, we've went into another country and basically destroyed the place. for what exactly?
like i say, the iraqi people i know cant see there being any proper democracy in the country. the place is now a hot-bed/breeding ground for terrorists.
sadam was an evil man, we all know that. but the simple fact is he held all the different factions in iraq together - yeah ok it was by fear and thats not good but the place was stable.
now he's not there whos gonna be the one man that can bring all these different factions together? the answer i get is - there is none. are we any safer from terrorism/rougue states than we were 3 years ago when sadam was in power? are we gonna be any safer in another 3 years time? 10 years time?
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Nov 17, 2005 19:54:19 GMT -5
you make some good points as always DS, but the fact of the matter is, we've went into another country and basically destroyed the place. for what exactly? like i say, the iraqi people i know cant see there being any proper democracy in the country. the place is now a hot-bed/breeding ground for terrorists. thanks globe - despite your communist leanings, you make some good points too i see what you're getting at, but i guess i look at it from a different perspective - since all this stuff happened ive tried to take a more historical or long term viewpoint. you say saddam was evil but he held iraq together and that was a good thing - ok fair enough, but what would of happened if saddam had died naturally a couple of years ago rather than being removed from power? iraq would of possibly fallen into the grip of someone even worse. Apparently his eldest son and next in line, was a rapist and murderer..... Saddam wasnt going to live forever and eventually iraq would of been faced with regime change UK/USA decided for their own reasons to force this upon iraq, rightly or wrongly. Now it is up to the people of iraq to rise up and fight for what they believe in. To me, america has given Iraq a chance to have the government it wants - its offered security forces and expertise to ensure this. Its time for Iraq to stand up and take it. If they dont want to take it, then maybe it will lead to a civil war..... and that is often an inevitable part of a country growing up. most 'western' countries have been through it. We all now look upon civil wars as bad things but they have been an absolutely essential part of the development of our countries and humanity as a whole....sad but true. sometimes we just have to fight it out. its in our nature i guess. us westerners seem to think all the rest of the world think the way we do and want to resolve everything diplomatically - news flash, they dont. people dont all think and behave the same. we're trying to enforce our thinking on countries that are 50-100 years behind us in terms of political and social development. and for that reason alone maybe we should have left Iraq to sort themselves out, and we should also leave alone all the other 'rogue' nations... maybe.... but we have to do whats right for us, protect ourselves. and i dont think having all these sadistic bastards in charge of weapons and armies is a desirable thing for us.... like i said earlier, we have to make a stand
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 17, 2005 21:27:42 GMT -5
daysleeper, you are the only one with class on this topic
Hillary et al said claimed Saddam was "developing WMD" and provided safety for terrorists
Did Hillary lie? Did Kerry lie? Did Bill Clinton lie? Did any of the other liberals lie? or is it just Bush that lied?
ffs
Also, ask yourself the question: What does Bush gain by keeping troops in Iraq? Nothing really, it's whats best for America and Iraq right now, we cant cut and run....Dems fail to see the larger picture....stop corrupting everyone....
Dems are the ones lying: 2002 "WE NEED TO GO TO WAR, SADDAM=THREAT", 2005 "BUSH LIED"...ffs....Britain still believes that Saddam had WMDs....
and what if we found weapons tomorrow, would that change your mind?
Go to my other post...remember, the war was more than just about WMDs...and if you fail to see that, then you dont deserve my time in responding to your liberal views...and remember whose in control of America--BUSH, not YOU
How i fear what would have happened if Kerry was president now...how i fear what Al Gore would have done after 9/11 (prob nothing)...i'll leave it at that, i could rant and ramble all day and still get nowhere
*This is my opinion, you have your opinion. OPINIONS CAN NOT BE WRONG. This war will be debated for decades to come, my kids will be studying it and so will their kids....more information will be released...fuck, we are still in the war technically and thus we're still living in it...wait until the war is over, then comment on whether or not it was worth it...saying its not worth it now is foolish, that's not going to do anything than demoralize the country and tropps cos theres no way we will pull out cos Liberals are playing politics...too dangerous for everyone involved....whatever, i have better things to do with my time
peace
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Nov 17, 2005 21:44:36 GMT -5
tam typing
~ hope you read my 2nd post on page one.. you had some inaccurate info. I need to say...
1.) they loaded up the intel to meet their own needs.. this will come out one day..
2.) we went about Iraq the wrong way IMO
3.) when are you gonna join the army btw ? (see my post "saw "my boy" today)
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Nov 17, 2005 21:48:10 GMT -5
no offense to americans, but it does my head in the way they are given credit for riding the world of nazism, for a start, america on there own, if faced with the threat of nazism, would be crushed, it was the unification of the world, that stopped the nazis, a global effort, (as well hitler making some short sighted mistakes, such as not invading the UK when given the chance, and the underestimation of the Russians) YOU ARE RIGHT DOM..
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 17, 2005 21:50:28 GMT -5
tam:
#3
it's a personal decision to join the army. I'm not going to...why? cos i am simply not interested....
i applied early to G.W (find out if im accepted Dec 15), i'm going to major in Pre-law/Political Science and maybe minor in communications and go from there...
that's my plan...some people plan to join the army...thats their choice...noone forces them to do so....nuff said
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Nov 17, 2005 21:52:51 GMT -5
TAM TYPING
GEORGE WASHINGTON - GREAT SCHOOL FOR THAT - THE BEST.. CAN'T GET ANY CLOSER TO THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE FOR POLITICS...
BUT AS YOU KNOW SOOOO EXPENSIVE.. BEST WISHES ON YOUR ENDEAVORS..
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 17, 2005 22:15:49 GMT -5
thanks Tam...less than a month until i know....
theres no reason why i should be rejected but the college decision is always unpredicatable
|
|
|
Post by mape on Nov 17, 2005 22:19:29 GMT -5
oh no i don't like the world is going with ppl like liv4ever going into politics and all your arguments ever seem to be are "this could have happened...." and "that could have happened... " not to mention the number one hit at the moment "what if..." stop bringing all that up because no one knows for sure what could have been. Like i could have gone to ny today and smacked some sense into you, but it didn't happen so there's no point talking about it. All we do know is what has happened and we can make judgements on that. And from what has happened, your arguments don't stand up too well. lol nice choices you had there. Hmmm but how bout comparing america to other countries such as Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany etc would you be as willing to stick with your choice ? oh come on - get real! i see you trying to slip Canada into a list of real countries! thought you could get away with it huh? im calling out you and your fake ass crappy country!!! as for america in world war 2 - everyone knows they didnt win it single handed or anything like that! the brits and the russians and others made massive contributions. but everyone should recognise that america comprehensively and ultimately ended Hitler's rule and the war in a way no other country did. they didnt have to make a stand, but they did. they did what they thought was right. Same goes for the Cold War. That is why America should be held in high esteem and given the benefit of the doubt. oi you're just jealous of our little country we have here. I know you're going to retire here in 40 years time. Anyway just as an aside about the WW2 thing and america making a stand - the war was already two years in before America joined so it wasn't much of their stand. I could argue that that no one country had the biggest impact, but i'd say that the USSR was very vital with their efforts on the eastern front, because the western front was pretty close to being overrun by the allies. As for america, they did have a vital role in that by nuking hiroshima and nagasaki they did end any trouble in the far east.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 17, 2005 23:18:02 GMT -5
Mape, why are you so bitter? Why cant you respond with dignified answers such as Tams and Day Sleepers?
dude, how arrogant are you that you dont accept other ppls views (not saying you have to agree)...
first off, if everyone agreed with you Mape, the world would be borring....and v communist-like....we need different views for the society to continue to progress.....
i like how ppl call me names when here are my grades for the first interim (the ones that get reported to G.W) of this years:
Philosophy: B Russian 1-2 (Honors): A- English: A- Latin 5 (Honors): B+ Statstics: B+
hmmm....my school is in the top 3 of all private schools in the state of PA....those grades are quite beastly, now go call someone else an idiot now and continue looking like a fool in doing so....
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Nov 17, 2005 23:29:01 GMT -5
This thread turned into more than it should have been.
1. With the intelligence we had...We HAD to do something about Iraq Bill Clinton even said that for al you lefties
2. MISLED? There is no evidence of this. Left wing media and powerful players trying to make themselves look better - cos they all (most) agreed to going into Iraq and now its a mess
3. War On Terror - self explanatory see above
I'm not agreeing with going there when and how we did. Just sick of all the negatives.
These people hated us B4 Iraq
|
|
|
Post by mape on Nov 17, 2005 23:55:09 GMT -5
Mape, why are you so bitter? Why cant you respond with dignified answers such as Tams and Day Sleepers? dude, how arrogant are you that you dont accept other ppls views (not saying you have to agree)... first off, if everyone agreed with you Mape, the world would be borring....and v communist-like....we need different views for the society to continue to progress..... i like how ppl call me names when here are my grades for the first interim (the ones that get reported to G.W) of this years: Philosophy: B Russian 1-2 (Honors): A- English: A- Latin 5 (Honors): B+ Statstics: B+ hmmm....my school is in the top 3 of all private schools in the state of PA....those grades are quite beastly, now go call someone else an idiot now and continue looking like a fool in doing so.... I do accept other people's views and opinions ... but only when they are relavent unlike your copy-and-paste propoganda that you post here all the time. hehe i don't think you want to compare high school averages with me... Just cos you're pulling a high average in some bird courses at high school doesn't backup your arguments in any way. Anyway i'll just avoid any threads started by you. I'd rather sniff gasoline and kill my brain cells that way than by reading your tripe. now where is that can of gas...
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 18, 2005 0:27:46 GMT -5
you're a comedian too? whoa you impress me, mape. Not only are you always right but you're funny too
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 18, 2005 4:22:48 GMT -5
This thread turned into more than it should have been. 1. With the intelligence we had...We HAD to do something about Iraq Bill Clinton even said that for al you lefties 2. MISLED? There is no evidence of this. Left wing media and powerful players trying to make themselves look better - cos they all (most) agreed to going into Iraq and now its a mess 3. War On Terror - self explanatory see above I'm not agreeing with going there when and how we did. Just sick of all the negatives. These people hated us B4 Iraq 1. what was the evidence? you seriously think iraq had the capability to harm the uk or the us? c'mon man, get a grip. 2. we weren't misled? tony blair stood up in the house of commons and told the country that iraq had the capability to fire WMD with 45 mins. that was his whole justification for going into iraq. 3. so after invading and occuping iraq, we're now safer from terrorist attacks than we were before?
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 18, 2005 4:28:43 GMT -5
daysleeper, you are the only one with class on this topic why is DS the only one with class? because he agrees with your opinion? i read that you want to be a politition? i get the feeling youll make a great one.
|
|
|
Post by Moorish on Nov 18, 2005 6:13:25 GMT -5
daysleeper, you are the only one with class on this topic why is DS the only one with class? because he agrees with your opinion? i read that you want to be a politition? i get the feeling youll make a great one. Globe, I sadly fear that you are right.
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Nov 18, 2005 9:46:02 GMT -5
This thread turned into more than it should have been. 1. With the intelligence we had...We HAD to do something about Iraq Bill Clinton even said that for al you lefties 2. MISLED? There is no evidence of this. Left wing media and powerful players trying to make themselves look better - cos they all (most) agreed to going into Iraq and now its a mess 3. War On Terror - self explanatory see above I'm not agreeing with going there when and how we did. Just sick of all the negatives. These people hated us B4 Iraq 1. what was the evidence? you seriously think iraq had the capability to harm the uk or the us? c'mon man, get a grip. 2. we weren't misled? tony blair stood up in the house of commons and told the country that iraq had the capability to fire WMD with 45 mins. that was his whole justification for going into iraq. 3. so after invading and occuping iraq, we're now safer from terrorist attacks than we were before? Globey... you are so f*ckin stubborn If you really want I can post what the govt's (and all the little people) saw regarding disabling Iraq. Some pretty scary shit I must say. And let me say this AGAIN...I never said I agreed with this war - just getting sick of bawbags like yourself jabbing yer jaw about all the negatives And your #2 sentence...don't understand it...its almost like you copied and pasted something Rain said ;D
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 18, 2005 9:55:07 GMT -5
1. what was the evidence? you seriously think iraq had the capability to harm the uk or the us? c'mon man, get a grip. 2. we weren't misled? tony blair stood up in the house of commons and told the country that iraq had the capability to fire WMD with 45 mins. that was his whole justification for going into iraq. 3. so after invading and occuping iraq, we're now safer from terrorist attacks than we were before? Globey... you are so f*ckin stubborn If you really want I can post what the govt's (and all the little people) saw regarding disabling Iraq. Some pretty scary shit I must say. And let me say this AGAIN...I never said I agreed with this war - just getting sick of bawbags like yourself jabbing yer jaw about all the negatives And your #2 sentence...don't understand it...its almost like you copied and pasted something Rain said ;D well id say something positive about it if i saw any positives in what is going on there and from what im told from my iraqi mates! i dont see any positves, the whole thing is a fucking mess, and both our countries are gonna be wrapped up in that mess for years to come. well no, i dont want you to post all the evidence the US & UK goverments came out with, but what is the jist of it? in what way could that country harm us? were they building weapons or what? as for my number 2 sentence well ill say it again. Blair stood up in Parliment and told our country the reason he wanted to go to war with Iraq was because they had the capability to fire WMD's at us within 45 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Nov 18, 2005 10:06:48 GMT -5
Globey... you are so f*ckin stubborn If you really want I can post what the govt's (and all the little people) saw regarding disabling Iraq. Some pretty scary shit I must say. And let me say this AGAIN...I never said I agreed with this war - just getting sick of bawbags like yourself jabbing yer jaw about all the negatives And your #2 sentence...don't understand it...its almost like you copied and pasted something Rain said ;D well id say something positive about it if i saw any positives in what is going on there and from what im told from my iraqi mates! i dont see any positves, the whole thing is a fucking mess, and both our countries are gonna be wrapped up in that mess for years to come. well no, i dont want you to post all the evidence the US & UK goverments came out with, but what is the jist of it? in what way could that country harm us? were they building weapons or what? as for my number 2 sentence well ill say it again. Blair stood up in Parliment and told our country the reason he wanted to go to war with Iraq was because they had the capability to fire WMD's at us within 45 minutes. fair enough chuckwagon yes the intel showed that he was building WMD's and starting the nuclear program again - and nuclear being just for weapons, no energy purposes In hindsight, taking out Iran would have been smarter than going to Iraq, but what is done is done I'd like to see someone make a thread about how we can get are asses out of there and not leave a mess. That would be a great discussion
|
|
|
Post by DixonHill on Nov 18, 2005 12:32:04 GMT -5
there's an excellent column in the daily express today (of all newspapers). it's along the lines of what DS has been saying. just propaganda though, isn't it? it has to be right? but i do understand certain news outlets don't do propaganda. all those fair and balanced ones. they report everything, don't they? if they didn't report everything, it would be wrong.
|
|