When will it end?

[213374U]

What buggers me though, is the hypocrisy of the US claiming to be the shining lighthouse of freedom and equality, but they still use the same tactics as those with less democratic goverments. Either you be cynical, realistic a**hole like the rest, or try doing some good(almost impossible).

Indeed. Unfortunately, few people realize that, and prefer to picture the US as The Evil Empire, or in the other extreme, the last stalwart of freedom and democracy.

 

How comfortable it is to see the world in black and white.

[Judge Hades]

Then would you care?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Listen. There are over 6 billion humans on this planet. If a thousand die, a hundred thousand die, a million die, our species will survive. We are in no threat of extinction. Add to the problems of overpopulation the only thing that hasn't have us completely annihilate the natural resources of our little mudball is the fact we have this self destructive instinct. As top of the food chain, killing each other is the only thing nature has to keep our population in check and even then its not doing such a good job of it.

 

Do I care? I care about the species as a whole. I care about it a lot. I also care about this plaent a lot to and let me tell you something, earth would be a lot better off if we never came down from the trees.

[Volourn]

Nonsense. The Earth wa shaving problems well ebfore the advancement of humans. Afdterall, Earth has no problems making species instinct on its own.

 

Earth = Greatest Evil.

 

Man = Greatest Good.

 

Nothing but man or man infleuenced creatures (like pets) truly care about other living things.

 

Man is the only creature that cAN go against its natural instincts and prosper.

 

That's why we rule the world.

 

It's also why we are capable of great good as well a sgreat evil.

 

LONG LIVE HUMANS!!!

Edited December 30, 2005 by Volourn

[Walsingham]

Do I care?  I care about the species as a whole.  I care about it a lot.  I also care about this plaent a lot to and let me tell you something, earth would be a lot better off if we never came down from the trees.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

There speaks a man who has never spent any significant amount of time with a monkey.

[Judge Hades]

Actually I have been around a few monkeys. We game every Thursday night.

 

On a serious note I have done serious studies and research on primate behavior and learning in several different classes. English Literature can cover quite a number of topics.

Edited December 30, 2005 by Judge Hades

[Commissar]

No, but a large reason for unrest in the Middle-East is American Involvement, with Iraq and Israel...

 

And the point of Timothy McVeigh was that you can blame Terrorism on the Moslim (like you do), but even without them you keep terrorists. Yes, even American on, like the Unabomber...

 

Hey, didn't he tried the same thing with the WTC (blow it up), why didn't you start a war with those damn "terrorist nation of a USA" then???

He lived in your country, he was a terrorist. In Osama's case that was enough for an invasion...

I suggest you do a little general history research on the Middle East. It's always been a mess.

 

As far as not going to war over the first World Trade Center attack, I don't know why we didn't. Perhaps because we didn't have a good target. That's the problem with terrorism, really. But we've responded, I believe, to every terrorist attack on this country in some way. With September 11th, Bush decided that enough was enough. On that, I agree with him.

 

I ain't saying that the US is the same as Nazi-Germany. Due to advanchments like internet, stealth, nukes and such that isn't possible anymore anyways. But we know how dictatorial warmongering countries are born, and the US looks pretty warmongering to me...

We can look like whatever you want us to look like, but we sure as hell aren't dictatorial. In three years, Bush will be out and someone new will be in. That's democracy, not dictatorship.

 

Oh, they did do some terroristic attacks here. Minor, far more minor than in the UK/Spain/US, but they still did some. Not that I really care about that, if their is a reason they do that, namely our government supporting the US' illegal war...

Oh, okay. So terrorism is justified as long as there's a good reason behind it?

 

I think you are wrong. How many times did somebody "investigate a case" when there was no case. It was leaked to the press, so ofcourse they had to investigate it then. Like I said before, the British Nude Fights never came under investigation if there wasn't a soldier leaking it, nor did Abu Ghraib was if there was no leakage.

Jesus Christ. You're horribly misinformed if you think I'm wrong. The United States Army was the first organization to ever state that there was a problem at Abu Ghraib. Nobody else knew about it. Nobody leaked it. The Army reported it, and the press jumped all over it, as they should. What has long since gotten lost in the shuffle is that the Army publicized it's own self-policing, so now people like you think that someone caught them, and forced them to admit it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Before you comment on this again, do a little research, because you're just spewing blatant lies at the moment.

 

Hey, isn't there an investigation right now into illegal East-European Torture chambers by the CIA. Carefully investigated after a leakage.

There is no way that they would actively investigate an unknown case if it wouldn't be known already...

Except, of course, for Abu Ghraib. The Army, and the military in general, polices itself very strictly. Everything is investigated, and you don't hear about most of it. Friendly fire incidents are investigated; abuse allegations are investigated; collateral damage or mistaken attacks are investigated. People lose their jobs all the time in the military for screwing up. The list is long and distinguished, like Slider's johnson.

[Walsingham]

I found out that the Mesopotamians gave us beer! That's the Iraqis! Surely we owe them all support for that fact alone....

[Moose]

I found out that the Mesopotamians gave us beer! That's the Iraqis! Surely we owe them all support for that fact alone....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was discovered indepentandly by other nations, but I give them 10 points

[BattleCookiee]

Um. No they don't attack me at all, actually.

 

However, AQ (the ones who are responible for 9/11) have been around a long while ebfore and have attacked many countries even before 9/11. The US was not their first target. Nice try though.

 

Well, they did attack first in the current "Terror War"...

And they have been around since, well, about the Cold War, when the US helped the Taliban into power and armed Al-Quada

 

Don't make things up by using 'plans for a posisble war' as proof solid that he had planned from the get go to attack Iraq.

 

He had plans for attacks on Iraq, before 9/11. The attack was just a nice excuse to execute his plan. If Bush really didn't wen't for Iraq, why wouldn't he spend more time in Afghanistan hunting down AQ members/Bin Laden?

 

Bottom line is chances are Bush wouldn't have gone to war with either country regardless of his plans if 9/11 hadn't occured. Anyone saying otherwise has nothing but their 'gut'. Prior to 9/11, Bush's Presdiency (as short as it was) was as peaceful as a Presidency could be considering the US's place in the world.

 

With Afghanistan, 100% agree that he wouldn't attack without 9/11. With Iraq 0% agreed...

 

Afterall, one of the reasons why AQ committed 9/11 is because they believe that Amerikans were weak, and cowardly and they would just sit and take it. He has been proven wrong, and nbow hides in a cave fearful of being killed much as Saddam hid in a hole.

 

Except for the fact the US don't hun't him down anymore. If they didn't wen't for Saddam Laden would probably be catched, and the world alot happier about the US than it is now...

 

btw, Just to make sure it's udnerstoof, I am not saying or implying that Iraq had any diretc involvement in 9/11. They didn't. However, in the post 9/11 era, Saddam Hussein was deemed too much of a threat to just let him stay in power in the opinion of the US, and their Coalition Partners.

 

Sure, he was deemed a threat. A threat for what? The financial position of the US? There were reports that Iraq had no WMD's (from the CIA) and that it was no risk at all. And "spontaniously" when these documents leak out some more info gets leaked out, forcing the leaker to quit. Quite democratic and "proper politics" if you ask me...

 

That's another thing. You seem to defend Europe here yet you seem to forget that a good number of European Countries were and are involved in the Iraq War and those who refused did so on slefish grounds because they supported Saddam's tyranny and murder of the Iraq people.

 

Like said; because they won't leave the Iraqi without a proper government and in a secure enviroment...

 

That's just silly. A country can't start a war with itself outside of civil war. Exactly who would the US attack? The US had a 'war' with McVeigh. They won. War over.

 

Well, why can a American terrorises and then get arrested himself, when as a Afghani does it it makes 2 wars in the Middle-East and allows for torture of 'whoever the CIA pleases'

[BattleCookiee]

I suggest you do a little general history research on the Middle East.  It's always been a mess.

 

Reason? Israel perhaps?

 

As far as not going to war over the first World Trade Center attack, I don't know why we didn't.  Perhaps because we didn't have a good target.  That's the problem with terrorism, really.  But we've responded, I believe, to every terrorist attack on this country in some way.  With September 11th, Bush decided that enough was enough.  On that, I agree with him.

 

I cannot recall that every terrorist attack made you invade countries. Al-Quada attacked a ship and ambassade before, if I recall, and on these occassions you didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan, but tracked the people who did it and tried to get them...

 

We can look like whatever you want us to look like, but we sure as hell aren't dictatorial.  In three years, Bush will be out and someone new will be in.  That's democracy, not dictatorship.

 

Note that Hitler was also democratically chosen. Same with the USSR-leader Lenin..., we all know how that ended. When the next vote was negative for Hitler/Lenin it was over with elections. Bush already cheated himself past election once, why can't he do so again? And 3 years is along time. Lenin/Hitler didn't take 3 year to totally annihilate democracy, and with the Patriot Act and such it looks like the US is heading that way too...

 

Oh, okay.  So terrorism is justified as long as there's a good reason behind it?

 

On occassions...

 

Jesus Christ.  You're horribly misinformed if you think I'm wrong.  The United States Army was the first organization to ever state that there was a problem at Abu Ghraib.  Nobody else knew about it.  Nobody leaked it.  The Army reported it, and the press jumped all over it, as they should.  What has long since gotten lost in the shuffle is that the Army publicized it's own self-policing, so now people like you think that someone caught them, and forced them to admit it.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Before you comment on this again, do a little research, because you're just spewing blatant lies at the moment.

 

Source? As I still won't believe it, nor will untill you prove it. There haven't been that many coverups in the past that weren't discovered if it was for persons leaking, not the government/army deciding they just wan't to do so...

And if the army is self-regulation what about Guatamalo (sp?) or the fact that the US forbid pictures of dead soldiers in Iraq newspapers, but hapily posted pics of Saddams dead sons...?

 

Except, of course, for Abu Ghraib.  The Army, and the military in general, polices itself very strictly.  Everything is investigated, and you don't hear about most of it.  Friendly fire incidents are investigated; abuse allegations are investigated; collateral damage or mistaken attacks are investigated.  People lose their jobs all the time in the military for screwing up.  The list is long and distinguished, like Slider's johnson.

 

Well, only if the military (read: press) finds out. I can recall a moment in the Vietnam war where soldiers brutally massacred everybody in a town. If it wasn't for an US-pilot that disagreed and told it to he press the Army would have never investigated it, nor even knew about it for that matter...

 

PS. Humanity Sucks. We are certainly the LEAST intelligent life-form on this planet. Instead of letting the nature do it's job, we screw everything up with our creations, extinct animals and plants for personal gain etc.

Earth is better off if we all died...

Edited December 31, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[Lucius]

That you folks have pissed off the Middle East is most certainly not my problem or that of my country or region. I don't care if you lost relatives in terrorists attacks, it's simply not my problem. I'd rather we weren't allies at all.

That is what I advocate.

 

And various posters including the name KOTOR; bite me.

[Commissar]

That you folks have pissed off the Middle East is most certainly not my problem or that of my country or region. I don't care if you lost relatives in terrorists attacks, it's simply not my problem. I'd rather we weren't allies at all.

That is what I advocate.

 

And various posters including the name KOTOR; bite me. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's fine. Something tells me we'll be able to struggle on without Danish benevolence.

 

If you have no sense of moral imperatives, see no value in intervening in world affairs to attempt to better the common good, then it'd be better if you did retreat into the mists of the north and stayed there until folks with a better sense of common decency emerged among you.

[Lucius]

That's fine.  Something tells me we'll be able to struggle on without Danish benevolence. 

 

If you have no sense of moral imperatives, see no value in intervening in world affairs to attempt to better the common good, then it'd be better if you did retreat into the mists of the north and stayed there until folks with a better sense of common decency emerged among you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh it would be a freaking blast, I envy the Swedes for never entering NATO.

 

And suddenly sense of common decency is equal to USA? Please.

[Dark Moth]

Yeah, and you Danes had your time...what?  Centuries ago?  Mostly by picking on villages smaller and weaker than yourself, before you wasted away into the background and replaced by more capable conquerers.  And of course you blame Christianity, even though it clearly was your own weakness that was the reason.  And you call yourselves vikings.  :D  And don't hate us just because we could blow your country sky-high before you could even say "bjork".

 

 

*ahem* Seriously though, I suggest you read up on our actions in the Middle East and our reasons behind them before you use the phrase "warmongering".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shut your burger eating pie hole and do some research before you put forth your bile, please.

 

Oh and kiddo, "bjork" is Icelandic... Go back to your corner now and read that old fairy tale book of yours.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Wow. Did it even occur to you that I was only joking in my post? Hence the phrase "seriously, though"? But I guess such things are beyond your ability to comprehend. Okay, so I screwed up on the language. Sorry. But you of all people shouldn't talk to anyone about research, especially given your vast knowledge in the field of religion.

 

Let me tell you something: debate isn't your forte. And do you know why? Because as evidenced by all your posts and lack of mature responses to any given situation, the opinions you post are based on little more than misinformation and plain opinion. So far the only thing you've proved is that you lack both the knowledge and maturity to post your opinions without degenerating into your usual round of insults and name-calling and "Stf u!!!" responses, especially as evidenced by your post above (not the one I'm quoting). By exhibiting your debate skills, which so far have amounted to little more than that of a five-year old, you've only shown that you can't really be taken seriously or given any benefit of the doubt in these matters.

 

 

 

Kid.

[Lucius]

Wow. Did it even occur to you that I was only joking in my post? Hence the phrase "seriously, though"?  But I guess such things are beyond your ability to comprehend. Okay, so I screwed up on the language. Sorry. But you of all people shouldn't talk to anyone about research, especially given your vast knowledge in the field of religion. 

 

Let me tell you something: debate isn't your forte. And do you know why? Because as evidenced by all your posts and lack of mature responses to any given situation, the opinions you post are based on little more than misinformation and plain opinion. So far the only thing you've proved is that you lack both the knowledge and maturity to post your opinions without degenerating into your usual round of insults and name-calling and "Stf u!!!" responses, especially as evidenced by your post above (not the one I'm quoting). By exhibiting your debate skills, which so far have amounted to little more than that of a five-year old, you've only shown that you can't really be taken seriously or given any benefit of the doubt in these matters. 

 

 

 

Kid.

You want to piss me off, you succeded, congrats kn

[Lucius]

Yep. There's no real arguing with BW. It's more like just telling him the facts he should have researched before even getting into the discussion. Oh well.

 

 

Because of that attitude right there, arrogant yankee bull****... isn't it obvious?

Arrogant? Most certainly. However, you fail to understand that it's precisely the arrogance of the dominating power of the moment (be it the US or the Roman Empire) that insures the stability you live so well off. I guess unintentional hypocrisy isn't completely to blame on the hypocrite, but it's hypocrisy all the same.

 

 

Besides, terrorists haven't done anything to my country or region.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement, but I'm going to grant you the benefit of doubt and assume you are referring to the supposedly adverse effect that taking an active role in the ME has in terrorism. If that is what you mean, then you are just wrong.

 

Because the alternative is assuming you mean that if terrorists don't bother you, you don't bother 'em, in which case you would be not only a dummy, but a yellow-bellied coward as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whatever you like numbersdear, whatever you like.

[Dark Moth]

Wow. Did it even occur to you that I was only joking in my post? Hence the phrase "seriously, though"?  But I guess such things are beyond your ability to comprehend. Okay, so I screwed up on the language. Sorry. But you of all people shouldn't talk to anyone about research, especially given your vast knowledge in the field of religion. 

 

Let me tell you something: debate isn't your forte. And do you know why? Because as evidenced by all your posts and lack of mature responses to any given situation, the opinions you post are based on little more than misinformation and plain opinion. So far the only thing you've proved is that you lack both the knowledge and maturity to post your opinions without degenerating into your usual round of insults and name-calling and "Stf u!!!" responses, especially as evidenced by your post above (not the one I'm quoting). By exhibiting your debate skills, which so far have amounted to little more than that of a five-year old, you've only shown that you can't really be taken seriously or given any benefit of the doubt in these matters. 

 

 

 

Kid.

You want to piss me off, you succeded, congrats kn

Edited December 31, 2005 by Mothman

[Lucius]

And that's exactly what I'm talking about.    If what I wrote really offended you that badly, SORRY.  If jokes like that offend you, then I'll avoid that in the future.  Another thing you may want to try though is getting a little thicker skin when it comes to these things.  You can't just throw a little tantrum every time someone says something that angers you, even when it was said in jest, which I already said twice, but you refuse to believe.  And about you writing insults about me, yes, you have done so in the past.    But that wouldn't make it alright for me to do the same thing to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What were you expecting, honestly? You know how to push my buttons and so you do it. Don't tell me you didn't intend to provoke me.

[BattleCookiee]

You know, this is the kind of comment that for a second makes me want to make a toast each time a Dutch soldier gets killed

 

 

Confusing Lucius and me, Numbersman?

[Surreptishus]

Transpose "dutch" and "danish"

[Lucius]

You know, this is the kind of comment that for a second makes me want to make a toast each time a Dutch soldier gets killed. However, that sensation only lasts for a second, as immediately reason takes over and I realize that not every Dutch soldier is to blame for your lack of morals, decency, and balls. Actually, they are to be admired for being the complete opposite of what you are, you, that couldn't bear the idea of risking your sorry little neck and dropped from the army to run back to mommy's arms.

 

Tell mommy to tell you a tale, and leave these things to adults. It's obvious you aren't mature enough to deal with how ugly the world is.

 

 

Whatever you like numbersdear, whatever you like. 

Yeah. It sure sucks to have one's arguments blown to pieces, eh?

 

It's no wonder you fly off the handle so easily. The frustration derived from being proven wrong again and again must be unbearable. Dont worry, I feel for you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Make a toast or not, I don't give a ****. Especially since most people know Dutch soldiers doesn't come from Denmark.

 

As for the rest of your bile, I really can't be bothered. You have a problem with my stance (and that of Hades, obviously) and you simply can't cope with others having different views than you. Your problem, not mine.

[213374U]

Right. Danish. Blame it on the lack of sleep.

[Krookie]

Then would you care?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Listen. There are over 6 billion humans on this planet. If a thousand die, a hundred thousand die, a million die, our species will survive. We are in no threat of extinction. Add to the problems of overpopulation the only thing that hasn't have us completely annihilate the natural resources of our little mudball is the fact we have this self destructive instinct. As top of the food chain, killing each other is the only thing nature has to keep our population in check and even then its not doing such a good job of it.

 

Do I care? I care about the species as a whole. I care about it a lot. I also care about this plaent a lot to and let me tell you something, earth would be a lot better off if we never came down from the trees.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How can you say something like that? You just said you wouldn't care if a hundred thousand people died. You say that because you never knew the people that died in any kind of genocide/terrorist attack (I'm guessing). What if 20 of your family/friends just died? I bet you wouldn't say at the funeral: "It's okay, our species isn't extinct." Just because you don't know someone doesn't make it okay for them to just die.

[Lucius]

People from Denmark are called Dutch, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What continent are you on again?

[BattleCookiee]

EDIT: fixed

 

It still says Dutch

 

EDIT: IT STILL SAYS DUTCH... (look at other locations in your post)

 

Edit; It says...eh, nothing now. Why?

 

Let it go, I don't care what it says.

 

I do

Edited December 31, 2005 by Battlewookiee