US sites Human Rights violators

[Tertyl]

The best thing about this is that Iraq/Saddam isn't even at the top of the list. The report also shows that some of our "Coalition" buddies are not playing so nice with some of their own people. So if this war is really all about liberating Iraq, are we gonna turn around and take out most of the Middle-East after we take Iraq? Where's a war-mongering righty to kick when you need one...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/31/human.rights/index.html

[TeknoAXE]

I have one word to sum up the anti-war movement:

Dense.

Here's why we probably won't have to "take most of the Middle East" as you put it.

1) Iraq may not be the entire Middle East, but it's a big chunk of it, and liberating that portion of the Middle East and freeing its people will influence other countries in the region.

2) While alot of other Middle Eastern countries are not democracies, few have the horrible human rights records that the leadership of Iraq posseses.

3) This is not just about freedom for Iraqis. This is about getting our troops out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, unstopping the bottleneck in the Middle Eastern economy that was created by the first Gulf War, and getting rid of a threat to peace in that region, who has WMD and has a history of use them.

AXE

[Danny Fingerz]

Isn't it funny that the US will be the first to point out human rights violations within other countries, however, when we capture a member of Al-Queda and he needs to be interrogated in a matter that the US cannot condone, they take him to an "undisclosed" location on foreign soil where the Geneva Laws do not count.

Oh wait... we are the US. Rules dont apply.

[Cedwyn]

yessir, we're gonna liberate those iraqis right up so they can commence with electing a muslim fundamentalist leader...that'll clear things up straightaway!

[TeknoAXE]

^Yet another prejudiced remark by Cedwyn.

AXE

[Tertyl]

Originally posted by Buttrock_Beethoven
I have one word to sum up the anti-war movement:

Dense.

Here's why we probably won't have to "take most of the Middle East" as you put it.

1) Iraq may not be the entire Middle East, but it's a big chunk of it, and liberating that portion of the Middle East and freeing its people will influence other countries in the region.

2) While alot of other Middle Eastern countries are not democracies, few have the horrible human rights records that the leadership of Iraq posseses.

3) This is not just about freedom for Iraqis. This is about getting our troops out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, unstopping the bottleneck in the Middle Eastern economy that was created by the first Gulf War, and getting rid of a threat to peace in that region, who has WMD and has a history of use them.

AXE

Again...the war-mongering righty retorts with an insult to my intelligence. Well Mr. Smarty pants, who is vastly more intelligent then this lowly asssniffer that should be thankful that there are strong men like George Bush to run this fine Democracy that I live IN *breath*, can I axe you (yuck, yuck) a few questions?

1.) Iraq accounts for less then 10% of the total land mass that is called the Middle East. Iran, to Iraq's northeast, is 3 times the total area of Iraq. Then there's Saudi Arabia to the southwest that is roughly 3.5 times the size of Iraq. Both of these nations have been at disagreements, if not full scale war, with Iraq for well over 30 years. I fail so see where us "freeing" a people of the only force that kept either Iran or Saudi Arabia from being their new masters. Hell, Turkey has already added an addition 12 miles to their border since the conflict!

2.) You know that statement "An eye for an eye?" Where do you think it comes from? Most judicial systems in the Middle East use Islamic beliefs as the book of law on how to judge and punish the guilty. They still have public executions and removal of a hand for stealing in a lot of countries there. I don't know about you, but that's kinda a violation of human rights. Israel is known for use of torture and blackops units, even illegal detention, and they're our friends. Don't bitch about the 30,000 people he gassed unless you add the 1,000,000+ due to US lead sanctions.

3.) The US is still the only country to use nuclear weapons against another country. A big mushroom cloud is WMD, right? And what is this bottleneck you speak of? The Kuwaiti’s love us and WANT US THERE! A threat to peace in the area??? What about Palestine and Israel? What about Syria?? And you're old enough to remember that Ayatollah Khomeini guy right? And that Iran has had nuclear weapons since the 80's, right? The Middle East has the most warlike history to any region in the world...

Who's Dense?

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Danny Fingerz
Isn't it funny that the US will be the first to point out human rights violations within other countries, however, when we capture a member of Al-Queda and he needs to be interrogated in a matter that the US cannot condone,
"in a matter (sic) that the US cannot condone"? Do you have any proof of mistreatment of these Al Quaeda prisoners? I've seen few if any indications that their "mistreatment" is anything worse than solitary confinement. Proof?


they take him to an "undisclosed" location on foreign soil where the Geneva Laws do not count.

Oh wait... we are the US. Rules dont apply.

The Geneva Conventions regard war between nations- i.e. national armies. They do not apply to terrorists, although basic humanitarian principles should of course be observed in any case.

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by Tertyl

1.) Iraq accounts for less then 10% of the total land mass that is called the Middle East. Iran, to Iraq's northeast...Turkey has already added an addition 12 miles to their border since the conflict!


Iraq may not be substantial in its landsize, but it is very important in terms of economic and religious stand points. I'll get to the economic ramifications of freeing Iraq in your next question. Bagdad is the city where the Shiite muslims made their religious capital when they fled from the Sunni muslims after the great split. Therefore, Bagdad and several of the surrounding cities hold major religious importance in the Arab community. It stands that Iraq's importance in that region is only overshadowed by Saudi Arabia, which has Mecca and Medina.


2.) You know that statement "An eye for an eye?" Where do you think it comes from? ...Don't bitch about the 30,000 people he gassed unless you add the 1,000,000+ due to US lead sanctions.

Correction. U.N. Sanctions. The U.N. Resolution demanded sanctions on Iraq until Saddam complied with disarmament, which never happened. Also, the eye for and eye philosophy does not take into account the Stalinist model that Saddam Hussein draws upon, and is ultimately responsible for the "dissappearance of 200,000" political dissadents in Iraq.

3.) The US is still the only country to use nuclear weapons against another country.

The United States use of nuclear weapons was aimed to minimize the loss of life as alternative to the millions that would have died, had we invaded Japan. The calculation was correct. Had we used convention carpet bombing techniques to raise firestorms in those cities, the same amount of people would have died, if not more. The demonstration of one bomb doing a percentage of what a firestorm strike would have done provided the psychological breaking point for Japan.

Few can say that Saddam Hussein holds such logic and discipline in using WMD as the United States has. And "little boy" and the "fat man" were constructed before Nuclear Proliferation treaties were signed.

And what is this bottleneck you speak of?
The bottleneck I speak of is the recession that much of the middle east has been in since the first Gulf War. Jordan, in particular was hit hard by the resulting U.N. sanctions against Iraq, as well as many other Arab Nations. I have several Jordanian friends who say just as much. They say that the second Gulf War would drive them deeper into recession, but I say that the ousting of Saddam Hussien would free Iraq to rebuild itself and become apart of the Arab community again.

The Kuwaiti’s love us and WANT US THERE!
Kuwait may love us, but certain religious extremists, such as Bin Laden, don't. Remember, we're in Saudi Arabia to protect them from the likes of Saddam Hussein. Saudi Arabia is home to the two most important cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina. If we were to make Saudi Arabia our next South Korea, the attention we would gain from muslim fundamentalists would spawn alot more terrorist activities than if we took out Saddam Hussein now, and got our forces out.

A threat to peace in the area???

Yes. Undoubtably, you have kept up with the many times that Saddam Hussein has violated the no-fly zone, another U.N. demand, and Saddam's refusal to comply with disarmament which led to the retraction of U.N. inspectors the first time in December of 1998.

What about Palestine and Israel?
The United States is currently working on plans to build a Palestinian State. Hopefully this time they won't fuck themselves over like they did in late 2000.

What about Syria??

If Syria contends to ship weapons to Iraq, we'll have to consider their status. As of this time, however, they neither represent the threat that Iraq does, nor the humanitarian eyesore that Iraq's regime has displayed on its forehead.

And you're old enough to remember that Ayatollah Khomeini guy right? And that Iran has had nuclear weapons since the 80's, right? The Middle East has the most warlike history to any region in the world...
Ayatollah is dead and Iran has since taken on a democratic system of government.
Who's Dense?
Not I.

AXE

[Cedwyn]

ummm....yes it is...

^Yet another prejudiced remark by Cedwyn (in reference to me saying "yessir, we're gonna liberate those iraqis right up so they can commence with electing a muslim fundamentalist leader...that'll clear things up straightaway!")

the funny thing is, it's really the exact same sentiment for which you accused me of being prejudiced earlier:
i also wonder just what the hell we expect to happen if we manage to set up a democracy in iraq, given that the majority of the population is muslim.

it's not another remark; it's the same damn remark, just worded differently.

so, ummm...yah...not to mention the fact that, regardless of phrasing, you *still* don't get the point of it....

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by Cedwyn
ummm....yes it is...



the funny thing is, it's really the exact same sentiment for which you accused me of being prejudiced earlier:


it's not another remark; it's the same damn remark, just worded differently.

so, ummm...yah...not to mention the fact that, regardless of phrasing, you *still* don't get the point of it....

Yes, it's the same remark, and it's still just as short-sided and off-based as it was a couple days ago.

For one thing, given that the Iraq is a secular government, and Iraq has been a secular government for the last fifty years, there's no merit in the statment that Iraqis will elect a muslim fundalist leader. Yet you expect them to do so because they're "muslim" and "iraqi". Yet, not far away, in a land called Iran, they do have elections and their government is working hard to improve the lives of their citizens.

I get the point of your statement. I get that it's not really based on fact but prejudice.

AXE

[DJ Rawkus]

Originally posted by Buttrock_Beethoven
3) This is not just about freedom for Iraqis. This is about getting our troops out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, unstopping the bottleneck in the Middle Eastern economy that was created by the first Gulf War, and getting rid of a threat to peace in that region, who has WMD and has a history of use them.

AXE I'm quoting you for posterity. I'm not going to question if you actually believe that insane proposition you just uttered. If you didn't mean it, you wouldn't have said it. But it's painfully obvious you don't understand the close relationship between the military and the adjoining oil refineries. For those that would ask for proff.. Umm Qasr anyone? You apparently, also don't understand the delicate nature of economic sanctions and HOW THEY CAN BOTTLENECK THE MIDDLE EAST ECONOMY.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by DJ Rawkus
You apparently, also don't understand the delicate nature of economic sanctions and HOW THEY CAN BOTTLENECK THE MIDDLE EAST ECONOMY.

Yeah, really too bad Saddam has to keep attacking his neighbors/our business partners.

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by DJ Rawkus
You apparently, also don't understand the delicate nature of economic sanctions and HOW THEY CAN BOTTLENECK THE MIDDLE EAST ECONOMY.

Haha! What an idiot! Of course I realize economic sanctions create a bottle-neck. You obviously didn't read my follow up post to tertyl's intriguing questions. That's why, when the Baath Party, which has done absolutely nothing to lift U.N. sanctions since the first gulf war--when they are removed from power we can remove those sanctions and bring the middle east back up to speed.

Of course I've plastered this argument all over the War forum. How you missed it is completely beyond me.

AXE

[foofy]

people always point to the fact that there are UN Sanctions on Iraq and blame them for a huge loss of life.

and its fucking retarded.

we allowed Saddam to sell oil for money so he could spend it on medicine and food for his people, but we cant force him to actually spend the money he gets from it on those things. instead he spends it on illegal weapons.

we're not the fucking villians no matter how much you would like to make us out to be.

[Cedwyn]

For one thing, given that the Iraq is a secular government, and Iraq has been a secular government for the last fifty years, there's no merit in the statment that Iraqis will elect a muslim fundalist leader. Yet you expect them to do so because they're "muslim" and "iraqi". Yet, not far away, in a land called Iran, they do have elections and their government is working hard to improve the lives of their citizens.


and we were ruled by a king for a couple hundred years, what is your fucking point? mine is that things change; so saddam's "i'm dictator for life" administration was secular, whooopdeeefuck - it means nothing.

do you really find it such a leap of faith to say that, given a democratic infrastructure, a country predominantly full of muslims would elect a muslim leader? is that so outlandish a proposition? how is such a comment prejudiced? would it help if i point out how bush is stocking his staff with christian wacko freaks? (and by the way, it has nothing to do with them being "iraqis." if "djiboutians" or "haitians" or "ravers" had a predominantly "muslim" population, i'd be "expecting" them to "elect" muslim "leaders" as well.)

and yay, the iranian govt is "working hard to improve the lives of its (btw, not "their") citizens." again, whoooopdeefuck and what is your point? i never said that democracy cannot work in the middle east....by the way, you might take note that Iran refers to itself as "the islamic republic of iran."

[Effendi]

originally posted by that idiot Axe

Who's Dense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not I.
AXE


This from a guy that just a few months ago did not understand the difference between Pakistan and Palestine.......

There all sand niggers from a P country.....

Actually you handled him Perfectly, hit him with just a smidgen of true information and he gets lost in his usual Distortion!!

Scott!!

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by Effendi


This from a guy that just a few months ago did not understand the difference between Pakistan and Palestine.......

There all sand niggers from a P country.....

Actually you handled him Perfectly, hit him with just a smidgen of true information and he gets lost in his usual Distortion!!

Scott!!

Very good Effendi! Instead of arguing my posts, you, yet again decide to attack the poster and not the arguments! Tell me, senior effendi, what exactly did I distort in my arguments? You managed to skip over two entire posts and land on that single quote.

You know, you're about to go the way of Rawkus. That guy accused me of putting huge twists in my comments on the news articles I posted when I should have been accused of plagerism. When that happens, the pointlessness of debating with a dumbfuck was revealed and he ended up on my ignore list.

Dumbfucks like you, who continue to mention a typo that happened a year and a half ago, yet your english has yet to progress higher than a 7th grade reading level. You have three hours to argue that post you responded to.

AXE

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by Cedwyn

do you really find it such a leap of faith to say that, given a democratic infrastructure, a country predominantly full of muslims would elect a muslim leader? is that so outlandish a proposition? how is such a comment prejudiced?

Your exact quote.
yessir, we're gonna liberate those iraqis right up so they can commence with electing a muslim fundamentalist leader...that'll clear things up straightaway!

Notice the sarcasm throughout the entire post. Of course they're going to elect a leader who is muslim, because the entire country consists of Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish muslims. You didn't say that democracy in Iraq wouldn't work, but your cynicism in this post is transparent as hell.

AXE

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Buttrock_Beethoven

You have three hours to argue that post you responded to.
AXE

or what, you gonna bomb me?......lol

[TeknoAXE]

This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post, click here.

You know what, I changed my mind. I don't have the time to waste on you.

AXE

[monki]

Originally posted by Buttrock_Beethoven

The United States use of nuclear weapons was aimed to minimize the loss of life as alternative to the millions that would have died, had we invaded Japan. The calculation was correct. Had we used convention carpet bombing techniques to raise firestorms in those cities, the same amount of people would have died, if not more. The demonstration of one bomb doing a percentage of what a firestorm strike would have done provided the psychological breaking point for Japan.

Few can say that Saddam Hussein holds such logic and discipline in using WMD as the United States has. And "little boy" and the "fat man" were constructed before Nuclear Proliferation treaties were signed.

This has got to be the most dellusional statement about the nuclear earth issue I have ever read.

your head is so far up your ass that you cannot see your own potential for intelligence.

wow.

peace

[Cedwyn]

just because you are inferring connotations does *not* mean i ever implied them. my statement stands quite as is.

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by monki


This has got to be the most dellusional statement about the nuclear earth issue I have ever read.

your head is so far up your ass that you cannot see your own potential for intelligence.

wow.

peace

Are you going to prove me wrong or are you going to spew drivel?

AXE

[TeknoAXE]

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebombing
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
http://www.rice.edu/projects/thresher/issues/83/950915/Opinion/Story03.html
March
Firebombing of Tokyo
·_________ 250,000 buildings destroyed and 83,000 killed in incendiary bombing of Toky
http://apusnotes.pcplayground.com/chptoutlines/apoutlines/chapter38.htm
http://www.kiki.org/anime/descriptions/ghibli/grave.html

[monki]

Originally posted by Buttrock_Beethoven


Are you going to prove me wrong or are you going to spew drivel?

AXE

you assume i am spewing drivel.

i am serious.

detonating a nuclear warhead on this planet, ANYwhere on this planet, is making ALL of us a loser. your velvet sofa intellectualism that is justifying such numbers of dead human beings as if they were something you can put in your pocket is beyond disturbing. it is ridiculous.

how much proof do you need to understand this?

ask your conscience. she'll tell you.

peace

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by monki


you assume i am spewing drivel.

i am serious.

detonating a nuclear warhead on this planet, ANYwhere on this planet, is making ALL of us a loser. your velvet sofa intellectualism that is justifying such numbers of dead human beings as if they were something you can put in your pocket is beyond disturbing. it is ridiculous.

how much proof do you need to understand this?

ask your conscience. she'll tell you.

peace

No. Read the links I posted above. That's all the proof you'll need.

AXE

[Effendi]

Originally posted by Buttrock_Beethoven

Are you going to prove me wrong or are you going to spew drivel?
AXE

Axe calls people out like that all the time, we show him the answer but he never is able to understand what we say.

He joined this board last year and ever since he hears some piece of information (usually from mike or jason) then creates a "Distorted" scenario around one or two facts.

He has been trying to convince us that Killing Iraqi's is the first and most important step to freeing them.

His best quote is by Herman Goerring who said, "You can't make an Ommelette without breaking a few eggs"

In his eyes, the United States is the Omnipotent power on this earth, and we have the blessing of God to Bomb / Nuke the infidels as we see fit.

After all, just TWO nukloor bombs ended all the violence of WWll, I wonder if a few well placed ones could end all of the problems of today.

One on Baghdad, (then we kill that maniac Saddam for sure) kill them ALL let God sort them out.

One on Damascus, cause them Syrrians are GOING to be a problem, so in the true spirit of Pre-emption....

One on Tehran..Ok two of them, Tehran is pretty big......

Let's see......One on North Korea.......self explainitory...

I say hit up Triopli and Qaddaffy, I mean we haven't heard from him in awhile but you know them sand bastards...just waiting to hate us because we are free.....

There's the Sudan...they supported Bin Laden.......give them a warm Thermo-nukloor weekend....

and a few other African Nations that are so aids infected that even if we don't kill any potential terrorists, we can burn off a few million diesease infected carriers.....

Let's see, there the Abu Sayef down in the Phillipines, those bastards sent Bin Laden an E-mail once....or was it Saddam....Did I say Baghdad yet?

I'm sure to guarantee compliance with the United States, there are a few more hot spots around the earth we should melt on down for good measure.....O yea, Montreal...those bastards don't want to support our war on terror after all we have done for them.....

O yea, Mexico also, more Ungrateful bastards that have no problem swimming the Rio for a little work and food, but ask them to help support our illegal war and their swimming back across the river, what's up with that?

Did I miss anyone, cause if I did, just Nuke them fuckers and then Everyone will know that WE The United States of America are really cool.

:rolleyes:

Scott!!

[monki]

Originally posted by Buttrock_Beethoven


No. Read the links I posted above. That's all the proof you'll need.

AXE

the only proof i am seeing so far is that you are truly a moron.

peace

[kristinachilds]

Originally posted by Buttrock_Beethoven
1) Iraq may not be the entire Middle East, but it's a big chunk of it, and liberating that portion of the Middle East and freeing its people will influence other countries in the region.hypothetically. i'd like to believe this will actually happen, but let's face it. i just don't trust us.

"Where human rights and freedoms flourish, terrorists and tyrants do not thrive and conflict and chaos do not reign," Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday at the rollout of the report. pshaw. tell that to Israel. no, it's not a pet cause, i'm just sick of all the double standards."America's democratic values, our national interests and our obligations to the international community demand that the defense and promotion of human rights are an integral and active part of our foreign policy." that's a loaded statment, and they know it. sing along, now : let's gear up!

"eye for an eye" actually comes from ancient law... hebrew, i believe. the same law that was included in the Old Testament.

[monki]

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.
--Albert Einstein

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by monki


the only proof i am seeing so far is that you are truly a moron.

peace

Well then, let me spell it out for you, since you can't deduce anything from the links that I provided.

World War II firebombing is the practice of raising up a firestorm through sheer numbers of bombs that raise a column of heat big enough to destroy a city. As a result, as pointed out by many sources, 83,000 people died in Tokyo during the last days of WWII. The United States, at the time, was seeking an end to World War II and spare the lives of soldiers that would have been lost in an invasion of the main island. So instead of firebombing more cities, we decided to do a percentage of the damage and then going through an equaly costly ground invasion, we dropped two bombs to push Japan to surrendur. It worked.

If we had not ended the war by then, how many other cities would we have firebombed and how many people would have died in a massive land invasion. The consequences of our actions were that most likely, less people died in the two nuclear strikes against Japan than would have died had we used conventional means at the time.

It cracks me up that you can call me a moron, but you have not even touched my arguments. Show a little more intelligence than effendi or rawkus please.

AXE

[monki]

brother,

you seem to be suffering from exhibitionism...

why should i try to even argue with your ego?

i am simply giving you a clear message...

justifying ANY nuclear weapon proliferation is the work of morons.

but i guess if you are one, you'd never agree to it, huh?

peace

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by Buttrock_Beethoven

World War II firebombing is the practice of raising up a firestorm through sheer numbers of bombs that raise a column of heat big enough to destroy a city. As a result, as pointed out by many sources, 83,000 people died in Tokyo during the last days of WWII. The United States, at the time, was seeking an end to World War II and spare the lives of soldiers that would have been lost in an invasion of the main island. So instead of firebombing more cities, we decided to do a percentage of the damage and then going through an equaly costly ground invasion, we dropped two bombs to push Japan to surrendur. It worked.

Hiroshima had absolutely no military value to Japan.
If we had hit a strategic military target with the a-bomb, it might have at least a sliver of intellectual justification.
But killing an entire town simply to shock a country into submission is appauling.

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by Roddimus

Hiroshima had absolutely no military value to Japan.
If we had hit a strategic military target with the a-bomb, it might have at least a sliver of intellectual justification.
But killing an entire town simply to shock a country into submission is appauling.

Hiroshima had no military value.

But the psychological effect on Japan, compounded with the bombing of Nagasaki, ended the war.

AXE

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Roddimus

Hiroshima had absolutely no military value to Japan.
If we had hit a strategic military target with the a-bomb, it might have at least a sliver of intellectual justification.
But killing an entire town simply to shock a country into submission is appauling.

The Nipponese killed more people in their assault on the city of Nanking than both the Nagasaki strike and the Hiroshima strike combined, and that's in addition to the 80,000 Chinese women they literally raped at Nanking.
Of course, that was only one of the many many atrocities committed by the Nipponese during WWII.
Nippon needed a shock. They all believed whole-heartedly in their emperor, they would not have given up without a raw display of power greater than any the emperor could subdue them with.
I think there would have been far greater losses in the long run, had we not dropped the bombs.

[LordWoon]

Hey Axe, why are you even wasting your time with these monkeys? The debate is over, the side of righteousness has prevailed, and the Iraqi people will be liberated.

Let 'em stew in their own frustration- there's nothing they can do about it. :p :p :p :p :p

[Cedwyn]

p.s. - it's "cite"

;)

[monki]

Originally posted by LordWoon
Hey Axe, why are you even wasting your time with these monkeys? The debate is over, the side of righteousness has prevailed, and the Iraqi people will be liberated.

Let 'em stew in their own frustration- there's nothing they can do about it. :p :p :p :p :p

oh you are so misled on this one.
misled by your own ego.

we CAN stop this madness.

it starts with the mind of each one of us.

take a look around your war. is it going according to plan?

why not?

because i, and anyone like me who believes in peace, can stop it.

just watch. We are all dreaming one another any way...

:)

besides, those stewing appear to be on your lot, using inflamatory language because even if things appear to be going your way, you are still not satisfied, because EGO is never satisfied. it keeps wanting more and it never has enough.

Infinite Love

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by monki


oh you are so misled on this one.
misled by your own ego.

we CAN stop this madness.

it starts with the mind of each one of us.

take a look around your war. is it going according to plan?

why not?

because i, and anyone like me who believes in peace, can stop it.

just watch. We are all dreaming one another any way...

:)

besides, those stewing appear to be on your lot, using inflamatory language because even if things appear to be going your way, you are still not satisfied, because EGO is never satisfied. it keeps wanting more and it never has enough.

Infinite Love

The madness we are stopping is the Baath Party regime. That way another 200,000 Iraqis don't disappear under a leadership that models their government on Stalinist tactics.

AXE

[Effendi]

Originally posted by LordWoon
The debate is over, the side of righteousness has prevailed,

The debate never ends, until one is dead.....

Does it feel good Hank to parade your "Self-righteousness" around.

Believe it or not you appear the fool to us,......we have no doubt that the US will kill alot of people, I guess that's winning in your mind.

For some reason, I'm not feeling so good about all this Killi...er I mean winning.

and the Iraqi people will be liberated.

Of their sad and pitiful lives...

Let 'em stew in their own frustration- there's nothing they can do about it. :p :p :p :p :p

Laugh now Cry Later.......

Scott!!

[moonpuppy]

A link is worth a thousand words...
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jmoore/secondsuperpower.html

[kristinachilds]

hell, i say we fire our governemt and staff it with NBC's West Wing.

WHO'S WITH ME?

[DJ Rawkus]

Originally posted by Effendi

The debate never ends, until one is dead.....

Does it feel good Hank to parade your "Self-righteousness" around.

Believe it or not you appear the fool to us,......we have no doubt that the US will kill alot of people, I guess that's winning in your mind.

For some reason, I'm not feeling so good about all this Killi...er I mean winning.

Of their sad and pitiful lives...


Laugh now Cry Later.......

Scott!! Heh. Hank's just a smalltown boy with smalltown virtue. The best advice he ever got was from some flannel wearing tabacky spittin boot shinin redneck from aberdeen- "We done been vioooolated! Kill dem dirty towelheads!! GARD BLESH DA USHA!" Of course he's fucked in the head!!! Leave the poor boy alone and go fight someone yer own size... like Jason. ;)

[Cedwyn]

:eek:

hank's smarter than jason, any day....

[monki]

Originally posted by kristinachilds
hell, i say we fire our governemt and staff it with NBC's West Wing.

WHO'S WITH ME?

hehe

no worries. someone is about to fire this government and we are all in for a huge surprise...

the dignity of american manipulation is far more important than a particular administration, especially an isloasionist one as the dubya.

"Mr. Bush and his advisers have forgotten that the power of an American president is temporary and relative."
--Columnist Craig Roberts, writing in the traditionally pro-Republican, conservative Washington Times

we should all be reading shakespeare's julius caesar...

[LordWoon]

See what I mean, Axe? :p :p :p :p

originally posted by Cedwyn


hank's smarter than jason, any day....

Why thanks Cedwyn, you're a peach. :D

[LordWoon]

originally posted by DJ Rawkus
. Hank's just a smalltown boy with smalltown virtue. The best advice he ever got was from some flannel wearing tabacky spittin boot shinin redneck from aberdeen- "We done been vioooolated! Kill dem dirty towelheads!! GARD BLESH DA USHA!" Of course he's fucked in the head!!! Leave the poor boy alone and go fight someone yer own size... like Jason.

Uh, yeah...

I was recently fortunate enough to get a moment to speak with Jim Bob the Wise. I caught up with him as he sat to catch his breath in between beating his wife and fucking his dog. During our brief conversation he blessed me with profound words that I shalll carry with me to my grave.

'Son," he sez, "The only good sand nigger is a dead one!" I nodded sagely, not wishing to look the fool, as I had no idea what he meant.

Before I could embarass myself by asking for an explanation, he went on, "That's why we should go over there and kick some ass and bring Christ to those Godless heathens!"

With that Jim Bob stood, scratching at his urine stained underwear. I stood as well, humbled in this great mans presence. With a thunderous belch that left the lingering stench of stale Budweiser hanging in the air, Jim Bob departed, calling out Sparky's name.

Tragically, Jim Bob died a few days later while trying to clean out his toaster with a fork. I shall always remember his Buddhist- like wisdom- and this is why I support the war.

God Bless America!

This story was brought to you by the word irony- helping expose stupidity since Classical Greece!

[TeknoAXE]

Originally posted by LordWoon
See what I mean, Axe? :p :p :p :p


I see exactly what you mean.

AXE