Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

... in the sense of global opinion that the US contributions to world affairs have become "mainly negative."



So the questions are - is it fair? Would you say the US influence on the world in global affairs is mainly negative, or is the US being viewed unfairly, with possible positive acts being overshadowed by certain issues?

Likewise how important should global opinion be viewed? And is the current downward spiral something that is likely to change in the future, or has the Bush administration created an image that is going to remain with the US for a long time, even after his final term?

Why isn't "Royally ****ed" an option? hmm

Originally posted by Strangelove
Why isn't "Royally ****ed" an option? hmm

It was going to be, but the stars of ****ed didn't fit in with the polls feng shui.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It was going to be, but the stars of ****ed didn't fit in with the polls feng shui. Ah. A valid point.

In my opinion, America's one of the nicest world powers that have ever existed. So I'll go for mainly positive.

Originally posted by Kinneary
In my opinion, America's one of the nicest world powers that have ever existed. So I'll go for mainly positive.
Yeah, it's nice if you're a masochist.

this thread title made me lol out loud hehe

Originally posted by PVS
lol out loud hehe

Nice.

Originally posted by Kinneary
In my opinion, America's one of the nicest world powers that have ever existed. So I'll go for mainly positive.


I can see your point there in regards to world power.

Negative.

What strikes me with America the most is that as a world power, it attacks and terrorises countries which cannot compete with America in numbers, economically nor military.

It attacks countries which have posed no threat to America, nor can hope to pose a threat to America - not at least another 100 years, or more.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Negative.

What strikes me with America the most is that as a world power, it attacks and terrorises countries which cannot compete with America in numbers, economically nor military.

It attacks countries which have posed no threat to America, nor can hope to pose a threat to America - not at least another 100 years, or more.


nonesense. all those brown people should have known better than to live on top of our oil




bush's policy in the middle east is quite easy to follow, as he simply emulates his hero, lord humungus:


"just walk away from the gasoline"
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/Humungous.jpg

I went with 'mainly positive.'

A good deal of the issues that we keep catching flak for are usually wtf-worthy once you look into it further. For example, Guantanamo Bay.

The UN Committee in charge of keeping watch over this sort of thing sent us a mean and angry letter saying the prison at Guantanamo was inhumane and demanded we shut it down (I think there was a consequence given, but as usual, nothing happened when we refused). Sounds normal enough on the surface.

There's a problem though: not a single investigator on this committee had ever BEEN to Guantanamo Bay, and every last one refused the offer to visit.

We even offered to provide transportation; they refused to visit to carry out a first-hand investigation. One of the reasons officially given was that "visitting the prison would cause them to develop a bias." As opposed to only interviewing people that had been released, since what possible reason could they have to be upset? I mean hell, they were only locked up in a prison by a country they hate. No chance of a bias developing there...

yes, being kidnapped and locked up inefinately in a prison with no legal representation or formal charges for 5 years running can turn a person bitter.

Seeing as much of the modern civilisation we take for granted is basically the result of the US, if you live in the west and don't respond to this with a positive then there has to be serious questions about your judgment.

Originally posted by PVS
nonesense. all those brown people should have known better than to live on top of our oil




bush's policy in the middle east is quite easy to follow, as he simply emulates his hero, lord humungus:


"just walk away from the gasoline"
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/Humungous.jpg





our oil? damn son bush has corrupted you man. the way i see this war is about money and power. tell me this why we still in iraq if we just hung saddam? wheres the weapons of mass destruction? key thing to this war is iraq and afghanistan is just 2 poor countries that are being over run by are idiotic president. the way crap is looking now north korea and iran are the 2 we have to worry about

Originally posted by PiruBlood
our oil? damn son bush has corrupted you man. the way i see this war is about money and power. tell me this why we still in iraq if we just hung saddam? wheres the weapons of mass destruction? key thing to this war is iraq and afghanistan is just 2 poor countries that are being over run by are idiotic president. the way crap is looking now north korea and iran are the 2 we have to worry about


Haha, a reckoning shall fall upon you now.

Regardless of the current situation in Iraq, North Korea and Iran would still be a concern.

Originally posted by Soleran
Haha, a reckoning shall fall upon you now.

Regardless of the current situation in Iraq, North Korea and Iran would still be a concern.





iran and north korea was the only 2 muslim countries to have weapons of mass destruction

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Negative.

What strikes me with America the most is that as a world power, it attacks and terrorises countries which cannot compete with America in numbers, economically nor military.

It attacks countries which have posed no threat to America, nor can hope to pose a threat to America - not at least another 100 years, or more.

I'm with you and Chomsky on this one.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Seeing as much of the modern civilisation we take for granted is basically the result of the US, if you live in the west and don't respond to this with a positive then there has to be serious questions about your judgment.

Eh, did you notice the bit in the thread title that refers specifically to the Bush administration? Guess not. Oh, well...Maybe next time?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Negative.

What strikes me with America the most is that as a world power, it attacks and terrorises countries which cannot compete with America in numbers, economically nor military.

It attacks countries which have posed no threat to America, nor can hope to pose a threat to America - not at least another 100 years, or more.

Originally posted by PiruBlood
iran and north korea was the only 2 muslim countries to have weapons of mass destruction
No one? No?

Originally posted by PiruBlood
iran and north korea was the only 2 muslim countries to have weapons of mass destruction


North Korea = Muslim, you sure about that one.

Originally posted by Eis
No one? No?

what would be the point?

*visits the GDF*

How is Bush Administration doing Thread?

*walks out of the GDF*

Negative

The bush administration has ruined America , while many countries were nonchalant or slightly edgy about it it is now viewed as a 'bully boy' country. In the sense that if you have something it wants , it will knock you the f*ck down and take it .

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Seeing as much of the modern civilisation we take for granted is basically the result of the US, if you live in the west and don't respond to this with a positive then there has to be serious questions about your judgment.

Originally posted by PVS
yes, being kidnapped and locked up inefinately in a prison with no legal representation or formal charges for 5 years running can turn a person bitter.

Because of course when they open fire, we should just kill them outright. Screw taking prisoners.

Also, as prisoners of war, the actual trial process (if there ever is one) is just a *bit* different. Granted I find it absurd we need to keep them there for as long as we have, since it defies logic (think: would someone who has been locked up and out of contact with the outside world for even a year, let alone five, be able to provide ANY current and applicable intel? At all?)

Also, I pose the same question to you as I do every person that's foolish enough to believe we went to war with Iraq for oil:

If the motive of the war was oil, why didn't we go after Venezuala? It's closer, it has a LOT more oil, the climate is definitely a lot more bearable, the near-constant cleaning to weapons and vehicles to get rid of sand wouldn't need to be done (and the time saved spent elsewhere), and the leader's an even bigger dick than Saddam was (barring the genocide of course, but I have yet to meet any "War for oil OMG!" people that actually cared about that).

aaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha
**** you all.
i hate everybody equally and you all will die eventually.
opinions are shit, just as humans are.

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Because of course when they open fire, we should just kill them outright. Screw taking prisoners.

Also, as prisoners of war, the actual trial process (if there ever is one) is just a *bit* different.

wrong. "prisoners of war" are granted their right to habeus corpus under the laws of the geneva convention. the current administration suspended that right by renaming them "enemy combatants" and left to rot for 5 years. its quite obtuse and extremely naive to assume that they were all picked off the battlefield. many of them were basically kidnapped from other countries including the u.s. and u.k.
they were not allowed to contact their families and were/are basically living their lives in solitary confinement. not just prison. solitary confinement.

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Granted I find it absurd we need to keep them there for as long as we have, since it defies logic (think: would someone who has been locked up and out of contact with the outside world for even a year, let alone five, be able to provide ANY current and applicable intel? At all?)

many have become completely disconnected to reality.

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Also, I pose the same question to you as I do every person that's foolish enough to believe we went to war with Iraq for oil:

we did
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401025.html
we did.


name me one other reason that hasnt been proven to be incorrect and confessed by the administration to be incorrect

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
If the motive of the war was oil, why didn't we go after Venezuala? It's closer, it has a LOT more oil, the climate is definitely

venezuala doesnt have nearly as much oil as iraq.
in fact iraq alone holds more oil than all of central and south america.
so does saudi arabia, kuwait, and iran (saudi arabia containing more oil than all north. central, and south america.) we would starve on venezuala.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
a lot more bearable, the near-constant cleaning to weapons and vehicles to get rid of sand wouldn't need to be done (and the time saved spent elsewhere),

yeah, the wilds of south america are luxorious

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
and the leader's an even bigger dick than Saddam was (barring the genocide of course, but I have yet to meet any "War for oil OMG!" people that actually cared about that).

what should i care about? what crimes has he committed against mankind....besides being a "dick" as you put it. sell you're brilliant idea to me. tell me why he should hang.

Originally posted by Kinneary
In my opinion, America's one of the nicest world powers that have ever existed. So I'll go for mainly positive. Oh. I was just talking about Bush's foreign policy (see: thread title)

Oh goody, that article. I actually read that. Know what I found?



Definition of the word "stay" is as follows:

To remain through or during (a period of time)

Notice how anything along the lines of "to invade or go" is noticably absent. Just because you personally believe that was the reason, does not mean words suddenly lose their meaning. Hell, there's another problem with your logic, and it can be applied to day-to-day events:

Today, I found thirty five cents in my car. Does that mean I entered my car for the sole purpose of finding thirty five cents?



Yet it actually produces more, which is what would be most important if the war was a result of a temporary need. After all, wouldn't it be smarter to invade a place with a more readily accessible supply? Plus we'd already learned from Desert Storm that any time we're in the area, people set fire to the oil fields. Seems a little stupid to try and invade a place for something that people attempt to burn the moment we're in the area.



Where would you rather be if you had to lug around a bunch of equipment and run maintanence on any vehicles you might have? The middle of the desert, or someplace that actually lacks blinding sandstorms? (we've actually already lost at least one tank to a sandstorm; it drove into the river, drowning the crew). Now, I live in a desert that lacks sandstorms, and I'd have to say I'd much prefer South America.



1.) Al-Dujail. Following an assassination attempt in 1982, he ordered the following:

-Bulldozing of thousands of acres of land used for growing date palms and fruit orchards. It's still a wasteland.

-Approximately 160 Shiites executed, 9 of which were between the ages of 13 and 15. Residents report up to 200 people still remain missing.

-Article first appeared in the New York Times, cross-posted to freerepublic.com (due to KMC's anti-spam, I can't post links. IM or PM me if you want it).

2.) The Anfal Campaign

-In short: Genocide. Kurds were subjected to air strikes, subject to being shelled with chemical weapons, and firing squads for any unlucky enough to be captured. Estimated death toll is approximately 100,000.

3.) The killing of Sunni religious leaders such as Abdul Aziz Al Badri the Imam of Dragh district mosque in Baghdad in 1969, Al Shaikh Nadhum Al Asi from Ubaid tribe in Northern Iraq, Al Shiakh Al Shahrazori, Al Shaikh Umar Shaqlawa, Al Shiakh Rami Al Kirkukly, Al Shiakh Mohamad Shafeeq Al Badri, Abdul Ghani Shindala.

4.) The arrest of hundreds of Iraqi Islamic activists and the execution of five religious leaders in 1974.

5.) The arrest of thousands of religious people who rose up against the regime and the killing of hundreds of them in the popular uprising of 1977 in which Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim the leader of SCIRI was sentenced to life imprisonment.

6.) The arrest, torture and executions of religious scholars and Islamic activists in such as Qasim Shubbar, Qasim Al Mubarqaa in 1979.

7.) The arrest, torture and execution of Ayatollah Mohamad baqir Al Sadr and his sister Amina Al Sadr (Bint Al Huda) in 1980.

8.) The arrest of 90 members of Al Hakim family and the execution of 16 members of that family in 1983 to put pressure on Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim to stop his struggle against Saddam's regime.

Now, do you need any more, or are you just one of those people that oppose the death penalty?

America is probably going to go back to a sense of isolationism, until the world realizes it needs us when the next axis of evil rises.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Eh, did you notice the bit in the thread title that refers specifically to the Bush administration? Guess not. Oh, well...Maybe next time?

Yes, the polls (both the one in the article and here) is concerned with foreign policy that has existed under the current administration - which, judging from the global responses, has been deemed "mainly negative". Not about how US global actions and affairs would be viewed throughout history, just in the years since Bush came to power (compared with similar polls during previous presidencies the US image in foreign affairs has rock bottomed.)



Again? There has only been one so far (WWII), and while the US certainly played a large part in the outcome of that conflict it didn't exactly go it alone.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Again? There has only been one so far (WWII), and while the US certainly played a large part in the outcome of that conflict it didn't exactly go it alone.

Personally, I don't think that was the intent of the message.

"When they next need our expertise at blowing **** up" just didn't have the same 'zing' to it, ya know?

That is the one thing I have noticed about US involvement in the world though: anytime the UN or NATO decides it wants to launch a military operation (usually airstrikes, nowadays) somewhere in the world, more often than not it's US-led.

For better or worse, you have to admit there is one thing the US is goddamn good at: blowing things up faster, cheaper, and with prettier explosions than any other country in the world. Sure the Atom Bomb was horrible, but just look at the pretty cloud!

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Oh goody, that article. I actually read that. Know what I found?



Definition of the word "stay" is as follows:

To remain through or during (a period of time)
oh, is it time to be smug and childish because i caught you twice just making shit up and passing it off as fact?

as i requested, but you dodged (as im sure you'll continue to do):

name one other reason for staying in iraq that was not debunked, since every reason for going to war was completely incorrect in every sense of the word, to a tee.


Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Notice how anything along the lines of "to invade or go" is noticably absent. Just because you personally believe that was the reason, does not mean words suddenly lose their meaning. Hell, there's another problem with your logic, and it can be applied to day-to-day events:

Today, I found thirty five cents in my car. Does that mean I entered my car for the sole purpose of finding thirty five cents?/B]

so you're trying to tell me they said "oops theres oil here" when theirs genocide in africa and america sits by and does nothing? are you really that naive? the only lasting reason, the only constant is OIL. if you need to convince yourself otherwise at least come up with a theory that works and is based in fact. go on, drink the koolaid.


Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Yet it actually produces more, which is what would be most important if the war was a result of a temporary need. After all, wouldn't it be smarter to invade a place with a more readily accessible supply? Plus we'd already learned from Desert Storm that any time we're in the area, people set fire to the oil fields. Seems a little stupid to try and invade a place for something that people attempt to burn the moment we're in the area.

i dont know why, but im thinking big evil

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Where would you rather be if you had to lug around a bunch of equipment and run maintanence on any vehicles you might have? The middle of the desert, or someplace that actually lacks blinding sandstorms? (we've actually already lost at least one tank to a sandstorm; it drove into the river, drowning the crew). Now, I live in a desert that lacks sandstorms, and I'd have to say I'd much prefer South America.



1.) Al-Dujail. Following an assassination attempt in 1982, he ordered the following:

-Bulldozing of thousands of acres of land used for growing date palms and fruit orchards. It's still a wasteland.

-Approximately 160 Shiites executed, 9 of which were between the ages of 13 and 15. Residents report up to 200 people still remain missing.

-Article first appeared in the New York Times, cross-posted to freerepublic.com (due to KMC's anti-spam, I can't post links. IM or PM me if you want it).

2.) The Anfal Campaign

-In short: Genocide. Kurds were subjected to air strikes, subject to being shelled with chemical weapons, and firing squads for any unlucky enough to be captured. Estimated death toll is approximately 100,000.

3.) The killing of Sunni religious leaders such as Abdul Aziz Al Badri the Imam of Dragh district mosque in Baghdad in 1969, Al Shaikh Nadhum Al Asi from Ubaid tribe in Northern Iraq, Al Shiakh Al Shahrazori, Al Shaikh Umar Shaqlawa, Al Shiakh Rami Al Kirkukly, Al Shiakh Mohamad Shafeeq Al Badri, Abdul Ghani Shindala.

4.) The arrest of hundreds of Iraqi Islamic activists and the execution of five religious leaders in 1974.

5.) The arrest of thousands of religious people who rose up against the regime and the killing of hundreds of them in the popular uprising of 1977 in which Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim the leader of SCIRI was sentenced to life imprisonment.

6.) The arrest, torture and executions of religious scholars and Islamic activists in such as Qasim Shubbar, Qasim Al Mubarqaa in 1979.

7.) The arrest, torture and execution of Ayatollah Mohamad baqir Al Sadr and his sister Amina Al Sadr (Bint Al Huda) in 1980.

8.) The arrest of 90 members of Al Hakim family and the execution of 16 members of that family in 1983 to put pressure on Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim to stop his struggle against Saddam's regime.

Now, do you need any more, or are you just one of those people that oppose the death penalty?

wow, what an explosive dodge of the question.
the president of venezuala. what has he done to warrant an invasion?

and btw, i dont care if he raped 100 babies. where's the threat to the u.s.?

...you're saying this, after citing a reason for STAYING in a country as a reason for going there in the first place? You're the one citing an article in which he claims it's a reason to stay, yet trying to pass it off as an admission that "we went to war for oil."



I'll name two, and they're related: Vietnam and Lebanon.

Here's a bit of story time: during the Clinton administration, there was a bombing of Marine barracks in Lebanon that killed 220 Marines. A radical group named Hamas claimed responsibility. At the time, it was a relatively new group of fanatic Islam. Rather than stay and wipe them out, Bill evidently thought it better to remove all US forces from the area. What's the case today? They've become a terrorist group to be reckoned with, and may as well run the area entirely.

Onto Vietnam:

Aside from the climate and area of the world the conflict took place in, it's really a lot like Iraq. The reason for invading is questionable, at BEST, and the VietCong quickly learned that it was in their best interest to resort to quick hit-and-run attacks and guerilla warfare than get involved in a knock-down, drag-out fight. Booby traps, bombs, attacking civilians (ESPECIALLY any that helped US troops), and the like. We just up and left Vietnam, like what most people are advocating we do in Iraq.

Do you have any idea, at all, of how many South Vietnamese were butchered, tortured, and murdered the moment we were gone? Given the fact that the insurgents in Iraq are already attacking civilians regularly, what proof do you have that just pulling out now wouldn't result in yet another massive bloodbath the moment the last US soldier left?



Oh hell, that one's my mistake. This is why I shouldn't be allowed to post tired, I thought you were still referring to Saddam (more than likely; it was the 'hanging' comment that threw me) >.<

He hasn't done anything. However the point remains: if going to war in Iraq for oil was the ONLY reason, then obviously we wouldn't be concerned with things like genocide or actual crimes. If that were the case, what reason would we have NOT to invade?

"Less QQ, more pew-pew."

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
If that were the case, what reason would we have NOT to invade?

diplomacy with the rest of the world. we just took iraq. its ours. understand? if we leave their government crumbles instantly. *WHOOOOOOOOSHHHHHH*. only trouble is we had no right to take it. no valid reason why we had to do it. NONE.

why did we invade? thats the question. how did saddam's regime pose a threat to america?

It didn't ..lolz ... he wanted to finish what his father never could ..

Damn my impatience. If I'd just waited, you'd have answered your own question FOR me. Oh well.



How did it pose a threat during all the air-strikes that followed the Gulf War? Or is blowing shit up from a distance because he refused to comply with the UN a-okay, just because we don't have to actually rebuild it all?

Hahaha, 'rebuild' it. As if the US companies who are doing all the rebuilding are there out of philanthropic ideals! The US tax-payers get to see their dollars spent in Iraq as all of Bush's pals lap up all the multi-million contracts being pimped about. All this while at the same time the social system in the US is one of the least sympathetic out of all the developed countries in the world. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Especially when silly people still seem to believe there are some good intentions in there somewhere.

"Let's put in some more soldiers! We haven't raped you enough yet!"

Perhaps I am a bad person, but I believe that we ought to start removing bad dictators from power in other countries.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Perhaps I am a bad person, but I believe that we ought to start removing bad dictators from power in other countries.

we dont have the resources to cure the world of evil. and if we just happen to be combatting evil on top of oil for 20 years...well other nations start seeing a pattern. so no, not a bad person. just naive.

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
How did it pose a threat during all the air-strikes that followed the Gulf War? Or is blowing shit up from a distance because he refused to comply with the UN a-okay, just because we don't have to actually rebuild it all?

ill ask for the forth time:

how did hussein pose a thread to the u.s.? we went to war because of
the declared certainty that he was seeking uraniun from africa and had connection with and helped fund al qaeda (the obvious conclusion that he had something to do with 9-11). how was the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in danger because of saddam husseins regime?

it seems that there is no reason left to have gone top war,
and the only remaining constant for being there is oil.
nobody in iraq wants us there, yet we occupy it still indefinately.
and our only 'plan' involves retaking bagdhad (which will most likely kill hundreds of our troops) and causing the whole of the city to remain on the front line for years as we attempt to police a civil war. (will will most likely cause the deaths of a couple of thousand u.s. soldiers.)

why was this worth it? why if not oil?

Originally posted by Grimm22
America is probably going to go back to a sense of isolationism, until the world realizes it needs us when the next axis of evil rises.

"axis of evil"

americans are a cancer that embrace ignorance.

Originally posted by LaHaine
"axis of evil"

americans are a cancer that embrace ignorance.

This coming from the, according to his myspace, canadian whigger trying to be a rapper.

Originally posted by KidRock
This coming from the, according to his myspace, canadian whigger trying to be a rapper.

ha funny. that's why i record my shit in new jersey and i have 2 albums being released this year. also i am a music PRODUCER.

this all coming from a ****** who labels himself Kid Rock.

you suck at life.

http://myspace-128.vo.llnwd.net/01462/82/12/1462822128_l.jpg

Werd..I dont wanna disrespekt the crew or anythin.

Originally posted by KidRock


Werd..I dont wanna disrespekt the crew or anythin.

thats quite a coward move since you have no pic of yourself posted anywhere. just an observation.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Again? There has only been one so far (WWII), and while the US certainly played a large part in the outcome of that conflict it didn't exactly go it alone.

I never said it did

The aid of countries like England and Canada played a big part in defeating the Axis of evil. That is undeniable

However, the only reason that the US 'polices' the world is because no one else will take a stand to injustice. So until the UN finally starts doing what is created to do, the US is essentially going to have to police the world.

Of course, now that Kofi Annan is gone the UN finally has a chance to do some good in the world rather than simply be a platform for corrupt politicians to launder money from

Originally posted by LaHaine
"axis of evil"

americans are a cancer that embrace ignorance.

You say that now, yet who will you be calling to when you're in the corner

Originally posted by Grimm22
You say that now, yet who will you be calling to when you're in the corner

unless you americans are the first to invade "our corner".

kill the human race, i hate everybody equally, as i have already stated.

**** you, **** your emoticons, and **** god.

Originally posted by LaHaine
unless you americans are the first to invade "our corner".

kill the human race, i hate everybody equally, as i have already states.

**** you and **** god.

Yes great argument

Because killing innocent people and preaching against the being who created existence is obviously a great path to go down to

And you aren't making yourself sound like a serial killer right now or anything, right?

And if everyone in "you're corner" is just as much of a psychopathic and delusional person as you are, then maybe we should just take you over

But, I know most Canadians aren't like that so, we wont

Originally posted by PVS
thats quite a coward move since you have no pic of yourself posted anywhere. just an observation.

Sure thing buddy. Buy me a digital camera and mail it to me and I would be happy to take a picture.

Originally posted by LaHaine
unless you americans are the first to invade "our corner".

kill the human race, i hate everybody equally, as i have already stated.

**** you, **** your emoticons, and **** god.

What is this? I sense a hybrid of some kind. Can it really be? A whigger/emo mixture? Mother of god..

haaha. americans are their inflated egos. funny.

emo? if you seen me in person you would know that isn't true. i would destroy you, kid. you're my semen.


"then maybe we should just take you over". i guarantee you no canadian in my "corner" would let an american soldier come through without bullets flying at them. death is ugly 'cause you fear it, it's beautiful to demons.

"Because killing innocent people and preaching against the being who created existence is obviously a great path to go down to".

there is no creator but the creator we created.

god is man's greatest mistake, or is man god's mistake?

you tryped: "you're corner"

if YOU'RE (as in 'you are') gonna type like a self-righteous, holier-than-thou, god-fearing, school-believing pussy, then type with proper grammar. you're is short for 'you are'.

write that down.

Originally posted by LaHaine
haaha. americans are their inflated egos. funny.

emo? if you seen me in person you would know that isn't true. i would destroy you, kid. you're my semen.


"then maybe we should just take you over". i guarantee you no canadian in my "corner" would let an american soldier come through without bullets flying at them. death is ugly 'cause you fear it, it's beautiful to demons.

"Because killing innocent people and preaching against the being who created existence is obviously a great path to go down to".

there is no creator but the creator we created.

god is man's greatest mistake, or is man god's mistake?

you tryped: "you're corner"

if YOU'RE (as in 'you are') gonna type like a self-righteous, holier-than-thou, god-fearing, school-believing pussy, then type with proper grammar. you're is short for 'you are'.

write that down.

Canadians are cool, however you are not

Calling someone you're 'seman'?!?

You just pwned yourself

Originally posted by PVS
ill ask for the forth time:

how did hussein pose a thread to the u.s.? we went to war because of
the declared certainty that he was seeking uraniun from africa and had connection with and helped fund al qaeda (the obvious conclusion that he had something to do with 9-11). how was the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in danger because of saddam husseins regime?

it seems that there is no reason left to have gone top war,
and the only remaining constant for being there is oil.
nobody in iraq wants us there, yet we occupy it still indefinately.
and our only 'plan' involves retaking bagdhad (which will most likely kill hundreds of our troops) and causing the whole of the city to remain on the front line for years as we attempt to police a civil war. (will will most likely cause the deaths of a couple of thousand u.s. soldiers.)

why was this worth it? why if not oil?

Stare long and hard at that bolded text. This time, I was patient, and let you answer the damn question all by yourself. Now, considering the fact that there was reason to believe he was actually seeking uranium for use in WMDs, there's also the fact that we're bound to protect countries like Kuwait; which he'd attacked previously WITHOUT nukes. And given the absolute disregard he'd shown for the lives of his own people in the past, odds are he wouldn't rule out nuking them just because the radiation would likely kill off his own people as well as the Kuwaitis (not to mention US troops still stationed there).

Now, just because we got intel wrong does not mean it was no longer a reason. Let's say a friend told you that one of your classmates was planning on getting a gun, for the sole purpose of killing you and some of your friends. Would you sit back and wait to see what happened, or would you actually DO something (call the police, etc). That's a smaller version of what happened with Iraq.




Now, honestly tell me that a man who has made it VERY clear that he despises the US as well as our allies, who we have reason to believe was actively trying to obtain Uranium for nuclear weapons, didn't pose a threat.

Whether or not we found nukes, the FACT remains that at the time; we had every reason to believe he was trying to build them. If that's not enough for you, I'm apoligize on the behalf of the Coalition Intelligence agencies for not employing psychics to look forward a few years.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Canadians are cool, however you are not

Calling someone you're 'seman'?!?

You just pwned yourself

give daddy a kiss.


by the way, you just "pwned" yourself by saying "pwned". you are too cute.

Originally posted by LaHaine
give daddy a kiss.


by the way, you just "pwned" yourself by saying "pwned". you are too cute.

I can't possibly be the only one finding it ironic the man with an anti-gay member title is asking a man for a kiss...

i will **** you till you love me, *****.

Originally posted by LaHaine
i will **** you till you love me, *****.

Sorry to disappoint, but there's a few reasons why that wouldn't happen.

One: I only have no interest in people with an IQ smaller than my shoe size.

Two: sorry to disappoint, but I'm quite content with the girl I have now. Maybe you should post a Personals ad, "arrogant whigger seeks same" if you're so desperate for affection.

Three: with the attitude you have, you wouldn't live long enough in a right-to-carry state to get anywhere near me. You'd be lucky enough to make it outta Phoenix alive, let alone make it to the secluded part of Arizona I live in.

Now if you're done jacking off to your ego, either get back to the discussion topic or please jump into traffic at the next possible convenience.

you take message boards entirely too seriously.

Originally posted by LaHaine
you take message boards entirely too seriously.

Says the man who's apparently taken the sight of people mocking him as a grave personal insult ...

not exactly.
i'm using this as a way to get cheap laughs before i go to my job until midnight. it's a sure-fire way to crack a few smiles and maybe "lol" once or twice.

keep responding. i'm enjoying this.

Originally posted by LaHaine

it's a sure-fire way to crack a few smiles and maybe "lol" once or twice.




This sure made me laugh:





















http://myspace-581.vo.llnwd.net/00090/18/55/90585581_l.jpg

..."support me or die," and he's pointing the "gun" at his own head?

...

That sorta defeats the purpose of giving the warning to others... unless of course he really is emo, and doesn't believe he can succeed. In which case, it's entirely accurate.

aaaaaaaaahahhahahahha

The US has some positive aspects, but the whole Neo-Con idea of "democrazy" for everyone is not going to work. History has shown that the only time Revolutions work is when the people, as a majority, support them.

Originally posted by LaHaine
i will **** you till you love me, *****.


hehe thats funny because mike tyson said it...well ok technically it wasnt funny at all because nobody laughed

Originally posted by PVS
hehe thats funny because mike tyson said it...well ok technically it wasnt funny at all because nobody laughed


hahahah right on. at least somebody is on my level.

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Stare long and hard at that bolded text. This time, I was patient, and let you answer the damn question all by yourself. Now, considering the fact that there was reason to believe he was actually seeking uranium for use in WMDs, there's also the fact that we're bound to protect countries like Kuwait; which he'd attacked previously WITHOUT nukes.

kuwaits oil reserves almost equal the size of iraq's. they would have never nuked it. we were assured that they knew for a fact that he was seking nukes and had ties to al qaeda.

its like trying to convince you that the sky is blue and you wont hear it.

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
And given the absolute disregard he'd shown for the lives of his own people in the past,

posing no threat to america...

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
odds are he wouldn't rule out nuking them just because the radiation would likely kill off his own people as well as the Kuwaitis (not to mention US troops still stationed there).

...and kills him and all his supporters along with wherever the wind blows....and for what? he hates freedom?

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Now, just because we got intel wrong does not mean it was no longer a reason. Let's say a friend told you that one of your classmates was planning on getting a gun, for the sole purpose of killing you and some of your friends. Would you sit back and wait to see what happened, or would you actually DO something (call the police, etc). That's a smaller version of what happened with Iraq.

i cannot answer this....im already more stupid for having read it.

Originally posted by Seth Wynd



Now, honestly tell me that a man who has made it VERY clear that he despises the US as well as our allies, who we have reason to believe was actively trying to obtain Uranium for nuclear weapons, didn't pose a threat.

Whether or not we found nukes, the FACT remains that at the time; we had every reason to believe he was trying to build them. If that's not enough for you, I'm apoligize on the behalf of the Coalition Intelligence agencies for not employing psychics to look forward a few years.

talking trash about the u.s. is not a warrant for invasion. you need to look up "fact" the next time you feel like childishly quoting the dictionary to someone in a debate, and stop parroting the same attempt at a point over and over and wrongfully tagging "fact" onto pure speculation and possible baldface lies which lead us to war.

We were assured for a fact he was seeking nukes, because our own intel was reported accurate by British Intelligence.

As for the al-Quaida ties, that's one of the most often trumpeted "lies" by your side. "Ties" can mean any sort of connection, no matter how weak:





...boy I hope you're never in any position of influence in politics. There was reason to believe he was seeking nukes, already hated Americans, and you would have preferred until what? He used one?



It's somewhat ironic that this is coming from someone citing the reason to invade Iraq was oil, and citing an article that said the reason to STAY in Iraq was to keep the oilfields out of terrorist control as "proof."

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
We were assured for a fact he was seeking nukes, because our own intel was reported accurate by British Intelligence.

again look up "fact".

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
As for the al-Quaida ties, that's one of the most often trumpeted "lies" by your side. "Ties" can mean any sort of connection, no matter how weak:

i said it was untrue (fact, a point later conceded...or rather disowned by the administration)

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
...boy I hope you're never in any position of influence in politics. There was reason to believe he was seeking nukes, already hated Americans, and you would have preferred until what? He used one?

the french tend to hate americans. should we invade them? obviously if another nation openly protests the u.s. they must be dangerous, right?



Originally posted by Seth Wynd
It's somewhat ironic that this is coming from someone citing the reason to invade Iraq was oil, and citing an article that said the reason to STAY in Iraq was to keep the oilfields out of terrorist control as "proof."

i said that oil remains the only constant for why we police a civil war.
i guess evading points is your specialty. i could quote myself, but during my stay at kmc i have learned one constant in particular:
if you are forced to quote yourself in a debate to avoid having words put in your mouth, it will not end on an intelligent note regardless so there is no point.

Better idea: stop whining and actually go find something to prove he had absolutely no intentions of ever having nukes or WMDs.

Also, it's a FACT that we had reason to believe he was. If you want to claim that's false too, go find any credible source of intel (preferably government intelligence reports, whether it's ours or another nations) FROM THAT TIMEFRAME that disproves it. You're supposed to be disproving whether or not we had reason to believe it at the time the invasion was being planned, not whether he had them or not.



No, and when's the last time they invaded their neighbors? They're about as hostile as a white flag, where Saddam's Iraq had already proven that supervision was required. But hey, you'll probably ignore this too...



I know you have. Problem is, you also said "we did" in regards to going to war for oil. Back on page two, when this whole thing started. You even said it twice with your link to that Washington Post article in between.

Or does that not exist now?

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Better idea: stop whining and actually go find something to prove he had absolutely no intentions of ever having nukes or WMDs.

the burden of proof is not to prove the negative ffs. why do so many people fail to grasp such a logical and basic rule of argument?

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Also, it's a FACT that we had reason to believe he was.

no it is not.

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
If you want to claim that's false too, go find any credible source of intel (preferably government intelligence reports, whether it's ours or another nations) FROM THAT TIMEFRAME that disproves it. You're supposed to be disproving whether or not we had reason to believe it at the time the invasion was being planned, not whether he had them or not.
i would refer to the scooter libby scandal (which is really the dick cheny scandal as we see unfolding now).

the intelligence was shotty at best and ehen investigated was found to be just that. doesnt directly imply that anyone was lying, but certainly that the administration really wanted to sell this war in spite of proper investigation.


Originally posted by Seth Wynd
No, and when's the last time they invaded their neighbors? They're about as hostile as a white flag, where Saddam's Iraq had already proven that supervision was required. But hey, you'll probably ignore this too...
they invaded iran with our support, and our wmd's including nerve gas manufactured in the good ol' u.s. of a. under direct support of reagan/rumsfeld etc.

they invaded kuwait. we didnt support that. we drove them back. the war ended. no more attempts to take over theur neighbors.

yeah, hussein was scum. im not trying to argue that. all i am saing is that iraq factually posed no threat to the u.s. FACT. who thought what and why is irrelevant. we invaded, we whacked the boss, we tore the nation apart and found no wmd's and not even signs of an attempt to creat wmd's. we're they just mistaken and not lying about it all? anything is possible. that is why you should be careful with 'fact' or rather 'FACT!!11' because your abuse of the word produces flatout mistruths.


Originally posted by Seth Wynd
I know you have. Problem is, you also said "we did" in regards to going to war for oil. Back on page two, when this whole thing started. You even said it twice with your link to that Washington Post article in between.

given the lack of concrete evidence (and denying the blatantly obvious) i will concede the point that that's the reason for going to war. now before you jump up and down and act like you've won the thread, know that this proves nothing of any of your points. all it proves is lack of concrete evidence, while denying the downing street memos, the scooter libby/cheny/rove sdandal which is unfolding, the simple fact that we supported saddam knowing he was committing those attrocities which you site...all these occurances/situations which only point to one conclusion...i will forsake those for the benefit of the discussion:

there is, as of yet, no concrete proof that we were lead to war on lies. however it is concrete that the reasons for going to war were debunked.
this could simply imply mistake and miscalculation as well as a failed and reckless theory on regime change. (welcomed as liberators) however you cannot spin this into "it's a FACT that we had reason to believe he was" because we factually had no concrete evidence. its an impossible and tragically desperate leap in logic on your part.

:edit: look, have your last word, because this conversation is pointless. you're just looking for ways to twist logic and leave the administration not only in the clear of any guilt/fault, but completely validated for invading a sovereign nation based on faulty intelligence and nothing more. all this time and you failed to prove the positive (how did hussein pose a threat to the u.s.) and demand that i prove the negative. its just a trainwreck of backwards logic and i dont want to read it anymore. maybe we'll pick up on this chat when you're ready to discuss the topic soundly instead of trying to win threads through convoluded reasoning and false-fact parroting.