*DAMN R6 Forum

I think that it is immoral to blatenetly start a war as we are doing, they havent done anything to us it is simply a case of a son following in his fathers footsteps and it will only cause genocide and killing which nobody wants. I believe it is a horrible way to gain re election but it is clear to me thats what Bush is trying to do. the only thing that kept us out of war with Russia in the cold war was weapons of mass destruction was the knowledge of utter hollocust, Russians totally hated the US as well but that doesnt mean they will destro y the world for it. Saddam is in power he knows if he nukes then we will kill him and everyone near him, then he will accomplish nothing for himself.   see just because we are America doesnt give us a privelage. It would if we truley policed the world but we really dont give a hoot about anyone unless something is in it for us. Everyone is all we protect everyone but we dont, we go in where it best suites our economy and commit attrocities. But then again few hear about it because people cover it up and winners write the history so nobody knows anything about the highay of death or any of those things. We are the oppressors, we are the murderers and we are the guilty. The UN is a mask for the USA to go in to countries but the UN cant do shit. UN opperates on COllective security which means people come together and talk before  war, this system is completly contridicted by the fact that all countries that we currently have problems with (N. Korea and Iraq to name the most prominent) are not allowed to have an open view in the UN. We cant stop anything anyway, at least  not until we are shot at. BHD portrayed that nicely.

Sorry if this starts a flame war but all thus Hail Bush is realllly getting to me

think about it zait what is sadam doing right now???

first of all what are we gona do let him sell nukes??

what do u think would happen if a random person....lets just say ossama bin laden got a nuke,

el launcho el nuko

evan thow we would still blow it up if it came across the ocean but if he got one into the country, retend a minivan, drove it into L.A. , blew LA up.......zait think of the number of deaths if we just sit here.  i know this may be a bit extreme but i say shoot him.....,..........shoot him dead and let god sort it out

I say talk to him simply though before we resort to killing. I appreciate your refined manner of argument

Highway OF Death: Stretch of highway with no offturns, Bombed on each end and strafed by American Fighters for 12 hours. Another extremem but 300,000 kids died in Iraq due to war there By Bush Sr. so it rolls both ways

Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. Zaitsev, you do not remember the Gulf War nor have you taken a real history class, so all of your knowledge is hearsay.

A) Bush doesn't need a war in Iraq to be re-elected...his approval rating of 65% is one of the highest in the history of American politics.

B) Yes, he is following in his father's footsteps...by trying to enforce the cease fire that was negotiated when he was in office. If he was trying to follow in his footsteps as you imply now, Saddam would be dead and there would be an even nastier regime in Iraq.

C) Look up the word imperialist in a dictionary. I know it wasn't in your current post, but you seem to use that word quite liberally when talking about GWB. If we were imperialists, it would be the United States of the World because we have the power to bring the world to its knees - but of course you should have known that already...

D) I think you meant to say Mutual Assured Destruction when dealing with the Cold War - that has nothing to do with Iraq.

E) He does not have nuclear capability, he has Chem and Bio weapons...if you had bothered to read anything from the last time I posted on this issue, you would have known that.

F) You think the "Highway of Death" existed/killed 300,000 Iraqi children? You are a sucker for Iraqi propaganda. If any such thing would have happened, there would be people at The Hague under trial...you do know that we aren't the only nation with orbiting spy satellites. As for the Iraqi children dying, the only one responsible for that is Saddam Hussein himself. He witholds money, food, medicine, and other daily necessities of life that he gets from the UN's food for oil program and turns around and uses the money to fund his WMD programs. I bet you at least 300,000 Iraqi people die a year because of his policies.

G) Open your eyes and look at the world. Both Iraq and North Korea have ample representation within the UN. For the most part, Iraq is backed by other Arab states who can make a fuss in the UN (look at the Israel/Palestinean conflict) and North Korea has China, a country that has veto power in the Security Council.

H) As for the UN being a front for the US...if it was, we would be bombing Baghdad as I type this. But seeing that we went through the diplomatic channels, we have backed off of our immediate war footing and are waiting for Saddam to slip up so we can bomb him into oblivion.

I) All war is fought for something, people don't go into war for the hell of it. Wars have been fought over natural resources since the beginning fo mankind, and I don't think it is going to stop anytime soon.

J) If you are so righteous about the Left Wing views, go hop on board a Greenpeace freighter and have fun having a Russian Cruiser shell you.

I'd like to share two universal truths, true about the world, despite the region, faith, race, or any other distinguishing feature.

People are good.

Powerful groups of people are bad.

Basically, the worst people in every place are the ones in power.  During the era of the USSR, there were some awful leaders, but the Soviet people were not bad people.  Same is true in China, same is true in Iraq.

As for the worst people being those in power...it is true in Iraq, it is true in the case of terrorist groups (who are groups of people with power), it is even true with the U.S., the goverment is corrupt (very moderate corruption compared to some of these other places but corrupt all the same).

Unfortunately all these good people are at the will of all these powerful groups.  None do what is best for the people.  Whether there is war in Iraq or not, good people will die and strife will continue.  The real question I suppose is in which scenario will the problems be worse?


Sin, just because they choose to say they approve of how he is doing as opposed to saying they disapprove or don't care does not mean they'd vote for him.  Oh, and don't you think you could have just disagreed with Zait rather than insulting his education...give the kid a break...just because he hadn't started school when the Gulf War was fought...

Rather than make a new post, I'll drop the message here...he was 3 years old Bondo. That is hardly insulting, it is a given fact and it shows all that he knows of the conflict came from secondary or other sources.- assassin

Please get out of my head Sin...btw, I discuss the Vietnam war...and I think I am fully able to do so even though I've only got my information though secondary sources.

Might I just state this:

Iraq's high up people unanimously agreed to disobey the UN's resolution (or so they told Hussein), so like it or not, we're most likely going to war. (Hussein hasn't said his response yet, but the people's unanimous vote is a big proof of what he will say.

Iraq has done more then you know zai... So... just... no... We've already discussed this topic in like... 10 threads...

Ben

Not necessarily Ben, my sources tell me that it might be a last ditch effort by Iraq to get France or Russia to have a diplomatic change of heart and somehow lighten it up for Iraq. Saddam will most likely accept the UN resolution because even the Arab league supports it. Of course though, he will hold out until the friday deadline then agree to it.

i know this has been said, but Zaitsev, take a freaken history class and catch up on the latest politics about what is going on with Iraq.

Once you do, then you can argue properly with us. from the looks of it you are like reading the freaken Iraqi paper...

I wont state anything that  has been said already by Assassin and Ben...

U.S. gave a plan to Iraq, either allow inspectors in to search every inch of the palaces and a military bases or suffer consequences. Simple.

sorry for double post, but i was just reading up on this some more, and from the looks of it zaitsev, you have it backwards.

you say that the U.S just wants a war. But from what i just read, the Iraqi parliment has rejected the resolutions to disarm, but the U.S is still waiting for a letter on friday which will hopefully be different.

If i am not mistaken, doesnt that kinda show that Iraq wants to go to war with the U.S?

Well, I think Iraq would prefer no war to war...they just would prefer war to no war and no weapons.

This war is aparently wrong because...
1. The senate aproved the war powers act meaning that bush isn't acting alone
2. The UN backs us now
3. Sadam rejected the resolution to disarm

So now that we know these facts we should just step back and let terrorists give it to us up the ass (sarcasm incase you didn't realize)

i disagree strongly with the war on iraq, but zaitsev most of your stated reasons are factually??arguable. regardless, the best argument ive heard against the war on iraq proving our alterior motives are the parallels that can be drawn between iraq and another "axis of evil", north korea. after all, north korea definetely has nukes, definetely has missles, and definetely has made several public statements against the US and US policy. yes, iraq is rumored to have chemical and biological weapons, but they have no nukes and no missles to launch any of these sorts of attacks on US soil. so what makes iraq so much more threatening than north korea?

although i dont agree with everything zaitsev said, i think that assasin got a few things wrong too.

its true, his approval rating is quite high. but this has always been shown to fall when presidential election season comes around, and if bush doesnt turn around the american economy people arent going to vote for him again. i wouldnt say that this war is a complete reelection effort, but i would say that it is an unnecessary foreign distraction when he should be looking at domestic issues


it's defined as: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

i think that it can safely be said that the United States (made up of acquired territories from Britain, France, Spain, Mexico, and various indigenous tribes) has economic and political control over many nations through "regime changes" (recent examples include Afghanistan, Venezuela, and possibly Iraq?) and also participation in groups like the UN which can economically control countries through sanctions and other trade barriers.


the US butchered the charter of the international criminal court? in exchange for our agreeance to participate in it, we essentially made the ICC agree not to prosecute us for the next year, with renewal for this provision available each year. As far as US atrocities, I highly suggest that you all read some Chomsky. If only I had brought my Chomsky collection to college? anyway his 9-11 book, and his books on media propaganda and US atrocities and his video "Manufacturing Consent" are all great resources??unfortuantely I can't quote them now.

a few other random notes, since im tired of quoting:

-i hardly think that the patronage of other countries counts as ample representation in the UN

-i dont understand the logic of your bomb first, ask questions later rhetoric? besides, we can't just bomb "him" without bombing thousands of other people too, and very doubtfully killing him in the process.

-as far as your argument over the history of going to war over resources? why fight over a resource that we can get from others and that we should be phasing out anyway because of the horrible polluting effects of it?

-i only hope i have the chance to hop on a greenpeace freighter? greenpeace pwns.

this war will only make me feel less safe, as it accomplishes nothing and adds fire to the already burning hatred that many dangerous people have for the US??

This is a two part response to Zaitsev's first post.
Russian and American did not only destroy eachother because of MAD, it was also a respect for eachothers culture. Russians loved the American way of life, while Americans spent their time reading Dostoyevsky, and listened to scores by Tchaikovsky. Americans enjoyed the culture of Russia. This mutual understanding does not exist between the United States and the Islamic World. I am willing to bet that very few of you if not anyone here even knows the five pillars of Islam. I am sure that very few of you know of the history of the region. Those that have some knowledge in History should know what happened in Iraq hundreds of years ago. The Iraqi people do not understand the Americans. They think we are all fat people with large swimming pools on four acre estates and that we drive yachts to work. In order to deal with the Middle East we must understand their culture more. If you dont know the five pillars of Islam, you have no idea who these people are. All you know is that Moslims like to blow themselves up.
As for our good freind Iraq. I think that there is not enough proof to go after them yet. Tony Blair's Dossier is a very weak argument. However if there is solid hard evidence that is made public that nuclear weapons are in existence, then we should take the regime out because that is a clear violation of the treaty, also, when the fuck are the inspectors going to go in? I also think it is biased that American and the UN are going after North Korea and Iraq only for nuclear weapons. Hmmmm what the fuck about Israel and the Zionist Nazi Regime that exists there. As far as I am concerned, Israel's nukes should be confiscated as well. "Oh but you need to trust the Israeli government, they have been treaded on by the evil armies of Islam" some people tell me. BULLSHIT!
In the Yom Kippur War they fired the first shot on Lebenon, Jordan, and Syria. They almost started WWIII by doing that, we (the Russians) started to load in our Airborne forces to paradrop into the Sinai to help the Egyptians. We did the same earlier when the Israelis bombed the Egyptian Army after the treaty was signed that ENDED the 6 day war. Not to mention that Israel shot at the USS Liberty. Everyone says it was an accident but it is not. Survivors say that it was the Israelis and and that the torpedo boats had the Star of David on them. Israel has attacked everyone from Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Lebenon, Jordan, and the You! The United Fucking States of America.
Lets look at Israel now. So far they have broken 116 UN resolutions. They were Resolutions. The Palestinians have as well. You know that the regime in Israel is just like the apartheid. Palestinians who make up 1/4 of the population of Israel are not even represented in their Parliment! Palestinians are barred from running for office and are not allowed to be taught in Universities. They can only study abroad, but after that they are not allowed to return to Israel (their homeland) If you claim this as all false, then you are a sucker for Zionist Propaganda.
I dont blame you, Fox, NBC, CNN, etc are operated and owned by Zionist Jews. They shape our view of the world and it is very biased towards the Moslems. Read the London Times, Pravda, whatever the newspaper in Paris is, and Arab news, you will hear of Israeli transgressions against Human Rights.
So in short. If you punish Iraq and take away their nukes, then punish Israel and take away theirs. They have invaded countries before in their history, more times than Iraq has. Their leader is incredibly unstable, and is in my view a larger threat to the world than Sadaam Hussein is nowadays. I know it is awfully radical to say, they are both threats, but your foreign policy cant be so double edged. However since the Zionist Lobbiests are too strong.

If you want a link on info on Israel's Nuclear program go here:http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Nuke_Nation.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Nuke_Nation.html)

not totaly on topic, but i feel this needs saying. while bondo has the general idea, it needs refining
it should read:

People are good.

Powerful groups stupid of people are bad.

Powerful groups smart of people are good.

and also

never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

basically what this boils down to is what i'll call the lemming effect.
people, especially in america(may be true elsewhere, i dont know), hate being wrong. they REALLY hate being alone AND wrong. at least when there  is another person doing it wrong as well you can point to them and say "well they did it too".  this leads people to tend to act en masse, like a group of lemmings on their marches to the sea. people rarely tend to look up and evaluate the situation, and those that do are often ignored by the crowd.

in these situations one strong leader can control the entire group, and the vast majority will follow without question.

to further illustrate this point, see my signature.

slightly off topic, yes, but i think this is a good time to point this out.

Jeb, if the only thing terrorists were doing was giving it to us up the ass, I'd be a very happy man ;).

probably sleeping

already been proven, and posted in countless posts that saddam DOES NOT have nuclear weapons.
i dont even know where to start with this one? Osama Bin Laden would not have the capabilities of getting a nuclear weapon into the US for one thing. For another thing, who would launch a nuke over the ocean for Bin Laden? For another thing, we could and would shoot it down with our trusty ICBMs.  Another thing, how could we shoot Saddam if we don't even know where he is (and we haven't for quite some time)? and for my last point, what role does god have in any of this? i dont think that christianity has any relevance to foreign policy.

also, you misspelled the names of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, two of the most notorious men in the world today

I've really grown tired of these threads as we merely rehash the same points we made a couple weeks ago which were just rehashed points from a couple weeks before that and so on and so on ad nauseam. I just wanted to point out that if Osama or some other terrorist were to get a nuke, do you really have faith in our borders that they wouldn't be able to get it across? How many tons of drugs cross our borders each year despite our efforts to stop this?

Yay Ace! You agree that these constant threads iterating themselves over and over are quite dull... In any case I've got a UN simulation in my AP Global Government class, and I'm positive that Iraq is going to state "we denied your resolution because the war is based soley on oil". Does anyone have a sheet of factual evidence stating we don't need the oil or thats not the problem?! I have papers stating other reasons and whatnot, but I need solid proof that the war is NOT for oil....

P.S. Bondo, North Korea's nukes are already built. Nothing can stop them from building more AND they promised to disarm... This is completely the opposite from Suddham who... will take another year to make the nukes... Korea could put one together in a very brief amount of time compared. Plus they already had the nukes, and thus demonstrated they won't use it willingly across the globe... Anyway

Ben

Ace thank you I meant to type that point out as well. I got to concentrated in the Israel thing. wtf havent I said this before. Zait if you want to go argue politics, or this issue in particular, go to another board. This issue has pretty much been responded by everyone on this board. Its just turning in to as Ace said (or was it Ben?) an ad nauseum.

You guys think that I hail Saddam. I know he is a bad man but I also see George Bush as a bad man. This crap of go to a new thread is BS because if you dont want to talk about it then you yourself can stay out of it. To all the people who say about history lessons I know Saddam is a bad man. I know he probably has evil intentions but I also want to say that we are not a perfect country and I think that until we improve our own domestic problems we have no business going into other peoples countries and killing. My HISTORY class shows that last 2 out of 3 times we went into big countries, excluding the balkins many Americans died and people couldnt really see for what. Someone said smart people in power are good but how can you judge smart. Like some people think Bush is a genius, I think he is an idiot so how does that work? Power is best when divided (i.e. longest governement still standing is US with set of checks and balances)  However to hate people who dont agree with us isnt right. Ben, Cossock, Oso and Sin you guys I am not for Saddam I know how very bad he is but until we stop  committing atrocities across the board every day then we have no business in other countries doings. Women STILL get paid 75 cents to the man dollar.  Hate crimes still go un prosecuted (Rodney King...assulters innocent) And we still have no religous flexibility in public schools (One nation Under God my classmates say it every day) and some states are now kicking around the idea of HAVING to have 10 commandments in schools. We already have One Nation Under God. Maybe not to the point of murder and killing but we are no more fair to all our citizens then Saddam is and war just takes the spotlight off of us. if we do indeed go into Iraq I pray that Bush is committing political suicide.

Not exactly sure when I talked about North Korea, but your point in response to me is noted  ???

As for the 10 commandments being at school.  As long as they change the wording so it doesn't sound so stupidly biblical and they remove the 1st commandment about having no other God, and the commandment about taking the lord's name in vain...I figure it would be alright.  I'd prefer they just have the laws of the US posted in the schools.

Or we could do as the Onion says, "Sure, I think they should be posted in my high school.  Only they should add an 11th Commandment that says, 'Thou shalt not be such a fuckin' pussy, Jeff Pleisner.'  Because Jeff Pleisner is such a fuckin' pussy."

well zait, it seems to me that you dont want the us to take any action untill we ourselves have become a 'perfect' nation.  while that sounds good on paper, it wont work that well in real life. to life in a perfect nation, everyone would have to have the exact same stuff (think utopia, i think that's the right book anyway)
or to pull something like biig brother(1984, if i recall) and have the rest of us all be blissfully ignorant.

now, that isnt likely to happen anytime soon. the human existance is defined by confict and difference. sadly due to this fact, there will be, atleast for the forseeable future, wars, racial conflict, gender discrimination, etc. etc.

our nation now lives under the threat of attack. we dont have 500 some odd years to fix all these problems. we can try though. that's what's happening now. we may not be fixing our problems, but we are trying to (does the word activist mean anything to you) and frankly, trying is the best we can do

Zaitsev you took my post outta context. Have you even read my posts?? Who said I disagreed with you? I do think you are to ideealistic and unreal in some of your expectations. I bet you dont even know what stance I took, its on the first line. Anyhow, all I am saying is that the issue has been milked so much on this board. We had a new 4 page thread on Iraq or something that turned into something about Iraq every week for the past two months. Its come to the point that we are just reiderating our opinions over and over again.

I don't really want to get myself into something by arguing this.   If you want to see my arguments, go back to the september 11th posts of old, many of them are the same.

They are coherent, thought out, defensible, sometimes rational, and occassionally right.  It's a shame we can't have the same conversation here.

Let me say this: I don't think we should attack Iraq.  I don't think Iraq will attack us, regardless of what we do there.  I don't like when people die.

ok.  I'm done.

Ace, happy hunting, enjoy tearing these people apart with you conservatism.  It's always a fun read.

What times are you talking about. The way you state that, it would imply Afghanistan, Iraq, and Nam. In Afghanistan we hardly lost any guys. I think it was less than 10. No one questioned why we went in there. As for Iraq, I don't have any figures, but it was an incredibly lopsided victory. We bombed the fuck out of their military with our vastly superior Air Force, then we let the Abrams roll in and demolish their Soviet-era tanks (T-72's I believe). Our casualties were once again astronomically low. For example, we didn't lost a single crew in the Battle of Medina Ridge in which we decimated the Republican Guard's main tank force. As for Nam, I won't argue with you there. However, the main difference between Nam and these other wars is we didn't really know who/what we were fighting. The line between a guerilla Viet Cong and a civvie was far too blurred.


Fine, go ahead and think he is an idiot. I personally like the guy and respect him. We still have checks and balances, but you say this like you are implying that we don't anymore and that Bush is running a dictatorship. If you follow current events, you would know that the current Senate which is controlled by the Democrats voted on and passed a resolution supporting the use of force in Iraq if necessary. Bush isn't alone on this one; it's the whole government.


Are we perfect? No. However, we hardly commit such horrid atrocities as you allege. Illegal aliens risk their life every day just to try and get into our country. That should tell you something about how good we have it here. If you think it's so bad, there are plenty of trees to be hugged over in Europe.


Umm, the cops who beat Rodney King were put in jail after the second trial. Plenty of other hate crimes get prosecuted. You can't make unfounded allegations like that without some evidence to back it up.


For fuck's sake, deal with it and say the damn pledge. Our nation was founded on the idea of there being some sort of deity out there. It goes all the way back to the Declaration of Independence. It's not just in the pledge, it's on our money, it's in our courts, and by now it is a part of our American culture. Being such a relatively young nation, we have little culture that is completely our own, so why destroy another part of it just because some bleeding heart liberal got his panties in a knot over THE DAUGHTER HE ISN'T EVEN THE LEGAL GUARDIAN OF saying the pledge in school. Also, just because some Bible Belt states want to put up the 10 Commandments in schools doesn't mean it will fly. They also didn't want black kids in school not too long ago, but because of our checks and balances, the courts overturned that.


Good. The bitches should be thanking us that we give them more than 50 cents to the man dollar. Hell, they are lucky to even be working and not still be pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen.

OMFG,
First off i'm athiest and that offends me, why the fuck should catholic morals be shoved down inocent kids throats? Why, can one not be good without knowing god? I went to a catholic highschool and we didn't have the ten commandments posted.
While we are at putting the 10 commandments in school we should also make all women wear burkas, and grow beards so we can live moral lives in the world of islam to.

Damn straight, Jeb. The way I see it, if they're going to put up the 10 commandments, they better put up every piece of holy scripture(is that the right word?), for every religion, as well. If they don't, it's religious discrimination. Oh well. It won't get passed anyways, because it clearly violates the seperation of church and state.

i have an idea? rather than relying on discriminatory and illegal aspects of culture like saying the 10 Commandments in school, why don't we show everyone that the culture of America is a culture of fairness, cool heads, and equality? if you think forced religion is so great, there are plenty of islamic extremists that share your views in saudi arabia.

this has soo gone off topic

(http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/offtopic.gif)

Jeb...did you notice that I said they should remove the religious aspect from it.  I don't see what would be wrong for having, thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, and other illegal activities...but like I said, posting the 10 commandments is stupid because if it is covered by law, then just post the laws...if it isn't covered by law, then keep it out of our kids heads...they should be free to covet their neighbor's wives.  There is nothing wrong with it legally.  I'm on your side here, the 10 commandments have no real place in schools or anywhere outside of religious and private activities.

Yeah, quit with the 10 commandments or this thread is getting locked.

(http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/adminowns.gif)

Sin, The 10 commandments is somewhat part of this thread, as long as we REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL ATTACKS then we aught to have our say on it.

Iraq has supposedly just passed the UN resolution.
On the issue of 10 commandments in schools I think that it is rediculous. How would you like the local middle schools dress code nailed to jesus' crucified body. Especially in my public school which is run by the government and there MUST be, in the CONSTITUTION it states, seperation between religon and state. Private schools are one thing but it clearly states in the constitution that government based institutions, such as public schools, can not be biased towards religon. You can be as christian or jewish as you want but you cant preach it in school. My schools office has to have a sign "In god we trust" while our school sign has 3 different colored kids togethers ( i will find a link ). Somehow i find "in god We Trust" over the school logo....OXYMORONIC. The statement "Under God" is bad enough as it is. Why not under Canada or something????

http://www.ccs.k12.va.us/SCHOOLS/BUFORD/index.html

Bottom left side with the circle....notice although not clearly visible the 3 figures in the middle

zaitsev, what the hell are you smoking??

yea, lets go say "Under Canada"

Do you understand anything the other people have said to you about this?

and talking about the 10 comandments is nothing to do with Iraq.

I dunn give a crap about this war, Americans kinda deserve it, cuz they've been assholes for the rest of the world for like 200 years anyway.

Ahahaha. Ace pwns. I back him up in every point except for the astronomically low casualties in Nom. They were high, but so was southern vietnam. Afghanistan I think we lost more troops to friendly fire then to actual enemy fire (which is really sad for us and for them)...

Ben -- Not getting involved in religious debates

P.S. Zai, if you want to show a good arguement with several points, use propper grammar and spelling in paragraphs... A big clump of shit is no fun to read, especially without punctuation, beautiful grammar, and good spelling.

Spoken like a true ignorant tard.

As for the 10 Commandments, make a new thread if you want to debate that.

Ben: Ace was referring to The 1991 Gulf War and the Afghanistan operation.

I really wish (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/adminowns.gif)

Eh... My bad, I believe that was in response to tasty then Bondo...

Also, my bad again Assassin. He said 'Nam, I assumed he meant "Vietnam"... (ah my... it's just Ace's sexiness. I feel it from here and... well... it distracts me)

Ben

I feel dirty for having even read this trash.  For god sakes, think before you speak.  Eloquence and a grasp of the facts are gifts that many you seem to lack.  

*of you (heh, found that ironic... I was being called uneloquent and all... and... bah)

Ben

The irony was not in me calling you inelequent, but the fact that the statement itself was inelequent.

(unelequent or inelegeuent? I know not...)

Anyways I was more talking about Zait specifically... though it applies to the forum posters as a whole.

I am rude and crude and in your face, I have no need for fucking eloquence, though I do have a grasp of the facts.

You're probably right... Ineloquent.. Bah, lemme check... And... yes, ineloquent, you win...

Also, I knew what was ironic, I just never got to that part because I didn't wanna seem like I was rubbing your spelling error in your face! :) For the most part the people on this forum don't give a shit about eloquence (sadly).

Ben

Ben,
    You are one of the few I see that is on AIM a lot but still manages perfect grammar. Only now when I am trying do I even come close to it, otherwise I would bt subconciously typing things like cuz or aight. So you see its time online, the more online time, the more the person tends to talk in slang, however you are a clear excerption. I am sorry that many people, including myself, are "ineloquent"

Uh zai... Hate to tell you, I'm on AIM from when I wake up to when I go to sleep, but I'm normally not at my computer...

Ben

*GASP* So ben who I have been cybering with all this time???!!!

Well, this topic has gone waaaaaaaay off topic. So I think it's time for a good old fashion lock.

Ahahaha. This? Off topic? I've seen worse.

Oh, py, my dog's become very intelligent and has opposable thumbs... He learned to spell, probably learned to type too... Maybe it was him?

Ben

well, let' see here, from iraq to elloquence to cyber sex.
time to chang the topic to (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/adminowns.gif)