*DAMN R6 Forum

bush gets elected, even though the majority of americans did not want him as our president. out of nowhere we pick a fight with iraq and iran and north korea and whoever the hell else. we threaten to annihilate them if they dont give us their nukes and weapons and whatever else they may or may not have. 9/11 attacks come, and everyones suprised. war is declared on an enemy which can never be defeated: terrorism. government begins taking away basic rights under laws that are disguised with patriotic names, using 9/11 as its excuse. bombs are dropped on small countries, minor victories are declared but nothing is gained. the terrorists have are either dealt with or hiding.

so the governments like, ok, no more terrorists. i guess that means no more war... which means no more distracting the american public.. which means no more unconstitutional laws.. no more drilling in alaska... less restrictions on lumber companies... less restrictions on how gasoline burns... less tax cuts for the rich... more aid for the poor... no more turning down international agreements that will make the planet cleaner and safer for our children... pissed off companies that supported our campaign so we could make laws to save them money... OH CHRIST! bush's reelection might be at stake! it will take us years to find someone else who is dumb enough to be our puppet! do something! quick!

rather then admiting to failure and giving up powers only granted to bush during war and other emergencies, we turn to iraq and north korea. we demand they have weapons and are plotting against us. we demand they let us into their country so we can find their weapons and plans. they let us in, nothing is found. end of story? no, now we say we are going to attack them and overthrow their government if they dont stop hiding stuff from us. they are left with 3 choices: do nothing and be attacked, come up with stuff to show us and be attacked for having it, or go down fighting. if you were iraq or north korea which would you do? fight? of course you would! its either that or get your ass kicked anyway. lets think.. how would you take down a country like america? hmm... oh! i know! strike them where they are unprotected! ok, seeing how our militarys suck, whats the most effective way to do this? terrorism!

ok, north korea is smart and realized they are fucked either way. they offer peace agreements, anything to stop america from unleashing its almighty "peacekeeping" force upon them. so what do we do? decline their offers! duh! i mean, we havnt had a problem with them in YEARS and  they dont even have enough money to replace downed power lines.. of course they are plotting against us! right!?

we have created terrorists to have a war with. the media only covers the most important topics in order to have enough time for their sponsors to adveratise. lets see, shal we cover war, or trees? war, or the national wildlife reserves in alaska? you get the picture. our governments owning us, one step at a time. are you willing to fight and die for an oil company? how about for a lumber company? or how about for bush's reelection? no? i didnt think so.

im not saying we should all go buy hippie vans and make flower necklaces between hits from the peace pipe, but it sure as hell seems like our war on terrorism has gained a whole new meaning. if we were interested stopping terrorism, we would probobly be looking in pakistan where journalists have reported on obvious signs of alquida (however its spelled) operations and where osoma bin laden action figures are being sold to children.

Amen Geek, I can do nothing but agree with ya!

I think Bush should be impeached!!!!


Sorry im Sick

Actually the US are the ones with the bad economy right now.

    First off the US is right not wrong, there are sevral chem factories the countries have taken sadlite pictures of, all on big rigs. another country have intercepted iraq officers talking and handed the evdince to US. they were talking back and fourth about a upgraded truck for war. then they go on about the UN inspectors. then the under ranked person asked the officer, "and what do we do with the nerve gass?"
8 countries signed a paper saying they are behind US, and they will aid us if we attack or they will attack there slefs if we do nothing. Germany and france are two countries that say no against attack. France said no to attacking germany in WW2, they said they wanted to see a "smoking gun" there smoking gun was germany rolling through paris.
    north korea is a bunch of asses, we said we would build 2 nuke power plants, they said we are behind and kicked out UN inspectors, and said they would resume nuke factories... so why it's are buissness?  well korea is poor as you all know, and they want money. if they make  nukes they will sell the nukes to anyone... terror, iraq, russia... you all say US is wrong, but when colen powel or bush comes on and proves to the US there is nukes and chem weapons you will change your tune.

lol selling nukes to russia?? omg be serious. russia got more than enough of 'em ... they were the other super-power, remember? problem is that in fact there are so many, and after the break-up of the CCCP and with their army in such bad shape, that not all of them can be accounted for! (which is a serious problem, at least as serious as iraq or NK (i'd say much more serious) in regards to the non-proliferation issue)

First, as I recall North Korea was the one who was threatening us. Second, we aren't doing jack shit to them right now. We aren't doing anything to Iran, either. Now the Iraq issue.. that speaks for itself. Otherwise, refer to Colin Powells speech.
Holy shit, like I said, we have done NOTHING about North Korea. We haven't demanded their weapons, nor have we tried to send any inspectors in. Plus, even if we wanted to there is damn good reason: they ARE threatening us.  And about the whole no evidence found thing about Iraq, dear god, did you hear Powells speech AT ALL? they have tape, video, pictures, insiders... they found steel rods that are specially made to be used in building a nuke. w-t-f.

to be continued...

Yeah, the US is wrong and stuff.  Head definately needs to come out of ass...and I'm not just talking about last night's hot gay sex.

Your right Bondo.


and I'm not just talking about last night's hot gay sex.
Except about that. That is Fucking disgusting Go back to Canada!

lol flies same happened to me ... damn but i never can resist  ;)

Is Hussein still using his money to finance a government against its own people?

Your right maybe I shouldn't worry because those chemical missiles aren't after Canada they are for the Kurds in the north. If it ain't me why should I care? ;)

Regardless, I still think the US shouldn't be the UN gopher. I'd like to see some of the other UN members defend the integrity of the UN rather then the US.

Fuck the UN.

I say this not out of support for war, or bush.. or even goddamn saddam. I say this because they have proved themselves good for nothing. I respect what they TRY to stand for, but all the UN ever does is go "Oh man, that sucks.. we should umm, do something" and never does shit.  Oh no! Human rights abuses! But what does the UN do? Nothing.

anyway, about saddam:
Colin Powell is perhaps the only voice of reason I listen to right now in our government... and it seems like not a single person here saw the damning evidence presented against Saddam Hussain by him on NATIONAL TV, which was also broadcasted all over the world. Hussain has nuke building materials, he has chemical weapons which he instructed his troops to use, he has diseases he's waiting to unleash on you all.. unmanned airplanes with a 300 mile range capable or spraying agents over all your unwitting heads. This, which is only very little of all the presented evidence, is enough to prove that he is a threat. I guess you guys didn't hear the part about him testing all sorts of nerve agents on little schoolgirls, who were strapped down and experimented on just because they were deaf. Does this sound like a man you want in power? I mean really, if you want to let him keep torturing his own people and building up his weapons to use on you, fine, let him be. But if you have half a brain, you'd realize if we don't do something... we are shoving the dust under the carpet. Haven't we done enough of that? I think so.

Anyway, I'd also like to say this: I vehemently oppose nuking/ extensive bombing of Iraq. I hate death, I hate war in general.. but I do believe that the time for lip service is over and to end the human rights abuses, and to make the world a better place, we need to do this.  I think that we need to do what we did in Afghanistan: drop pamphlets clarifying our reason to be there. Then, mobilize ground forces, be discriminate in seeking out the enemy, and do what needs to be done: remove hussein. This may be painstaking, even impossible, but if the UN and the US banded together to do so it wouldn't be such a daunting task.

And now, about Europe:
I love Europe, it's a wonderful place, but some of you give it a bad name. Many of the euros on GR act like stuck up, "holier than thou" assholes about the US.  >:( You don't see me smack talking about your country everytime it does something wrong. I'd also hate to remind you all where you'd all be without US intervention in things. Anyhow, I'm likely going to be spending my next year in Germany, and I certaintly hope people are more open minded than most of you.

Good Luck Cookie.  You ever want to see something funny, get in a room with a bunch of Germans and Brit's.  If they are older, they will end up at opposite ends of the room.  Still a lot of bad blood there.

For those of you that think Bush should be impeached.  Go back to school and read what that means and how it happens.  I really, really don't like Bush, but don't be an idiot and talk about impeaching.  What US law has he broken while in office?

To Geek, first, I've said this many times.  Thinking that war may be necessary is not blindly backing Bush.  Yes, Georgie boy is doing us a great disservice (to put it beyond mild) in his lumber and oil policies (which is why I have always hated him).  He cares little for the ecology, and has proven it time and time again.  But that has nothing to do with Iraq, the Taliban or North Korea.  Yes, he's playing the same smoke and mirrors game that Clinton and Bush senior did, pointing to the bad guy everytime they didn't want people to focus on them.  But that doesn't mean the bad guy isn't bad.

Bush should be flogged on the White House lawn for what he's doing to our ecology.  But that has nothing to do with ANY of the other things you talked about.  And, like Cookie said, you got them wrong.  Saddam should be shot for the ecological problems he's caused (don't forget setting the oil fields afire 10 years ago).

Ok, at the risk of looking like Rapid, I'm going to say this nice and big for you.

[size=+2]
Stop being idiots and attacking a war on Iraq like it is a Bush thing.  Not liking Bush is no reason to ignore the possible threat that is Iraq.  Not wanting the death of innocent people isn't a reason either, because who do you think Saddam will use those weapons against (if he has them)?  Hasn't he already used them to kill thousands of innocents in the past?
[/size]

So Geek, Bush being a complete asshole and fucking up our ecology and our country in these ways has NOTHING to do with Iraq or North Korea.  

Firstly I would like to say this, I have no idea why but recently I've kind of been sucked into a leftist opinion about everything, I have no idea why, might just be to piss some people of in the Construct, but I see clearly now! I haven't suddenly become a republican or something like that but my opinions have stabilized to be a bit more rational I think. Having that said I'll try to vent my new rational opinions.

I do not think that the US is out after Iraq's ass because of oil, frankly it would be a bad idea to go to war if oil was the only matter since it would lower the oil price in the world etc. etc. The only countries who are motivated by oil are France, Russia and China since they've got oil contracts with Saddam that would be useless if he was removed, and they wouldn't want that would they.

A war on Iraq is fully justified but if the US would do so alone and undermine the UN, then we could all be looking at a very scary unstable world situation. They have done a lot of good, it's foolish to think that they have accomplished nothing in the way of peace keeping and helping people in misery. The UN exists to stabilize the world and it is the best thing we have, perhaps it's not good enough but what can you do about that? Nothing. The whole world is represented in the UN and it's the best tool we've got.

I think Bush is a fool for what he has said and for what he has done to the US economy and ecology, you might think that it's not of my concern being Swedish and all, but it is, the US economy affects the whole world. And I also think he's a fool for having stated that NK was a part of the big ?Axis of Evil?, I think that might really have pissed them off and perhaps have made everything escalate into the situation we now have in NK. Diplomacy is a delicate thing, you might not like it but it is what it is.

I'll continue some other day, getting a headache.

I am not going to drag myself into this conversation, because quite frankly I don't have the time to bring out the whooping stick on many of you.

However, I will correct one thing that I saw Kami make...

North Korea restarted their weapons program in the late 1990's under the Clinton administration, and they recently admitted to it in private with officials from the US. When they admitted it to us (we had suspected it for a while) we decided to publicly halt heavy oil shipments to North Korea, seeing that they had blatantly violated the "Agreed Framework." Once this happened, NK publicly denied admitting a weapons program to us (even though everyone know they are lying) and they are using this scenario as a domestic propaganda plank to divert attention away from troubles at home.

So, they are now restarting their NUclear reactor because they "need the energy" even thought he reactor they are starting only produces 5kw/hr energy (very little). IN addition to restarting this facility that is more likely to be used for fissile material, they are removing spent fuel rods (only purpose would be to enrich into weapons grade material, cant reuse for reactor) from their facility after they kicked UN inspectors out and broke the protective seals placed on them.

So in conclusion, the "Axis of Evil" association practically had nothing to do with what is going on today with North Korea...if anything, Bush was correct in his assertation of the three countries (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). If you want to see something else interesting, Iran announced that it had a Nuclear program running for "civilian use" even though they are going to keep the spent fuel rods instead of returning them to Russia...the saga continues. So before you all go bashing Bush, look back to what he said and you will see that it basically has come true.

*stands up and applaudes towards Geek USA*

word man. i will print this out and stick it on my wall if i am angry on "the emericans" again ;) hope isnt lost at all ~

@all others:

the most of the rest of the postings here was just the usual fukc.
if people of your style would lead your goverment even arabs would side with you and fight against any REAL agressor when proven by "ah damn useless U.N." where - again - the U.S. is(!) a important PART of. so if it IS useless then YOU are useless too.

but its only useless for U.S. goverment cuz its doesnt want saction to go to war right NOW and for THESE reasons.

bah - i am out of here taking the words of geek with me.
well spoken, damn!

Bander

p.s.:

fuck bush! (see funny: 4 ketters each. muahaha)

Bander, you really do disgust me.

You are the a-typical ugly european, spreading hate towards the USA for no real reasons.  Geek was right on the mark that Bush is an asshole for what he's done to the future ecology of our nation/world.  But he was also completely off in his rants about North Korea and Iraq, and connecting them all into one big ball.

Nothing is that simple except for some of your minds (bander).

PS

Hating Americans for things our Government has done is like us hating "germans" for what Hitler did.  Do you deserve that stigma?  Well you may Bander, but does the rest of Germany or Austria?  You spread way too much hate Bander.  You are as bad as anyone you disaprove of.

Buccaneer that comparison was pshyco. Aside from the fact that a German diplomat said Bush used "Hitler-like" foriegn policy which is pretty serious to say in Germany that was just stupid. Our government changes every time a republican or democrat re takes the office for thier party and thus the change in government is Bush's fault. If that guy ummm Shroder had been in charge for 55 years then yes it could be on Hitler but since niether of those sceemes make sense....your wrong. Although war is inevitable and you and bush think it will stop war  I gurentee you that we will be attacked if we attack Iraq. Eqyptians were cheering for Bin Laden ONLY because of our actions in the middle east. Our allies and Neutrals drop by the day INCLUDING your beloved people in the UN. People in other countries are smarter then ignorent americans on this one and an attack in Iraq will sign a death warrent for our own people via terror attack.

u re very welcome asshole.


Listen: If u think i am "ugly" then go rent a gay-porn movie. Maybe u like the men better there ;)


could someone PLEASE fill buccaneer aka "the idiot" into what we re discussing here? he didnt get it yet.
 


Listen cocksucker: I am born in austria in 1972. Since THIS time MY country was part of NO single agression towards any other nation on this planet. So i am not related into Hitler shit in ANY way - but YOU are a person who are ACTUALLY supporting a warmonger goverment wich already has enuff blood on its hands.

So fuck you you son of a brainless biatch and stuff your stupid comments up into your ass.

If u are so upset about your countries credibility in the world then go and fight for the GOOD. But defending a violent and unhuman politics and being mad cuz everone hates that shit will NOT make it better.

If u could, u would threaten the whole world with your fat army and primitive nuclear power saying "Love me or i assimilate you". But have u ever heard about a girl wich fell in love with the person wich raped her before?

Buccaneer: You stink like fish. Take a bullet - water wont help. Moron.

Free World.

Dont talk about balls. u got none biatch. u are worried about economics? i am more worried about the coming loss of human live again. Fuck you Buccaneer. U play wargames and think war is a game too. Exactly the kind of R6 player that needs a psycic doctor and someone who keeps you away from a computer. U are one of these dumb americans who think they ARE Bush himself. But u are just a stupid moron who gave him his laughtable vote. U are as helpless against Bush as any European, Iraki or American. Fuck u again but pull the pole out of your ass when u re done!!!

P.S.: Geek - i posted what u have written in a german hip hop forum:

www.hiphop.at

people love u ;) ~ America WILL rise again!

RoR

It was meant to be pshyco you idiot.  That's exactly how psycho Bander's anti-american rantings are.  He talks about peace and perspires hatrid.  He's a hypocrite and a biggot.  He's everything he says he hates.  He is, in a word, pshyco.


You would know, I'm sure.  How much do you make being a fluffer on those?


Really asshole?  Where have I supported Bush in any fucking way?  Tell me?  You can't you fucking moron, because I haven't.  I'm not a warmonger, nor do I support Bush.  I've only pointed out that he could do the right things for the wrong reason.  So, fudgepacker, get those balls out of your face when you are reading, maybe you will get right one of the things you accuse me of.  


LMAO Bander, I know that english isn't your native tongue, but you spell ECONOMICS correctly, now look at what I wrote.  ECOLOGY.  As in MOTHER NATURE.  

I didn't vote for Bush either, I've said that many times.

So Bander, you are pathetic.  You spout your hate at me while getting none of what I said right.  You are such a fucking waste of a brain.  Go back to your cocksucking and pot smoking.  


I'm not upset about my countries credibility at all.  You are the one that seems to be defending violent and unhuman pollitics.  You seem to be defending Iraq's right to make weapons of mass distruction that they have proven they will use in the past, since they have.  


My mother may be brainless, but I'm not.  You are.  You don't even know what you are fucking talking about.  Your comments are like the dog shit I scrape from my shoes Bander.  

I've answered your questions, you've ignored mine.  It just goes to show how fucking weak your ideals are.  You can't stand up for what you are talking about, so you spout propoganda with no meat.  You are one of the great thinkers of our time.  NOT.  

You think you know about me, you don't.  You haven't even gotten my positions right.  You have stereotyped me.  That is what makes you the asshole.  You think I support Bush no matter how many times I've posted about not.  You are brainless.  Taking the stance not because you know anything, or have some insight, but because that's just what you do.

Bander the bottom line is there is a crack in your reasoning. You said it was stupid for me to try to achieve peace with violence, and look at Bush. He wants PEACE without saddam so with VIOLENCE he is going to attack. Surely you see where im coming from

If I'm not mistaken this was directed towards Bucc not Bander.  I wanted to get this in before Bucc...because he is known to insult people who put the wrong name in.

Anyway, I agree with Bucc that it is hypocritical to use violent methods to gain peace.  What I disagree with Bucc about is that this war in Iraq isn't to make peace.  It is to prevent peace as it is from being disrupted in the future.  Of course it disrupts the peace to do this and thus violates that peace initiative like you are trying to argue Zait.

We all need to take a look at Ghandi and MLK Jr....non-violent protest is the way to go...and that we includes Bush.

Maybe u should start watching where u are going. Then u wouldnt have to scrape dog shit from your feet, dumb asshole  ;D

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah ... Bushaneer, Bushaneer cmon talk we need some air here!

Affe.

P.S.:

Seems you (Bushaneer) dislike your mom (since u re not defending her). So i assume shes a good person and so i want to say sorry to her, for calling her brainless.

Bandersnacha ~

No Bander, actually I've just come to realize that all the pot you smoke has left you with the mind of a sixth grader, and leave you to it.  And you are right, I should watch out for the dog shit, so I'll just stop reading your worthless posts.

Bondo, I disagree with you because I don't have as much faith in the human animal.  We are not evolved enough as a race for purely peaceful methods to actually work.  If they did, I'd be 100% behind them.  I've always been for trying them first.  

But I most certainly am not for peace at any price.

And Zaitsev, you still have it wrong.  Bush is preaching security for the US, not peace.  That doesn't make him a hypocrite (many other things do, but not that).

I think the peace/security thing is all semantics.  Either way you put it he wants to prevent violence through violence.

well Bondo
IMO, preventing violence against american civilians through violence against saddam hussein or bin laden is not wrong. and the peace/security distinction is not all semantics -> somtimes peace does not give you security.

I'm not going to bring up Franklin and his security at the price of freedom stuff but, do you really think America will be a safer place if you attack Iraq? Iraq does not pose a threat to anyone 'cept it's own people.

     That's HIGHLY debatable, Kami. That is the keystone of the whole argument, but there's no way to anticipate whether Hussein actually does pose a threat or not, until he either dies or attacks, and thus answers the question one way or the other.

I don't want to make this another Iraq issue thread but seriously, what can Iraq do against America? Or against anyone at all? They're not stupid enough to actually try to invade any of their neighbouring countries, they'd be smacked senseless (by the rest of the world), they know that, and they would never just fire away a WMD (if they have any) against someone for no reason.

Really??  They've shown that kind of reasonible thinking in the past, have they?  Don't underestimate the arrogance or stupidity of Saddam.  It's not like he hasn't proven it in the past.

And, even without attacking.  They could easilly supply biological and chemical weapons to terrorists to use against us, the UK or many other nations that they aren't very fond of.  Or, they could use it themselves in a terrorist act against us.  How hard would it be to get a few people and a few hundred kilo's of chemical agents into the USA?  Not very hard judging from how many illegal aliens come into the country every day, or the amount of drugs that make it here.

While this isn't likely at this time, it is a possibility.  And knowing that he is such a murdering bastard as he has proven to be in the past, the agreements after the gulf war said he would destroy what he had and not seek or produce more.  So, if he is so smart and reasonible now, why hasn't he followed all of them??

I am certainly not saying he is a reasonable and sane man, Saddam is nothing but a psychopath. But, he won't attack his neighbours with his military because he knows that that is the worst thing he could do for himself.
Furthermore, there is no real proof of that he has any connections with Al-Qaida, there is no clear evidence that he has any active chemical or biological material to sell to anyone at all.

You are right, there is no real proff of it yet.  And I even said these things aren't likely (in my opinion) at this time.

But, these are ways that he may find to use WMD without seeing them as a high risk to himself.  It doesn't need to be Al Qaida, he could find some nuts of his own to do it.  That was my point.  You asked what he could do, well, that's something he could do, and it wouldn't be very hard if he had the weapons, would it?

Here is a little tidbit of info I picked up. Iran gassed Iraq first, than Iraq gassed villages under Iranian occupation. I got this from a Declassifed Pre Gulf War CIA report. I forget where though.

Actually Cossack, I've read that both ways.  I honestly couldn't tell you which one started it.  I doubt many people know for sure.  Doesn't change my opinions on him being a murdering bastard for using it.  And I wasn't taking Iran's side either, in case it sounded that way.  But Iran has evolved since the 70's and 80's.  I have much more respect for them now then when I was younger.  I don't think that they would do something like that again.  But that's all opinion.

Well thanks above for the name correction, all these B types but any way You say you thought Iran was worse when you were younger thats because of the hostage situation at which pointwe gave IRAQ some billions of dollars to fight Iran butthey didnt spend it all and we wonder where they got the weapons they have today? From Us.  There are like 4 posts on the same topic but still Bucc I havent heard you explain yourself because you did say its stupid

ITS STUPID TO GET PEACE WITH VIOLENCE

and thats exactly what your beloved Bush is doing. And you said it in the post above and if you cant explain it then your views are QUITE oxymoronic and contradictory

He explained that it was about getting security, not peace, with violence, I don't think that's right either, but that's what he said.

Kami, let me reformulate my proposition

the use of force (or the threat thereof) against people like saddam hussein or bin laden and subsidiaries to prevent terrorist violence against us and our freinds is, in my opinion not wrong.

you obviously believe that military force is inappropraite to get saddam to comply, so please tell me what the alternative is that you suggest. it seems pretty clear to me, based on his record, that the only thing he responds to is the threat of force. no matter how many harshly worded chapter 7 security council resolution are drafted, the only feasible way of getting him to comply with them is to make him think that, if he doesnt, he will be attacked in force and can say goodbye to his dirty little dictatorship. the UN chater actually has an article that gives the security council an intervention force, so that they do have some muscle and this is exactly the kind of situation it was intended for. no countries were willing to donate their troops however so it was a dead-letter......if we the SC has no way of intervening, and the US refuses to do anything, who is going to enforce the laws of the UN. France and Germany? doesnt look like it.

as for bin laden, if you think violence isnt the only way of dealing with him, well, then you are very naive. these terrorists dont give a shit about what we say or do, so the only way to "negotiate" with them is to ruthlessly flush them out, keep them on the run and eventually kill them. i know this may sound harsh to a categorical pacifist as yourself, but it's either you or them......

Kami, I thank you for taking the time to read.  I mean it.  It's such a nice change to disagree with someone that bothers.

And I don't agree 100% with getting security with violence.  I think it's a case by case thing.  Sometimes, you have to use violence, a lot of violence to stop someone else from doing it even more.  I just happen to think this is the likely case with Iraq.

Odd, you weren't nearly as kind when I said basically the same thing as kami...acknowldeging that you said it was for security rather than peace but saying that I disagree about them being difference.  Could it be you were polite to kami and not me becasue you don't base your reactions on what I post but rather that I post it.  Once again proof that it isn't the quality of my post that makes you call me a dumbass but rather your own hatred.

Or, could it be that you were an insulting dumbass that deserved to be called a dumbass?  

Or, could it be that you accused me twice of never agreeing with anything you said (and have made that implication many more times) after I've agreed that peacekeepers would be a good idea.

Or maybe it's just that Kami puts it better then you do.

It really doesn't matter.  To you, it's all about you.  So fuck off.