*DAMN R6 Forum

hehe  ;D
http://tpengster.com/bad.html

hehehe
The reason i was anti-anti-war was because there was no solid argument against it. That site sorta summed up quite a few things i've been laughing at for the a few months.
On the other hand there will always be sissies who cry about missing ideals, and saving the innocent children from the hands of our friends, family, and citizens who happen to be soldiers.

As bad as it sounds i have some fun memories watching the war on tv, probably because it was spring break and i was on a drunken vacation with my friends.
(http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/beer.gif)

That is just as frivolous and lacking of factual base as any other side of the debate.

Jeb, are you claiming there is no solid argument against being anti-anti-war.  I think there are plenty of support to be anti-anti-anti war.  And they become achingly clear when reading that site.

its funny to acually see you, of all people, saying that

Why, it would seem to fit right in with my beliefs that most everything is subjective.  To claim that it is some higher, stronger argument is what I was saying is crazy.

Didn't find it too educational, but it was exhaustive. So exhaustive in fact that I'm not going to respond to it out of laziness.

I follow Tasty. Let the "b" basketball team sit around and eat eggs instead of run sprints. Furthermore I acknowledge that the sheer lack of smarts on Jeb parts would make any good point I say valid to his unilateral vision of mind.

Big words for a such little kid,
By being "anti-anti-war" i can sit back and play devils advocate on a lot of issues. What i get from doing this is a better understanding of the two sides of an argument and are then able to make up my mind on things.

A interesting point that paper made was debasing the "bush is a nazi" arguments and other personal attacks that are used in many debates or protests. I don't agree with all the crap that guy wrote, and i certainly wouldn't make my mind up after seeing one source or opinion. Besides i've never truthfully stated how i feel about this issue because bucc has done such a great job in the past of riling people up.

Or if you still think I'm a complete retard and would like to begin the inevitable pissing contest, you should know that I'm probably one of the best at insults, and an all around bastard.
Love,
jeb
p.s. does my hick alias make me come off as a flag-waving hill-billy ? ;D

I agree with Tasty.. So much text, so little time!!

a post thats 10 words, and just says they agree with someone is spam snipey,
how many chances have you had so far?

Be nice. He just got off a ban, I think. If the admins think he's spamming, he'll just get another "vacation".

That link...
Amazing!
Absoulty astonishing!
Can't believe it!
Increadable....
...
..
.
Who in their right mind had so much time to write so much bullshit? I didn't think it was possible untill now... but once again it would appear i have been proved wrong!

I agree with this post ;D

And Jeb, it may not add significant content to the discussion, but it is on topic, so leave him alone.  If he is truly intent on spamming, he'll get banned again, if he isn't intent on spamming (and this post is no reason to doubt that) then just leave him be.

Jeb, I'm saying what I think of the topic, so su and DIE. Your only saying that I 'spam' because your probably trying to get me in trouble with moderators again..

 Snipey, there are 4038 topics. Using your logic, every member should have 4038+ posts, because they should give their opinions of ecah topic, correct?  

typhy summed it up.
but anyhow I'm sorry to mention your spam, because it only brings more spam in your case snipey.
sorry to help your post count snipey.  :P

Yes, that link was quite educational wasnt it. And you know itd be great if there were any half-decent supporting arguments or facts to back up the truth you know? But seeing as there arent any I guess I still have to attend the 9th grade next year eh?

Looks at post count...recalls post count of old account...adds them together...

Hey don't be talking bad about people who post in nearly every thread.

Although I'll restate, there was nothing wrong with Snipey's post.  It is not the place of you or Jeb to try and accuse others of spamming.  We have capable moderators for that.

Ok, ya know what Jeb? Your actually right for a change, critizing me and telling me that I, uh, 'spam', just brings more spam. So why dont you stop starting flame wars in almost every post, and everything should be fine.

From you, yes anytime someone says or brings you up its about spam.
Ever since your posts have been "su i don't spam" over and over.

I agree that there are a bunch of stupid arguments AGAINST the war, but there's also a fuckload of idiotic arguments FOR the war, that's all I'm gonna say about that.

did any of you actually take the time to read that, before writing it off as "bullshit"??

apparently from whats been said, no.  ;D

I'd take the time to read it all if I was at home, I just read the first two-three arguments.

Ok, if you want to have the drawn out explaination of why it is bullshit here goes.

1A. Oil
They argue both that it isn't about the oil and that even if it was about the oil would that make it wrong because we are removing Saddam.  You can't argue one and then say well, if not that then here is our secondary reason.

2A. Bully
What does the actions of the other nations, most of then not having a thing to do with Iraq have to do with whether the US is a bully or not, that list leaves out all the US offensives.  It is one sided propoganda and not any argument against saying the US is bullying.

2B and 2C...I've not really heard these anti-war stances.

2D- The defense is that Bush went out of the way to involve the UN.  How does this negate him being a "unilateralist".  If he was truly being multilateralist he would not attack UNLESS the UN said ok.  Merely asking them and not accepting the answer isn't multilateralist.  That the UK went along isn't really multilateralist either, they are our closest ally, to be multilateralist one must have a broad spectrum.  This was a UK-US deal with only bribed support (which was discribed in 2B)

2E...not heard that one

2F.  I'll propose an alternative, you don't bomb the country and kill all sorts of people.  You lift the embargo and use humanitarian aid to help Iraqis while using weapons inspectors to disarm Iraq.  Perhaps you assassinate Saddam.  I've seen no real sign that the war has done anything that "begins an oasis of democracy in the tyranny-ridden Middle East, and fights terrorism where it lives and breeds"

3A...this is completely his opinion and a weak argument.  Just because he doesn't consider the UN a good place to justify a war doesn't take away that it is THE place to justify a war.

3B...such a reliable souce that it beats the republican drum by calling Germany and France old Europe.  That they are taking the pro-war side in fighting the anti-war side ruins their credibility as simply a source trying to be anti-anti-war.

Also, the US props up many countries that are dangers to the world, this is hardly exclusive to France and Germany.  Plus as the US is one country of nearly 200, it NEEDS to have its powers restrained.  Democracy doesn't like absolute power.

3C.  And lets not give into American patriotic arrogance that we are right.  There may not have been protests in Afghanistan (probably because it isn't safe enough yet because we've failed to rebuild it), but there were protests in every corner of the Earth against this War...North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia/Oceana, and while not its own continent, the middle East.  That only half of one countries population supported it goes far beyond mass psychology to common sense.  And since Saddam has been gone, indication is that Iraqis are far from happy about the Americans.  So no, simply writing off the mass protests as uninformed is ludicrious.

4A.  Haven't heard many saying this because most people against a war with Iraq wouldn't like one in N.Korea either.

4B.  The information connecting Iraq to terrorism is weak compared to many other nations.  If Iraq really is part of the War of Terror, it is poorly choosen.  And that we can handle two conflicts at once doesn't justify doing so.

5A. We should let terrorists control foreign policy if the terrorists have a point and the policy is actually flawed.  By diving head first into reinforcing the flaws, we WILL encourage more terrorism.  Terrorism doesn't have a face and can't be killed.  To try to fight it only adds fuel to the fire.  It is absurd to think we can win against terrorism.

5B.  Once again, I've never heard anyone say this

5C.  That was a weak argument...saying, but sometimes it doesn't.  War has very rarely brought lasting peace and sparks various other violence.  A few exceptions hardly weaken the anti-war argument.

5D. A weak argument.  He says that it is to send a message and that Iraq is arbitrarily picked among all the others that the message would apply to.

6A.  Ah, here is the real bullshit.  He mentions that to this day Saddam seeks nuclear weaponry.  He points out the aluminum tubes.  The same aluminum tubes that weapons inspectors said were not proper for the purpose but rather for ordinary weaponry.  The writer seems to buy the same shady or forged intelligence as the President did.  Shoddy intelligence isn't a good counter to the claim.  And by all accounts, Saddam was handcuffed by the inspectors.

7A.  Heh, this is funny, he says that today's government does not have the same people that supported Saddam.  The problem is, it has nearly the exact cast that supported Saddam from the past Republican administrations.  The writer does make a good point that being inconsistent from past to present isn't a big deal but...

7B.  When the inconsistentcy is from country to country, it is a big deal.

7C. Convinience doesn't excuse hypocricy.  There is also no strong reason why lacking of a democracy is a reason to fight a war.

8A. In hindsight they sure don't like the price they are paying.

8B. This has shown to be a bad argument, but that is mainly because Saddam doesn't seem to have any WMD.  If he did it would be a valid argument.  It is the reason we don't mess with N. Korea.  The threat of having a war is greater than not having it.  This argument would have been proper for Iraq if they had WMD.

i hope you copy and pasted that or else you spent waaaaaaaaaaay to much time writing all that.
mooooooooo

I'm on my month long summer vacation, I've got time to spare.

Cookie I did read them. I didn't bother to respond because most of them aren't really worth contesting on any sort of factual basis. The person who wrote them simply has a different philosophy the process and outcomes of our international politics should be. From what I could see, he pretty much talked the Wolfowitz neocon line all the way down. I don't really have anything else to say to people who believe these things, I have argued it countless times, and I'm just tired of it.

kami... you best not say anything i might find contrary to my own beliefs, i'll come downstairs and give you that hairstyle i promised  ;D