Time For Some Heated Debate
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» OMGSTFUDIEPLZKTX replied on Fri Jan 24, 2003 @ 3:14am |
 Coolness: 66655 | WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With apparent division growing among the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the Bush administration asserted Thursday that it would have international support if it opts to use force to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
This first paragraph sums up the entire situation. The US and Britain are dividing the world on an overrated situation that is creating so much harm it is unbelievable. So lets look at the facts: Bush Sr, while head of the CIA, funded Saddam Hussein to take over Iraq so that his military prowess prevents Iran, an anti-US country, from taking over Iraq. But over the years, Iraq focused their attention on chemical and biological weapons, then proceeded to take over Kuwait for their oil. The US, now under the control of Bush Sr. attacks Iraq to cover up his own mistake. Iraq surrenders and the UN creates a resolution (re: terms of surrender) that Iraq must follow, otherwise they are forfieting their surrender. Iraq did violate those conditions, plain and simple. Bill Clinton did nothing about it really, came close to a Gulf War II, but it didn't happen because Bill Clinton was smart. Iraq was still violating the UN resolution though. Bush Jr, the dictator of democracy is now in control. He is pushing for war as fast and as furious as possible because of oil. The US needs that oil to strengthen their battered economy. He brings it to the UN, UN creates new resolution. Iraq complies. Nobody has found anything yet except for some empty warheads that COULD be used for chemical weapons. The US, with it's superior intelligence and logic, claims that this is proof Iraq is hiding its weapons and that Saddam must disarm himself. The major powers in Europe are against war, Russia is against War, China is against War, Canada seems to be against war, but Jean Chretien isn't exactly known to be a man with straight answers. Australia, Britain (the US puppet), and Italy are in favor of military action with or without UN approval. Israel supports war also, but says it will defend itself with or without US approval, the arab community as usuall is completely divided over the situation but Saudi Arabia, the most influential arab nation doesn't want war either. So what do you think? To bomb or not to bomb? To invade or not to invade? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» clown replied on Fri Jan 24, 2003 @ 9:55am |
 Coolness: 221905 | The Us should bomb themselves for selling weapons too the entire world, then for telling there own population that other contries are a threat.
IRAK HAS DEADLY WEAPONS.. my fucken nuts.. the US has nukes.. Irony: only the US has used weapons of mass distruction in war but nobody wants to disarm them. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PitaGore replied on Fri Jan 24, 2003 @ 11:34am |
 Coolness: 471945 | Poor Arabs !! I'm on their side ....all invented by the us for economic reasons...
Hope the us empire will fuckin' crash badly soon ! Babylon will fall.... Well, i hope so ....... Frosty the Snowman |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Jan 24, 2003 @ 12:40pm |
 Coolness: 339805 | i want the middle east to dissapear, then the simpsons wont be interrupted by news flashes "This just in! someone bombed someone else in the middle east!.. blah blah blah" who cares.
they can bomb emselves to hell for all i care. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PitaGore replied on Fri Jan 24, 2003 @ 12:47pm |
| Coolness: 471945 | I don't agree [ .Us ] should fuckin' get bombed and destroyed...
Then maybe things could get better on earth in terms of social equalitym,economics and fuckin' CONSCIOUSNESS !!!! U.S. is everyone's worst enemy and nobody knows about it... Damn !! Frosty Ganjaman |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Jan 24, 2003 @ 12:49pm |
| Coolness: 339805 | heh i dunno bout that.
should the US go away you'll suddenly find that there's another country that'll take over.. russia maybe? china? who knows, but killing off the Us isn't thw answer.. getting em to change their fucked up ways, maybe. (trust me, being under china or russia's rule would be far worse) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PitaGore replied on Fri Jan 24, 2003 @ 1:07pm |
| Coolness: 471945 | Ya right .
Us or some other country... Many shit goin' on anyways .... Jah Rastafari |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Fri Jan 24, 2003 @ 2:32pm |
 Coolness: 685730 | Assasinate the president and assimilate the US into canada so that we can teach those idiots how to live their lives properly. (We can also try and teach them that sex with your sister is bad)
And I think that yeah, the middle east is a problem. Even if the US wasn't around, all that ever happens in the ME is wars. People killing each other over religion, over who was where first, etc. They're nothing but a bumch of shit disturbers right along with bush. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Jan 24, 2003 @ 5:24pm |
| Coolness: 339805 | well you know..
everyone's got a god to kill for.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Fri Jan 24, 2003 @ 7:05pm |
| Coolness: 148955 | I think that the US, first and foremost, along with Italy, Britain, Australia, and Isreal, should be sanctioned by the UN if they attack without a UN resolution. I know there's not much that the UN can do to them, being developed countries with strong economies, but something must prevent them from starting an unfounded war against Iraq. The US are very stupid when it comes to removing dictators from power. The US usually put them into power... the irony is delicious. If the US attacks Iraq without proof of Iraq holding any weapons of mass destruction, then they are fools, and should somehow be penalized; embargos, sanctions, tarriffs, wahtever. The world should not sit idly by while the US bullies whomever it wants. That happened before, anyone remember the 1930s? When a poor painter from Austria decided he wanted to bully the world?
Ok, Bush is not Hitler, I would even think of saying that, Hitler at least had the intelligence to formulate a semi-valid reasoning for his actions. The US have no proof, no valid motive, and no clear reasoning behind why Iraq "is a threat to national security." I think the US should pay for all the grievances it has caused most of the world's nations. They are not the police, but the entire world community is too afraid to tell them so. Who's gonna beat the US if the whole world goes into a full-blown war against it? Nobody. That's who. The US will blow up the world 6 times over and then nobody will be left to reap the benefits of the US's justice. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Jan 24, 2003 @ 7:14pm |
| Coolness: 339805 | you can beat the US..
how did russia lose to the US? it ran out of cash.. kill the US's economy.. and they're fuct. nukes or not they wont be able to win.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Fri Jan 24, 2003 @ 7:21pm |
| Coolness: 148955 | im not so sure...
if the entire planet was against the US, they wouldnt feat pressing that red button to nuke the world, especially not Georges W. "I snort coke" Bush in the oval office... and if they had allies, (which they obviously would) it would make it harder still.. the only way out of all this i think isd the same way Russia was beat (not only economically), by putting so much pressure on the US, be it through economic means or any other that won't be cause for war. Russia didn't only lose because it ran out of money, the US and the world convinced their people that their government was poor. ANd to do that to the US would be VERY difficult to say the least. Russians were smart and educated, it was simple enough to prove to them that communism wasn't working, now, try to show the stupid americans that their government is wrong... That's gonna be tough. "Duh, my sister's hot. I'm gonna ask for her hand in marriage!" 'Nough said. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ontheroadagain replied on Fri Jan 24, 2003 @ 11:14pm |
 Coolness: 54475 | Gee Dubya is a fucking goof
If US economy suffers, so does ours Middle East = religious gang bangers Everyone is killing in the name of god....why doesn't anyone kill in the name of satan? Personally, "satan's on our side" sounds cooler and scarier.... Why are tons of people dying every day for either religious beliefs or money? Why does the US keep lending money to someone to buy a car and then carjack them? Fuck war....lets have an orgy! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sat Jan 25, 2003 @ 2:27am |
| Coolness: 339805 | people will never stop killing in gods name until people stop teaching their kids about god.
funny thing is.. if it weren't for the fact that parents teach their kids about god.. NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE IN HIM...... thinma bout it.. if someone had not already told you about the idea of god.. would you have thought of it up on your own?? and even if you did, would you not have immediatly dismissed it once someone mocked your insane idea? really tho.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Sat Jan 25, 2003 @ 4:25am |
| Coolness: 685730 | Exactly why I am against religion. All it does is brainwash people. Just because you read something in a book that a lot of people happen to believe it, does not make it true. If people were never told that there was a god, you would not find him on your own. If we were not told that sex is bad unless you're 18+. we'd be having sex when our body dictates the time is right (aka. at the onset of puberty) If it weren't for people preaching and looking for cause to rebel and apear "holier than thou art", no one would go agains the natural omnivorous human instincts and they'd actually eat meat AS WELL AS vegetables and dairy product to be properly balanced dietarily. Just because it's in a book and people teach that it's healthy doesn't mean that it is; just the same as a priest telling you there is a god because his book says it is and this was written from people "talking with god and his son" (the equivalent to "research" in this case) does not make it true, and it does not make it fact.
Gullibility is the worst thing the human race has to deal with. I'd take murderers over people who get easily swayed by the first thing someone tells them is a "good idea" because they have "proof" that everyone else is living and believing "wrong". |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Sat Jan 25, 2003 @ 9:56am |
| Coolness: 148955 | listen... i believe in god... do you think im easily swayed or would kill in his name?
no... people who do so are dumb because NO religion says taht killing will make you closer to god... (no not even the Jyhad)... if i want to believe that there's something more to this life later on when im dead, thats my choice... (and as for the whole thing you said about eating meat, which was off topic but anyway, humans wouldnt eat meat if we werent intelligent. humans would die if they ate raw meat, the only reason we eat it is becaue we're smart and discovered fire... and our intelligence also made us try and undersatnd deeper ideas, like: Why are we here? and Where did we come from?) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sat Jan 25, 2003 @ 1:57pm |
| Coolness: 339805 | can you say that you'd've come up with the idea of god had someone never taught you about it..? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Sat Jan 25, 2003 @ 3:13pm |
| Coolness: 148955 | given enough time, yes
"if God didnt exist, we'd make him up anyway" (i forget who said that) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Sat Jan 25, 2003 @ 3:17pm |
| Coolness: 339805 | and anyone who did make him up would be viewed as the Raelians are today... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Sat Jan 25, 2003 @ 3:22pm |
| Coolness: 148955 | i dont think so...
do people view christians like the raelians? no, because if someone did just "Think him up " like i said, then they would be viewed like the raelians... but theyre not, so you just proved that no one just thought him up! so how is it that we believe in him? he must exist then... someone must have had intangible proof at some point or another in the history of man |
Time For Some Heated Debate
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
