PDA

View Full Version : Ww3?


egyptiangal
08-09-06, 00:14
so any comments? Do you think it's here? :(

Captain Mazda
08-09-06, 00:18
WW3 as in World War III?

It will certainly take place depending on how many more countries Israel and US attempt to destroy.

Rivendell
08-09-06, 00:21
Ditto the above!

It's disaterously on the verge at the moment, if anyone else gets involved.. it'll kick off big time. I imagine with the technology available today it won't last that long though.

:(

StarCroft:AOD
08-09-06, 00:25
If not here, is close then... :(

egyptiangal
08-09-06, 00:27
It's disaterously on the verge at the moment, if anyone else gets involved.. it'll kick off big time. I imagine with the technology available today it won't last that long though.

:(

you're probably right rivendell.. btw, I love your avatar! go TR and X files! :D

i'm not sure of what captian mazda says.. I really dont believe that the US is destroying any country but think what you want i guess.

GodOfLight
08-09-06, 00:28
well, the republican party has always passionatley loved war. if you want to fight a war, then leave it up to the republicans :rolleyes:

and who knows... perhaps some day history books will term this as being WWIII...

egyptiangal
08-09-06, 00:28
WW3 as in World War III?
.

yes i meant World War III:p

egyptiangal
08-09-06, 00:32
well, the republican party has always passionatley loved war. if you want to fight a war, then leave it up to the republicans :rolleyes:

and who knows... perhaps some day history books will term this as being WWIII...

GOL, whoever loves wars passionately has a problem. I think it's just a coincidence that wars have started when republican leaders were in office... i mean, take Sept. 11th for example, it would have happened even if a democrat was in office.

DREWY
08-09-06, 00:33
http://bestsmileys.com/army/1.gif
This must be some holiday you are planning if you think it will cause this!
http://bestsmileys.com/army/5.gif

Unfortunately it's only a matter of time. I think wars should be held between world leaders. If they thought they personally may get hurt they might change their line of thinking.

Or Set them some challenges, like on Survivor even http://bestsmileys.com/tvshows/2.gif Would save lives. Imagine O'Samah bin Ladin and George bush on a balance beam? Who falls off first http://www.getmesmileys.com/smilies/0bIDtlroflF.gif

GodOfLight
08-09-06, 00:35
GOL, whoever loves wars passionately has a problem. I think it's just a coincidence that wars have started when republican leaders were in office... i mean, take Sept. 11th for example, it would have happened even if a democrat was in office.

no, i don't think a war would have occured with a democrat in the office. the american democrats are usually not big on war and try to keep it at bay as long as possible.

please note, i am not saying which is in my opinion a 'good' thing, or a 'bad' thing.

egyptiangal
08-09-06, 00:39
if the pres. was a democrat, do u think that we would have done nothing then after people attacked us and killed more people than pearl harbor?

note: i'm not arguing GOL, I'm just wanting others views. ;)

GodOfLight
08-09-06, 00:52
if the pres. was a democrat, do u think that we would have done nothing then after people attacked us and killed more people than pearl harbor?

note: i'm not arguing GOL, I'm just wanting others views. ;)

pay close attention to your word choice ;)

you ask me if i think a democratic president would have done nothing. Now, nothing would imply that one ceases to exist :p

i don't think he would have done nothing. i do think that he would not have gone to war. but taking action in a situation does not neccesarily mean going to war.

imo bush's mistake was 1) going against the UN and 2) the fact that both france and germany were right: there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq. and now bush is rampaging through country by country looking for these illusive mystical weapons of mass destruction....

i personally do not agree with this war. that doesnt mean i dont agree with some wars. yet this war is a complete joke, and on top of that all of america is being seen as a big joke by the rest of the world.

i also don't think that a democratic president would have adopted the both close-minded and primitive concept of "you're either with us or against us."

egyptiangal
08-09-06, 01:16
haha GOL if we're going to get technical here what I meant to say was: "do you think that the pres, if he was a democrat, would have not gone to war."
imo, republican or democrat, i think we'd be in war no matter. i think the war would have had a different plot line if we had a democrat in office. I really dont know my views on this war but I will say to hell terrorists and to hell with Saddam. Now, who ever isnt happy about Saddam Hussein out of power is pretty dumb and sick. He did some very awful things so that's one thing im happy about that happened in this war.

Captain Mazda
08-09-06, 01:31
http://bestsmileys.com/army/1.gif
This must be some holiday you are planning if you think it will cause this!
http://bestsmileys.com/army/5.gif

Unfortunately it's only a matter of time. I think wars should be held between world leaders. If they thought they personally may get hurt they might change their line of thinking.

Or Set them some challenges, like on Survivor even http://bestsmileys.com/tvshows/2.gif Would save lives. Imagine O'Samah bin Ladin and George bush on a balance beam? Who falls off first http://www.getmesmileys.com/smilies/0bIDtlroflF.gif

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said there shouldn't be any bloodshed from civilians in answer to Israel and USA's threats for war. He said he would gladly fight Bush one-on-one with rifles in a desert to see who will come out on top. Ape didn't answer as Dick Cheney hadn't planned any scripts for him.

egyptiangal
08-09-06, 01:44
. Ape didn't answer as Dick Cheney hadn't planned any scripts for him.

i must admit... that's kind of funny :p

i almost cant wait for 2008 to get here so we can get a new president mainly b/c i just feel bad for the guy.. most everyone dislikes him and the US is going down because of it...hopefully the next president is not some mega libralistic person that will let people do whatever they want. :o

DREWY
08-09-06, 01:54
It may have sounded flippant when I wrote this but if wars were fought as a duel between the leaders involved it would save a lot of bloodshed. Soon work out how keen they were to fight if there was a chance of dying.

Captain Mazda
08-09-06, 02:01
Erasmus was the one who said "War is enjoyable for those who have not experienced it". Sure makes you think the current state of the neo-con, neo-fascist Zionists.

Flipper1987
08-09-06, 02:36
WW3 as in World War III?

It will certainly take place depending on how many more countries Israel and US attempt to destroy.

That statement is so idiotic and ignorant that I don't even know where to begin.

FLIPPER

Captain Mazda
08-09-06, 02:46
Perhaps you'd like to explain your reasoning. Not saying there is any to begin with otherwise :/

Flipper1987
08-09-06, 02:54
well, the republican party has always passionatley loved war. if you want to fight a war, then leave it up to the republicans :rolleyes:

Really? Let's review with some basic U.S. history.

2003 - Operation Iraqi Freedom - George W. Bush (R) - a controversial war indeed, especially for those who think that Saddam wasn't a threat at all to anybody.

2001 - Afghanistan invasion - George W. Bush (R) - on the heels of 9/11 I might add.

1991 - Operation Desert Storm - George H.W. Bush (R) - that pesky Saddam :)

Now if world history had started in 1990, then GodOfLight might have a point; however, since world history started long before 1990, we must plod onwards.

1964 - Gulf of Tonkin resolution = massive escalation & involvement of US forces in South Vietnam - Lyndon B. Johnson (D). Both Eisenhower (R) and Kennedy (D) sent military advisors to assist S. Vietnam but the war escalated under Johnson. Nixon (R) inherited this war in 1969, escalated it, and then helped to end it and bring troops home.

1950 - Korean War - Harry Truman (D)

1945 - Cold War - started under Truman (D)

1941 - U.S. involvement in WWII - Franklin Roosevelt (D) - who secretly built up U.S. forces before Pearl Harbor

1917 - WWI - Woodrow Wilson (D)

And that's just the 20th century. Now don't get me wrong...I'm not crass enough to blame those Democratic presidents for the war. I'm sure if a Republican was president during these critical events in world history, he would probably have followed the same path; however, to carelessly announce that the Republican Party "has always passionately loved war" is a highly-inaccurate statement.

FLIPPER

GodOfLight
08-09-06, 02:56
go back to playing with your dolphins :wve:

war has always brought money in for the country, and republicans have always been about money.

has anyone ever considered that i may actually be a republican? :whi:

Captain Mazda
08-09-06, 03:13
Actually now it's international paychecks that are paying for America's war expenses because of its insurmountable debt.

Mr.Burns
08-09-06, 03:16
anyone in power who has the opportunity to make money will most likely take it, regardless of political affiliation. It's the most basic of instincts: greed. I don't like the idea that we as a society (world as a whole) still end up resorting to military conflicts to solve disputes, however in our current state of social evolution I'm sad to say it is still necessary. Regardless of who was in office at the time of the 9/11 attacks, the US would still have engaged in military actions against the taliban.

Now with Iraq: should Saddam have been removed? yes. A major flaw in the Pentagon's plans was not setting up a proper occupation with the intention to rebuild and stabilize the country, which is partly the reason we're still there. The US gov't has unfortunately adopted the "cowboy diplomacy" which has made us more enemies and ****ed off pretty much all of our allies. Unfortunately, the political situation over here is abit screwed up. On one hand, you have a country sharply divided over the direction of the war, economy and the effectiveness of our Congress. On the otherhand, come election time, odds are, even if the there's a severe negative sentiment amongst the majority of the US population, I'd be surprised if there was a major turnout at the polls. It's a historical fact that the US has had consistantly low turnout rates at elections.

Now on a side note but not entirely unrelated: who here feels that 9/11 was either an inside job or that the US gov't knew what was going on and allowed it to happen? before some of you start going at me for this, just so you know since there isn't enough facts, I'm not saying that thats what I think but I won't dismiss it either as a possibility.

Flipper1987
08-09-06, 03:28
Perhaps you'd like to explain your reasoning. Not saying there is any to begin with otherwise :/

And with that smart-ass, smarmy comment you expect a serious response? Well I'll give you one even though you don't deserve it.

First of all, was there any actual "reasoning" used behind your bigoted anti-American and anti-Semitic statement? Neo-fascist Zionists? My God, how did you get your hands on Hezbollah's talking points? Who died and made you a government official in Iran?

Second, your completely asinine suggestion that the US and Israel "destroy" nations is the classic dictionary definition of arrogant ignorance.

Obviously you are basing your initial statement (about the US) on the Iraq War, which you obviously oppose. This may be a minor point but the US is not "destroying" Iraq...that would be the terrorists and insurgents (who abhor the idea of Iraq becoming a democracy) that are attempting to undermine Iraq. In fact the US has spent billions rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and military. Try to get this straight: the US wants Iraq's new democracy to succeed. The vast majority of Iraqis want their new democratic government to succeed. Al-Qaeda and blood-thirsty insurgents don't want Iraq to become democratic. Now which side are you on exactly?

But let's say for argument's sake that the US is purposely trying to destroy Iraq and US soldiers are ruthlessly car bombing innocent Iraqi civilians (ugh). What other nations did the US supposedly "destroy" exactly? Hmmm? Feel free to go to the Internet to answer this one. I'm sure the wacko left-wing websites will give you an answer you want to hear (or read).

Now to Israel. "Destroyed" Lebanon did they? Yeah, Israel sent a strong message to the Lebanese government to get their act together and actually disarm Hezbollah (after all a 2004 UN resolution ordered them to do so). Of course the vast majority of damage inflicted in Lebanon was on Hezbollah's infrastructure. Yes, roads, bridges, and airport runways were bombed and this caused major headaches for the civilians, but all that was chiefly done to prevent the wonderful countries of Syria and Iran from resupplying Hezbollah. Now you can quibble about whether Israel's reaction was too severe, but to suggest that Israel "destroyed" Lebanon is a gross-exagerration at best.

BTW, what other countries did Israel supposedly "destroy?"

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
08-09-06, 03:29
go back to playing with your dolphins :wve:

Heh heh :)

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
08-09-06, 03:33
Actually now it's international paychecks that are paying for America's war expenses because of its insurmountable debt.

What?

FLIPPER

Mr.Burns
08-09-06, 03:37
Try to get this straight: the US wants Iraq's new democracy to succeed. The vast majority of Iraqis want their new democratic government to succeed. Al-Qaeda and blood-thirsty insurgents don't want Iraq to become democratic. Now which side are you on exactly?



Now to Israel. "Destroyed" Lebanon did they? Yeah, Israel sent a strong message to the Lebanese government to get their act together and actually disarm Hezbollah (after all a 2004 UN resolution ordered them to do so). Of course the vast majority of damage inflicted in Lebanon was on Hezbollah's infrastructure. Yes, roads, bridges, and airport runways were bombed and this caused major headaches for the civilians, but all that was chiefly done to prevent the wonderful countries of Syria and Iran from resupplying Hezbollah. Now you can quibble about whether Israel's reaction was too severe, but to suggest that Israel "destroyed" Lebanon is a gross-exaggerration at best.

BTW, what other countries did Israel supposedly "destroy?"

FLIPPER


The US gov't and more importantly the Iraqi people NEED this to work. I'm totally with you FLIPPER. As I said earlier, I think it was a bad idea to go into Iraq without a full strategy planned out but we're there and we can't leave. It'd be the same as giving into terrorist which we actually would be.

Flipper1987
08-09-06, 03:39
The US gov't and more importantly the Iraqi people NEED this to work. I'm totally with you FLIPPER. As I said earlier, I think it was a bad idea to go into Iraq without a full strategy planned out but we're there and we can't leave. It'd be the same as giving into terrorist which we actually would be.

I agree.

FLIPPER

scoopy_loopy
08-09-06, 04:18
In my opinion WW3 has already started and still continues, its just not really a big deal, because it isnt in the western world like the previous ones.

B-thoven66
08-09-06, 05:16
Try to get this straight: the US wants Iraq's new democracy to succeed.
I don't buy it. US troops wouldn't be there if Iraq wasn't a major oil-producer country. It's all about money. Big money.
Second, I'm not sure about Iraq citizens really want a democracy. They're a different culture. Maybe they want to live their lives as they like, with or without democracy. And IMO, try to impose some culture's polithics above another culture is a huge mistake.
Down here in Argentina, we had 7 years of the most bloody dictatorship you can think of (Saddam would pale in comparison), and the US (democrats or republicans) never gave a dime about it. Of course, this little country isn't a heavy oil-producer...
Think about it. Or think about Stroessner (Paraguay) and Pinochet (Chile) tyrannies as well.

Captain Mazda
08-09-06, 05:32
I don't buy it. US troops wouldn't be there if Iraq wasn't a major oil-producer country. It's all about money. Big money.
Second, I'm not sure about Iraq citizens really want a democracy. They're a different culture. Maybe they want to live their lives as they like, with or without democracy. And IMO, try to impose some culture's polithics above another culture is a huge mistake.
Down here in Argentina, we had 7 years of the most bloody dictatorship you can think of (Saddam would pale in comparison), and the US (democrats or republicans) never gave a dime about it. Of course, this little country isn't a heavy oil-producer...
Think about it. Or think about Stroessner (Paraguay) and Pinochet (Chile) tyrannies as well.

This should jostle your memory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guAcGOTaIts

Oh, and these are the kind of people who really should determine the fate of nations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnTn6_ExVK0

Flipper1987
08-09-06, 14:45
I don't buy it. US troops wouldn't be there if Iraq wasn't a major oil-producer country. It's all about money. Big money.

Then what the heck is the US doing in Afghanistan? How much oil does that country produce?

Second, I'm not sure about Iraq citizens really want a democracy. They're a different culture. Maybe they want to live their lives as they like, with or without democracy.

Perhaps you missed the three elections last year where millions upon millions of Iraqis braved threats to their own lives to go out to vote. Remember the purple fingers?

Down here in Argentina, we had 7 years of the most bloody dictatorship you can think of (Saddam would pale in comparison), and the US (democrats or republicans) never gave a dime about it. Of course, this little country isn't a heavy oil-producer...

So if the US got involved in your country's political affairs would that have made you happy, or would you have complained about American imperialism?

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
08-09-06, 14:48
This should jostle your memory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guAcGOTaIts

Pure propaganda tripe.

Oh, and these are the kind of people who really should determine the fate of nations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnTn6_ExVK0

Ah yes, this tired, old clip. With all due respect Mazda, those people look a whole lot smarter than you based on the comments that you have made in this thread. At least they answer questions directly posed to them.

FLIPPER

Rickéh
08-09-06, 14:53
I hope not, but if it comes then do it when im dead :o
Im just not thinking about it, To those people who are in Iraq: Get a life :)

Edit: (The millitary)

Jamie18
08-09-06, 15:40
WW3 was the Cold War :wve:

We just didn't have that many casualties in our countries and therefore didn't give it as grand a title as the first two.

Captain Mazda
08-09-06, 15:49
I hope not, but if it comes then do it when im dead :o
Im just not thinking about it, To those people who are in Iraq: Get a life :)

Edit: (The millitary)

Yes, the general archetype to getting a life includes a house and a family. Now accomplish that with a murdered family and a house bombed to ashes.

Captain Mazda
08-09-06, 15:51
Flipper, I don't think a redneck such as yourself should even be permitted the use of the word "propaganda". I'll answer your half-assed "counterattacks" later today as I have more important things to accomplish other than holding your hand.

Mr.Burns
08-09-06, 15:52
the Cold War wasn't a global war. It was a term to define the period of increased tensions between the USA and the USSR. Granted, it almost turned into a real world war on a few occasions. If anything this "war on terror" would be more closely regarded as a world war since it has a large number of nations involved in it to some degree or another.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Cold+War&x=0&y=0

cold war 
1. intense economic, political, military, and ideological rivalry between nations, short of military conflict; sustained hostile political policies and an atmosphere of strain between opposed countries.

Rickéh
08-09-06, 16:00
Yes, the general archetype to getting a life includes a house and a family. Now accomplish that with a murdered family and a house bombed to ashes.


Oh well, the millitary guys shouldnt go there then, or they should not do that job.

Flipper1987
08-09-06, 16:09
Flipper, I don't think a redneck such as yourself should even be permitted the use of the word "propaganda". I'll answer your half-assed "counterattacks" later today as I have more important things to accomplish other than holding your hand.

Redneck? Hmmm, I'll gladly compare my educational and cultural experience to yours.

But since you are now resorting to name-calling (one of the first tell-tale signs that you are losing an argument - or you simply don't have one), I was just curious, what do you call someone who makes outrageous and intellectually-indefensible statements (such as: America and Israel "destroy" countries) and then lacks the backbone to back it up? You've had ample opportunity to answer my simple, straight-forward questions so I'm not buying your excuse that you have other "important things" to do.

If you are going to make offensive, bigoted remarks, don't be surprised when someone actually calls you out on them. And it might be a good idea to back up you statements with facts instead of snotty, immature comments.

FLIPPER

Rickéh
08-09-06, 16:10
Oh please :rolleyes:
A whole thread about Ww3?
If it DOES happen, well it does just dont think about it it ruined my whole day :o

Captain Mazda
08-09-06, 16:15
Redneck? Hmmm, I'll gladly compare my educational and cultural experience to yours.

But since you are now resorting to name-calling (one of the first tell-tale signs that you are losing an argument - or you simply don't have one), I was just curious, what do you call someone who makes outrageous and intellectually-indefensible statements (such as: America and Israel "destroy" countries) and then lacks the backbone to back it up? You've had ample opportunity to answer my simple, straight-forward questions so I'm not buying your excuse that you have other "important things" to do.

If you are going to make offensive, bigoted remarks, don't be surprised when someone actually calls you out on them. And it might be a good idea to back up you statements with facts instead of snotty, immature comments.

FLIPPER

I can tell I've upset you. That's good.

Rivendell
08-09-06, 16:22
Oh please :rolleyes:
A whole thread about Ww3?
If it DOES happen, well it does just dont think about it it ruined my whole day :o

My God I know what you mean, it's just not in the same league as something as serious as the new Christina Aguilera album now is it? :(

Mr.Burns
08-09-06, 16:23
I can tell I've upset you. That's good.


soooo, apparently you enjoy goading people? there's a term for a person who does that on forums, its called, TROLL. Seriously, what's the point of trying to anger a person into an online shouting match when all we're trying to do is have a civilized descussion here?

Flipper1987
08-09-06, 16:24
I can tell I've upset you. That's good.

Uh no but nice try.

Rickéh
08-09-06, 16:26
My God I know what you mean, it's just not in the same league as something as serious as the new Christina Aguilera album now is it? :(

Whatever.

Paul H
08-09-06, 16:30
well, the republican party has always passionatley loved war. if you want to fight a war, then leave it up to the republicans :rolleyes:


The Democrats were no better. Remember Kosovo?

K.J
08-09-06, 16:30
My God I know what you mean, it's just not in the same league as something as serious as the new Christina Aguilera album now is it? :(

:vlol: So true. Who cares about our planets future? Not me. The only thing that's in my mind is Christina Aguileras new album.

Paul H
08-09-06, 16:32
WW3 as in World War III?

It will certainly take place depending on how many more countries Israel and US attempt to destroy.

Absolutely right. Very well put.

Rickéh
08-09-06, 16:32
Oh so, i dont care about it? Well i do but what can i do it about it then.
Jeez :rolleyes:

Edit: And you dont have anything else to say but Christina Aguilera's new album?
Oh no because im just a fan, Im sorry :o
Im not like everyone else who likes Rock music.
And what has christina aguilera to do with this? :confused:

Jamie18
08-09-06, 16:43
the Cold War wasn't a global war. It was a term to define the period of increased tensions between the USA and the USSR. Granted, it almost turned into a real world war on a few occasions. If anything this "war on terror" would be more closely regarded as a world war since it has a large number of nations involved in it to some degree or another.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Cold+War&x=0&y=0

cold war 
1. intense economic, political, military, and ideological rivalry between nations, short of military conflict; sustained hostile political policies and an atmosphere of strain between opposed countries.

Yeah, there was no direct military conflict between the USA and the USSR, but the situation resulted in civil wars and conflicts across the globe, including proxy wars between the Superpowers.

Angelx14
08-09-06, 16:44
:vlol: So true. Who cares about our planets future? Not me. The only thing that's in my mind is Christina Aguileras new album.
That's not funny. We all have some obsessions, like you, about wombles..<__< but his obsession is about Christina..

But anyway, I think he's right. Why we need to talk about it before time? What can we do, if it really will happen? We are just mortal ppl, who have no ability to help save our crazy world from destruction..(dan't blame me, just saying :o)
Soon or late it will happen, and we can't do anything with that.

Rickéh
08-09-06, 16:49
That's not funny. We all have some obsessions, like you, about wombles..<__< but his obsession is about Christina..

But anyway, I think he's right. Why we need to talk about it before time? What can we do, if it really will happen? We are just mortal ppl, who have no ability to help save our crazy world from destruction..(dan't blame me, just saying :o)
Soon or late it will happen, and we can't do anything with that.

Exactly, but i will shut my mouth now because im 'just a fan of christina aguilera' and that is probaly bad if i answer to these threads :).

GodOfLight
08-09-06, 16:56
an interesting point i would like to make:

isn't george bush a devout christian? yes. and he has now turned the republican party - which used to be centered more around national pride for ones country - into something which is specifically centered around extreme christianity. i know many republicans who are not christian and hate this new stance, and i know many christians who are democrats and hate being seen as bush followers simply because of their religion.

furthermore, isn't it in christianity that we hear jesus telling people to "turn the other cheek" ? when an enemy strikes you, turn the other cheek... this idea is based around forgiveness and letting go of hatred and animosty. i'm not saying i myself believe in turning the other cheek (i think it is unnatural to human nature), but i do think it is quite funny that bush and his followers who say they adhere to the christian religion of turning the other cheek in the way jesus did, are entirely driven by revenge now... from death penalities to bombing other countries to proove their strength. some food for though :wve:

Jamie18
08-09-06, 17:10
Regarding this particular 'conflict' - it already involves an incredible number of countries when you factor in all the countries that have been attacked and all the countries that have sent troops to various parts of the war, but that's also a given in the modern [small] world.

The big issue with this war is that the sides are blurry - there's not really concrete 'sides' - and it's not as simple as a country against another country.

Certainly, the board is set for some sort of major global conflict, with the existing war on terrorism, being involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the constant issue of the existance of Israel and the countries that involves, North Korea and Iran being worrying, even Taiwan's potential for major conflict, and just the overall clash of ideologies that exists even inside Britain, as well as across the world, but I wouldn't get too stressed out about it just yet.

This is never going to be a clear-cut war and one of the most worrying things is, like I said, it's being fought inside our country as well with the widening gap between Muslims and non-Muslims and extreme Muslims and moderate ones - it's almost like a global civil war of ideologies.

I know 'World War 3' has been thrown around a bit, even by the US President, and recently the words 'Nazi', 'Hitler' and 'fascism' are increasingly being brought up to trump up the seriousness of this current issue by comparing it to World War 2, but I honestly wouldn't be worrying about things like that (as a citizen) right at the minute. I realise it's like one thing after another in the five years since 9/11 and it can be a little distressing to people, but we're not in complete crisis territory just yet.

Obviously the ball game changes a little if a nuclear weapon is used against anyone, and that's not exactly unimaginable. During the Cold War, this was avoided because of Mutual Assured Destruction, i.e. nobody wanted to attack the other side with a nuclear weapon, because they would retaliate and everyone would be in a very bad situation. This just wouldn't be a part of the equation if a bomb fell into the hands of a terrorist organisation.

Mr.Burns
08-09-06, 17:20
Yeah, there was no direct military conflict between the USA and the USSR, but the situation resulted in civil wars and conflicts across the globe, including proxy wars between the Superpowers.


Very true. But when you think about it, when has there been a time in human history when there wasn't small to medium wars going on somewhere in the world? I'm not saying the cold war didn't cause any fallout in other countries, that's far from the truth. I just feel that a "world war" would, to a certain extent, be defined as a major military conflict involving two or more "superpowers" with far-reaching and immediate consequences for most of the planet. Of course this war on terrorism I still think is a world war in terms of scope. I don't think we can really put a proper definition on the term world war other than a war of some form that has far-reaching effects all over the world. Wait a sec, I think I might have just contradicted myself. dang it :hea:

Lonely Istari
08-09-06, 17:38
and i know many christians who are democrats and hate being seen as bush followers simply because of their religion.


I'm sorry but that is bull. Being a Christian has nothing to do with following George Bush.

Jamie18
08-09-06, 17:40
Very true. But when you think about it, when has there been a time in human history when there wasn't small to medium wars going on somewhere in the world?

Well, that's a good point as well - and it's also slightly comforting in a twisted way.

Like what I'm saying in my last post - I know sometimes it can seem like everything is piling up and it's just one nightmare after another, but when you think about it - the world has never really been at peace, and although you can join the dots sometimes to make the bigger picture (WW2 can be traced back to WW1, the Cold War stemmed from WW2 and this current war on terrorism has roots in the Cold War), it's really a fact of living on this planet - we in the West have just been lucky that our countries have been relatively peaceful (at home) for half a century.

I know a lot of people are worried about our stability now after all that's gone on since 9/11, and those worries have merit, but we're still living in relative peace and comfort and I don't think it's panic stations just yet.

It was a bit misleading of me to call the Cold War WW3, because, like you say, there is no concrete definition and it's all up for debate - I think it might be better to just say that this is the 4th global conflict since 1914 even though there are no solid boundaries for any of it - you can't really mark out a time and say 'this part is WW1 and nothing outside of it is, this is WW2, this is the third one and this is the fourth one' because like I said, they're all connected, and thousands of other things are connected to it to. It's all a bit contrived really to put labels on it like that, and the reason I brought up the Cold War is because we tend to ignore how devastating that period of time was in the world (I was shocked to find out there were a similar number of deaths due to conflict in the second half of the 20th century as the first) because it didn't really affect us, and we're the history writers.

I mean, there have been devastating and horrific wars and conflicts and disasters going on in Africa and we don't really pay much attention to them overall because they don't concern us in the same way.

If we're talking WW3, personally I would be more concerned about the Taiwan issue and China's growth as a superpower/the relationship with the US and EU - there are crazy people out there, like we see in North Korea and Iran, but I wouldn't regard them as a threat in the same way the Axis were during WW2.

But like I said earlier, there are a lot of players lined up on the table now, all across the world, and it might only take a little spark to ignite that all, as people feared with the recent conflict in the Middle East.

Paul H
08-09-06, 17:58
an interesting point i would like to make:

isn't george bush a devout christian?
No, he isn't. It's all an act; a charade to win votes and support from gullible American Christians.

If Bush is such a devout Christian, what is he doing participating in devil worship rituals at this place (http://www.lonelantern.org/bohemian_grove.html)?

And it's not just Bush - most of his close colleagues go there too. Every Republican president since Calvin Coolidge, and some Democrat presidents, have attended Bohemian Grove.

Read about what those people get up to when they think nobody is watching, and then ponder the question: Are they really suitable people to be running the world's most powerful nation? Are these really the kind of people whose fingers should be on the nuclear button?

Mr.Burns
08-09-06, 18:09
No, he isn't. It's all an act; a charade to win votes and support from gullible American Christians.

That's politics. Do what you can to get the voters

If Bush is such a devout Christian, what is he doing participating in devil worship rituals at this place (http://www.lonelantern.org/bohemian_grove.html)?

And it's not just Bush - most of his close colleagues go there too.

:vlol:

Captain Mazda
08-09-06, 18:43
And with that smart-ass, smarmy comment you expect a serious response? Well I'll give you one even though you don't deserve it.

First of all, was there any actual "reasoning" used behind your bigoted anti-American and anti-Semitic statement? Neo-fascist Zionists? My God, how did you get your hands on Hezbollah's talking points? Who died and made you a government official in Iran?

Second, your completely asinine suggestion that the US and Israel "destroy" nations is the classic dictionary definition of arrogant ignorance.

Obviously you are basing your initial statement (about the US) on the Iraq War, which you obviously oppose. This may be a minor point but the US is not "destroying" Iraq...that would be the terrorists and insurgents (who abhor the idea of Iraq becoming a democracy) that are attempting to undermine Iraq. In fact the US has spent billions rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and military. Try to get this straight: the US wants Iraq's new democracy to succeed. The vast majority of Iraqis want their new democratic government to succeed. Al-Qaeda and blood-thirsty insurgents don't want Iraq to become democratic. Now which side are you on exactly?

But let's say for argument's sake that the US is purposely trying to destroy Iraq and US soldiers are ruthlessly car bombing innocent Iraqi civilians (ugh). What other nations did the US supposedly "destroy" exactly? Hmmm? Feel free to go to the Internet to answer this one. I'm sure the wacko left-wing websites will give you an answer you want to hear (or read).

Now to Israel. "Destroyed" Lebanon did they? Yeah, Israel sent a strong message to the Lebanese government to get their act together and actually disarm Hezbollah (after all a 2004 UN resolution ordered them to do so). Of course the vast majority of damage inflicted in Lebanon was on Hezbollah's infrastructure. Yes, roads, bridges, and airport runways were bombed and this caused major headaches for the civilians, but all that was chiefly done to prevent the wonderful countries of Syria and Iran from resupplying Hezbollah. Now you can quibble about whether Israel's reaction was too severe, but to suggest that Israel "destroyed" Lebanon is a gross-exagerration at best.

BTW, what other countries did Israel supposedly "destroy?"

FLIPPER

A little prologue if I may:

http://mostlywater.org/node/7104

Now, let's dissect CNN channeling through you.


"Second, your completely asinine suggestion that the US and Israel "destroy" nations is the classic dictionary definition of arrogant ignorance."


USA:

February 1945 - Berlin was carpet bombed and over 25,000 civilians were murdered. No military or strategic hardpoints were targeted.

August 1945 - Forgot about those little things known as atomic bombs destroying Japan's largest cities at the time? Thought so.

Vietnam, Bosnia and most of the Yugoslavian and Slavic area, Iraq, and Afghanistan come to mind.

Israel:

Palestine, Lebanon would be the first to note, although Israelis had their asses handed out to them in Lebanon.

An interesting quote I picked up, The report says the Israeli military assumes "that every Palestinian is a potential suicide bomber and every home a potential base for attack."

There we go! Every Palestinian is a suicide bomber and must be murdered this instant. So you defend the people who say this?

Might want to lay your eyes on this as well:

http://theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1193

Then again, this is just a seed in the bun that becomes the innocent families who have had their houses stormed by US marines and commandos and have had their 2-yr old daughters raped and shot in the head. Entire families have been found by their neighbours, rotten, bound, gagged, shot in their homes, often after their house was burnt down.

Something interesting for you:

Over the weekend, it was announced that the American military dropped a 500 pound bomb on the wrong house, killing the family inside. What caught my attention was the half-apology that came out of the mouth of the military’s spokesman du jour: He said that the United States “deeply regrets the loss of possibly innocent lives”.

Possibly innocent lives? Here was a family in their own home, minding its own business when a foreign army came along and drops a 500 pound bomb on them. The best that the American military can do is say that these people were possibly innocent?

Here within the borders of the Homeland, we assume that if people are in their own home, and there’s no evidence against them, they are innocent - period. If their homes are attacked, we don’t call their innocence into question.

The implicit suggestion in the American statement was, of course, that the family in that house was possibly guilty. Guilty of what?

14 people total were killed by that 500 pound American bomb, and 7 of them were children. What does the American military suggest that those 7 children were guilty of? The only possible way that those 7 children could have been possibly guilty is if we accept that it is now a crime simply to be an Iraqi.

Now let's look at it this way, has the United States ever been under clear attack from another country? Have Americans ever had their homes destroyed from thousands of kilometers away from the the index finger of an obese warmonger pressing a button? Have American families ever had their houses raided by these so-called "terrorists" and then proceeded to rape and shoot them? This applies to Israel as well.

Paul H
08-09-06, 19:25
A little prologue if I may:

http://mostlywater.org/node/7104

Now, let's dissect CNN channeling through you.


"Second, your completely asinine suggestion that the US and Israel "destroy" nations is the classic dictionary definition of arrogant ignorance."


USA:

February 1945 - Berlin was carpet bombed and over 25,000 civilians were murdered. No military or strategic hardpoints were targeted.

August 1945 - Forgot about those little things known as atomic bombs destroying Japan's largest cities at the time? Thought so.

Vietnam, Bosnia and most of the Yugoslavian and Slavic area, Iraq, and Afghanistan come to mind.

Israel:

Palestine, Lebanon would be the first to note, although Israelis had their asses handed out to them in Lebanon.

An interesting quote I picked up, The report says the Israeli military assumes "that every Palestinian is a potential suicide bomber and every home a potential base for attack."

There we go! Every Palestinian is a suicide bomber and must be murdered this instant. So you defend the people who say this?

Might want to lay your eyes on this as well:

http://theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1193

Then again, this is just a seed in the bun that becomes the innocent families who have had their houses stormed by US marines and commandos and have had their 2-yr old daughters raped and shot in the head. Entire families have been found by their neighbours, rotten, bound, gagged, shot in their homes, often after their house was burnt down.

Something interesting for you:

Over the weekend, it was announced that the American military dropped a 500 pound bomb on the wrong house, killing the family inside. What caught my attention was the half-apology that came out of the mouth of the military’s spokesman du jour: He said that the United States “deeply regrets the loss of possibly innocent lives”.

Possibly innocent lives? Here was a family in their own home, minding its own business when a foreign army came along and drops a 500 pound bomb on them. The best that the American military can do is say that these people were possibly innocent?

Here within the borders of the Homeland, we assume that if people are in their own home, and there’s no evidence against them, they are innocent - period. If their homes are attacked, we don’t call their innocence into question.

The implicit suggestion in the American statement was, of course, that the family in that house was possibly guilty. Guilty of what?

14 people total were killed by that 500 pound American bomb, and 7 of them were children. What does the American military suggest that those 7 children were guilty of? The only possible way that those 7 children could have been possibly guilty is if we accept that it is now a crime simply to be an Iraqi.

Now let's look at it this way, has the United States ever been under clear attack from another country? Have Americans ever had their homes destroyed from thousands of kilometers away from the the index finger of an obese warmonger pressing a button? Have American families ever had their houses raided by these so-called "terrorists" and then proceeded to rape and shoot them? This applies to Israel as well.
Excellent post.:tmb:

jarhead
08-09-06, 19:45
Excellent post.:tmb:

ditto, i have to agree that america has done some attracious things that cannot be justified for, and when they apologise they cant even do it properly.

Flipper1987
08-09-06, 20:21
A little prologue if I may:

http://mostlywater.org/node/7104

You can't use a grossly partisan website as a source for an objective discussion. Usually when an article refers to Israel as a "Zionist State," it is clearly not objective and has an agenda. In fact the only groups that refer to Israel in this manner are Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and other unapologetic anti-semities.

Now, let's dissect CNN channeling through you.

What does that mean? CNN is a liberal news organization that I occassionally watch and have been critical of in the past; however, in its defense, it doesn't ask it's viewers to donate $ to them like mostlywater/resist does. Usually responsible news organizations don't ask for funds.


"Second, your completely asinine suggestion that the US and Israel "destroy" nations is the classic dictionary definition of arrogant ignorance."


USA:

February 1945 - Berlin was carpet bombed and over 25,000 civilians were murdered. No military or strategic hardpoints were targeted.

I don't know about the 25K figure but yes all German cities were bombed during WWII. By Feb. 1945, Allied forces had penetrated deep into Nazi Germany and were closing in on Hitler in Berlin. Hitler refused to surrender and really didn't care how many German civilians died at this point (he was recruiting children to confront the Red Army). Bombers continued to bomb but they targeted the German factories, roads, and troops around the city. Of course missle technology with pinpoint accuracy was non-existent at the time so civilians were often casualties as well. And of course intense bombing runs were conducted by the Allies in hopes that the German civilian population would get fed up and put pressure on (or overthrow) the Nazi regime to end the war. This tactic was also used by Hitler during Operation Sealion (the Blitz) in 1940 when the German Luftwaffe relentlessly bombed British cities.

Of course who rebuilt Germany after WWII after Hitler and the Nazi regime was deposed? Who stood up and defended West Germany and Western Europe against the USSR? Who created the Marshall Plan that rebuilt the economies of Europe after WWII? Oh yeah, that would be the Allies led by the US and Britain.

August 1945 - Forgot about those little things known as atomic bombs destroying Japan's largest cities at the time? Thought so.

Once again this occurred during wartime when Allied forces were closing in on Japan's four main islands. The Allies demanded that Japan surrender but they had no intention of doing so. That meant a full-scale invasion of Japan would have to be conducted. Military experts at the time predicted massive casualties for the Allies (military - about 250K to 500K) and Japan (civilians - predicted in the millions). Drop two bombs, apprx. 200K died as a result, and Japan finally surrendered w/out anymore Allied casualties. In fact, historians argue that the atomic bombs actually saved more lives; an invasion would have been horrific.

And just for your consumption, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were medium-sized cities and NOT Japan's largest cities. The Allies could have easily dropped a bomb on Japan's largest city of Tokyo but didn't.

And btw, who rebuilt Japan and transformed it into a successful democratic and capitalistic state? The US.

Vietnam, Bosnia and most of the Yugoslavian and Slavic area, Iraq, and Afghanistan come to mind.

Vietnam: they were targeting North Vietnamese troops, the VietCong, and the VietMinh. Of course civilians died because the VietCong hid among them like Hezbollah did in Lebanon. And of course there were atrocities committed by individual soldiers and units on both sides

Bosnia: the US under Clinton reluctantly joined NATO in going after Milosivic (Blair was largely responsible for persuading him), and of course they were targeting military targets. Civilian deaths occurred but they were unintentional. If you think you can fight a war and have 0 civilian casualties, then you are incredibly naive.

Afghanistan: this occurred shortly after 9/11 and coalition troops were going after Al-Qaeda & the Taliban, NOT the civilians. Now Afghanistan is a rebuilding democracy. Guess who's supporting that?

Iraq: this was already addressed in a previous post.

The fact that all of this has to be explained to you reveals your appaling lack of historic knowledge.

Israel:

Palestine, Lebanon would be the first to note, although Israelis had their asses handed out to them in Lebanon.

Spoken like a true Hezbollah spokesman.

An interesting quote I picked up, The report says the Israeli military assumes "that every Palestinian is a potential suicide bomber and every home a potential base for attack."

There we go! Every Palestinian is a suicide bomber and must be murdered this instant. So you defend the people who say this?

Once again you don't provide any context to this quote. Did this report occur during the 32-day war against Hezbollah and Hamas? I hardly think that this would have been forwarded during peacetime. Providing a link would be helpful.

Might want to lay your eyes on this as well:

http://theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1193

Then again, this is just a seed in the bun that becomes the innocent families who have had their houses stormed by US marines and commandos and have had their 2-yr old daughters raped and shot in the head. Entire families have been found by their neighbours, rotten, bound, gagged, shot in their homes, often after their house was burnt down.

Something interesting for you:

Over the weekend, it was announced that the American military dropped a 500 pound bomb on the wrong house, killing the family inside. What caught my attention was the half-apology that came out of the mouth of the military’s spokesman du jour: He said that the United States “deeply regrets the loss of possibly innocent lives”.

Possibly innocent lives? Here was a family in their own home, minding its own business when a foreign army came along and drops a 500 pound bomb on them. The best that the American military can do is say that these people were possibly innocent?

Here within the borders of the Homeland, we assume that if people are in their own home, and there’s no evidence against them, they are innocent - period. If their homes are attacked, we don’t call their innocence into question.

The implicit suggestion in the American statement was, of course, that the family in that house was possibly guilty. Guilty of what?

14 people total were killed by that 500 pound American bomb, and 7 of them were children. What does the American military suggest that those 7 children were guilty of? The only possible way that those 7 children could have been possibly guilty is if we accept that it is now a crime simply to be an Iraqi.

Now let's look at it this way, has the United States ever been under clear attack from another country? Have Americans ever had their homes destroyed from thousands of kilometers away from the the index finger of an obese warmonger pressing a button? Have American families ever had their houses raided by these so-called "terrorists" and then proceeded to rape and shoot them? This applies to Israel as well.

Where did you cut and paste this tirade from? I know you didn't type it yourself.

Anyway, this is a typical tactic used by anti-American bigots: take unfortunate, isolated incidents conducted by US military personnel (during the fog of war) and proclaim that it's indicative of the entire US armed forces. Racists in U.S. history used this same tactic when it came to blacks: if a black male raped a woman or stole from someone,then all black males were rapists and/or robbers.

Another tactic used by these same bigots is to completely ignore the horrific atrocities perpetrated by terrorists, insurgents, and dictatorial regimes who use civilians as human shields. No no, we can't criticize murderous terrorists; it's best that we ignore their heinous actions and focus our seething, screeching hatred towards those (coalition military personnel) who are actually trying to round up/kill these murderous terrorists and bring democracy and freedom to areas that have only know the boot heel of vicious tyranny.

I'm hardly suggesting that the US is perfect but they aren't the Great Satan that you portray them to be.

So am I still a redneck?

FLIPPER

Hurrah4Lara
08-09-06, 20:37
Erasmus was the one who said "War is enjoyable for those who have not experienced it".

Evening all:D.

Cool quote, friend - I hadn't heard it before. A very interesting thread - our Boss is away so I may speak frankly. If this is WW3 I think it is the "Opening" if it were Chess:hug:. At this point the game may be resigned, drawn, or completed. The decision requires supreme finesse and judgement, and the Lightweights in control on all sides have not read their history books:hea:. Just one example: Afghanistan has another name. It is called the Graveyard of Empires.:yik:

Here's one in return:

I do not know which weapons World War Three will be fought with, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones.:yik:

H4L:wve: [Jessika]

Flipper1987
08-09-06, 20:38
I have a little test for you Mazda that might help you develop a much broader perspective than the "I hate America" paradigm that you are currently employing.

I would like for you to say one negative thing about the following:

1. Hezbollah

2. Saddam Hussein

3. Osama Bin Laden

4. Al Qaeda

5. Iran's president Mamoud Ahmadinejad

6. Foreign terrorists and insurgents in Iraq

The reason I'm asking this is because I have never seen you say anything critical about them. I just want to see if you have the ability to criticize other entities beside the US and Israel.

But if it makes you feel uncomfortable I understand.

FLIPPER

GodOfLight
08-09-06, 20:39
I'm sorry but that is bull. Being a Christian has nothing to do with following George Bush.

of course it doesnt, and of course it's bull ****. but that's the way it is today in many ways. dont ask me :p i'm not the christian who was upset by it. and besides, that wasn't the point i was adressing :ton:

No, he isn't. It's all an act; a charade to win votes and support from gullible American Christians.

If Bush is such a devout Christian, what is he doing participating in devil worship rituals at this place (http://www.lonelantern.org/bohemian_grove.html)?

And it's not just Bush - most of his close colleagues go there too. Every Republican president since Calvin Coolidge, and some Democrat presidents, have attended Bohemian Grove.

Read about what those people get up to when they think nobody is watching, and then ponder the question: Are they really suitable people to be running the world's most powerful nation? Are these really the kind of people whose fingers should be on the nuclear button?


yes... yes... all the concpiracy theories are a different story :tea: it is believed bush is a member of the freemasons and more specifically "skull and bones".... however, this is more like an american tradition for presidents and on top of that they aren't "devil worshippers" as you put it.

Paul H
08-09-06, 21:08
yes... yes... all the concpiracy theories are a different story
Bohemian Grove has nothing to do with any conspiracy theory. Those pictures of Bush and his father at Bohemian Grove are from an official Bohemian Club publication. The Bohemian Club openly admit that the "Creation of Care" ritual takes place at their meetings. Nobody from Bohemian Grove has ever questioned the authenticity of the video that was secretly taken of the rituals.

So where is the "theory"?

it is believed bush is a member of the freemasons and more specifically "skull and bones"....
Bush's Skull & Bones membership is not just something that is "believed". He admitted it during a TV interview. See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY-0OMAqNqI

however, this is more like an american tradition for presidents and on top of that they aren't "devil worshippers" as you put it.

Then what word would you use to describe the deity Molech? That is whom their giant owl represents, and the "Creation of Care" ritual they perform is based upon the child sacrifice rituals described in Old Testament references to children being burned alive as offerings to Molech.

Hardly a Christian tradition, is it?

Captain Mazda
08-09-06, 21:13
I have a little test for you Mazda that might help you develop a much broader perspective than the "I hate America" paradigm that you are currently employing.

I would like for you to say one negative thing about the following:

1. Hezbollah

2. Saddam Hussein

3. Osama Bin Laden

4. Al Qaeda

5. Iran's president Mamoud Ahmadinejad

6. Foreign terrorists and insurgents in Iraq

The reason I'm asking this is because I have never seen you say anything critical about them. I just want to see if you have the ability to criticize other entities beside the US and Israel.

But if it makes you feel uncomfortable I understand.

FLIPPER

1. They're able to oppose Israel's iron fist over the Middle East. I don't have anything negative to say about Hezbollah. While I disagree with religion, I certainly don't disagree with their freedom fighting.

2. Worked hand-in-hand with the CIA, one filthy *******. Killed many innocent Iranians in 1983 with US weapons.

3. Another CIA operative supposedly still stationed in Afghanistan but could be just enjoying a Long Island iced tea with Jeb down in Palm Springs.

4. Of course the US needed to establish the "catalyst", otherwise they'd have even less ground to attack Afghanistan. More CIA operatives.

5. How would you like me to describe Ahmadinejad? Through standard Western propaganda or an intellectual way?

6. Insurgents? You mean the people who drive back the warmachine that rolls over their houses? I fully defend them. "Foreign terrorists" or cleverly staged CIA events?

GodOfLight
08-09-06, 21:22
Bohemian Grove has nothing to do with any conspiracy theory. Those pictures of Bush and his father at Bohemian Grove are from an official Bohemian Club publication. The Bohemian Club openly admit that the "Creation of Care" ritual takes place at their meetings. Nobody from Bohemian Grove has ever questioned the authenticity of the video that was secretly taken of the rituals.

So where is the "theory"?


Bush's Skull & Bones membership is not just something that is "believed". He admitted it during a TV interview. See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY-0OMAqNqI



Then what word would you use to describe the deity Molech? That is whom their giant owl represents, and the "Creation of Care" ritual they perform is based upon the child sacrifice rituals described in Old Testament references to children being burned alive as offerings to Molech.

Hardly a Christian tradition, is it?

i agree with everything you said ;) i never said i didnt agree.. i said it is a different story, a story which i myself have looked into a lot and know a lot about due to my own 'religious' interests. wether bush is christian deep down or not doesnt matter. the point is that he is pressing christian morals onto the country which isn't exactly appealing to everyone.

tampi
08-09-06, 21:29
WOW :eek:

How many names and words!
In next December, we will be 6,500 million.
6.500 million ways to think
In cresçendo

And this only counting the humans.
If we consider some animals and plants whose I.C is similar to the human :tea:
Tranquillity
Take it easy :)

egyptiangal
08-09-06, 21:41
i didn't make this thread to bring anger towards fellow raiders. it was simply just a question of World War 3: do u think it's here or is it to come?

i guess i should have known that this thread would cause some troubles. my apologies. :hug: :hug:

tampi
08-09-06, 21:53
i didn't make this thread to bring anger towards fellow raiders. it was simply just a question of World War 3: do u think it's here or is it to come?

i guess i should have known that this thread would cause some troubles. my apologies. :hug: :hug:


What do I think?
This is a great anthill, and the antennas move very quickly.
I don't want a WW3, unless it's a new security system for the cars.
sorry

Paul H
08-09-06, 22:05
i agree with everything you said ;) i never said i didnt agree.. i said it is a different story, a story which i myself have looked into a lot and know a lot about due to my own 'religious' interests. wether bush is christian deep down or not doesnt matter.
The reason I think it matters is because he is clearly lying about being a Christian. He is pretending to be something he is not for purely political/electoral purposes.

I read the thread in which you explained your own religious leanings and I found it interesting. You are totally honest and open about what you believe in that regard, whereas Bush isn't. My point isn't that Bush shouldn't be allowed to worship this Molech character or even that he should be attacked for doing so, but that he shouldn't be allowed to get away with hiding his real religious leanings and with pretending to be some born again Christian just to ingratiate himself with a sizeable section of the electorate. How many of these American Christians know what goes on at Bohemian Grove? And why is that figure so low? Why won’t the mainstream media talk about it?

the point is that he is pressing christian morals onto the country which isn't exactly appealing to everyone.
I agree, but again he doesn’t really believe the things he is saying, and if these Christian voters actually took the trouble to check out how his rhetoric is totally at odds with his actions and record, they wouldn’t dream of voting for him. For example, one of the reasons many Christians voted for Bush the last time was because they perceived him to be against abortion. Yet the record shows that the number of abortions in America were actually higher under Bush than under Clinton.

http://www.publicchristian.com/wp-print.php?p=17

So all Bush has to do is make speeches claiming to be a committed Christian who is against abortion, and presto: he gets the Christian vote. The fact that he actually worships not the Christian god but some other god/devil called Molech, and causes abortions to rise, completely escapes the attention of those Christian voters. So just how stupid are those people?

B-thoven66
08-09-06, 23:03
i didn't make this thread to bring anger towards fellow raiders. it was simply just a question of World War 3: do u think it's here or is it to come?
i guess i should have known that this thread would cause some troubles. my apologies. :hug: :hug:
You're absolutely right. With the attitude shown by some of the arguists (dunno if that word even exists, sorry), there's no doubt WW3 is clearly inminent.
Avoiding WW3 will be a hard introspective work, I guess.

Flipper1987
08-09-06, 23:35
I have a little test for you Mazda that might help you develop a much broader perspective than the "I hate America" paradigm that you are currently employing.

I would like for you to say one negative thing about the following:

1. Hezbollah

2. Saddam Hussein

3. Osama Bin Laden

4. Al Qaeda

5. Iran's president Mamoud Ahmadinejad

6. Foreign terrorists and insurgents in Iraq

1. They're able to oppose Israel's iron fist over the Middle East. I don't have anything negative to say about Hezbollah. While I disagree with religion, I certainly don't disagree with their freedom fighting.

2. Worked hand-in-hand with the CIA, one filthy *******. Killed many innocent Iranians in 1983 with US weapons.

3. Another CIA operative supposedly still stationed in Afghanistan but could be just enjoying a Long Island iced tea with Jeb down in Palm Springs.

4. Of course the US needed to establish the "catalyst", otherwise they'd have even less ground to attack Afghanistan. More CIA operatives.

5. How would you like me to describe Ahmadinejad? Through standard Western propaganda or an intellectual way?

6. Insurgents? You mean the people who drive back the warmachine that rolls over their houses? I fully defend them. "Foreign terrorists" or cleverly staged CIA events?

Just as I suspected. There are mountains of atrocities that you could have picked for any of these subjects but you take the predictable "I hate America" and "I hate Israel" tact. Thanks for proving my point that you are incapable of any objective reasoning and enslaved to your irrational hatreds. Terrorists would absolutely love you because you give them comfort and reassurance, you serve as an unwitting mouthpiece for them in the West, and your breath-taking ignorance will make it easier for them to kill you when the time comes. Bravo! :)

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
08-09-06, 23:36
i didn't make this thread to bring anger towards fellow raiders. it was simply just a question of World War 3: do u think it's here or is it to come?

It's not your fault. :) All it takes is for one person to make an offensive comment to get the hive swarming.

FLIPPER

Captain Mazda
08-09-06, 23:57
It's not your fault. :) All it takes is for one person to make an offensive comment to get the hive swarming.

FLIPPER

That's funny, last I checked people able to think for themselves were agreeing with my statements. Now crawl back to your Foxhole.

Pun intended.

Flipper1987
09-09-06, 00:35
That's funny, last I checked people able to think for themselves were agreeing with my statements. Now crawl back to your Foxhole.

Pun intended.

Uh, what pun? A fox would not crawl BACK to his/her foxhole...he would most likely trot back. Now he may have to crawl to get INTO the foxhole but he wouldn't expose himself to predators by slowly crawling BACK to it.

Back to your main point of all these hordes of people agreeing with you. Let's see...a grand total of TWO people agreed with you (one who is 15 and the other who always criticizes Bush and the US). Whoop-de-friggin-do! Hardly a resounding chorus of legitimate support (btw who says their approval of your non-sensical ramblings = you being right?).

But buck up little camper. If Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Mamoud Ahmadinejad were able to log onto this website, I'm sure they would agree with you too (a grand total of 5...wow!).

Here's hoping you can build on your fanboi club. :)

FLIPPER - who clearly thinks for himself & doesn't need to cut & paste to formulate my arguments. :)

Captain Mazda
09-09-06, 01:46
You dumb ****stick, I copied that from an online news article, hence the god damn bold font. I wouldn't know whether you'd manage clicking a link or not so cut down on your bull**** and we'll talk.

Hey, I owe myself $5. I believed you'd understand the bit about the "Foxhole". Fox News ring any freedom bells for ya? Back up into your trailer and get back to whittling. It's incredible how skidmarks such as yourself are able to find an internet connection.

Melonie Tomb Raider
09-09-06, 01:58
Great points Flip. :tmb:

K.J
09-09-06, 02:02
Can I ask a short off topic question?
Thank you very much.
Do people think George W. Bush should say "God bless everyone" instead of "God bless America" when he ends his speaks?

TRhistorian
09-09-06, 02:17
If WW3 occurs, theres a strong chance we wont be here any longer. The worlds nuclear weapons are far too powerful, we would just end up destroying this world over a simple thing like money or who has power over what.

Theyre all tyrants.

GodOfLight
09-09-06, 02:52
Can I ask a short off topic question?
Thank you very much.
Do people think George W. Bush should say "God bless everyone" instead of "God bless America" when he ends his speaks?

yes of course. but america is a country centered around excessive nationalism and fascism now, so i don't really expect this any time soon :wve:

Captain Mazda
09-09-06, 03:11
Indeed.

And really now, would someone who plots attacks against his own country truly mean it if he "blessed" it?

Flipper1987
09-09-06, 04:24
Can I ask a short off topic question?
Thank you very much.
Do people think George W. Bush should say "God bless everyone" instead of "God bless America" when he ends his speaks?

Since Bush is usually addressing Americans in his speeches, it shouldn't be a surprise that he ends his speeches that way. I'm sure he uses a different send-off line when he speaks to foreign audiences.

but america is a country centered around excessive nationalism and fascism now, so i don't really expect this any time soon

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Presidents have been ending their speeches like that for decades if not centuries. Was Clinton being fascist when he ended his speeches that way? Saying "God Bless America" hardly qualifies you as excessively nationalistic. :)

FLIPPER

Lord Icon
09-09-06, 04:33
Can I ask a short off topic question?
Thank you very much.
Do people think George W. Bush should say "God bless everyone" instead of "God bless America" when he ends his speaks?

He's the president of US so why he would say "God bless everyone" when he addresses his countrymen??? It's like British say "God save the Queen"... why they don't say "God save everyone"???

yes of course. but america is a country centered around excessive nationalism and fascism now, so i don't really expect this any time soon :wve:

I guess UK is "a country centered around excessive nationalism and fascism" as well, right? Besides if you don't like where you live either try to change it for better or move somewhere else instead of criticizing without contributing anything. It's easy to criticize it's not so easy to try and fix it.

Flipper1987
09-09-06, 04:57
You dumb ****stick, I copied that from an online news article, hence the god damn bold font.

Wow, kiss your mom with that septum tank that you call your pie hole? Just a recommendation for the future: when you post something from an article, it's a good idea to actually say it's from an article (which you didn't do). Putting it in bold letters means nothing. People on this forum usually put words in bold for emphasis, not when they are taking excerpts from an outside source (italics are usually reserved for that).

Also if you are going to use profanity, put spaces in-between the letters; however, persistent use of profanity is usually a glaring sign of intellectual weakness so try to expand your vocabulary and improve you puerile prose style in order to get your "points" across.

I wouldn't know whether you'd manage clicking a link or not so cut down on your bull**** and we'll talk.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You posted links before but now you think I wouldn't be able to handle it? That's a pretty weak argument.

As for "bull****" you took the cake with your pathetic "criticisms" about Osama, Saddam, etc... By the way, when someone poses a viewpoint that you oppose and then properly chastises you for your lack of intellectual and objective integrity, that tain't BS.

Hey, I owe myself $5. I believed you'd understand the bit about the "Foxhole".

Oh, so you meant the "military foxhole." My mistake. Of course some words have multiple meanings. Sorry that I can't read your mind.

Fox News ring any freedom bells for ya?

Hmmm, another cryptic reference to another news channel. Don't forget MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and your all-time favorite: Al-Jazeera. :)

Back up into your trailer and get back to whittling. It's incredible how skidmarks such as yourself are able to find an internet connection.

Wow, isn't it amazing the depths that insecure people will descend to once their personal opinions are challenged? Trailer? Whittling? Skidmarks? I'm surprised you didn't bring the subjects of incest or bestiality into your immature rant. You passed up a golden opportunity to incorporate those. I wonder what literary lows you'll resort to next.

FLIPPER - eagerly awaiting Mazda's next literary abomination.

Flipper1987
09-09-06, 05:00
Do people think George W. Bush should say "God bless everyone" instead of "God bless America" when he ends his speaks?

yes of course. but america is a country centered around excessive nationalism and fascism now, so i don't really expect this any time soon

Indeed.

And really now, would someone who plots attacks against his own country truly mean it if he "blessed" it?

Ah yes, the popular conspiracy theory of the day with the lunatic kook fringe. I'm just curious, did Bush plan the 9/11 attacks before or after the phony Jewish Holocaust and the fake moon landing?

FLIPPER

Lord Icon
09-09-06, 05:02
i didn't make this thread to bring anger towards fellow raiders. it was simply just a question of World War 3: do u think it's here or is it to come?

i guess i should have known that this thread would cause some troubles. my apologies. :hug: :hug:

It's not your fault. That happens when you have people that can't read or understand what the subject of a thread is. The "older" guys that knew something about history and politics and could hold an intelligent conversation without putting down others to make them feel better don't even come here anymore. Why? Because many members here are ignorrant and arrogant and haven't lived long enough to know anything.

But to answer your original question... WW3 is a possibility mostly because the planet is overpopulated and it's running out of recourses. Eventually there will be wars for recourses like drinking water. The instinct of self preservation will take over.

Flipper1987
09-09-06, 05:04
Great points Flip. :tmb:

Thank you :)

FLIPPER

egyptiangal
09-09-06, 05:30
I

But to answer your original question... WW3 is a possibility mostly because the planet is overpopulated and it's running out of recourses. Eventually there will be wars for recourses like drinking water. The instinct of self preservation will take over.


:( water hopefully will not be the case for a long time!! :hug:

Melonie Tomb Raider
09-09-06, 05:39
But to answer your original question... WW3 is a possibility mostly because the planet is overpopulated and it's running out of recourses. Eventually there will be wars for recourses like drinking water. The instinct of self preservation will take over.

To be honest, I don't see it coming to that. I feel as if our world will end before we have to worry about recourses.

I believe in what the Bible says about the end times and everything though, and that's a whole other topic in itself.

egyptiangal
09-09-06, 05:43
To be honest, I don't see it coming to that. I feel as if our world will end before we have to worry about recourses.

I believe in what the Bible says about the end times and everything though, and that's a whole other topic in itself.

i agree mel, we almost always agree on everything :)

Captain Mazda
09-09-06, 05:44
Thank you :)

FLIPPER

Take a bow son.

egyptiangal
09-09-06, 05:47
Really? Let's review with some basic U.S. history.

2003 - Operation Iraqi Freedom - George W. Bush (R) - a controversial war indeed, especially for those who think that Saddam wasn't a threat at all to anybody.

2001 - Afghanistan invasion - George W. Bush (R) - on the heels of 9/11 I might add.

1991 - Operation Desert Storm - George H.W. Bush (R) - that pesky Saddam :)

Now if world history had started in 1990, then GodOfLight might have a point; however, since world history started long before 1990, we must plod onwards.

1964 - Gulf of Tonkin resolution = massive escalation & involvement of US forces in South Vietnam - Lyndon B. Johnson (D). Both Eisenhower (R) and Kennedy (D) sent military advisors to assist S. Vietnam but the war escalated under Johnson. Nixon (R) inherited this war in 1969, escalated it, and then helped to end it and bring troops home.

1950 - Korean War - Harry Truman (D)

1945 - Cold War - started under Truman (D)

1941 - U.S. involvement in WWII - Franklin Roosevelt (D) - who secretly built up U.S. forces before Pearl Harbor

1917 - WWI - Woodrow Wilson (D)

And that's just the 20th century. Now don't get me wrong...I'm not crass enough to blame those Democratic presidents for the war. I'm sure if a Republican was president during these critical events in world history, he would probably have followed the same path; however, to carelessly announce that the Republican Party "has always passionately loved war" is a highly-inaccurate statement.

FLIPPER

flipper i wanted to give you props after this but i forgot!! Nice work! :hug:

GodOfLight
09-09-06, 05:48
Ah yes, the popular conspiracy theory of the day with the lunatic kook fringe. I'm just curious, did Bush plan the 9/11 attacks before or after the phony Jewish Holocaust and the fake moon landing?

FLIPPER

you took my entire statement about fascism out of context :tea: i mentioned nothing about conspiracy theories in that post. and in the post in which i did mention the conspiracy theories i merely mentioned that the theories exist :tea:

Flipper1987
09-09-06, 05:49
i didn't make this thread to bring anger towards fellow raiders.

It's not your fault. That happens when you have people that can't read or understand what the subject of a thread is. The "older" guys that knew something about history and politics and could hold an intelligent conversation without putting down others to make them feel better don't even come here anymore. Why? Because many members here are ignorrant and arrogant and haven't lived long enough to know anything.

Amen to that :)

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
09-09-06, 05:52
you took my entire statement about fascism out of context :tea: i mentioned nothing about conspiracy theories in that post. and in the post in which i did mention the conspiracy theories i merely mentioned that the theories exist :tea:

The dig at conspiracy theories was not directed at you GodOfLight...it was directed towards Mazda. :) I included your posts to give readers an understanding of how the dialogue evolved.

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
09-09-06, 05:53
flipper i wanted to give you props after this but i forgot!! Nice work! :hug:

Thank you...you are too kind. :) :hug:

FLIPPER

Melonie Tomb Raider
09-09-06, 05:55
i agree mel, we almost always agree on everything :)

We sure do! :D :hug:

flipper i wanted to give you props after this but i forgot!! Nice work! :hug:

Yes, flipper definitely deserves props! :D I've run into this thread pretty late, so I feel like I have a lot of catching up to do with reading up on everything. If I would have caught on earlier I'd be posting right along with Flipper. Not that he needs help though, but he definitely has my support though. :)

Neteru
09-09-06, 05:57
:rolleyes: Oh enough with the childish bickering, name calling and infantile insinuations!

Flipper1987
09-09-06, 05:58
We sure do! :D :hug:



Yes, flipper definitely deserves props! :D I've run into this thread pretty late, so I feel like I have a lot of catching up to do with reading up on everything. If I would have caught on earlier I'd be posting right along with Flipper. Not that he needs help though, but he definitely has my support though. :)

Thanks Mel! :hug:

FLIPPER

Melonie Tomb Raider
09-09-06, 06:00
You're welcome! :hug: :D

Captain Mazda
09-09-06, 07:54
What? This suddenly turned into the "Love Boat". Back on topic, people.

Melonie Tomb Raider
09-09-06, 10:33
What's wrong Mazda? You want a hug too? :p

Paul H
09-09-06, 15:02
Then what the heck is the US doing in Afghanistan? How much oil does that country produce?

That is the one argument - the only one - that people like Flipper will always be able to knock down. Sadly, the anti war movement, well meaning as it is, has locked itself into this position of arguing that the Iraq war is just about oil and nothing else. It isn't.

The same people were also arguing that the first Gulf war was all about stealing oil, but then they went silent when the US and its allies ended the war and went home without bringing a drop of oil with them.

If it's all about stealing Iraq's oil, then when are they going to start this massive theft operation? And how much of it will they have to steal to make a profit? Some estimates indicate that the long term cost of the Iraq war to the US could exceed 2 trillion dollars.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html

So work it out: how long would it take for the tax revenues of American companies appointed to run Iraq's oil industry, to reach even a break even point, let alone show a profit for the US Treasury? It would be far cheaper to simply buy the oil from Iraq than to steal it - and that way the thousands of US deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths would have been avoided.

The oil theories simply don't add up.

But notice how little effort Bush and his gang put into rebutting the oil theories. They hardly ever bother taking on the arguments and answering them with simple rebuttals like the one above, or even the one that Flipper raised about Afghanistan having no oil. Why is that? It's pretty obvious to me that they are perfectly happy for opponents of the war to convince themselves that "it's all about oil" because that stops them from examining alternative explanations for the Iraq war, such as that the real reason was because Saddam Hussein was perceived - rightly or wrongly - to pose a serious military threat to Israel.

That is what the first Gulf War was about. Kuwait? Nah! Do a web search on the name "April Glaspie" and you will learn that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was engineered and encouraged by the US, which deliberately lured him into doing what he did so as to give them the excuse to destroy his then very formidable, and growing, war machine which was seen as a serious threat to Israel. The Americans loved Saddam when he was killing Iranians for them, but that all changed the day he boasted about having "enough chemical weapons to burn up half of Israel".

Oil is just a convenient red-herring that those behind the war, resigned to the fact that people will always suspect an ulterior motive, are content to be seen as that ulterior motive because it serves to hide the real one.

Captain Mazda
09-09-06, 15:30
That is what the first Gulf War was about. Kuwait? Nah! Do a web search on the name "April Glaspie" and you will learn that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was engineered and encouraged by the US, which deliberately lured him into doing what he did so as to give them the excuse to destroy his then very formidable, and growing, war machine which was seen as a serious threat to Israel. The Americans loved Saddam when he was killing Iranians for them, but that all changed the day he boasted about having "enough chemical weapons to burn up half of Israel".

Exactly, also the day he stopped taking CIA orders. He became nothing more than another US puppet that needed his strings cut off.

Captain Mazda
09-09-06, 15:30
What's wrong Mazda? You want a hug too? :p

:ton:

Mr.Burns
09-09-06, 15:56
flipper i wanted to give you props after this but i forgot!! Nice work! :hug:


Ditto Flip, it's hard these days to find someone whom you can have a mature, unbiased and open minded descussion with.

GodOfLight
09-09-06, 16:24
:rolleyes: Oh enough with the childish bickering, name calling and infantile insinuations!

i think when neteru said this he also meant that an end should be put to the excessive vomit-worthy "awwww" :hug: :hug: :hug: "we sure do! :tmb: :D" "go team woot!" type comments. it sounds like a brainwash center.

anyone with any sense of intelligence do not submit to these fake forms of love :ton:

Hurrah4Lara
09-09-06, 22:02
Well, I said earlier that Afghanistan is known as the Graveyard of Empires:yik:. Here is why:

First Afghan War 1839-1842: Disastrous British campaign. The surviving sixteen thousand force attempted to withdraw, but only the single survivor:yik: Dr William Brydon reached Jalalabad. It was the British Army's greatest catastrophe in history.

Second Afghan War 1878-81, horrific defeat for the British.

Soviet failed invasion 1979-1989: 100,000 troops in, 15,000 killed before remainder retreated in defeat.

So I am angry when I hear these naive calls for more troops for this newest Afghan War. History is repeating itself and they should remember these old words:

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains
And the women come out to cut up what remains
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
And go to your God like a soldier
:yik:


H4L:wve: [Jessika]

Captain Mazda
09-09-06, 23:39
Ditto Flip, it's hard these days to find someone whom you can have a mature, unbiased and open minded descussion with.

Perhaps you'd like to comment on the issue?

Flipper1987
10-09-06, 05:42
Nice post Paul, but I have a couple issues with your latter points.

That is what the first Gulf War was about. Kuwait? Nah! Do a web search on the name "April Glaspie" and you will learn that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was engineered and encouraged by the US, which deliberately lured him into doing what he did so as to give them the excuse to destroy his then very formidable, and growing, war machine which was seen as a serious threat to Israel

From Wikipedia:

In April 1991 Glaspie testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. She said that at the July 25 (1990) meeting she had "repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait." She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait. Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: "We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid."


The Americans loved Saddam when he was killing Iranians for them...

...and the Allies loved Stalin & the USSR when they were killing Nazi troops during World War II. How did their post-war relationship work out?

...but that all changed the day he (Saddam) boasted about having "enough chemical weapons to burn up half of Israel".

...and when he invaded Kuwait. Good thing Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981/1982 otherwise TODAY we would have a nuclear Iran & Iraq.

FLIPPER

Captain Mazda
10-09-06, 06:00
Flipper, you do know Wiki is written by normal internet users? While it is a great site for random facts, the same doesn't hold true when it comes to political opinions. You'll only be reading opinions in the long run, not facts.

And we all know what happens to political facts in North America.

Flipper1987
10-09-06, 06:21
Flipper, you do know Wiki is written by normal internet users? While it is a great site for random facts, the same doesn't hold true when it comes to political opinions. You'll only be reading opinions in the long run, not facts.

Although I would never use Wikipedia in writing an academic paper, it is edited by people from both sides of the political spectrum. Therefore, there is some semblance of objectivity to it. I trust its authenticity more than I would from statements made by left-wing, anti-American websites that have a nefarious agenda.

And making statements to Congressional panels (which April Glaspie did in April 1991) does not clarify as "political opinions." It is documented fact whether you like it or not.

And we all know what happens to political facts in North America.

And what is that exactly? You make ridiculous statements like this all the time yet you NEVER back it up with undeniable facts. Perhaps you can back up your wacked conspiracy theories with actual, objective, irrefutable documentation.

Just because you hate the reality doesn't make it wrong. There are numerous news corporations in North America that hate Bush (although they're supposed to be objective) as much as you do but they don't indulge in your laughable theories. Why do you think that is the case, Mazda?

FLIPPER

Captain Mazda
10-09-06, 06:28
Just because you hate the reality doesn't make it wrong. There are numerous news corporations in North America that hate Bush (although they're supposed to be objective) as much as you do but they don't indulge in your laughable theories. Why do you think that is the case, Mazda?

FLIPPER

They'd be silenced if they were to do so.

And I'm talking about censorship in North America, any idiot with half a brain can tell it's up and running here. Looking forward to another crackpot theory from you where I'm somehow a "leftist bigot" or how censorship is all part of the big conspiracy against the brave American GI Joe :)

Actually if I may add, you remind me of a somewhat younger Pat Robertson, hmm.

Neteru
10-09-06, 06:38
Flipper & Captain Mazda, if you want to have political debate, then by all means do so, but we'll have no more of your mud-slinging thank you.

Flipper1987
10-09-06, 06:47
Just because you hate the reality doesn't make it wrong. There are numerous news corporations in North America that hate Bush (although they're supposed to be objective) as much as you do but they don't indulge in your laughable theories. Why do you think that is the case, Mazda?


They'd be silenced if they were to do so.

That my friends qualifies as a crock and a cop-out at the same time.

And I'm talking about censorship in North America, any idiot with half a brain can tell it's up and running here.

Yes censorship does exist (in some forms) in North America (as it does elsewhere, even in Canada). Yet those who have been historically-censored are usually those who hold conservative viewpoints. People who "think" like you do have free reign in the liberal mainstream media. Ever hear of Michael Moore, Al Franklin, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other kook lefties? They can say whatever they want and the mainstream media will NEVER challenge their accuracy or legitimacy (which objective news organizations are supposed to do). Many major liberal media outlets in North America abdicated their responsibility to present balanced, objective news stories decades ago. Any "idiot with half a brain cell" can see that.

A recent, classic example: the Clinton horde is trying to get "The Path to 9/11" yanked off the air or severely edited because they don't like the way they are going to be portrayed (the Bush administration is also criticized in the movie but they haven't lifted a finger to have the docu-drama changed). How very Stalinistic, don't you think? The movie is based on the 9/11 report which Dems and other libs love to quote from.

Looking forward to another crackpot theory from you where I'm somehow a "leftist bigot" or how censorship is all part of the big conspiracy against the brave American GI Joe :)

I have yet to put forward a crackpot theory...all my statements about you are based on what YOU HAVE WRITTEN. You, on the other hand, have put forward quite a few "crackpot theories" and you have backed none of them up with irrefutable documentation (just your opinion - as expected). All you provide are ignorant insults and derrogatory statements. Your method of operation is very familiar to me (I attended an exterme-liberal college where intellectual dissent was ridiculed): "Agree with me 100% or you're some backwards idiot." Very enlightening! :)

Actually if I may add, you remind me of a somewhat younger Pat Robertson, hmm.

I think he's full of crap 50% of the time. You don't want to know who you remind me of.

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
10-09-06, 06:49
Flipper & Captain Mazda, if you want to have political debate, then by all means do so, but we'll have no more of your mud-slinging thank you.

Your? You mean Mazda's, don't you? He flings, I respond. :) I do have the right to defend myself from his outrageous charges, don't I? And I do have the right to engage in some form of "tit for tat," don't I?

FLIPPER - who thought this was an open forum. Have I violated any of the forum's rules?

Captain Mazda
10-09-06, 07:48
"Outrage", ha!

I do provide irrefutable evidence, you just dismiss it as bull. Thanks for playing.

Neteru
10-09-06, 08:01
Your? You mean Mazda's, don't you? He flings, I respond. :) I do have the right to defend myself from his outrageous charges, don't I? And I do have the right to engage in some form of "tit for tat," don't I?

FLIPPER - who thought this was an open forum. Have I violated any of the forum's rules?

I made it clear enough who I meant.

The board's Terms & Conditions (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item_tandc) for your reviewing pleasure.

If you have any problems with this issue, please feel free to contact Administration hereafter.

Paul H
10-09-06, 08:21
From Wikipedia:

In April 1991 Glaspie testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. She said that at the July 25 (1990) meeting she had "repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait." She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait. Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: "We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid."


Now let’s look at the full story, rather than just the part of it before April Glaspie suddenly and miraculously disappeared into thin air, no doubt because the US State Department were desperate to prevent the media from probing further into this matter.

Firstly we need to put Ambassador April Glaspie’s meeting with Saddam Hussein into context and consider that it took place against the background of a very likely imminent invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. The cause of the conflict was the lowering of oil prices by Kuwait which was seriously damaging Iraq. There were 30,000 Iraqi troops on the border with Kuwait (they weren’t there just to check a few visas). Now consider the first thing Glaspie told Saddam Hussein:

"I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait."

Direct instructions from President Bush. Don’t underestimate the significance of that.

Considerable sympathy. That is very close to saying "We’re on your side."

The discussion then moved on to the build up of troops on the border. Saddam told Glaspie:

"As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. When we [the Iraqis] meet [with the Kuwaitis] and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death."

The next part should be understood in the context of the Iraqi view that Kuwait is legally and historically part of Iraq.

Saddam added: "If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions [to the Kuwaitis]. But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq [which, in Saddam's view, includes Kuwait] then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. What is the United States' opinion on this?"

To which Ambassador Glaspie replied:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

An astonishing thing to say given the way America was to later react to what Saddam was clearly alluding to. And, as with Glaspie’s earlier "direct instructions from President Bush" remark, it is clear that this was not some spontaneous personal reaction, because, as she said, she was directed by James Baker.

The following month, the tape and transcript of that meeting was obtained by British journalists who approached Glaspie about them. The confrontation went as follows:

______________________________________________

Journalist 1: "Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam
Ambassador?"

(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2: "You knew Saddam was going to invade Kuwait, but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait."

Journalist 1: "You encouraged this aggression - his invasion. What were you thinking?"

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie: "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take ALL of Kuwait."

Journalist 1: "You thought he was just going to take SOME of it? But how COULD YOU?! Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed, he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab Waterway) goal for the "WHOLE of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be." You KNOW that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!"

(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing, pushing past the two journalists to leave)

Journalist 2: "America green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signalling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumalya oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - territories claimed by Iraq?"

(Again, Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closes behind her and the car drives off.)

_________________________________________

The Glaspie meeting was not the only green light given to Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait, but merely one part of a wider package of signals to lure him into a trap. On July 31st, 1990, just two days before the invasion, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, testified to Congress that "The United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq." No ambiguity there, is there?

There is much more evidence that Saddam Hussein was deliberately lured into invading Kuwait, such as what happened to poor old Ross Perot when he dared to touch upon this delicate area during a presidential debate. Perot said:

"...we told him he could take the northern part of Kuwait; and when he took the whole thing we went nuts. And if we didn't tell him that, why won't we even let the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee see the written instructions for Ambassador Glaspie? "

Shortly after that, Perot received a faked photograph of his soon to be married daughter with the threat that it, and others like it, would be plastered across the newspapers on her wedding day if he didn’t withdraw from the election. He withdrew.


And where is April Glaspie these days? Nobody knows. She has been taken out of circulation. I wonder why ;). Read this page:

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/12241/index.php


"On July 25, 1990... U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie assured Iraq's Saddam Hussein that the United States had no interest in its conflict with Kuwait. These assurances were interpreted by Saddam Hussein as clearance to invade Kuwait, which he did several days later. This sequence of events almost suggests that Saddam Hussein was encouraged to attack Kuwait while the United States waited to retaliate." (Extract from the book "Defrauding America" by Rodney Stich)

Hurrah4Lara
23-09-06, 01:01
Here we go again:yik::
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5369076.stm

Well, I said earlier that Afghanistan is known as the Graveyard of Empires:yik:. Here is why:

First Afghan War 1839-1842: Disastrous British campaign. The surviving sixteen thousand force attempted to withdraw, but only the single survivor:yik: Dr William Brydon reached Jalalabad. It was the British Army's greatest catastrophe in history.

Second Afghan War 1878-81, horrific defeat for the British.

Soviet failed invasion 1979-1989: 100,000 troops in, 15,000 killed before remainder retreated in defeat.

So I am angry when I hear these naive calls for more troops for this newest Afghan War. History is repeating itself and they should remember these old words:

Rudyard Kipling
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains
And the women come out to cut up what remains
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
And go to your God like a soldier"
:yik:

H4L:wve: [Jessika]

wantafanta
24-09-06, 03:10
Great quote from Albert Einstein:
When asked what World War 3 would be like, he answered:
"I can't tell you. But I know what World War 4 will be like. It will be fought with sticks and stones."