571 Forum Posts by "NJDeadzone"
just the future of things to come with law and lawnessness
way to stick it, Nem. Pita, we open arms to your opinion, but make it more interesting.
At 3/24/03 08:56 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote:
if i understand you correctly, you'd say that the UN is nothing but another US target for terrorist attack, and as such it should be up and lifted to a small island in the South Pacific where France and Russia and Germany and China and Pakistan and a whole lot of countries can take turns testing nukes on it.
Now that's just twisting words. I'll be clear. My argument is that the strongest reason the UN wasn't giving the US authorizations was because countries such as France and Russia were threatening to veto.
They're vetoing because of the economic damages they might be inflicted as a result of the war, mentioning the horrors of Saddam on the side. However, Iraq is not the only oil dealer they can use, nor is it the only source of energy to ensure they don't freeze over in the just about finished winter. Nonetheless, they are rewarding a corrupt regime led by the man who has single-handedly destroyed the most Arab lives in history, and has kept his nation backward for 20 years.
So who's being more inconsiderate, the members of the security council not giving the US approval of defending themselves the best ways they can, while selling arms and supplies to them(Russia), or the US, bypassing a loosely-connected group that is not trying to protect her country from terrorist attack?
but the Napoleanic Wars were pure conquest, America is defending through offense
interesting prediction, that would be crazy, but understandable if the used dropped some MOABs on Baghdad just before it entered
those tanks could use a fresh coat of red paint
At 3/24/03 08:09 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote:that's International Law you are brushing aside!!?
yup, it's ineffective what the country do about it, bitch and whine until it mentions a cliche?
Listen up, there have been multiple attacks on US soil from foreign invaders. No one has to agree with the US's course of action, but i don't see any countries getting in the way just yet, which justifies an invasion that a few governments did not want to endorse due to concerns and consequences that may result in their own countries. Isn't that just as selfish as the US's overruling of the UN's ping pong diplomacy? well if you don't find that so, then you're jumbled in your opinions.
China has a much bigger role in the last 75 years than the history books say. Although this could become the biggest conspiracy theory in modern history, Russia and NK have been agents of China since Mao's leadership and remain that way. Mainland China is America's greatest threat. Just wait and see.
and if you don't agree, you can argue about nothing, because i offer nothing but a concept.
why not the KKK, they wear the same clothing as the terrorists, they can just change the white to black
At 3/24/03 03:39 PM, Dig_the_Man wrote: Ethics as a subject is very tricky and often heavily opinionated (which makes this question perfct for this forum!).
The question is though, was it ethical for the United States to attack Iraq without majority support from member states of the United Nations.
I am pro-war, but I think that it wasn't ethical... anyone else?
the UN was wrong, the US found chemical weapons outlawed by the UN 10+ years ago. US wins because they found the evidence. The ends justify the means in this situation because the US is allowed to defend itself without UN permission. Who else would Iraq launch them at...Israel?
At 3/24/03 04:39 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: How DARE the Bush Administration say that the Iraquis are violating Human Rights Agreements on POW's when they violate the EXACT same agreements in EXACTLY the same way - by humiliating the prisioners of war and showing them on television.
I knew Bush was a hypocrite, but I never knew he was this obvious.
geez i guess you didn't see the tape of the Iraqis shooting into the brush because they thought a crashed pilot was hiding in there...humiliation worse than death? get your priorities straight!
At 3/24/03 07:55 AM, D2KVirus wrote:Shame on you, Mr Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.
all the achievement and respect he gained from Bowling for Columbine could easily have been rescinded as a result of that innapropriate talk.
At 3/24/03 04:37 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Don't believe the liberal media, or al-jazeera, they're kind of biased, you dig?
all media is biased. Even the choice of presenting material indicates subjective thought
it should be either 5s or 0s, make the rating higher or lower
media+war=sensationalism
the people aren't meant to learn the truth about war unless they've fought in it, and even then, they are completely reliant on their commanding officer. I don't agree with it, but it's been the trend in history, despite any news coverage you see.
it's amazing how much television become the eyewitness to these violations
At 3/24/03 05:01 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: I'm not a regular nor do I have respect and notoriety in this forum ........... yet I've posted in this thread!
Sweet Jesus what have I done! The universe will implode!
nah, just a select few egoes
wouldn't be surprised if he's executed by the military, keep the zealous one in his homeland...
At 3/23/03 11:29 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: You're wrong, Europe gets oil from Iraq, the USA gets oil only from South America, Saudi Arabia, and itself.
darn tootin'
nem that was beautiful, don't mind if i borrow it...
::mockingly:: "80 Million Dollars?! We can almost pay Dr. Evil so he doesn't have to destroy the earth!"
At 3/23/03 02:20 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: the only shock and awe i find in this war is the African American Muslim in the US military that is the suspect for the grenade incident. If he's found guilty, we're gonna have some major issues coming up
i'm just gonna stress this point to bring some controversy
The US is gonna do what the US feels is right. The media has taken the largest role in this war by its unparalleled coverage. You can watch the war 24/7 with constant reports and what not. The US, already understanding the reprecussions of acting inhumanely, has chosen to play nice as long as the media is covering it. However, the people never get the real story.
At 3/23/03 10:36 PM, DenkSmoker wrote: The U.S. is Iraq's biggest customer for oil. They get it through the food-for-oil program.
Be that as it may, Iraq is #8 on the US's list of countries the US purchases the most oil from, i've said this about a dozen times now. #1 and #2 are Canada and Venezuela respectively.
Just goes to show how much oil we actually consume(or steal away for ourselves)
At 3/23/03 06:43 PM, experiment_b wrote:
Personally, I can't blame the Russian government for this, unless it comes out that the company was a front for them or something like that. American goods (such as cigarettes) have found their way into Iraq despite sanctions - this seems a lot less severe than military equipment, but both are still examples of companies bypassing their respective nation's sanctions.
no government can be laissez-faire enough to let companies violate international law
isn't it about a million dollars per 30 minutes spent in Iraq
not everyone on the internet is in this forum, i was being very general, i respect the brave anti-war speakers such as yourself because you give fact behind your arguments. I don't want to dwell on the others.
more like everyone is pro-war until they're drafted
