1,352 Forum Posts by "Commander-K25"
Shame on you, Mr. Moore, for turning a night of honors and awards into your personal political platform.
Shame on you, Mr. Moore, not for expressing your right to free speech, but for failing to realize that this was neither the appropriate time nor place for such grandstanding....
No offense to Nemesisz but, to anyone who remembers Biseor, don't they sorta sound alike?
At 3/24/03 10:00 PM, Ruination wrote:
You know what, forget it.. If you're not even willing to EVER accept the fact that you could possibly be wrong, then there's no use arguing with you. It's utterly futile (like trying to teach an infant calculus).
Nemesisz = Biseor + Slizor
Shame on you, Mr. Moore, for turning a night of honors and awards into your personal political platform.
Shame on you, Mr. Moore, not for expressing your right to free speech, but for failing to realize that this was neither the appropriate time nor place for such grandstanding.
A majority does not equal right.
The U.N. does not equal justification.
The League of United Nations is not the determinant of what is justified or not.
At 3/24/03 06:03 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:
I know there'll be the argument 'it's not regime change!' Yeah, it is. It's been named by our government 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. That is regime change. They started out talking about WMD. It changed to regime change when they realized that those WMD weren't going to rear their ugly heads as soon as they thought they would.
So you think we should give Saddam another slap on the wrist and trust that this time he'll disarm? It's time to remove the source of the threat, Saddam. The stated goal is to end the threat that the current regime poses.
The US Constitution demands Congressional approval for acts of war. "Hey, HoL. They haven't declared war." Oh, so this is another 'police action', then? Like Korea? Mhmm.
It is a "war," but maybe not on paper. Of course, Bush will take a lot of flak for this because the left will attack him any way they can. Really, he is following a precedent set long before him. If you want to blame somebody, blame Truman.
We acted without UN or NATO approval. And we struck first. This is technically an illegal war, no matter how much you want to ignore it.
What if the Allies would have made a preemptive strike on Nazi Germany? Would you consider it legal?
But if you don't want to look at the legality of this war...how about the hypocricy?
Iraq is being attacked for not complying with the UN.
True.
Bush is waging this war against UN approval.
The U.N. never withheld approval. The issue never came to a vote.
...Do you understand that now? Bush refused to comply with the UN, in order to attack Iraq because it wouldn't comply with the UN.
The last time I checked, we were still a sovereign nation. The U.N. does not control us. We have attacked Iraq because they pose a threat. Are you saying that nations cannot defend themselves unless the rest of the world says you can?
I'm not sure about anyone else, but I support the right of a nation-state to act in their defense and not at the behest of a diplomatic debating society.
At 3/24/03 05:23 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
Article 13 from the Geneva Convention
PoWs must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Public curiocity and they put pictures of them on TV. Case closed.
In what way have they been intimidated?
Also, that article is vague. Exactly how far does "public curiosity" extend?
The purpose and spirit of the Geneva Convention is to protect the rights and safety of POWs, not to shield them from embarrassment.
POW 1: "OMG! They laughed at me! I've been violated!"
POW 2: "Yeah, man. They guards even carry guns! How dare they do that!"
Many of the protestors whine about how this is an "illegal" war. I ask you, how so?
Congress has authorized Bush to use force just as they have done for the last fifty years. We haven't declared war since WWII. However, the peacenik left is only too eager to roast Bush over a lack of a formal declaration and ignore the past track record that he is only following in.
In the U.N. over a dozen resolutions of Iraqi disarmament have been passed including the recent 1441 which authorizes force if Iraq does not comply. The rest of the U.N. may cower at the thought of backing up their words, but we will stand by what we have signed. We will and are carrying out what was agreed to.
At 3/24/03 04:35 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
Please. The Americans defied the Geneva Convention by parading the Iraqui POW's around in shackels.
That is baseless and without proof. Besides, transporting prisoners in shackles is not unlawful.
The Bush Administration are hypocrites.
Waaaaahhh!!!! *sob*
In your next election please vote Gore.
You think Gore could protect the country! HAHAHAHAHA!!
Gore (in slow mechanical voice): "I am telling Mr. bin Laden in the STRONGEST possible terms that this terrorism is unacceptable. I feel that we can come to reasonable terms."
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....
They said that Iraq BETTER NOT violate the Geneva Convention. Of course, they already have a vast track record of atrocious human rights abuses. The overlooked British dossier on the regime documents an extremely brutal past.
There is an underground political prison where the prisoners are kept in dark cells the size of coffins. Enemies of Saddam have been shredded in machines designed for plastic processing. There are state rapists in many of the prisons. The list goes on.
At 3/24/03 05:03 PM, BinLadenmustdie wrote: OJ, Terry Nichol, both snipers, the Columbine killers (dig up their corpses and kill 'em again), all Catholic priests that rape, Michael Moore (not all of him, just his fat ass), Michael Jackson, the 20th hijacker and most of Hollywood.
Michael Jackson's face could scare whole regiments into surrender.
Iraqi 1: "The Albino Demon!"
Iraqi 2: "Allah save us!"
Anna Nicole could protect TWO targets....at once.
If we could just convice the Beltway Snipers that Saddam was a white suburbanite, all we'd have to do is turn them loose in Baghdad with a rifle and a car.
At 3/24/03 04:18 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote:
Secondly I'm against war, but if it has to happen, then this is the way it should happen. If you want America to be presented as a "liberator," then you must win the support of the people you are liberating.
But, we owe our own troops much more. They have pledged their lives in support of their country. We must not betray their good faith by squandering their lives.
Lastly America has suffered very minimal casualties. There is no need to escualte the action when the war itself is going well.
I'm talking here about trends that are appearing now and may come back to us in the future.
Commander k-25, I know you're a conservative and as such, naturaly want to kill things. But fucking chill dude. Smoke a joint or somthing.
More misperceptions about conservatism. If people got less of their information from the liberal spin machine, then conservatism would not be so misunderstood.
As for my views on war, I believe war is a horrific thing that should never be taken lightly. However, we shouldn't run from it at any cost and cling to a futile and high-priced peace.
"I have never advocated war except as a means of peace."
-General Ulysses S. Grant
At 3/23/03 08:14 PM, implodinggoat wrote:
So the only type of work you recognize is physical labor? That is very simplistic.
Most socialists still think in terms of the late 19th century.
No, but if they work hard enough in high school they can at least get themselves into a community college and get a better career. I live in a rural community with a large number of poor rural folk. One of them got a complete 4 year scholarship to UNC Chapel Hill because he worked his ass off throughout high school. He wasn't even that intelligent relatively but he worked so hard that he got himself a free ride to college. If you work hard enough you can go suprisingly far on very little.
Education is the cure for poverty. Somehow, certain groups of people are deluded enough to think that it can be solved by redistributing little pieces of green paper.
At 3/23/03 08:39 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote:
let's hope peace protestors don't try shock and awe tatics; like millions of ppl getting naked in the streets - OMG - lol
Gawk in awe.
At 3/23/03 07:56 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:
Anyone who thinks Iraq is winning really needs to stop watching Al-Jazeera.
I don't think Iraq is winning. I'm just theorizing on tactics.
As for the casualties, they are extremely light. Perhaps it comes from studying so much of WWI, but that is NOT heavy casualties to me. In that war, if you lost 50,000 men for a mile of front, you had won a great victory.
"It takes fifteen thousand casualties to train a major-general."
-Ferdinand Foch, WWI French general and field marshall
Do not take what I have to say the wrong way, but perhaps we have become too "nice" when it comes to war. We don't want to knock out power, we don't want to destroy bridges, we try to treat our enemy as if they constantly want to surrender, etc. Today, soldier were killed and captured because they were deceived by an Iraqi unit that pretended to surrender and then ambushed them.
This only confirms my belief that we have become too soft at war. Our army is held to such high standards that we shall soon be unable to compete with enemies that fight dirty or use unconventional tactics. I'm not saying that we should be barbaric, but that we should be lest trusting and a bit more aggressive. If an enemy unit "surrenders", then from a distance they should be ordered to pile their weapons up and lie naked in the sand.
The issue of civilian casualties is an especially touchy one. Peaceniks and hand-wringing liberals must understand that in war people DO get killed. Some civilians will die. This may sound heartless, but if you wish to win, you must value the lives of your troops more than any others. If Iraq was about to use chemicals weapons stored in a bunker in which 100 civilian were also housed, should we bomb the bunker? The answer is yes. One hundred civilians will die, but thousands of your troops will be saved. Decisions such as these are essential to winning a war. However, in recent years, due mainly to a sensationalist media and whining leftists, we are making choices towards preserving civilian lives at any cost, even our own troops.
In 1945, we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This example is often used by anti-Americanists as an example of the general evil and atrociousness of the U.S. This was, by nature, a horrific event, but was it unjustified? It was, in fact, quite justified. Over 200,000 civilians died, but the U.S. military was saved the massive casualties involved in an invasion of Japan.
A strategy such as that is not a war winning one. It's trying to be the "nice guy." Unfortunately, the "nice guy" finishes last.
I fear that one day we shall lose because we will have become too "nice" and overly "humane."
When did we become so scared of casualties? We're scared of the thought of hundreds of causalties, much less thousands. How did we get to this state?
Personally, I think it started after Vietnam.
Shock and Awe. I am so tired of hearing that term. Another example of how the media latches onto a phrase and parrots back forth between themselves.
Shockinaw? I thought that was a town in Wisconsin.
At 3/22/03 04:30 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Barbara Streisand...
The thing about all those people is not that they dropped out of school, but that their entire careers have been singing and acting. These people don't live in the real world!
You may be watching too many cartoons. I doubt that they are part of some government propaganda program.
At 3/21/03 10:49 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:
We're becoming General-Forum-ists! :0->-<
Hmmmm.... That emoticon didn't exactly work.
At 3/21/03 10:45 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: Okay, so this thread is turning into a place for us to all do goofy crap. I'd be happy to join in!
We're becoming General-Forum-ists! :0->-<
At 3/21/03 08:23 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Look, "commander," you may have been important back in "the day" but no one cares anymore. Stop trying to start trouble.
Starting trouble? Don't be so defensive. All I asked is what is this "council" really going to do. Nobody seems to want to answer, being all "secretive" and stuuf, so I've formed my own conclusions.
The council is irrelevant. Case closed.
At 3/21/03 08:06 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: It's not a good idea to make enemies within the council.
Biggest laugh I've had all day. I mean come on, be serious here for a moment, step out of character for a second, and tell me, what power do you have over the forum? I've asked you to demonstrate it and so far you've done nothing.
At 3/21/03 07:46 PM, jimsween wrote: So... you're saying we should never take coma patients off life support.
No. It's called an analogy.
At 3/21/03 08:00 PM, jimsween wrote: If I told you they'd get mad.
Speaking of naming names, here is my list of known or strongly suspected council members:
1. Nemesisz
2. JudgeMeHarshX
3. panik
Their ranks are immense, are they not?
At 3/21/03 02:19 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:
I'm annoyed with our society.
True. Are you a conservative by any chance?
At 3/21/03 07:41 PM, jimsween wrote: I think its funny, you get to watch them refer to themselves in the third person and you can make fun of the people sucking up to them.
It is pretty funny. But where are these suck-ups? They don't even have any of those.
At 3/21/03 07:29 PM, panik wrote: And what if the Iraqis are really good with those sticks.
then we'll use our laser-guided, smart sticks (w/ built-in splinter protection).
