Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/29/03 09:37 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/28/03 11:18 PM, Jimsween wrote:

And you still have failed to point out why. But I don't blame you, since it is off topic is devastates you argument.

I shouldn't have to. It's common sense

If it were common sense then by default everyone would know it and it would be unargeable. So it can't possibly be common sense.

Do you even have a brain anymrore? How many times do I have to say this, they ARENT. France got involved so they wouldnt have that happen to them, why dont you write that down so you dont forget it like you so oftenly do.

Why would it happen if France didn't send peacekeepers? Your theory has a lot of holes in it.

I do believe I pointed this out a long time ago, so I'll shorten it alot. Famine caused by the congo war (see link from a lon time ago where you said this exact same thing), RC would have most likely be dragged into the war because or intenational pressure (just as Chad and Zimbabwe did), and most importantly, it doest have to happen, it just needs to look enough like it might happen to France.

Through military force, but it would be much easier to just stop the Congo war to begin with so you dont have to rebuild the country after you kill thousands of civilians.

Peacekeepers don't kill civilians for they are keepers of peace.

And you expect the civialians to be peacefull, would you sit idly by and let the French take over your government and occupy your country.

And it does, it is called war wearyness.

And that doesn't repeat itself?

Yes it does, every time a war drags on for a while.

Thats very original of you to completely avoid rebuting because you have no logical argument.

Crititicize ideas, not people. Unless you'd like to get banned.

I"m not criticizing you, I'm criticizing the fact that you are avoiding to rebut my claim.

I only quoted what was needed, and you have NOT said anything to prove that more was needed to give the truth.

They said that the riots were caused by various government policies and that the war only added more trouble to each contry. You quoted only the part that talks about the war making it look like it's the only reason for riots and protests when really it has almost nothing to do with it.

First of all, it does to have alto to do with it. Almsot everything they said in those articles was economical and the economy wouldnt be in so much trouble if they werent fighting a war. And this was stated by the man when he wrote this in the article, so you cannot claim that the war had little to do with it unless you can produce sufficient evidence to the contrary. And second of all, I simply posted what was needed. If I had posted the entire article it would ahve shown everyone more stuff about Congo but it would have shown the same things about the war that I intended it to in the first place. That an important factor for those riots was the war, which the entire article and that paragraph both say.

No, not while you keep having you amnesia fits.

uhm...sure

Put yourself in my position, how many times have you said that RC wont riot anytime soon?

It was not "slightly worse" it was alot worse. Which is why they rioted. People went from, no luxuries, to having no food.

YES, PEOPLE IN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES HAVE LUXURIES! :D :D :D AND A WAR IS THE REASON FOR THAT! :D Go read your article again unless you want me to prove to everyone that you're wrong.

Nailbomb your getting to be very annoying, what I said was not neccesarily what happpened it was only an example of it. And you saying that they do in fact have luxuries is going against your claim they they are all dirt poor and dont care when the economy goes down. So either you just lied right now or you lied back then.

I thought you said history doesnt repeat itself.

I say lots of things.

Yes you do.

You are no peacekeeper, anyone can see that clearly.

If I was a peacekeeper I'd be in the DRC right now. keeping the peace in that country and not the countries around it.

How can you keep the peace when there is no peace, there is still a war in that country. France is not a peacekeeper they are a peacemaker. And how can you claim that they arent keeping peace or "making" peace when Zimbabwe and chad went from riots, to no riots.

At 7/1/03 11:29 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 6/27/03 06:23 PM, Jimsween wrote: First off I would like to congradulate you for COMPLETELY avoiding the point and posting alot of nonsense.

Just you wait...

I'm waiting

Why else would they be importing 90% of the oil in RC.

What oil? There isn't any oil in any nation with the word "Congo" in their title. You may be thinking of Angola (or Cabinda - a small part of Angola stuck inbetween the Congolese landmasses), but that's about as close as you'll get.

Well, D2k. I would suggest before you go any further you read that CIA link, I could make a complete fool of you now but I'm sure it would benefit you more to see it on your own.

So now you are dodging the point with something completely off topic, thats sort of an improvement from your usual posts.

What, you mean you're not even bothering to dismiss something out of hand, because you are unable to? Christ, after months of putting up with it, I'm overjoyed...

I'm still waiting for you to show my why that related to anything I said. Your making comparisons and I'm saying that not only because of the same thing happnening in other countries that it would most likely have happened in RC if France had not gotten involved.

Two countries went into riots because they got sucked into the Congo war. RC's political conditions at the time made them very likely to get sucked into the Congo war. You have not rebutted this at all, you simply took random events in time and said that since they didnt happen the same this wouldnt. And you certainly havent shown why France wouldnt assume that thier oil in RC was in danger.

Because there isn't any oil in RC. And why rebutt, when OBVIOUSLY Nostradamus stated this would happen, as a result of the Franco-Prussian war?

Please go read that link before you make any more of a fool of yourself. There is alot of oil in RC.

Isn't that the line you're taking?

No, you need to read more before you start saying things and judging from what youve said in this post it seems like you didnt even read teh last two posts of me and nailbomb.

How is that history, it was all happening at the same time and all conditions made it likely to happen in RC. Your nonsensical ranting have got you knowhere, the only thing it has shown is that you can type long posts that dont prove anything.

Napoleon = 19th Century.
Hitler = 20th Century.

Events happening 150 years apart are not considered to be at "the same time" to anybody, apart from the population of Planet Sween. Besides, France wanted the land for their Empire and the glory, Germany went in for the resources (ie, oil in the Ukraine), and you're just deflecting again. Trying for personal attacks. How novel...

ROFL, again please read some more before you start talking because you are really making a fool of yourself. I never said those were at the same time I said that the events in Congo were at the same time, this was explained quite a few times in the previous posts between me and nailbomb.

Niether of those are like the case in the Congo in any way, it would ahve made more sense to look back at the depression where all the countries went into the depression at the same time but you wouldnt want to use that because it goes against your argument.

I'm starting to wonder if you're an answer machine, pre-programmed to respond in a very predictible way. You say two events are the sasme, they aren't, so change tac'. God, this is depressing...

Are you going to rebut my claims or are you simply going to drift off and not debate anymore.

You just again proved that you either lack the ability to read or are just a blind ranter. As I said before it wasnt going to happen now because France had gotten involved, it may however have happened if France never got involed which is why France got involved.

Deja-vu, anybody? Answer one question, not say "You're a stupidhead" constantly, and demonise the French because your Government tells you to do so. Same goes for those people that are "against you."

And you keep avoding debate by insulting and making claims unrelated to the argument. Now do nto reply to this in your next post, reply to what I said before, and this time actually rebut what I said.

Except Iraq was already exporting to us and there was no danger to our oil supply there. The only similarity between the two is oil.

Especially when Rumsfeld launched an offensive to "protect the Southern Oilfields", after assuring us it wasn't about oil. Which reminds me, anyone else notice oil prices are going down in a totally unrelated coincidence?

I think you mean protect northern oilfields, and if he had not protected him that would have been the end of Iraqs economy. And if you would have read the things me and Nailbomb said you would have saw that not only is this not about France invading RC (because they didnt, that would jsut be stupid) but unlike France the US was getting oil from Iraq and it didnt look like they were going to stop getting it from Iraq.

At 6/29/03 02:41 AM, mikehrt wrote: This is something Clinton should have done the first time we saw pictures of Saddam gassing his own people in the mid 90's, but that worthless bastard was to busy getting it on with the interns.

You can mock him all you want but when he was getting his head polished the stock market skyrocketed. Lazy bush can't even take the time to have a scandel.

At 6/28/03 11:52 PM, Ted_Easton wrote:

It's like a forced abortion. Arbortion isn't murder, is it? Then neither would this be, as the death of a fetus is either murder or it's not; regardless of how it's done.

Not neccesarily, there is a fine line between torture and simply taking someones life. I'm pretty sure abortion doctors cant inject air into the baby's veins, and there is also the possiblility the baby will survive, forcing them to live a sort of half life.

At 6/29/03 02:20 AM, TheTio wrote:

At 6/29/03 01:19 AM, hippomania wrote: I don't know why the British would hate us since Americans are British, too. You British wanted to expand, same with the french and Spanish. So you killed the Native Americans to settle here. So Americans are French, Spanish, and british and you cannot deny that. So, that means you are hating your own people.

Yeah, but America had the revolution against empire building and the colonizing of the entire world, you people have failed in your duty as citizens of your country to uphold the essence of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, america has in itself become an empire, sending out its little military spores all over the globe, maniupulating everything for its own gain, and the rights set up by your founding fathers have been watered down by new legislation so much that it is but a drop of liberty in an ocean of corruption

You just described every single superpower in the world. America is just the most visual of them all. And you do an awful lot of talking about corruption when I bet you yourself couldnt name 5 America senators without looking it up.

And I highly doubt that anyone will bother to do anything, your all to content with your cable t.v on a 29 inch plus screen, high speed internet connections streaming porn into your homes, and your precious consumer shit to give a damn

Quite the ethnocentric you are, just because the people in America happen to disagree with the way you think they should run their government does not mean they are wrong, and it certainly doesnt mean that the government is corrupt.

At 6/29/03 01:52 AM, nitroxide wrote: THE CONSTITUTION WASNT MADE.

So I guess it just appeared out of nowhere. I'm assuming you were going to add back then to the sentece and that is becase it was done by england, and englad (being a monarchy) does not have to declare war.

Excerpt from-Russell Means and Glenn Morris position statement in 1991 on behalf of the American Indian Movement of Coloradoi told you it was what are you implying?Ohh..ok so you believe that the mason followers arent guilty because they were under Charlies order?

They arent Americans, read the thread before you post.

And your stating that Americas economy dint bounce back up as a direct result of the WAR.

No, your just making stuff up now. Don't post if your just going to tell a bunch of lies.

At 6/29/03 01:34 AM, nitroxide wrote:

Reports Jim to the NG mods:

So your calling me jim now?

At 6/29/03 12:55 AM, BaKsHi wrote: but which is bigger, DAG or PC, which one is the microsoft and which is the apple?

If your talking about size, the PC is we have much more members.

At 6/29/03 12:32 AM, FreidanX wrote: Just out of curiosity, would it be possible for someone to have dual-membership in both the PC and DAG? I don't really see any inherent, diametrical opposition between the two groups that should prevent such a thing. You guys seem to be rivals only in that neither of you really have other groups in the politics forum to contend with...

It would be rare, and I think impossible. It was never per-say a war between clubs, just alot of personal vendetta's. I have no problem with some members of the dag such as lyddie and shih, and funk is borderline (I dont really trust him. Something like this would probably need a vote in the PC to decide, and I doubt that they would allow it, mostly because of information reasons. There are some things we like to keep secret.

At 6/29/03 12:19 AM, nitroxide wrote:

At 6/29/03 12:13 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 6/29/03 12:02 AM, nitroxide wrote: I was also refering to you...and the*Cough*..Jizz.

Are you trying to say you are coughing up jizz?

Im so GLAD you responded to that...confirming that you know im refering to you...

*Dodges flame war*

Seriously, do you need medical attention. If your coughing up jizz I would think something is seriously wrong, maybe cannibal should lay off for a while.

At 6/29/03 12:02 AM, nitroxide wrote:

I was also refering to you...and the*Cough*..Jizz.

Are you trying to say you are coughing up jizz?

That is awful nobel of you considering the load of bullshit you fed aviewaskiewed when he was going to join the PC. Nice try but fooling us into trusting you is not going to work.

This does not fall under abortion law, she took the other womans child away without asking for consent and in a very dangerous way.

At 6/28/03 11:08 AM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/28/03 12:37 AM, Jimsween wrote:

I take it by your not saying anything that applied to the situation that it is according to you also.

It applied to the situation, you simply couldn't see how.

And you still have failed to point out why. But I don't blame you, since it is off topic is devastates you argument.

No, they sent peacekeepers to DRC to stop the war so RC wouldnt risk political turmoil.

1. Show me a source that specificaly states that the RC is in socio-economic trouble because of the civil war in the DRC

Do you even have a brain anymrore? How many times do I have to say this, they ARENT. France got involved so they wouldnt have that happen to them, why dont you write that down so you dont forget it like you so oftenly do.

2.If another riot broke out in the RC for reasons other than the warm how would they end the political turmoil there?

Through military force, but it would be much easier to just stop the Congo war to begin with so you dont have to rebuild the country after you kill thousands of civilians.

None of those things were in the same situation though. And this isnt about history repeating itself it is about waht happens to countries when they are dragged into long wars.

"what happens to countries when they are dragged into long wars" is something that repeats itself all the time.

And it does, it is called war wearyness.

Thats very original of you to completely avoid rebuting because you have no logical argument.

You only quoted minimal parts of the article that prove your point.

I only quoted what was needed, and you have NOT said anything to prove that more was needed to give the truth.

The rantings were when he went on and on about same thing.

Would you relax?

No, not while you keep having you amnesia fits.

That is the worst logic ever, if you can even call that logic. I don't even know how you could come up with such bullshit, economies got worse because of the war. Your saying that thier economies were already so bad that the war didnt matter, how can you see any logic in that at all?

I'm saying that if your economy's good and suddenly it's bad you're gonna be pissed, if it's bad and suddenly it's slightly worse you won't give a shit anymore.

It was not "slightly worse" it was alot worse. Which is why they rioted. People went from, no luxuries, to having no food.

Because, they share common ancestors with DRC and refugee's would be storming the borders, terrorist groups from the war are threatening the security of all African nations and have destroyed numerous aid shipments (I already gave you a link to that one), and because of their fragile political state RC would most likely be dragged into the war causing what happened to Zimbabwe to happen to them.

Jesus H. Christ your links that about farms.

I thought you said history doesnt repeat itself.

So you suggest that france forcefully occupy RC to stop riots, and you somehow think that is a better Idea than jsut stopping the Congo war. If there was a word that was harsher than dumbass I would be using it right now.

Please use it, I'd love to see you banned. Have you ever heard of peace keepers Jim?

You are no peacekeeper, anyone can see that clearly.

At 6/28/03 06:08 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/27/03 11:48 PM, Jimsween wrote:

That would just be a waste of my time, I already showed you an example of the Sioudx taking land from another tribe. There is no reason why that is less relevant than one pre-colonial times.

Couldn't find any examples huh Jim? See, it is extremely relevant if one Native nation went to war with another in pre-colonial times, then that would mean that Natives did fight for land. However they fought for land only during the colonial times of America because they didn't have enough land to thrive religiously and culturally so they had to fight with each other to have enough land to hunt, fish and harvest.

Admit defeat and take it like a man.

Your the one who makes up excuses why your not wrong every time you get into a debate. Fighting for land because you dont have enough land and fighting for land even when you do is still fighting for land. Niether one is more justified, and both of them are examples of indians owning land.

Now shut up and quit being such a dumbass.

At 6/28/03 01:52 PM, PsychoDoughboy wrote:

At 6/28/03 08:26 AM, Jimsween wrote: You, however, should have shown some common curtesy and not pointed this out to us because it only ruins the rest of our day with thoughts of how stupid these people are.

Please explain yourself on that medium. How was i "ruining" anyone's day? I think for several people they got a good laugh. And as for commander, he's what's known as a form "troll". Someone who goes around and tries to ruin every thread by making some opposite opinion about it.

Heh, I think you just described the dag. What I meant by it is that there is so much or this crap that pointing it out just because it is on the internet is a waste of time and just gets everyone in a bad mood because theya re angry at them.

I lick pokemon? And I'm 13? Since when?

At 6/28/03 06:34 PM, mikehrt wrote: If I had a nickle for every time jim said this, it probably still wouldn't be enough to please him anally.

How is that supposed to be an insult, if anything that is calling me not gay. Learn how to insult dumbass.

At 6/28/03 06:22 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/27/03 11:27 PM, Jimsween wrote:

Who is they? If you are referring to the media in general they took way more than one. And You still havent shown me a survey saying that most Americans and British were against the war at the time they "staged" the Jessica Lynch rescue.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/1935922

This doesnt even talk about the war, much less in the same time period as jessica lynch.

And he denied that the officers said those things about Lynch?

No, he's one of the generals, commanders, officers and other military personel that did press releases concerning Lynch, he was the one who claimed that Lynch was shot, stabbed and mistreated by Iraqis when there is no proof of that and the only eye witnesses claim the opposite.

And you are the one who claimed that it was the officers who said this. Get your facts strait before you start flapping your mouth.

At 6/28/03 05:42 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/27/03 11:53 PM, Jimsween wrote:

I never heard that part but I don't know why you would say that, seeing as how it ruins your stance.

Because if the president launches a war without congress's approval it is illegal. Congress has to declare war.

No, it never says that anywhere in the constitution. As a matter of fact it never says that anywhere.

O...k, you just proved my point. Thank you, I guess...

Your point is that Columbus killed 940 000 natives in 16 years?

No, he wasnt even there the whole time and furthermore, he was dead in 2508 so how could he have kept hilling them?

This one seems to think we were the top economy
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
And this one is rather long but worth the read
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/depression.html

None of those webpages say anything about the U.S. being the 2nd best in the world. NOTHING.

The first one said that America was the first Economic superpower, and the second said that America's production was down less% than the rest of the countries in ratio to the previous economy.

"1945
Although the war is the largest tragedy in human history, the United States emerges as the world's only economic superpower."

You said that it was the world's superpower or at least the 2nd in lead before the war. Stick to one claim and stand by it until it's proved true or false. In this case, false. Now be a man and admit that you were wrong instead of changing subject.

No, you didnt even look at the other link, and have shown no evidence to prove me wrong. Your simnply being a coward now.

At 6/28/03 07:20 PM, nailbomb wrote:

Show me some proof of that land bridge, not once in my life have I seen concrete evidence of the magical Bering Strait.

Riiight, so now the bering strait doesnt exist? I shouldnt have to give proof since you never gave proof to anything you have said so far but by saying it never happened makes you look so stupid I'll do it just to be nice, http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1304.html
Even in your own link they gave evidence of the land bridge.

They declared war. If congress doesn't declare war but the president still carries out military orders of war, the war violates both the constitution and the U.N. charter. (even though the genocide of natives predates both of those.)

No, find me where in the constitution that you have to declare war for it to be a war, it doesnt even say that in the UN charter. You can't jsut make things up and assume nobody would care.

Holy crap eh? Musn't be a very practical fuel if it isn't flammable.

Char"coal`\, n. [See Char, v. t., to burn or to reduce to coal, and Coal.] 1. Impure carbon prepared from vegetable or animal substances; esp., coal made by charring wood in a kiln, retort, etc., from which air is excluded. It is used for fuel and in various mechanical, artistic, and chemical processes.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

COAL, not charcoal. Charcoal is the remnace of a once living thing where the carbon covers it. In your definition it specifies the last part is COAL not charcoal.

no, you said their climates are identical when they're binary opposites.

No they arent, and I said they are similar. Climate includes solar rays and climate controls the vegitation.

Oh, I see that you have studied forensical anthropology to a collegiate degree. It wouldn't be hard at all; you can tell the difference between a Crow and Navajo (for example) by measuring the outlines of their skulls.

No you can't, you would need to see facial fetures. Don't claim you took an anthropology class when you are jsut spewing stuff out your ass. Proof would be nice.

"Race" is a non-applicable term since it refers only to modern humans.

Because prehistoric humans had much more similar DNA that us, and the things you were saying are modern humans. So all you accomplished showed everyone that you really do not know what you are talking about.
the scientific and geographic evidence.

Show it to me.

The theory of evolution is on my side, all the land bridge stuff, and the FACT that the probability of it happening is 1 in 1, and then 3 million 0's. How about you show some proof instead of dancing around the facts by making unfounded claims.

There is a 50 000 year old sorpse in Brasil and artefacts over 80 000 years old in Canada.
There is no proof of any land bridge being formed at any time.
What does that tell you?

First of all, you can't accurately measure the date of artifacts because the materials they were made out of could have been around much longer than that and there was in fact a land bridge 70,000 years ago. So by adding the margin of error in to the Carbon dating the artifacts could of been 70,000 years old. And could you show me some proof of those artifacts from reliable links?

Show me proof of those land bridges and I'll gladly shut up. oh and one that dates before 80 000 BC

It doesnt need to, you have no proof of the artifacts. Even in you link it says there was a land bridge old enough for those. Show me proof of those artifacts.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeee! Those aren't facts. Those are Jimsween's assumptions and thoughts.

No, those are all facts. I have shown evidence proving them and you replied with moronic comments to change the suject, you have said nothing to prove them wrong.

DID ALL ANIMALS LEAVE EUROPE? Then why would they follow a bunch of mammoths here and wouldn't they have killed them all before reaching America unless they were following a dozen million of them?

Oh my god you are so stupid, they follow heards of animals. When they go hunting they find the animals and kill one or two but the rest escape, they keep having to move thier tribe closer to the animals to shorten the travel. Any science class will tell you that, this once again shows that you obviously did not take any of the classes you claim you did. And many people would agree with me that you are surely not the age you say you are, more likely 10.

Then look up another source if that one doesn't please you. Jeebus!

I already gave you the other source from PBS which is much more respected then some random site, that gives an accureate description of evolution. Read that before you say anything else because i'm positive you have never took a class where they have told you about evolution before.

According to this http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q01 there is no such poo-poo of radiation that you were claiming. :)

Everything emits radiation stupid, I was just giving an example of how something like that could speed up mutations. And nothing in there said there was not radiation. Maybe while your at it you should go look at the sesame street part of it so you can learn how to read.

Well it's better than flaming. *licks the back of your neck*

Dumbass.

meanie! :(

Grow up and learn how to debate.

At 6/28/03 08:10 AM, Slizor wrote: Can my parents patent me?

I'm sorry but this is just too easy,

They already did, your the poster child for abortion!

Religious nuts are stupid, wow big suprise. I once saw a muslim site saying girls should not be able to see any man besides thier husband ever and that the clitoris is the spawn of all evil. You, however, should have shown some common curtesy and not pointed this out to us because it only ruins the rest of our day with thoughts of how stupid these people are.

On a side note, I'm confused why Catholics and Baptists hate eachother so much. I would think they would find a common link through guilt, sort of a, "If it feels good you shouldnt be doing it." Although I can understand why you wouldnt want them to get into the same room together, a bunch of people not drinking or having sex, that would just be too hot to handle.

If I don't get a reply soon I'll start throwing a hissy fit!

At 6/28/03 01:02 AM, nailbomb wrote: Please don't criticize the DAG's quality control and membership standards when you have a certain PC member using arguments such as these.

"If anything it is a compliment that you can even be compared to shrike."
"Just because I'm not a women like you doesnt mean I dont know about women."
"Compared to shrike and Andrea they're like dumb and dumber."
"What intellegence?"
"Now you are just acting stupid, you know very well that they are not saying it only came in at exactly 50,000 BC."

These are just from 3 days ago too.

That's all me, and might I remind you that I have out debated every single DAG member who I started debating with. I'm still waiting for FUNK to reply in the intolerence and states rights thread. If anybody want's to pick up the debate for him that would be fine.

I'm pretty sure that isnt even him, remember he came in one day and started making racial slurs. Besides, he was in the PC long before it was even really a club. We kicked him out long ago.

At 6/28/03 12:19 AM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/27/03 11:20 PM, Jimsween wrote:

According to who?

Did any of waht he say apply to the situaton, no.

According to you.

I take it by your not saying anything that applied to the situation that it is according to you also.

*rools eyes* do you have some sort of Amnesia where you can't remember what we were jsut talking about 2 posts ago?

Your claims that France is protecting its oil in RC by sending peacekeepers in the RC

No, they sent peacekeepers to DRC to stop the war so RC wouldnt risk political turmoil.

Attacks done by countries and France sending in troops to stop riots. Where is the relation?

That history doesn't repeat itself.

None of those things were in the same situation though. And this isnt about history repeating itself it is about waht happens to countries when they are dragged into long wars.

http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/oct00/17_10_053.html
Land aquisitions.

The Democratic Republic Congo war, which has sucked in Zimbabwe where the country has an 11 000-strong force in this vast central African country, has also taken its toll on the national fiscus.

Says Zimbabwean economic commentator, John Robertson, "The country's participation in the civil war in the Congo and its habit of printing money to fund unbudgeted spending such as the war veterans' gratuities have served to make the already weakened monetary and fiscal system even more incapable of coping with the country's needs."

http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990419/ige19053.html
food prices

But there is no doubt that Zimbabwe has serious financial problems. After the sudden imposition of a 5 per cent sales tax, tobacco farmers are threatening to take their crop - by far the country's biggest export - away from the official auction to avoid the levy. And, with the war in the Congo, the collapse of the exchange rate and the country's pounds 3bn ($4.8bn) of foreign debt, banks are withholding vital funds needed to finance tobacco production.

Those are the reasons for the riots.

Caused by the war.

****TO ANYONE READING THIS POST*** IGNORE JIMSWEEN'S QUOTES AS THEY ARE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. VISIT THE APPROPRIATE ARTICLES AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES THAT THE WAR PLAYED A MINOR ROLE IN THE ECONOMIC DECAY OF OTHER COUNTRIES AND THE PEOPLE WERE RIOTING NOT FOR THEIR GOVERNMENT SUPPORTING THE WAR BUT THE OVERALL SITUATION OF THEIR ECONOMY.

Thats very original of you to completely avoid rebuting because you have no logical argument.

You were reffering this "rantings"

No his comparisons.

Well you called them rantings.

The rantings were when he went on and on about same thing.

You did not prove me wrong, all you said is that thier economies always suck.

Therefore the war did not cause the economic decay and riots spawned by it.

That is the worst logic ever, if you can even call that logic. I don't even know how you could come up with such bullshit, economies got worse because of the war. Your saying that thier economies were already so bad that the war didnt matter, how can you see any logic in that at all?

France got involved, if they hadnt got involved there would have been riots in RC just like there was in other countries. Or at least that is what France thought.

What reason would they have to riot?

Because, they share common ancestors with DRC and refugee's would be storming the borders, terrorist groups from the war are threatening the security of all African nations and have destroyed numerous aid shipments (I already gave you a link to that one), and because of their fragile political state RC would most likely be dragged into the war causing what happened to Zimbabwe to happen to them.

No, they are solving the problem without pissing off thier oil. I hardly think the RC would agree to an occupation by the French.

Do you think Saddam agreed to an occupation by the US? Besides, if France really did want to rptect their oil they would've sent peacekeepers around refineries, oil wells and pipelines.

So you suggest that france forcefully occupy RC to stop riots, and you somehow think that is a better Idea than jsut stopping the Congo war. If there was a word that was harsher than dumbass I would be using it right now.

At 6/27/03 11:53 PM, nailbomb wrote: My message was directed to all those who wrote "why would greenpeace buy weapons?" and "I thought greenpeace was peacefull" and anything else related to that false link.

One person wrote that.

At 6/27/03 11:47 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/27/03 10:55 PM, Jimsween wrote:

The constitution seems to disagree with you, it gives congress the right to declare war but does not say they have to. There is nothing anywhere that says that it has to be declared a war to be a war.

According to that very constitution, congress can declare war but the President can wage war.

I never heard that part but I don't know why you would say that, seeing as how it ruins your stance.

No, he killed them through a long period of time, that is why they kept dying after he died.

"By 1508, an enumeration showed only 60,000 alive...in 1548 Oviedo (Fernandex de Oviedo, the official Spanish historian of conquest) doubted whether 500 Indians remained."
Columbus & Western Civilization, Howard Zinn (excerpts)

O...k, you just proved my point. Thank you, I guess...

This one seems to think we were the top economy
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
And this one is rather long but worth the read
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/depression.html

None of those webpages say anything about the U.S. being the 2nd best in the world. NOTHING.

The first one said that America was the first Economic superpower, and the second said that America's production was down less% than the rest of the countries in ratio to the previous economy.

At 6/27/03 10:23 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/27/03 07:35 PM, Jimsween wrote:
Nevertheless they took land.

Because of colonial forces, you have yet to show me 2 native nations that went to war for land in pre-colonial times.

That would just be a waste of my time, I already showed you an example of the Sioudx taking land from another tribe. There is no reason why that is less relevant than one pre-colonial times.