535 Forum Posts by "Jiperly"
a little bit of bother, but if you look at the bottom, everything is, in fact, true....they have references for everything....
money Afgan has received since its Liberation? $0
I can understand the troops going home through...they can't be there forever....but they should at least get some International support.....i mean, what kind of resources does Afgan has to lean back into, unlike Iraq's Oil feilds.....
I know Asia has 2 times as many Musliums as the Middle East, but thats all...
wow....it seems everyone else is right......you are an idiot(bear? thats an animal....i'm guessing you mean beer....and shitty assed beer commericals? i know, we can't compete with the "WASSSUUUUUPPPPP??!!!" commercial.....)
it just dawned on me- you're an arrogent sadist. you enjoy seeing countries get bombed, you enjoy attacking others for their beliefs, and you enjoy insulting other people just to make yourself feel more powerful
defination of sadist if its too big of a word for you:
sadist
n : someone who obtains pleasure from inflicting pain or others [ant: masochist]
glad this "debate" has keep up with facts.....i'm reading through eltarrs comments in order
History doesn't matter? but what is your excuse to attacking Iraq? to prevent 9/11, thus history is in your frame of mind
see your sorry canadian ass and your countrys people are filled with a bunch of pussys- oh, i'm sorry, 2 things- 1. why are we "sorry canadian asses"? we've been in both World Wars longer than you, and we have never needed to be recused by you.- 2.a bunch of pussies? how is that proof to your side of the debate? it seems like you have no proof to the war on Iraq other than you want people to die to feel patriotic.
our PM is stoned? funny....didn't your president sniff crack? oh wait- we aren't talking about your country, are we now?
yes, not all Canadians agree with not going to war- the main reason? because it will hurt trade with the US. its not cause we agree with the war. and besides, millions of Americans don't agree with the war either.
you kick Canada's ass? oh wait, thats right, since you guys couldn't conquer us in the last war that Canada was vs. America(War of 1812), we captured Detriot, we burned your White House to the ground, and won all of the largest battles fought on Canadian soil.But thats right- you kicked our asses.
The fact is , Eltarr, you're pissed that everyone doesn't agree with America. You believe that anyone who doesn't agree with America, be it individual or country, is stupid and scared, and you have no proof of either. So you personally attack them to make yourself feel stronger for not agreeing with you.
how about this, you crazy dutch bastard!
At 3/29/03 01:17 AM, eltarr wrote:
you know what jiperly, your just fucken made cause your country didnt have the balls to do what weve been doing for"so you say"12yrs.so get over it! when you have some real useful info type it here! alright!
no- i'm damn proud of my country for not getting involved in a war that has nothing to do with Canada. also, if you can count, you would see that from 1991 to 2003(not the end of the year yet) you'd see it's not "so called" 11 years- it is.
how about this- you try to convince me. If you are so sure of your correctness, then lay it on me.
wow! i'm glad such arrogence can be spread on the net!
Saddam is not an Islamic. He contols his country with strict displine because he overthrew the last dictator and knows how to do it, and prevent it from happening
you still with me? good.
Now, Islamic extremists come along. They are terrorists. define terrorist. did you come up with something simular with "violent freedom fighter", then you are right(well, you could come up with hundreds of other answer, but just follow me on this...) now, Saddam, the strict and control oriented leader of an opressed people have terrorists, freedom fighters, revoltuaries, ect. at his door. He is not their religon, and since they are extremists, this is a huge offence if he does not convert.
still with me?
so, Saddam would not have terrorists inside his land, let alone arm them , and he would be a complete fucking moron to give his enemies WMD.
and thus we logically concluded that Saddam is harbouring no terrorists. Saudi Arba, yes. Pakistan, yes. Iraq, no.
go to the FBI most wanted list and tell me how many are Iraqi's?
i'm sorry- i must be tired or something....lemme try that one again
who in the year 2000, before the elections, saw that
a)in one year the largest terrorist Attack would occur in America?
b)Bush would invade Iraq in 3 years?
and don't act like we have been given a referandum, because we weren't. The fact that the votes were so close to each other brings into the question on who voted for whom......
who in the year 2000 saw that
a)in one year the largest American Attack would occur in America?
b)Bush would push for a war in Iraq?
and don't act like we have been given a referandum, because we weren't. The fact that the votes were so close to each other brings into the question on who voted for whom......
At 3/29/03 01:03 AM, Disguy_youknow wrote: One thing: America can't take the whole world on.
don't forget the use of any nukes gives the UN the right to declare international war, and gives other Nations the right to use their Nukes on the nuker.
At 3/19/03 09:02 AM, David_Green wrote: i dont understand why we have to be the great america.i mean cant we just go and nuke them all. shoot if we were at war and an iraqi civilian found a gun or just had a gun and we were walkin down the streets over there what do u think the iraqi would do say oh we love america, hell no they would just blow as many of us apart as they could. so if u think about it they arent civlians i mean its like a country populated completly by its army. so i dont see why we cant just nuke them. whats your opinion.
and they say us anti-war protesters are dumb.....
one of Bush's reasons for going out there is to "liberate" the Iraqi's, namely the Kurds, from the great big evil Saddam who gassed them 15 years ago. so how do we save them? why, by killing have the population(24 million) of the country, of course, and cause serve defects for years to come- that'll stop them terrorists! they won't hate America after we genocide their neighbours!
ya, this makes me look MORE evil:
At 3/29/03 12:41 AM, eltarr wrote: oh, ok tartking, well that technically un elected president fucked with use first, so his ass is gone. and bush well hes just doing it for re-election. use your head tart!
fucked with use first? that makes no sense....use?
also, Saddam didn't lay a finger on you guys for 12 years, while the US has bombed Iraq weekly for the last 12 years.....
also, funny story- Saddam was accually elected into office.....He just rigs the elections afterwords(not anything new)
At 3/28/03 02:38 AM, mysecondstar wrote: your arguement is sound. but there are other things to keep in mind.
for instance, for those who are against the war and choose to exercise their right to assemble, behold.
in just about every single major city in the US has had numerous anti-war protests. and in every city the entire police force in that city will be on duty for crowd control. that on top of their already stenuous duty of patrolling and protecting their city from terrorist attack. millions of dollars are being spent on police overtime alone. that comes straight out of the taxpayers dollars. and we all pay taxes. not only will assembling directly effect our pockets but also our security.
i agree that not all anti-war advocates are anti- American. i am anti-war as well. but with US interests in mind i think twice before i join in any kind of rally. i'm not about to compromise our security or my paycheck to protest a war already underway.
If you don't stand and let yourself be heard, then the politicains will care even less on your opinion on the war- If no one protests it, then they won't know how strong the opposition is(ie. Britian government is a supporter of the war, but 1.5 Million, or 15% of all the protestors worldwide, protested on February 15, 2003 over the war......)
i'm sorry, but all complaining about that arrows_eleven(aka Chaos_Reign's name for the week) will have to be restricted to our own website.
At 3/28/03 12:36 AM, eltarr wrote: jiperly, what exactially are you saying? that england is bad? or what!
i'm saying the History of English leaders were bad, just like the Leaders of America were/are bad.....
After all, your Nation was created because of their "discrimate" ways(make me pay for the Seven Years War? make me pay for our own defence? lets revolt!!)
do you know how many Iraqi have died? Do you know how many civilians have been killed? do you know how many Iraqi people are roaming the streets looking for food and shelter because the US of A was afraid of Saddam giving weapons to his enemies to kill his enemies(with no decent proof, might i add)?
O wait, no, they don't televise things that could be considered "unamerican". They don't talk about how many people are being massacred for votes, oil, and a feeling of security.
As for the Hunt for Bin Laden, last I heard, he was hiding out in Pakistan.....There ARE no terrorists in Iraq.....Terrorists are freedom fighters, they fight for a countries freedom in murderous ways.....So why the hell would a power hungry dictator who kills his own people let them in with open arms?? thats like America accepting Islamics because they hate Iraq, and giving them weapons of Mass destruction to kill Iraqi's....
of course, it could be a tactic to cause terror.....
no, i haven't read Chomsky......but whats with the hatred toward him? the only thing i can think is wrong is he claims that American Media trys to control the populance through protraying certain objects more than other objects(ie more violence in the Ghetto than people volenteering for the homeless) and that he defended a (crazy) mans right to freedom of speech.....
At 3/27/03 05:12 PM, karasz wrote:
wait a sec... u say that im wrong... THEN u agree with me... which is it??? also im just using this as an example... i dont really wanna hear that im anti-american or shit... just tossing out the idea... forcing EVERYONE to think...
I agree with your revolutionary- Terrorist statement, although I isn't exactly right either.....
At 3/27/03 08:43 PM, jimsween wrote: The revolutionaries were terrorists but most of the stuff they did didnt result in deaths. They were terrorist in the way that they did terrorise people, they would pour tea down the throats of taxmen and tar and feather them. I hardly think the Boston Teaparty compares to 9/11. The Palestinian extremists cant be compared to the revolutionaries either. Most Palestinian extremeists are against any Jewish state, the revolutionariies only wanted control of the land they already had. Although the Jewish government could be compared to the Brits because they both are acting pretty much the same.
maybe so, but do not forget that Blacks, Jews, Aboringials and "Loyalists" were also on the hit lists, and many of these people fled to Canada(after your revolution, Canada got 3 times bigger from people escaping the predijest of American citizens....)
Loyalists homes were burned and children were killed....
At 3/27/03 07:51 PM, NuttyBanana wrote: hmm, i've read through the majority of this topic and havent seen anyhting on, or a thanks towards the british....
But saying that, alot of forums n stuff i've read about the war, no american i have seen has yet mentioned us. I'm not quite sure what to make of that.
But i am for the war, Saddam has got away once but still poses a threat, this time he needs to be put in his place......6 feet under....no, make that 50 feet.
*looks at the list of horrible deads America has done in the past fifty years*
*thinks about the horrible deads England has done in the last 150*
trust me, you should consider it a good thing that i'm not attacking Britian. But i should add this- Iraq(i believe) was owned by Britian after WWI.....maybe they are trying to fix their mistakes with it......
I don't know.....I tend to think more about the country that pushed for the war in the first place, not the country that hoped on the bandwagon....
Why should America be trusted to protect every nation? Actually recent US history on helping or attacking countries is mostly based on self-interest - HENSE THE CURRENT PROTESTING!
heres some proof of the above statement:
in 1953, United States overthrows the Prime Minister of Iran, installs a Dictator, in 1954 The United States overthrows the democraticly elected president of Guatemala, killing 200,000 civilians in the process. In 1963, the US supports the assassination of South Veitnam's President, and from that point on till 1975, 4 million people are killed by American soldiers in Asia, or 2/3 the estimated number of Jews killed by Nazism during WWII. In September 11th, 1973, The United States stages coup in chile, and assassinated their democraticly elected president- and replaced him by a dictator. 5,000 chileans were murdered. In 1977, America supports the militart rulers of El Salvador, leading to the deaths of 70,000 Salvadorans and 4 american nuns.. In 1980, Osama Bin Laden and fellow terrorists were trained to kill soveits, and the CIA gives them 3 BILLION!
In 1981, the Reagan Admin. trains and funds the 'contras', 30,000 Nicaraguans die. In 1982, the US gives billions in aid to Iraqi to create weapons to kill Iranians in their war, and in 1983, the US secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait with weapons they recieved from America. In 1991, America invades Iraq and reinstates the dictator of Kuwait. Since then, Iraq has been bombed weekly till present day, and the UN estimates that 500,000 Iraqi civilians die from sanctions and bombs. in 2000-2001, the Taliban received 245 million in aid, and in Sept. 11th, 2001 Osama Bin Laden, with his CIA training, killed 3000 people
At 3/27/03 09:38 AM, fourdaddy wrote:
reasonable defense? so chemical/biological weapons are a reasonable defense? what do they need defense from anyway? if they werent such a backward nation, they would realize that we would protect them if they needed it, then they wouldnt need any weapons at all.
uhhh.....we didn't defend Iraq from Iran, did you? there are thousands of wars America doesn't get involved in, and Americas current frowning on dictator isn't helping very much....
I think Jon Stewart said it best when he said:
(show footage of him winning the award and going up, crowd applauding him)
"Alright! good for you, Vocal Activist! you've earned the award, vocal activist! We appreciate your vocal activism!"
(talks about bush, followed by boo's)
"Hey! why is he being all vocal activist-like? whats up with that?"
since Bush considers this the war on terror, even though the complete lack of any proof of terrorists existing in there, i'm assuming the "war" will never end.
As for Iraq, the soldiers will most likely stay there for at least a decade, and the fighting of Saddams regeime will end by late April-May
people who cause damage during any protest embrassass the people who are there for their beliefs- the peace protest isn't alone. as for worldwide, its my understanding that the 1.5 million people in london did cause a great deal of vandalism!
At 3/26/03 11:49 PM, arrows_eleven wrote:At 3/26/03 11:45 PM, Jiperly wrote: ya....you had us fooled......What, did I ask to be a member? You people can't recognize jokes and sarcasm when it is stomping the shit out of you.
if you didn't want in the crew, then why did you come back acting all innocent?
Officer- Who did it, which way did he go?
LSC- I don't know, but he was really rude.
it wasn't that you were rude- it was that you were nice- and we know you too well to know that you are not nice. you freak out and bitch and moan when you don't get your way.
