521 Forum Posts by "mysecondstar"
At 3/12/03 05:47 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:
If I didn't respect you, this would have been a huge flame war. But I guess it's more comical now.
oh, we wouldn't want that now, would we ^_^
i just feel very strongly about the conflict in Korea. it means a great deal to me, and i usually take things very seriously about the matter. but i should really lighten up.
oh god. this isn't good timing at all...
At 3/12/03 04:20 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: It was sarcasm. I know the Chinese backed up the Koreans.
just keeping you in check^_^
At 3/12/03 04:45 PM, jimsween wrote: Thats not neccesarily true because saddam has nothing to lose. To me it seems like he doesnt actually hate america but he either hates mankind or wants attention. So its probable that hell use all his weapons either on the troops or his people and then use his biological defense strategy to make the land inhabitable. Think of it this way would you rather be forgotten or hatefully remembered by most people.
he wants power. above all. and if he can take on the US without repercussion, then he wins. we don't need another cocky ruler that thinks that they can do whatever they want to.
At 3/12/03 05:01 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: im not trying to say evryone in the army is a psychi, but anyone applying for a job which involves murdering people you have never met before needs their heads examining.
it's called patriotism. to do whatever is necessary to defend your country from enemies domestic and abroad.
At 3/12/03 01:17 PM, esj wrote: i take it your not from the u.s. which means that your opinions are that of a f**k'ing retard considering all other countries like france germany and russia arent behind us im guessing your one from of those countries. we spout off what we want to here without assholes like you to respond and give consturctive critisism. guess what!? constructive critisism from assholes like you is not needed.
that is not at all appropriate. you think that anyone that doesn't share your opinions should not be allowed to talk? you are the embodiment of ignorant Americanism who have no regard for the opinions of the world. you just continue along your ignorant, unenlightened state not wanting to know the opinions of others and to, maybe, sway their opinion to your favor. but no, you have to be all gung ho and go at it alone and not accept anyone else's ideas. it's no wonder why so many countries dislike the US. and you aren't helping.
At 3/11/03 09:19 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: Hehehe... kickass new bomb... can't wait... :)
can't wait either. i want to see what havoc this bomb can wreak on the iraqis ^_^
At 3/10/03 11:53 PM, CrustifiedOnCrass wrote: It could be better.
better how? where else can you find the same civil liberties as the US? saying "it couldn't be better" and not really saying how it could be is ludicris. it's like having sex with no foreplay. painful for eveyone. unless of course you wouldn't know...which is possible. no offense of course. or if you do know, i don't imagine you are large enough to make a difference.
reminds me of a sex and the city episode (my gf watches it. i don't even know the girls name i'm even telling the story about) when the diet pepsi commercial lady really likes this guy and they were abstaining from sex for a little bit, and when the time finally came, they were making out and she said something like, "i'm ready for you to come in!" and he replied, "i already am..."
At 3/11/03 11:12 PM, Jlop985 wrote: And thank God for that, cause the media helps keep the government in check.
but when does it come to the point when it's too much? or too little?
At 3/10/03 06:31 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Sarcasm, jackass...
Does anyone actually read the topics anymore, or do they just look at the most recent post and try to insult THAT person?
so basically, they do what you do?
At 3/12/03 09:33 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: They didn't back up the Koreans back in the 1950's.
actually, the Chinese did help the north koreans in the Korean War. that was the only reason why the Korean Conflict wasn't a complete success. we just got too close for comfort for them. after the Inchon counter-offensive (a brilliant piece of strategy by General MacArthur) we almost took the entire penninsula. there were only pockets of communists in the north. then the Chinese came in. the retook Seoul and the US had to re-retake Seoul again before they signed the armistice. roughly where they started from.
when China joined the fray, that's when the friction with MacArthur and Truman started. MacArthur wanted to stop the Chinese by preliminary bombing runs and, ultimately, nuking them, and Truman wouldn't hear of it. so he dismissed MacArthur.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/859731.asp?cp1=1http://mr-31238.mr.valuehost.co.u k/assets/Flash/psychic.swf&cp1=1
these are some of the atrocities going in north korea as we speak. it's a recount of a north korean political prisoner. it's sick what they do to these people. it's similiar to what saddam hussein is accused of.
unfortunately, there isn't much we can do with the north koreans. if we send troops, the north koreans may preemptively attack either by invading South Korea, firing artillery into Seoul, or firing a missle on one of our allies ie. Japan or directly on US soil.
in all honesty, iraq is not even a problem in comparison with the Korean conflict. we can steam roll the iraqis, but the north koreans have millions of soldiers ready to attack at a single word from puff daddy kim jong il. perhaps it's to show the world our might so that our enemies will back off.
At 3/12/03 10:00 AM, mulder_xuk wrote: the usa already owes the un a shit load of money the last time i checked
and what exactly does that have to do with the US leaving/not leaving the UN?
At 3/12/03 11:28 AM, redneckking wrote: Its only bad when its in dust form and in the air.
that is the whole worry with asbestos. the second you stir it, it could become hazardous to all that are in the vicinity.
Canada has taken a lot of heat for their asbestos mining as it's one of their major exports. the arguement was that the more asbestos that is mined, the more dependent the whole world would be on it and no one would try to develop a new means of fireproofing.
At 3/11/03 10:37 PM, Jlop985 wrote: It's simple. Iraq has oil. North Korea does not. Even though North Korea is definitely more of a threat, the Bush administration is doing next to nothing because they cannot profit from a war with North Korea. I used to be on Bush's side on the war with Iraq, but I just saw his hypocrisy when he did nothing about North Korea.
jesus lord the ignorance. first of all, the US can not take the oil. hence, they can't profit from something that isn't theirs. the world thinks that the US is in this world to tap into one of the world's largest oil reserve. so the US can not take the oil. period. done. end of discussion. it is, as Judge said, an act to prove that the US is doing something about the war on terror. yet people still have this stubborn belief that it's all about the oil.
second, a fleet of US long-range bombers has been sent to Guam to flex its might at north korea. from there it can be outfitted with whatever it needs from standard, "smart", or nuclear bombs. they are also talking to its allies in the far east such as South Korea, Japan, and China to persuade north korea to settle down. doing nothing you say? i suggest you do a better job of informing yourself before you spew out more ignorant babble. it's for your sake, not mine.
i sometimes wonder. the UN is the breeding ground of tough talk with little follow through. it's basically a forum to see what every country thinks about anything in the world and to see if they'll do anything about it. and in most cases, they don't. or at least do anything to a great extent aside from "policing".
the only times it was affective was when the USSR left the UN and China was actually Taiwan and all decisions were made based on what the US thought was right. but then that brings up a whole new topic.
then again you are pretty young. me thinks once you get a little more schoolin' done, you'll be fine.
At 3/11/03 11:06 PM, jimsween wrote: some of them?
don't worry, you don't really bother me too much. sometimes. you're entitled to your opinoins. although some of them are a little...eh
and as for the asbestos, i have to agree with Judge. nicely said. i didn't even have to write nothing ^_^
agreed. i have friends in the Gulf right now expecting to fight at any given moment. it would be a shame if they were to fight and be treated like dirt when they returned. all i know is that when they get back, i'm going to give them all a big hug and we'll go get some breakfast. love breakfast^_^
i am a christian as well. a practicing Catholic. but i have to agree in that religion has no place in politics. we can ask God for guidance or to help us in time of need but to base all actions of state as a command of God is absolute fanaticism. we are becoming our enemy if we follow in such a way. al Quaeda did their terrible act in the name of Allah. now we are waging this war in the name of God. now we are one and the same.
it reminds me of the Simpsons when Lisa was Joan of Arc and Groundskeeper Willy captured her and both were told by God that the were to win the war for their respective countries...i believe the line was, "oh, i didn't know you two would be in the same room...umm... gotta run (heavenly chorus singing as God [ray of light] ascends through a door in the roof and slams door behind him)."
i remember reading something like this in TIME a couple weeks ago where restaurants around that country were naming french fries "freedom" fries etc. and IHOP, which introduced it's stuffed french toast not too long ago, doesn't seemed to be too affected by its name since it's one of the most popular items on the menu. cheese seems to have taken a hit in sales though.
or perhaps show incriminating evidence (their smoking gun) that the WMD exist and present them and then attack quickly and get this mess on and over with. and if they do move them, its only a matter of time before they find and destroy it.
i'll be more clear. the United States has always claimed that they had proof that iraq was hiding WMD. yet, there hasn't been any "smoking gun" to prove that theory.
if the US were to provide information to their whereabouts and, perhaps, assist the UN weapons inspectors with their search then, in my opinoin, war would be justified.
because let's be honest. first, the US will not target these locations due to the fact that they need their smoking gun. second, iraq will, more likely than not, destroy their stock piles before the Americans reach them. therefore there will be no smoking gun and the US invasion will not be justified.
the one scenario i see is the the US will not divulge information regarding the location of such weapons because it is vital to their attack strategy to storm and maintain these location as quickly as possible as not to have them destroyed by the iraqis to quickly.
i was listening to the radio on Sunday. Condy Rice was the guest speaker along with a columnist from the the New York Times. the host asked Condy Rice whether or not the United States was being forthcoming with all the information it had on iraq and if there was anything more intelligence the US had that it wasn't telling the people. Dr. Rice hesitated for about half a second and continued to say something along the lines of, "everything the US public needs to know is out there" stating all the things that were visible to us right now was enough reason to start war in the Middle East. the host kept on insisting that Dr. Rice answer his question and she kept skirting the issue. her explanation was that there were some things that had to be kept quiet in order to protect its source. only some things. not all things.
my question is what could the White House know that would be detrimental if the public knew about it?
At 3/8/03 10:20 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Yeah, sports, the one of the oldest traditions in the world, is ruining the USA...
ruining how?
At 3/10/03 12:06 AM, PreacherJ wrote:
Apparently, only the rich folks going to "real" college are too important have to worry about such crackdowns on the educational system.
hey i go to a real college and i'm hardly what anyone would call "rich". i support myself making $25k a year which, after rent, is more like $10k. and then bills, more like $7k. and then i need about that much per year to pay for college (university of illinois at chicago... cheaper than northwestern university and the university of chicago even with grants and scholarships). and, apparently, i make too much money to get any assistance from a public institution. just my luck i suppose. thank god i'm graduating soon.
At 3/9/03 06:47 PM, DenkSmoker wrote:At 3/9/03 03:17 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Reasonable Suspicion is the best law out there. It catches those stupid people right in their tracks. Mwahaha. You can also reject an alcohol test, but you'll get arrested.Is it illegal to refuse an alcohol test? Or is it just an automatic failure, meaning you'll get thrown in jail for DWI or DUI? Not that it makes a lot of difference, just wondering.
that isn't true. i refused a breathalizer and did not get arrested for DUI. i was actually fumbling to get some tissue for my girlfriend and swerved on the road. it was 3 am on a saturday night so i guess it makes sense for the cop to pull me over. probable cause at its finest.
hmm...that seems about right. i am a republican. and i knew i was a pretty moderate one. seems about right. wait, i said that already..heh heh
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 1.75
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.10
At 3/9/03 09:05 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote:At 3/9/03 01:00 AM, mysecondstar wrote:India's independence from Great Britain. i'd say that's a great example.Yeah, it's not like India is at war with Pakistan, and both definitely aren't third world countries....that sure worked out great. India/Pakistan is SO important...
i was speaking of their indepence, not their current conflict with Pakistan. ahh yes..the Pakis...gotta love the the Pakis (thank God for Dubya!)
At 3/9/03 01:29 AM, thenark wrote: I was watching the news tonight, and I saw something that rather amused me. Apparently theres a broadway strike going on in new york right now, amongst the live actors. One of the people who was reporting on it, to a backdrop of very stuck up looking people said that with this strike, it is very worrying for the economic stability of live theatre on new york. This amused me because in the several months of reporting on the potential war in Iraq, it seems no one, not one solitary reporter or economic analyst has said anything about how worrying a war in the middle east is for the economies of many middle eastern countries. I just love the news.
the strike is involving the pit orchestras and the minimum number of people that play at any performance. and it's happened before 30 years ago. also, it will all blow over and musicals like Cabaret, which isn't affected, will be huge (they've sold out for the next two weeks). no worries.
