America's great democracy, only opposes dictators who dont atribute to its income.
TRUE....
Statement, True or false?
1,901 Views | 32 Replies
Too True.Except for Hitler. We didn’t like that he was trying to rule the world and of course that’s Americas job. Who knows, if that mad little midget had something more to offer the U.S., history could have been very different. And to all of you who take offence to this, I’m not too of base. The U.S. was on Osamas side for a while. Shit, we even trained him.
True
$ > Freedom
True
Capitalism > Freedom
True
Greed > Freedom
True
Seems to be the way of it, we're a very self centered nation, always have been.
Does it have to stay this way? NO
We have a right in this country to fight for our freedom. We will not stand against this tyranny! I'm gonna pop a cap in this government's ass!
WHO'S WITH ME?!!!
Wish I could!
I still have some faith in humanity.. and the american people.. just not in it's government!
Like most people this side of the atlantic...
And I gues/think/hope the majority of voters in american feel the same way..
maybe the 2004 election wil change a thing or two?
Aaah what the hell.
it probably wont, politicians are all the same.
they pretend to care, kiss a baby and give you a load of crap for your vote....
elections are like foreplay,
A lot of sweettalk and loving, before you get fucked...
At 12/3/02 03:39 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: True
$ > Freedom
True
Capitalism > Freedom
True
Greed > Freedom
True
Damn you marijuana clock, you always state the same things on my mind, making my posting ability pointless :P
ahh, too true. things are just as screwed up and pointless this side o' the pond in bloody england.
strange thought. imagine if there was a country of just all the ng users. first thought: bloody twisted, malicious, violent, and screwed up place. right? but probably wouldn't be that much worse than any other country right now (except norway... my sisters just moved there, sounds like bloody euphoria compared to here.) i mean, of course, all the ng ppl would have massive problems trying to communicate to real people instead of over a computer (j/k) but just wondering what itd be like. quite a lotta creative talent there, n tom fulp would probably make quite a benevelant dictator. anyhoos. my brains gonna start going off onto completely unconnected tracks soon, so's i'll just shut up.
What about Bosnia and Somalia?
Neither Bosnia nor Somalia had any economic purpose for America. Both were a large drain on American tax payers.
At 12/11/02 04:58 PM, Anarchy_Penguin wrote: What about Bosnia and Somalia?
Neither Bosnia nor Somalia had any economic purpose for America. Both were a large drain on American tax payers.
No that was the UN, The UN is made of many nations and many nations participated. MANY, M-A-N-Y. UN, U-N.
At 12/11/02 07:58 PM, MarijuanaClock wrote:At 12/11/02 04:58 PM, Anarchy_Penguin wrote: What about Bosnia and Somalia?No that was the UN, The UN is made of many nations and many nations participated. MANY, M-A-N-Y. UN, U-N.
Neither Bosnia nor Somalia had any economic purpose for America. Both were a large drain on American tax payers.
That would mean that because America was part of a coalition that opposed the dictators in those campaigns then they did not oppose them.
If you went by the logic which you are using, then you could say that England did not fight in world war two, an alliance fought in world war two. If two men commit the same crime together, then neither men commited a crime, but those two men commited a crime.
If a part of a coalition goes into to a peace keeping mission, then each nation has fought a peace keeping mission.
No that was the UN, The UN is made of many nations and many nations participated. MANY, M-A-N-Y. UN, U-N.
The UN could never have acted in Bosnia. Russia holds veto power in the security council and would have blocked anything that tried to go through. It is ironic that countries like France had no problem part in that particular action are so insistant on UN approval for action in Iraq.
. It is ironic that countries like France had no problem part in that particular action are so insistant on UN approval for action in Iraq.
Grrr...taking part in that action.
My kingdom for an edit button.
At 12/11/02 08:50 PM, Raptorman wrote:The UN could never have acted in Bosnia. Russia holds veto power in the security council and would have blocked anything that tried to go through.
No that was the UN
He meant to say NATO but was mistaken.
Actually The US and mostly the EU(NATO) had a lot to gain from the Yugoslavia-campain.
-Stability in the balken region(Enlargement of EU in later years? think of trade relations? the balken is rich in natural resources, that's why Hitler also wanted it!)
-Milosovic stoped US/EU attempts for an oil-pipe line construction.(even before the dust had settled, construction was started)
-Milosovic Fiercely opposed privatisation attempts on state-owned bussineses. (never f*ck with enron!)
I think Nato never invests its billion dollar bomb's without something to gain!
At 11/27/02 07:33 AM, IraqNOphobiA wrote: America's great democracy, only opposes dictators who dont atribute to its income.
TRUE....
False... America opposes all dictators, but acts against those who don't attribute to the income more than those that do.
if america opposes dictators theny why havn't they taken out the leaders of N.Korea, or the rest of the middle east and there "allies" agaisnt terriosim buess what those countrys are as bad as anyone else. The united states goverment are the biggest group of hiprocrites i've ever heard of, they say there agaisnt terriorism and dictotors yet they support countrys with dictators AND terriorists.
At 12/16/02 08:28 PM, Angryjeff wrote: if america opposes dictators theny why havn't they taken out the leaders of N.Korea,
America does oppose the North Korea regime. It has since 1945. Your arguement is idiotic. You're a ridiculous person.
you guys need to quit blaming the government for all of societies shortcommings. any change you would try to evoke in someone else, you should first make in yourself. advertise this initiative and carowds will sway to your side. you're not changing the masses, your changing one person at a time.
True...though the only people whom can sway the masses are the ones causing problems...
Very true. The only reason were making such a big deal about this is because Iraq has oil and we need it. All Bush is trying to do is fight a war with Iraq, which he thinks we will win. Usually when you when a War you gain territory so...I'm guessing you get my point, we just want their oil. Look at that place in Africa where the Beauty Pageant was gonna be, the sentenced a women to death by stoning, but ohhh, Mr. Bush didn't say anything about that, because:
1. they don't pose a threat
2. Iraq has more oil than them.
Personally, I hate Bush. I think we would be much better of under a Facist Government, or if you people don't know what that is, like China. We have a free market economy but yet they are still under capitalism. That way all you people who dream about becoming rich, can still dream and still have a job. That is how i see things and I hope someone has the same feelings as me. Well peace
~~Evilshark27~~
At 12/17/02 12:14 AM, evilshark27 wrote: ...we just want their oil.
bull crap. true, though, iraq does have oil and our country runs on it. if our access is cut off to it our country might topple due to increased prices of oil. sadaam has the power to do that. he can extort the usa with oil. if we take that option away from him and those following him, he would have less against us. if you don't want our country so concerned about about oil, make some kind of energy form more efficient. until then, stop blaming the government for taking impotant things into consideration.
Look at that place in Africa where the Beauty Pageant was gonna be, the sentenced a women to death by stoning, but ohhh, Mr. Bush didn't say anything about that, because:
1. they don't pose a threat
2. Iraq has more oil than them.
also, that isn't as important as a national threat. of course we don't want things like that to happen, but since they pose no immediate threat, we can't waste our time on them when we should be dealing with more immediate ones...duh
At 12/17/02 01:39 PM, swayside wrote: bull crap. true, though, iraq does have oil and our country runs on it. if our access is cut off to it our country might topple due to increased prices of oil. sadaam has the power to do that. he can extort the usa with oil. if we take that option away from him and those following him, he would have less against us. if you don't want our country so concerned about about oil, make some kind of energy form more efficient. until then, stop blaming the government for taking impotant things into consideration.
First of all,
Saddam doesn't have power to do shit! Iraq hasn't been able to sell Oil since the Embargo started 10 years ago. So how on earth can Saddam influence Oil prices??
Before the Embargo(gulfwar) Iraq was one of the richest gulfstates, 90% of its income through export of oil. Now Iraq is the equivalent of a developing country, with large proportions of its people starving(inspite of the Un Oil for Food programme).
Iraq is surely not a threat to the largest Economy/millitary in the world.
But Iraq does have vast oilfields, now untouchable to Bush and his "moral correct" friends. So logically when Bush magically transforms Iraq into a 'Us-friendly' regime, the west will have all the oil they want at the price they want to pay.
second of all,
(you said:if you don't want our country so concerned about about oil, make some kind of energy form more efficient.)
I wish it was that simple..
dont underestimate how important Oil is.
Not only as a energy form for Cars, trucks, airlines, shippind routes and Shell, enron, mobile, ford ect.
But,
The petrochemical industry depends also on oil.
Doctors depend on Oil for modern medicine(yes its made out of oil).
Many of our great technological advancements we owe thanks to oil.
Think of plastics; Your keyboard, mouse, Tv, Cd's, cell phone, actionfigures, PCP, condoms, ect ect
Modern 21st century life is unthinkable without oil.
And if it ever runs out.. well... back to the dark-ages...
SO ---> Who ever controls the Oil, controls the world. Sounds simple doesn't it?
Why isn't bush doing something about Nigeria?(or that little warstruck province in russia).
well frankly, Who in America really gives a shit about a woman in Nigeria? We care more about our wallet than her. You'll see more people pissed off by a high gas price then about some poor underfed african.. Sad but true... Bush isn't out to save the world from big bad saddam..
just think of all the votes he'll get if he lowers the price of gas!!!
would you vote for him if he lowered oil prices? no? then why do you think others would.
and by the way, sorry about my misinformation. i've researched it and you were right in the objective aspect, thanks.
and i do realize the importance of oil. i'm not trying to underrate it. it's that importance of oil that makes it an issue in the war. not because that's all george w is focusing on, but because it's an effective way that the anti-bush crowd uses to make him look ignorant and neive.
That is so true. Saudi arabia. It has just as bad human rights records as afghanistan. it is like 10 times wose. But of course oil is the gravy train so they don't get mentioned or bombed. Sad isn't it. Everyone raves about the afghans rights. look at america
At 12/19/02 06:26 AM, IraqNOphobiA wrote:At 12/17/02 01:39 PM, swayside wrote: sadaam has the power to do that. he can extort the usa with oil. if we take that option away from him and those following him, he would have less against us.
Hey I've seen 60 minutes. they had a big report showing 500 oil trucks going out of iraq and into (india i think) The trucks go right past an american army base and america needs the oil so they don't ask questions, india taxes the trucks so they don't ask questions, iraq needs the money so nobody does anything about it. Bullshit oil sanction are a load of crap and everyone knows it. iraq halls the oil out and all bush does is turns a blind, oily eye. If he really hated iraq for being an axis of evil and didn't realy just want oil then he would stop the flow...but it still keeps on going.
OIL IS THE REAL AXIS OF EVIL!
It makes men into greedy filthy bastards
I wish We had a Leader who could rise above this insanity....
"Money is the root of all evil..." not oil. To Bush, and some others, oil means money, and money then breeds conflict. "Money is where the world goes wrong."
True, the role of government is two branches, protect the people from other governments and protect the people from itself..
