people are idiots

[tiden12]

your all idiots that think was is not nessasary i wont deny tha we dont hhave the best president in the world but we arnt nvading iraq for our selves they arnt going to launch anything at us thats the whole thing sadaam has already said that if we attack them he we launch chemical weapons to isreal and if anyone hjere reads anything would no we have the technology to blow a missle of the sort out of the sky

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/23/03 10:01 AM, tiden12 wrote: your all idiots that think was is not nessasary i wont deny that we dont have the best president in the world but we arnt invading iraq for ourselves they arnt going to launch anything at us thats the whole thing sadaam has already said that if we attack them he we launch chemical weapons to isreal and if anyone here reads anything would no we have the technology to blow a missle of the sort out of the sky

You contradict yourselves too much there - I can't work out a thing. But i think you are for war. The point against war is that it is unnecessary and we believe America's motives aren't what they say they are.

We also think it is hypocritical that America want Saddam Disarmed of WMD when they have countless nukes in their bases.

[NEMESiSZ]

So what you're trying to say is...your mom's cupcakes are "great?"

Seriously, coherent posts only please.

[JMHX]

Alright, I never want to see a post like this from you again, Tiden. Honestly, put some time into the stuff you put on this board or you'll get eaten alive by everyone.

[Alakazam]

At 2/23/03 10:08 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

We also think it is hypocritical that America want Saddam Disarmed of WMD when they have countless nukes in their bases.

Who cares what you think? This is a red herring. It does not matter if we have WoMD. The UN specifically states that Iraq is NOT ALLOWED to have them. Do you understand this? Hmm?

Probably not.

[Valar]

"your all idiots that think was is not nessasary".....

ok then.....*moves away from the crack head....

Go find a dictionary...and then come back and try again at conducting a post....and while you are looking in the dictionary, look up the word hypocrisy...and that is your answer to this whole war on Iraq.

[Jax-Cross]

couldn't understand a thing tiden said. something about him being for war. I don't know. tiden maybe you should read some of the earlier debates and see what we have and have not gone over, then maybe you can bring in some intelligent conversation

[tiden12]

ok ok sorry i was still have a sleep when i posted that what i was trying to say was in short that i am for war but i think bush is a retard

[NEMESiSZ]

I'm pretty sure Bush types a little better though.

[swayside]

that's "president cowboy" to you.

[Slizor]

Who cares what you think?

Wow, calm down Mr Dictator boy.

This is a red herring. It does not matter if we have WoMD. The UN specifically states that Iraq is NOT ALLOWED to have them.

And the UN is controlled by America...

[NEMESiSZ]

At 2/23/03 05:57 PM, Slizor wrote:

And the UN is controlled by America...

If the UN were controlled by the USA, the war would've been over months ago. The UN has held back and disagreed with the USA on so many issues, the fact that you'd make a statement like that shows your ignorance.

[RoboTripper]

At 2/23/03 05:57 PM, Slizor wrote:
And the UN is controlled by America...

They truly are. Just look at how furious little prince Georgie is that some members would actually disagree with his master plan. I just think of that and imagine him being like the guy in Princess Bride: "INCONCEIVABLE!!!"

[NEMESiSZ]

You live in middle america, you're an idiot, and no one cares what you think.

You contradicted yourself, you're saying the UN is controlled by the USA, and back it up by saying the UN disagreed with George Bush.

I'll just end on this note, it's a good thing YOU'RE not President.

[VasIndustries]

At 2/23/03 06:05 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:

At 2/23/03 05:57 PM, Slizor wrote:

And the UN is controlled by America...

If the UN were controlled by the USA, the war would've been over months ago. The UN has held back and disagreed with the USA on so many issues, the fact that you'd make a statement like that shows your ignorance.

To a high extent, the UN is controlled by the US. When the East Timor genocide was occuring, almost everyone in the UN decided that something had to be done to help out, but the US didn't and so the UN did nothing.

[NEMESiSZ]

The UN SHOULD be controlled by the USA, but it isn't. The UN has been transformed into a useless organization, and will most likely fizzle out in the coming years.

The East Timor "genocide" issues ended before the UN could've done anything about it. It's a non-issue.

[RoboTripper]

At 2/23/03 06:13 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: You live in middle america, you're an idiot, and no one cares what you think.

I care... *sniff*

You contradicted yourself, you're saying the UN is controlled by the USA, and back it up by saying the UN disagreed with George Bush.

I didn't say complete control. Obviously the US can't make the UN do anything they want, otherwise it wouldn't be the UN. When I say control, I mean control like the Republicans are in control of Congress. They are running the show but they can't just get away with stupid shit... well completely stupid shit anyway...

I'll just end on this note, it's a good thing YOU'RE not President.

LOL good one dude, don't do me like that please

[VasIndustries]

At 2/23/03 06:17 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: The UN SHOULD be controlled by the USA, but it isn't. The UN has been transformed into a useless organization, and will most likely fizzle out in the coming years.

The East Timor "genocide" issues ended before the UN could've done anything about it. It's a non-issue.

That's not true. 5 days after the initial attack, the UN put to vote if they should help. The vote was 62 of 72 that they should. 10 countries said no, including the US. Instead aid was given to Cambodia and the killing fields, which was necessary, but also served a US interest.

[NEMESiSZ]

Bottom line: war with Iraq will happen, soon.

[RoboTripper]

At 2/23/03 06:36 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Bottom line: war with Iraq will happen, soon.

Yeah, what's your point? Just because something happens doesn't make it right or a good idea. I don't know whether you are happy that war is about to start but if you are then that's pretty sad.

[JMHX]

At 2/23/03 06:53 PM, DenkSmoker wrote:

At 2/23/03 06:36 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Bottom line: war with Iraq will happen, soon.

Yeah, what's your point? Just because something happens doesn't make it right or a good idea. I don't know whether you are happy that war is about to start but if you are then that's pretty sad.

But, you see, Nemesisz has no feelings. That why reading his posts is always so entertaining.

[Slizor]

If the UN were controlled by the USA, the war would've been over months ago. The UN has held back and disagreed with the USA on so many issues, the fact that you'd make a statement like that shows your ignorance.

Of course they don't have total control, but it is pretty much controlled by the US. Look at the hundreds of Israeli resolutions which haven't made it past America vetoing them.

[NEMESiSZ]

5 countries have veto power, asshole, you may as well say Russia controls the UN.

[Alakazam]

At 2/23/03 08:38 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: 5 countries have veto power, asshole, you may as well say Russia controls the UN. :

Terry is just a sad little boy who lives in a crappy country. He is like a dirty Frenchmen...no one pays attention to them anymore because they are a bunch of nobodies, so what do they do? Complain like a bunch of sissies about America.

[NEMESiSZ]

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion."

[Alakazam]

At 2/23/03 08:44 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion." :

Did you know the national bird of France is the rooster? That just proves that all Frenchmen love cock.

[Slizor]

5 countries have veto power, asshole, you may as well say Russia controls the UN.

I am very aware of that. However, the US has used the veto by far the most times. And, basically, all the other countries, since the USSR fell, are in America's pocket.

[Alakazam]

At 2/23/03 08:54 PM, Slizor wrote:

5 countries have veto power, asshole, you may as well say Russia controls the UN.

I am very aware of that. However, the US has used the veto by far the most times. And, basically, all the other countries, since the USSR fell, are in America's pocket.

Jealousy gets you nowhere...especially if you live in a crap country. Are you angry that the UK is our lacky? Ha ha ha ha...

Here boy! Come here! Good boy!

[JMHX]

Tony Blair is the American Lapdog. Maybe we can get the British some dental care after we kill a bunch of their soldiers in Iraq.

[redneckking]

Of course they don't have total control, but it is pretty much controlled by the US. Look at the hundreds of Israeli resolutions which haven't made it past America vetoing them.

Your statement is not well thought out. If the U.S. did control the U.N. then we would have passed our own resolutions involving Israel because Israel is an ally and the U.S. is always trying to fix the problems out there, so if we did control the U.N. why hasn't anything been passed by the U.S.

By the way, all of you 12-15 year olds. Don't post anything in the political threads if you do not know what you are talking about. About 75% of the stupid posts are from your age group.