Just to make sure you idiots know!!

[Das-Gaylien]

This is just to make sure everybody knows (even though very few will probably read it).
Im from Denmark and even though we support America in the war against Iraq WE, the Danish people dont!
This is Americas war and Denmark has absolutely nothing to do with it. I wont say anyone deserves a terrorist attack but USA definally deserves all the enemies they have in the Middleeast, when you think about what USA does and did in Palestine. Denmark have no or had no enemies in the middleeast so why are we participating???
And all that crap Bush is pulling out of his ass about Iraq being a dictaturship and blablabla. Of course Iraq is a dictaturship, but thats not the reason for this war, this war is first of all for Americas safety or as Bush says for the "world" safety. Notice the "" above world please.
second of all its for the oil, did you notice that in Bushes speech, first he said dont put fire on the oil-wells, THEN he said dont kill the civillians or use weapons of massdestruction, shows his priority hu?
Third its for personal reasons, after all those are the folks who tried to kill my dad, quote George Bush.

Sorry I called you idiots guys really only the American and Iraq and Danish governments are idiots.

[swayside]

At 3/22/03 12:33 PM, Das_Gaylien wrote: ...after all those are the folks who tried to kill my dad, quote George Bush.

no, you idiot. that's a quote from judgemeharshx.

[shamROCK678]

It's a war on terrorism, all countries should be participating in this war. Harboring, supporting, and supplying terrorists. Broken terms of The Gulf War Treaty, this war is justified.

[swayside]

plus, it's not just a matter of is it ok for a country to sit this war out. britain had this problem. the opposition party wanted blair to not go into war with british troops because america was willing to go it alone. blair knew it was ok to sit it out, but he also knew that it wasn't right.

[flamewolf]

At 3/22/03 12:51 PM, shamROCK678 wrote: this war is justified.

No it isn't, George bush is doing it for the oil!

[karasz]

At 3/22/03 01:01 PM, flamewolf wrote:

At 3/22/03 12:51 PM, shamROCK678 wrote: this war is justified.

No it isn't, George bush is doing it for the oil!

no ur a fucking moron... we have already discussed this issue to no avail... and truth be told NOBODY'S OPINION HAS CHANGED... for about a good month or 2 the only topic on the forum was 'bush is gay' 'bush is doing it for oil' 'this war is gay' and basically im sick and tired of it...

so in conclusion i hate u and u smell...

[Taors]

This war isn't about oil. The US knew that Saddam would have soldiers at the ready to destroy their oil wells if the US got close enough.

[mysecondstar]

At 3/22/03 01:01 PM, flamewolf wrote:

At 3/22/03 12:51 PM, shamROCK678 wrote: this war is justified.

No it isn't, George bush is doing it for the oil!

you know, this isn't even worth arguing. if you've opened your ears in the past SEVERAL months, you would know it isn't about oil. i'd suggest you find out what is going so that people won't look at you and call you an ignoramus. then again, you might like it like that...

[NEMESiSZ]

Tell you what, when Denmark does anything anyone else cares about you can post this again, until then, keep quiet.

[MuscleHed]

Personally, I think not only has that post proven you YOU are an idiot, but that you are foolish and blind to what goes on the rest of the world. So, Denmark’s Government supports us but their people don’t? Really? NO SHIT, dumbass! That how it is with most countries, why should Denmark be any different? Please, before you post, THINK! Do you think you are the only country that don’t support Bush? No, we have morons all over the world! We even have morons here in the US. Is everyone in Denmark as asinine as you, or where you dropped on your head as a child?

I agree with NEMESiSZ, until Denmark make international news, then talk!

[VasIndustries]

At 3/22/03 12:38 PM, swayside wrote:

At 3/22/03 12:33 PM, Das_Gaylien wrote: ...after all those are the folks who tried to kill my dad, quote George Bush.

no, you idiot. that's a quote from judgemeharshx.

No, Bush did say it. Attempted patricide: Yet another reason to send others to fight.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

This has been debated too much, but I think the oil fields that were suppling France and others will become mostly Americas. We can only just wait till the end of the war to see what happens. Until then, nobody is right, and there is really no more reason to debate it.

[swayside]

At 3/22/03 08:38 PM, VasIndustries wrote:

Until then, nobody is right,

that is never true in politics. if there are two directly conflicting opinions, one of them HAS to be wrong (or at least more so than the other)

and there is really no more reason to debate it.

so you're moot?

[TheShrike]

At 3/22/03 12:33 PM, Das_Gaylien wrote: Im from Denmark and even though we support America in the war against Iraq WE, the Danish people dont!

Hmmm something is rotten in Denmark.

The truth is that oil isn't the reason for war, no matter what order Bush happens to mention the events.
But oil is more like a bonus. Place a pro-american government into power, free the Iraqi people, and rid the world of a menace to civilization. Oh, cheaper imports on oil, too.

[VasIndustries]

At 3/22/03 08:43 PM, swayside wrote:

At 3/22/03 08:38 PM, VasIndustries wrote:

Until then, nobody is right,

that is never true in politics. if there are two directly conflicting opinions, one of them HAS to be wrong (or at least more so than the other)

Of course one side is right while the other is wrong, but its only speculation right now. Bush and his advisors know the answer(what they expect to gain from the war), but nobody else does. After the war it will be more obvious what there was to gain, and if they horde the oil, I and others are right. If they let Iraq dispurse it to whoever they want, then you're right.

and there is really no more reason to debate it.

so you're moot?

I'm not moot, but the subject is. I'm just sick of debating it.

[NEMESiSZ]

Look, we all agree this danish samp shouldn't talk anymore, ever. So let's put our differences aside.

[ichbincow]

Gaylien,

In your youthfull rage to spew forth anti busg/war sentiments..I belive your not thinking to straight on this oil thing=

1)The loss of the oil resources in IRAQ doe not just affect the USA but your country and all others that use crude oil/gas---if oil is scarce gass prices go up in all nations

2)when this war is over and the rebuilding of IRAQ must begin--what are they gonna use for money if not oil? sand? dates? camels? The oil is Iraq's means for purchaseing what it needs to rebuild after all EVERYONE (that means denmark too) needs oil and Im sure denmark will buy oil from iraq.

3)enviromental reason=Are you that genocidal that you want saddam's force to pollute the atmosphere with burning oil? I was in the first gulf war when they burned the platforms and oil based smog every moring is not pleasant. If the burned the oil it would damage the surrounding land/water and the innocent iraq people who do not want to be in the war will be forced to breathe the fumes of burning oil.

I would touch on the subject of what gives you the right to proclaim yourself the official speaker for the opinions of ALL the people of denmark but I accredit that to youthfull arrogance coupled with a tad too many cola's.........so in closeing The desire of BUSH to NOT WANT the oil platforms being torched perhaps has a few more reasons than you may habve thought of.

[swayside]

very well said, ichbincow. that whole thing was one big whip crack. i wish there were more people who could post with such eloquence (not to mention the informity).

[bumcheekcity]

most countries are like that - government supports the war, people don't. it makes you wonder what they aren't telling us

[Slizor]

2)when this war is over and the rebuilding of IRAQ must begin--what are they gonna use for money if not oil? sand? dates? camels? The oil is Iraq's means for purchaseing what it needs to rebuild after all EVERYONE (that means denmark too) needs oil and Im sure denmark will buy oil from iraq.

You taken it is a given that Iraq will be rebuilt. They'll probably just screw them like they did to Afghanistan.

3)enviromental reason=Are you that genocidal that you want saddam's force to pollute the atmosphere with burning oil? I was in the first gulf war when they burned the platforms and oil based smog every moring is not pleasant. If the burned the oil it would damage the surrounding land/water and the innocent iraq people who do not want to be in the war will be forced to breathe the fumes of burning oil.

I doubt this is the case, unless Bush is into pure hipocrisy...oh wait... In the end, whatever happens, the oil in Iraq will be burnt, be it in Iraq....or America.

[swayside]

At 3/23/03 07:32 AM, Slizor wrote:

2)when this war is over and the rebuilding of IRAQ must begin--what are they gonna use for money if not oil? sand? dates? camels? The oil is Iraq's means for purchaseing what it needs to rebuild after all EVERYONE (that means denmark too) needs oil and Im sure denmark will buy oil from iraq.

You taken it is a given that Iraq will be rebuilt. They'll probably just screw them like they did to Afghanistan.

if you consider destroying the taliban, bettering conditions for women, securing the countryside, weeding out terrorist in and out of the country, dispelling the curfew in the capital city, lessening crime (which gets better every day), and getting rid of people on every street corner ready to beat people with sticks for stepping an inch out of line screwing afganistan, then oh, yeah, we screwed them into the ground.

3)enviromental reason=Are you that genocidal that you want saddam's force to pollute the atmosphere with burning oil? I was in the first gulf war when they burned the platforms and oil based smog every moring is not pleasant. If the burned the oil it would damage the surrounding land/water and the innocent iraq people who do not want to be in the war will be forced to breathe the fumes of burning oil.

I doubt this is the case, unless Bush is into pure hipocrisy...oh wait... In the end, whatever happens, the oil in Iraq will be burnt, be it in Iraq....or America.

he's talking about practicallity moron. we don't need your poser sarchasm here.

[agent66]

After Iraq we're going after Denmark!!!! We're gonna slap 'em like the little girl bitches they are. Then we're gonna rape 'em with broom sticks and tell 'em they got a purdy mouth.

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 3/25/03 02:17 AM, agent66 wrote: After Iraq we're going after Denmark!!!! We're gonna slap 'em like the little girl bitches they are. Then we're gonna rape 'em with broom sticks and tell 'em they got a purdy mouth.

*DIES laughing!*

...purdy mouth...broomsticks...oh, dear. Thank you. THANK you for breaking the tension.

[Taxman2A]

At 3/22/03 12:33 PM, Das_Gaylien wrote:
Sorry I called you idiots guys really only the American and Iraq and Danish governments are idiots.

Don't sell yourself short... You are an idiot also.

[D2Kvirus]

At 3/22/03 12:56 PM, swayside wrote: plus, it's not just a matter of is it ok for a country to sit this war out. britain had this problem. the opposition party wanted blair to not go into war with british troops because america was willing to go it alone. blair knew it was ok to sit it out, but he also knew that it wasn't right.

Nope. Blair has always had this ridiculous idea in his head that by cosying up to whoever happens to be President, somehow Britain will benefit - even if Blair himself never seems to be in it. To date, we didn't get anything beneficial from Clinton, and Bush added another nail to the coffin of our steel industry, which was already well riveted because of Thatcher, by raising tarriffs.

The other concept is that Blair sees being PM as a stepping stone to a better job. After all, Nelson Mandela, a greater politician than Blair could ever hope of being, remarked "[He] should resign as Prime Minister of Britain, and become Foreign Minister of the United States."

Besides, the opposition were more willing to go into this conflict (of interests) than his own perty - more of whom voted against him, or even resigned over it. Besides, Blair has turned Labour into a facsimilie of the "opposition" (the Tories aren't opposition on the basic grounds nobody cares), so it blurs any differentiation.

[D2Kvirus]

At 3/22/03 06:46 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Tell you what, when Denmark does anything anyone else cares about you can post this again, until then, keep quiet.

They produce beer and cheese, so I guess it's you against the population of Wisconsin. And let us not forget Lego.

When Nemmy says anythign that somebody cares about, can we decalre a Public Holiday? Until then, keep embarrassing yourself.

[JMHX]

First: We've established that the citizens of a nation don't matter in the position its government takes on issues that the majority of the people only have blind opinions about.

Second: Denmark hasn't even been mentioned on American television, and I don't think many people could tell you where it's at.

Last: Never steal my signature again, whore.

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 3/24/03 07:39 PM, swayside wrote:

At 3/23/03 07:32 AM, Slizor wrote:

You taken it is a given that Iraq will be rebuilt. They'll probably just screw them like they did to Afghanistan.

if you consider destroying the taliban, bettering conditions for women, securing the countryside, weeding out terrorist in and out of the country, dispelling the curfew in the capital city, lessening crime (which gets better every day), and getting rid of people on every street corner ready to beat people with sticks for stepping an inch out of line screwing afganistan, then oh, yeah, we screwed them into the ground.

Like that ever happened... Afghanistan belongs to rival warlords, once again. Absolutely nothing has changed there.. Same evil, different name, is all.

[swayside]

At 3/25/03 09:03 AM, Ruination wrote:

Like that ever happened... Afghanistan belongs to rival warlords, once again. Absolutely nothing has changed there.. Same evil, different name, is all.

if you actually mean that, you are among the most flagrant morons in this topic. look it up, you'll see i'm right. the situation is gradually getting better. it's just easy for you to say, "no it's not".

[karasz]

At 3/25/03 04:38 PM, swayside wrote:

At 3/25/03 09:03 AM, Ruination wrote:

Like that ever happened... Afghanistan belongs to rival warlords, once again. Absolutely nothing has changed there.. Same evil, different name, is all.

if you actually mean that, you are among the most flagrant morons in this topic. look it up, you'll see i'm right. the situation is gradually getting better. it's just easy for you to say, "no it's not".

although u are right swayside, the situation is getting gradually better, inside of kabul... ruination is also correct, in the fact that outside of kabul the warlords are in control...

but u are going to have to wait about 8 years until u can start complaining about the lack of progress being made cuz it took the US from 1776 to 1789 (13 years) to go from a 'terrorist group' to a democracy...

[swayside]

At 3/25/03 04:49 PM, karasz wrote:

but u are going to have to wait about 8 years until u can start complaining about the lack of progress being made cuz it took the US from 1776 to 1789 (13 years) to go from a 'terrorist group' to a democracy...

first off, america is not a true democracy. secondly, WHAT?! america is not a terrorist group.