Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/11/03 10:14 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: I actually agree with Punk...I never thought I'd live to see the day.

!!!

Or maybe you're on a peyote trip again. =P

At 11/11/03 10:17 PM, Jimsween wrote: You complain, but it's America's insane foriegn policy that keeps the world safe, or as safe as it is that is.

Please forward that message to the Tibetans, the East Timoreans, Palestinians and Isrealites, thank you.

Also, do you know what was mostly reponsible for Al Quaeda and 9-11? (I mean the reasons for those terroristic acts and hpw Al Quaeda came to be)

just wondering but do you know who traind Osama the CIA to fight the Soviets we as a nation make a horable police force because we are horable judges of caricters.

At 11/11/03 11:52 PM, punk_disease wrote:

At 11/11/03 10:17 PM, Jimsween wrote: You complain, but it's America's insane foriegn policy that keeps the world safe, or as safe as it is that is.

Please forward that message to the Tibetans, the East Timoreans, Palestinians and Isrealites, thank you.

So I suppose it would all be better if they were all dead from a nuclear winter? The Palestinians and Isrealites wouldn't even be alive if it weren't for America, and Tibet would be going under the name "China". And Indonesia would have invaded even if they had crappy weapons, except instead of a quick invasion only killing 1/3rd of the population you would have saw a long drawn out one causing more starvation and deaths than the one that really happened.

Also, do you know what was mostly reponsible for Al Quaeda and 9-11? (I mean the reasons for those terroristic acts and hpw Al Quaeda came to be)

And your point is...? The Palestinians were responsible for thier subsequent rule by the jews, but I didn't hear you whining over that.

Seriously, you must be either too lazy to find another answer to the worlds problems than "Blame America" or too brainwashed by god knows what kind of TV you have up in Canada (I always thought they just stole New York's).

At 11/11/03 11:58 PM, theredgoatee wrote: just wondering but do you know who traind Osama the CIA to fight the Soviets we as a nation make a horable police force because we are horable judges of caricters.

Indeed I do.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm

At 11/12/03 12:06 AM, Jimsween wrote: So I suppose it would all be better if they were all dead from a nuclear winter?

Who created the nuclear bomb?

The Palestinians and Isrealites wouldn't even be alive if it weren't for America, and Tibet would be going under the name "China". And Indonesia would have invaded even if they had crappy weapons, except instead of a quick invasion only killing 1/3rd of the population you would have saw a long drawn out one causing more starvation and deaths than the one that really happened.

Tibet IS going under the name China.

Look at the big picture though, these were only examples and I could give you dozens of examsples where America turns a blind eye to totalitarian regimes or even backs up fascist right-wing regimes to ensure commercial trading.

How come in 1986 America was the only Nation convicted of unlawful use of force by the World Court?

For example—and the most obvious example— and it takes real dedication for the media not to bring this one up because it is such an obvious example. The most obvious example is the (and I mention it only because this is uncontroversial) U.S. attack against Nicaragua in the 1980s. I recall that was called the war against terrorism, but, in fact, it was a massive terrorist war. The U.S. set off a mercenary army to attack Nicaragua from foreign bases, gave it massive supply, had total control of the air, and ordered the army to attack undefended civilian targets that were called “soft targets.” And that was a serious atrocity. It ended up killing tens of thousands of people and practically destroying the country. That’s even worse than September 11. How did Nicaragua respond? They went to the International Court of Justice—World Court-- presented a case, which in this case wasn’t very difficult because it was obvious who the perpetrators were and what was happening. The World Court considered their case, accepted it, and presented a long judgment, several hundred pages of careful legal and factual analysis that condemned the United States for what it called “unlawful use of force”--which is the judicial way of saying “international terrorism”--ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay substantial reparations, many billions of dollars, to the victim. The United States dismissed the court judgment with complete contempt. Nicaragua then went to the Security Council. Security Council debated a resolution which called upon all states to observe international law—didn’t mention anyone but it was understood it meant the United States. United States vetoed the resolution. Nicaragua then went to the General Assembly which passed similar resolutions several years in a row. Only the United States and one or two client states voted against. At that point there was nothing more that Nicaragua could do. But if the United State would have pursued a legal course nobody would stop it. Everyone would applaud.
http://www.zmag.org/hoodbhoychom.htm

And your point is...?

My point is that America is creating more terrorists day after day. And letting those go who ahdere to their capitalist way of life.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,851913,00.html

At 11/12/03 12:23 AM, punk_disease wrote:

At 11/12/03 12:06 AM, Jimsween wrote: So I suppose it would all be better if they were all dead from a nuclear winter?

Who created the nuclear bomb?

USA and Russia, both of them created it without any knowledge of how they were supposed to be made. So both of them created it. And I still don't see what your point is, your reply seems like the biggest cop out I ever saw someone post.

The Palestinians and Isrealites wouldn't even be alive if it weren't for America, and Tibet would be going under the name "China". And Indonesia would have invaded even if they had crappy weapons, except instead of a quick invasion only killing 1/3rd of the population you would have saw a long drawn out one causing more starvation and deaths than the one that really happened.

Tibet IS going under the name China.

Then why do you keep calling it Tibet?

Look at the big picture though, these were only examples and I could give you dozens of examsples where America turns a blind eye to totalitarian regimes or even backs up fascist right-wing regimes to ensure commercial trading.

Because we decided it was a good idea to, sheesh, first you complain about us getting involved, now you complain about us not getting involved. We haven't started WW3 yet, so I'd say were doing a pretty damn good job.

How come in 1986 America was the only Nation convicted of unlawful use of force by the World Court?

Because we don't obey international law. You're point is?

For example—and the most obvious example— and it takes real dedication for the media not to bring this one up because it is such an obvious example. The most obvious example is the (and I mention it only because this is uncontroversial) U.S. attack against Nicaragua in the 1980s. I recall that was called the war against terrorism, but, in fact, it was a massive terrorist war. The U.S. set off a mercenary army to attack Nicaragua from foreign bases, gave it massive supply, had total control of the air, and ordered the army to attack undefended civilian targets that were called “soft targets.” And that was a serious atrocity. It ended up killing tens of thousands of people and practically destroying the country. That’s even worse than September 11. How did Nicaragua respond? They went to the International Court of Justice—World Court-- presented a case, which in this case wasn’t very difficult because it was obvious who the perpetrators were and what was happening. The World Court considered their case, accepted it, and presented a long judgment, several hundred pages of careful legal and factual analysis that condemned the United States for what it called “unlawful use of force”--which is the judicial way of saying “international terrorism”--ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay substantial reparations, many billions of dollars, to the victim. The United States dismissed the court judgment with complete contempt. Nicaragua then went to the Security Council. Security Council debated a resolution which called upon all states to observe international law—didn’t mention anyone but it was understood it meant the United States. United States vetoed the resolution. Nicaragua then went to the General Assembly which passed similar resolutions several years in a row. Only the United States and one or two client states voted against. At that point there was nothing more that Nicaragua could do. But if the United State would have pursued a legal course nobody would stop it. Everyone would applaud.

Tens of thousands? Oh please. How many people died from famine the year before that in Nicaragua?

And your point is...?

My point is that America is creating more terrorists day after day. And letting those go who ahdere to their capitalist way of life.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,851913,00.html

And America is also the one thing stopping Isreal from commiting mass genocide, China from nuking Tibet, India and Pakistan from getting in a nuke fest, North Korea from nuking Japan, Turkey from commiting mass genocide on the Kurds in northern Iraq, and the list goes on...

And don't go blaming the worlds problems on capitalism, just because some people prefer to have some choice in thier life does not mean they are the reason for all evil on Earth. Besides, if you are really a buddhist, then capitalism is really the only way of life. Otherwise you kinda defeat the whole purpose of being nice to people.

wanasa

why does OSAMA hates the usa and the saudi arabia ruling family?

it starts in 1990 the iraqi army invaded kuwait their out massing on the kuwaiti saudi border .Osama requseted to the king of saudi arabia that his warriors and soliders are to defend saudi arabia and the holy sites of islam from the danger of an iraq invastion but the king refused and put osama in house arrest and instead asked the amercans to defend saudi arabia . after that Osama hated the royal family and amerca and promised that he will take his revenge.

warning:this message may have writing errors so dont bug me about them please

At 11/12/03 12:49 AM, Jimsween wrote: Then why do you keep calling it Tibet?

Because I used to be Buddhist and let's not argue over semtntics please, you know damn well that Tibet ir officiallt recognized as the Tibet Autonomous Region and more than half of its original land size has been handed over to neighboring provinces.

Because we decided it was a good idea to, sheesh, first you complain about us getting involved, now you complain about us not getting involved. We haven't started WW3 yet, so I'd say were doing a pretty damn good job.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/
The Cold War was considered as WW3, this war on terrorism is now considered WW4.

Because we don't obey international law. You're point is?

That, my friend, is terrorism.

:: Tens of thousands? Oh please. How many people died from famine the year before that in Nicaragua?

Are you implying that by killing more people, America got rid of Nicaragua's non-existant famine? Why must you defy all logic?

And America is also the one thing stopping Isreal from commiting mass genocide, China from nuking Tibet, India and Pakistan from getting in a nuke fest, North Korea from nuking Japan, Turkey from commiting mass genocide on the Kurds in northern Iraq, and the list goes on...

And don't go blaming the worlds problems on capitalism, just because some people prefer to have some choice in thier life does not mean they are the reason for all evil on Earth. Besides, if you are really a buddhist, then capitalism is really the only way of life. Otherwise you kinda defeat the whole purpose of being nice to people.

You really don't know what Buddhism is about, why the hell would China nuke Tibet if they want its land and resources and you're totally ignoring the article I linked about Bush and his family letting go Cuban terorrists.

No! Irak and Osama hade America b/c of teh freed0mz we enjoy! OGM! They're juss jealous of our freedohm. [/n00b]

At 11/11/03 09:07 AM, 02LS1Z28 wrote: Thats why every Taliban and Al Qaeda member need to be shot in the back of the head with a 7 cent 9mm cartridge. The only way to ever put an end to them is to kill every single one of those terrorist bastards.

1. Define terrorist

2. Wanna take a guess as to what happens when an Islamic follower dies with the blood of a pig in his system? Straight to hell, no paradise. SO if we take a page out of the General 'Blackjack' Pershing's playbook, and soak all bullets in pig's blood when we get Al Qaeda/Taliban members in a gun fight, no number of dead infidels will get them to paradise.

But, nobody ever listens to me...

At 11/11/03 09:40 PM, punk_disease wrote:

Now that I also let my anger out I may ask you, if 2,500 people killed by terrorists what would the killing of 30, 000 people be?

a statistic

At 11/13/03 10:46 AM, karasz wrote:

At 11/11/03 09:40 PM, punk_disease wrote:

Now that I also let my anger out I may ask you, if 2,500 people killed by terrorists what would the killing of 30, 000 people be?

a statistic

You're a clever guy, Karasz.

At 11/13/03 10:55 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 11/13/03 10:46 AM, karasz wrote:

At 11/11/03 09:40 PM, punk_disease wrote:

Now that I also let my anger out I may ask you, if 2,500 people killed by terrorists what would the killing of 30, 000 people be?

a statistic

You're a clever guy, Karasz.

Trust me, I know.

Also, to everyone that is debating about foreign policy. Here is the stuff America's Foreign Policy followed from 1945 until about now

Geography & Politics by Nikolas Spykman

20 years crisis by E H Car

World Restored by Henry Kissinger

these books above are for a theory called traditional theory or Realist Theory... it is basically about Hobbes belief that Man is by nature violent and applies it to states, and that no matter what states will always try to get more powerful.

Man, State, War by Kenneth Waltz
International Politics by Kennth Waltz

(above) These are of the belief of traditional theory but called defensive realism, meaning that the country is more about security than power

offensive realism is what the Bush administration's foreign policy is all about. Security through power basically.

America Unrivaled by John Ikenberry (and many others)

now these are for traditional theory

there is another theory starting to gain momentum in the foreign policy world called modernists theory

the only book that i know of for it is by Joseph Nye called the Paradox of American Power.

Now, by reading these you all will learn foreign policy and how it works in the eyes of those in power now... and I only bring these books into play because I dont think you guys know how the people that make decisions make them. And want to add intelligence to the debate..

Sorry but being fair in international relations is for all intents and purposes not going to happen

At 11/13/03 09:48 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: No! Irak and Osama hade America b/c of teh freed0mz we enjoy! OGM! They're juss jealous of our freedohm. [/n00b]

Are you saying that people in Iraq wouldn't want to live under a republic where they could express themselves, have economic freedom, and not have to live in fear under a brutal dictator and his rapist sons?
Or, if you are saying the US and Iraq are basically the same as far as freedom goes, are you also saying that a US citizen that moved to Iraq wouldn't know the difference?
(Pre-war Iraq, that is)

Oh and BTW, where the hell are people getting these huge numbers from like 55,000 and 30,000? At iraqideathcount.com (which I can't seem to find on the Internet now,) at the end of the war the Iraqi deaths were at around 7 or 8,000. So, where do these outrageous discrepancies come from?

At 11/13/03 03:58 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 11/13/03 09:48 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: No! Irak and Osama hade America b/c of teh freed0mz we enjoy! OGM! They're juss jealous of our freedohm. [/n00b]

i think Judge is being sarcastic.

At 11/13/03 04:00 PM, adrshepard wrote: Oh and BTW, where the hell are people getting these huge numbers from like 55,000 and 30,000? At iraqideathcount.com (which I can't seem to find on the Internet now,) at the end of the war the Iraqi deaths were at around 7 or 8,000. So, where do these outrageous discrepancies come from?

Civilian body count
This is the civilian body count. This alone is more than your 7 or 8 thousand. With these deaths plus the soldier death count, I doubt it will be 55,000 but it is sure highter than 8 thousand.

At 11/13/03 12:31 AM, punk_disease wrote:

Because I used to be Buddhist and let's not argue over semtntics please, you know damn well that Tibet ir officiallt recognized as the Tibet Autonomous Region and more than half of its original land size has been handed over to neighboring provinces.

Just because a state is not recognized doesn't man it doesn't exist. More people will tel you that it is Tibet than will tell you it is China. And if the people who lived in that land want to become tibet again, they will revolt or just not recognize themselves as being in the new province. Really, Tibet had no military power before, so the difference is pretty much nonexistant.

Because we decided it was a good idea to, sheesh, first you complain about us getting involved, now you complain about us not getting involved. We haven't started WW3 yet, so I'd say were doing a pretty damn good job.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/
The Cold War was considered as WW3, this war on terrorism is now considered WW4.

Not a shot was fired in the cold war though, and the war on terrorism has killed (in ratio to total population of earth) much much less than any other war. After all, you are the one that so oftenly likes to refer to civilian casualties.

Because we don't obey international law. You're point is?

That, my friend, is terrorism.

No, it's rougeism. Terrorism is (modern definition) terrorising the civilian population of a state. And if that were terrorism, then we would have had ample reason to invade Iraq, because they repeatedly violated international law.

Tens of thousands? Oh please. How many people died from famine the year before that in Nicaragua?

Are you implying that by killing more people, America got rid of Nicaragua's non-existant famine? Why must you defy all logic?

No I'm not implying that, you just lack proper reading comprehension to understand what I said. I was implying tens of thousands of people is a very very small amount, espescially when you look at it in comparison to how many people die from common problems (I.E. Bumcheeks more people died from car accidents in 2001 than were killed in 9-11 rebuttal).

And America is also the one thing stopping Isreal from commiting mass genocide, China from nuking Tibet, India and Pakistan from getting in a nuke fest, North Korea from nuking Japan, Turkey from commiting mass genocide on the Kurds in northern Iraq, and the list goes on...

You really don't know what Buddhism is about, why the hell would China nuke Tibet if they want its land and resources and you're totally ignoring the article I linked about Bush and his family letting go Cuban terorrists.

China would nuke tibet because China's leader has total power over the country, so China's leader can do whatever he wants, even if it defies all logic. Why did Saddam kill the kurds in northern Iraq when they made alot of money from pumping oil there, because Saddam was an insane dictator. I don't think I have to remind you that China has 5,000 nuclear missiles, which cannot be claimed to be to make sure they are protected by MAD (mutally assured destruction) because only an ICBM would be able to reach America. 5,000 missiles around for no explainable reason other than to attack the small countries around them, and you think thier dictator would care that tibet is home to valuable resources?

And why the hell would I care about an article about Bush and cubans, Bush is a dirty neo-con who thinks god is talking to him. And my reply would still be that they did what they did because they thought it was a good idea, unlike in despotic governments, if the leader of a democracy screws up, he will usually get called on it. So they aren't going to go kill nicuarguans for no reason, it's a waste of time, effort, and money to do something of such a big risk for no reason.

At 11/13/03 05:08 PM, Jimsween wrote: Just because a state is not recognized doesn't man it doesn't exist. More people will tel you that it is Tibet than will tell you it is China. And if the people who lived in that land want to become tibet again, they will revolt or just not recognize themselves as being in the new province. Really, Tibet had no military power before, so the difference is pretty much nonexistant.

Oh for fucking's sake, go read up on what you're debating, will you?
http://www.tibetinfo.net/

Not a shot was fired in the cold war though, and the war on terrorism has killed (in ratio to total population of earth) much much less than any other war. After all, you are the one that so oftenly likes to refer to civilian casualties.

Then let's agree to disagree and move on with our lives.

No, it's rougeism. Terrorism is (modern definition) terrorising the civilian population of a state. And if that were terrorism, then we would have had ample reason to invade Iraq, because they repeatedly violated international law.

Civilians were used as target practice, that qualifies as terrorizing the civilian population.

No I'm not implying that, you just lack proper reading comprehension to understand what I said. I was implying tens of thousands of people is a very very small amount, espescially when you look at it in comparison to how many people die from common problems (I.E. Bumcheeks more people died from car accidents in 2001 than were killed in 9-11 rebuttal).

So if I murder someone then I should go free because thousands die from lung cancer every year?

China would nuke tibet because China's leader has total power over the country, so China's leader can do whatever he wants, even if it defies all logic.

Let me rephrase that.
Why, IN REAL LIFE, would China's leader nuke Tibet when the only reason they invaded tibet was to acquire the land and natural resources as well as colonize Tibet?

Why did Saddam kill the kurds in northern Iraq when they made alot of money from pumping oil there, because Saddam was an insane dictator.

You sir, don't know anything about Kurds. They are a people without a land of their own and they are trying to reform Kurdistan which collapsed after the fall of the Ottoman empire. Saddam gassed the Kurds because they were trying to reclaim their land in Iraq.

and you think thier dictator would care that tibet is home to valuable resources?

Yes, otherwise they would just let Tibet go.

So they aren't going to go kill nicuarguans for no reason, it's a waste of time, effort, and money to do something of such a big risk for no reason.

They did have a reason, I'll let you figure it out on your own.

At 11/13/03 08:15 PM, punk_disease wrote:
Oh for fucking's sake, go read up on what you're debating, will you?
http://www.tibetinfo.net/

And your point is? They live in a shitty place, but they still exist. And Tibet itself is in the same condition it was before. The existance of a state depends souly on if people recognize it or not, and it's pretty damn hard to find a person (who actually involves themselves in world politics) who doesn't recognize tibet.

Then let's agree to disagree and move on with our lives.

WTF are you talking about? First of all, you don't come to a political forum to "agree to disagree". Second, I don't even see what you disagree about, were you just too lazy to think of a reply?

Civilians were used as target practice, that qualifies as terrorizing the civilian population.

What does that have to do with anything? You claimed that not following international law is terrorism, and then when I explained why it isn't, you found some other thing that US did that is terrorism. Honestly, if you are wrong just admit it, don't go and bs your way into another argument.

So if I murder someone then I should go free because thousands die from lung cancer every year?

No. But people shouldn't waste thier time whining and mourning over the one person you killed and talk about how tragic it is that they died. America doesn't need a justification to go free, they have a massive military capable of surviving a war on every country on the planet, so nobody is in a place to tell America that they have to do something.

Let me rephrase that.
Why, IN REAL LIFE, would China's leader nuke Tibet when the only reason they invaded tibet was to acquire the land and natural resources as well as colonize Tibet?

Because he can. And if nobody is there to stop him, he most likely will. It's human nature.

You sir, don't know anything about Kurds. They are a people without a land of their own and they are trying to reform Kurdistan which collapsed after the fall of the Ottoman empire. Saddam gassed the Kurds because they were trying to reclaim their land in Iraq.

No sir, you don't know anything about Kurds. They were not trying to revolt, espescially at that time. Saddam gassed them because he wanted to see if his new chemical weapons worked, they weren't doing anything at the time to deserve it, saddam just doesn't like kurds.

Yes, otherwise they would just let Tibet go.

Just like how India and Pakistan stopped fighting loooong ago?

They did have a reason, I'll let you figure it out on your own.

A GOOD reason, chances are most of the time you wont be able to see what the reason for the government doing something is, because you don't have all the information the people in charge do.

At 11/13/03 11:53 PM, Jimsween wrote: WTF are you talking about? First of all, you don't come to a political forum to "agree to disagree".

Sorry for interrupting. I’m not trying to jump into this debate or anything, but “agreeing to disagree” is a great philosophy for a debate. If people can’t come to terms with the fact that they disagree and have good reasons for doing so then the debate will disappear and only arguments will emerge (which this is turning into). Just because you don’t agree with someone, that doesn’t give you probable reason to attack them, even if you are convinced that they are completely and utterly wrong. And that’s for everyone.

At 11/14/03 12:08 AM, Dagodevas wrote:

At 11/13/03 11:53 PM, Jimsween wrote: WTF are you talking about? First of all, you don't come to a political forum to "agree to disagree".

Sorry for interrupting. I’m not trying to jump into this debate or anything, but “agreeing to disagree” is a great philosophy for a debate. If people can’t come to terms with the fact that they disagree and have good reasons for doing so then the debate will disappear and only arguments will emerge (which this is turning into). Just because you don’t agree with someone, that doesn’t give you probable reason to attack them, even if you are convinced that they are completely and utterly wrong. And that’s for everyone.

It is not a good reason to attack them, but it is a perfect reason to attack thier argument. The point of debating is to keep challenging the validities of eachothers arguments, if everyone came here and just said thier opinions, it would be the most moronic forum ever.

At 11/13/03 11:53 PM, Jimsween wrote: And your point is? They live in a shitty place, but they still exist. And Tibet itself is in the same condition it was before. The existance of a state depends souly on if people recognize it or not, and it's pretty damn hard to find a person (who actually involves themselves in world politics) who doesn't recognize tibet.

NO IT'S NOT

Tibet did not have any pollution, forced abortions, way less prostitution and homelessness before China took control of it. And Tibetans have become a minority in their own land. How dare you say that Tibet is in the same condition as before? Furthermore, China refuses to recognize Tibet's history of being governed by the Dalai Lama or even recognize their history of religion.
Things are in the same condition as befor?, go read at least one website about Tibet please.

WTF are you talking about? First of all, you don't come to a political forum to "agree to disagree". Second, I don't even see what you disagree about, were you just too lazy to think of a reply?

WTFOMGBBQLOL

This is as trivial as it gets, what will arguing over non-issues accomplish?

What does that have to do with anything? You claimed that not following international law is terrorism, and then when I explained why it isn't, you found some other thing that US did that is terrorism. Honestly, if you are wrong just admit it, don't go and bs your way into another argument.

They were disobeying international law by using civilians as targets, you haven't changed one bit have you?

No. But people shouldn't waste thier time whining and mourning over the one person you killed and talk about how tragic it is that they died. America doesn't need a justification to go free, they have a massive military capable of surviving a war on every country on the planet, so nobody is in a place to tell America that they have to do something.

Sooo.... according to you America has the right to invade any country it wants and kill as much people as it wants?

Because he can. And if nobody is there to stop him, he most likely will. It's human nature.

The leader of China isn't retarded, Jimsween.

No sir, you don't know anything about Kurds. They were not trying to revolt, espescially at that time. Saddam gassed them because he wanted to see if his new chemical weapons worked, they weren't doing anything at the time to deserve it, saddam just doesn't like kurds.

Saddam doesn't like Kurds? he had to test out his new weapons? YOU JUST SAID THAT HE KILLED KURDS SOLELY FOR THE REASON THAT HE'S CRAZY.

Just like how India and Pakistan stopped fighting loooong ago?

That's not related to Tibet.

A GOOD reason, chances are most of the time you wont be able to see what the reason for the government doing something is, because you don't have all the information the people in charge do.

I assure you, the reason is very simple, let me know when you've found it.

I'd like to point out that this is supposed to be a thread about muslim militants and the US's policy towards them and because of one example I used Tibet has become one of the main topics.

Gee, I wonder what caused that?

AMERCAN solider advantages: body armor _ night vision googles_ air support_tanks and hemves_ well armed and well trained

amercan solider disvantages: the low moral_most of iraq people hate you_the emeny can strike antwhere any time_you cant know who is your foe from your friend_ the ememy is hard to find meaning hard to kill

TERRORIST advantages :this country is over flowed with guns you can use_ its easy to hide_ the emeny cant speak your languge so they cant under stand what are you saying if their spying on you_its not that diffecalt to shot down enemy chooper

terrorist disvantages : the emeny is well trained and armed so you cant face him head on _ they have tanks you and air support_the people of this country hate you too_ the iraq police who can know your a terroist if they spot you _ the amerca daliy raids on your houses or suspected houses and compounds

Q: WHO WILL WIN ?

warning: this message may have writting errors so dont bug me about them ok

AMERCAN solider advantages: body armor _ night vision googles_ air support_tanks and hemves_ well armed and well trained

amercan solider disvantages: the low moral_most of iraq people hate you_the emeny can strike antwhere any time_you cant know who is your foe from your friend_ the ememy is hard to find meaning hard to kill

TERRORIST advantages :this country is over flowed with guns you can use_ its easy to hide_ the emeny cant speak your languge so they cant under stand what are you saying if their spying on you_its not that diffecalt to shot down enemy chooper

terrorist disvantages : the emeny is well trained and armed so you cant face him head on _ they have tanks you and air support_the people of this country hate you too_ the iraq police who can know your a terroist if they spot you _ the amercan daliy raids on your houses or suspected houses and compounds

Q: WHO WILL WIN ?

warning: this message may have writting errors so dont bug me about them ok

At 11/14/03 02:46 AM, punk_disease wrote:
NO IT'S NOT

Tibet did not have any pollution, forced abortions, way less prostitution and homelessness before China took control of it. And Tibetans have become a minority in their own land. How dare you say that Tibet is in the same condition as before? Furthermore, China refuses to recognize Tibet's history of being governed by the Dalai Lama or even recognize their history of religion.
Things are in the same condition as befor?, go read at least one website about Tibet please.

First you have to actually read my posts instead of skimming them over. "Tibet itself is in the same condition it was before" which it is. People still recognize it as a country, china is the only one that doesn't, which makes no difference in actuality.

WTFOMGBBQLOL

This is as trivial as it gets, what will arguing over non-issues accomplish?

I expected you would be too immature to admit you were wrong. You can't just randomly change the topic whenever you don't have an argument for you stance.

They were disobeying international law by using civilians as targets, you haven't changed one bit have you?

No, this would be a violation by the soldier in particular, the violation of international law had to be the fact that they invaded in the first place, you have no idea what international law is do you?

Sooo.... according to you America has the right to invade any country it wants and kill as much people as it wants?

Yahuh, who is going to stop them? The only people that can give or take rights to people are the strongest people, there are no "inherent" rights.

The leader of China isn't retarded, Jimsween.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, even you should know that. And by the way he runs his country, I would say he IS retarded.

Saddam doesn't like Kurds? he had to test out his new weapons? YOU JUST SAID THAT HE KILLED KURDS SOLELY FOR THE REASON THAT HE'S CRAZY.

No, he is crazy because he killed them without a GOOD reason. Needing to test weapons isn't a good reason, anything can be a reason to do something, but it doesn't make it a good reason.

That's not related to Tibet.

Yes it is, it shows that countries rearely listen to reason, and they do things for completely irrational reasons.

I assure you, the reason is very simple, let me know when you've found it.

Communism? (note I made no attempt to actually find it) If you actually believe they care if one country turns communist, then you need to go out and get some fresh air. A leader who goes to war to stop communism in some piss ass country is much more retarded than one who nukes a small country who keeps giving them a bad reputation.

At 11/14/03 05:03 PM, Jimsween wrote: First you have to actually read my posts instead of skimming them over. "Tibet itself is in the same condition it was before" which it is. People still recognize it as a country, china is the only one that doesn't, which makes no difference in actuality.

Look at the state of the country please. And Tibet isn't recognized as a country by the UN

I expected you would be too immature to admit you were wrong. You can't just randomly change the topic whenever you don't have an argument for you stance.

Just answer my qyestion.

No, this would be a violation by the soldier in particular, the violation of international law had to be the fact that they invaded in the first place, you have no idea what international law is do you?

Reagan ordered to kill those civilians, that's why the Amerian government was on trial for UNLAWFUL USE OF FORCE .

Yahuh, who is going to stop them? The only people that can give or take rights to people are the strongest people, there are no "inherent" rights.

In other words, you're welcoming another 9-11 attack on American civilians. "Bring it on", as Bush said.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, even you should know that. And by the way he runs his country, I would say he IS retarded.

Prove to me that he's mentally deficient through medical records or he's legally insane or retract your claim, ok?

No, he is crazy because he killed them without a GOOD reason. Needing to test weapons isn't a good reason, anything can be a reason to do something, but it doesn't make it a good reason.

Yeah, needing to test weapons sure is a lame excuse to get rid of the people you hate </sarcasm>

Yes it is, it shows that countries rearely listen to reason, and they do things for completely irrational reasons.

You say that as if it were a fact.

Communism? (note I made no attempt to actually find it) If you actually believe they care if one country turns communist, then you need to go out and get some fresh air. A leader who goes to war to stop communism in some piss ass country is much more retarded than one who nukes a small country who keeps giving them a bad reputation.

Grenada: Communist
Panama: Communist
North Korea: Communist
El Salvador: Was leaning towards communism
Nicaragua: Was leaning towards communism.
Guatemala: Nationalistic
Chile: democratically-elect socialist president
Cuba: Communist
Soviet Union: Communist

At 11/11/03 10:52 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 11/11/03 10:47 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

You must not know me very well.

Dean, 2004!

no. bad. no dean. baad..

I'd like to see the US try helping other countries through economic and humanitarian channels rather than militarily. I don't believe another policy of isolationism would benefit the US, or any other country. As a leading power, we should be aiding those who need and want our aid. We should be pushing along the peace process in the middle east, not simply funding the Israeli army.