*DAMN R6 Forum

Alright so im sitting watching Dogma enjoying the antics of Jay and Silent Bob when I see a commercial for this game where they have you taking down Saddam's forces and even assasinating him and something about people being patriotic or something. Is it just me or does this sound and look like some weak propaganda?

I doubt the video game will persuade people to join the army and ralley for war.
More often actions, like pearl harbor or 9/11 give better reasons to go to war. If you look at the situation in iraq, its just the threat that he might leak nukes to terrorists.
It should be interesting to see what happens with the north korea situation. They agreed to stop nuclear weapons research in exchange for aid from the united states, but now they revealed that they didn't stop their nuclear weapons program.

It seems that the video games that revolve around war always center around the current conflict.  The USSR was a big target for games (like the old Hunt for Red October or Red Storm Rising games that I used to have) North Korea comes and goes out of vogue.  The middle east as well.

It sells games.  That's really the bottom line, isn't it?

I'd like to point out that the game sucks ass apparently.  The America's Army game is supposed to be good though (fucking Army and it not porting to Mac).  AA is "propoganda" to join the Army, they admit it freely only they don't use propoganda as it has negative connotations.

I've heard of this game (of which I don't remember the name, unfortunately) where you play as Mohammed, and fight the Holy War (Jihad) in Isra?l, and the West Bank.  I've seen screens from this game on CNN, and basically, what it's about, is an ex Army military that fights for his life, killing whatever opposes him.  In this case, Israeli military forces.  What do you guys think about this?

I dont really care what the game is but war with Iraq Is pointless. Whatever happend to the thing that kept us out of fighting badly in the Cold War, Like collateral or something, we both had nukes and both knew we could kill each other thus, we didnt. Why is saddam any different, he may be a bad bad man but you guys havent even heard about things like the highway of death in which we bombed both sides of a packed high way then strafed for 20 times over. If we go in, US lives will be lost and so will inocennt Civilians. 300,000 Iraqi kids killed, stop genocide, stop sanctions.

Zaitsev, I really have to ask this.  How old are you?

Stop sanctions?  Why in the fucking world should we stop sacntions?  I've heard of many many deaths of innocents.  Some caused by UN troops, some by US troops, and more by Iraq troops.  

I can understand a pacifict not wanting war.  But why should sanctions be halted?

First of all, what kept us from nuking each other in the cold war was assured mutual destruction.  Neither side could win, and both knew it.  If one side attacked, that would just end the world, because the other sides nukes would be on the way before the first sides hit.  This was one of the arguments against Star Wars at the time.  If we had the ability to stop them, it shifted the balance of peace, and scared the Soviet Union shitless.  And you don't want someone scared shitless when they have their finger on the button.  

But the cold war is over.  I'm not sure if Russia has enough working nukes left (many platforms were ruined through neglect over the years) to scare the US anymore.  And even if they did, they aren't really pointed our way anymore.  That's one reason that Star Wars is being talked about again (that with the fact that some much smaller countries are developing nukes, and while not being able to destroy our country or world, we don't want them killing milliions either).  

Sanctions are being imposed, and rightfully so, on Iraq.  The country has comitted crimes against other nations, and is now being punished.  War isn't punishment.  War is the cops beating down the door and shooting the bad guys with guns (and, now and then, an innocent bystander.  Sad, but true).  Sanctions are punishment.  If the people of Iraq don't like that they can't sell their oil, or that we wont sell them food, guess they shouldn't back a government that a) backs terrorists and b) invades countries that have treaties with the US.  

The gulf war was a long time ago now.  And while I don't see any true need to go kick Iraq's butt yet again, I also don't see any reason to lift sanctions.  

Take a history lession from WW2.  Germany was punished, and punished hard for WW1.  Punished too hard in many ways.  But, then everyone stopped watching (partly the US's fault for not signing the treaty in the fist place).  Nobody was paying attention until they started invading.  Even then, too many people turned a blind eye to it.  

And before anyone says it, I'm not saying he's another Hitler.  I'm saying that we all have to learn from our mistakes.  

Sanctions are a mixed thing. They keep Sadaam from getting money, but they make the people hate the west. Any how (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/offtopic.gif)I saw the game and it sucks ass. Also the storyline isnt that original. Its very jingoistic. When something is so overly patriotic it seems so corny and unreal. Not entertaining in the least.

Bucc's got a point.  I say continue sanctions.  It is up to the people of Iraq to rid themselves of the most evil dictator in recent times and then get back into the twenty-first century.  Period.

Cossack has a good point too.  I let Zaitsev drag me  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/offtopic.gif).  Best to let it drop.

Why is war pointless he could be selling nukes to tangos as we speak.....
???how would this be genocide. Genocide would be for example hitler whiping out the jews, not us going into a country and killing there army because they are doing something wrong.

and 2nt 300,000 kids killed.....i dont think were going to nuke there country or just shoot every kid we see zait

Me and zait are both 14(im older) but my views on the world are more.....mature?

-SK owning zaits post =)

That question wasn't so much about his view on war, as it was to his knowledge of history.  

Zaitsev, where do you get your information that you form these opinions upon?

LOL... SK says his points are more mature! LOL!

Ben

I found his post to be more mature... why is that funny ? ???

IN answer to your question I am 14 yet I have one thing you clearly dont have that works to my advantage in debates. I have empathy

For those on the lesser knowledge side ?(mp-th)
n. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.

Thus you look at the Bush Administration outlook which is 100% based on getting re-elected. Any thing you every put down including myself will be circumstantial to ones beliefs thus where are you getting your information? A statiastic taken by a man who was completly Partial? THATS what I thought.

You say the enemy? Whos is Iraq's enemy? I mean hell at least thier leader won by the popular vote. Thats another story though, I see you point in that Saddam is a horrible man But where in the Constitution does "All men created eqaul" mean we discriminate against other countries, especially other religons. When I first heard of the sniper I prayed 1. that it wasnt an arab and 2. It wasnt a black. Both which are now proved true (well I suppose not, innocent until proven guilty) and I did this because you KNOW its gonna feul bush to speaches and ignorent Conservatives will put 2 and 2 together and conclude it is 5, attack Iraq. To Iraqis America is the enemy, they have good reason to hate us besides destroying thier country. Well we have bombed and killed in thier country what have they done to us? absolutely nothing? So Iraq wants nukes, WAKE UP CALL: ***EVERYONE DOES*** We watched the Pakistanis get them and didnt bomb them did we? Did we fly F-16's over civilian terroritories in Korea? NO we didnt. This is clearly a re-election campaign to finish daddies dirty work and I pray bush is commiting political suicide. (Which if he did commit suicide politcally id be With guns meaning check our old Maryland Sniper post youll learn all about guns)

The fact remains we have killed and attacked them but they have done nothing to us. Many countries infringe on thier peoples "unalienable rights" which is against our constitution however we cant apply the constituttion when we want, IF we apply unalianable rights we have to apply "All men are created equal" and this is certainly not true of the arab man in US foriegn affairs and not even the Black man in America. So what are we defending now? We are fighting un equal rights while accepting unequal rights at home and in allied countries abroad or those that supply natural resources to the US. Attacking Iraq would A- finish daddies work B-perhaps win him re-election and C- get us cheaper oil prices which Bush would most likely use as a campaign slogan.

They dont have troops stationed in D.C. with Machine guns and guards and radar and all other offensive equipment do they? well why do we have the right to? are we policing the world? No because we turn our back to violence, rape,murder, and drug dealing unless it benefits us.

SORRY FOR DOUBLE POST

Sincerley,
               Zaitsev

P.S. directed to Buckeye dont even get me started on equality of the black man in america

ok, i'll field this one.


a couple interesting conclusions there.  both wrong.  but interesting.

buccaneer has plenty of empathy.  he isn't in favor of killing anyone, and he always sees the other side.  also, the abillity to see the other side is important in a debate, that's not the same as empathy.  i haven't seen you get an advantage in a debate yet.


who said that zaitsev wasn't insulting?  who said that?


does that make any sense to anybody?  back off on using the big words that you obviously don't know how to use correctly zaitsev.  it would help your argument if a) you didn't make yourself look so stupid with them and b) people could actually understand your point.

i'm guessing that you are saying that we get our information from bush, the bush administration, or the government in general.  and that you are tyring to mock it.  this is only a guess, because it is very hard to read that.  

if that's what you are saying, you are wrong.  but you never answered bucc's question on where you get your information from.


well, a nut is a nut, no matter what his race or religeon.  one not here.  the suspects are american, not arab's.  if you are talking about the fact that he's of the islamic faith, that doesn't make him an arab.  he is an american, was an american soldier, not an arab.  oh, and he's a follower of not real islam, but of a nutty splinter group of the nation of islam, a wholy american institution.  the nation of islam is a church founded in detroit, michigan, usa.


laughing my ass off at that one.  that was really pretty funny.  first, we didn't destroy their country.  it's still there.  we didn't come close to destroying it.  we destroyed thier ability to attack our allies, we destroyed their army, and airforce.

what did they do to us?  to start with why we went there in the first place, they were killing hundreds of thousands, and eventually attacked a country that we had a treaty with.  and threatened another that we had a treaty with.  do you understand what a treaty is?  do you understand the importance of honoring a treaty?  did you even know that we had them?  once they invaded kuwait, it was our duty to go in, that's our responsibility after signing a treaty.

oh, so besides "destroying their country" what are all these other reasons they have to hate us?

still laughing.  that's not a fact.  also, you aren't mentioning that they have supported terrorists against the usa in the past, and are suspected to still be doing it.  it's that proof or not that people like me are waiting to judge.


i'll skip all the anti bush crap.  i don't like him much either, and i didn't vote for him.  but you can't blame everything on him either.  the democrats did the same thing.  and while they are almost all blood sucking leeches, that's not the point.

why do we have the right?  we have the responsibliity!  if iraq is (big if yet) supplying terrorists, or supplying them with nukes, or even attempting any of these, it's our governments job to protect us from them.  period.  it all has to be proven, but if it is true, they have to be stoped before they have the chance to use them.  

zaitsev, if you really did look at both sides, you'd at least know some of this, and not just blame it on bush like he's a blood thirsty war monger.  you don't have to identify with them, but you should be able to see them coming.  this sounds to me like you are parroting conversations of your parents that you overhear at dinner.

Where to start, where to start.

1) Our Constitution applies to the United States of America, not the rest of the fucking world. We do not have to extend the courtesies given to us by this document to the likes of other non-American Asians, Africans, Hispanics, Arabs, etc.

2) The sniper was a black man with a Muslim background, not a black Arab like you implied.

3) Liberals  are just as "ignorant" as Conservatives - sorry, your shit doesn't smell any sweeter than anyone elses. By thinking that only one side is ignorant, you are the most ignorant.

4) Exactly which Iraqi's are you talking about? Do you actually believe the Iraqi's you see on TV praising Saddam? They say wonderful stuff about him in front of the cameras when an officer has a gun pointed at them nearby, but off the cameras they despise him or have been brainwashed by his propaganda.

5) Look up pre-emptive and re-apply it to the situation. If he were to gain access to a nuclear weapon, odds are that it would have our names on it. Better to stop him now before he aquires one.

6) This is where I call you an ignoramus using flawed logic. Let's take a look...

Pakistan: We let them get Nuclear weapons (even though we weren't thrilled by it) because they had a friendly Government towards us and because it stabilized the region. If you look back, India had recently aquired Nuclear arms and controlled the region.

North Korea: We recently found out about this and flying F-16's over the 38th parallel (if you don't know what this is, pick up a history book) would have disrupted the peace process between the North and the South and angered China. If you take a look at what is happening now, we are working with China to disarm the Communist North.

7)Barring something major, Bush will be re-elected because the Dems can't put someone strong enough to take him down - at least for right now.

hehe, i thought i should just say well handled you two.  does Zaitsev fully understand english, or know much about the U.S. constitution? seeing how he is in a eur clan...

First off Zait, I wouldn't use that Saddam won the popular vote as any support of him.  He was unopposed (no one would be allowed to run against him or they would be killed), and people were forced to vote, and forced to vote for Saddam.  They just call it an election as a propoganda tool to make some think they are actually democratic.

Secondly, the big problem here isn't religion, it is colonialism.  Europe's colonizing and then setting borders upon leaving has fucked up the middle east, the Bulkan Penninsula, and Africa among other places.  Set borders that don't consider religious or political groups and thus put two together or seperate them just don't work.  The biggest mistake is that Europe and the US are trying to maintain these borders.  As long as borders aren't set by the countries involved, they won't stand.  The only solution I see to any of these countries problems is a war without European and US intervention.  But seeing as that would result in genocide it is intolerable.

But to support one comment of Zaits...collateral damage is unacceptable if we go to war with Iraq.  We cannot just shrug off deaths of the innocent people of Iraq.  There were outrageous crimes against humanity committed by Americans in Vietnam, a war we had no right fighting.  We may have more reason to be fighting in Iraq, but that is no better excuse.

Oh, and saving Americans' lives is not an excuse for collateral damage either.  If they are going to fight a war, they will lose lives, that is what war is.


Zait is American, oh, and seeing as he is half your age Bucc or Deadeye, and younger than you Sin, maybe you should just appreciate that he is interested in thinking about these things and just be well mannered in trying to help him learn (not because you are right and he is wrong, but just by challenging him which is how learning happens) instead of insulting his intelligence like has been done in some threads.

Well you people did bombard Basra with what I heard a while ago with "depleted Uranium Artillery shells" This claim could be BS but look into it. This is just interersting hearsay. As for Iraq war I am against it. If I were a full US citizen I would not like my son going to war for a bunch of people half a world away. Then again I am not fully American. Attack on Iraq will destabalize region. destabalize the Caucuses. Maybe the Chechens will get Iraqi recruits. This is just the Russian side of things. Not to mention we do have a trade agreement with them (regretably so). America (in Putin's eyes) is hampering his efforts to make an economic sphere of influence in the Middle East and volitile Central Asia.

Well, for one thing, who is "buckeye"?

For another Zaitsev, you assume way to fucking much.  You don't know if I'm black or not, do you?

To keep on this rant, you never asnwered where you do your research and get these ideas from.

I like how Deadeye put it.  Paroting coments you've overheard.

Now Bondo,

To start with you, Europe's colonization is not what set all the boarders.  Some yes, all no.  Most of the boarders in the middle east were set after WW1, and reset after WW2.  And I saw that same program on the History chanel that showed why that was the biggest problem in Yugoslovia.  But that's not really the problem in the middle east.  The fighting that has gone on there has gone on since long before the USA existed.  That poor strip of land where Isreal now sits has to be the most fought over spot on the face of the earth.  Going back for thousands of years.  There are deep hatreds there, ones that make boarders meaningless.  

The US isn't trying to maintain boarders, it's trying to maintain friendly governments.  When Iran and Iraq were killing each other off, we didn't get very involved, because neither was a friend or ally.  But when they have an effect on us, or one of our allies, we should and do get involved.  

On to the collateral damage comment.  You got that wrong too.  Collateral damage is acceptable.  It has to be.  No war can exist without it.  Sorry, but it's a sad, yet true fact of life.  Just like those hostages in Moscow.  When you are in a violent situation, people are going to get hurt.  Sometimes the wrong people.

This doesn't mean that everything in the world shouldn't be done to minimize it.  But there is no way to stop it all together.  It's not shrugging it off to accept these facts.

I'll give you a hypothetical situation.  A madman has a nuke.  He's going to launch it at the heart of Paris.  Millions of people and untold historic treasures are going to be lost.  The countdown is on.  He's surrounded this missle with innocent children from a local school.  1000 of them.  All chained together.  The only way to get to him, and stop the deaths of millions, is to go through the children.  You know that the children are rigged so that many will die in this.  Do you have a choice there?  Do you let millions die to not cause this collateral damage?  The only option is to do it with as few deaths as humanly possible.

It's not the men trying to stop the madman that are killing the children.  It's the madman himself.  And it's not that those childrens lives are any less worthy that they should be sacraficed.  That's too grey.  It's that you can't let the madman get away with it.  If he does, other will try.  The only way to keep it from happening is to be strong enough to cut if off.  Don't allow madmen to see shielding themselves with innocents as anything but what it is, barbaric and fruitless.  

That's a horrible situation.  But give the madman in Iraq nukes, and all you have to do is change the target I mentioned.  If he's really developing them, he has got to be stopped.

In regards to how I treat Zaitsev.  He's been as insulting to me, he doesn't read my posts very often, and ignores most of it.  Why should I care how old he is?  If he wants to discuss things like an adult, let him act like one.  I'm not a teacher.  I wouldn't be a good one.  He isn't interested in learning anyway.

Yeah, good question, what is a Buckeye and why does OSU have it as their mascot.  See, this is the typical shit from you.  He makes a fucking error and combines your and Deadeye's names (and he might as well as you two have the exact same posting styles and seemingly brain) and you give him hell with your sarcasm.  I'm sure you've never onces made a typing error, my god.  As for your not being a teacher and thus not helping Zait learn, I'm hoping you aren't an asshole but that doesn't stop you from acting like one.

i might get some flack for asking this question, but  i don't really care.
Why is it that other countries (like france) think that they have a say in how we defend our country and our people from terrorism?
I think that its in our intrest to take sadam out of power, simply because he (as claimed by the US goverment) is making nuclear weapons, he could be asissting terrorist groups gain nukelear weapons, and he has broken the agreement he made to end the gulf war.
It shouldn't be any suprise that we want to take out sadamm, or take action against north korea. Remember when the "axis of evil" was named, well iraq and north korea were on the list.
Here is a quote i found from the secretary of state from last May,
"States that sponsor terror and pursue WMD (weapons of mass destruction) must stop. States that renounce terror and abandon WMD can become part of our effort, but those that do not can expect to become our targets,"
Iraq is persuing nuclear weapons, and the fact that they have broken most of the agreements they made to stop the gulf war is icing on the cake.
If Bush is so responsible for a unjust war, why did the war powers act pass thru congress with more suport than it did in the gulf war?

btw (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/offtopic.gif) ;D

If asking him, and I quote: "Well, for one thing, who is Buckeye?" is giving him hell, you've lead a far too sheltered life Bondo.  

And Bondo, anyone that wants to have an intelligent debate with me will get my full attention and plenty of respect.  Anyone that can't be bothered to read, respond, or comment on my posts but still say I'm wrong can just blow me.  If you, Zaitsev, or anyone else wants to debate, that's great.  But that includes you doing your part of the READING, you fucking asswhipe.  By not doing any of those things, Zaitsev has not shown me any respect.  He's called me a conservative, and plenty of other insults to boot.  You too.  So, I'm sorry that you and your little friend have hurt feelings.  Go cuddle with a teddy bear or something.  If I think you are an asshole (and I do) I will treat you like it.  I don't care how old, how young, what race or what religeon you happen to be.  Assholes are all brown on the outside and pink and the inside, and full of shit.  Which pretty much sounds just like you.  The full of shit part anyway.  

So Bondo, stop trying to be the protector of the dumbass (we've seen it before).  A dumbass makes a bunch of shit, everyone jumps on them for being a dumbass, and Bondo wants to jump to the rescue.  You felt you needed to get involved to help Rapid.  Then you felt it was your job to stand up to Evill for Ben, even when Ben asked you not to.  Now your cause is Zaitsev.  You just want to be the hero that swoops in to save the underdog, don't cha?  Well the world isn't a comic book Bondo.  And you are no Superman.  So go back to your cave and have a good cry for us.

Do us all a favor and try, try to stop this bullshit and stay on topic.  The topic wasn't "oh, Buccaneer is a bad bad man".  Thanks.

Cossack, depleted uranium is used in many shells.  Those are the bullets that fire from the A10's and attack helicopters to penetrate armor.  Depleted uranium was never thought to be dangerous as a materail (being depleted), but there have recently been new concerns.

Depleted uranium shells are used all the time though (because of how dense they are), and are not the same as nukes or even "dirty" bombs.  They are not considered "radioactive".


Well, that's international politics for ya.  Putin, a guy that wants into NATO, doesn't adhear to UN or NATO or US trade sanctions.  So the US could just as easilly say that Putin is hampering our efforts to break up that government with peaceful political pressures.

What it all boils down to is who's interests are you talking about.  Russia needs oil as much as anyone.  Russia also needs to build up it's influence again.  Russia is looking out after her interests.  The USA after her's.  

And, I'm still not pro war unless there is much more proff then exists today.

I would like to say that from a 14 year old stand point i still find it incredably immature to pick on my spelling or purhaps a fualty sentance or two. TO DIRECTLY ANSWER AN OLDER QUESTION: "Where Do I get my facts from" I read them, and conclude them in my head. You may think its assuming etc. But unless we know everything, 100% on the topic then we are ALL assuming. We did tear up thier country in Desert Storm and we are constantly bombing them. You hear of the 3 or 4 civis a day and thats building up fast.  You have all head of the horrors of mass slaughter to Vietnamesse children what will be different about that in the Gulf? NOthing is to stop us and nothing has changed because we have been to arogant to reconize our fualts. If the US could set down thier god damned pride for once and worry about whos dieing and who needs American/UN aid then maybe this world would be a much better place to live in rather then bombing. Its like my death penelty shirt I wear. Why do we kill people to show people that killing is wrong? We dont like Saddam because he kills his people, so in order to show killing is wrong we will kill him. As for him in on attacking the US, its innocent until proven guilty.

its a weak attempt to pollute the minds of little kids that we need to kill sadddam. so if bush hasnt removed saddam from the iraqi gene pool by the time they can join the army, they will have been subliminally brainwashed to join to kill him themselves.

Well it's a cruel, cruel world out there.  One thing you may want to noctice though, it was CONSTRUCTIVE.  I pointed out that it weakens your arguments, and how.  I don't pick on spelling or just simple bad grammar.  I was pointing out that you just couldn't make sense of it, AT ALL.


What do you read?  Exactly what?  You seem to miss much of the history and many of the facts, so I'm wondering what your sources are?


No, what horrors of mass slaughter to Vietnamesse children are you talking about?  Were there death camps that I never heard about?

And, for what will be different in the Gulf, all you have to do is actually look to Desert Storm.  Was there mass rape, pillage or plunder there?  Was there thousands of children killed?

I don't even agree that we tore up their country.  We tore their military a new asshole, and gutted it.  But most of the ecological damage to the country came from Iraq itself.  The battles that we were in were mostly out in the open desert.  The bombs dropped were aimed at (and mostly hit) military targets.  Yes, some missed and killed innocents.  But I wouldn't consider that tearing up the country.


You mean like all those places that we send food to, that you just don't read about everyday because there isn't shooting?  People are funny.  Probably not half the people here knew the story of "Black Hawk Down" until the movie.  Yet there the US was, not only supplying food, but trying to protect it.  If you don't know the history of it, things didn't get out of hand until after the UN took over.  The first time we were there, it went off without a hitch.


Zaitsev, you oversimplify this whole situation.  There are so many reasons for not liking him, and those don't even start to count.  We can not like him for all the evil he has done to his own people, but add to that the evill he wants to spread to other countries, like ours and many of our friends.  This isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.

Oh, and if we really wanted him dead, he would have been dead.  But killing heads of state has never been a good idea.  Killing heads of state are things done after wars, quietly, not right in front of the media.

Here is Bush's propasal in lamens terms. We should attack Iraq because we think they have the ability to make Nukes. What if they dont and have no asperations too? We go to war and we did the wrong and we are even more hated, AND we have to rebuild an entire country. If they are proven to make nukes, then yes we need to attack. Jeb you ask why France and Russia and China are getting up the US's Ass about going to war to protect itself. The actions of the US will effect the stability and their economies and those countries security.

You say there are no \slaughter in Vietnam? You have got to be kidding me. CAMPS? HEll now that would be too obvoius. You enter a town, think they supported the VC, line them up and kill them it happend all the time there are photos to show for it. From your earlier statement you said that folks in Iraq were brainwashed by Sadam propaganda but I would argue that, they are no more brainwashed then we are on Bush. I admit to you that it is a corrupt nation with a corrupt leader but bombing the hell out of it would do nothing. I am not saying Saddam Hussien is a great man nor am I saying that everyone in Iraq likes him, but I am saying many in Iraq do not like the United States (which correctly may partialy be bacuse of propoganda) however The same situation occurs in the US, we see things on the news thus many Americans do not like Iraqis although few have met them. There is a fine line between Saddam and the Iraqi population however I feel their views on the US may not be as clearly cut different. I find it completly out of line for you to insult the way that I talk online. Perhaps I do not type clearly enough for your taste but to try and convince people to laugh at a young boy who is simply demonstrating different political views then your is outrageous. You are a disgrace to where you come from. You don't have to agree with me but you should respect me and should respect that I have my own set of values. And my outlook on the world is different then yours. I feel the world is corrupt, and America is right in there with it. We attack when it benefits us to recources and other things like strategic military bases. I feel that if the United States would stop twisting everyones arm under the table then we could really solve problems in this world. The United Nations was formed so that countries could talk things out before resorting to war. Now this helped with the USSR however in this day and age the countrie we are nearing war with are banned from the UN and thus Collective Security, the princepal from witch the UN is based on, has been defeated. I feel that although there are corrupt people in power in other countries George Bush is not making the situation better and we really need someone who can ease up the pressure and use words instead of bombs. Now if I made any gramatical errors in this post please disregard them.

P.S. I read the news and watch CNN. from this I conclude points of view however thats all I can do because at the age of 14 and maybe even when your older it is very hard to get the full scoop on things thus making you have to conclude otherwise im looked on as your average 14 year old idiot.

P.P.S. Once again I highly detest the manner in which you speak to me and I do not like being insulted. FINE dont agree with me but Im sure many people who read this will agree that to pick on me rather then my views is outrageous. I am a hell of a lot smarter then you were at my age.

Cossack, their economies revolve around the United States - like most of the world. As for your NUclear arms thing, if we wait for them to get nuclear arms, kiss someone good-bye because I bet he would use it. Just the simple fact that he is trying to acquire material for WMD (he has Chem and Bio weapons probably) violates the treaty he signed to end the Second Persian Gulf War.

As for Zaitsev...I understand that you are 14, but don't use that as an excuse or a defense if you are going to try and debate politics or issues with the older guys on this forum who have more worldly experience and most likely more information to support their stances. You, like everyone else is entitled to their own opinions, but please make sure that you have solid facts behind it. I look back on my ripping apart of your post at the end of page one in this thread and see that you use unqualified/unknowledgable statements as part of your argument. Especially about the Nuclear arms of other countries.

If you happen to be right in a debate and I am somehow wrong, I will be one of the first to admit that...but that also means that I will try to rip apart whatever arguments you might have because I don't like being wrong. If you look stuff up and are knowledgable on the matter, then by all means feel free to enter debate - just don't enter one with assumptions and CNN as your vital source of information.

P.S.:Is you failure to respond to my previous post a sign that you agree or that you have no answer?

cossack, i think most people were pretty solidly behind there having to be more solid proof.  and if there is more proof, then the objections of those other countries will ring pretty hollowly.  

zaitsev, this is the most important one, so let's get it out of the way.


where in the hell were you fucking insulted in bucc's last post?  it's right there, point it out for us.  quote it.  you also keep telling us how much smarter you are at 14 then we were.  how in the fuck would you know?

here's an insult for you.  you are a dumbass.  statements like that are what make you a dumbass.  christ, learn what a fucking insult is.  then don't make stupid ass statements that you know nothing about (after all, bucc graduated from high school 2 years early, are you a junior right now?)


really?  you seem to have access to cnn and the internet.  seems like you have the ability to find all the news that anyone else can.  there's not one place to get the full scoop, but you have to look at as many sources as possible, so you can get as many different points of view, so you can make a more informed opinion.


did that happen.  yep.  is that the "the horrors of mass slaughter of vietnamesse children".  nope.  first, the local villagers were, in many cases, the people fighting the americans.  both men and women were fighting (so, equal rights says that they can fight, and they can die).  but where is all this mass slaughter of children?  i know that children died.  the innocent will always die in a war.  i know that america comitted some war crimes in vietnam.  but not the mass killing of children.  i haven't seen any evidence of that ever happening.  show me a source if you could.


bucc never said that.  neither did i.  that was probably bondo.  and since you didn't notice it the first 10 times, neither one of us is supporting bush all that much.


the world is out for it's own interests.  that's not a secret.  america too.  nobody has denied that at all.  the us can't solve the worlds problems.  when it's tried in the past, that's when it gets the biggest black eyes.  the rest of the world can understand us working in our obvious best interests.  when we act selflessly, we get attacked.  the us gives more food and aid to people then any other nation.  even that usually backfires.  the world's problems just aren't that simple to fix.  and no nation can do it alone.  


again with this crap.  the only time your typing gets picked on is when nobody can figure out what you are trying to say.  and it hasn't really been ripped on even.

but that last statement, that bears repeating:


hey, is that an insult!?!

Sin, I think you missed my point. I am in the same field as Buccener. I didnt say wait till they have nukes. Wait till we have more proof. Until they develope more proof I will remain anti-war. Also instability in that region can wash over the Caucuses into Russia and over the Dardenelles into Europe, thus creating anger and chaos in those regions (not good for economy for you idiots out there) Our economies revolve around the US and the US's economy revolves around the Middle Eastern Oil Fields. Also did you know that Israel had Nukes??? I for one dont trust them with Nukes. What if they nuke Syria or something (thats the sorta thing that starts WWIII) Lets go attack Israel. They just broke a U.N. resolution the other Month by again seiging Arafat's compound. They have broken hundreds before. I dont want to get into a mud slinging contest about Israel because it will end up with hurt feelings and make me look like a neo nazi. BTW Bucc I did not know that depleted uranium was no radioactive. That was something I heard and thought it was worth saying. Thanks for clearing that up.

Bush gave a speech a couple weeks ago in which he said we know they have biological and chemical weapons and that they are getting close to nuclear weapons. The chemical and biological alone violate the treaty after the Gulf War, and I think we can all agree that Saddam being close to nukes is not a good thing. The way I see it, we use them having the biological/chemical weapons as the excuse the rest of the world needs but we really go to take out the nukes before they have them.

ace, my caution comes from the friction between bush and the cia over the evidence.  when the cia doesn't get 100% behind something, i wonder.  it's not like i trust that they are always sure anyway, but when they admit it, it makes me go "hmmmm".

i just want to see more evidence brought forward.  and i want to see some other countries backing it.  bush has just seemed too eager about iraq.

Well no shit. I think everyone has Chemical and Biological weapons. With the exception of Bhutan. (You know Monaco has thousands of nukes just waiting to pound Lichtenstein).  This situation really is a double edged sword.

Yeah, many countries have nuclear arms, but most don't have to capability to deliver the payload at an effective range. Cossack, Israel will NOT use its Nuclear weaponry unless its statehood is threatened (i.e. massive arab armies invade or attack). Israel is smart about its weaponry and shows amazing restraint in most of their actions.

Also, the resolutions you speak of Cossack aren't really resolutions - they are more like something the UN would like to see, but couldn't do anything about. The UN has passed all kinds of crap regarding Israel and Palestine, including things against suicide bombing and retaliation. The UN is a hollow body in that part of the world and doesn't really have a handle on the situation.

No I think they were resolutions. Anyhow what I am saying is that the US has a double standard. Israel has done pre-emptive strikes before against Egypt and Syria and almost once got the Soviet Union into the war when they did it. They have done pre-emptive strikes before. Dont think the Sharon is as sane as the Ami media makes it out to be. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/offtopic.gif)You are getting me off topic. I will not debate Israel because it will make me look like a nazi. STOP SUCKING ME IN SIN!!

HE SUMS UP
Well it's a cruel, cruel world out there.? One thing you may want to noctice though, it was CONSTRUCTIVE.? I pointed out that it weakens your arguments, and how.? I don't pick on spelling or just simple bad grammar.? I was pointing out that you just couldn't make sense of it, AT ALL.


You know what I am not asking guys to agree with me, I am not asking people to take pity and all of a sudden be a liberal, but when its quotes like these wihch happen a lot with BUcc It shows me thatI really AM advanced for my age because even I am not that that Immature. I dont think I have ever called Bucc anything besides pointing out his stance were ill-legit or that they were ignorent.

Why do you say Bondo and I must back up our facts? It is clear, the world can be seen if you guys would open both eyes. How can you back up that 2+2=4? You cant it just is clearly that. To Me, and maybe Bondo thats what it is with many of our arguments It is just in plain view certain things that you guys disagree with and I dont understand how to back things up that make so much sense to me.

Saddam Hussien is a bad man, Back that up
Saddam Hussien helped attack America, Back that up
Tell me with proof we would attack Iraq with no Oil there
Give me proof there was no slaughter in Vietnam like you argued against Bucc (US troops admit to it)

IT IS A FACT:
 (from MD Snpr Post) The countries with less guns have less Homicides, less violent crimes.
IT IS A FACT: That when people are tried in the US as Saddam would potentially be for aiding Terrorists that he is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN guilty
IT IS A FACT: That in all of Bushes moves he has to care about re-election and now he is Imperialist (maybe thats a coincidence???)
IT IS A FACT: Daddy failed to put the hammer down on Iraq, and failed to get Reeelected, Now Bush wants both (another coincidence?)
IT IS A FACT: That US runs the UN without Collective Security thus defeating the point of the entire system.

I do not blame all of Americas problems on Bush I just feel rather then attacking others we should try to use empathy to see why they attacked us, maybe help the poor, care for our children. How much do you think a Tomahawk Missile costs? A few Million. We cut in half our aresonal of Tomahawk missiles and we have Millians to give to welfare benifits and to clean up the US as a whole. I feel not only Bush but other Politicians shold instead of attack attack attack should try to ensure the well being of the very thing we are defending.

going back to sins last post and his comment about the un. he's completely right, the un lacks the balls to get the job done half the time, and the other half they either half ass the job, or they bow to international pressures before they do what is needed.

it would not supprise me to see the un go the route of the league of nations, i only hope that by that time, they already have another, better, option ready for implementation
 yea that was slightly off tiopc, but i just didnt want to get involved in the other argument going on in this thread

Besides calling me ignorant, you also have called me a conservative, and don't actually refute anything I post, you just say it's obvious or clear.  You also have said that you are a lot smarter then me for your age more then once.  Hmmm, so nice to be you I guess.  Can call me a name there and claim you don't.  


Zaitsev, if you had the common sense to actually read the people that disagree with you's posts, you would see how it isn't clear, why it isn't clear, and why we disagree.  And you would know this if you got off your high horse of "I'm so much smarter then you at this age" and think that, oh, you don't really know that, so maybe you are NOT.


1) Hussien has killed millions of his own people and Iranians.  He also invaded the country of Kuwait.  I think that qualifies as a "bad man".  This could go on for 10 posts, but you could add his use of chemical weapons against Iran, that he doesn't allow "free" elections.  If you want links, those are easy for me to find.

2) If you had read my previous posts, I'm not for attacking Iraq until that PROOF is SHOWN.  But, since it's more then obvious you don't read, this is more for the people that do.

3) If you had read my posts, or that of others, you would know that when he attacked Kuwait, and threatened Saudi Arabia, we didn't have much choice in the matter.  Not only did we have a treaty with Kuwait to help them in situations like that, but the UN decided to jump right in there too.  Seems like that was a good decision.  I don't care if oil played into it or not.  The fact that we had treaties made it the right thing to do.

4) Again, for the broken record.  READ WHAT I WROTE.  This is getting pointless, just repeating myself because you aren't reading it, or are just ignoring it.

That is a fact that was proven wrong by Bondo's own graphs.  Notice the countries that have the strict gun control and still many more homicides.  Also, countries that have started bans, the vilent crimes went up, not down.


He would never be tried in the US.  World court maybe, but not the US.  That would be a sham.  Our laws don't apply outside our boarders.  And nobody here has said that there shouldn't be proof.  You'd know that if you actually READ OUR POSTS.


Of course he has to care about re-election.  That is one of the pit-falls of democracy.  But where and how is it a fact that he is an "Imperialist"?  There is nothing clear or obvious about that statement.


If you are talking about the first Gulf War, oh, the hammer went down.  Their army was beaten to a pulp.  That was one of the few things that Bush did right, and had popular support for (remember, I lived through that as an adult).  Bush didn't get re-elected for many reasons.  The Gulf War was not one of them.

Iraq had 8 years of the Clinton administration to build up some of the infrastructure that we are now worried about.  I don't think that Clinton is at fault about this (maybe just a little, but a very very little).  But in all that time, we were not as strict or hard on Iraq as we were under Bush.  Now we are wondering what they may have gotten away with.

GWB does have a passion about Iraq that I've questioned (again, you'd know this if you READ).  But I don't think it has anything to do with getting re-elected.  Usually it is more a ploy to hide other things.  That is how Clinton used Iraq.  It was his smoke and mirror.  Whenever he was under the microscope for something shaddy here, there would be a flare up there.  

Zaitsev, you are now pretty much falling into what you claim has already happened.  The mock and ignore status.  Until you start READING and ADDRESSING points, instead of telling us that we just badmouth you (when it's obvious from how much I've quoted you that I am addressing your points) well, that's that treatment you are going to get.  Until you start, I'm done reading your posts.  Well, done responding to the points.  I'll probably start mocking them, just so you see what that really is.

if i remember correctly it had more to do with the phrase "read my lips, no new taxes"

He gassed his own people. He invaded a defenseless country. He murders members of his own regime to make sure his power is secure. Need more?


Bush in his speech said that Iraq helped sponsor terrorism, including Al Qeada. The word of our president works for me. He may not be elqoquent, but he is a simple, honest man.


There is no way to prove or disprove this unless the status quo remains exactly the same and we wait until the Middle East runs out of oil in however long that may be.


Like you said before, innocent until proven guilty. If you want to allege that our country committed such atrocities, the burden of proof is on you my friend. (Also just to let you know, slaughtering of the Viet Cong may well have been slaughtering of civilians because they basically were the same.)

Sadaam is bad no doubt about it. For reasons fiven above,Zaitsev. I would also like to add that Iran gassed Kurds and killed a million Iraqis too. I am just pointing that out, it still dosent take away from the fact that Sadaam is evil.

There is no real proof that Iraq helped attack America. Ace unlike you I dont trust Bush. I do not think he is eloquent and I think he is massivly corrupt. CIA officials FSB/KGB officials, and Mossad officials show differing views and info from what President Bush claims. Blair's dossier is a very weak argument. Wait till we get more proof.

I think that we would not be concerned as much because he would not be threating our oil. Like it or not our oil is in Saudi Arabia, thus we need to defend it.

There were atrocities in Vietnam commited by US forces. Yet do you think the Viet Mihn (Viet Cong is slang for Viet Mihn) were asian angels? They commited horrific atrocities too. No side is innocent in those type of wars. Mujahdeen did it to villages in the 80s My cousin and his squad were forced to burn down a whole village in Afghanistan. No side is innocent in these conflicts.