Anyone Watching The News?
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Tue Mar 18, 2003 @ 12:38am |
 Coolness: 340345 | i saw a vid on the oil rigs on tlc a few years back..
that's some dangerous shit.. i'm surprised how long those rigs were burning before they mannaged to cap em all.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» AngryChinchilla replied on Tue Mar 18, 2003 @ 3:48am |
 Coolness: 56740 | i dont like living here
we're a north america military target us and fargo so right inbetween i dont wanna die although it would be quick anyways,..what i dont understand is why do they always annouce their every plan in detail on the news? "here is exactly what we;'re gonna do, please dont try and avoid it so we look powerful" |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» errorizE replied on Tue Mar 18, 2003 @ 4:50am |
 Coolness: 61520 | Alright
We all have different beliefs Some of us believe that Saddam is innocent and some of us don’t. I believe he is guilty based on my sources and cnn defiantly is not one of my sources. I have Iraqi friends that can tell you how they and most of the Iraqi people fear Saddam. I do read news articles, but I DO NOT work for the government or a news agency, so I don’t give a damn. I don’t even feel like explaining my case against Iraq. We all have different sources and different opinions. This situation is very similar to the O J Simpson Case. Even though he was proven innocent some people still believe he is guilty. So unless I get enough proof that Saddam is innocent he will be guilty in my book. In the mean time, I don’t give a shit. ohh and i totaly agree with you AngryChinchilla, there military Strategies suck |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PoiSoNeD_CaNdY replied on Tue Mar 18, 2003 @ 5:11am |
 Coolness: 92370 | US did not put Sadam in power. They supported him during the Iran-Iraq war.
Iraq did not set his own oil fields on fire. He set Kuwait's oil fields on fire. The 'weapons of mass destruction' that Sadam posseses is basically a whole lot of nerve gas and anthrax that could potentially be attached to a missile or used in a terrorist attack. France, Germany, and other countries do not deny that he has these chemical agents. They beleive that the presence of inspectors can effectively keep tabs on Sadam to prevent him developing more powerful weapons, and keep him contained. Am I the only person who remembers back in spring the hawks in the Bush administration were openly calling for "regime change" in Iraq? The reason has less to do with an imminent threat to the US as it has to do with disposing of an enemy at a perceived oppurtune time (the hawks beleived that after Sept 11, the US could do what it wanted and the world wouldnt protest). The reasons the US is attacking Iraq include: the intention to correct the "mistake" of allowing Sadam to stay in power after Gulf War I, and the beleif that Sadam, in the long term, could emerge as a threat to U.S. interests, and allies (gulf states + israel) in the region. Furthermore, I wouldnt be surprised if Bush beleives some of his own propaganda. If you oppose this war (which you should) please try to have more intelligent arguemnts than "war is bad because innocent people will die". - this war sets a dangerous precendent for counties to unilaterally attack other countries whom they perceive as threats, without any provocation. (ex who says India can't attack Pakistan on the same grounds?) - an American occupation of Iraq will turn much of the Muslim world against the US, thus worsening the threat of terrorism in the future. - Iraq has the potential to degenerate along ethnic/religious lines (Kurds/Shiites/Sunnis), possible resulting in an unpolicable region that will breed future conflicts. (the Balkans, anyone?) - CIA intelligence indicates that Sadam is unlikely to use chemical weapons against the US if unprovoked. That all changes once he knows he is gone. - The longterm presence of inspectors effectively contains Sadam, making millitary intervention unnecesary. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» El_Presidente replied on Tue Mar 18, 2003 @ 9:59am |
 Coolness: 300005 | oh and OJ simpson was proven guilty. The government just couldnt do shit about it cuz the criminal court had judged him non-guilty.
He was proven guilty during a lawsuit from his wife's family |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Tue Mar 18, 2003 @ 10:03am |
| Coolness: 340345 | if you oppose this war (which you should) please try to have more intelligent arguemnts than "war is bad because innocent people will die".
yeah, if you or your familly ever were to get held hostage, i'll be sure to tell the swat team to go in with guns blazing, because we don't really care about the innocent people in the room. i'm sure caring about the innocent is an unintelligent way of thinking. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» BA_Baracus replied on Tue Mar 18, 2003 @ 12:24pm |
 Coolness: 121715 | howd everybody like that speech? sounded like john wayne, Saddam and his band of sons must leave my county...
its good to see Canada is staying out of this... Saddam needs to be dealt with, but this is not the right way, why show your cards and force the otherside to play his? why rush it? if his army is as weak as they say, then why tell everyone he poses an immediate threat? its all about timing, bush needs to get this over (not started but over with) b4 the next election (2004) saddam fund terrorism? yes, he supplies Palestinian organizations with tons of cash to send out more suicide bombers...but we dont hear anything about that as the U.S is embarrassed to admit to the world that Israel is an ally...instead they like to pretend that AL Quada has something to do with Saddam (60% of americans think Saddam had a direct involvment with Sept.11)- thatll happen when bush mentions 9/11 eight or more times in his last public address (not last nite)- good brainwashing indeed (similar to duck and cover in the 50s - 2000 version: buy some ductape) why is france, germany, russia so opposed? well they want to counterbalance (be the other superpower) the US, they dont like the methods being used, but most importantly, they re the ones who still have contracts with Iraq (owes russia tons of $) so if USA takes over, what happens to their hookups? gone, not to mention their monopoly over the oil... france is the country that built Iraqs first nuclear reactor in early 80s which Israel promptly destroyed... anyways, worse of all this has obliterated any legitimacy to the war on terrorism cuz theyve really f+cked things up...so the first to suffer the most will be Israel, Russia (chechnya)and probably Pakistan/india... nice i wasted 15 minutes of work writing all that! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Agent_Yogurt replied on Tue Mar 18, 2003 @ 1:22pm |
| Coolness: 134290 | my opinion on the war is simple. it isinevitable and when it does come, we as humans have brought it upon ourselves. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» G__ replied on Tue Mar 18, 2003 @ 9:48pm |
| Coolness: 142045 | this war isn't about getting Saddam out of power, though that is an incredible scapegoat for it. This war is about one thing and one thing only, making america more powerful, how, taking over the oil wells, that's why it's considered a war crime to destroy the wells, cause america doesn't want to loose any money(oil)...in the first war, the wells lost 3% of their oil from the infernos that were set, that doesn't sound like alot but that is literally billions and billions of dollars there... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» somekid replied on Wed Mar 19, 2003 @ 12:29am |
 Coolness: 85685 | I saw fires of kuwait at the imax today and all I can say is the war looks like total hell!!!!!!! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Wed Mar 19, 2003 @ 1:51am |
| Coolness: 149495 | whatever...
Saddam sure isnt a great guy. he must be neutralized. poisoined candy is right on the money with everything he said. especially with the india/pakistan situation. now that the US claims that unilateral decisions to start wars are fine, whats stopping india and pakistan. france opposes the war not only because its gas company (i forget the name) was the first to actually negotiate a deal with iraq to exploit their oil fields... russia and germany are the only two other european nations to do the same. france also opposes the war just to spite the americans, rightfully. not exactly to spit them, but to show the US that just because they have the nukes and COULD destroy the world, we dont have to sit around and be bullied by them. fuck the US. saddam cant have nukes, but the US can. its only fair right? saddam hasnt threatened the US with war. the US has threatened Iraq with war? wheres the threat? Iraq on the US, or the US on Iraq? the US are corrupt cops that must be dealt with. and just like any police movie where a cop turns bad, theres gonna be a bloody mess. the war is immoral and illegal. the US government should burn in hell. also, the US has been taking bids from companies for whos going to restructure Iraq after the war (read: whos gonna own iraq after we level their land). the US has said that NO international body will even be allowed to touch iraq. only the countries that are part of the "coalition of the willing" will be allowed to restructure (read: repossess, exploit) iraq (US, Spain, Britain, Australia... maybe others) the US president must be off his rocker if he thinks he can convince even his own people that his war is "just and right". i just cant believe it. saddam is right not to leave, although it will cause much bloodshed. by deciding to stay, saddam hussein will become a martyr. and a historical symbol that the US will never be able to erase since it will be the begining of the decline of the US. the world will HAVE to see that the US must be neutralized as it has gone mad with power. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:07am |
| Coolness: 340345 | uhh.. france opposes the war, cause they're the ones who have been selling all the weapons to iraq.. why would they want to bomb one of their customers? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Wed Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:11am |
 Coolness: 686270 | pfft, as soon as shit hits the fan, france is just gonna surrender, even if their not involved. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:12am |
| Coolness: 340345 | "only the countries that are part of the "coalition of the willing" will be allowed to restructure "
ahem... spoils of war......... duuuh... "saddam hussein will become a martyr" not bloody likely.. hell, i doubt the US will even be able to kill him let alone capture him like they'd want to.. the US thinks is so fucking easy to catch people like Osama and sadam and Castro.. they're arrogant fucks who think just cause they got big bombs and military, they can do what ever the hell they want with out recorse.. well sorry to say, the US will be hit back and hard for this war.. and of course they'll play the hapless victim who was attacked unprovoked.. just like on sept 11th. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Wed Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:18am |
| Coolness: 149495 | if saddam is killed he WILL become a martyr... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Wed Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:22am |
| Coolness: 686270 | saddam has already been made a hero by the us.
his defiance of the us alone is all that it took. the odds are stacked against him a thousand fold. he knows that. the us knows that. everyone on the friggin planet that has a basic grasp of what's going on knows he can't possibly come out touching the us, let alone winning a war against them. but his defiance will serve as inspiration for terrorists everywhere as long as the us remains it's arogant self. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Mar 19, 2003 @ 2:36am |
| Coolness: 340345 | i agree but i think Castro is a much better 'defiant' leader then saddam.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Wed Mar 19, 2003 @ 10:52am |
| Coolness: 149495 | ha!
how many times did the US try to have him killed? like 100, 200 even? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Mar 19, 2003 @ 11:30am |
| Coolness: 340345 | exactly.. plus he's not such a bad guy..
the only reason the US hates him so much is cause he confiscated a bunch of american companies that were controlling his country.. i've got no peave with that.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Wed Mar 19, 2003 @ 11:34am |
| Coolness: 149495 | exactly.. stupid americans... always thinking about their wallets |
Anyone Watching The News?
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
