|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:49 am
I love watching the Daily Show and the Colbert Report because they bring life to a normal persepctive.
Espcially when Stephen gives a pop quiz on who didn't call President Bush a nazi.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:00 am
Master Kaiser Pyrotechnic Oracle Hmmmmm...any body know if Full Metal Panic is the sequal to Full Metal Alchemist Nope, two different things, I've been told anyway. Damn, and there were so many loose ends in Alchemist
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:19 pm
Not to continue an argument, but... ********, I have some relevant things to say.
Now, I don't know a lot about the whole, Ted Kennedy thing, but here's what I do know. There are media outlets in America, namely Fox news, that pander to the Right, and there are media outlets in America that pander to the left. I mean, you can't get anymore blatant than being in the middle of an election and starting a newscast by saying "17 days until George Bush becomes president."
No, things in America aren't fair and balanced, though that is Fox's favorite slogan. But when people in America seem to think, Still, to this day, that Saddam Hussein had ANYTHING to do with 9/11, you're dealing with a biased news program.
In fact, I heard one of the most objective news stations is C-span, and that's also one of the least popular.
You're never going to get a fair story, unless you really look for it.
As far as I'm concerned, if no one was charged in a trial, then there was obviously reason why they weren't charged. That's why, even if it's different, when Karla Homolka's videotape of the murder/rape that she participated in emerged after she made a deal to be in prison for 10 years, I still think she got a fair sentence. If it's good enough for the attorneys, and the judge, it's good enough for me.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:25 pm
Mcphee Not to continue an argument, but... ********, I have some relevant things to say.
Now, I don't know a lot about the whole, Ted Kennedy thing, but here's what I do know. There are media outlets in America, namely Fox news, that pander to the Right, and there are media outlets in America that pander to the left. I mean, you can't get anymore blatant than being in the middle of an election and starting a newscast by saying "17 days until George Bush becomes president."
No, things in America aren't fair and balanced, though that is Fox's favorite slogan. But when people in America seem to think, Still, to this day, that Saddam Hussein had ANYTHING to do with 9/11, you're dealing with a biased news program.
In fact, I heard one of the most objective news stations is C-span, and that's also one of the least popular.
You're never going to get a fair story, unless you really look for it.
As far as I'm concerned, if no one was charged in a trial, then there was obviously reason why they weren't charged. That's why, even if it's different, when Karla Homolka's videotape of the murder/rape that she participated in emerged after she made a deal to be in prison for 10 years, I still think she got a fair sentence. If it's good enough for the attorneys, and the judge, it's good enough for me. ah yes, 9/11... i have seen some idiots who claimed the same... me-"why, then, exactly, are we in iraq if not for oil?" idiot-"They bombed our city" me-"no, that was ossama bin laden, a former accomplice who we aided in a fight against the 'evil' communists of the soviet union." same thing with japan idiot-"they deserved their nukes, they were killing people" me-"yes, mostly militants. we, on the other hand, prefer bombing places like tokyo, hiroshima, nagasaki, dresden, bagdhad... and if they deserved hiroshima and nagasaki, we deserved 9/11- same exact thing. people killing civilians for the actions of ******** in the military."
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:16 pm
Divine, only the idot claims were in Iraq for oil. Seriously, if we wanted their oil, we would have had it long ago rolleyes Why are we in Iraq? "Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach". Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, "Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland,"Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer," & "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan" who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq. Quite frankly, any war on terrorism that didn't tackle that nest of vipers would have been a war in name only." We are in Iraq for the reaosn we started this war. Terrorism. This is not the War on Osama, or Saddam, it is the War on Terror. Targetign al Queda alone will not fix the problem. Why? Becaus sects and groups can break away and form other orginisation, and if this was a war on al Queda, or Osama, or Saddam, we couldn't attack them. Secondly, there was the threat of WMD. We have yet to find any hard evidence, such as WMDs, but we do know that Iraqi scientis were indeed working on producing anthrax. Also, "there were certainly many other reasons to go to Iraq. Saddam Hussein was an avowed enemy of America who had started two wars of aggression in the region, was steadfast in his support for Palestinian suicide bombers, and brutally oppressed his own people. That last point is especially salient since we justified sending troops to Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia almost solely because of "humanitarian reasons". Personally, I believe in using our military to further American interests, but if "humanitarian purposes" floated your boat in Kosovo or Haiti, I see no reason why it shouldn't still work for Iraq." http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/whyiraq.php (yes, its a right wing sight. I was hard pressed to find a sight that didn't denounce the War on Terror, or simply bashed Bush in every paragraph)
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:34 pm
terror? we can hardly fight terror when we are part of it... terrorists bomb cities, correct? what have we done in every war in which we had bombs? we are attacked BECAUSE of our obtrusion.
and weapons of mass distruction? ha, what about our supplied of small pox? our supplies of biological weapons? how about our 6000 + nukes?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:48 pm
When have we droped them? When have we used them? WHen was the last time we used regular yeild nukes, or low yield for that matter in this war. Never. Are we attackign civilians? No. We are attackign insurgents.
No nukes have been dropped on Iraq, no chemicle WMDs have been used on Iraq. The only chemicle weapons we have used so far is tear gas.
And oyur claim that america has chemicle wepaons and nukes does not over shadow the fact that Husien and his sons made request as to how long it would take to produce WMDs, with intent to use them.
Are we apart of terroism? No. Terrorism is the act of attackgin civilians with only the intent to kill. As I've said above, we are not attackign civilians.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:53 pm
hiroshima. nagasaki. the nukes were dropped RIGHT in the center of the cities, to maximize civilain casualties. our intent was to instill fear. "this is our power. this is what we can do to you." we bombed the s**t out of baghdad. remember on tv a few years ago, the screen was green and dark, and every now and then it would glow really bright at the bottom? that was what it looks like when innocent people die at night.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:56 pm
divineseraph hiroshima. nagasaki. the nukes were dropped RIGHT in the center of the cities, to maximize civilain casualties. our intent was to instill fear. "this is our power. this is what we can do to you." we bombed the s**t out of baghdad. remember on tv a few years ago, the screen was green and dark, and every now and then it would glow really bright at the bottom? that was what it looks like when innocent people die at night. You've been lied to. Those were not civilian targets. Those were designated militery targets. They were being used as militery produciton centers at the time of the dropping. Nor was Japans militery decimated. If it was, how were they able to raise a fleet of one thousand planes to prepare for an American attack? And those videos? Militery targets yet again, unless they were showing Saddam attackign his own people, which he frequently did.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:58 pm
military targets being located in cities...and sometimes we missed. sometimes we killed a child. or sometimes our pilots were ordered to shoot down a group of children playing because the guys up top thought they looked like terrorists.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:00 pm
divineseraph military targets being located in cities...and sometimes we missed. sometimes we killed a child. or sometimes our pilots were ordered to shoot down a group of children playing because the guys up top thought they looked like terrorists. That was all before the geniva convention and the dos and donts of war were drawn up. Please present evidence for that.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:09 pm
i was referring to iraq, that time...remember the children we killed? plus, about japan, the genieva convention was around since 1864. you need evidence of civilian casualties? i'm sorry, i doubt that too many of those doccuments are declassified yet. the latest i heard, we've killed around 26,000 in iraq alone. in civilians, of course. 135,000 in dresden, 100 something thousand in japan... we've had our share of killing the innocent. and when we lose 5000, it is a catastrophe.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:18 pm
divineseraph military targets being located in cities...and sometimes we missed. sometimes we killed a child. or sometimes our pilots were ordered to shoot down a group of children playing because the guys up top thought they looked like terrorists. As you said, we missed. we thought they were terrorists. None of these deaths were intended as killing civilians for the sake of scaring people. Innocent people die in all wars. 2,000+ innocent people died on 9/11. Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11, but he did have something to do with killing people. We've known for years what he was doing to his own people. We've known the threats he made against us. Hell, even Clinton bombed him and threatened war with him. That's why he let weapons inspectors in back in 1998, to avoid a war with us. We've known since way before Bush that he was a threat, and we didn't know that because we needed oil. The reason we held off was because we didn't think he could get us. 9/11 happened and it kicked us in the balls. I don't really like the war. I see why it happened, and it wasn't about "getting the ******** who got us." That's revenge, and that's not a responsible way to look at war, is it? That's basically saying an eye for an eye. What it was about was ensuring it didn't happen again. We upped our defense, we went after people that had been threats but we'd figured, "Well, we're too powerful for them to hit us." And people who say the government staged 9/11 to go after oil forget that there was a war in Afghanistan. It was kinda one-sided and didn't last long. People who say there are no terrorists in Iraq forget the people they found in Iraq with information disks containing layouts of schools, including terrorist escape routes that schools set up after 9/11. Don't bring politics into it. It's not about killing people, it's not about showing our power, and if you think it is, or you think it's all for oil, please do some research on where most of our oil comes from, how much oil it takes to keep the troops mobilized, and the ratio of terrorist captures or kills to civilian deaths. It's pretty low compared to many, MANY wars.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:45 pm
Sorry. I get caught up. Terje won't believe me about Clinton threatening war with Saddam.
You're right. We're deadly. If we wanted to be evil, I'd be scared. But so far we aren't purposely targetting civilans. We're being a bit overzealous (imo) about protecting outrselves to make up for the very sucky job we did when we got stuck up and thought nothing like 9/11 could never happen.
But I'd still have to agree with pyro about WWII.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:52 pm
Mcphee
In fact, I heard one of the most objective news stations is C-span, and that's also one of the least popular.
. Have you ever watched it? Snoozefest. Seriously. It's so dry! I can't stand it. I need to alternate between Fox and NBC.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|