|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:29 pm
-Konfuzled Zebra- Krego-sama -Konfuzled Zebra- The thing is, there were no weapons of mass destruction. You never hear about anything good happening, so can you really blame people who want to pull out? All they're seeing is people getting killed. Someone really needs to pull their socks up and tell everybody whats going on and what progress they've made, and that they aren't just there for the oil. I feel that I can blame people, as I in fact did find out what was really going on before my friends or my brother joined the military. If you aren't going to work to find out the facts, then don't voice your opinion sheesh. And the thing is with the weapons of mass destruction is that the fact that there were none could only be known after the invasion because for some odd reason the Iraqi government would no cooperate with the UN. They apparently had no reason not to cooperate, cause there were no weapons being made...right? So in reality it was the Iraqi governments choice not to cooperate that made it impossible to make sure there were no weapons of mass destruction without an actual invasion. With all the evidence we had before the invasion, along with the resistance of the Iraqi government, it seemed quite logical that they were trying to hide weapons. Had they actually had weapons (which as previously stated seemed quite logic given the situation) inaction could have proven fatal. If that last part sounds a bit repetitive, it is because you really need to notice those particular facts for how they were before the invasion. It's idiotic to make a judgment on the situation based on hindsight. Also...I don't know how old you were at the time that this all was actually happening, but I am willing to bet I am older than you, and I remember it all quite well. Edit: and yes...I agree that they really need to make people aware of the progress in Iraq. I think the reason they seem to have trouble doing this is because those in office, the president being key, kinda backed off and admitted to it being a mistake to invade, and seem to be in a continual state of self doubt about the whole thing. This is probably one of the biggest reasons such large numbers of people were suddenly against Bush. I think if he had supported his own decision the whole way through he would have a lot more respect than he does now. Basically, I think all that stuff I just said has caused some inaction in way of any kind of media support of the war. I was 11 when they bombed the Underground. I must have been around a year or 2 younger then that when they decided to go to war. I remember watching it all on newround, lol. Also the pictures of the twin towers kept on being repeated over and over again on the news. Same thing with that statue of Saddam Hussain being pulled to the ground. Our Country can't afford this. Hospitals are shutting down, hundreds of people are dying of superbugs and it just seems like we should sort out our own country first. We have a huge debts to be sorting out. Also, the fact that nobody else in the world is helping out seems a little strange. I thought the UN said that we weren't even supposed to go to war in the first place. If the Goverment didn't put so much spin on everything else, then I'd be willing to trust them more. The UN in fact did not want to go to war. The UN is all for inaction. The UN is in no way in control of any of the countries in it, so the UN saying we were not supposed to go to war is really just a matter of opinion, and the UN's opinion clearly indicates they are afraid of action. The problem with it all is not that we need to worry about ourselves first. The problem is that almost everyone else only worries about themselves. If other countries would make a move to help countries in need it would be a lot less expensive for those that are actually doing something.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:24 pm
Krego-sama Shelcombakasfire Krego-sama Shelcombakasfire Krego-sama Lol...Speaking of governments blowing all our money...I hate how no one in the US seems to care about our Huge national debt. The President almost never talks about it. None of the presidential candidates ever really talk about it. It's like no one thinks it's very important. In my opinion it is probably the biggest problem the US has right now. Of course the President doesn't ralk about it, it'a 40% his fault. The candidates can't talk about it unless they lie: Either they don't want to do that, or they don't want us to know. It's pretty fail. ACTUALLY...........The debt was enormous before he became the president, he certainly has not added 40% of the debt as this debt has been collecting since like WWII and 40% would be a nearly impossible amount to spend in such a short time, and while obviously war is expensive I do in fact support the war. My complaint is that no one seems to think the national debt is a big deal, so no one is doing much about it. Are you in the war? If so, what's it like? Do you fight? Do you worry your family? DO they go months without speaking to you? You do know that the majority of soldiers also support the war right? That's probably because they actually see what's going on over there. They see how much good is being done. Most the stuff going on over there doesn't ever hit the media. All they usually talk about is the violence. I do actually know people who are there right now. My brother is also in the military...and while he is not there he knows a lot of people who have been there. For some odd reason they know about a whole hell of a lot of good stuff going on there that you really don't hear on the news. They don't think the US should pull out. On the news you mostly see the Iraqi's that want the US to leave, but apparently the majority of them want the US there, and look at the US as a savior from the horrible condition of life before. If we leave now while the Iraqi government and military are still unstable there is a good chance that it could fall apart, and a new dictatorship will likely form. Only this time it will be a more violent dictatorship than before. I also support the original decision to invade. We thought they had nuclear weapons. We also had photographic evidence. Imagine what could have happened if we had not invaded, and they did actually have those weapons. You could've just said no. And I hear tons of it from my husband, thank you very much. So, how's about you not tell me what I know? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shelcombakasfire Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shelcombakasfire Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:25 pm
Something else that annoys me...
My hair. D: It fails at life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:02 am
The war sucks. WMD's was a lie and they knew all along...that was just the story they told the people to get their support. Bin Laden and AlQaueda (sp?) were known to be in Afganistan but we were there for a short time and are now focusing on Iraq....to the detriments of our efforts in Afganistan. Almost all of the early success in Afganistan has been erased while America has been pissing people off in Iraq.
The real reason for invading Iraq? So private corp's like Halle Burton can get paid a jillion dollars for reconstruction, in order to delay peace and development and stability. Thats right delay stability! An unstable, war torn region rife with conflict needs food, weapons, shelter. The only thing of value to sell in order to raise funds for this is precious resources like oil or other raw materials. If Iraq or Iran were ever left alone long enough to organically develop their infrastructure and industry to a point where they were not so desperate, they would have a stronger bargaining position about where and who to sell their oil. This is not in the US economic interests. Worse yet, a stable developing Iraq might just decide to sell their oil to no one at all and develop those resources solely for the benefit of their own industries! Oh God forbid that should ever happen! Remember the First Gulf War? Many people think that the US got involved because invading other countries for territory and expansion just isn't done these days......but the truth is that capturing Kuwait would have given Iraq a seaport which would have given them more control over the export and transportation of their own oil whereas the Western world liked it just fine that Non friendly countries like Iraq were dependent on other companies to transport their goods.
And this.....pisses me off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:10 pm
Custard/Jelly filled donuts. They look like regular donuts, but are full of crap. domokun Those tricky bastards. ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:50 pm
"Go to hell custard!"
Yeah, I don't like those kind of doughnuts either D:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shelcombakasfire Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:42 pm
mr_zoot The war sucks. WMD's was a lie and they knew all along...that was just the story they told the people to get their support. Bin Laden and AlQaueda (sp?) were known to be in Afganistan but we were there for a short time and are now focusing on Iraq....to the detriments of our efforts in Afganistan. Almost all of the early success in Afganistan has been erased while America has been pissing people off in Iraq. The real reason for invading Iraq? So private corp's like Halle Burton can get paid a jillion dollars for reconstruction, in order to delay peace and development and stability. Thats right delay stability! An unstable, war torn region rife with conflict needs food, weapons, shelter. The only thing of value to sell in order to raise funds for this is precious resources like oil or other raw materials. If Iraq or Iran were ever left alone long enough to organically develop their infrastructure and industry to a point where they were not so desperate, they would have a stronger bargaining position about where and who to sell their oil. This is not in the US economic interests. Worse yet, a stable developing Iraq might just decide to sell their oil to no one at all and develop those resources solely for the benefit of their own industries! Oh God forbid that should ever happen! Remember the First Gulf War? Many people think that the US got involved because invading other countries for territory and expansion just isn't done these days......but the truth is that capturing Kuwait would have given Iraq a seaport which would have given them more control over the export and transportation of their own oil whereas the Western world liked it just fine that Non friendly countries like Iraq were dependent on other companies to transport their goods. And this.....pisses me off. Here see...this is a perfect example of someone who just repeats what other people have said without actually figuring things out for himself. You know who comes up with that s**t? Conspiracy buffs. Idiots. People who aren't quite 'there' in the head. People who believe them aren't much better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:52 am
Krego-sama mr_zoot The war sucks. WMD's was a lie and they knew all along...that was just the story they told the people to get their support. Bin Laden and AlQaueda (sp?) were known to be in Afganistan but we were there for a short time and are now focusing on Iraq....to the detriments of our efforts in Afganistan. Almost all of the early success in Afganistan has been erased while America has been pissing people off in Iraq. The real reason for invading Iraq? So private corp's like Halle Burton can get paid a jillion dollars for reconstruction, in order to delay peace and development and stability. Thats right delay stability! An unstable, war torn region rife with conflict needs food, weapons, shelter. The only thing of value to sell in order to raise funds for this is precious resources like oil or other raw materials. If Iraq or Iran were ever left alone long enough to organically develop their infrastructure and industry to a point where they were not so desperate, they would have a stronger bargaining position about where and who to sell their oil. This is not in the US economic interests. Worse yet, a stable developing Iraq might just decide to sell their oil to no one at all and develop those resources solely for the benefit of their own industries! Oh God forbid that should ever happen! Remember the First Gulf War? Many people think that the US got involved because invading other countries for territory and expansion just isn't done these days......but the truth is that capturing Kuwait would have given Iraq a seaport which would have given them more control over the export and transportation of their own oil whereas the Western world liked it just fine that Non friendly countries like Iraq were dependent on other companies to transport their goods. And this.....pisses me off. Here see...this is a perfect example of someone who just repeats what other people have said without actually figuring things out for himself. You know who comes up with that s**t? Conspiracy buffs. Idiots. People who aren't quite 'there' in the head. People who believe them aren't much better. You know, my entire family thinks the same as Zoot. Most of them are usally "there" in the head. I'm not believing anything because I don't really know what's happening. It's not like the Goverment or the media would tell us anything straight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:58 am
MudBlood Zebra Krego-sama mr_zoot The war sucks. WMD's was a lie and they knew all along...that was just the story they told the people to get their support. Bin Laden and AlQaueda (sp?) were known to be in Afganistan but we were there for a short time and are now focusing on Iraq....to the detriments of our efforts in Afganistan. Almost all of the early success in Afganistan has been erased while America has been pissing people off in Iraq. The real reason for invading Iraq? So private corp's like Halle Burton can get paid a jillion dollars for reconstruction, in order to delay peace and development and stability. Thats right delay stability! An unstable, war torn region rife with conflict needs food, weapons, shelter. The only thing of value to sell in order to raise funds for this is precious resources like oil or other raw materials. If Iraq or Iran were ever left alone long enough to organically develop their infrastructure and industry to a point where they were not so desperate, they would have a stronger bargaining position about where and who to sell their oil. This is not in the US economic interests. Worse yet, a stable developing Iraq might just decide to sell their oil to no one at all and develop those resources solely for the benefit of their own industries! Oh God forbid that should ever happen! Remember the First Gulf War? Many people think that the US got involved because invading other countries for territory and expansion just isn't done these days......but the truth is that capturing Kuwait would have given Iraq a seaport which would have given them more control over the export and transportation of their own oil whereas the Western world liked it just fine that Non friendly countries like Iraq were dependent on other companies to transport their goods. And this.....pisses me off. Here see...this is a perfect example of someone who just repeats what other people have said without actually figuring things out for himself. You know who comes up with that s**t? Conspiracy buffs. Idiots. People who aren't quite 'there' in the head. People who believe them aren't much better. You know, my entire family thinks the same as Zoot. Most of them are usally "there" in the head. I'm not believing anything because I don't really know what's happening. It's not like the Goverment or the media would tell us anything straight. I said that the people coming up with it aren't quite there in the head. And I agree that you can't just listen to the media either. And I just noticed something funny. mr_zoot Worse yet, a stable developing Iraq might just decide to sell their oil to no one at all and develop those resources solely for the benefit of their own industries! There is a whole hell of a lot of oil coming out of Iraq. There is no way they would be able to use it all themselves, and the loss of income if they stopped selling it would be about as bad for them as the loss of oil would be for us. Do you even read what you are typing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:13 am
Sometimes, when I start a thread, I think....
GTFO.
This isn't a ******** discussion thread (I can do it 'cause I started it. See how that works?), so if you're going to pick fights with each other, take it to the world of PMs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shelcombakasfire Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:08 pm
It's called debate. Do you have a problem with debating? Personally I like debating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:17 pm
Krego-sama It's called debate. Do you have a problem with debating? Personally I like debating. It's not a debate thread, either. To debate you must discuss. A discussion is not always a debate, but a debate is always a discussion. Stop doing it in my thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shelcombakasfire Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:29 pm
My muscles are killing me and that's annoying me. I did a high ropes course and I was the only person to get to the top of the climbing thingy. I was so proud of myself. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:19 pm
Shelcombakasfire Krego-sama It's called debate. Do you have a problem with debating? Personally I like debating. It's not a debate thread, either. To debate you must discuss. A discussion is not always a debate, but a debate is always a discussion. Stop doing it in my thread. A discussion that doesn't allow for any kind of debate becomes very one sided and uninteresting. What you're saying is that, this being a discussion, people are allowed to display their opinion, but once they have done so no one is allowed to display the opposing opinion. After all that would be debating and you just can't allow things like that in your thread. Why don't you want debating in your thread? Is it that you put debating in the same group with arguing or fighting? And if people fight then it ruins the friendly atmosphere you had intended on making? People will be angry and won't enjoy themselves right? Do you know what I think would make people much angrier? Seeing that someone has posted something that in their opinion is true, but they see it and are offended by what they consider to be completely untrue. They want to respond by pointing out why it is untrue, and share their own viewpoint on it, but are told that they aren't allowed to debate cause this is strictly a discussion and no amount of arguing will be tolerated. That would certainly make me angry. If you still don't want any debate in your thread make sure people know that they aren't allowed to post their opinions. Unless your plan is, in fact, to alienate those who might disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:15 am
Krego-sama Shelcombakasfire Krego-sama It's called debate. Do you have a problem with debating? Personally I like debating. It's not a debate thread, either. To debate you must discuss. A discussion is not always a debate, but a debate is always a discussion. Stop doing it in my thread. A discussion that doesn't allow for any kind of debate becomes very one sided and uninteresting. What you're saying is that, this being a discussion, people are allowed to display their opinion, but once they have done so no one is allowed to display the opposing opinion. After all that would be debating and you just can't allow things like that in your thread. Why don't you want debating in your thread? Is it that you put debating in the same group with arguing or fighting? And if people fight then it ruins the friendly atmosphere you had intended on making? People will be angry and won't enjoy themselves right? Do you know what I think would make people much angrier? Seeing that someone has posted something that in their opinion is true, but they see it and are offended by what they consider to be completely untrue. They want to respond by pointing out why it is untrue, and share their own viewpoint on it, but are told that they aren't allowed to debate cause this is strictly a discussion and no amount of arguing will be tolerated. That would certainly make me angry. If you still don't want any debate in your thread make sure people know that they aren't allowed to post their opinions. Unless your plan is, in fact, to alienate those who might disagree. Woah, Krego, calm down. You take things way too seriously. If you feel so strongly that you MUST debate with someone, PM them, then we're all happy. You get a big fat 5 sometimes on that scale. xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
