My suggestion to you is:GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I believe in my nation and the constitution, It doesnt matter who the commander in cheif is, that doesnt change the fact that Im an american.alpinestar wrote:
Only man that participates in war is the man that believes in his goverment what if your goverment lies to you does that make you a fool in other's eyes ?
As soon as I disagree with NOT defending your country against those that wish you harm, I will.alpinestar wrote:
My suggestion to you is:GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I believe in my nation and the constitution, It doesnt matter who the commander in cheif is, that doesnt change the fact that Im an american.alpinestar wrote:
Only man that participates in war is the man that believes in his goverment what if your goverment lies to you does that make you a fool in other's eyes ?
Think for your self, always question authority.
or something along those lines. They think by being anti-bush they leave main stream, become unique and interesting.I'm as non-conforming as can be, and you can be non-conforming too if you dress just like me
I didn't think there were any real men in Canada besides Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson and Neil Peart; thanks for setting me straight!dom wrote:
This is an issue that frustrates me alot. It seems that opinions are divided, or rather there are only two kinds of people.
There are those who are patriotic and support the american goverment and there are the non-supporters... What frustrates me more then a blind patriotic american is a young student who becomes a liberal because it's the cool thing to do. Many people argue that war is evil and bush is a monster without knowing why, all they know is there's oil in the middle east and providing an economic future for one's nation is satanic and taboo.
I guess what i'm trying to say is that I hate people who become anti-war because it's what the media propagates. It reminds me of those young teens that become part of a sub culture just to be different when in fact all they're doing is trying to fit. I guess the emo song best explains it,or something along those lines. They think by being anti-bush they leave main stream, become unique and interesting.I'm as non-conforming as can be, and you can be non-conforming too if you dress just like me
In the best of worlds, if I were the one to decide, I would wait until those arabs try invading Israel again. Then it would justify sending military support. After easily fending them off I would steam roll the whole middle east. People know that a war justified by oil is correct, they're just afraid to admit it because of hippie morals.
For me I believe it's much more important to secure a source of oil so that the prices don't soar so high that mothers can no longer feed their children. The nation should come before all, kyoto and suicide bombers should come last.
- A Friendly Canadian
Jesus was nothing more then a sandal wearing hippie that preached about love.
Will you show me your proof that the "WMD were never there"? I ask since you are stating this as fact.alpinestar wrote:
I think there's a fine line between beeing a hippie and beeing a human beeing that can actually add things up and come up with a conclusion, IRAQ war for oil maybe somewhat true, IRAQ war without physical evidence of WMD sounds a little too suspicious making the first one a little more believable, later on you see that WMD were never there, if you can conclude from this you can stay blind or do something about it. Im not really surprised they burn US flags, just a note I do not appreciate seeing people burning other country's flag it is something I cannot watch.
Last edited by panderiz (2006-05-11 19:59:46)
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-05-11 20:04:49)
For one my friend there was nothing found in the beginning by NATO inspectors.lowing wrote:
Will you show me your proof that the "WMD were never there"? I ask since you are stating this as fact.alpinestar wrote:
I think there's a fine line between beeing a hippie and beeing a human beeing that can actually add things up and come up with a conclusion, IRAQ war for oil maybe somewhat true, IRAQ war without physical evidence of WMD sounds a little too suspicious making the first one a little more believable, later on you see that WMD were never there, if you can conclude from this you can stay blind or do something about it. Im not really surprised they burn US flags, just a note I do not appreciate seeing people burning other country's flag it is something I cannot watch.
when did NATO send inspectors?alpinestar wrote:
For one my friend there was nothing found in the beginning by NATO inspectors.lowing wrote:
Will you show me your proof that the "WMD were never there"? I ask since you are stating this as fact.alpinestar wrote:
I think there's a fine line between beeing a hippie and beeing a human beeing that can actually add things up and come up with a conclusion, IRAQ war for oil maybe somewhat true, IRAQ war without physical evidence of WMD sounds a little too suspicious making the first one a little more believable, later on you see that WMD were never there, if you can conclude from this you can stay blind or do something about it. Im not really surprised they burn US flags, just a note I do not appreciate seeing people burning other country's flag it is something I cannot watch.
For two my friend I won't show you one of million links about CIA misleading bush about WMD, you should know it by now if you've read news papers or watched news. I however am not much of a news man nor politician, I think for my self.
Last edited by alpinestar (2006-05-11 20:18:35)
I dont and I didnt (not the second time around at least)alpinestar wrote:
Sorry I meant UN, I was thinking of something else when I typed that lol maybe the new US enemy ;x
One last thing from me
How can you as american take a quy that looks like a monkey seriously or even put your vote on him lol.
http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/Bush-monkey.gif
If that would have worked, we wouldnt have this problem, would we?Rellim83 wrote:
(Sadam Hussein)
He ploted to assassinate a former president. (Bush sr.)
no, we just would have destroyed iraq 10 years agoThundergodTyLor wrote:
If that would have worked, we wouldnt have this problem, would we?Rellim83 wrote:
(Sadam Hussein)
He ploted to assassinate a former president. (Bush sr.)
but maybe 9/11 would had never happenedGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
no, we just would have destroyed iraq 10 years agoThundergodTyLor wrote:
If that would have worked, we wouldnt have this problem, would we?Rellim83 wrote:
(Sadam Hussein)
He ploted to assassinate a former president. (Bush sr.)
well, if the US considers a military attack on Iran without a UN resolution as being in their best interest, then that's their choice. Being a souvereign nations, it is certainly your right to make that decision.lowing wrote:
I think the decade of terror attacks on US interests was waiting long enough to do something, other than talk about it.Torin wrote:
And the level-headedness not to go to war before we absolutely need to.
Erm, no they didn't. You just quoted it again: Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions andlowing wrote:
Well let me QUOTE the RESOLUTION se forth by the UN again. "Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions andUnOriginalNuttah wrote:
No, I'm saying there were events surrounding this resolution which need to be considered, rather than taking it out of context and using it as justification for a war. Saddam had agreed to comply with UN requirements, so in that sense the resolution was successful. Iraq claimed to have disarmed, and there were no weapons found, so maybe just maybe they really had.lowing wrote:
Ahhhhhhhh so you are saying that the UN didn't look at the surrounding events before making this resolution. Well hey, it is your UN.lowing wrote:
It was ACCEPTED by the world that the INTEL about the WMD's was accurate!! It wasn't a Bush war monger conspiracy theory.To me that seems like two completely different statements.lowing wrote:
unorginalnuttah,
just admit that the UN whom you support, thought that there was WMD in Iraq. Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee
Let's talk about the first: It was accepted by the world that Iraq hadn't complied with weapons inspections, but I don't see where it says the UN accepts that he definitely has weapons of mass destruction... it says that if the remaining weapons (which came from where, originally?) have been disarmed that this needs to be independently verified.
The second: The UN thought that there might still be WMDs.Ever recall one being voted in?lowing wrote:
I think so, I don't recall a dictator ever being VOTED out of office
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security".
What is YOUR definition of..........IS ???
There is absolutely no contradiction in my posts. you are trying to create angles over an issue of which there are NONE. The UN "recognized" a threat from WMD's from Iraq, they said it. The only arguement you have in this matter are the ones you have dreamed up.
The problem here is that you keep saying the same thing in every single post, irrespective of my answer. If you're going to convince me that it's okay for the US to ignore their obligation to the UN and the world, then you're going to have to come up with something a little more justifying than simply saying that you have the right to be arrogant and dishonour your alliances. What you keep making it out to be is that the US have some extraordinary demands when it comes to foreign aid, and that their contribution is the only one that matters. I'm sorry, but I've spent 4 posts explaining to you that in the words of the US itself, the US has precisely the same requirements as those other 21 countries, and it falls drastically short, so you are infact complaining about the US having to honour their obligations.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
you bring some valid points, but i still disagree with you in spirit. I see what your saying, but still, that doesnt change my opinion about this.
The US is like the welfare system to the world apparently. And if we dont wanna give country X as many food stamps as we promised, all of sudden were greedy.
we also have nearly 300 million americans that have priority over the rest of the world. The same I assume would go for your nation as well.
If that settles it? If you had read and comprehended my previous posts, you'd realise that it is infact not your right to decide how much you give when you've obligated yourselves to give at least 0,7%.lowing wrote:
Well I will pipe up.............As Americans, we are free, and maybe that means free to change our minds on what, where, how and to who we give our generosity to. Does that settle it?mikkel wrote:
You really aren't reading my posts at all, are you? Can the arrogance for a second, and if you can, lower yourself from that superior American level to the level of a simple mortal human, and read my posts through again. I'm not the one saying that the US has these obligations. The US says that the US has these obligations. It's 0,7% to people who need it. 0,7% that the US agreed upon. 0,7%. Not the 80% you make it sound like. The US isn't giving more than anyone. These contributions are measured in GNP. This is what the UN says, and this is what the US says. Let's just stick to what they think, instead of changing it for the benefit of your argument. The US is officially giving less than most other developed nations. Honestly, hold back on the self-pity there for a second, and be realistic. These are US goals, US obligations and US responsibilities that the US agreed to. If you're going to blame anyone, blame your own government, not the people reciting the committments they made.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
ok now it sounds like your saying "sure lets buy everyone else a mercedes, ill just drive my geo metro' The United States is the biggest monetary contributor to the UN and your complaining that they havent given enough, Im sorry man, but I just dont see the United States owing much to anybody. The world should be content with the contribution we give instead of asking for more and more. Why? why should the US be obliged to give more, and i say GIVE, aid to anybody.
Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-12 02:52:52)
Nothing sad about it. the US has every right to defend itself and its allies without the UN permission, and Saddam was deemed a threat by the US to itself and its allies ( so did the UN as I proved earlier.)B.Schuss wrote:
well, if the US considers a military attack on Iran without a UN resolution as being in their best interest, then that's their choice. Being a souvereign nations, it is certainly your right to make that decision.lowing wrote:
I think the decade of terror attacks on US interests was waiting long enough to do something, other than talk about it.Torin wrote:
And the level-headedness not to go to war before we absolutely need to.
The sad thing is, though, that the UN were created ( with the US being one of the driving forces behind that and a founding member ) with the intent to prevent exactly what happened when the US attacked Iraq and what might happen with Iran.
Please show me where the US is "obligated" to finance its enemies, and explain to me why we should??mikkel wrote:
The problem here is that you keep saying the same thing in every single post, irrespective of my answer. If you're going to convince me that it's okay for the US to ignore their obligation to the UN and the world, then you're going to have to come up with something a little more justifying than simply saying that you have the right to be arrogant and dishonour your alliances. What you keep making it out to be is that the US have some extraordinary demands when it comes to foreign aid, and that their contribution is the only one that matters. I'm sorry, but I've spent 4 posts explaining to you that in the words of the US itself, the US has precisely the same requirements as those other 21 countries, and it falls drastically short, so you are infact complaining about the US having to honour their obligations.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
you bring some valid points, but i still disagree with you in spirit. I see what your saying, but still, that doesnt change my opinion about this.
The US is like the welfare system to the world apparently. And if we dont wanna give country X as many food stamps as we promised, all of sudden were greedy.
we also have nearly 300 million americans that have priority over the rest of the world. The same I assume would go for your nation as well.
No, no-one thinks of the US as the welfare system to the world, because it's clear that they can't deliver. The only thing I'm asking is that the US either lives up to its obligations to the UN, or opts out of it all together. Until either of those happens, you simply cannot defend the US not reaching those 0,7%, and actually complaining about the supposed "burden" the US has just by sending 0,22% is completely stupid.
Again, and please read this; these are US obligations that the US are free to opt out of. Until they do, they're open to every single bit of criticism they can get if they don't meet those obligations, and rightly so.
We have 6 million Danes that are just as important as every other person anywhere. We have free schooling, free healthcare, more government financial help to citizens than any other developed country on the planet by far, and yet we still find the money to honour and exceed our obligations and respect the UN and the people in need.
In short, so we won't need a repeat of the last 5 posts: The US isn't living up to the contractual obligations they have to the UN. If you're going to complain about these obligations, complain about the US government, not the people in need, as that's just immensely absurd.If that settles it? If you had read and comprehended my previous posts, you'd realise that it is infact not your right to decide how much you give when you've obligated yourselves to give at least 0,7%.lowing wrote:
Well I will pipe up.............As Americans, we are free, and maybe that means free to change our minds on what, where, how and to who we give our generosity to. Does that settle it?mikkel wrote:
You really aren't reading my posts at all, are you? Can the arrogance for a second, and if you can, lower yourself from that superior American level to the level of a simple mortal human, and read my posts through again. I'm not the one saying that the US has these obligations. The US says that the US has these obligations. It's 0,7% to people who need it. 0,7% that the US agreed upon. 0,7%. Not the 80% you make it sound like. The US isn't giving more than anyone. These contributions are measured in GNP. This is what the UN says, and this is what the US says. Let's just stick to what they think, instead of changing it for the benefit of your argument. The US is officially giving less than most other developed nations. Honestly, hold back on the self-pity there for a second, and be realistic. These are US goals, US obligations and US responsibilities that the US agreed to. If you're going to blame anyone, blame your own government, not the people reciting the committments they made.
Honestly, posting on a forum means that you read and respond with constructive replies. Three lines above your reply is this exact same answer, just as valid as the one I'm giving you now, and just as devastating to your arrogant rambling. Not reading posts before you reply doesn't make you clever. I realise that you must put a lot of faith into the validity of that argument for you to completely disregard every other argument that has been made, but saying something like that after I've posted five posts that completely destroyed that argument and even told you, kind as I am, where to direct your criticism just makes you look extremely inept at carrying a discussion. I'm sorry, but it does.
unorginalnuttah, you should have been a biologist the way you disect. The long range missles that could carry WMD's from Iraq was EXACTLY the concern the UN was addressing and you damn well know it. Or are you saying that resolution was NOT meant for Iraq?UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Erm, no they didn't. You just quoted it again: Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions andlowing wrote:
Well let me QUOTE the RESOLUTION se forth by the UN again. "Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions andUnOriginalNuttah wrote:
No, I'm saying there were events surrounding this resolution which need to be considered, rather than taking it out of context and using it as justification for a war. Saddam had agreed to comply with UN requirements, so in that sense the resolution was successful. Iraq claimed to have disarmed, and there were no weapons found, so maybe just maybe they really had.lowing wrote:
Ahhhhhhhh so you are saying that the UN didn't look at the surrounding events before making this resolution. Well hey, it is your UN.lowing wrote:
It was ACCEPTED by the world that the INTEL about the WMD's was accurate!! It wasn't a Bush war monger conspiracy theory.To me that seems like two completely different statements.lowing wrote:
unorginalnuttah,
just admit that the UN whom you support, thought that there was WMD in Iraq. Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee
Let's talk about the first: It was accepted by the world that Iraq hadn't complied with weapons inspections, but I don't see where it says the UN accepts that he definitely has weapons of mass destruction... it says that if the remaining weapons (which came from where, originally?) have been disarmed that this needs to be independently verified.
The second: The UN thought that there might still be WMDs.
Ever recall one being voted in?
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security".
What is YOUR definition of..........IS ???
There is absolutely no contradiction in my posts. you are trying to create angles over an issue of which there are NONE. The UN "recognized" a threat from WMD's from Iraq, they said it. The only arguement you have in this matter are the ones you have dreamed up.
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security
Which when broken down into the components is recognition of two items:
Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions poses to international peace and security
Recognizing the threat Iraq’s proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security
What you seem to think it says is:
Recognizing Iraq’s proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles
Which has an entirely different meaning, and isn't at all what the clause intends. Sorry, you are wrong.
“In recognition of the special importance of the role that can be fulfilled only by official development assistance, a major part of financial resource transfers to the developing countries should be provided in the form of official development assistance. Each economically advanced country will progressively increase its official development assistance to the developing countries and will exert its best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of 0.7 percent of its gross national product at market prices by the middle of the decade.”lowing wrote:
Please show me where the US is "obligated" to finance its enemies, and explain to me why we should??mikkel wrote:
The problem here is that you keep saying the same thing in every single post, irrespective of my answer. If you're going to convince me that it's okay for the US to ignore their obligation to the UN and the world, then you're going to have to come up with something a little more justifying than simply saying that you have the right to be arrogant and dishonour your alliances. What you keep making it out to be is that the US have some extraordinary demands when it comes to foreign aid, and that their contribution is the only one that matters. I'm sorry, but I've spent 4 posts explaining to you that in the words of the US itself, the US has precisely the same requirements as those other 21 countries, and it falls drastically short, so you are infact complaining about the US having to honour their obligations.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
you bring some valid points, but i still disagree with you in spirit. I see what your saying, but still, that doesnt change my opinion about this.
The US is like the welfare system to the world apparently. And if we dont wanna give country X as many food stamps as we promised, all of sudden were greedy.
we also have nearly 300 million americans that have priority over the rest of the world. The same I assume would go for your nation as well.
No, no-one thinks of the US as the welfare system to the world, because it's clear that they can't deliver. The only thing I'm asking is that the US either lives up to its obligations to the UN, or opts out of it all together. Until either of those happens, you simply cannot defend the US not reaching those 0,7%, and actually complaining about the supposed "burden" the US has just by sending 0,22% is completely stupid.
Again, and please read this; these are US obligations that the US are free to opt out of. Until they do, they're open to every single bit of criticism they can get if they don't meet those obligations, and rightly so.
We have 6 million Danes that are just as important as every other person anywhere. We have free schooling, free healthcare, more government financial help to citizens than any other developed country on the planet by far, and yet we still find the money to honour and exceed our obligations and respect the UN and the people in need.
In short, so we won't need a repeat of the last 5 posts: The US isn't living up to the contractual obligations they have to the UN. If you're going to complain about these obligations, complain about the US government, not the people in need, as that's just immensely absurd.If that settles it? If you had read and comprehended my previous posts, you'd realise that it is infact not your right to decide how much you give when you've obligated yourselves to give at least 0,7%.lowing wrote:
Well I will pipe up.............As Americans, we are free, and maybe that means free to change our minds on what, where, how and to who we give our generosity to. Does that settle it?
Honestly, posting on a forum means that you read and respond with constructive replies. Three lines above your reply is this exact same answer, just as valid as the one I'm giving you now, and just as devastating to your arrogant rambling. Not reading posts before you reply doesn't make you clever. I realise that you must put a lot of faith into the validity of that argument for you to completely disregard every other argument that has been made, but saying something like that after I've posted five posts that completely destroyed that argument and even told you, kind as I am, where to direct your criticism just makes you look extremely inept at carrying a discussion. I'm sorry, but it does.
Disagreeing with you does not mean your post wasn't read. It also doesn't make anyone arrogant.
