[img]http://players.gamernic.com/JonM/bush3.jpg[/img]

Select and see...

Eeeek!!

Stop scaring people like that Adron. What's even scarier is, when I first read the title, I thought it said Sprint instead of spirit.

for some reason he looks realy high in that pic 8\

Oh my FUCKING GOD!!!

That is the most discusting piece of shit I ever saw, and yes, BUSH IS A MORON!! 14% tax on all soft wood being shipped to canada, fuck his thoughts about "freedom", I was happy and free before that piece of shit came into power >:(

[quote author=Wolf link=board=4;threadid=877;start=0#msg7058 date=1049500335]
Oh my FUCKING GOD!!!

That is the most discusting piece of shit I ever saw, and yes, BUSH IS A MORON!! 14% tax on all soft wood being shipped to canada, fuck his thoughts about "freedom", I was happy and free before that piece of shit came into power >:(
[/quote]

*Strays off topic*
So now you're not "happy and free"? I doubt it. Also, I am a little confused about this "14% tax on all soft wood being shipped to canada" rant. Now this can be taken one of two ways: 1 - Canada imposes a 14% tax on imports of softwood which would have nothing to do with Bush, or 2 - The US imposes a 14% tax on exports of softwood, which I think you're alluding to. But from what I've read, "the United States last year imposed tariffs averaging 27 percent on softwood imports from four Canadian provinces..." (Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20030204-1434-lumberdispute.html). Protectionism is a great thing as long as it there to protect our own economy, which I'm sure the reason was. Continuing from the last quote, "...contending that government subsidies kept Canadian lumber prices artificially low and threatened the U.S. industry." Point-in-case, if you're going to rant and rave about someone at least get your facts straight.

*Gets back on topic*
Love the picture ;)

[quote author=Wolf link=board=4;threadid=877;start=0#msg7058 date=1049500335]
Oh my FUCKING GOD!!!

That is the most discusting piece of shit I ever saw, and yes, BUSH IS A MORON!! 14% tax on all soft wood being shipped to canada, fuck his thoughts about "freedom", I was happy and free before that piece of shit came into power >:(
[/quote]
You are a fucking idiot, as you have proved several times on this forum.

Why don't you cite us with ONE SPECIFIC EVENT that proves that Bush is a moron?

Speeches don't count, I don't give a shit if he sucks at public speaking. I'm talking about actions.

Uhh... He choked on a pretzel.

[quote]
Has 0 mg sodium when he's not choking to death from a salted pretzel lodged down his throat.
[/quote]

I'd cite spending billions of dollars in a war with iraq, and inventing copious excuses for doing so, instead of spending that money researching alternatives for oil, but that's just me.

So you're saying we should let Iraq build nukes?

No, they're all saying they're too chickenshit to do anything about it, and that it is far easier to stand on the sidelines and critique the actions of others who have the balls to act.

They probably all wish that we hadn't gotten involved in WWII and saved their ungrateful asses from Hitler. At least, they wish to forget it ever happened. They can't stand it, especially the cowardly French, who refuse to ever get involved militarily, hoping and even knowing full well that the United States will do it for them.

That lets them sit smugly and feel good about themselves, and chant 'diplomacy', 'diplomacy', while tyrants like Saddam Hussein milk the French cowardice and sympathies for all it is worth on the international scene.

Frankly, I say fuck the rest of the world. Only Britains, Australians, and Americans have really earned the right to have a voice in this, as they're the only ones who put their lives on the line to solve a world problem.

Let's stop rebuilding other countries after earthquakes and floods and famines. Let's stop sending billions of dollars in loans, and then conveniently forgiving them when those countries don't pay it back.

Hell, they never pay it back, and they always get forgiven. How many countries have paid back the loans? Thought so.

Does this give us the right to act in Iraq? You're damned right it does. If we don't stop Saddam Hussein, he'll be nuking Turkey or Greece or Israel or the United States. I hope he suffered a horrible death, similar to the aggregate of those hundreds of thousands he had tortured and killed in the past 30 years.

So all you pacifist spineless countries, keep on sitting on the sidelines until its you who are in need. I'm sure you'll be calling on us to help and I hope we say fuck off when you do call. Maybe the goodwill of the United States can become as short as your dicks.

Do I have a right to say this? Damn right I do. I gave six years of my life to the defense of the United States, allies, and the free world, with the expressed will of doing precisely that. Truth is, if people who are exceptionally qualified, such as myself, are not willing to do it, then lesser qualified people will be forced into the role. While it was a complete waste of 6 years as far as my career goes, it was completely worth it towards the goals of the defense of OUR DEFINITION of freedom and democracy.

I stress our definition because I know some intellectual punk sitting in safety in a little corner of who-knows-where will want to argue semantics of everything said here. But quite frankly, I don't give a rats ass about your definitions unless you've put your life on the line repeatedly, and in servitude, in defense of your notions.

You Grok?

Eh, Grok? A few weeks ago you were arguing against the war :P
Anyway, this thread is hardly "fun" anymore.. someone go post a picture of Saddam humping a camel.

[quote author=Naem link=board=4;threadid=877;start=0#msg7214 date=1049665643]
Eh, Grok? A few weeks ago you were arguing against the war :P
Anyway, this thread is hardly "fun" anymore.. someone go post a picture of Saddam humping a camel.
[/quote]

Grok will argue either side of an issue, just like me :-)


In response to what Grok says, I just want to remember what happened in WW2. While Canada and the rest of the world fought, the US did nothing. It wasn't until years later that Japan attacked the US and finally they decided to get into the war. It wasn't until THEY felt threatened that they actually did something, and didn't help us when we wanted help.

Now this happened again, on 09/11/01, the US felt threatened again. So now they're fighting a war again and making fun of Canada for not participating, which is exactly what the US did in WW2!

I don't think I'm alone in the world in thinking that staying out of a war is NOT a sign of cowardice. If somebody wants to make fun of how Canada handled this war, first defend how the US handled WW2 pre-Pearl Harbour (without getting bogged down in semantics that is wasn't called world war 2 until after Pearl Harbour, that's not really the point since there was still a war happening).

[quote author=Naem link=board=4;threadid=877;start=0#msg7214 date=1049665643]
Eh, Grok? A few weeks ago you were arguing against the war :P
Anyway, this thread is hardly "fun" anymore.. someone go post a picture of Saddam humping a camel.
[/quote]Not exactly what you requested, but this is all I could Google in 5 minutes.
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=3686

Honest to God, if i have to put up with another american who expects europeans to be beholden to the US for all eternity just because of WW2, i'm gonna barf. Iago is quite right.

Iraq has no nukes. Iraq has no chemical weapons. Iraq has no biological weapons. No evidence has been presented to us by any world leader to date that he poses any threat to us whatsoever. Their argument amounts to: "He does. No, really. Yes, he does. He presents a clear and present danger. He's bad. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. War on terrorism. Saddam bad." etc.

Iraq would never give WMD to fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. If they did, the terrorists would most likely use them on Iraq before they used them on us. Hussien *hates* fundamentalist islam, as has been demonstrated by his 7 year war with iran over the issue - the very war in which Iraq used chemical weapons with the full knowledge and backing of the US. He has gone to exceptional lengths to eradicate fundamentalism in iraq, also. Don't get me wrong - he's a monster, a thoroughly evil man, and I wish he wasn't in power, but he is. This war is not about terrorism, it's not about WMD, and it's DEFINATELY not about humanitarianism, or 'liberating' iraq. It's about oil.

UNSCOM did a spectacular job disarming Iraq after the last war. They were starting to do the same this time, but just when they actually started destroying Iraq's missiles (which, by the way, were NOT in violation of sanctions - they only had the *potential* to be modified so that they would exceed the allowed range) the US declares war. Doesn't that strike anyone as a bit strange? That just as evidence refuting Bush & Blair starts to become available, the war begins?

This war is about oil, and Bush/Blair have been feeding us a pack of lies from day one. It sickens me that so many people have been taken in by it.

[quote author=iago link=board=4;threadid=877;start=0#msg7217 date=1049675212]
without getting bogged down in semantics that is wasn't called world war 2 until after Pearl Harbour, that's not really the point since there was still a war happening
[/quote]

It fucking well is to everyone else! 1939-1945 kthx.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=4;threadid=877;start=0#msg7238 date=1049729170]
Iraq has no chemical weapons.

...the very war in which Iraq used chemical weapons

This war is about oil
[/quote]

Don't you find it strange to say Iraq has no chemical weapons, but that they used them against Iran?

Oil? That's bunk. Oil is a commodity traded on the open market. Only a complete idiot believes that hyperbole about war for oil.

No threat? How about Iraq invading Kuwait? This war is enforcement of the punishments placed on Iraq by the terms the United Nations put on his surrender last time around. He has failed to completely meet those, so we're doing it for him.

Note he had 12 years to "destroy those missiles" but waited until a few weeks ago to show a couple and destroy them. You're probably thinking "oh yah! he's complying!"

Thinking like yours is why everyone sat on their hands and let Hitler run over a whole country and then you go "oh well, he won't do it again. give peace a chance."

I totally agree. Grok and Invert are oil hungry ;)

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=4;threadid=877;start=0#msg7238 date=1049729170]
Honest to God, if i have to put up with another american who expects europeans to be beholden to the US for all eternity just because of WW2, i'm gonna barf. Iago is quite right.
[/quote]

I dunno, I'm not a fan of digging up the past...we aren't our ancestors.

[quote]
Iraq has no nukes. Iraq has no chemical weapons. Iraq has no biological weapons.
[/quote]
That's pretty funny, since they found two chemical weapons plants. And it's also funny, since EVERY SINGLE Iraqi nuclear scientist who has defected has said that their nuclear program is at least double the size it was before the Gulf War

[quote]
UNSCOM did a spectacular job disarming Iraq after the last war. They were starting to do the same this time, but just when they actually started destroying Iraq's missiles (which, by the way, were NOT in violation of sanctions - they only had the *potential* to be modified so that they would exceed the allowed range) the US declares war.
[/quote]
I guess they disarmed Iraq so well, that we aren't going to need to fight a war with them. Oh wait....we had to fight TWO.

[quote[
Iraq would never give WMD to fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. If they did, the terrorists would most likely use them on Iraq before they used them on us. Hussien *hates* fundamentalist islam, as has been demonstrated by his 7 year war with iran over the issue - the very war in which Iraq used chemical weapons with the full knowledge and backing of the US. He has gone to exceptional lengths to eradicate fundamentalism in iraq, also.
[quote][/quote]
If it's terrorists vs the US, I think he'd side with the terrorists. My rant about why 9/11 and Iraq and Israel are all related belongs in a different thread.

[quote]
Don't get me wrong - he's a monster, a thoroughly evil man, and I wish he wasn't in power, but he is.
[/quote]
Yeah. Totally agree.

[quote]
This war is not about terrorism, it's not about WMD, and it's DEFINATELY not about humanitarianism, or 'liberating' iraq. It's about oil.
[/quote]
You just say that because everyone says that. You shouldn't blindly listen to Michael Moore, he's the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen.

[quote]
Doesn't that strike anyone as a bit strange? That just as evidence refuting Bush & Blair starts to become available, the war begins?

This war is about oil, and Bush/Blair have been feeding us a pack of lies from day one. It sickens me that so many people have been taken in by it.
[/quote]
Now now child, save your anti-government ranting for something worth fighting for, like destroying the DMCA.

Frankly, I think George W. Bush is a great man. Yeah, he has shitty charisma. So what? He has the balls to fight for what he knows is right and doesn't give a shit about his popularity. I'm pretty sure he has access to the CIA intelligence files and his critics don't.

Now, about France. France is only contradicting us and Britain because they want to control the EU. Why do you think all the Eastern Europe countries side with us? Because they don't like what France is doing.

In closing, I'd just like to say that none of us (including me) have a right to judge what the president is doing. We aren't in his position. Frankly, we don't know JACK SHIT about the intelligence information or how the war is going. We can go out there and say "NO WAR," but for all you know, he has everything that has been said and more. You don't know.

Everyone should shut the fuck up until this thing has blown over, and then perhaps we can discuss the conflict.

blah blah blah

his WMD were destroyed by the UNSCOM after the first gulf war. He may be a threat to his neighbours, he's not a threat to us, and since when did the US give a shit about who was a threat to who when the people concerned are half way around the world? Do you see the US intervening in India/Pakistan? China/Taiwan? Half the countries in Africa? No.

What right does the US have to enforce 'punishment' applied by the UN? The UN set the sanctions, it's up the the UN to enforce them, and the UN has spoken on this issue. There was no 2nd resolution and no hope of one, and there's a reason for that. The majority of the world is against this war.

I find the Hitler reference offensive. To compare a man that orchestrated the mass murder of 6 million people to saddam hussein is as absurd as it is meaningless.

I'm not blindly listening to Micheal Moore. I'm examining the facts as I see them as best as I can, and drawing my own conclusions. I don't trust people just because they're in power. In fact, i probably actively distrust them, because they're in power. Until someone shows me some more information, i'll continue to base my opinions on the information I have, and that information tells me that this war is about oil, not terrorism or liberation.

Iraq has no nuclear program - at least not one that's anywhere close to constructing a working warhead. Manufacturing a nuclear weapon is not a simple process, it's complicated, big, very visible, very expensive, and requires a lot of infrastructure. Trade sanctions on Iraq make it nigh on impossible to obtain the equipment they'd need in order to do it, and that's besides the fact that there's no way such a program could remain hidden. The processes involved are readily detectable - for one thing, a lot of gamma radiation is produced. The facilities required would be huge. Both of these are easily detectable via satellite. If there was evidence of an active nuclear weapons program the US would tell the world about it, and don't give me crap about secret intelligence - they'd have nothing to loose from telling everyone 'Iraq has a plutonium refining facility here, and a heavy water reactor here, and here are the photos'. Also, you shouldn't quote blind statistics. Saying the size of their programme has doubled is silly. It could have been 100 scientists before, so now it's 200. So what? Without the infrastructure that Iraq is unable to obtain, they could have 2000, it'd make no difference.

Also, saying that Bush doesn't care about popularity is pretty silly. If there's one thing that's guaranteed to send a president's approval through the roof, it's a war... at least, until too many body-bags come rolling in.

I doubt i'll post more on this topic unless someone really hits one of my sore spots, i'm totally comfortable & secure in my position on this subject, and therefore don't feel the need to convince anyone else that I'm right.

(Just a small notice from the moderator... Remember that you're only allowed to argue as long as it's fun. This is the fun forum. If you want to have a serious argument, split off your posts to the General Forum or something.)

It was fun for me!

Damned fun.