FUCKING POLITICAL-CORRECTNESS!

I seem to remember it being Klaatu, Verata, Nicto. Because he couldn't remember nicto/nictu...pendanticness....or is that pedantery...or pedantition...or......ahem

 

No two human being have the same DNA 100 %, but if the DNA didnot have certain parts in common with each other human being would be unable to children to carry on when they die. This is than trick question, when DNA expert talk to each other of finding 100 % human DNA that is what they mean that while indision people donot have 100 % DNA in common with each other but certain parts of the DNA is of each person is the the same with each other person on this planet. If certain of our DNA where not the same we wouldnot be able to take blood from person and give it to than other person who need it. Than may-be there are more planets in space able to support human DNA.

 

I than more of than anti-american imperialist in outlook, not than anti-america. I lost many friends that die in the veitman war which was unjust. Our America government want to show our allies that we will stand by
our commint oversea no matter the cost and we willnot lose faces no matter the cost. Our allies thought America was cazy and supid. Our neo-conserser in our government will not back down because they are afraid of loseing face.
I have than Uncle of mine who service in the Korean War and the Veitman War as than lifer and when he came back from Vietman War he told me if I ever need help in avoiding the draft he will help me, he consider the Veitman
war as than lost cause which we willnot win as the people of South Veitman didnot support their own puppet government they put in place by carrying out
than Washington order coup against their legality elected government.
There are more people in america who donot support the war against Iraq than the America government is willing to commit . That why they are trying to down play the number of marcher in the anti-war marches across america. I than alwat susperious when than president is pushing for than war the way that this president is. There is no evident of Iraq have any tie to the terrorist group that bomd the WTC and our military headquater in washington and yet our government is saying there must be than tie. It just the America greed for oil. Than our new quest for total security from terrorist attack. One there is no just think as 100 % security
and there will never be 100 % security. Some governmential official who are total againt our imperist polcy said America is planning to invade and occupty 70 to 80 countries of this world to have 100 % security from terrorist attack in the future.

 

Well maybe I didn't say every exact syllable..

 

I know I've heard that before, ( Klaatu Nictu Verata) but I can't remember what movie. I think Evil Dead or Army of Darkness. Is my memory correct or do I need to upgrade?

And for the record, Charles is right. There is a Second Department. It is between the First Department and the Third Department. I got a buddy who saw those aliens too. He got into a deep philisophical discussion with a guy named Jack Daniels and after about three hours of talking to Jack he went outside for some fresh air and witnessed the aliens land in his front yard. They told him they were from Allah and that they have come to save the world from the evil American Empire. He swears it's true. And ever since that night he's walked funny. So maybe he really did meet aliens.

 

Fool, it was in the Disney film Aladin, he said it shortly before rubbing the lamp, unfortunatly he said the words wrong and the genie came out and twatted him in the nose for being such a dopey cunt. Yeah it was Army of Darkness

DAMN YOU!! don't you know you've released untold evil upon the world??!! Hmm, at least the skeletons should be better animated this time round.

 

this sword is shit...need bobbly mace avatar.....must post more....

 

Um, do you have any idea how much heredity and genes have to do with obesity? Do you just think that obesity is singly related to over-eating?

I assume by "this" you mean oil, and I assume you are talking about Alaska. Ok, just how big of an area do you think would be, ahem, "destroyed" as you so eloquently put it, to mine oil? We're not talking about thousands, hell even hundreds of acres here. It would just be a few acres. No destroying of entire wildlife refuges.

Like what? You obviously are mis-guided. First of all, trees used for paper are not harvested from virgin forest. They are from planted pine. Do you know how long it takes to grow a stand of timber to make paper? 10-12 years. Yup, that's right. Here in Georgia, the timber industry is our biggest money maker. Slash and longleaf pine take no time to grow, and are replanted as soon as existing timber is cut.


I'll say one more thing, then I'll get off your back. And, mind you, I'm not attacking you personally, just challenging a few of your points. You have said that Bush is making war for oil. (Not a direct quote) Ok, let's think about that for a minute. Let's look at Iraq and Kuwait.

Iraq = Extremely hostile, anti-American, building WMD
Kuwait = Friendly country

Iraq = No U.S. troops there
Kuwait = 30,000 American troops already in place

Ok, if we just wanted oil, why the hell go to the expense and trouble of attacking Iraq? Hell, just take Kuwait!! What is it, like the size of Kansas? We could take it over in 24 hours! Hell, not a single bullet would have to be fired, just take out a newspaper ad saying "We Won!!" Who's going to stop us? Kuwait? Nope. We're already there. Just take it over if all we want is oil. Less mess, less time, less expense, less loss of life. No one could stop us.

So, I guess that's about all I have to say about America wanting to take over Iraq for "just the oil". That is the most absurd reason I've heard lauding Bush for his wanting Saddam gone. Come on. If you really don't have a problem with keeping a mass murderer in power, making threats against your homeland, then at least come up with a better reason than, "Bush just wants the oil."

 

retard, oil is a pretty big part of Iraq's economy, and they do have a fuckload of it. Kuwait may be pretty small, but the world would react far less favourably if the US took over Kuwait instead of Iraq. For starters, most everyone has no problem with Kuwait.

As for the whole tree logging thing, well, my problem with it arises when they cut down things like rainforests and shit, which they don't replant, or when they do the same to mine uranium (which we have a shitload of, but little inclination to mine).

 

I know, I know. See? What you are saying is that it would be pretty fucking stupid to take over Kuwait just for their oil, right? Right. Just as fucking stupid as it is to say that that's all Bush wants with Iraq. Just the oil. It's all stupid. My point was exactly that

1. Since the U.S. is nothing but an oil-grubbing bully, it's easier to take over Kuwait than mess with Iraq.

2. Who's going to stop us? Who? I mean, we are the most powerful nation in the world, and couple that with the fact that we are "oil-grubbing bullies", why would we hesitate ONE DAMN SECOND to take over Kuwait?? If that's all the pending war with Iraq was about; just the oil. Which it's not.

Just trying to show how freakin' stupid that argument is. If people are going to speak out against the war on Iraq, give a good reason. Stop pissing about "Bush just wants to finish what his daddy started" "America just wants their oil" Bullshit. Give ONE DAMN GOOD REASON why an insane mass-murderer who is building/built WMD and has an ingrained hatred of us and our allies should be left alone.

You're right about the rainforests. I heard something somewhere that x number of species of plants go extinct every day, most of which the world never discovered. That, along with the potential for medicines, I agree, the rain-forests should be left alone. Even clearing it for farming is dumbshit, because the land is usually always poor.

But, seeing how the U.S. has no rain-forests, I was just pointing out to TairNean that it's not quite as bad as the ecologists and the media make it out to be. Virgin-forest isn't stripped for paper, but planted softwood is. It is re-planted exhaustively, and it regenerates quickly.

 

The fact is, we have no good reason for attacking Iraq, Bush just wants revenge, and will do anything to get it.

 

Zorque, you mean no good reason beyond the fact that he (Saddam) would use terroristic tactics against the United States and her allies, he harbors terrorists that have/would use terrorism, he has lied to the U.N., builds WMD, hides them from inspectors, he attacked Iran 15 years ago with chemicals, leaving many suffering from horrible deformities and cancers, he invaded Kuwait, he murders those who get in his way.....yada yada yada I could go on and on. So, ignoring all that rot, we should just leave Saddam in power. Right? Leave them alone, that's what you're saying. Explain, if you can, why leaving the situation alone makes more sense than rectifying it.

Also, as you have so simplistically put it, "Bush just wants revenge". Care to clarify on that comment? Bush wants revenge for what?

 

I'm not saying that Saddam hasn't done those things, he most likely has, what I am saying is that Bush is only going after him because during the Gulf War Saddam attempted to assassinate the George W. B. Bush, George W. Bush is angry and will use any excuse to go after him, even if it is a valid reason. He pretty much only cares about his grudge. Why don't we go after North Korea? They ave admitted to having WMD, and yet we have done nothing to stop them.
I would also like to point out these are mostly opinions and he could just be a nice guy who actually wants to protect his country.

 

And you come by this information how? How do you know that he only cares about his "grudge"? I'm sorry, but your argument is still rather weak, and sounds alarmingly like a one-sided, close-minded argument. You'll have to do better to convince one that not taking out Saddam is the better route. You skipped right through your own statement about "Saddam tried to assassinate George Sr". Hello?!?! Is that not a bad thing? Not a reason to go after Saddam, solely on it's basis alone. But, you also said, "Bush is angry and will use any excuse to go after him, even if it is a valid reason." So, you're admitting that Bush's personal convictions are more important to you than the madman that is controlling Iraq? You've yet to say one thing about Iraq, all I hear is Bush, Bush, Bush.

Because North Korea is an entirely different situation. I was hoping someone would bring North Korea into this. Here's the situation:

1. You have a madman that says, "I'm gonna get a gun and hold somebody hostage!!" What do you do? You keep him from getting a gun, lock him up, stop him.

2. You have a madman that has a gun, and has it pointed at his hostage's head. What do you do? You have to use diplomacy, stealth, sniper on the roof, stuff like that. Not quite as simple of a situation as madman number 1, eh?

Ok, Saddam is madman number one. He's trying to get nukes, so he can blow Israel off the map. Right now, Saddam isn't holding anyone "hostage" although he has before, and will again, if someone doesn't "get his guns".

Kim Jong Il is madman number two. (Kim Jong Il is the dictator of North Korea, in case you didn't know.) He has nukes, and he has his guns on the border of South Korea. Seoul, the capitol of South Korea is 30 miles from the border. If we, or anyone for that matter, go barging in North Korea, Kim Jong Il's gonna wipe Seoul and it's population of 10 million plus off the map.

So, see, it's not really the same situation as Iraq, now is it? I don't think you can reasonably compare the two. Although, I will agree with you, it's a bad situation, and one that needs taking care of. Taxpayers in the U.S. spent billions last year on food supplies shipped to North Korea. That food has been neglected the poor, and has been found in the military's possession.

 

What I mean by a valid excuse is the terrorism stuff, I think he is only using that to go after Saddam, and only wants to hurt him because of what Saddam tried to do to his father. I find the terrorism stuff more important than a personal quarrel.

 

Alright, then. Let's talk about the terrorism stuff.

Do you think Saddam should have nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons? Do you think that, seeing how he's violated U.N. sanctions, lied, murdered, and terrorized his way to the top, that he is not a terrorist? The fact that he's harbored terrorists, is that still not reason enough? What do you think?

 

Okay here we have a disagreement. There is plenty of oil in iraq much more than in kuwait, if the us get their hands on that oil they can destabilise the oil market dumping the prices and earn big time. The countrys that sell oil down there will then lose their large control of the oil market wich could mean the fall of those arsholes in charge of saudi arabia and cheaper oil.

Dude al-qaida is against saddam, have you not heard? He sent this missile into this really important moske in iraq, if Norway was going to even compare with that they would have to burn all the churches in Norway. The groups that may have an contact with al-qaida are actually controlling the northern part of iraq where saddam have no controll.

The reason you are not taking over kuwait is that you are not that fucking stupid.

Hey how come Bush senior told the general that was on his way to take bagdad during the last gulf war to stand of? I will gove that ONE good reason he was told to stand of, cause if he had taken saddam there would have not been any bad guy in the middle east and the weapons industry would not have that many customers.
Before you ask i will say that i'm against saddam, but i will not go to a war that may kill 200000-400000 people just to get rid of him.

I'm more afraid of North-Korea.

 

Do you think Al-qaieadiaeia however the fuck you spell it, is the only terroristic organization the free world has to worry about? Fuuuuuck no.

Egg-fucking-zactly. Do you think that taking over Iraq just for the oil would be smart? No, that would be just as fucking stupid as taking over Kuwait for their oil. Q, you fail to see my point. The point is, if we just wanted oil, there are easier and more availiable sources than Iraq.

How do you assume that 200,000-400,000 innocent people are going to die? That is one of the biggest things that will hold up the armed forces going in, is taking care to make sure that innocents don't get in the way. But they will. Just like the innocents in New York.

You're right about North Korea. They scare me too, and I don't think that a whole lot is being done about them. BUT, that is a very delicate situation. And, speaking of innocents, what about the 10 million in Seoul, South Korea that Kim Jong Il has threatned to wipe off the face of the map if we (the free world) don't give him aid? Sick situation.


I think you guys are failing to see the big picture here. It's right in front of your noses. You both have expressed concern about North Korea.

Didja ever think that maybe Saddam Hussein would use the same tactic that Kim Jong Il is using sooooo successfully, should he get his hands on some "blow the tits off the world" nukes?

Look back at my post about the 2 types of madmen we are dealing with here. You both are opposing action against Saddam, but then you both say, "Well, why isn't anything being done about North Korea?" Well, it just seems so hypocritical to me for someone to down Bush and America and Tony Blair for wanting to take Saddam, but then turn right the heck around and laud the same people for not taking care of Kim Feel-my-Dong Il. Do you people not see the potential hazard in not taking action? Do you not feel that, due to the negligence of our last horny president, America is now in a compromised situation, and that Bush is just playing the role of janitor, cleaning up behind Clinton, with the whole world complaining that Bush the Janitor is smelly?

Reminds me of High School. Everyone avoided, made fun of, and didn't like the smelly, weird jjanitor who was CLEANING UP OUR FUCKING MESSES.

[/End Rant]

Sheriff, Ferret, where are you? Some of your wisdom and insight would be a breath of fresh air right now, regardless of your position. This is the most heated topic we've had in months.

 

I see your point, but it is slightly incorrect, taking over kuwait for thier oil would be a lot more difficult to explain away with the WMD crap as kuwait is a 2 horse country with an army the size of a football team. Taking over kuwait would seriously degrade America's allready tarnished reputation and it would be blatently obvious they were in it for the oil. With Iraq however it's possible to disguise your greed for oil with "terrorist threat" or somesuch, a quick blitzkrieg war and booyaa, iraq is yours.
If we were invading Iraq purely on a threat of terrorism basis then there would be little point in an occupying force as terrorism is not something you can fight like a conventional war, as for WMD, they are about 25 years off developing any kind of realistic delivery system OTHER THAN terrorist methods such as commercial plane and boat attacks, which like I mentioned ealier are not easily defended against using standard measures.

Oil is not the only reason for invading Iraq, but it's a pretty fucking big reason, if it was saddam himself that was the threat they could have assasinated him years ago.

That maybe so but america can't win an all out world war situation, they've tested it with simulations and shit, let's say that we invade kuwait, the european community cuts all ties with america due to thier expansionist nature, britain shortly follows due to overwhelming public opinion (britain was never truly a member of europe) china becomes increasingly hostile towards america, america decides it's a good idea to invade south korea, china becomes involved, there is a huge massive expensive war between korea, china and america, this fight could go either way, both sides are about matched in firepower due to china's stupendous size and korea's gurilla warfare tactics. At the end of it all america comes out poorer, and with a scorched reputation excluding them from much world trade.

That's why america can't just invade kuwait, and it's also why nothing is being done about south korea, they have a fucking hard big brother called china.

 

In any case, if the US attacks Iraq against a UN resolution, if someone gives me a gun I'll shoot Bush myself. And it sure looks that will be the case. How much has the US spent already to mass that "Armada" of forces? It fucking looks like a Creeping carpet of doom. You think they gonna pull back just cause some UN coucil rules against them? Fuck no, they are Americans, Americans always play the ball. Before it was commies, now it's "The war on terrer" As Bush puts it.

there are many things that warrent the use of armed forces... But GOD DAMN, if the weapons inspectors don't really find anything concrete and they report this while The USA ignores this and goes forward... Then anyone with at least one functional brain cell should protest.

How about the possible backlash such an unwarrented attack will have? This could very well be WW III.

As someone above said, terrorism cannot be fought against with conventional means. The REAL way is to infiltrate such organisations. Discover training bases, assasinate leaders. However, these terrorists aren't after money, this is why it's not really that much possible.