Cheney to be in charge tomorrow...no joke

[3rdpath]

since dubyas getting sedated while his colon is checked-out tomorrow he decided to "officially" put Cheney in power.

they say it will only be for an hour so how much damage can he do???

oh, the possibilities. :eek:

[krossfyter]

cheny was in charge in the first place!!! :D :D

[Royal Pineapple]

Cheney could be assanated with a Cheese cake, he should not hold the power to our country, 'corse neather should dubya, but he is alittle better than ****.
although i cant say how happy i am that george is having things shoved in his rectum, sounds alot like his foregin policys:D :D :D :D

[krossfyter]

este vato!

[Ensign Paris]

Hey

He needs to get it checked out, then he can get back to talking out of it.

(No offence meant to supports of GWB, I don't mind him, infact our PM seems to be his sheep at the moment)

Ensign

[teabgs]

Originally posted by Ensign Paris
Hey

He needs to get it checked out, then he can get back to talking out of it.

(No offence meant to supports of GWB, I don't mind him, infact our PM seems to be his sheep at the moment)

Ensign

I'm offended that you dont mean to offend and Dumbass Dubya supporters. He's an idiot. A retarded chimp would be better in office! He's managed to totally undo all the good that Clinton did in half the time he has as *shudder* president.

He didnt even win the election, not popular vote, or electoral....they rigged FLA which gave him the win....he shouldnt have gotten fla.

I have become totally disallusioned with politics because of the events leading to his presidency. I hate politics, Its all BS. its not even worth thinking about or caring about any more...big brother cannot be stopped with the state of lethargy, arrogance, and apathy in the United States....I dont know too much about other countries politics, so I can only comment about here.

[krossfyter]

its all relative teabgs.


dig it.

[teabgs]

Originally posted by krossfyter
its all relative teabgs.


dig it.

yeah I dig.....just hungry and tired

got a bit worked up....but still...he's an idiot, and I still dont like politics :D

[Macmaniac]

He could have a heart attack. Then the Secretary of State is Pres(I think) Colin Powell would be a cool Pres for 10 min.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by teabgs


yeah I dig.....just hungry and tired

got a bit worked up....but still...he's an idiot, and I still dont like politics :D

i totally understand.

[Royal Pineapple]

Originally posted by Macmaniac
He could have a heart attack. Then the Secretary of State is Pres(I think) Colin Powell would be a cool Pres for 10 min.
first george BUSH, than **** cheeny, than COLIN powell, what is this country coming to?

[Choppaface]

unky cheney gonna smoke out dem terrerests i tell ya!!!

[Durandal7]

I like how things are happening in U.S. politics: senate and congress are divided more or less equally and the president is of alternating parties. Deadlock is a good thing.

[Backtothemac]

Hey teabags, no offense to you because you know, I dig ya bro. But I have two words for you and they ain't Merry Christmas, more like FU!

Dude, if you really believe that they rigged FLA, then you have some serious issues. You ever met Bush? No, then get over yourself. Seriously. Damn people we are at war. One of the most important this country will ever fight, and you run around throwing baseless insults! WTF is wrong with you people?

Grow up for God's sake. Disagree with policy with intelligence. That is fine. Throwing personal baseless insults show that you are nothing more than infantile children!

Shame on you!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[krossfyter]

bush won fair and square...one recount after another recount... after another recount.


so shove it and dig it.:D

[Backtothemac]

You know what lets get this overwith right now. yea, his energy policy sucks, BIG TIME! But look at what he has done. Tax relief, which you may think was for the top 1%, but they bear more burden now than before. Families like mine paid no tax last year! Oh, and believe me we are not near the 1%. He helped give support in Congress for Ted Kennedy's education bill. Yea, when was the last time that something like that happened. He has conducted the war on terror perfect except for getting side tracked by the Israel / Palistinian problem. He now has stated his position on that so we can get back to the war. So you tell me, what he has really done that is so bad. How has he offended you?

Real examples here please. With intelligence.

[G4scott]

I don't see why you hate Bush so much. Would you rather have him, or some swindling ex-vice president, who gets on his knees in front of Clinton, the man who passed up the chance to kill osama, and do our country tons of good, just so that he could be in the spotlight. Gore would've been just like clinton, and in my opinion, clinton was the worst president in the history of the US (after Nixon, that is...) He was a celebrity, a pot smoker (of course, Bush may have done that too, but we don't know...), and a womanizer. All that a terrorist would have to do to infiltrate the clinton administration is put on a blue dress and shake her hips.

It's sad. I live in the only part of Texas that votes democratic... Of course, the balance between powers is good... You all need to lighten up. Bush has done a good job as President. At least he's done better than the tree-huggers and hippies in california who insist on protecting their environment while they spiral into an energy crisis. Some people need to think 'outside of the box'...

So, if you didn't like Bush, and you know that Gore is an extension of Clinton, then why didn't you vote for Nader?

[G4scott]

Oh yeah, weren't the democrats the ones who were saying that the taliban soldiers couldn't be held because they were being held as part of a group that the US claimed to be terrorists? The democrats may want justice and liberties for the individuals, but when they try to do something for the good of one person, it just hurts ten more.

Another idea that people should get off of (this is beyond democrats and republicans) is that life is fair. The whole thing with the pledge of allegiance in California was because a man didn't want his daughter to say "under God", because she would feel intimidated. That's part of life. If everybody treats you fair, when you get into the real world, you'll be torn to shreds, and spread all over the place. They may be making their children's childhood safer, but when they become adults, they stand no chance. People are complaining that games like Tag and Duck Duck Goose should be banned from the playground because they deal with exclusion, and hurt the feelings of their precious children. Competition is needed. The next thing you know, football games will work so that the losers go onto playoffs, tryouts for band and stuff like that will have everybody making the cut, instead of the best kids. It's the parents who don't teach their kids to behave at home, or raise them properly and expect for the school to teach them. My mom works with kids who are in high school and don't even know how to behave themselves in public. People are becoming STUPID!!! They don't care about the good of the country, or their community. They just want everything for themselves, without working for it. Welfare, for instance, causes many people where I live to become complete bums, living off the government. It's ridiculous. This country needs a dose of common sense, and I sure hope that George Bush can administer it...

Man... That was longer than I thought... I'm sorry, I just had to get that off my chest... It helps to do this sometimes... If I offend anyone, too bad, life's tough.

Oh, by the way, you are going to die after reading this :eek:

Really, you will die someday, and if you have read this, then it will have been after you read this, so I speak the truth, no?

[teabgs]

OK look, I dont want this to turn into Macs and Politics v.4....cause I dont like talkin politics. I shouldnt have said anything in the first place.

I don't like any of the politicians in power now...not just bush. I think the way the US govt works is not right, and it needs a change. that's my opinion, and i'm sticking to it.

B2TM No offence taken, even though it was almost kinda harsh man...But its all good cause you still the man in my book.

I do have one problem with your post:

"Damn people we are at war. One of the most important this country will ever fight, and you run around throwing baseless insults! WTF is wrong with you people? "

So? we're at war. Does this mean that all americans have to agree with and support the govt? NO. that is unamerican. It is more American to dissent and I respect people that dont give in and do what the govt says if they think its wrong.

People have to disagree and fight the system or the govt will take too much power from us, they've already started too...

If you need to reply to this please dont turn this into macs&politics. The forums have been too serious lately and people keep taking things too personally and everyone is offending each other.

I feel like its a sort of Macrumors after honeymoon period... Let's get a movie and some tv dinners and a bunch of beer and chill out....

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by teabgs
OK look, I dont want this to turn into Macs and Politics v.4....cause I dont like talkin politics. I shouldnt have said anything in the first place.

I don't like any of the politicians in power now...not just bush. I think the way the US govt works is not right, and it needs a change. that's my opinion, and i'm sticking to it.

B2TM No offence taken, even though it was almost kinda harsh man...But its all good cause you still the man in my book.

I do have one problem with your post:



So? we're at war. Does this mean that all americans have to agree with and support the govt? NO. that is unamerican. It is more American to dissent and I respect people that dont give in and do what the govt says if they think its wrong.

People have to disagree and fight the system or the govt will take too much power from us, they've already started too...

If you need to reply to this please dont turn this into macs&politics. The forums have been too serious lately and people keep taking things too personally and everyone is offending each other.

I feel like its a sort of Macrumors after honeymoon period... Let's get a movie and some tv dinners and a bunch of beer and chill out....

Tea, brother, I agree with you. We in our nature have to dissent against policy. My only point was you will win many points with people when you talk about policy, and lack there of sometimes than you would character attacks. People run around slashing Bush's personality, or his depth. That drives me nuts. Now, say his energy policy sucks, and we can talk. That would be like someone here assaulting my character. Saying B2TM is dense. He doesn't think about anything. He is a robot and MrsB2TM really controls him. No one has met me. How would they really know. Unfounded character attacks are slander and scuttlebutt, nothing more.

I agree. We need a Macs and porn thread or something to lighten it up around here. That was the only point I was trying to make. You are dead on in your assessment of dissent.

[SoarEyes]

Arguments, well hold on....

- Alaska (drilling for oil)

- No respect for geneva convention

- environment? whatta you mean environment

- only now is he be serious on goin after greedy A-holes like K. Lay
after being helped into office by the likes.

- war of the tulips (plan for invading holland in case of worldcourt inditements)

-no respect for the fact that half of america didn’t vote for him. Has he been willing to compromise on issues with democrats. think not

-only harsh lanquage that further upset’s world’s balance. Calling for arafat’s exit is not exactly helpfull in getting rid of him. Or the prepostoruos retoric on ”Axis of evil”, that’ll get people in those area’s in favour of american politics... Not

well what else? steelworkers, death penalty.. but my biggest problem with Bush he looks like a effin shrimp. hehe

don’t get me wrong I’m not angainst america. But Bush is pushing it:o

[teabgs]

Originally posted by Backtothemac



I agree. We need a Macs and porn thread or something to lighten it up around here. That was the only point I was trying to make. You are dead on in your assessment of dissent.


hehe...I dont know how well thatd work out....unless there were NO pictures in the thread...or they were kinda censored.

You are right about slander. It is a bunch or crap and its stupid when people talk outta their ass about people they dont actually know.

But sometimes its fun to make fun of public figures just for the hell of it...whether or not I actually believe what I say. Playing devil's advocate can be a lot of fun.

Anyway, I say we get this into the post and let the thread die. Theres lots of fun stuff to talk about instead of having to be serious all the time. PLUS we gotta save typing energy for the MWNY rumors as soon as they get outta control....only 19 days...

[AlejandroGonzo]

Originally posted by SoarEyes
Arguments, well hold on....

- Alaska (drilling for oil)
We need oil. Alaska has oil. Nuff said. It is part of American national interests. The Middle East does not like us, and we need to sever our ties with those people for our own safety. It will take a combination of increased production and supply. Liberals and environmentalists attack the president for not supporting environmentally friendly solutions, but when pressed for alternatives, they provide none. Electric cars and Hydrogen fuel cells, they sound great, and when they are ready, sure. I am not opposed to CAFE standards, but really, that has no hope of passing. John Breaux of Louisiana proposed a compromise where drilling in Alaska and stricter CAFE standards would be implemented, but Daschle wanted a campaign issue and said NO. Besides, both Michigan Democrats and Republicans will both fillibuster any improvements to CAFE standards because they are beholden to auto interests.

- No respect for geneva convention
Terrorists who attack civilians are not Geneva convention candidates. Nuff said. These people are not soldiers.

- environment? whatta you mean environment
Granted, not the most environmentally friendly president, but the environmental groups blow his policies way out of proportion.

- only now is he be serious on goin after greedy A-holes like K. Lay
after being helped into office by the likes.
How can you attack Bush when the Democrats recieve contributions from the same companies?

- war of the tulips (plan for invading holland in case of worldcourt inditements)
??? WTF?

-no respect for the fact that half of america didn’t vote for him. Has he been willing to compromise on issues with democrats. think not
I detect whining in this comment.

-only harsh lanquage that further upset’s world’s balance. Calling for arafat’s exit is not exactly helpfull in getting rid of him. Or the prepostoruos retoric on ”Axis of evil”, that’ll get people in those area’s in favour of american politics... Not
I frankly don't care what Saddam Hussein or Iran thinks. There are times when the situation calls for moral clarity. There is good and bad. What you are talking about is appeasement. I have found Europeans in general to be cowards when it comes to standing up for what's right in the world.

well what else? steelworkers, death penalty.. but my biggest problem with Bush he looks like a effin shrimp. hehe
Maybe when the EU removes tarriffs on genetically modified U.S. foods, we can talk about steel tarriffs. To attack the U.S. for steel tarriffs when the EU imposes them as well is pure hypocracy.

Death penalty. When you take someone else's life, you forfit your own life. Don't like it in Europe?, fine, but don't tell us what to do.

No need to even address the effin shrimp comment.

[Backtothemac]

Well, I was going to respond to you Soar Eyes, but then Alejandro came through. Oh, yea, he has worked with Democrats. He supported Ted Kennedy's education bill. The largest education bill ever passed in the US. As for the Geneva Convention. Sorry, but in my opinion, when the terrorists stop targeting civilians, then we will stop targeting them. Oh, and since you are not an American. Let me clue you. Popular vote doesn't mean crap here. Gore even said so the week before the election. That if he won the electorate, and lost the popular to Bush, that Bush would be gracious, and conceed. Bush even agreed before the election that Gore was right. But when the rolls were flipped. Well, we all know about the 10 recounts that took place in my HOMESTATE!

Now, some of the crap you speak of is pure retoric and propaganda. The tulip thing? Dude, what have you been smoking. We would never invade Holland. Seriously, there are some issues at work here.:D

[krossfyter]

keep up the good work AlejandroGonzo and B2THM. rock on.

[taeclee99]

Originally posted by SoarEyes
Arguments, well hold on....

- Alaska (drilling for oil)

- No respect for geneva convention

- environment? whatta you mean environment

- only now is he be serious on goin after greedy A-holes like K. Lay
after being helped into office by the likes.

- war of the tulips (plan for invading holland in case of worldcourt inditements)

-no respect for the fact that half of america didn’t vote for him. Has he been willing to compromise on issues with democrats. think not

-only harsh lanquage that further upset’s world’s balance. Calling for arafat’s exit is not exactly helpfull in getting rid of him. Or the prepostoruos retoric on ”Axis of evil”, that’ll get people in those area’s in favour of american politics... Not

well what else? steelworkers, death penalty.. but my biggest problem with Bush he looks like a effin shrimp. hehe

don’t get me wrong I’m not angainst america. But Bush is pushing it:o

Where do I begin?

- Alaska (drilling for oil)

What about drilling in Alaska? Drilling would occur in only 8 percent in ANWR. THe other 92 percent would be untouched. ANWR oil exploration represents the US's best chance of freeing itself of mideast oil dependence.

- No respect for geneva convention

I assume your talking about the fact the US government 's treatment of detainees at Gitmo Bay Cuba and its refusal to classify them as POW's. These people are not POW's, they are terrorists not deserving of the full protection offered by the Geneva Convention. Why should we treat them as POWs in the first place. It is these mutha ****ers that blew up the WTC in the first place. They are animals pure and simple who do not care that they kill innocents

-- environment? whatta you mean environment

The best thing Bush ever did was that he pulled us out of that ridiculous Kyoto Treaty. Under a Clinton era study by the EPA, carbon dioxide limits imposed by the treaty would have reduced US real GDP by 400 billion dollars. 2.4 million jobs would be lost and wages would be reduced by 2.1 percent if the treaty was ratified.

- only now is he be serious on goin after greedy A-holes like K. Lay
after being helped into office by the likes.

Hold the phone on that one. The likes of K. Lay gave 2 million dollars in soft money donations to Democrats and Republicans. In the weeks prior to filing bankruptcy, Enron gave 100,000 dollars to Democrats according to an AP report. It is not just Republicans who are in bed with corporate interests. To suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

- war of the tulips (plan for invading holland in case of worldcourt inditements)

Can't comment on that one.

-no respect for the fact that half of america didn’t vote for him. Has he been willing to compromise on issues with democrats. think not

Granted half of America didnt vote for him. But he has compromised with Democrats on a number of issues.

1. Dropped his demand for school vouchers so that his Education plan could pass.

2. Agreed to sign Campaign Finance Bill into law.

3. Admitting that human beings are the cause of glbal warming.

4. Offering an alternative Patients Bill of Rights plan.

Democrats always bitch and moan about Bush's lack of compromise. To a Democrat, compromise means tthat Republicans should adopt the Democratic positions on issues.

-only harsh lanquage that further upset’s world’s balance. Calling for arafat’s exit is not exactly helpfull in getting rid of him. Or the prepostoruos retoric on ”Axis of evil”, that’ll get people in those area’s in favour of american politics... Not

Why cant you guys over in Europe get it through your thick sculls?
Arafat has to go. He is a terrorist who talks of peace in English when speacking to Western media and death to Israel when speaking in Arabic. Arafat and his support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad are the biggest obstacles to peace in the region.

Fifty years ago, Europeans did nothing as Hitler went on his annexation campaign of Austria and parts of the Czech republic. They stood by and watched as Jews were being systematically rounded up and exterminated. What I am hearing from Europeans now is the same refrain of appeasement toward evil regimes as we heard in the late thirties. That type of thinking will get us all killed. America has a duty and responsibilty to destroy those who pose a threat to freedom and stability in this world. If we don't the Europeans sure the hell won't.

[krossfyter]

good gosh! solareyes you got your work cut out for you on this one.:eek: :eek:

im curious to see your defense. oh my!



:D

[teabgs]

Originally posted by krossfyter
good gosh! solareyes you got your work cut out for you on this one.:eek: :eek:

im curious to see your defense. oh my!



:D

youre such a shamless instigator.... hehehe

;)


Do you have no shame? :p

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by teabgs


youre such a shamless instigator.... hehehe

;)


Do you have no shame? :p



im terrible.... arent I!

:D

[teabgs]

Originally posted by krossfyter




im terrible.... arent I!

:D

Oh yes. But terrible in a wonderful way :p

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by SoarEyes
Arguments, well hold on....

- Alaska (drilling for oil)

- No respect for geneva convention

- environment? whatta you mean environment

- only now is he be serious on goin after greedy A-holes like K. Lay
after being helped into office by the likes.

- war of the tulips (plan for invading holland in case of worldcourt inditements)

-no respect for the fact that half of america didn’t vote for him. Has he been willing to compromise on issues with democrats. think not

-only harsh lanquage that further upset’s world’s balance. Calling for arafat’s exit is not exactly helpfull in getting rid of him. Or the prepostoruos retoric on ”Axis of evil”, that’ll get people in those area’s in favour of american politics... Not

well what else? steelworkers, death penalty.. but my biggest problem with Bush he looks like a effin shrimp. hehe

don’t get me wrong I’m not angainst america. But Bush is pushing it:o

Alaska? You ever been to Alaska? You ever been to the small part that will be drilled? Not all of Alaska is a beatiful wilderness, a lot of it is a barren arctic wasteland. The area getting drilled resembles northern siberia. I would be more offended by disrupting grass fields in Texas than that area.

The Geneva convention applys to governments, not terrorists or rougue organizations pretending to be a government.

Environment, so what? It's not like he's saying "let's irradiate every forest on the planet" which is what you people make it sound like. So he repealed a law to lower emmisions by a few percent, Uh-Oh :rolleyes: .

K.Lay and other criminals. Don't act like the liberals are above that. Remember that Clinton gave the guy a pardon. Republicans are the devil and Democrats can do no evil, right? :rolleyes:

War of the Tulips?? Are you a figgin idiot or what? Can you imagine NATO's reaction to that. You know nothing of world politics except what the extreme left-wing tells you.

Harsh language, perhaps you forgot that our last president attempted to talk it out and failed (a nice goal though) As I recall near the end of his prescidency he held a peace conference and immediatly after it the riots began. He tried being nice and they began shooting each other. Clearly, harsh language, is all they understand.

Effin shrimp? The fact that you threw it in kind of weakens your arguements (kind of like "axis of evil" eh?) A petty insult never strengthens an arguement.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by teabgs


If you'd ended your post with the word "****" it would have been so hilarious....and a classic :D

Hehe, I'll start signing my political post with that :D .

Since when is that censored? **** cheny.

[krossfyter]

teabgs... oh yeah!



check it out...another one hit solareyes.... wow!

this has got to be record for how many times the same person got hit for the same post by different posters. the only one i know of that got that much attention for one post was gocyrus.

[teabgs]

I deleted the post where I said that if you ended your post with **** it would have been great.

When I saw that they censored **** I was really confused and I tried editing it and doing it without caps on and it still got censored. Guess I should have just left it up. I was so confused....cant say ****....what a shame. Oh well...I think everyone now knows that when I said **** what I meant was....


D-ick


hehehe :p

NOOCH

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by teabgs
I deleted the post where I said that if you ended your post with **** it would have been great.

When I saw that they censored **** I was really confused and I tried editing it and doing it without caps on and it still got censored. Guess I should have just left it up. I was so confused....cant say ****....what a shame. Oh well...I think everyone now knows that when I said **** what I meant was....


D-ick


hehehe :p

NOOCH

Oh well, we can have fun with it in a thread about **** cheny.

[krossfyter]

****

[teabgs]

But its not like I even want to say:

"Krossfyter's a mother F*¢kin a$$whole"

I cant believe that I cant even talk about **** cheney without being censored....


sucks ****

[krossfyter]

why would you want to say something like that about me?


im kick as*


(orange county movie mixture)

[teabgs]

im just makin a point that I wasnt even wanting to insult someone....I needed an example....your name was there....

well, you know the rest...**** ;)

[mr.w]

Drilling in Alaska will only supply enough oil to run the US for 4-6 years (at our current consumption rate) (it'll also take 13 years to actually get to the point where they could extract oil)... Ya so the'll only drill 8% of the refuge, (that 8% will never regenerate). We are faced will a dillema and we have to ask... do the ends justify the means.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by mr.w
Drilling in Alaska will only supply enough oil to run the US for 4-6 years (at our current consumption rate) (it'll also take 13 years to actually get to the point where they could extract oil)... Ya so the'll only drill 8% of the refuge, (that 8% will never regenerate). We are faced will a dillema and we have to ask... do the ends justify the means.

well i dont know if that is exactly correct but... what else can we do? alternative means that are practical arent poping out of the wood works.

i hear ya though.

[mr.w]

well you're right kross... we are fu****. no-one wants to change their lifestyle, and we are running out of oil. i personally think that more $$$ should be invested in developing alternative renewable fuel sources. watch any sci-fi movie... do you see them tipping their tanks off with mid-grade unleaded??? no, granted sci-fi is purely fictional... but we ARE using an outdated fuel source.

[taeclee99]

Originally posted by mr.w
Drilling in Alaska will only supply enough oil to run the US for 4-6 years (at our current consumption rate) (it'll also take 13 years to actually get to the point where they could extract oil)... Ya so the'll only drill 8% of the refuge, (that 8% will never regenerate). We are faced will a dillema and we have to ask... do the ends justify the means.

A study by the US Geological Survey found that drilling in ANWR could yield about 16 million barrels of oil...equal to 30 years of oil imports. Conservation alone will not solve our energy problems.
Remember Jimmy Carter and his hair brained "wear a sweater" energy policy?

[Durandal7]

The Middle East supplies only about 10% of the country's oil. We could break our dependance on them soon with Alaska drilling and new oil contracts with Russia.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by mr.w
well you're right kross... we are fu****. no-one wants to change their lifestyle, and we are running out of oil. i personally think that more $$$ should be invested in developing alternative renewable fuel sources. watch any sci-fi movie... do you see them tipping their tanks off with mid-grade unleaded??? no, granted sci-fi is purely fictional... but we ARE using an outdated fuel source.



im hella down with that. if all the rich people in america got togther and raised a lot of money for development of new fuel technologies/alternative means... we just might cut our dependency on old school oil sooner.

[teabgs]

If we covered an area the size of Nevada with Solar panels we'd have a surplus of energy for the US....so we distribute solar panels across the midwest and get a good way to distrubute the power and were set.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by teabgs
If we covered an area the size of Nevada with Solar panels we'd have a surplus of energy for the US....so we distribute solar panels across the midwest and get a good way to distrubute the power and were set.

I say we wait until solar panels get more efficient (2-3 years) and place one on each house. That midwest idea is flawed since by the time that many solar panels are in place it will displace cropland, we will soon have 9 billion people on the planet and cropland will be valuable.

[sjs]

If a major gas station chain (like, say, Amoco) could put up a sign that says (truthfully) that they buy NO oil from the middle east, would you start to buy your gas there?

I would...

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by sjs
If a major gas station chain (like, say, Amoco) could put up a sign that says (truthfully) that they buy NO oil from the middle east, would you start to buy your gas there?

I would...

yep. but i dont know how they could prove it.

[sjs]

They would have to literally quit buying any oil whose source couldn't be verified. Oil could be American, Venezualan, Mexican, Russian, etc.

Just not middle eastern.

How bout ya'll? Would you buy gas there?

[AlejandroGonzo]

SoarEyes got it bad from just about everyone.

One thing I forgot about ANWR. We are talking about drilling an area the size of an airport in an area the size of South Carolina.

On Arafat. He is either unwilling or unable to stop the terrorist attacks on Israel, so either way, he is useless and must go.

[G4scott]

right now, Russia is helping the US with oil. Whenever OPEC says they're going to lower their output, Russia jumps in and sends more oil to the US, keeping prices down. Right now, Bush is trying to convince Putin to go after Iraq and Saddam Hussein (spelling?), helping stop terror even more. Russia does get attacked by terrorists too...

[SoarEyes]

So I loosened up some dirt for the weeds to grow. hehe
Very nice to see some of us can still get worked up including myself. :cool:
Just got back from having a beer in the city so forgive me my drunken slur. Well... where to start....
Alaska: for me it’s just a matter of principle. Bush is overriding agreements made earlier not to do any drilling. Just to make some money to fill the holes his tax-cutting policy’s are creating. America has a deficit of I believe: 6.000.000.000.000 that’s right. There come’s a time where you have to stop spending money at the expense of environment.
:)
As for the detainies in the camps, they were fighting under order from their government. Not a government of my choice but still their government. The problem is, how do you seperate soldiers from terrorists that’s why there are protective measures like the geneva convention.

”War of the Tulips” hehe You might think I’m stoned but this is an actual contingency plan. It’s a plan to invade holland, to free american citicens/soldiers in case of arrests made by the World Court. A court to replace tribunals like the one The Haque or Ruanda. Ofcourse the scenario this plan covers is highly unlikely.

Arafat.... Again not my cup a tea. But for now Palestinians seem to want him in power. The point I made was, It’s not for bush to decide who’s gonna stay or go. especially in that part of the world. I think this conflict hurts both isrealis and palestinians. Not all Palestinians are terrorists.
It would’ve been okay for bush to propose new elections in palestine but not to tell arafat to go.

About K. lay and others. It’s seems very transparant the way Bush is only now getting serious on fraud. Just to nip any critic the democrats might have in the bud. I’m curious to see whether any action, to jail/fine those frauds is going to be taken.

Geesh, well think this is enough for now. Typing away in the middle of the night.

Signing off......one last thought......Other folk are folk also :p

[Backtothemac]

SoarEyes,
Dude, I know why they are sore. you have been smoking or snorting something. Dude, you really need some help. I have served in the US military, and for the federal government, and there is not any contengency plan to invade Holland. You are out of you mind if you believe that.

Oh, well.

[SoarEyes]

hehe.... might have been a parallel universe. But just check around
Its a new plan been on the news here in holland this week.
:D

[krossfyter]

¡Bese mi extremo usted boca fuerte! :D :D

[Durandal7]

The detainees were not serving a government, they were serving the Taliban. The U.N. did not recognize them as a government nor did any other country but Pakistan. The rest of the world recognized the government that was overthrown by the Taliban. Therefore they have no rights under the Geneva convention.

As for Alaska, you do realize how big our surplus is right? Alaska is for enegy purposes, not tax cuts. The U.S. government has enough money to not bother taxing us for 5 years, they have no holes to fill.

As for Palestine, no they are not all terrorists. Unfortunatley Arafat might be, therefore he can not be allowed to stay in power. It's actually friendly to warn Arafat to get out of office before the Isrealis kill him or he's dragged off to that World Court.

[kansaigaijin]

Terrorists who attack civilians are not Geneva convention candidates. Nuff said. These people are not soldiers.


66 Japanese cities destroyed by firebombing, including Tokyo. They were not military targets.
The emporer asked for peace on July 18.
Then the A bombs.

Tell me that was not terrorism.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by kansaigaijin

Terrorists who attack civilians are not Geneva convention candidates. Nuff said. These people are not soldiers.


66 Japanese cities destroyed by firebombing, including Tokyo. They were not military targets.
The emporer asked for peace on July 18.
Then the A bombs.

Tell me that was not terrorism.

Dude, you are so full of ***** I can smell you in Alabama! Don't play the sympathy card there. What about what the Japanese did to the Chinese? Think about that, and remember they started the friggin war! What about that?

Yea, the emperor wanted peace, but you know what? He wasn't in control. The military refused to surrender. Even after Hiroshima. It took another bomb to do that. You want to argue military history. Bring it. You will loose.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by kansaigaijin

Terrorists who attack civilians are not Geneva convention candidates. Nuff said. These people are not soldiers.


66 Japanese cities destroyed by firebombing, including Tokyo. They were not military targets.
The emporer asked for peace on July 18.
Then the A bombs.

Tell me that was not terrorism.

Japan allied itself with the Nazis.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
The Jews asked for peace.
Then the holocaust.

Tell me that was not terrorism.

A word of advice, don't try to get sympathy to prove your point.

[kansaigaijin]

not looking for sympathy

just pointing out some hypocracy, which you two have in spades.

I am not apologising for the Japanese. I am pointing out your ***** holier than thou attitude.

America employed the same tactics as others, including Japan and germany. Create bogus situations to justify going to war. What about that little shoot-up in the Tonkin Gulf?

So basically you are saying that in japan there was no such thing as innocent women and children, that "baking, boiling, and frying them in their homes" (Curtis Le May) was justified?
Oh right, those people chose and supported their government just like you people did, in a fair and open election!

Roosevelt's son said that the bombing should continue until the japanese population was reduced by half.

"Military history"? It is not about military history, it is about the pot calling the kettle black.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
not looking for sympathy

just pointing out some hypocracy, which you two have in spades.

I am not apologising for the Japanese. I am pointing out your ***** holier than thou attitude.

America employed the same tactics as others, including Japan and germany. Create bogus situations to justify going to war. What about that little shoot-up in the Tonkin Gulf?

So basically you are saying that in japan there was no such thing as innocent women and children, that "baking, boiling, and frying them in their homes" (Curtis Le May) was justified?
Oh right, those people chose and supported their government just like you people did, in a fair and open election!

Roosevelt's son said that the bombing should continue until the japanese population was reduced by half.

"Military history"? It is not about military history, it is about the pot calling the kettle black.

I am simply showing you that the exact same arguement can be made against you. I'm not trying to justify dropping the A-bomb.

[kansaigaijin]

Japan allied itself with the Nazis.
truman ignored the emporers telegraph,

so you don't approve of dropping the a bomb?
what about fire bombing 66 cities then?

From the other guy,
Yea, the emperor wanted peace, but you know what? He wasn't in control. The military refused to surrender.

so the regular people of japan were yaki-toried to put pressure on the military to give up then?

what do you call that?

[kansaigaijin]

backtothemac,
you can smell me in Alabama?
that is not me you can smell!
smoking something?
you were in the military?
so you know all the contingency plans?
what were you, chairman of the Joint Chiefs or something?

so you were a member of one of those groups like Roosevelt had, 36 people, who knew that they were cracking and reading all of japans communications before the war, and told no one, not even the commanders of the army and navy in Hawaii? In fact told those guys to stand down and not go looking for japs and protect themselves? Then humiliated them after the war for following orders?

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
Japan allied itself with the Nazis.
truman ignored the emporers telegraph,

so you don't approve of dropping the a bomb?
what about fire bombing 66 cities then?


Whoa, I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm just showing that with a few words tweaked that argument can be turned around. Both sides did things that they shouldn't have during WWII. No point in getting in a debate about it now.

[Choppaface]

all terrerests are pcheese users so them they must be badest people!!!!

:D :D :D :D

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by Choppaface
all terrerests are pcheese users so them they must be badest people!!!!

:D :D :D :D

CNN reports-
a team called "The Macfyters" have been dispatched to terminate the pcs of those that are terrorists...

[groovebuster]

At first I resisted to reply, but your brainless b*ll-***** is screaming for one...


I frankly don't care what Saddam Hussein or Iran thinks. There are times when the situation calls for moral clarity. There is good and bad. What you are talking about is appeasement. I have found Europeans in general to be cowards when it comes to standing up for what's right in the world.

That's interesting! In general, huh? Can you be a little bit more sepcific?? As far as I remember a lot of conflicts in the world (also including the US) would have gotten out of hand, if the europeans wouldn't have supported diplomatic solutions in a lot of cases and were convincing the different parties to negotiate!

So tell a european coward about his failings cowboy!

By the way... morals are always depending on cultural context and point of view. So what makes the US the moral instance for the whole world? Never got an intelligent answer to that question... especially not from US americans.


Maybe when the EU removes tarriffs on genetically modified U.S. foods, we can talk about steel tarriffs. To attack the U.S. for steel tarriffs when the EU imposes them as well is pure hypocracy.

That's funny! It is hypocracy to do the same as the US does?? The US started to put tarriffs on european steel!!! So it is hypocracy to protect your industry the same way, because otherwise it would have huge disadvantages on the market ... ??? You better think before you write something stupid like this!

And about the genetically modified food... inform yourself before you post such a crap! Here in Europe we have strict laws concerning that test-tube garbage. Do a little research and then come back and tell me the same thing again without blushing!

USA law is not world law, OK?


Death penalty. When you take someone else's life, you forfit your own life. Don't like it in Europe?, fine, but don't tell us what to do.

Now we are at the point!!! So also YOU shouldn't tell other people in the world what to do!!! Got it?

Who was talking about hypocracy again?????

In my dictionary it says...
hypocracy: the way the USA and most of it's citizens are acting on moral and political issues!

groovebuster

[krossfyter]

this thread

its now
like
WOW (http://www.y2khai.com/khai06.html)



hehehe:D

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
SoarEyes,
Dude, I know why they are sore. you have been smoking or snorting something. Dude, you really need some help. I have served in the US military, and for the federal government, and there is not any contengency plan to invade Holland. You are out of you mind if you believe that.

Oh, well.

Since you know everything better with yoor masters in wahtever and serving in the military/CIA/NSA ... whatever, you are still wrong.

I don't feel like looking for an english link, so check this one out get a translation:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,200430,00.html

Of course they didn't say anything about it on cnn. Maybe it was censored? Strange indeed. Here in europe it was in the news all over the place!

It just shows me, that you are not as well informed as you always try to pretend.

groovebuster

[SoarEyes]

It so weird, last night I searched all over the internet and can’t seem to find a thread of info on ”war of the tulips” anymore. just this file but I think it’s info you have to pay for by creditcard. have a look:

huh it says the file’s to big where it’s just 273 k.
try later for the photo :p

[SoarEyes]

:)

[SoarEyes]

oops

[AlejandroGonzo]

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
66 Japanese cities destroyed by firebombing, including Tokyo. They were not military targets.
The emporer asked for peace on July 18.
Then the A bombs.

Tell me that was not terrorism.

The bombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities destroys the Japanese capacity to make war by destroying industry and eroding the "morale" of the population thus contributing to military victory. Would this be done today, absolutely not, but I didn't hear Europe objecting to it then. Situations must be judged by the times, and in the 1940s, this was standard practice.

Are you going to sit here and tell me that the world is not a better place today because of U.S. involvement in World War II? Are swastikas flying over Europe?

As for the Emperor, he wasn't in control, and so whatever he said was irrelavent.

On the subject of atom bombs, have you bothered to consider the lives that were spared by dropping them and forcing the Japanese surrender on both the American and Japanese sides. Say what you may about the bombings, but the major factors contributing to the Japanese surrender were 1. The total destruction caused by the atomic bomb, which effectively made any Japanese attempt at defense futile 2. The invasion of Korea by the Soviet Union. Had the war gone on, there existed the possibility that part of Japan would come under Soviet control after the war, as East Germany did.

So despite "66 Japanese cities destroyed" for post war purposes, the Japanese chose the Americans.

You are 100% right about the Gulf of Tonkin though.

Originally posted by groovebuster
That's funny! It is hypocracy to do the same as the US does?? The US started to put tarriffs on european steel!!! So it is hypocracy to protect your industry the same way, because otherwise it would have huge disadvantages on the market ... ??? You better think before you write something stupid like this!

And about the genetically modified food... inform yourself before you post such a crap! Here in Europe we have strict laws concerning that test-tube garbage. Do a little research and then come back and tell me the same thing again without blushing!

USA law is not world law, OK?


Our steel workers needed help so Bush gave it to them. If you want to retailiate, that's your right. Like you said, its US law, not world law. I make no apologies. You want to pass your laws on the "test tube crap," go ahead, but just remember it is hypocracy to protect your industry the same way, because otherwise it would have huge disadvantages on the market ... ???"

Originally posted by AlejandroGonzo
Death Penalty. When you take someone else's life, you forfit your own life. Don't like it in Europe?, fine, but don't tell us what to do.

Originally posted by groovebuster
Now we are at the point!!! So also YOU shouldn't tell other people in the world what to do!!! Got it?

Who was talking about hypocracy again?????

In my dictionary it says...
hypocracy: the way the USA and most of it's citizens are acting on moral and political issues!

Allow me to clarify. Go ahead and tell us what you think about the death penalty, give us your advice on other issues. You are within your rights to do so. We are within our rights to not listen. If you want to impose sanctions over something like the death penalty in Europe (which I see you haven't done), by all means. Just be aware that it is also within our rights to retaliate. The Iraqi and Iranian regimes are evil, we will not trade with them and they threaten the security of the United States through their support of terrorism.

When countries take steps to threaten or aid in threatening the United States, then we will remove these reigimes (Iraq). This was not policy before Sept 11, but see what we got for sitting on our hands while Osama and the Taliban plotted against us. It is a mistake America will not repeat.

If Europe or Saudi Arabia wants sit on the sidelines, go ahead, but we will then know who our friends are.

Originally posted by groovebuster
Can you be a little bit more sepcific (about European cowardice)??

Yes. Yasser Arafat. Saddam Hussein. These are bad people, and yet Europe remains silent on their opinions of these reigimes and would rather sing "Kumbaya" in every situation. Sometimes, you need to state the obvious.

Originally posted by groovebuster
By the way... morals are always depending on cultural context and point of view. So what makes the US the moral instance for the whole world? Never got an intelligent answer to that question... especially not from US americans.

Some things are just wrong. This is just another example of the European cowardice and the liberal attitudes to which I was alluding to. The extreme left refuses to recognize that there are bad people in the world, and regardless of how they got there, be it through socio-economic or cultural circumstances, the fact of the matter is that they exist nonetheless. Sit there and tell me that we did not do the right thing in Afghanistan, or that Saddan Hussein is one cool dude.

[Backtothemac]

kansaigaijin
You are out of your friggin mind. You have a 3rd grade education of military history and think that you can throw it around like you actually know something. Well that ***** won't fly. You are so friggin wrong about the code. Yea, we had an idea about their code, and we could break it, but it took days. For you to insinuate that we knew they were coming and let them. You are a stupid SOB! We, had we know, would have met them and ended the war right there. My grandfather was their you idiot! We did not know they were coming. Were there mistakes. Hell yea. But a conspiracy. Damn, you need help.

As for you ignorance in history, let me clue you in. During WWII. The only way to bomb was to bomb. The hope was that by bombing enough, that you would cause the enemy to surrender. That was the way that war was fought then. There were not precission munitions so yes, there were a *****load of civilians killed. NOTHING NEAR THE MILLIONS THAT THE JAPANESE KILLED IN CHINA, AND ON THE MAINLAND. You talk out the back of your A$$ thinking that you actually know something when in fact all you do is throw the retoric of the ENEMY!
Oh, and one other thing. When in the hell was the emporer of Japan elected? Really, I cannot wait to hear this one. I don't know what you background is, but if you have been to college for an education, you need to ask for a refund.

groovebuster
Dude, WTF. No I don't claim to know everything, and the people around here that know me know I don't. I will compromise, and admit a better point. This stupid A$$ tulip thing is a friggin riot. There is noway, and I mean no friggin way that this would ever happen. Some serious drug using fool over there came up with this ***** and printed it. Why would we ever have to do that. If anything we would just send the Germans to do it.

[teabgs]

ya'll need to chill out.

And if you don't there's something comin for ya....

[krossfyter]

boy we got some iraqui apologists here.
thats jacked.


this thread

its now
like
WOW (http://www.y2khai.com/khai06.html)

[3rdpath]

y2khai is the dope phat bomb shizat:)

thanks for the link kross

[krossfyter]

rock on 3rdpath! i thought you all would get a kick out of it.

like
WOW (http://www.y2khai.com/khai06.html)

[AlejandroGonzo]

Originally posted by groovebuster


Since you know everything better with yoor masters in wahtever and serving in the military/CIA/NSA ... whatever, you are still wrong.

I don't feel like looking for an english link, so check this one out get a translation:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,200430,00.html

Of course they didn't say anything about it on cnn. Maybe it was censored? Strange indeed. Here in europe it was in the news all over the place!

It just shows me, that you are not as well informed as you always try to pretend.

groovebuster

Put it to rest man. The U.S. invading Europe would never happen. It is inconcievable today. That German article you picked out, extremely biased against the U.S. No wonder you don't like us. I wouldn't either if that was they type of information I was being fed. A decidedly anti-American Liberal slant.

As for the international court the article is refering to, why should we submit to the jurisdiction of a court that we have not agreed to in the first place. If the international community wants to impose this on the U.S., then most likely, the U.S. will simply withdraw from peacekeeping missions. We go there to help, and then are threatened by politically motivated attacks. Maybe this peacekeeping stuff just isn't worth the trouble then.

[Durandal7]

Seeing as how Cheny has been in been in power for the hour and nothing happened, shouldn't this thread be closed?

[kansaigaijin]

btwtf,

That was exactly my point, the emperor was not elected, neither was Hitler, to the extent that your president was. (actually, with your low voter turnouts, the percentage was about the same).
About 30% of germans voted for Hitler.
widely available (in english, you can find it and read it) biographies of the emporer give good evidence that he was in control and should have borne much of the responsibility for the war, but your government chose to keep him.

and the people in those countries did not enjoy the rights that you do, or profess to love freedom so much.

as for the codes, all J communications were being intercepted and decoded very quickly, but if you insist it was taking 4 days, then explain this,

From: Adm. Nagumo To: Pearl Harbor Attack Force Date: 3 Dec. 1941

1. It has already been ordered to go to war on 8 December, but so critical has become the situation in the Far East that one can hardly predict was would not explode by that time. So far no new information on Hawaii area received and also no indications of our Task Force being detected. But since the enemy intention is naturally far beyond prediction, strict attention will directed to meet any unexpected encounter with an enemy. " 2. It is intended that this force will operate as scheduled even if war breaks out before 8 December.."

From: AT DAWN WE SLEPT; The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor. Gordon W. Prange, Penguin Books, 1982

Dec 8 Tokyo time.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
btwtf,

That was exactly my point, the emperor was not elected, neither was Hitler, to the extent that your president was. (actually, with your low voter turnouts, the percentage was about the same).
About 30% of germans voted for Hitler.
widely available (in english, you can find it and read it) biographies of the emporer give good evidence that he was in control and should have borne much of the responsibility for the war, but your government chose to keep him.

and the people in those countries did not enjoy the rights that you do, or profess to love freedom so much.

as for the codes, all J communications were being intercepted and decoded very quickly, but if you insist it was taking 4 days, then explain this,

From: Adm. Nagumo To: Pearl Harbor Attack Force Date: 3 Dec. 1941

1. It has already been ordered to go to war on 8 December, but so critical has become the situation in the Far East that one can hardly predict was would not explode by that time. So far no new information on Hawaii area received and also no indications of our Task Force being detected. But since the enemy intention is naturally far beyond prediction, strict attention will directed to meet any unexpected encounter with an enemy. " 2. It is intended that this force will operate as scheduled even if war breaks out before 8 December.."

From: AT DAWN WE SLEPT; The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor. Gordon W. Prange, Penguin Books, 1982

Dec 8 Tokyo time.

Dude, you are funnier than Chris Rock and Eddie Murphy combined. You could go on tour with this crap. Yes, we coded all messages AFTER Pearl. You really need therapy. Go, Run. Before you hurt yourself with your own psychosis.

[teabgs]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Dude, you are funnier than Chris Rock and Eddie Murphy combined. You could go on tour with this crap. Yes, we coded all messages AFTER Pearl. You really need therapy. Go, Run. Before you hurt yourself with your own psychosis.


and one more thing.....





*SPLAT*

there's pie in your eye!

:p

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by teabgs



and one more thing.....





*SPLAT*

there's pie in your eye!

:p

B2TM comes from the shaddows. Teabgs is busy looking at his latest X-Ray film. Armed with a double bladed pie saber, B2TM wastes no time in coating teags with a double layer of chocolate cream. :p

[bonehead]

The correct spelling is "hypocrisy" not "hypocracy". Let's not let a vigorous debate blind us to the rules of spelling.

Play ball!:D

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by AlejandroGonzo


Put it to rest man. The U.S. invading Europe would never happen. It is inconcievable today. That German article you picked out, extremely biased against the U.S. No wonder you don't like us. I wouldn't either if that was they type of information I was being fed. A decidedly anti-American Liberal slant.

As for the international court the article is refering to, why should we submit to the jurisdiction of a court that we have not agreed to in the first place. If the international community wants to impose this on the U.S., then most likely, the U.S. will simply withdraw from peacekeeping missions. We go there to help, and then are threatened by politically motivated attacks. Maybe this peacekeeping stuff just isn't worth the trouble then.

Could you please show me where it is biased against the US? The things told in the article are just facts. I can give you links to dozens of other articles telling exactly the same. But it seems as soon as someone holds a mirror in front of your face to show you what bull-**** your administration is doing it is just anti propaganda by anti american people for you. Opene your eyes and learn!!!

SoarEye is dutch and I am german. We never met before or knew each other. Don't you think it would be a little bit too odd, that two (well informed) individuals from different places refer to the same issue by accident?

So all those statements are "lies" by the author of the article? there isn't a plan like that?

I agree with you that the scenario is probably unlikely to happen any time soon, BUT it is the way how the US treats their allies lately and the rest of the world. It is the rethoric used. It is showing the rest of the world all the the time that the US is doing anyway what they like to, not giving a ***** about what other nations do or think or what would be the best for the world as a whole and not always crying "it's national interests", because that's exactly why the US f*cked up the middle-east.

And you are wrong about it that the US didn't agree to the court in first place. There was an agreement, that there should be something like that... but then Bush became President and all the hard work of dozens of other nations to build that court was for nothing, because Bush just didn't like the idea that the US could be told by other people what's wrong or right and getting slapped their fingers.

The US tried to blackmail the court and wanted to have a guarantee, that no US citizen or the US themselves could be charged for any crime! Then the US would agree to the court. Do I need to tell more? So by definition the US wants to be the good guy, even it is maybe doing bad things once in a while!

And those peace-keeping missions were never the subject in general. BUT also on those missions the nations involved should be charged for doing war crimes. Just the thought that soldiers are committing war crimes on a peace keeping mission is absurd, don't you think?

So far there wasn't any logical argument, why the US shouldn't agree to that international court. But maybe you can tell me one!

What about Kyoto? Can you explain to me, why the US is not agreeing ... ??? Except for economical and "national" interests?

At the moment the Bush administration is slapping the world community right into the face all the time, so don't want wonder that "anti-american" is "in" again". And even a super-power like the US needs "friends" ot there, they can't fight against the whole world...

groovebuster

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Dude, you are funnier than Chris Rock and Eddie Murphy combined. You could go on tour with this crap. Yes, we coded all messages AFTER Pearl. You really need therapy. Go, Run. Before you hurt yourself with your own psychosis.

:D That's the way you discuss! You are running out of arguments and then you try to offend the other person and to make it look redicuolos just to give the impression that you are superior. What a cheap technique. And that from someone who claims to be sooooooooooooooooo educated!!! But why do I wonder? It is exactly the foreign policy of the US at the moment! ;)

So maybe you could start to bring arguments against what was said, because I am also curious to hear what you have to say!

By the way (even you should know that), the military is not always telling the exact truth about the history of a war to justify the measures taken. Your second name was Lemming?

groovebuster

[teabgs]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


B2TM comes from the shaddows. Teabgs is busy looking at his latest X-Ray film. Armed with a double bladed pie saber, B2TM wastes no time in coating teags with a double layer of chocolate cream. :p


B2TM is sitting over an oversized WWII book trying to figure out his next "move" with the youngins in this thread. He is totally at peace figuring Teabgs is out for the count.

As he flips the page he suddenly feels a blow and blacks out.

Teabgs had hit him with Lead pie, square between the eyes.

Winky jumps out and splashes B2TM with some water to wake him up...

As B2TM opens his eyes

*SPLAT*

Straight from the monkeys anus.....that's right my friend...you've been pooed

:p

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by groovebuster
At the moment the Bush administration is slapping the world community right into the face all the time, so don't want wonder that "anti-american" is "in" again". And even a super-power like the US needs "friends" ot there, they can't fight against the whole world...

groovebuster

as an american( and i can only speak for myself here), i think groove and soar both make exceptional points. the u.s. is now paying the price for exploiting many other countries under the guise of spreading prosperity and democracy...

contrary to the popular american belief--the u.s is not loved and adored outside of our borders. the foreign news organizations mock our policies and the supremely lame george bush on a daily basis. he is a goof, a doofus and an embarrasment to our country-but he perfectly symbolic of the state of our politics.

i think its sad but somewhat fundemental to our problem that many americans choose to dismiss any opinions that don't jibe with the dogma thats pounded into us by our schools and our media. why isn't the u.s involved in the kyoto treaty? why do we still condone the use of land mines(blame that one on clinton...)? why are we so intent on controlling weapons of mass destruction when we're the only country to ever use them?
we talk a lot about leading but our actions say otherwise.

i just shake my head when i read such dismissive replys here. its a sign of myopic and naive wishful thinking.

i appreciate your views and i hope to read more of them

[AlejandroGonzo]

Originally posted by groovebuster


Could you please show me where it is biased against the US? The things told in the article are just facts. I can give you links to dozens of other articles telling exactly the same. But it seems as soon as someone holds a mirror in front of your face to show you what bull-**** your administration is doing it is just anti propaganda by anti american people for you. Opene your eyes and learn!!!

SoarEye is dutch and I am german. We never met before or knew each other. Don't you think it would be a little bit too odd, that two (well informed) individuals from different places refer to the same issue by accident?

So all those statements are "lies" by the author of the article? there isn't a plan like that?

I agree with you that the scenario is probably unlikely to happen any time soon, BUT it is the way how the US treats their allies lately and the rest of the world. It is the rethoric used. It is showing the rest of the world all the the time that the US is doing anyway what they like to, not giving a ***** about what other nations do or think or what would be the best for the world as a whole and not always crying "it's national interests", because that's exactly why the US f*cked up the middle-east.

And you are wrong about it that the US didn't agree to the court in first place. There was an agreement, that there should be something like that... but then Bush became President and all the hard work of dozens of other nations to build that court was for nothing, because Bush just didn't like the idea that the US could be told by other people what's wrong or right and getting slapped their fingers.

The US tried to blackmail the court and wanted to have a guarantee, that no US citizen or the US themselves could be charged for any crime! Then the US would agree to the court. Do I need to tell more? So by definition the US wants to be the good guy, even it is maybe doing bad things once in a while!

And those peace-keeping missions were never the subject in general. BUT also on those missions the nations involved should be charged for doing war crimes. Just the thought that soldiers are committing war crimes on a peace keeping mission is absurd, don't you think?

So far there wasn't any logical argument, why the US shouldn't agree to that international court. But maybe you can tell me one!

What about Kyoto? Can you explain to me, why the US is not agreeing ... ??? Except for economical and "national" interests?

At the moment the Bush administration is slapping the world community right into the face all the time, so don't want wonder that "anti-american" is "in" again". And even a super-power like the US needs "friends" ot there, they can't fight against the whole world...

groovebuster

You never responded to my earlier post.

I am not arguing all of the facts of the article (well not all of them anyway, can you find another website with a simliar article for me please), but rather, the manner in which the information is presented.

Originally posted by groovebuster's Article
Thus the threat quite corresponds to the current break of the US government of international law and the basic principles of the constitutional state against the Netherlands. Also with the internment of terror-suspicious without procedures and the sentence by military courts fundamental rights in the American policy apply no longer much. In handling partner countries, even from NATO, contracts become noncommittal agreements.

You would agree with every statement in that last passage, and I would disagree with everyone. Seeing as we are at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, that can only be an indicator of left wing bias in the article.

Although we have already established that there exists a 0% chance of the Netherlands being invaded by the U.S., I will entertain the idea because you continue to insist on bringing it up. It has not appeared on any Media outlets here, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, or their websites, except in reference to the fact that it may end the Bosnia peacekeeping mission prematurely.

The Congress has no power to make battle plans, so I can only assume that what that article describes as far as battle plans are bogus.

Originally posted by groovebuster's Article

"I have here a diagram, under stand for ' suggestion for an invasion of the Netherlands '", mean David Obey, a democratic delegate in the US house of representatives. "it shows that perhaps we do it by the sea route, or from air, perhaps with paratroopers. In order to make sure the fact that the Gentleman from Texas is also white this time, where the Hague lies it marked on the map." The delegates grinsen amused.

A DEMOCRAT of all people making these statements, yeah right. It would be all over the news.

Why should we be bound to a treaty we never agreed to? We shouldn't. If other countries want to have it amongst themselves, then by all means. Let the fate of nations rest in the hands of it's own people. Is this not what you advocated at an earlier juncture. Know that if the treaty is a precondition for peacekeeping missions, then we simply won't participate in any more peacekeeping missions. Problem solved, everyone can go home and be happy. We aren't subject to the courts, those nasty Americans aren't off committing all sorts of vile human rights abuses while on those Peacekeeping missions.

If the Netherlands, or anyone else for that matter, siezes our people without our consent, aren't we entitled to getting them back. The answer is yes. If we agreed to this treaty, and then they were siezed, I would have to say no, but as it stands, it's a resounding yes. Like I said before in an earlier post, this would constitute "a U.S. Interest."

Consider for a moment that 45 Americans are being held against their will in Saudi Arabia (not criminals) as we speak, and that the U.S. has taken no action, other than politely asking for their return. Shows you how impossibly low the likelyhood of the scenerio I outlined above is.

Kyoto, its just a bad treaty. Why should we have to cut back our emmisions when China and India do not? While it is true that we produce the most greenhouse emmissions, the U.S. is far more efficient than either of those countries. The economic consequences of the treaty would be catastrophic for the U.S. economy. To give you an idea of just how bad this treaty is for us, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratification. This includes tree-hugging liberals.

The last I heard (and this was a while back so things may have changed), Romania was the only country to have ratified the treaty. The ONLY one.

So why are we opposed to Kyoto. Well, mainly for economic and national intrests. I see nothing wrong with that.

Congratulations Brazil, 2-0 against Germany!

I would respond to 3rdpath, but I'm tired and will go to sleep. Tommorrow though!

[kansaigaijin]

we already know what treaties mean to the US, unless the want to enforce them on others. You guys don't want to live up to an agreement, rip it up!

45 americans held against their will in Saudi Arabia? They are not criminals? I have not heard of it, please elaborate! There must be a conspiracy here somewhere!

[SoarEyes]

Originally posted by 3rdpath


contrary to the popular american belief--the u.s is not loved and adored outside of our borders. the foreign news organizations mock our policies and the supremely lame george bush on a daily basis. he is a goof, a doofus and an embarrasment to our country-but he perfectly symbolic of the s



Not of the opinion that europeans are holy either.
I do think that you guys are way more able in most peacekeeping situations and that you handled Afghanistan very well. But it doesn’t mean you can’t be critical about certain aspects of (in this case bushes) political policy.

Since some of you still don’t beleieve war of the tulips here go:
www.plastic.com/article.html?sid=02/06/29/23295312;cmt=28 (http://)

It’s time both Europe and America start living up to the moral highground they think they have.
But then again It’s in the nature of the beast to wanna protect what’s his.
about that pledge of allegiance, why not make it. ”under Darwin”

[SoarEyes]

link doesn’t work, just copy paste:

http://www.plastic.com/article.html?sid=02/06/29/23295312;cmt=28

:confused:

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by AlejandroGonzo
Congratulations Brazil, 2-0 against Germany!

What is this about? An embarassing try to offend me?

1) I don't give a ***** about football (yup, not soccer, I live in Europe).
2) Brazil was the better team, so also congrats from me! What's the point?

You maybe don't get that not everybody is as nationalistic as the average US citizen. Some people also try to see the big picture and are more concerned about the whole world than just about their own backyard.

Peace.

groovebuster

[kansaigaijin]

and just because you are in Germany doesn't mean you are German?

funny how people make assumptions like that.

methinks they have no argument, deep down in their hearts they know it is true.

Why would innocents be afraid of a world court?

I guess they know all about persecution and injustice.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
and just because you are in Germany doesn't mean you are German?

funny how people make assumptions like that.

methinks they have no argument, deep down in their hearts they know it is true.

Why would innocents be afraid of a world court?

I guess they know all about persecution and injustice.

Well, actually I am German, but I also could be from any other country on this planet. You are right about that. The place where I live doesn't have anything to do with my nationality.

Of course the german culture is part of my identity, but that doesn't make me better or worse than any other person. I personally don't judge books by the cover, since in every country there are modest people and lobotomized idiots, no matter which nationality they have.

I don't see anything positive in always going after "national interests", if on the long-run it is firing back on me anyway. The Kyoto treaty is the best example. Are we in kindergarten here? "China isn't doing it, so we also won't do it!" So the ecological problems stay unadressed. Great! We are running out of time to find a solution to prevent an ecological desaster and the only thing the US (Bush) are doing is pouting like a little boy, because someone else doesn't want to donate a candy as well.

The energy policy of the US was always a tragedy and still is. A lot of the economical power in the US is based on cheap energy. That means also cheap oil and cheap gas. The prices for energy are kept low artficially to keep the economy running. Shall I mention the gulf-war? It was about keeping the oil flowing for little money, that was all! Probably some people will offend me again for that statement, but I know that it is hard to face the truth.

The US are the biggest waster of energy in the world, only made possible by the low prices mentioned above.

They could have faced that problem already years ago by raising the prices for energy to reduce polution. But no president had the guts to do that, because it would have been hard on the economy and since we all know that the parties are mainly financed by donations from companies...

Now they are stuck in the situation that reducing the pollution would kill the economy. Higher prices for energy would cause an inflation and US products in a lot of cases couldn't compete anymore on the world-markets.

And what is the solution? Just telling the rest of the world that because of "national interests" the treaty is not ratified by the US! The (maybe) richest country of the world, the last remaining super power is admitting, that it can't handle it's energy problems and is not interested in cooperating with the rest of the world to find a solution for that. SMACK!! Think about it!

Remember that the US are the only country that is not agreeing to the Kyoto protocol! THE ONLY ONE!!! ... out of dozens of countries! So far about how much the US cares about the rest of the world.

All the ecological problems will backfire on the US one day. They should start thinking of the world as a place where we all live together and at least should try to not live too much on the back of other nations and individuals. The refusal to cooperate on ecological solutions for the world of the 21st century is shortsighted and egoistic.

But after 9/11 it seems almost impossible to make the US administration (and also a lot of US citizens) understand, that there is a world outside the US that needs solutions for a world community living together in peace and not just always been told that it is not in the national interests of the US to find a solution for the world. Even if that would mean that the US in particular has some disadvantages maybe in first plaxce, but it would serve the world community and also would be good for the US on the long-run.

To get back to the beginning of my post, I personally don't believe in stupid things like patriotism and nationalism. They were very often the cause for a lot of suffering.

And I don't want to be mistaken, I like Germany, it is my home country, I raised her. But if I would be born in Spain I would love Spain... or Poland, or France, or Zimbabwe. Whataver! I guess you get the point. For me my country is more a cultural identification. I personally wouldn't give a *****, if I would live in Germany or the United States of Europe or the United States of Planet Earth.

I appreciate the system I live in and the freedom it is providing to me and I try to do my duty to keep it running, but I don't put national interests over world interests just by definition, because Germany is the coolest country in the world and doesn't want to to do it's duty to provide a good life and a possible future to everybody just because it would have to give up some privileges. There are also a lot of things that bug me here and I try to address them.

A country is just a context I am living in. I didn't do anything to be part of it, I was just born there by accident or maybe moved there. It is important that there is a working community and that the human rights are respected. Not only inside my own country, also for the rest of the world.

The european countries already work hard to reduce pollution. Hey, I don't like to spend 1$/l when I am at the gas-station, but I think it is OK, since we just can't go on wasting our resources like we did in the last century.

So what the US will do? Nobody knows... the only statement so far is that they will work on an own solution.

Translated: Nothing will happen!

And even if they will have a solution one day I am pretty sure that the US will try to make it "world law" again with giving the disadvantages to others.

It is a pity...

groovebuster

[AlejandroGonzo]

Originally posted by groovebuster
"because of "national interests" the treaty is not ratified by the US!"

Originally posted by groovebuster
Remember that the US are the only country that is not agreeing to the Kyoto protocol! THE ONLY ONE!!! ... out of dozens of countries!


Yup, that's pretty much our position, and I see nothing wrong with it. We don't agree with the methods Kyoto chooses to use to reduce global warming so we won't agree. And gasoline prices here aren't artificially low, they are at market value. The gas tax in the U.S. is about $.30 while in Europe its several dollars. You want to tax your gas, fine, we don't want to pay extra.

Yup, we use a lot of energy. I personally am in favor of raising U.S. CAFE standards and adding more nuclear plants, but the auto industry consistantly blocks the former and environmentalists reject the latter.

Yup, the Gulf War was all about petroleum. As I said earlier, America's national interests were threatened, so we went to war. As I recall, it is also a war that Europe participated in . . . and on our side.

On the subject of the ICC. This treaty has been rejected by Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Australia and the U.S. It is Eurocentric, claims and jurisdiction over countries who have not ratified the treaty. The majority of these countries use military force from time to time, and all have come to the conclusion that they don't want to participate. This is an attempt by European liberals and intellectuals to influence wars in which they do not participate.

What I mean by this, is that if, for example, Europe and other participating countries do not agree with say Russia in Chechnya or the U.S. in Iraq, an inditement will be handed down for political reasons. What incentive do we therefore have to employ peacekeepers?

Originally posted by groovebuster

What is this about? An embarassing try to offend me?

1) I don't give a ***** about football (yup, not soccer, I live in Europe).
2) Brazil was the better team, so also congrats from me! What's the point?

Hey, the Soccer thing (yup, not football, I live in America) was just a joke. No one here gives a flying fuhck either (except for me, I am an immigrant from Honduras) and Germany beat the U.S. anyhow.

Originally posted by 3rdpath

as an american( and i can only speak for myself here), i think groove and soar both make exceptional points. the u.s. is now paying the price for exploiting many other countries under the guise of spreading prosperity and democracy...

contrary to the popular american belief--the u.s is not loved and adored outside of our borders. the foreign news organizations mock our policies and the supremely lame george bush on a daily basis. he is a goof, a doofus and an embarrasment to our country-but he perfectly symbolic of the state of our politics.

i think its sad but somewhat fundemental to our problem that many americans choose to dismiss any opinions that don't jibe with the dogma thats pounded into us by our schools and our media. why isn't the u.s involved in the kyoto treaty? why do we still condone the use of land mines(blame that one on clinton...)? why are we so intent on controlling weapons of mass destruction when we're the only country to ever use them?
we talk a lot about leading but our actions say otherwise.

i just shake my head when i read such dismissive replys here. its a sign of myopic and naive wishful thinking.

i appreciate your views and i hope to read more of them


1) I am under no illusions that the U.S. is loved the world over.
2) You don't have to call Bush goofy names just because you disagree with him.
3) Kyoto - Outlined above and elsewhere.
4) Land Mines - Critical to the defense of South Korea (the South Koreans want us there). In any case, those land mines employed by the U.S. today have a limited lifespan after which the stop working. Also, the U.S. has invested quite a bit of money into land mine removal programs. The first example that comes to mind is Afghanistan, the most heavily mined country in the world.
5) Weapons of Mass Destruction - The fact of the matter is, the more weapons of mass destruction there are, the greater the risk to America and the world in general. Pakistan for example. It is not inconcievable that the Pakistani government could fall to extremist elements. Nuclear weapons would then be effectively in the possession of terrorists. These are not rational individuals and care nothing for the consequences that detonating such a device would have, even if it means their own deaths. Saddam Hussein. If he aquires nuclear weapons, how much more influnce will he have in the Gulf and over events in the Middle East? Is this something America wants? The fact of the matter is that the greater the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the greater the security threat to the world as a whole. This is the reasoning behind limiting U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and the reason the U.S. is pouring money into helping Russia dismantle it's arsenal.

Additional Thoughts on Foreign Policy

One point I wanted to bring up about the U.N. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights has Syria and Sudan as members, but the U.S. was kicked off? YOU CAN BUY A PERSON IN SUDAN FOR $250! Arab countries pass resolutions condemning "Zionism."

I would have to say that the one issue in which I wholeheartedly disagree with U.S. foreign policy is on the arbitrary targeting of foreign governments. Why do we do buisiness with China, but not Cuba (more people = more money)? Why do we support Saudi Arabia and Egypt, governments that actively attempt to undermine U.S. initiatives and can be called anything but humane.

[AlejandroGonzo]

REMOVED

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by AlejandroGonzo
Yup, that's pretty much our position, and I see nothing wrong with it. We don't agree with the methods Kyoto chooses to use to reduce global warming so we won't agree. And gasoline prices here aren't artificially low, they are at market value. The gas tax in the U.S. is about $.30 while in Europe its several dollars. You want to tax your gas, fine, we don't want to pay extra.

Still I find it very surprising that the US are the only country not agreeing with it. So maybe you can tell me what is wrong with the methods and what would be the alternatives that are fair for all the other nations as well and not only for the US.

And about the gasoline prices you are just wrong.

production costs != overall costs caused by the use of it

So the prices are artficially kept low. To sell gas just for a little bit more than the production costs, because the environmental damage caused by using gas as an energy source are not considered, is not a valid argument for you?

Another point is, how do you want to make the people be more reasonable with using energy when not over the price? That way the industry would be forced to produce more fuel-efficient cars, beacause there would be a demand for it.

Just tell me alternatives to that...

Originally posted by AlejandroGonzo
Yup, we use a lot of energy. I personally am in favor of raising U.S. CAFE standards and adding more nuclear plants, but the auto industry consistantly blocks the former and environmentalists reject the latter.

Aha... so the national interests are in particular the interests of the auto industry? Is that what you are telling me? That's not a justification in my opinion...

Originally posted by AlejandroGonzo
Yup, the Gulf War was all about petroleum. As I said earlier, America's national interests were threatened, so we went to war. As I recall, it is also a war that Europe participated in . . . and on our side.

Too bad that the US were supporting before Saddam in the war against Iran and made him the guy he is today... But that's something avoided to talk about.
Further it seems to me pretty hypocritical to go to war when the national interests are of pure economical nature (access to cheap oil). So if Germany would have the last resources of oil and doesn't want to sell it to the US you would just invade it? And not to forget that the US administration was stating all the time that the reason for the war wasn't the oil, it was the violation of the international law to invade an independet country. Pretty weak for a country that claims to be the moral leader of the world. And that is exactly why The US are not very "popular" in the rest of the world.

As far as I remember the only nation that participated in the first gulf war beside the US was United Kingdom. So to talk about a lot of support from Europe is just wrong.

And you also should know, that in the public there was a lot of disapproval about the war. There were a lot of demonstrations against the war going on back then here in Europe.

Originally posted by AlejandroGonzo
On the subject of the ICC. This treaty has been rejected by Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Australia and the U.S. It is Eurocentric, claims and jurisdiction over countries who have not ratified the treaty. The majority of these countries use military force from time to time, and all have come to the conclusion that they don't want to participate. This is an attempt by European liberals and intellectuals to influence wars in which they do not participate.

Oh.... I see! So France and United Kingdom don't count? It is still no argument to say: "Because someone else is not doing it I won't do it myself!" There must be a starting point and especially when the US are doing their own thing again giving a **** about the hard work it took to unite so many countries. If the US would join it would put pressure on the other countries to participate as well. But that way you just give the signal everybody can do whatever he likes to in world policy. Egoistic national interests are more important than finding solutions that work for everybody.

The rest of your paragraph doesn't need to be commented... you should blush immediately.


Originally posted by AlejandroGonzo
What I mean by this, is that if, for example, Europe and other participating countries do not agree with say Russia in Chechnya or the U.S. in Iraq, an inditement will be handed down for political reasons. What incentive do we therefore have to employ peacekeepers?

I can't follow you on that one... where is the connection between a war and peacekeepers? So do you try to tell me that if somebody would critizise the US for military actions that there is no need anymore to do peace keeping missions? Maybe you should start to think a little bit more "global"... could help!

Originally posted by AlejandroGonzo
Hey, the Soccer thing (yup, not football, I live in America) was just a joke. No one here gives a flying fuhck either (except for me, I am an immigrant from Honduras) and Germany beat the U.S. anyhow.

In the given context you did that statement on purpose then, knowing that it could be also taken as an offense. So why did you mention it if you don't give a ***** about it? And as far as I know:

Honduras != Brazil

Originally posted by AlejandroGonzo
One point I wanted to bring up about the U.N. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights has Syria and Sudan as members, but the U.S. was kicked off? YOU CAN BUY A PERSON IN SUDAN FOR $250! Arab countries pass resolutions condemning "Zionism."

And the US is going to war just because they want to keep their energy prices low (You just said it yourself before). You still have death penalty in your country. Racism is still strong at a lot places. You can have justice for money. The native Americans never got a proper reparation for being slaughtered and taken away their country. Shall I go on? Why should the US (as the only country) have a permanent seat in the human rights comission? Give me one friggin' reason? Before you point at other people with your finger you should do a reality check my friend.

The way to make this a better world is to include the countries with problems to guarantee the human rights on their own territory and not to teach them all the time like little kids in a hypocritical way. That way they can reflect about themselves and find their own (respecting their own cultural background) way to achieve the goal through the discussion.

By the way... I hope you know what "Zionism" really means...

Originally posted by AlejandroGonzo
I would have to say that the one issue in which I wholeheartedly disagree with U.S. foreign policy is on the arbitrary targeting of foreign governments. Why do we do buisiness with China, but not Cuba (more people = more money)? Why do we support Saudi Arabia and Egypt, governments that actively attempt to undermine U.S. initiatives and can be called anything but humane.

That is exactly the problem! It's a big part why the US (especially in the middle-east) is not respected a lot in the world. They act hypocritical on those issues.

And not to give you the wrong impression, I also don't agree with a lot of stuff that is going on here in Europe or european countries, but we are talking about the US here, right? I don't have any problem to talk about Europe or Germany in another thread. And probably you will find me agreeing on a lot of stuff (if the critic is based on real facts and not just uninformed hearsay).

The problem is that a lot of US citizens think that everything is cool the US is doing just by definition, because the US are the best anyway. That is pretty strange and reminds me of the nationalism in Europe that leaded to WW I.

You will hardly find a lot of people who are like that at least here in Germany, but also in most other european countries, especially when they are more educated than the average construction worker.

groovebuster

[kansaigaijin]

from the Guardian no less (and a very good article on why the US has no reason to fear the ICC)

. So repelled was Congress by the court that it empowered the president to send in the military to rescue any future American soldiers held at ICC headquarters in the Hague: the Netherlands Invasion Act, as it is known in Europe. Senators and Congressmen have lined up to assert a case for national sovereignty by elevating this largely phantom enemy into an irresistible global force of anti-Americanism sufficient to justify the institutional paranoia that has most of Bu****e Washington in its grip.

The Guardian is not making this up. If want real info about the ICC you can check it out

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,747744,00.html

have a nice day.

ps i also saw the football comment as an attempt at an insult. how about dealing with the facts guys?