usausausausausausaor is it land ofthemightyweshouldntannoy

OK, this is really beginning to bother me.

YOUR = posessive. "It is your hat."

YOU'RE = condensed version of "you are." "You are a hat."

Please, I beg of you, don't use the posessive in place of the descriptive. It gives me a headache.

That said - why berate him when he has (a) already had it pointed out to him, and (b) fixed it?

 

Re: usausausausausausaor is it land ofthemightyweshouldntann

Bit of a paranoid attitude innit? I don't think anyone said USA sucked.

Right, and there wouldn't be such heavy pollution due to cars and factories, the ozone layer would still be intact, global warming would be an unknown phenomenon and the world wouldn't be overcrowded with poverty and famine. Praise you for all the wonderful technology that has indeed destroyed the very planet we live on.

NOTE: Sarcasm?

Yes.

Ya, you could probably do well with a wee history lesson there.

Happy? I think it's scary you're willing to do whatever it takes to remain "number one". Is the root of the problem here that you can't stand loosing?

Winning? Loosing? I thought we're talking about Bush enhancing his ego and political stance by bombing the crap out of another country.

My god you're right! I accidentally kicked a football into my neighbor's garden yesterday, i bet he's sitting inthere in the darkness, conspiring, planning my death! I better go kill him, before he kills me!



Well, that's off my chest then. That said, i think it's great when people write: "Your Stupid!". Fun irony

 

Um.... I think the Europeans started that one remember a little ditty called the "Industral revolution"? But yes we are doing a hell of a job finishing it aren't we I am not proud of that fact but I will always be proud of the many other things that make me an American. And as long as other countries are polluting to serve their own needs I will not be ashamed. We did not invent pollution just remember that.

Be afraid be VERY afraid, as long as it keeps anyone from even THINKING about invading my country or that of an ally then rationalize it however. Cause on this planet loosing often means death and destruction and yes I am willing to see my country do whatever it takes to prevent the death of our culture. :minigun:

No that is not what it is about, it is about a country that has for the past 11 years REFUSED to disarm and disable it's weapons of mass distruction and has instead of using funds to make a better life for it's people has chosen to starve them in order to spend money enhancing it's war making power, theatening both US and our allies.

It is about other countries huddling around this wolf in sheeps clothing in the hope of "protecting it" (really in hopes of protecting their own soverignty should they one day devlope a weapon that could also threaten US if everyone wants to get real for a minute and stop the heart bleeding) against Big Bad US.

He may very well be, people have been and will be killed for less aranoid:


If it were not for Isreal and terrorism I would say you guys are right let him go ahead and do what he wants. Let him kill the whole of the middle east for all I care and then let them come ONCE AGAIN running to US for help just like history has shown them to do in the past.
But this is bigger then their wants or even the UN's wants for that matter cause since 9/11 the US feels threatened and IS threatened by middle east politics. Let Bush do whatever he wants and need to protect US. Cause as I see it that mad man had 11 years to disarm and prove his peaceful intent. From this point on it's on his head and the head of the people that keep in in power.

 

To be elected you usually need to be a good public speaker, so it really shouldn't come as much of a surprise. If you aren't a 'people person' then I'd say you aren't much of a chance of being elected. Then again, Bush got elected...but most people in the US didn't vote anyway did they? I bet they wish they did now...

Course, I don't care what politicians are like personally, it's their policy what I care about. That's where those speaking skills come into play - convince me your policy is good, and I'm on your side, whether I like you or not.

It's unfortunate that a pre-emptive strike can only be seen as a right solution after the time frame for it has passed and you were hit first. It's even harder to justify yours, because you can't prove anything.

I'd say that's definitely true - there's been a significant increase in anti-US feeling since September 11 last year. For once though, the media didn't directly influence it - or maybe the media being so pro-US that it was like nothing else in the world existed for a few days turned people off it. Who knows?

Somebody save us! There'll be a whole new brood (and breed) of smart-ass Americans in England any day now!

 

We're number 1 We're number 1

Pollution is the biggest and most finale weapon of mass destruction. Pollution is slowly destroying the world. So i guess your country Hel Khat is slowly destroying the enemy. Maybe thats why The USA dosnt seem to care about the whole global warming because its there way of destroying the enemy so they stay number 1.

I thought the idea of being the number 1 was to help all and then maybe this childish country conflict will end. We live on a globe. The sea and air conects us all.

Oh well im going to just stay down here and worship all you great americans and hope we dont get killed by you. Gee you are all tops or number 1 even. Sorry for asking what people thought about USA policies on Iraq, i really didnt think the great american minds would get so bitter to the fact that others want to talk about what they think and what they want. Hmmmm is that freedom of speech only for yankies or can we borrow it one or two days a week.

To the topic. I hope the USA goes into Iraq and blows the crap out of it and then it would be good if the whole area gets involved so we get about a five year war and then in the end i hope there is ONE strong winner in the middle east so it is no longer divided and a stable middle east is created from the East of Egypt, South of Turkey and west of Pakistan/Afganistan.

Just a thought.

 

Those reasons you mentioned do play a part in this but I think that there is another very important issue which makes people concentrate their criticism on US. Basically there's so much of US everywhere. On the news, in newspapers, in every conlict which makes it to cnn US makes a stand. If Poland were the most powerful, reach and so internationally active country criticizm would surely concentrate upon it(or any other country which would be in place of US for that matter). But it doesn't because there are a lot of people who don't even know where Poland is nor is it important enough to start a discussion about it. My point is that US isn't criticized for being US but for being "on top" you could say.

Lack of diplomacy by some Americans which you mentioned is the second most importnat factor imo. It is very unfortunate that stupid people with views like "my country is infallible and whatever is does is right and everyone outside is a moron" make it to the news (in every country) more often than reasonable ones.

Another thing is that criticizm often seems stronger than it actually is because when you're discussing for example Iraq question you concentrate upon it and you don't write "but besides US is a great country who has achieved a lot... and so on and so forth". I know that my posts are like that for sure. I concentrate on what I dislike about things without making it clear that I like what I did not criticize.




One more thing I want to rant about. While writing this post I was unsure whether it's criticize/criticizm or criticise/criticism. I found it in the dictionary that it's actually criticize and criticism. So I would hereby like to state that I dislike this word.

 

You must have found it in an American dictionary. The British spelling is conistent critcise and criticism (except when we forget how to spell things the British way ).

Jar, I've seen as many politicians as you, I'd guess. I commented on Blair because I found his abilities noteworthy (ie. good, even by public speaker standards). He fielded extremely difficult and hostile questions with poise and clarity of expression. Few politicians would have performed so well.

You're right about a pre-emptive strike - retrospect can only tell us if one was required and actually it can only tell us that if we DON'T do it. If we do it, we'll never know, and it'll always look a bit questionable.

As for my kids, you should pity them. Not only will they be tainted with pom AND yank blood, but their dad is an all-knowing bugger, who reacts to disagreements with longgggggg lectures and obdurate refusal to give ground. They'll probably envy kids with explosive, scary dads.

Dragoon, I can see where you're coming from, but I naturally resist anyone being unfairly persecuted, whether it be Poles or Americans. It's easy to let "soft" forms of persecution go unmentioned or justify them to ourselves, but they're still wrong.

Getting back to the point ...

(btw, I have to admit to skipping a few of the posts above - I've just had enough of flaming)

... Bush does scare me with his attitude and so do people who flippantly recommend employing weapons of mass destruction to solve the problem, but the UN are starting to REALLY annoy me.

The UN imposed the sanctions that Milo referred to. The ones that cause hardship (aka death) for many innocent Iraqis and do nothing to Saddam's regime (except maybe arm it with a few more shells for its propoganda mortar).

The UN also made the resolution that the US and UK are asking to be enforced and that Iraq are flagrantly ignoring. They are the ones who should be pushing this issue. They shouldn't be standing in the way, giving Saddam the room he needs to operate.

As I have said before, I don't think it is possible to prevent the weapons of mass destruction being developed forever, but we should be doing what we reasonably can to delay it, and using the time we buy to mend fences. With the current international political map, there are far too many wrong hands for these weapons to fall into.

 

Well Pakistian have the mean to manufactor Nuclear weapons since 1987 but they only make about 40 bombs as protection against India trying to invadeing then. India never got over the fact that the Muslum League want they own nation to rule without Hindic telling then what to do. So when the evil Hindic National decide to arm thenself with nuclear weapons
thinking they can bully Pakistian around. Then Pakistian have they Nuclear Test that show India invade us 40 of your cities will be nuke. Why
do you think India want to get illegality the Arrow Anti-Missile System from
Israel than other evil nation in my option. Than Anti-Missile System offer no protection against massive missiles attack. The local Sheif here in El Paso every year show law enforcement officer that there is no such thing as bullet proof amour by fireing some regular shotgun slug at short range which goes thought all bullet proof vests. Then he fire some unarmorpeice
bullets repeated at than vest then after than enought hit than bullets go thought it. He does it as too many officer think I than wear than bullet proof vest nothing can harm me. The same thinking will take place when we built than ABM system. It than what easier to defeat than ABM systen
than you think.

I agree with you that you cannot stop or control of technolgry of weapon
of mass dec. Bush doesnot know what he is doing as he is too friendry with the current PM of Israel and all of our polictial are total afraid to goes
against the Pro-Irael lobbery in America.

American can be defeat military by the Islamic world if we make it into than religlish war against Islam. All their have to do is sink 3 or 4 of our
supercarrier in the Arabiam Sea. We will think that nothing the Islamic Nation have can hurt our Carries Battle Group that we will be unprepair to
meet than attack on our carrier.

 

I hate to say that America is loseing the war in Aftanian as we lose 40 men all ready in gurrile attack against us. Red China is allowing the Terrorist and the Taliban to use China as than base to attack us in Aftanian to pin us down there. There is nothing we can do about it. If we Invade China with than convent force we will be defeat by supior manpower. Even if we win than war
with China where will we get the manpower to occupty than Nation of 1.3 billion people we would need than army of 130 million soidier to occupty china only than very huge internation cor of many nation will give you the manpower you need.

 

It saddens me that there is so much pollution, and so many very, very dedicated people trying to stop it, while others just destroy the environment, senselessly. Whether they are extremely poor, and feel that slash-and-burn is the easiest way to make some money, or that to hunt tigers/pandas/elephants/you name it, to sell the animals skins on the black market for money... it's so terrible. Concerning poaching (and I realise this is a bit off topic, but since people were talking about pollution...) I feel that is also the richer peoples/countries fault. (not the whole country obviously, but the richer people in the [richer] countries.) If no one bought skins/tusks/stuffed animals, (real stuffed animals, not cute fuzzy toys) then no one would kill them, because no one wanted the pelts. Sadly, human nature isn't that caring. Very sadly. I was with my friend last summer, and her cousins were with her. I mentioned something about the cruel killing of sharks (I don't even remember how the topic started) and one of them said, "It's good they kill them. Sharks are bad animals." I didn't understand how anyone could be so cruel and hypocritcal. Is that the same girl says she loves god who she says created everything, so she should love all his creations? When people want to make shark fin soup, the shark fisher catches a shark, cuts of the fin, and tosses it back in the water. If that's not barbaric, I don't know what is. Plus, who would want to eat something with fin in/on it?

uke:

 

Snowmane, can I suggest you create another thread for this? I'm not criticising you, it's just that I would really like to contribute to a discussion about that, but can't see how I could do it here without completely derailing this thread.

 

Sure, that's no problem! Would you like me to delete that post?

 

I don't think you can. It has to be the last post in the thread to be deleted.

 

oh.... okay then.

 

Global warming is a joke, look at the current trend, the earth is actually getting cooler not hotter. Think I'm full of shit? Best to check your facts before making a fool of yourself. BTW I agree this should be a different thread, but our buddy Snowmane hasn't started it yet. I don't want to steal his thunder.

 

I don't think you know what the Greenhouse Effect is.

Let me break it down for you:

-Places that were hot, get hotter.
-Places that were cold, get colder.
-Places which are temperate (neither particularly hot nor cold) experience increasingly chaotic weather patterns. So do the cold and hot places, incidentally, but it's less noticable because they're so damn hot/cold to begin with.

 

Bush will attack and kill saddam or something the country will be free and that is it. Then Bush will be reellected. That is how it will go.
Retard what does it matter that the president gets blown by his secreteary in the oval office as long as he is a nice person? Bush has as we know has noe yet cheated on his wife but on the other hand he has started bombing of afghanistan that has caused more deaths than 11 september. When he was gouvernor in texas he had the highest statistic of killing people by death sentences, some of them probably inocent. That is nice moral standards right? He does not care about envieroment at all it seems as long it does not affect him. He does not fuck the secretary no he fucks the nature. Great morale standards.
I rather prefer a President that sleeps with his secretary than a president that sleeps with the whole oil industry.

 

I refuse to even argue with such fucking stupidity.

Also, you should add, what does it matter if the president virtually ignores the embassy bombings, the bombing of the U.S. Cole, if he is a nice person? What does it matter if the president's aides, 7 days after his term was over, were in the parking lot of the capitol, signing illegal documents giving land to Native Americans in South Dakota if he is a nice person? What does it matter if the president goes on a pardon-spree right before his term is over, pardoning all manner of crooks, if he is a nice person? What does it matter if the president (this is a biggie) LIED ON NATIONAL TELEVISION if he is a nice person?

Nice person my ass. You should read and reread that sentence of yours that I quoted, and see if it starts to get anymore stupid...

 

Give me one president that has not lied on national television.
But you are right on the nice person subject though i do not know of many nice presidents.
Hel Kath there was a different person who thought just the same way, saying that humans was breeded to kill. Hmm what was his name........author of "mein kampf". I em sure you can guess who it was. Cause what you wrote was a nice summary of "Mein kampf". Whatever it takes? I hope not.

 

OK a lot of peps that I could quote and take out here but will I? NO cause I have changed even if I remember this same kind of thread being posted and done with here EONS ago. So instead let's look at history and logic and then you guys can debate this. But before I start I HAVE to say this:

ETALIS!!!! You have a Typo in this thread!!!! I almost fainted when I read it cause you never have them so I had to point it out (you can thank me later 8) )


Ok first off It is not US that has the history of invading other countries it is Iraq! Does anyone here remember the fact that it was Iraq who invaded Iran for no other reason then it's oil ????? I mean most people are talking like we are planing on invading Belgium for crying out loud! You can't compare Iraq to Cuba cause Cuba has never invaded a neighbor. You can't compare Iraq with any peace loving nation because it is NOT a peace loving nation. Time and again Iraq has shown it's taste for war (dear I say LOVE for war) She has proven without any doubt that whenever she can wage war she WILL.

Iraq claims peace yet arms for war, this is madness we are not talking about Canada or any other country that has tried resolve matters peacefully. We are talking about a country who's first reply to anything it does not like is force. And we are talking about people that would actually consider DEFENDING a country that has historically proven itself to stand behind such policies!!!!!

Anyone who is not for disarming Iraq in any way possible IS for war eventually just not a war that the US can win (or at least not without massive bloodshed).

So compare me to Hitler all you want but my country is not using military weapons on it's own people, my country will not invade Canada or Mexico for having different economic policies and my country is not supporting terrorist activities. Iraq threatens it's neighbors (allies and enemies a like) and gets in the middle of matters that are of no concern to it only to make them worst.

Yes I have strong feelings about the mass-murdering leader of this country because it seems to me that everyone is MORE then willing (dear I say desperate) to forget what he has done in the past just so they can cry about how inhuman we are for TRYING to do something to stop him before he can hit US!? Stop the insanity!!!

I am all for freedom of speech and debate but this one seems so pointless, either you look at history and see a mass murdering dictator bent on territory (world) domination or you don't....

What I am not for is sticking my head in the sand to try and pretend the sky is not falling when indeed it very well could be. In another 4 or 5 years if left alone this man will have the ability to strike my country and he WILL do it because HISTORY has shown him to do so in the past.