Is anyone listening to Powell?

[train2]

As much as I want to agree with the States, Powell did not present any evidence whatsoever today....

[BSMNT732]

Really? There were 3 intercepted radio transmitions and a few satellite photo's, they were not an absolute sign of nuclear/chemical weapons, but they were pretty compelling

[BPR II]

bump to bsm

[EngineThatCould]

Guess some people aren't convinced until a weapon of mass destruction actually goes off in their backyard. Then they would probably still be in denial. Government conspiracy or some other b.s.

I've wanted to say this for a little while now too. The French can suck my left testicle. In WWII, they rolled over to the Germans in what.....30 seconds. Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit, but not by much. I guess they haven't learned a damn thing from history.

[Gettin_big]

Originally posted by EngineThatCould
Guess some people aren't convinced until a weapon of mass destruction actually goes off in their backyard. Then they would probably still be in denial. Government conspiracy or some other b.s.

I've wanted to say this for a little while now too. The French can suck my left testicle. In WWII, they rolled over to the Germans in what.....30 seconds. Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit, but not by much. I guess they haven't learned a damn thing from history.

Bump !

[irpker]

The UN security council would never agree to a war. The same bull**** speeches happened. Fukk France, they don't even belong on the security council. Russia is just pissed because they are going to lose billions of dollars they invested in Iraq. China doesn't give a **** regardless, unless it affects them.


The US and UK will have to go solo.

[JonZ]

Powell if you remember,also advised Bush in the beginning NOT to invade Iraq saying it would be a disaster and worsen the already bad views the world has of the US

Unless of course theyre borrowing our money - then were ok

[Jcfreak_02]

Why does everyone think it takes a weapon of mass destruction to be in violation of resolution 1441? Hans Blix has presented for the last 2 months that Iraq is not complying thus the next step dictated in resolution 1441 needs to be taken, which is for the UN to decide what punishment shall be done, not IF they should punish Iraq but how.

[xx0725]

I loved the satellite photos proving that Iraq has not only buildings, but also trucks and railroad cars.

Devastating evidence! Let's roll!

[J.S.B.]

**** the U.N. !!!! They proved their worth to me 10 yrs. ago.

[zackdarnell]

Originally posted by EngineThatCould
I've wanted to say this for a little while now too. The French can suck my left testicle. In WWII, they rolled over to the Germans in what.....30 seconds. Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit, but not by much. I guess they haven't learned a damn thing from history.

Id have to agree here. Once Napoleon was exiled the 2nd time, Frace just went downhill.

[Smackdown]

Yeah **** em... everyone should rush to kill others who differ in world views from them on as little evidence as they'd like...

[Smackdown]

Originally posted by EngineThatCould
Guess some people aren't convinced until a weapon of mass destruction actually goes off in their backyard. Then they would probably still be in denial. Government conspiracy or some other b.s.

I've wanted to say this for a little while now too. The French can suck my left testicle. In WWII, they rolled over to the Germans in what.....30 seconds. Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit, but not by much. I guess they haven't learned a damn thing from history.

If the U.S. was next to Germany in the early stages of WW2 and had France's power compared to Germany or even if you had the power you actually had before WW2 you'd have rolled over faster than and a prostitute offereing a John doggystyle.

So shut your ignorant mouth.

[Smackdown]

Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
Why does everyone think it takes a weapon of mass destruction to be in violation of resolution 1441? Hans Blix has presented for the last 2 months that Iraq is not complying thus the next step dictated in resolution 1441 needs to be taken, which is for the UN to decide what punishment shall be done, not IF they should punish Iraq but how.

How very Christian of you to agree with war Freak... you are the epitomy of Jesus...

Go back to bible school and relearn Christ's values.

[Smackdown]

Originally posted by irpker
China doesn't give a **** regardless, unless it affects them.


The US and UK will have to go solo.

Sound familiar? Replace "China" with the U.S. and you'll understand your hypocritical ways. What about North Korea? What about all of the lousy dictators on the U.S's good side? Suharto ring a bell?
The U.S. government only finds cause to go to war where the is big gain otherwise they couldn't care less.
Understand this yet? Have you ever read anything about Realpolitik? or Machiavelli?

Do some reading and learn to be more critical and skeptical of all authority especially your own government's.

PS: two countries going to war together cannot "go solo".

[J.S.B.]

-Smackdown, don't break my balls now. I can't type fast enough to reply. What's goin' on eh?, I gotta say, you don't change the position you advocate.

[EngineThatCould]

Originally posted by Smackdown
If the U.S. was next to Germany in the early stages of WW2 and had France's power compared to Germany or even if you had the power you actually had before WW2 you'd have rolled over faster than and a prostitute offereing a John doggystyle.

So shut your ignorant mouth.

No, bitch, I think I'll run my mouth. But thanks for the censorship anyway and even proving my point, jackass. They had no power then and no power now. So how is a country that is going to "roll over faster than a prostitute" going to decide U.N. matters?

Watch a little less WWE and watch the History Channel some more......okay.

[irpker]

Originally posted by Smackdown
PS: two countries going to war together cannot "go solo".

so·lo
adv.
Unaccompanied; alone.

Yes, they will go solo!

You're right though, China doesn't have much to gain, and unless they veto, they will upset the bordering islamic nations. Russia and France do, which is the invested money for oil return.

This quote from Swordfish sums up the US's new course of action when dealing with international terrorisists:

"They bomb a church, we bomb ten. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute an american tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. What country will harbor terrorists when they realize what I'll do?" - Gabriel Shear

[Smackdown]

Originally posted by EngineThatCould
No, bitch, I think I'll run my mouth. But thanks for the censorship anyway and even proving my point, jackass. They had no power then and no power now. So how is a country that is going to "roll over faster than a prostitute" going to decide U.N. matters?

Watch a little less WWE and watch the History Channel some more......okay.

Less WWE? Actually my name has nothing to do with a wrestling show. Proving your point? How so? Explain how I have proven your point?

How is France deciding UN matters? They are apart of the UN, they do not decide UN matters exclusively. Besides they do have power, unlike your argument.

Ease up on the name calling as it truely shows how weak your position in this argument is.

[Smackdown]

Originally posted by irpker
so·lo
adv.
Unaccompanied; alone.

Yes, they will go solo!

You're right though, China doesn't have much to gain, and unless they veto, they will upset the bordering islamic nations. Russia and France do, which is the invested money for oil return.

This quote from Swordfish sums up the US's new course of action when dealing with international terrorisists:

"They bomb a church, we bomb ten. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute an american tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. What country will harbor terrorists when they realize what I'll do?" - Gabriel Shear

Solo: do something without help or accompaniment: to do something alone, without help or accompaniment, especially to fly an aircraft without an instructor or to perform an artistic solo

America is one entity and Britain is Another. Two separate entities Cannot go SOLO!!!!!!! They will go TOGETHER.

PS: good job avoiding the Suharto stuff. You didn't do anything to defend yourself against allegations of the U.S. government acting only in their interests as opposed to their supposed altruistic motivations.

[Jcfreak_02]

Originally posted by Smackdown
How very Christian of you to agree with war Freak... you are the epitomy of Jesus...

Go back to bible school and relearn Christ's values.

Dude, I am all for peace, I want peace. I also understand the politics of international diplomacy. War is never good but sometimes it is necessary. I would like war to go away, but that only runs from the problem, it doesn't address the issue.

[EngineThatCould]

Originally posted by Smackdown
Less WWE? Actually my name has nothing to do with a wrestling show. Proving your point? How so? Explain how I have proven your point?

How is France deciding UN matters? They are apart of the UN, they do not decide UN matters exclusively. Besides they do have power, unlike your argument.

Ease up on the name calling as it truely shows how weak your position in this argument is.

On the name calling, practice what you preach little boy.

And no **** they do not decide exclusively. I thought that would have been understood, but maybe every little thing has to be explained to you.

Point is....if you are weak, people are going to run over you. By your own admittance, France will roll over. France takes a very neutral stance out of fear for themselves (as well as a few other countries). They would most likely need a satellitle image of Saddam riding a warhead like a bronco, slapping its side, and yelling "Kill the Infidels" to be convinced. The rest of us will use logic and deductive reasoning, thank you.

[Smackdown]

Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
Dude, I am all for peace, I want peace. I also understand the politics of international diplomacy. War is never good but sometimes it is necessary. I would like war to go away, but that only runs from the problem, it doesn't address the issue.

Now Freak, you have yourself in a large conflict here. A contradiction in belief if you will because Christ would say War is never necessary YET you are a representative of him and you say war is necessary sometimes.

So we have a problem here, are we wrong in saying that war is sometimes necessary or is Jesus wrong in believing that war is never necessary?

[Smackdown]

Originally posted by EngineThatCould
On the name calling, practice what you preach little boy.

And no **** they do not decide exclusively. I thought that would have been understood, but maybe every little thing has to be explained to you.

Point is....if you are weak, people are going to run over you. By your own admittance, France will roll over. France takes a very neutral stance out of fear for themselves (as well as a few other countries). They would most likely need a satellitle image of Saddam riding a warhead like a bronco, slapping its side, and yelling "Kill the Infidels" to be convinced. The rest of us will use logic and deductive reasoning, thank you.

Little boy?... okay.

I said nothing about France rolling over, only about the U.S. doing so if they were in France's position in WW2. Even with your actual army strength in WW2 you'd still have been no match for the Germans one on one. I said the U.S. would roll over! and only because you were so rude with regards to the french. You'd roll over in ww2 just as the french did.

You use logic and deductive reasoning? Sounds more like inductive reasoning and if you knew the difference between the two you would know that the case against Iraq is anything but deductive. If you want to dance logic with me, I am very game.

[newlifter87]

a lot of you need to clam up. i hate when people act like political guinesses. bush and powell have a hard job regardless if you like them or not. so let them do their job its not like your opinions or critisims matter.

[Smackdown]

Originally posted by newlifter87
a lot of you need to clam up. i hate when people act like political guinesses. bush and powell have a hard job regardless if you like them or not. so let them do their job its not like your opinions or critisims matter.

How does one act like a guiness?

No, factory workers and soldiers have a hard job. The industrial age working class had a hard job. Bush and powell don't do any of this on their own, in fact Bush is a complete idiot who reads speeches and conveys the ideas of others in his government. He is a figure head and only got the presidential position because of his daddy.

our opinions and criticisms don't matter? I thought we lived in a democracy? Sadly your claim is most likely true as we live nowhere near anything that resembles a democracy.

[Smackdown]

Originally posted by J.S.B.
-Smackdown, don't break my balls now. I can't type fast enough to reply. What's goin' on eh?, I gotta say, you don't change the position you advocate.

Hey JSB, not much going on. How about you?

You should know most of all, having served, that war is not pretty and that it should be used only when absolutely necessary. Your damned government is so quick to go to war as they are detached like all governments and it isn't there heads on the line.
There should be a world law that if any leader wants a war he must go with his troops into battle. The only reason that it may sound silly is because the powers that be in the social hierarchy make it sound that way with arguments like "who will lead if I go to war?". Well there are many others far more capable than Bush or any given president for that matter that could take over if a president was killed in battle. Can you imagine the morale if a leader of a government went into battle with his people?

If they want war so bad they can go along and help out too.

Makes me sick that you are expendable and then they justify it to you.

[EngineThatCould]

Originally posted by Smackdown
Little boy?... okay.

I said nothing about France rolling over, only about the U.S. doing so if they were in France's position in WW2. Even with your actual army strength in WW2 you'd still have been no match for the Germans one on one. I said the U.S. would roll over! and only because you were so rude with regards to the french. You'd roll over in ww2 just as the french did.

You use logic and deductive reasoning? Sounds more like inductive reasoning and if you knew the difference between the two you would know that the case against Iraq is anything but deductive. If you want to dance logic with me, I am very game.

We would have been no match for the Germans? Maybe, maybe not, but remember, we were fighting the war on two fronts. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't think that Berlin couldn't have met the same fate. The Germans were defeated with the help of ALLIES and their huge mistake of trying to overtake Russia in the winter.

Just think if an ounce of prevention was used in the early stages of WWII, how many lives would have been saved??? Why was it necessary to wait until the Axis had enveloped almost all of Europe before suitable action was taken???

[raprazant]

Originally posted by EngineThatCould
France takes a very neutral stance out of fear for themselves (as well as a few other countries).

France takes a neutral stance, in general, because they are selfish, plain and simple. if any country were to set foot on french soil or threaten them specifically they would not hesitate to act unilaterally without as much as a word spoken to the U.N.

in this situation france will not support any type of regime change in iraq because they are actively selling them bio/chem/rad/aero technologies. why would they support an action that would destroy a cash cow.

The rest of us will use logic and deductive reasoning, thank you.

unfortunately for you, i immediately realized you were talking out of your ass with this statement. there's no deductive argument to be made here. anything that can be posited about future iraqi action is INDUCTIVE in nature as in you must assume the truth of a hypothetical.

you need to return to trailer-park high for some remedial courses because your reasoning is wanting.

[train2]

Originally posted by EngineThatCould

Just think if an ounce of prevention was used in the early stages of WWII, how many lives would have been saved??? Why was it necessary to wait until the Axis had enveloped almost all of Europe before suitable action was taken???

Using your logic, JFK should have nuked the USSR during the Cuban missile crisis??!?!