PDA

View Full Version : Why the US attacked Iraq



Tim
04-05-2004, 06:18 PM
I found this on another website.:D


"Why We Attacked Iraq"
Father and Son talk

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction honey.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass
destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find
something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a
war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with
them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons,
so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had
all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons
our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons.
We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was
a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his
country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor,
where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S.
corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain,
it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who
criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is
Communist.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent
to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand,
is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws
that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba
until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started
doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein
came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate
leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by
force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our
friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly
overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate
leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us
invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians,
hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over
3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of
the Taliban.

Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's
heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's
heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back
in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job
fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium
poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would
have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing
flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for
other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's
hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for
stealing bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that
oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public,
with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet
fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes
and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal
oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and
fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our
friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from
Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad
man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan
talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or
thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call
them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets, I mean, the Russians, are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after
they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our
invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and
the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries
and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we
want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our
friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the
other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our
friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an
enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit
by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.

Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America.
Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless
un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what
to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George
W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes,
make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Response: Good night, Daddy.

irpker
04-05-2004, 06:23 PM
That story forgets to mention how lobbing SCUDS, and other potential aggressions against Israel, could start WW3.

Saddam had to go. The administration didn't make the right point, which was the potential threat Hussein was if he acquired, and/or never surrendered WMD, to nations beyond his surrounding borders.

Dorian
04-05-2004, 06:34 PM
ah but we fail to mention this... there is a good possibiltiy that the weapons were moved to another place or country, there was plenty of time for this to occur. But alas , the liberals will not understand this. All they see is a chance to bash a man who had the balls to stand up to the enemies and say we will no longer cower before you. Here is man who said piss on you United nations, He had the balls to stand up for what we beleive in.Given the circumstances the united nations would still be playing with themselves over all this. The U.N. Is **** and needs to be dissolved! Bush did what was expected of him and told the world DO NOT FUKK WITH THE U.S. !!!!! Once we pussy for one country we may as well give it up, but of course the liberals see things differently...

supergarr
04-05-2004, 06:45 PM
i consider the whole war in iraq, just "unfinished business". But i agree that he misled the people on the intentions of going through war. I would have felt much better if the they flat out said "this nasty SOB has to go for the integrity of the mid east". Now we just have to go after the rest of them in the mid east. Oh yeah, china is special :)

GoldWrestler
04-05-2004, 06:51 PM
Heres something funny, I wanted to kick Saddam's ass in the 90's but just now we decided to go in and do the job whe'll clinton said himself he had WMDs.

Sean P
04-05-2004, 06:53 PM
We went to war because Iraq was in violation of UN sanctions. Even Pres. Clinton said Saddam had to be removed in 1998. There is no doubt that he possessed the WMD, he used them on his own people and on the Iranians. So where did they go? Possibly Syria or even Saudi Arabia. If he destroyed them like he claims then where is the evidence, did he simply forget the location. I believe we did what we had to do.

GoldWrestler
04-05-2004, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Sean P
We went to war because Iraq was in violation of UN sanctions. Even Pres. Clinton said Saddam had to be removed in 1998. There is no doubt that he possessed the WMD, he used them on his own people and on the Iranians. So where did they go? Possibly Syria or even Saudi Arabia. If he destroyed them like he claims then where is the evidence, did he simply forget the location. I believe we did what we had to do.

So where are the mass graves in Yugoslavia?

Who cares what the UN thinks, It's just a waste of New York Real Estate.

LordNeon
04-05-2004, 10:14 PM
Ah, yes ... he moved the WMDs to Iran, he moved the WMDs to Syria, he hid them under his bed, there is NO DOUBT he possessed them, he's GOT TO HAVE THEM SOMEWHERE, blah blah blah ...

NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OF IT. None. Zilch. SHOW THE PROOF.

The war was sold on lies.

Time to finally admit it.

BuckWyld
04-06-2004, 07:11 AM
funny stuff :-D

Kane Fan
04-06-2004, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Ah, yes ... he moved the WMDs to Iran, he moved the WMDs to Syria, he hid them under his bed, there is NO DOUBT he possessed them, he's GOT TO HAVE THEM SOMEWHERE, blah blah blah ...

NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OF IT. None. Zilch. SHOW THE PROOF.

The war was sold on lies.

Time to finally admit it.

open your mind
learn some facts
you'll look less ignorant that way
Hanz Blix (sp?) himself said Iraq was in VIOLATION of UN weapons santions
he didn't say he found WMD but he said Saddam's military was in violation, do you really think they'd violate some sanctions and not others ifthe opportunity presented itslef?

also I'd like you to stop outright lieing about Bush saying we went in cus they HAD WMD
he said intell indicated they had them and that they had made efforts to attain them in the past (tried to buy some off of North Korea who stiffed them) so please stop with the bull**** cus I only like to deal in reality

bgzee
04-06-2004, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Kane Fan
stop with the bull**** cus I only like to deal in reality

Here's some reality for you:

No WMD's found
Iraq != 9/11

Colon powell came out recently saying the intellegence he used and the pictures he showed of "active" facilities were flawed. In one instance, a facility he claimed was being used to create biological weapons was in fact used for filling weather balloons with some sort of gas.

This entire war was sold on "flawed" intellegence. Please tell me, why is it that the CIA has never failed this miserably before?

How about this: We have custody of Saddam Hussein. If he had any worthwhile information, we would have extracted it by now. Who knows what methods we use, but be rest assured its the best in the world, and still not even a nugget of good information from the man himself?

Thats reality for you.

irpker
04-06-2004, 01:35 PM
Saddam Hussein is reserving his right to say just his nation and name (arg, I forgot the two bits of information pow's are required to give) under the Geneva Convention, which lists him as a POW. He doesn't have to spill the beans because he will be brought to trial.

Coliones
04-06-2004, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Dorian
... to bash a man who had the balls to stand up to the enemies and say we will no longer cower before you. Here is man who said piss on you United nations, He had the balls to stand up for what we beleive in.Given the circumstances the united nations would still be playing with themselves over all this. The U.N. Is **** and needs to be dissolved! Bush did what was expected of him and told the world DO NOT FUKK WITH THE U.S. !!!!! Once we pussy for one country we may as well give it up, but of course the liberals see things differently...

Ok now I have to argue with ya a bit on this one Dorian.

Are we also the enemies of Shrub? He is in the process of removing our rights in the name of national security. He is polluting our air, and wants to allow companies into prestine wildlife areas, to line his pockets with his worthless greenbacks. He does what he feels is right for himself not for the good of the country. He bowed out of the Kioto Agreement saying you cannot prove we are responsible for global warming (as he wipes his ass on the report). He has single handedly increased the deficit to where people are now wondering when not if the system will collapse. This is a president who will not disclose to the people what the reason really is for going to war, we already know WMD was a ploy. This is a president who in 3+ years has destroyed 20+ years of treaties and weapons bans. This is a president who has reimplemented an arms race and wants to start testing WMD of his own. This is a president who forces his morals on us and bans substances because he thinks they shouldn't be used. Oh yeah and this is a president who said "This is not going to be another Viet Nam" ... and on and on ...

We leave him in power long enough Hitler II will surface soon.

LethalOnGuitarZ
04-06-2004, 02:32 PM
Here's the REAL reason why America invaded Iraq, for the Oil. The greedy Bush Administration (hesitated to stop myself swearing there) wants control of the world's Oil as supplies continue to run dry. America runs on oil, so does the whole world infact. But America is the country with the only force capable of pushing countries around to get whatever they want, which in this case is Oil.

You can expect American to invade other oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran etc within the next 5 years. Bush will continue to claim these wars are wars of terror to protect American people, to deter people from the real reasons of invasion, Oil.

(No offence intended at any Americans, just the Bush Administration)

Starsky
04-06-2004, 03:11 PM
1)Here's the hypocrisy: Dick Clarke, who claimed that there was intelligence about a big-time threat from Information terrorists and Y2K, also claims there will be a threat from Al-Qaeda. In his own words, he was ignored. Liberals are incensed by the Bush administrations lack of taking action or seriously reviewing this intelligence. They start a big commission.


2)Then, we recieve consistent, more reliable intelligence, that a Middle Eastern Dictator who's country is crisscrossed with terrorists has large amounts of Chemical and Biological weapons. The President takes action. Liberals are incensed by the Bush administrations taking action and seriously reviewing this intelligence. They start a big commission.


The moral is: Liberals are asstards when it comes to National Security(and the economy for that matter). You can talk about it, discuss it, sympathize, but it doesn't do anything to protect the American people and voters are smart enough to realize it.

LordNeon
04-06-2004, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Liberals are incensed by the Bush administrations taking action and seriously reviewing this intelligence.

"seriously reviewing" ... LOL

Starsky
04-06-2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
"seriously reviewing" ... LOL


Yeah, considering they had 10 years and all major intelligence experts, the CIA, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, George Bush, numerous liberals and conservatives believed the intelligence. The fact was Saddam had WMD, its just a matter of whether he destroyed, moved, or hid them and when, where and how we did it. To assume the goodwill of a dictator is immensely stupid(but hey Liberals have done it for decades).

LordNeon
04-06-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
To assume the goodwill of a dictator is immensely stupid(but hey Liberals have done it for decades).

LMAO ... where do you get this $hit? LIBERALS assume the goodwill of a dictator?

http://www.treasoninc.com/SaddamRumsfeld.jpg

Please, do spout off more nonsense like this. It's hilarious.

Debaser
04-06-2004, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Ah, yes ... he moved the WMDs to Iran, he moved the WMDs to Syria, he hid them under his bed, there is NO DOUBT he possessed them, he's GOT TO HAVE THEM SOMEWHERE, blah blah blah ...

NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OF IT. None. Zilch. SHOW THE PROOF.

The war was sold on lies.

Time to finally admit it.


You'd think with the heavy intelligence we have on Iraq that we'd find them moving weapons to another country. Who really knows? Maybe in the coming months they'll find some weapons. All a matter of time I guess.

Pain_is_temp
04-06-2004, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Starsky

The moral is: Liberals are asstards when it comes to National Security(and the economy for that matter). You can talk about it, discuss it, sympathize, but it doesn't do anything to protect the American people and voters are smart enough to realize it.

Well since you are an idiot concerning liberals (Democrats) being "asstards" about the economy I can only assume that you are severely misinformed and ignorant when it comes to other matters in the political arena.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/

Soarer
04-07-2004, 06:35 AM
lol that was really good

georgey bush is a dirty big fat liar, why does he say he is searching for weapons? ****loads of other countries have more powerful weapons than them arabs

geez hes got the power why doesnt he just say he wants oil

Ryo
04-07-2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
LMAO ... where do you get this $hit? LIBERALS assume the goodwill of a dictator?

http://www.treasoninc.com/SaddamRumsfeld.jpg

Please, do spout off more nonsense like this. It's hilarious.

OWNED.

dave22
04-07-2004, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
LMAO ... where do you get this $hit? LIBERALS assume the goodwill of a dictator?

http://www.treasoninc.com/SaddamRumsfeld.jpg

Please, do spout off more nonsense like this. It's hilarious.

You lefties crack me up with that picture, but you never show a picture of Jesse Jackson and Saddam, or Cassius Clay and Saddam, or Dan Rather, or Chirac. All of those guys shook hands with Saddam. Yet you never bring this up, why is that?? Even Ghandi's wife has met with Saddam and shook his hand.

BuckWyld
04-07-2004, 02:58 PM
mostly because saddam probably would not have been in power if it were not for Rumsfield and co.

dave22
04-07-2004, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
mostly because saddam probably would not have been in power if it were not for Rumsfield and co.

Maybe you should do some research before you type your bull****, we didn't put Saddam in power, and if you believe that we did, why don't you show us some proof??

Jimineye
04-07-2004, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
mostly because saddam probably would not have been in power if it were not for Rumsfield and co.


Sadam basically did a coup d'tat. And worked his way up through the ranks.

Kane Fan
04-08-2004, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
Here's some reality for you:

No WMD's found
Iraq != 9/11

Colon powell came out recently saying the intellegence he used and the pictures he showed of "active" facilities were flawed. In one instance, a facility he claimed was being used to create biological weapons was in fact used for filling weather balloons with some sort of gas.

This entire war was sold on "flawed" intellegence. Please tell me, why is it that the CIA has never failed this miserably before?

How about this: We have custody of Saddam Hussein. If he had any worthwhile information, we would have extracted it by now. Who knows what methods we use, but be rest assured its the best in the world, and still not even a nugget of good information from the man himself?

Thats reality for you.

ok, I'll agree there were no WMD found as of yet I've no problem with that cus to the best of my knowlege it's true

flawed intel however is a problem due ot the Clinton administration
but it's not just the CIA, other countries intelligence agencies and all logical thinking pointed to saddam having WMD

as to having Saddam and why isn't he telling us where they are, I'm not sure if you've ever run an entire country before...well actually I am sure that you havn't so I'll inform you, it's hard to keep track of every damned thing
I doubt any country with WMD's leader could even if he wanted to, help you find them

another point on Saddam, he's not exactly sane
he has a pathalogical need to be near running water
so if he is not near running water for any real length of time he can't give us any info even if he wants to it's all just sencless babble, but then what can you expect from someone who ordered a copy of the Quoran writen in his own freaking blood

Kane Fan
04-08-2004, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by LethalOnGuitarZ
Here's the REAL reason why America invaded Iraq, for the Oil. The greedy Bush Administration (hesitated to stop myself swearing there) wants control of the world's Oil as supplies continue to run dry. America runs on oil, so does the whole world infact. But America is the country with the only force capable of pushing countries around to get whatever they want, which in this case is Oil.

You can expect American to invade other oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran etc within the next 5 years. Bush will continue to claim these wars are wars of terror to protect American people, to deter people from the real reasons of invasion, Oil.

(No offence intended at any Americans, just the Bush Administration)

let me tell you why this makes no sence whatsoever
if America had wanted to invade someplace in South America
it would have been easier on us militarily, easier on us politically (the U.N. has proven time and again that the further the problem is from them the less interest they have, USA invading South America would get mentioned maybe kicked around for 20 - 30 minutes by the U.N. and then they'd move on to other business) and we'd have been able to get oil
so that really makes no sence at all
also, the U.S. isn't going to own all of Iraq's Oil, the Iraqi people are!
so the Oil U.S. gets from Iraq will still be BOUGHT
this argument is total bs
pure and simple
once again I will ask the left to deal with reality not conspiricy theories supported by nothing but the rantings of a certain Senator who's last name starts with a K...

Kane Fan
04-08-2004, 11:46 PM
oh and just to point out one more thing (this one really gets to Liberals) invading Iraq DID produce WMD surrendered to the U.S.
did we forget about Lybia?
he saw what we were willing (and able) to do, and he handed his **** over!
invading Iraq did produce the effect of a Dictator in the MIddle East giving up his WMD

my god if this same scenerio happend with Clinton the left would be screaming at the top of thier lungs "my god my god Clinton is amazing, he wanted to weaken one evil regime and he made two almost completly powerless! Wooooo!"
it's so sad really

fireman_x
04-09-2004, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Kane Fan
oh and just to point out one more thing (this one really gets to Liberals) invading Iraq DID produce WMD surrendered to the U.S.
did we forget about Lybia?
he saw what we were willing (and able) to do, and he handed his **** over!
invading Iraq did produce the effect of a Dictator in the MIddle East giving up his WMD

Since when the **** was Lybia(a north African country) a part of the Middle East. Learn to type in complete sentences and paragraphs before you decide to creep out of the wrestling section. Not to mention that Lybia was actually far from obtaining actual fissable nuclear material.

Starsky
04-09-2004, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by fireman_x
Since when the **** was Lybia(a north African country) a part of the Middle East. Learn to type in complete sentences and paragraphs before you decide to creep out of the wrestling section. Not to mention that Lybia was actually far from obtaining actual fissable nuclear material.


At one point Russia was "far" from having Nuclear weapons. China was "far" from having Nuclear weapons. North Korea was "far" from having Nuclear weapons. Sure its comfortable liberal dogma, but doing nothing to stop their development will not prevent them from existing. Maybe you could tell Libya, "Now you guys, don't be bad or we'll cut your appeasement payments by 10%!".

fireman_x
04-09-2004, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
At one point Russia was "far" from having Nuclear weapons. China was "far" from having Nuclear weapons. North Korea was "far" from having Nuclear weapons. Sure its comfortable liberal dogma, but doing nothing to stop their development will not prevent them from existing. Maybe you could tell Libya, "Now you guys, don't be bad or we'll cut your appeasement payments by 10%!".
We never went to war with Russia, we haven't gone to war with China yet, nothing is being done about Iran's nuclear ambitions, and Kim Jong Il is laughing at us while he has North Koreans working as slaves mining nuclear material. Iraq has shown no WMD and Iran and especially N.K. are free to do as they please. Not to mention that if Musharaff is sucessfully assassinated(it's already been tried twice), extremists will get their hands on nuclear weapons. The worst thing about the whole war is that even if the US took all of Iraq's oil for the next ten years it still would not pay for half the cost.
It also seems that a wider Muslim v. the West conflict is brewing when North African(Morroccans) militants are referring to Spain as "al-Andalus" which was the name for Spain before the end of Moors rule in 1492. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/04/08/spain.terror/index.html
It's easy for guys like you who are too old to be drafted to claim "It doesn't matter the costs of lives we must defeat all terrorists". If that is the case you will ned to have soldiers all throughout N. Africa, the Middle East and S.E. Asia, and that amount of man power would require a draft.

BigTruckGuy3500
04-09-2004, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Kane Fan
also, the U.S. isn't going to own all of Iraq's Oil, the Iraqi people are!
so the Oil U.S. gets from Iraq will still be BOUGHT


oh yea, we're going to buy their oil. But at half the going rate.

Starsky
04-09-2004, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
We never went to war with Russia, we haven't gone to war with China yet, nothing is being done about Iran's nuclear ambitions, and Kim Jong Il is laughing at us while he has North Koreans working as slaves mining nuclear material. Iraq has shown no WMD and Iran and especially N.K. are free to do as they please. Not to mention that if Musharaff is sucessfully assassinated(it's already been tried twice), extremists will get their hands on nuclear weapons. The worst thing about the whole war is that even if the US took all of Iraq's oil for the next ten years it still would not pay for half the cost.
It also seems that a wider Muslim v. the West conflict is brewing when North African(Morroccans) militants are referring to Spain as "al-Andalus" which was the name for Spain before the end of Moors rule in 1492. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/04/08/spain.terror/index.html
It's easy for guys like you who are too old to be drafted to claim "It doesn't matter the costs of lives we must defeat all terrorists". If that is the case you will ned to have soldiers all throughout N. Africa, the Middle East and S.E. Asia, and that amount of man power would require a draft.


You obviously haven't studied your history, if you think not having gone to war with someone invalidates them as a threat. You don't know how close we were to war with Russia and China. In fact, during certain periods, we were essentially at war with them. They had the ability to make al-Qaeda seem like a scratch and thats an understatement.


You offer no alternative. You simply hint that a country being "far" from having nuclear weapons invalidates them as threat. Stupid assumptions like this can lead us to the brink of nuclear war with a rogue state. Once again, you offer no alternative other than criticism. How would you deal with Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Ignore them? Let them develop weapons and be crisscrossed by terrorists? Ok, sure thing buddy.

Fender85
04-10-2004, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by fireman_x
we haven't gone to war with China yet

What about in the Korean War when the Chinese sent 500,000 troops to push our 100,000 troops out of Korea and we didn't move one damn inch?

BigTruckGuy3500
04-10-2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Fender85
What about in the Korean War when the Chinese sent 500,000 troops to push our 100,000 troops out of Korea and we didn't move one damn inch?

Maybe I'm wrong, but we had pushed deep into N. Korea before China sent their troops. After that we were pushed back to where we started. From then on both sides had their ups and downs ultimately resulting in an armistice.

fireman_x
04-12-2004, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
You obviously haven't studied your history, if you think not having gone to war with someone invalidates them as a threat. You don't know how close we were to war with Russia and China. In fact, during certain periods, we were essentially at war with them. They had the ability to make al-Qaeda seem like a scratch and thats an understatement.

You offer no alternative. You simply hint that a country being "far" from having nuclear weapons invalidates them as threat. Stupid assumptions like this can lead us to the brink of nuclear war with a rogue state. Once again, you offer no alternative other than criticism. How would you deal with Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Ignore them? Let them develop weapons and be crisscrossed by terrorists? Ok, sure thing buddy.
Stupid assumptions huh? :rolleyes: I'm not going to respond with a flame post like you were hoping.

Russia and the US had M.A.D.(I'm sure you know what that means) so claims of being on the brink of war with the U.S.S.R. were over stated. I know we fought the Chinese in the Korean war and that China supplied the Viet Cong with weapons.
I never said "not having gone to war with someone invalidates them as a threat" but every country that seem to be a threat to US "interests" does not need to be leveled.

What has Bush done about N.K., absolutely nothing! Do you have an explanation for that, I doubt it. Pakistani's already gave terrorists as well as Iran nuclear information but you overlook that fact. What should be done is that Kim Jong Il should recieve a few Tomahawks with his breakfast in one of his buildings that he frequents. He's not like Saddam running from place to place every night and if he was killed there would be few people seeking revenge unlike the situation in Iraq with the Sunnis.

Iran is a mess but if we were to try any action it would onlt end up in disaster. the problem with urban conflict is that civilians get killed in scores, which is something that the US military tries to avoid. The best situation for Iran would be to bomb their nuclear reactors as soon as they tried to build them(like Israel did to Iraq in '81).

Indonesia(and S.E. Asia to an extent) is also going to be a future problem for the US, but there is no clear cut way to stop radical fundamentalists.

What are your suggestions for dealing with these situations.

dave22
04-12-2004, 03:08 PM
^ What is Bush doing about N. Korea?? Alot more than Clinton did. Bush has stopped giving aid to N. Korea, the same aid that feeds the N. Korean's Army, and Govt. Administration.

He's not going to be a dumbass like Madeleine Albright, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton and actually trust Kim Jung to keep his word.

fireman_x
04-12-2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by dave22
^ What is Bush doing about N. Korea?? Alot more than Clinton did. Bush has stopped giving aid to N. Korea, the same aid that feeds the N. Korean's Army, and Govt. Administration.

He's not going to be a dumbass like Madeleine Albright, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton and actually trust Kim Jung to keep his word.
Bush has done nothing. I don't understand your hatred for Clinton which can not be substantiated by Bush's current actions.
The NK army is fine, its the common people that are starving. If journalist were allowed into NK you would see the horrors of the slave camps that are estimated to contain over 200K people. http://www.freenorthkorea.net

BTW I hate the fact that Albright and Clinton did nothing about the Rwandan genocide.

dave22
04-12-2004, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
Bush has done nothing. I don't understand your hatred for Clinton which can not be substantiated by Bush's current actions.
The NK army is fine, its the common people that are starving. If journalist were allowed into NK you would see the horrors of the slave camps that are estimated to contain over 200K people. http://www.freenorthkorea.net

BTW I hate the fact that Albright and Clinton did nothing about the Rwandan genocide.

What do you WANT us to do?? Why should it fall on the US's shoulders?? What is the UN doing about N. Korea?? Oh I'm sorry they're to busy blasting Israel over stupid ****. You want a war with N. Korea, a war that would result in thousands of US troops losing their lives, and possible attacks on Japan, S. Korea, and California?? We stopped giving N. Korea aid, and now the only ally that have is China.

Reborn79
04-12-2004, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by dave22
What do you WANT us to do?? Why should it fall on the US's shoulders?? What is the UN doing about N. Korea?? Oh I'm sorry they're to busy blasting Israel over stupid ****. You want a war with N. Korea, a war that would result in thousands of US troops losing their lives, and possible attacks on Japan, S. Korea, and California?? We stopped giving N. Korea aid, and now the only ally that have is China.

Well, we 'liberated' the people of Iraq...let's now liberate NK too! I mean, that's why we went into Iraq, right? To free the people from an oppressive regime similar to North Korea's?

dave22
04-12-2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
Well, we 'liberated' the people of Iraq...let's now liberate NK too! I mean, that's why we went into Iraq, right? To free the people from an oppressive regime similar to North Korea's?

Just like the rest of the world that supported us when it came to the war on Iraq, "rolls eyes," what makes you think that they would support us on a war with N. Korea?? What makes you think that the American public would support a war with N. Korea??

Personally I think we should withdraw our troops from S. Korea, and let the dog eaters fight it out amonst themselves.

Reborn79
04-12-2004, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Just like the rest of the world that supported us when it came to the war on Iraq, "rolls eyes," what makes you think that they would support us on a war with N. Korea?? What makes you think that the American public would support a war with N. Korea??

Personally I think we should withdraw our troops from S. Korea, and let the dog eaters fight it out amonst themselves.

For one thing, they friggen admitted they have a WMD development program, whereas there was no such admission from Iraq (much less PROOF). So if we are going to invade countries based on 'imminent threat', we should have invaded North Korea, not Iraq.

It is the ultimate hypocrisy to turn our back on North Korea when they FREELY admit they have WMD programs and attack Iraq in 'self-defense' using sketchy evidence at best.

I honestly do not understand how anyone could defend these actions.

fireman_x
04-12-2004, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by dave22
What do you WANT us to do?? Why should it fall on the US's shoulders?? What is the UN doing about N. Korea?? Oh I'm sorry they're to busy blasting Israel over stupid ****.

What should be done? Did you even read my previous post?

Originally posted by fireman_x

What should be done is that Kim Jong Il should recieve a few Tomahawks with his breakfast in one of his buildings that he frequents. He's not like Saddam running from place to place every night and if he was killed there would be few people seeking revenge unlike the situation in Iraq with the Sunnis.

GPS guided bombs should be able to eliminate him and their reactors/refineries simutaniously eleminating the threat.



You want a war with N. Korea, a war that would result in thousands of US troops losing their lives, and possible attacks on Japan, S. Korea, and California?? Fist off I don't want a war, Kim Jong Il does. We're already losing soldiers at almost a rate of 2 a day. So you know the estimated range of NK's missiles and you think that we should just sit by idly? WTF!?! If we ignore NK you think that they won't attack. Like I said the army is well fed and civilians are dying daily from starvation.



We stopped giving N. Korea aid, and now the only ally that have is China.
You don't seem to understand that it is the world against Kim and his army civilians do not support him. All that's happening is that the little food that is produced in NK goes to soldiers first and civilians second(if at all).

fireman_x
04-12-2004, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Just like the rest of the world that supported us when it came to the war on Iraq, "rolls eyes," what makes you think that they would support us on a war with N. Korea?? What makes you think that the American public would support a war with N. Korea??
Unlike Iraq NK is actually a threat and is no afraid to say so. The American public would not like to see the entire West Coast or even Hawaii alone to become radioactive wastelands. You think that if Japan or S. Korea are attacked that wouldn't spell catastrophy for the US economy? Know your history, when the oil embargo was placed on Japan, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor which brought about the start of WW2. You should at least realize that if nothing occurs and Kim's army begins to run low on food they will do something drastic.
You probably still support the Iraq war under the false pretences, even Powell has stepped back from his assertions he made to the UN. Keep crossing you fingers hoping they'll find WMD. :rolleyes:



Personally I think we should withdraw our troops from S. Korea, and let the dog eaters fight it out amonst themselves.
Dog eaters? :rolleyes: That's borderline racist. For your information the people that do eat dog meat are usually found in poor provences of China, and in North Korea, they will eat anything to stay alive.

Starsky
04-12-2004, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
Well, we 'liberated' the people of Iraq...let's now liberate NK too! I mean, that's why we went into Iraq, right? To free the people from an oppressive regime similar to North Korea's?


We can all agree that North Korea is a greater threat than Saddam Hussein *by far*. But the time for invasion passed when Kim Jong Il acquired Nuclear weapons. If China withdrew its support of North Korea, NK would last less then 12 months before collapse. A war in NK would likely cause millions of deaths, not thousands.


Also, the reason we went to Iraq was not "liberation". That was a benefit to the Iraqi people. The reason was to cause regime change, ending Saddams ability to make WMD. If we are successful in Iraq(we must be, there is no alternative) it will undermine and possibly topple the Syrian, Iranian, and Arabian Islamist regimes. This is one of, if not the main reason. Thats whats at stake here. By pacifying Iraq we are *hurting* the regimes that supply terrorism. Iran is the worlds foremost supporter of Islamic murder. The cause is honorable, and the troops have not died in vain. The war was not for Oilperialism or whatever its called by the Left. The experts on the Middle East have a consensus of this, even though it may disagree with political rhetoric of Terrorists/anti-war activists around the world.


Is that a good answer?

lucubration
04-12-2004, 10:12 PM
I justed wanted to say what a good find that Tim posted :D

LordNeon
04-12-2004, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
The reason was to cause regime change, ending Saddams ability to make WMD.

Oh, is that what it is today?

Starsky
04-12-2004, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Oh, is that what it is today?


and every day. Your point?

LordNeon
04-12-2004, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
and every day. Your point?

Oh, really .... and whatever happened to the 500 tons of sarin? Whatever happened to deals to get uranium? Now all we hear about is intent to maybe kinda sort start considering the possibility of considering building a hypothetical WMD program.

No one is fooled.

Starsky
04-12-2004, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Oh, really .... and whatever happened to the 500 tons of sarin? Whatever happened to deals to get uranium? Now all we hear about is intent to maybe kinda sort start considering the possibility of considering building a hypothetical WMD program.

No one is fooled.


Your right, after 91' Saddam didn't have the ability to make WMD. All the scientists died, the precursors vanished, and he submitted 100% cooperation to extremely effective inspections. In fact, after 91' WMD didn't even exist. Our intelligence service is a bunch of dumbasses, they are an abject failure. YOU should be the one leading it, because you know better. They are all fools.

LordNeon
04-12-2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Your right, after 91' Saddam didn't have the ability to make WMD. All the scientists died, the precursors vanished, and he submitted 100% cooperation to extremely effective inspections. In fact, after 91' WMD didn't even exist.

The contrary position would be more believable were there any actual evidence to support it at this time. Particularly in light of the massive amount of effort consumed so far at actually finding ANY such evidence.

fireman_x
04-12-2004, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
We can all agree that North Korea is a greater threat than Saddam Hussein *by far*. But the time for invasion passed when Kim Jong Il acquired Nuclear weapons. If China withdrew its support of North Korea, NK would last less then 12 months before collapse. A war in NK would likely cause millions of deaths, not thousands.
North Korea will start to collapse and crazy Kim will decide that he has nothing to lose and will send missiles to Seoul, Tokyo, and possibly Hawaii or somewhere along the West Coast. Do you actually think that Kim would just collapse and that would be the end of it? He would definetly go down fighting.



If we are successful in Iraq(we must be, there is no alternative) it will undermine and possibly topple the Syrian, Iranian, and Arabian Islamist regimes.
Someone on this forum said a while back that "since Saddam has been caught attacks on our troops will subside" that was obviously wrong and so is this assumption.



Is that a good answer?
Absolutely not.

Starsky
04-12-2004, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
North Korea will start to collapse and crazy Kim will decide that he has nothing to lose and will send missiles to Seoul, Tokyo, and possibly Hawaii or somewhere along the West Coast. Do you actually think that Kim would just collapse and that would be the end of it? He would definetly go down fighting.

[B]
Someone on this forum said a while back that "since Saddam has been caught attacks on our troops will subside" that was obviously wrong and so is this assumption.

[B]
Absolutely not.


Lol, really. It seemed pretty good. Guess a free, successful Iraq wouldn't undermine the Syrian, Iranian, and Arabian regimes then? Quick, give a good answer:)

fireman_x
04-12-2004, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Lol, really. It seemed pretty good. Guess a free, successful Iraq wouldn't undermine the Syrian, Iranian, and Arabian regimes then? Quick, give a good answer:)
It will never happen. Former military in Iraq, al-Qaida in Iraq(don't forget terrorist are constantly recruiting new members), Iranians in Iraq, radical religious clerics in Iraq, Syrians in Iraq, Jordanians in Iraq, Lebanese in Iraq, Saudi dissidents in Iraq, Kurds wanting to form Kurdistan(which would have happened naturally if the British had not carved up the Arabian peninsula) and angry Iraqi's will make sure that does not happen.

dave22
04-12-2004, 11:31 PM
Calling a Korean a dog-eater is racist?? That would come from a PC liberal. If you ask a Korean if they eat dog, they would admit to eating dog. Millions of dogs are raised just to be eaten in countries like N. Korea, S. Korea, and Vietnam.

As for Iraq, the sad truth is that maybe Saddam should have been left in charge, he's the only one that knows how to run these animals, because apparently they wouldn't know what to do with democracy.

Same with Africa, was S. Africa better off in the 70's and early 80's?? Or is it better off now?? Here's a hint, who was in charge of S. Africa during the 70's and early 80's??

fireman_x
04-12-2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Calling a Korean a dog-eater is racist?? That would come from a PC liberal. If you ask a Korean if they eat dog, they would admit to eating dog. Millions of dogs are raised just to be eaten in countries like N. Korea, S. Korea, and Vietnam.

I have a friend who's Korean and his family never ate dog.



As for Iraq, the sad truth is that maybe Saddam should have been left in charge, he's the only one that knows how to run these animals, because apparently they wouldn't know what to do with democracy.

Same with Africa, was S. Africa better off in the 70's and early 80's?? Or is it better off now?? Here's a hint, who was in charge of S. Africa during the 70's and early 80's??

PC liberal :rolleyes: You always have to label everyone that doesn't agree with you huh? Anyways I know all about S. Africa with apartied and that has nothing to do with the topic I don't see the correlation your attempting to make. Anyways I'll assume that since you could not retort to any of my responces, you are hanging your head in solemn defeat.

dave22
04-13-2004, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by fireman_x
I have a friend who's Korean and his family [b]never ate dog.



PC liberal :rolleyes: You always have to label everyone that doesn't agree with you huh? Anyways I know all about S. Africa with apartied and that has nothing to do with the topic I don't see the correlation your attempting to make. Anyways I'll assume that since you could not retort to any of my responces, I'll assume that you are hanging your head in solemn defeat.

No, my respone is that I agree that N. Korea is a huge threat, but unless China stops supproting N. Korea, there really is nothing we can do. China is the key here, and unless she helps out, we're not going to negotiate with N. Korea. China needs to be at that table, which we've already said.

fireman_x
04-13-2004, 12:17 AM
Explain your precieved correlation between apartheid S.A. and Iraq under Saddam's rule.

dave22
04-13-2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by fireman_x
Explain your precieved correlation between apartheid S.A. and Iraq under Saddam's rule.

It's gonna sound cold-hearted, but under Saddam's Iraq, we had to scratch his back, or as we all see the alternative is chaos. We have a date to withdraw from Iraq on June 30th, and what will happen when we leave?? So many possibilities, the country might evolve into multiple civil wars, or might split into 3 countries, with the Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the middle, and the Shias in the south. Also, whatever restraints that Saddam had on these terrorists, are now gone. Saddam kept his people in line. As we are all seeing, these people are animals, look what they did when Saddam's regime fell, they looted their muesems and hospitals, so in conclusion, they need someone like Saddam to rule over them.

When Mendella took control, attacks on whites increased dramatically, and he did nothing about it. They took a poll recently, and blacks themselves said that life was better in the 80's than they are now. S. Africa has a problem with babies being raped, because somehow they got it in their heads that if they have sex with a virgin, then the sickness will pass. Now what is Mendella doing about all of these rapes that are occuring??

fireman_x
04-13-2004, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by dave22
When Mendella took control, attacks on whites increased dramatically, and he did nothing about it. They took a poll recently, and blacks themselves said that life was better in the 80's than they are now. S. Africa has a problem with babies being raped, because somehow they got it in their heads that if they have sex with a virgin, then the sickness will pass. Now what is Mendella doing about all of these rapes that are occuring??
Oh no whites were attacked. :eek: :rolleyes:
Look up the "green car" of S.A. during apartheid. The govt. would send a green car out to ramdonly shoot blacks, and thousands of black South African's were murdered like that. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/25/cp.00.html (this transcript was from a special on CNN I saw a few years ago)

MAGUBANE: This is the notorious green car.

A. ELDON: What's the green car?

MAGUBANE: A green car is a car that was occupied by two policemen who were shooting people at random.

A. ELDON: For no reason.

MAGUBANE: No reason whatsoever.

Well, this is the area that had some of the green car victims here. The bodies were lying from here. There were three bodies, there was one, two, three.

It was the norm in the '70s that, you know, when someone is dead, whether you know that person or not, if you have a newspaper (UNINTELLIGIBLE) cover that person, and you go on with your life.
Babies being raped is not South Africa's main problem, AIDS is. What they need is more education on preventing STD's as well as more affordable medication. As far a blacks saying that life was better in S.A. when life was segregated is an absolute lie.

This is an example of typical South African Afrikaner white supremacist bull****

"The radical blacks hate us because we are strong, blonde, hard-working and productive. We came to South Africa and turned it into the richest country in the world, while before we came, the locals had been here for many centuries and did nothing with the land," Coetzee explained.
And even more

Sometimes a war is the only answer to your problems. Remember, the great Boer prophet Seer van Rensburg has prophesied that the whites will again come to rule in Southern Africa.
:rolleyes: X 1,000,000 Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27892
The main location where white farmers were being killed was Zimbabwe and that was because they saw whites who had come over and taken their ariable land a few hundred years ago and they were basicly starving. Even though Mugabe said that he was redistributing land to poor black farmers he has only taken the land for his own personal use.
Of course I don't support the murdering of any innocent individuals, but when the whites control over 85% of productive farm land (in S.A. and Zimbabwe) something needs to be done.

Boer soldaat
05-23-2004, 09:59 PM
Oh no whites were attacked.

79% of violent crimes in South Africa where hate crimes, of that 79%, 87% where commited against White Famers. What would the outrage be like if close to 80% of viloent crimes was nazi skinheads breaking into black houses mudering there familys? It's a double standard, any hit of racism by a white is outragous, it's the end of there career, but amoung blacks it's perfectly fine, the only thing taboo about black racism is speaking out against it.



Look up the "green car" of S.A. during apartheid. The govt. would send a green car out to ramdonly shoot blacks, and thousands of black South African's were murdered like that

Thats got to be the stupidest **** i've ever heard, even durring the Apartheid the majorty of murders where black on black (don't forget the different tribes are just as different then a Englishman and a Korean to them) the Apartheid didn;t just seperate white and black, it seperated the seperate tribes from each other since they hated each other so much all they would do is kill each other. Why do you think the crime rate in SA skyrocket to the highest in the world less then 5 years after the end of Apartheid? because the tribes mixed together, that was one of the major reasons for it in the first place, to protect them from themselves.



Babies being raped is not South Africa's main problem, AIDS is. What they need is more education on preventing STD's as well as more affordable medication.

Babies being raped and AIDS are linked together. It's a common belife amoung the blacks that if you have AIDS and have sex with a child under 10 you will be cured, thats why there are so many underage rapes, these people think they will be cured. the ANC for the last 10 years denied there was any AIDS problem, to this date Mebeki will not requnise the link between HIV and AIDS, how can you edcuate people on it when your president won't even accept scintific facts?


As far a blacks saying that life was better in S.A. when life was segregated is an absolute lie.

Not at all, over the last 10 years the crime rate in SA has increaed 4000%, it is now the highest int he world, higher then Afganastan, Iraq, South Amercia. The value of the Rand (money) has gone down 14 fold, it whent from R1 = 3.21 USD in 1968 to R1 = .021 USD in 1997, Blacks have goten poorer, the only ones benifiting from this "rainbow nation" are rich blacks in power and freinds of Mandelas gang.


they saw whites who had come over and taken their ariable land a few hundred years ago

LOL, blacks a few hundred years ago didn't know what Ariable land was, they didn't know what farming was, we indroduced it to them.


but when the whites control over 85% of productive farm land (in S.A. and Zimbabwe) something needs to be done.

Why? so i guess in the USA when non-whites take control of too much of a certin market the goverment will step in and give it back to whites? It's just a ploy to drive the whites out, nothing more nothing less.

Jimineye
05-23-2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Boer soldaat
79% of violent crimes in South Africa where hate crimes, of that 79%, 87% where commited against White Famers. What would the outrage be like if close to 80% of viloent crimes was nazi skinheads breaking into black houses mudering there familys? It's a double standard, any hit of racism by a white is outragous, it's the end of there career, but amoung blacks it's perfectly fine, the only thing taboo about black racism is speaking out against it.




Thats got to be the stupidest **** i've ever heard, even durring the Apartheid the majorty of murders where black on black (don't forget the different tribes are just as different then a Englishman and a Korean to them) the Apartheid didn;t just seperate white and black, it seperated the seperate tribes from each other since they hated each other so much all they would do is kill each other. Why do you think the crime rate in SA skyrocket to the highest in the world less then 5 years after the end of Apartheid? because the tribes mixed together, that was one of the major reasons for it in the first place, to protect them from themselves.




Babies being raped and AIDS are linked together. It's a common belife amoung the blacks that if you have AIDS and have sex with a child under 10 you will be cured, thats why there are so many underage rapes, these people think they will be cured. the ANC for the last 10 years denied there was any AIDS problem, to this date Mebeki will not requnise the link between HIV and AIDS, how can you edcuate people on it when your president won't even accept scintific facts?



Not at all, over the last 10 years the crime rate in SA has increaed 4000%, it is now the highest int he world, higher then Afganastan, Iraq, South Amercia. The value of the Rand (money) has gone down 14 fold, it whent from R1 = 3.21 USD in 1968 to R1 = .021 USD in 1997, Blacks have goten poorer, the only ones benifiting from this "rainbow nation" are rich blacks in power and freinds of Mandelas gang.



LOL, blacks a few hundred years ago didn't know what Ariable land was, they didn't know what farming was, we indroduced it to them.



Why? so i guess in the USA when non-whites take control of too much of a certin market the goverment will step in and give it back to whites? It's just a ploy to drive the whites out, nothing more nothing less.


Amen!!

honeybbqgrundle
05-23-2004, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Boer soldaat
LOL, blacks a few hundred years ago didn't know what Ariable land was, they didn't know what farming was, we indroduced it to them.

I don't care about the rest of this argument but I have to call bull**** on that one. They either knew about it or it's completely unnecessary for their survival anyway.

Boer soldaat
05-23-2004, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by honeybbqgrundle
I don't care about the rest of this argument but I have to call bull**** on that one. They either knew about it or it's completely unnecessary for their survival anyway.

The Boers, with the acception of a few european explorers where the first ones to go that far deep in Southern Africa. All the black tribes of the area where nomadic, they wondered around, Africa is plentfully in fruits, animals and other food sources, they knew nothing of farming, farming was only introduced to sub- sahara africa by europeans.

fireman_x
05-24-2004, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Boer soldaat
79% of violent crimes in South Africa where hate crimes, of that 79%, 87% where commited against White Famers. What would the outrage be like if close to 80% of viloent crimes was nazi skinheads breaking into black houses mudering there familys? It's a double standard, any hit of racism by a white is outragous, it's the end of there career, but amoung blacks it's perfectly fine, the only thing taboo about black racism is speaking out against it.

When crimes were committed against blacks in the US, (such as lynching) even up until the early 80's in some rural areas nothing would be done to the white purpotrators. Even currently in the US, you have police officers that can kill an unarmed minority (black, hispanic or asian) and recieve no punishment.



Thats got to be the stupidest **** i've ever heard, even durring the Apartheid the majorty of murders where black on black (don't forget the different tribes are just as different then a Englishman and a Korean to them) the Apartheid didn;t just seperate white and black, it seperated the seperate tribes from each other since they hated each other so much all they would do is kill each other. Why do you think the crime rate in SA skyrocket to the highest in the world less then 5 years after the end of Apartheid? because the tribes mixed together, that was one of the major reasons for it in the first place, to protect them from themselves.

It's becasue whites left and took the capital and businesses as soon as they lost power. With a lack of capital law enforcement has been handicapped.
Also there were many acts that had nothing to due with tribes

1986 In South Africa 10 youths were drugged and then blown to pieces with explosives. In 1999 Abraham Joubert, former special forces commander, testified that he authorized a plan for the slayings submitted by provincial special forces commander Charl Naude. In 1999 3 police officers received amnesty for their roles in the killings.


1987 Jan 21, A paramilitary force killed 13 civilians in their sleep in the KwaMakutha Zulu township (KwaZulu-Natal black homeland). In 1996 former defense minister Magnus Malan and 20 others were charged with authorizing the killing. The first six defendants of the Inkatha Freedom party were acquitted by Judge Jan Hugo. Former intelligence officer Johan Opperman admitted to planning the attack.


http://www.timelines.ws/countries/SOUTHAFRICA.HTML




Babies being raped and AIDS are linked together. It's a common belife amoung the blacks that if you have AIDS and have sex with a child under 10 you will be cured, thats why there are so many underage rapes, these people think they will be cured. the ANC for the last 10 years denied there was any AIDS problem, to this date Mebeki will not requnise the link between HIV and AIDS, how can you edcuate people on it when your president won't even accept scintific facts?

That is unfortunate.



Not at all, over the last 10 years the crime rate in SA has increaed 4000%, it is now the highest int he world, higher then Afganastan, Iraq, South Amercia. The value of the Rand (money) has gone down 14 fold, it whent from R1 = 3.21 USD in 1968 to R1 = .021 USD in 1997, Blacks have goten poorer, the only ones benifiting from this "rainbow nation" are rich blacks in power and freinds of Mandelas gang.

The lack of investment, is the main reason for the currency devaluation, and their is no doubt that the ANC is corrupt, but aparthied was worse.



LOL, blacks a few hundred years ago didn't know what Ariable land was, they didn't know what farming was, we indroduced it to them.

Yeah, blacks knew nothing until they were shown by the Europeans. :rolleyes:



Why? so i guess in the USA when non-whites take control of too much of a certin market the goverment will step in and give it back to whites? It's just a ploy to drive the whites out, nothing more nothing less.
The last time I checked, whites pretty much control everything in the US, even rap music(Clear Channel) and BET(Viacom) and I think NBC already owns Telemundo(Spanish TV station). So minorities controlling markets is not happening the inverse is occuring.

fireman_x
05-24-2004, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Amen!!
I bet you say Amen a lot in *church* too. :rolleyes:


I was going to put a link in "church" but it's not worth the effort.



Originally posted byBoer soldaat
The Boers, with the acception of a few european explorers where the first ones to go that far deep in Southern Africa. All the black tribes of the area where nomadic, they wondered around, Africa is plentfully in fruits, animals and other food sources, they knew nothing of farming, farming was only introduced to sub- sahara africa by europeans.

All tribes in South Africa were nomadic? :rolleyes: That's a complete lie, also Africans did not farm in the same way that Europeans did, but many tribes did grow their own crops. The only reason that they would seem to have been nomadic, was due to the fact that they would be in constant search of fresh water whenever there was a drought.

Boer soldaat
05-24-2004, 10:07 AM
When crimes were committed against blacks in the US, (such as lynching) even up until the early 80's in some rural areas nothing would be done to the white purpotrators. Even currently in the US, you have police officers that can kill an unarmed minority (black, hispanic or asian) and recieve no punishment.

So that justifies the killing of innocent white famers in South Africa?

http://www.africancrisis.org/images/farm0015.jpg

This baby was set on fire by blacks who attacked a white farm.

http://www.africancrisis.org/images/farm0023.jpg

This schoolboy was hung in his farm, his parents brutaly murdered, his sister raped and burned to death (she was only 4)

http://www.africancrisis.org/Photos.asp

Go there and look at the thousands of Boers who have been brualy murdered by blacks, most of them never done a thing, most of them whern;'t even alive durring the majorty of the Aparthied.

They say the Aparthied was brutal, they say that they where murdered durring it, don't you think they would of learned? If you want to go down this argument how are they any better then the Whites who murdered blacks? they arn't, so if the blacks had reason to want there own country from White oppression the White have just as much right to have there own country free of Black opression


It's becasue whites left and took the capital and businesses as soon as they lost power. With a lack of capital law enforcement has been handicapped.

Whites took it? how about we owned it because we built it from the ground? blacks bitch that they don't have anything, because they didn't do anything.


Also there were many acts that had nothing to due with tribes


1987 Jan 21, A paramilitary force killed 13 civilians in their sleep in the KwaMakutha Zulu township (KwaZulu-Natal black homeland). In 1996 former defense minister Magnus Malan and 20 others were charged with authorizing the killing. The first six defendants of the Inkatha Freedom party were acquitted by Judge Jan Hugo. Former intelligence officer Johan Opperman admitted to planning the attack.

Buddy, the Inkatha Freedome Party is a Zulu (black tribe) terrorist group, they want a free Zulu nation from the Xhoa who ar ethe majorty. The Zulu and the Xhoa have been fighting for 2000 years, Black on Black violence is as common as saying hello to someone.


Yeah, blacks knew nothing until they were shown by the Europeans.

True when it came to Farming.


All tribes in South Africa were nomadic? That's a complete lie, also Africans did not farm in the same way that Europeans did, but many tribes did grow their own crops. The only reason that they would seem to have been nomadic, was due to the fact that they would be in constant search of fresh water whenever there was a drought.

All tribes where nomadic, in Southern Africa. They did not farm, they did not grow crops.

fireman_x
05-24-2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Boer soldaat
So that justifies the killing of innocent white famers in South Africa?

http://www.africancrisis.org/images/farm0015.jpg

This baby was set on fire by blacks who attacked a white farm.

http://www.africancrisis.org/images/farm0023.jpg

This schoolboy was hung in his farm, his parents brutaly murdered, his sister raped and burned to death (she was only 4)

http://www.africancrisis.org/Photos.asp

Go there and look at the thousands of Boers who have been brualy murdered by blacks, most of them never done a thing, most of them whern;'t even alive durring the majorty of the Aparthied.

They say the Aparthied was brutal, they say that they where murdered durring it, don't you think they would of learned? If you want to go down this argument how are they any better then the Whites who murdered blacks? they arn't, so if the blacks had reason to want there own country from White oppression the White have just as much right to have there own country free of Black opression


I'm not going to try and justify killing done by blacks but if you look at the full scope of things you will see that at least ten times as many blacks as whites have been killed due to colonialzation in South Africa. Apartheid was not the start of the atrocities, cololnization was.



Whites took it? how about we owned it because we built it from the ground? blacks bitch that they don't have anything, because they didn't do anything.

The whites did not give the blacks any opportunity to work for anything due to their racist policies. Whites in S.A. and the U.S. have done the exact same thing. Refuse to give blacks jobs then call them lazy when they see them not working. :rolleyes: Complete bull****.



Buddy, the Inkatha Freedome Party is a Zulu (black tribe) terrorist group, they want a free Zulu nation from the Xhoa who ar ethe majorty. The Zulu and the Xhoa have been fighting for 2000 years, Black on Black violence is as common as saying hello to someone.

The violence was propagated by a white paramilitary officer(who was later pardoned for his crimes :mad: ) which was the point of that quote, whites paying blacks to kill each other.



True when it came to Farming.
All tribes where nomadic, in Southern Africa. They did not farm, they did not grow crops.
All tribes were not nomadic, I know the S.A. government gave you white washed books that told you that blacks and whites arrived in the Southern African region at the same time but that is not true.

Boer soldaat
05-24-2004, 03:30 PM
I'm not going to try and justify killing done by blacks but if you look at the full scope of things you will see that at least ten times as many blacks as whites have been killed due to colonialzation in South Africa.

i know you got that one wrong, who have been the major victums of coloniation in South Africa? the Boers, not the blacks, there was barly a native population on South Africa from the time the first europeans got here, the British had to bring blacks from Western Africa since there were not enough in South Africa, compared to other countries South Africa was the best place for blacks to live in Africa, i don't think 10 times as many blacks have died as whties, i don't think 2 times as many have died, Look at all the wars in Southern Africa, who was doing the fighting? the Whites, Anglo-Boer war, Border wars, Keeping the peace in the townships, all the wars in Angola, Zimbabwe, South West Africa, Botswana, were all fought by whites majorly.



The whites did not give the blacks any opportunity to work for anything due to their racist policies.

White people didn't show up in Africa intill the 16th century, that leaves what, 5000 years give or take that the Africans had the place all to themselves, what did they ahve to show for it? I city, a nation, hell even a perment building? no, they had **** all, they had **** all when europeans came, and they got **** all now, the only things they got thats worth anything was built by europeans, and they even manage to **** that up. Europe, Asia, South Amercia, hell even Austraila all had modernised societys, science, religion, books, buildings, money. Africa had nothing. Don't say the Whites didn't give the blacks any opportuinty, they had 5000+ years befour whites ever got there.


All tribes were not nomadic, I know the S.A. government gave you white washed books that told you that blacks and whites arrived in the Southern African region at the same time but that is not true.

All tribes were nomadic, even the ANC textbooks will tell you that. The Boers on the Great Trek ran into the Zulu's comeing down from the North, why do you think South Africa saw so many immigrants from Europe? because there was no one else here.

fireman_x
05-24-2004, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Boer soldaat
i know you got that one wrong, who have been the major victums of coloniation in South Africa? the Boers, not the blacks, there was barly a native population on South Africa from the time the first europeans got here, the British had to bring blacks from Western Africa since there were not enough in South Africa, compared to other countries South Africa was the best place for blacks to live in Africa, i don't think 10 times as many blacks have died as whties, i don't think 2 times as many have died, Look at all the wars in Southern Africa, who was doing the fighting? the Whites, Anglo-Boer war, Border wars, Keeping the peace in the townships, all the wars in Angola, Zimbabwe, South West Africa, Botswana, were all fought by whites majorly.


The very first wars were fought between the Zulu's and the British. The British having superior technology slaughterd them for the most part. With their superior technology it is impossible to know how many Africans were killed by Europeans.




White people didn't show up in Africa intill the 16th century, that leaves what, 5000 years give or take that the Africans had the place all to themselves, what did they ahve to show for it? I city, a nation, hell even a perment building? no, they had **** all, they had **** all when europeans came, and they got **** all now, the only things they got thats worth anything was built by europeans, and they even manage to **** that up. Europe, Asia, South Amercia, hell even Austraila all had modernised societys, science, religion, books, buildings, money. Africa had nothing. Don't say the Whites didn't give the blacks any opportuinty, they had 5000+ years befour whites ever got there.


Even though math and science were developed in Africa(Egypt) you claim that they created nothing. :rolleyes: Even if that was somehow true, that does not justify the invasion of the Europeans of the African continent. You've said many times that "whites should have their own land", will they did back in Europe, but that wasn't enough and they had to colonize Africa. Now Europeans are complaining about the growing Muslim populations. When you invade another country or continent you try by all means to justify it, but when it happens to you, you vilify and denounce it.



All tribes were nomadic, even the ANC textbooks will tell you that. The Boers on the Great Trek ran into the Zulu's comeing down from the North, why do you think South Africa saw so many immigrants from Europe? because there was no one else here.

Europeans flooded the region when they found gold and especially diamonds in South Africa. It was the natural resources that they found that attracted them and nothing else.

Boer soldaat
05-24-2004, 10:58 PM
The very first wars were fought between the Zulu's and the British.

The Zulus are from the North easter part of South Africa, were the province of Transvaal and Orange free state were. The British were in the Cape, the fist ones to fight the Zulus in terms of Europeans were the Boers when the treked from the Cape up north to settle there. You need to learn some history, the British were never near the Zulu's in till the mid 1800's, over 100 years after the Zulu-Boer wars.


The British having superior technology slaughterd them for the most part

I already told you that you were wrong in terms of the British, but besides that, superior techonogy, to a degree.

Read a bit about the battle of blood river, 464 Boers under the command of Andries Pretorius defeated more than 15 to 30,000 Zulu warriors. The "Superior techonogy" for the Boers was nothing more then single shot muskets. the Superiorty of the Boers lay in our trust in God, and our vow to God. To this day we keep our side of the covent made with God that day to celebrate the day of victory evey year.


Even though math and science were developed in Africa(Egypt) you claim that they created nothing.

If you knew **** about Africa you'd know that Northern Africa and Sub-Sahara Africa are compleatly different, and consideded seperat entities in tems of history, people and advancement. secondly Egypt is Arab, not African.


You've said many times that "whites should have their own land", will they did back in Europe,

I said Boers, there's different people amoung whites, the Boers fled europe for a reason. We were not welcome in Europe, our religious belifes were thought to be evil at the time, thus the Boers came to South Africa. Europe already had people in it, South Africa didn't.


Europeans flooded the region when they found gold and especially diamonds in South Africa. It was the natural resources that they found that attracted them and nothing else.

You seem to forget we Boers settled there long befour they found Gold or Diamonds, after they were found the British invaded and immigration was tightly controled.

fireman_x
05-24-2004, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Boer soldaat
The Zulus are from the North easter part of South Africa, were the province of Transvaal and Orange free state were. The British were in the Cape, the fist ones to fight the Zulus in terms of Europeans were the Boers when the treked from the Cape up north to settle there. You need to learn some history, the British were never near the Zulu's in till the mid 1800's, over 100 years after the Zulu-Boer wars.


From what I've read the British were the first to encounter the Zulu's, but I don't see the need to argue that point any further.



I already told you that you were wrong in terms of the British, but besides that, superior techonogy, to a degree.

Read a bit about the battle of blood river, 464 Boers under the command of Andries Pretorius defeated more than 15 to 30,000 Zulu warriors. The "Superior techonogy" for the Boers was nothing more then single shot muskets. the Superiorty of the Boers lay in our trust in God, and our vow to God. To this day we keep our side of the covent made with God that day to celebrate the day of victory evey year.


Your faith laid in god? It obvious that even a musket can kill 20X more, (at least) than any hand made weapon such as a speak, arrow or axe.



If you knew **** about Africa you'd know that Northern Africa and Sub-Sahara Africa are compleatly different, and consideded seperat entities in tems of history, people and advancement. secondly Egypt is Arab, not African.


If you knew **** about Africa, you would know that the Nubians who were black lived in the area where Egypt currently is, before the rise of the Roman Empire and the built the first pyramids. After the Roman empire rose the Moors and Arabs were able to take over. The Arabs came from the Arab Peninsula, they did not live in Northern Africa thousands of years ago.



I said Boers, there's different people amoung whites, the Boers fled europe for a reason. We were not welcome in Europe, our religious belifes were thought to be evil at the time, thus the Boers came to South Africa. Europe already had people in it, South Africa didn't.

This belief that South Africa had no people in it is complete bull****. I have been reading quite a bit of information on this site. http://husky1.stmarys.ca/~wmills/course322/his322.html



You seem to forget we Boers settled there long befour they found Gold or Diamonds, after they were found the British invaded and immigration was tightly controled.
Yes but those dicoveries led to more Europeans moving to Africa.

th3 gr34t3st
05-25-2004, 12:05 AM
fireman, why do you keep bringing up the point that math was invented in africa when it was not. math was being used all over the world before people even knew what africa was. if you mean algebra, well it was invented by arabs, not africans.

The Kurgan
05-25-2004, 02:52 AM
Face it- it's hilarious.