Planetarion Forums - ATTN: JonnyBGood

pablissimo · 28 Jan 2004, 02:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

even the life of its prisoners, giving them traditional foods and tools they need to pray with..

I heard about this 'Camp Xray' thing once and...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

just because your media decides to show everything negative from the ware doesnt mean thats all thates happenind.

This statement defies belief.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

The United States has given plunty of respect for life, even the life of its prisoners, giving them traditional foods and tools they need to pray with..

Mmm camp x-ray

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

I didnt say i was keen in history, but namely the Roman area. Additionaly im sure that without planning or what you menchion, it would fail, like when russia tried it.. but i think this will turn of different, just because we have a plan, and patence, and respect.

You have a plan? Like the plan in Afghanistan?

Oh, and don't try to argue classics with Leshy. We can get Proteus too if we need more support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

just because your media decides to show everything negative from the ware doesnt mean thats all thates happenind.

We do have minds of our own, you know.

Deepflow · 28 Jan 2004, 02:42

btw... arent the US the ones who are most behind on their payment of UN fees?

i saw it in a video once !

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

WIthout US funding, i seriously doubt the UN would continue to function at a fraction of the level it does not, if all all Leshy...

If any similar population mass cut out funding, then the UN would be pretty screwed.

I buy products from Overclockers, but it doesn't mean I own the company, btw.

Leshy · 28 Jan 2004, 02:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That's the worst mangling of my nick I've EVER seen.

Don't be silly, Bob.

G_frog · 28 Jan 2004, 02:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

i didnt shift my argument, i never said that i believed WMDs or Terrorist ties justified war..

The middle east is mest up for a couple of tyrants rulling. They cause the people of the area to be poor.

A. Because its not a free-market state
B. Beacuse the tyrant takes ALL THe welth
C. Beacuse Tyrants are respected/arent able to get the aid they need to support there nations
D. Beacuse tryrants cant control everyone effectivly in the current age.

Because of all this, because of the poverrty, the citiznes become mad, and here we are, with all the mess.

That's not true, Iraq was becoming quite prosperous under Hussein. He just happened to be an utter bastard who should never have been allowed anywhere near political power.

I think B and D contradict.

Actually, aid contributions to despotic regimes are frequent and large, they just tend to be ineffective. This is due to them being syphoned off by corrupt bureaucracies - tyrannies tend to foster these, see Zimbabwe -, which does not neccesarily occur at the highest level.

Free market policies in themselves do not generate wealth. They provide an environment in which certain other factors can generate it. Poverty in the middle east also stems from the absence of industry and social institutions (such as education) needed for wealth creation. China's growth can be traced to a combination of expanding free markets and industries/institutions put in place by their monstrous regime.

Tyrants have never effectively controlled everyone with great stability, but if anything expanding technologies have made it easier (see: the 20th century).

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:45

i dont think we would have a problem in continueing (although it would cuase pandimonum) if russian, france or germany left the UN.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leshy

Don't be silly, Bob.

the R stands for Robert, so you're humourously wrong

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:48

Quote:

Actually, aid contributions to despotic regimes are frequent and large, they just tend to be ineffective. This is due to them being syphoned off by corrupt bureaucracies - tyrannies tend to foster these, see Zimbabwe -, which does not neccesarily occur at the highest level.

i conceed that. i think thats what i was thinking aswell..

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:49

tho i dont see how b/d contradict. O.o

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

i dont think we would have a problem in continueing (although it would cuase pandimonum) if russian, france or germany left the UN.

What if France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Holland, Italy, Poland, Portugal and a couple of others left?

Leshy · 28 Jan 2004, 02:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

just because your media decides to show everything negative from the ware doesnt mean thats all thates happenind.

Just because your media decides to show everything positive about the war doesn't mean that's all that's happening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

WIthout US funding, i seriously doubt the UN would continue to function at a fraction of the level it does not, if all all Leshy...

Same goes for the funding of the other countries. The UN is a cooperation, we need the US for it to function, and the US needs us for it to function.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

the R stands for Robert, so you're humourously wrong

Deepflow · 28 Jan 2004, 02:50

you know stupid authoritatian views are no excuse for bad Spelling Punctuation and Grammar.
you lose marks for that yknow.

anyway. again... no new actual points worth addressing.

G_frog · 28 Jan 2004, 02:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deepflow

btw... arent the US the ones who are most behind on their payment of UN fees?

i saw it in a video once !

$1.5bn if memory serves (you'll note those funding links I gave said 'excluding arrears') but i couldn't source that properly so I don't try to assert it. Only believe me if you think my memory is reliable. In any case it's irrelevant to the issue.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:50

the reason there are no sysemts such as education is because tyrants have no interest in making them, not because htye dont have enoght money, but they would rather keep if for themselves.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:52

your going to **** with me becuase im makeing typos typein 70 wpp so that i can read the next bit of crap you post up here and explain why your wronge again. that really is sad.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

your going to **** with me becuase im makeing typos typein 70 wpp so that i can read the next bit of crap you post up here and explain why your wronge again. that really is sad.

I think people would be happier if you made your posts more accurate.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:54

And JrL, a guess you werent smart enought to come with arguments by yourself, but rather had to get a whole bunch of your liberal junky freinds to gether.. that is sad.

pablissimo · 28 Jan 2004, 02:54

Or at least did explain why we're 'all wrong' as opposed to just ignoring everything that's being said in the discussion and hoping it goes away by typing his views some more.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:55

explain why my posts arent accurent. Your oppinions are not facts.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 02:55

i have explained why you are all wrong..

Deepflow · 28 Jan 2004, 02:55

why do you keep changing the point?

are you trying to get us to argue that saddam hussein wasnt a bad man now?

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

And JrL, a guess you werent smart enought to come with arguments by yourself, but rather had to get a whole bunch of your liberal junky freinds to gether.. that is sad.

I wish Rory Bremner was a friend of mine

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 02:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

explain why my posts arent accurent. Your oppinions are not facts.

What do you think been's going on? A tea party for paraplegic mice?

G_frog · 28 Jan 2004, 02:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

the reason there are no sysemts such as education is because tyrants have no interest in making them, not because htye dont have enoght money, but they would rather keep if for themselves.

I referenced china in my post, look at them. in the long run education (in some areas at least) will increase the despot's power by strengthening their nation. prestige is an issue. A strong education system can also be used to control. Even Iran has universities of merit, despite the clerics' efforts.

consider also that the middle east does not have the tradition of educational institutions found in europe and imported by the US. (yes, the arabs led the world in scholarship once, but that's a while past.)

G_frog · 28 Jan 2004, 03:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

And JrL, a guess you werent smart enought to come with arguments by yourself, but rather had to get a whole bunch of your liberal junky freinds to gether.. that is sad.

We all happen to be online at the same time. we know each other. I assure you we all independently came to the conclusion you are very badly wrong in fact or interpretation in every matter.

Leshy · 28 Jan 2004, 03:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

your going to **** with me becuase im makeing typos typein 70 wpp so that i can read the next bit of crap you post up here and explain why your wronge again. that really is sad.

Read the PM's I've sent you over the past week. They detail exactly how and what. I'd almost hate to sing the "I told you so" song. Almost.

As for your claims on how everyone but you is wrong, it's fairly amusing to see you accuse the people on this forum exactly of what you are doing yourself. You haven't given any factual statements that haven't been refuted, the only thing which you have done is spout American nationalist propaganda crap (I'm sorry you're not capable enough to see through it) and claimed that you are right. Saying it often doesn't make it true.

P.S. Other than Revival, your Round 11 names suck. Beyond belief.

pablissimo · 28 Jan 2004, 03:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leshy

P.S. Other than Revival, your Round 11 names suck. Beyond belief.

I might have just ejaculated because that was so damned hot.

G_frog · 28 Jan 2004, 03:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Id say that the United states has plunty of pateince. We only acted after giving Saddam the option of getting the F out and after finding that France wouldnt support any resolution at all. The united states will also stay the course.. and so im sure it will be a success. but i think this will turn of different, just because we have a plan, and patence, and respect.

just because your media decides to show everything negative from the ware doesnt mean thats all thates happenind.

You will stay the course, but you will set that course. hence the sudden bringing forward of (hardly democratic) elections in Iraq. Hence the reduction of forces at a time when the civil situation is deteriorating.

There are reasons to believe that the news agenda of your media sources was more skewed than that of the sources we have referred to. (see: embedded camera crews; jessica lynch affair)

G_frog · 28 Jan 2004, 03:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leshy

You haven't given any factual statements that haven't been refuted,

that's slightly unfair, he's correct to say that the removal of hussein per se was a good thing. Can't back anything else about this sorry business, though.

1-X · 28 Jan 2004, 03:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

What do you think been's going on? A tea party for paraplegic mice?

I'd assume paraplegic mice do not survive past infancy. If they did I'm sure they'd prefer a cheese party. Something to consider for your next rodent-related social event.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 03:07

My argument, and why you are wrong.

First you all keep saying that it is against UN sanctions to attack another nation. That is wrong. No where in the UN does it say that. So your entire premis is wrong.

SO justifictaion for going to war.

I never said that WMD or Terrorist Ties was justification, although there have been some instances of both, but rather they were said justifications, with the real reason to get rid of an evil dicator who abuses his people. Saddam was a Cruel man. Cruel men should not be rulers. Because Saddam was a cruel man and a ruler, he should have been removed. Instant justification. If you think Iraq was better with Saddam, then you think Saddam was a good ruler (why else would you support keeping a killer in rule?) and thus a good person, which obviously he isnt

The reason i cant explain why you are wrong, is because you havnt explained why you were RIGHT other than it was illegal to do so, which it clearly wasnt.

THe whole poin about THE US funding was pointless, but on both sids, do to the fact that the UN cannot indight the US because they didnt break the LAW.

The middle east is a disaster beause of the dictators that have ruled. The underlying reasons: poverty, illeteracy, mal-nutrition, are all symptoms. Symptoms of a bad ruler, These systoms combine to form a cause of an angry society, ripe for problems.

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 03:08

It's rare we see revisionism, strawman and the like in the same post.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 03:09

The elections were not all of a sudden, they had been planned for quite some tiem, (under a year) and we are actually putting more troops into iraq.. Like 10k.. small but still more..

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 03:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1-X

I'd assume paraplegic mice do not survive past infancy. If they did I'm sure they'd prefer a cheese party. Something to consider for your next rodent-related social event.

Obviously you don't move in the same social circles of paraplegic mice.

Leshy · 28 Jan 2004, 03:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by G_frog

that's slightly unfair, he's correct to say that the removal of hussein per se was a good thing.

True. But then that's one that only Mr. Al-Sahhaf would dare to refute.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 03:11

strawman? I dont think so..and i havnt changed my visson

Deepflow · 28 Jan 2004, 03:13

we were right because its NOT a good thing to attack random countries for your own personal gain. Yes, probably, the people in iraq and afghanistan will live better than they did under saddam. But it will take a while.

in the meantime, you are destabilising the whole world with your foreign policy. Not since the UN was created has there been such a rift between europe and america. Not just by the politicians, but in the mind of the man on the street. Also, you are perpetuating the control and hegemony of corporations over the world, this is also clearly not a good thing. As i have already explained. I have also explained why the corporations are becoming more powerful.

+the disturbing lack of separation between church and state in your country and the continuing shortening of that separation are another reason for the rest of the world to not want the US to have more power.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 03:17

i think perhaps in the short term we may be destablizing regions... but in the long run its going to stabliz a vast region, namely the middle east, and it will take time, but we will stay the course. So, to problem there...

the United States didnt gain from attacking Iraq, it but us into debt out of this world and we have lost 513 american soldeirs...

If your talking about oil.. i dont think so either because it cost so much for the security.. and not all of the contracts are going to the united stats, infact, some of it gets pumed directly into other nations..

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 03:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deepflow

we were right because its NOT a good thing to attack random countries for your own personal gain. Yes, probably, the people in iraq and afghanistan will live better than they did under saddam. But it will take a while.

Not at the moment, they don't. In Afghanistan especially, the US has no controll outside Kabul.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 03:18

And you would know that how MrL

pablissimo · 28 Jan 2004, 03:19

'A lot' of the contracts are going to the US, with others going to 'participating nations' as a 'reward'.

Way to start a free-market state is that.

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 03:19

and MrL he did say WILL.. which is important, as in pointing to the futer

Qdeathstar · 28 Jan 2004, 03:20

why should we give the contracts to a bunch of french/canadian lamers...

MrL_JaKiri · 28 Jan 2004, 03:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

And you would know that how MrL

Reports from inside the country, especially from the beeb.

Deepflow · 28 Jan 2004, 03:22

that was the point of the "it will take a while" mark.

in the long run you will gain from iraq though. The contracts will be worth far more. And your control of the region, economically and to a lesser extent politically. (SOME of the oil gos to other places, but the majoraty of the contracts going to US global companies can't be refuted).

also... what the hell do 513 soldiers matter? in real terms?

Leshy · 28 Jan 2004, 03:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

i think perhaps in the short term we may be destablizing regions... but in the long run its going to stabliz a vast region, namely the middle east, and it will take time, but we will stay the course. So, to problem there...

Yes, you've already had so much success in stabilizing Israel over the course of the last century.