U.S. International Terrorst
13-Aug-2003, 02:59 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In a JDM world
Posts: 3,462
U.S. International Terrorst
This is for all the people who thought that Iraq was the Int. ********* with Weopon's of Mass Destruction
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...bsection=world
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...bsection=world
13-Aug-2003, 09:39 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: With the girl that your looking at in my sig!!
Posts: 2,726
I don't get this "The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war."
Why would they be outraged? It's war. It's not suppose to be fair.
Just like when the tv reported that iraqi soldiers were masquerading (sp) as civi's and they said it wasn't "fair".
Why would they be outraged? It's war. It's not suppose to be fair.
Just like when the tv reported that iraqi soldiers were masquerading (sp) as civi's and they said it wasn't "fair".
13-Aug-2003, 10:10 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Stoney Creek, Ontario
Posts: 3,657
Originally posted by Slvr-Bullet
I don't get this "The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war."
Why would they be outraged? It's war. It's not suppose to be fair.
Just like when the tv reported that iraqi soldiers were masquerading (sp) as civi's and they said it wasn't "fair".
I don't get this "The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war."
Why would they be outraged? It's war. It's not suppose to be fair.
Just like when the tv reported that iraqi soldiers were masquerading (sp) as civi's and they said it wasn't "fair".
13-Aug-2003, 10:53 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Outta the Country.....again
Posts: 292
Why would they be outraged? Simply put, Napalm is, in essence, chemical warfare. Is this not the sort of thing that the"high and mighty" don't want anybody else to have, let alone use, war or no war scenario.
Napalm is very indiscriminate. It sticks to everything in(and around) its path and burns it. Believe me, the only reason that they would have used this it to bait "the enemy" into using whatever means they had in retaliation.
War is bad, plain and simple. Innocent people die, mostly as collateral damage, not intentionally. When methods such as these are employed, far greater needless loss of life occurs. THAT, my friends, is a form of terrorism.
Here we are 6 months later, and none of these so called weapons of mass destruction. Almost daily, there is new evidence of fabricated and bloated information to set the stage for invasion. Sure Sadam is a bad man, the type of man that should be killed, but who are we to wage war on a country(and it's people) to oust such a person in the guise of self protection.
Can anyone here tell me what threat to the USA did Sadam and his goons pose? .......................................Anyone?
None......and therefore, by international law, the US had no right to invade. Had it been a less lethal country to do such a thing, the entire free world would have been outraged, and denounced such an act as illegal, immoral, and to be ceased immediately. We would have then debated it in world court, to decide an plan of action before allowing any action to take place.
It's almost like being a kid on the sidelines when a schoolyard bully is rousting others for lunch money. Who is going to say anything? For every schoolyard bully, there are at least a couple of scrags hanging out with him that will gladly step in and help the bully kick the crap out of anybody that opposes him. Authority figure comes along and the bully claims foul, that the other party started it and he was just protecting himself. The authority figure having no proof to the contrary(thanks to same bullshit from scrags), lets everyone off with a stern warning to behave. But then again, in todays society, what can any authority figure actually do?
So what happens? The bully gets his booty, shares it with his goofball buddies, others are left with no lunch money and all the kids on the sidelines keep their mouths shut and are glad that they still have theirs. .
Welcome to the world we live in, one Superpower.....shut your mouth and toe the line.
Terrorism by anyother name, remains the same.............unless you're the one in power
Napalm is very indiscriminate. It sticks to everything in(and around) its path and burns it. Believe me, the only reason that they would have used this it to bait "the enemy" into using whatever means they had in retaliation.
War is bad, plain and simple. Innocent people die, mostly as collateral damage, not intentionally. When methods such as these are employed, far greater needless loss of life occurs. THAT, my friends, is a form of terrorism.
Here we are 6 months later, and none of these so called weapons of mass destruction. Almost daily, there is new evidence of fabricated and bloated information to set the stage for invasion. Sure Sadam is a bad man, the type of man that should be killed, but who are we to wage war on a country(and it's people) to oust such a person in the guise of self protection.
Can anyone here tell me what threat to the USA did Sadam and his goons pose? .......................................Anyone?
None......and therefore, by international law, the US had no right to invade. Had it been a less lethal country to do such a thing, the entire free world would have been outraged, and denounced such an act as illegal, immoral, and to be ceased immediately. We would have then debated it in world court, to decide an plan of action before allowing any action to take place.
It's almost like being a kid on the sidelines when a schoolyard bully is rousting others for lunch money. Who is going to say anything? For every schoolyard bully, there are at least a couple of scrags hanging out with him that will gladly step in and help the bully kick the crap out of anybody that opposes him. Authority figure comes along and the bully claims foul, that the other party started it and he was just protecting himself. The authority figure having no proof to the contrary(thanks to same bullshit from scrags), lets everyone off with a stern warning to behave. But then again, in todays society, what can any authority figure actually do?
So what happens? The bully gets his booty, shares it with his goofball buddies, others are left with no lunch money and all the kids on the sidelines keep their mouths shut and are glad that they still have theirs. .
Welcome to the world we live in, one Superpower.....shut your mouth and toe the line.
Terrorism by anyother name, remains the same.............unless you're the one in power
13-Aug-2003, 01:54 PM
#17
noooo you wouldn't... if you were the president???? I mean... Kennedy had Monroe... she was the hottest woman at the time, why couldn't Clinton get with like... bomb *** chix, why did he have to pick some ... skeezer?
13-Aug-2003, 01:58 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 250
Originally posted by bbarbulo
noooo you wouldn't... if you were the president???? I mean... Kennedy had Monroe... she was the hottest woman at the time, why couldn't Clinton get with like... bomb *** chix, why did he have to pick some ... skeezer?
noooo you wouldn't... if you were the president???? I mean... Kennedy had Monroe... she was the hottest woman at the time, why couldn't Clinton get with like... bomb *** chix, why did he have to pick some ... skeezer?
because he assumed she'd stfu and not tell the world she sucked his dick
13-Aug-2003, 02:00 PM
#19
Ya, but everyone already knew she's a ********** 
LOL so that wasn't letting out a big secret or anything. Celebs, on the other hand, they may have some sort of reputation to keep, so they'd be more likely to STFU about what goes on in the oval office 
Right?
LOL so that wasn't letting out a big secret or anything. Celebs, on the other hand, they may have some sort of reputation to keep, so they'd be more likely to STFU about what goes on in the oval office Right?
