The Shocking information on the "X-box Project"
<++--Captain Universe--++>
known.
I found out shocking info about the "Xbox Project".
At one point Microsoft wanted to buy out both Nintendo AND Sega!!!
No Joke!
Bill was trying to take over the Videogame Industry by shoving money down
their throats. The Story at Gamers.com- http://gamers.com/news/1140732- Said
that "Dollar Bill" Gates Proposed to Nintendo to Drop their GameCube project
and support the Xbox Offering them 25 BILLION DOLLARS!! Its a good thing
both Nintendo and Sega had all of their senses at the time. "Dollar Bill" is
actually trying to take over the entire Entertainment Industry if not the
entire WORLD Economy. Which is why I'm glad they went to trial for the exact
same thing(Being Monopolistic that Is).
--
<<<<<<<<<-------------------
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<----------------
You don't have a chance against my unlimited power,
so give up and go read a book.
<<<<<<<<<<<--------------------
<<<<<<<--------------------------------------------
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
> I know, you hate crossposts and its well
> beneath me but this has to be known.
>
> I found out shocking info about the "Xbox
> Project". At one point Microsoft wanted to buy
> out both Nintendo AND Sega!!! No Joke!
>
> Bill was trying to take over the Videogame
> Industry by shoving money down their
> throats. The Story at Gamers.com-
> http://gamers.com/news/1140732- Said that
> "Dollar Bill" Gates Proposed to Nintendo to
> Drop their GameCube project and support the
> Xbox Offering them 25 BILLION DOLLARS!!
> Its a good thing both Nintendo and Sega had
> all of their senses at the time.
>
Oh great, I clicked on a Ziff-Davis site... I can smell the SPAM a
cookin! lol.
Anyway, 25 Billion?! Was this dug up from the April 1st archives by
chance? That seems like a highly inflated number even for a
run-of-the-mill videogame site such as Gamers.com. I don't think people
realize how much 25 billion actually is... that's 25,000 million.
Besides that, Shepherd Bill is not stupid enough to shell out $25
billion for Nintendo to stop their GC project when he'd still have stiff
competition from Sony. There would also be nothing stopping Nintendo
from starting another console & supporting it as well as Bill's toy. Not
to mention the fact that the X-Box would have to be the only console on
the market for Bill to make a worthwhile profit... You gotta remember,
there are as many or more Sony fanboys out there as there are Nintendo
fanboys & they would support Sony no matter what. Take those Sony
fanboys & add the people that hate MS & that alone would be enough
competition for MS not to make a profit.
OTOH, if it was in fact 25 billion, then Nintendo was stupid for not
selling out. lol. But Bill didn't reach the point he's at today by
making stupid decisions, so I think that figure would be highly
improbable.
>
> "Dollar Bill" is actually trying to take over the
> entire Entertainment Industry if not the entire
> WORLD Economy. Which is why I'm glad
> they went to trial for the exact same
> thing(Being Monopolistic that Is).
>
Do the writers for Gamers.com write for the National Enquire too? lol.
--
My GT3 Bonus Car List page:
http://community.webtv.net/thegreatglacier/doc
"Ya know, I think Evian is nothing more than bottled pond water. Do the
French think we're too naivE to believe otherwise?"
"...there may not be an 'I' in 'teamwork' but there damn sure is an 'M'
& an 'E'"
--me
"The more the X-Box is bashed online the better it is doing in reality."
Ethan Hammond from a.g.p-s
Ethan Hammond
I mean give me a break $25 billion and Nintendo turned it
down. Nintendo has never seen anything close to $25
billion. Worst thread ever!!!!
--
All Purpose Cultural Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
RedFox
> I found out shocking info about the "Xbox Project".
> At one point Microsoft wanted to buy out both Nintendo AND Sega!!!
> No Joke!
>
> Bill was trying to take over the Videogame Industry by shoving money down
> their throats. The Story at Gamers.com- http://gamers.com/news/1140732-
Said
> that "Dollar Bill" Gates Proposed to Nintendo to Drop their GameCube
project
> and support the Xbox Offering them 25 BILLION DOLLARS!! Its a good thing
> both Nintendo and Sega had all of their senses at the time. "Dollar Bill"
is
> actually trying to take over the entire Entertainment Industry if not the
> entire WORLD Economy. Which is why I'm glad they went to trial for the
exact
> same thing(Being Monopolistic that Is).
They tried to by Squaresoft too, thats why Sony bought a majority share in
the company.
-=RedFox
RedFox
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3CCF92...@worldnet.att.net...
> Captain do you believe everything you read on the internet?
> I mean give me a break $25 billion and Nintendo turned it
> down. Nintendo has never seen anything close to $25
> billion. Worst thread ever!!!!
Its actually true. The guy that left Micro$oft recently had a book published
about the history of the Xbox project. They were going to buy Nintendo -
look at it logically and you'd see that $25billion isn't *that* much for the
advantage Micro$oft would have got from the sale.
-=RedFox
Knight37
write:
> "Dollar Bill" is
> actually trying to take over the entire Entertainment Industry if not
> the entire WORLD Economy. Which is why I'm glad they went to trial for
> the exact same thing(Being Monopolistic that Is).
>
Plonk. Next idiot, please.
--
Knight37
"Innocence torn from me without your shelter.
Barred reality. I'm living blindly!"
-- Metallica "Dyers Eve"
Seed
message news:16905-3C...@storefull-2354.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>OTOH, if it was in fact 25 billion, then Nintendo was stupid for not
>selling out. lol. But Bill didn't reach the point he's at today by
>making stupid decisions, so I think that figure would be highly
>improbable.
They could have offered Nintendo a $100 Billion and they would not have sold
out. I mean Sega didn't even bite at their offer for sale and they are
still in BAD shape right now. It's good to see at least some companies have
their principles. You should see how many US companies have not given in to
M$, most are not around anymore though. When M$ falls, it will be a
glorious day indeed.
--
____________________________
Seed
"Yeah, I'm stupid all right.....stupid like a FOX!!!" - Homer Simpson
"I knew it, I'm surrounded by Assholes." - Dark Helmet
Ethan Hammond
> Its actually true. The guy that left Micro$oft recently had a book published
> about the history of the Xbox project. They were going to buy Nintendo -
> look at it logically and you'd see that $25billion isn't *that* much for the
> advantage Micro$oft would have got from the sale.
Thats fine, but Nintendo isn't worth anywhere near $25 billion.
The company is worth $5-$10 billion at the most. This is just
moronic internet babble that has gotten out of hand.
RedFox
> > Its actually true. The guy that left Micro$oft recently had a book
published
> > about the history of the Xbox project. They were going to buy Nintendo -
> > look at it logically and you'd see that $25billion isn't *that* much for
the
> > advantage Micro$oft would have got from the sale.
>
> Thats fine, but Nintendo isn't worth anywhere near $25 billion.
> The company is worth $5-$10 billion at the most. This is just
> moronic internet babble that has gotten out of hand.
Its written by Seamus Blackey himself Ethan, its not net rumours.
-=RedFox
HW
majority unless all other owners have a smaller % of ownership.
Elaine (HUNewearl Lv152)
"RedFox" <red...@firenet.ws> wrote in message
news:aaofcn$c86ha$1...@ID-111763.news.dfncis.de...
Ethan Hammond
> Its written by Seamus Blackey himself Ethan, its not net rumours.
No wonder Microsoft fired the jackass then.
RedFox
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> > Its written by Seamus Blackey himself Ethan, its not net rumours.
>
> No wonder Microsoft fired the jackass then.
He left so he could release the book, and his working style clashed with
Microsoft's
-=RedFox
RedFox
"HW" <kingof...@geocities.com> wrote
> Sony only has 12% ownership. Not sure if that is enough to be considered
> majority unless all other owners have a smaller % of ownership.
Didn't they increase their share after FF: spirits within bombed?
-=RedFox
Flash3
LOL
The Earth uses f'n money to spin.
--
"Maybe. I don't know. I don't care. All I want is money, not war."
>me - alt.games.phantasy-star
AxL
HW <kingof...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Sony only has 12% ownership. Not sure if that is enough to be considered
>majority unless all other owners have a smaller % of ownership.
Even if they did, that 12% doesn't imply automatic decision-making, I
would imagine. The other 88% can vote/decide the same way if they
choose.
--
-AxL, a...@wpcr.plymouth.edu "In Christianity, neither morality nor religion
a...@mail.plymouth.edu Come into contact with reality at any point."
http://mindwarp.plymouth.edu/~axl - Nietzsche
<++--Captain Universe--++>
--
<<<<<<<<<-------------------
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<----------------
You don't have a chance against my unlimited power,
so give up and go read a book.
<<<<<<<<<<<--------------------
<<<<<<<--------------------------------------------
"Knight37" <knig...@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92019B4F2...@216.148.53.100...
Ethan Hammond
I think to 20%.
Ethan Hammond
> He left so he could release the book, and his working style clashed with
> Microsoft's
And now he has no job, but he can stand up for his principals the chump!!!!
Ethan Hammond
>
> You forgot, You are the idiot. PLONK!!!
Now follow it up with the big boot and the legdrop brah!!!!
RedFox
> > > Sony only has 12% ownership. Not sure if that is enough to be
considered
> > > majority unless all other owners have a smaller % of ownership.
> >
> > Didn't they increase their share after FF: spirits within bombed?
>
> I think to 20%.
I thought it was to 43%. I'll check when I can be bothered ;)
-=RedFox
--
- http://on.to/risingtide Join the forum and tell us what you think!-
RedFox
> > He left so he could release the book, and his working style clashed with
> > Microsoft's
>
> And now he has no job, but he can stand up for his principals the
chump!!!!
You think? He'll make a fair bit off this book I reckon...
Flash3
I think they did. Sony has 20 something % of Square now I think.
Flash3
news:GV_z8.2041$8S5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero" <thegrea...@webtv.net> wrote in
> message news:16905-3C...@storefull-2354.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> >OTOH, if it was in fact 25 billion, then Nintendo was stupid for not
> >selling out. lol. But Bill didn't reach the point he's at today by
> >making stupid decisions, so I think that figure would be highly
> >improbable.
>
> They could have offered Nintendo a $100 Billion and they would not have
sold
> out. I mean Sega didn't even bite at their offer for sale and they are
> still in BAD shape right now. It's good to see at least some companies
have
> their principles. You should see how many US companies have not given in
to
> M$, most are not around anymore though. When M$ falls, it will be a
> glorious day indeed.
And that is happening with the insignificant sales in Japan and Europe
(exception made for the UK...)
Seed
news:aatl1s$d8osk$1...@ID-135140.news.dfncis.de...
> "Seed" <badse...@REMOVEearthlink.net> wrote in messages
> news:GV_z8.2041$8S5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> sold
> > out. I mean Sega didn't even bite at their offer for sale and they are
> > still in BAD shape right now. It's good to see at least some companies
> have
> > their principles. You should see how many US companies have not given
in
> to
> > M$, most are not around anymore though. When M$ falls, it will be a
> > glorious day indeed.
>
> And that is happening with the insignificant sales in Japan and Europe
> (exception made for the UK...)
I meant the whole damn company, not just their set top box division. Burn
down corporate HQ and peepee on the ashes!!!
RedFox
> > > They could have offered Nintendo a $100 Billion and they would not
have
> > sold
> > > out. I mean Sega didn't even bite at their offer for sale and they
are
> > > still in BAD shape right now. It's good to see at least some
companies
> > have
> > > their principles. You should see how many US companies have not given
> in
> > to
> > > M$, most are not around anymore though. When M$ falls, it will be a
> > > glorious day indeed.
> >
> > And that is happening with the insignificant sales in Japan and Europe
> > (exception made for the UK...)
>
> I meant the whole damn company, not just their set top box division. Burn
> down corporate HQ and peepee on the ashes!!!
Lets hope you didn't vote for Bush then eh?
Jon
> RedFox wrote:
>
> > He left so he could release the book, and his working style clashed with
> > Microsoft's
>
> And now he has no job, but he can stand up for his principals the
chump!!!!
Well, the chump is still probably making more money then you and me
combined. Not bad for a chump....
--
Jon (LABER1)
>
Seed
> Lets hope you didn't vote for Bush then eh?
I did not vote for a Presidential candidate last election, I was not
impressed with either one. I should have voted for Nader anyway just to
help out the Green Party, being an Independent rocx. The fall of Microsoft
will come of it's own doing.
Ethan Hammond
> Lets hope you didn't vote for Bush then eh?
F'n Liberals should all be personally held responsible for 9/11.
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
> F'n Liberals should all be personally held
> responsible for 9/11.
>
And why is that?
--
My GT3 Bonus Car List page:
http://community.webtv.net/thegreatglacier/doc
"Ya know, I think Evian is nothing more than bottled pond water. Do the
French think we're too naivE to believe otherwise?"
"...there may not be an 'I' in 'teamwork' but there damn sure is an 'M'
& an 'E'"
--me
"The more the X-Box is bashed online the better it is doing in reality."
Ethan Hammond from a.g.p-s
Ethan Hammond
>
> Ethan Hammond wrote:
>
> > F'n Liberals should all be personally held
> > responsible for 9/11.
> >
> And why is that?
Osama attacked us several times before 9/11 and Clinton did nothing.
Seed
> neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero wrote:
> >
> > Ethan Hammond wrote:
> >
> > > F'n Liberals should all be personally held
> > > responsible for 9/11.
> > >
> > And why is that?
>
> Osama attacked us several times before 9/11 and Clinton did nothing.
Yeah, and George Bush Sr. really took care of Saddam Hussein didn't he.
Like conservatives are that much better. Yes, however, Clinton did do
nothing. History will be kind to him, like it was to Martin Van Buren.
Who? Exactly.
Flash3
> >
> > Ethan Hammond wrote:
> >
> > > F'n Liberals should all be personally held
> > > responsible for 9/11.
> > >
> > And why is that?
>
> Osama attacked us several times before 9/11 and Clinton did nothing.
Bush just nuked Afghanistan to make Americans happy. Poor Afghans.
SO...where in the blue hell is Osama? Bush is an idiot.
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
> Yeah, and George Bush Sr. really took care
> of Saddam Hussein didn't he. Like
> conservatives are that much better. Yes,
> however, Clinton did do nothing.
>
Bush had no choice in the matter. If we'd have kept going after the
Cease Fire, we'd have been considered murderers by the UN. On top of
that, Bush was in a Catch-22 situation; either decision (to stop or keep
going) would reflected poorly on Bush.
I was there during the Gulf War & as badly as I wanted to come home
after 8 months of seeing nothing but sand, I still wanted us to take out
Saddam, but the blame should not be put on Bush Sr's shoulders.
>
> History will be kind to him, like it was to Martin
> Van Buren. Who? Exactly.
>
There was nothing to do in the 1800's as Pres. Sure slavery could've
been abolished sooner & Van Buren could've done that, but Lincoln was
probably the only President of that era who even thought about how
morally wrong slavery was & I think slavery would've lasted long into
the 20th century had Lincoln not abolished it. Slavery was a way of life
in those days & it was natural to have slaves well before they were
brought to America. Changing a way of life is a difficult thing to do.
He may not be remembered, but he didn't screw up either (as far as I
know ;)). The way I see it, as long as a President doesn't screw up, he
has done his job. Not all Presidents *have* to be remembered for
something... I think that's why our recent Presidents suck: they think
they have to be remembered by accomplishing something that will be
remembered by all generations.
Besides, Clinton *will* be remembred.... Monica Blewclintski will make
sure of that. lol.
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
> Osama attacked us several times before 9/11
> and Clinton did nothing.
>
That doesn't mean that it's his fault. You can blame our arrogance in
thinking we are the 'untouchable nation' for the 9/11 attacks. Thinking
our security system was l33t was our first fault.
Besides, Clinton would've pussied out halfway through the campaign if he
decide to attack terrorism like Bush did.
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
> Bush just nuked Afghanistan to make
> Americans happy. Poor Afghans. SO...where
> in the blue hell is Osama? Bush is an idiot.
>
Perfect example of what I was talking about earlier to Seed. If we'd
have kept going into Iraq, the world would find some way to generate
sympathy for them & Bush would've been an idiot. If we'd have blasted
Afganistan on Sept. 12th, Bush would be a hero. Funny how memories fade
fast. heh.
RedFox
> > Bush just nuked Afghanistan to make
> > Americans happy. Poor Afghans. SO...where
> > in the blue hell is Osama? Bush is an idiot.
> >
> Perfect example of what I was talking about earlier to Seed. If we'd
> have kept going into Iraq, the world would find some way to generate
> sympathy for them & Bush would've been an idiot. If we'd have blasted
> Afganistan on Sept. 12th, Bush would be a hero. Funny how memories fade
> fast. heh.
Yeah the attacks were valid, the thing is though - Afghanistan was bombed
mostly rather than the Taliban - and theres a difference. When you see
hospital after hospital bombed time and time again in these conflicts you
have to wonder who the heck flies those planes and picks the targets. During
the gulf war it was British tanks, in Afghanistan its the Canadian troops...
Also, America likes to make a show of its might every 5 years or so and they
make plenty of money out of doing so. I just hope they don't expect to
update their radar arrays in England for this missile defence system. It
takes the piss really, they expect us to become a target for attack (the
array is part of their early warning system) and don't offer us any of its
protection.. tsk
Ethan Hammond
> > Osama attacked us several times before 9/11 and Clinton did nothing.
>
> Yeah, and George Bush Sr. really took care of Saddam Hussein didn't he.
> Like conservatives are that much better. Yes, however, Clinton did do
> nothing. History will be kind to him, like it was to Martin Van Buren.
> Who? Exactly.
The Gulf War was won once Saddam was out of Kuwait. The objective was
not to take him out. That was 10 years plus ago. Clinton knew Usama
was a problem and did not take any action.
Ethan Hammond
> > Osama attacked us several times before 9/11 and Clinton did nothing.
>
> Bush just nuked Afghanistan to make Americans happy. Poor Afghans.
> SO...where in the blue hell is Osama? Bush is an idiot.
F'n Europeans with your lack of the death penalty!!!!
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
> Yeah the attacks were valid, the thing is
> though - Afghanistan was bombed mostly
> rather than the Taliban - and theres a
> difference. When you see hospital after
> hospital bombed time and time again in these
> conflicts
>
Ever heard of Casualties of War? You can blame those deaths on the
Taliban (or Iraqi's) for using innocent Afgans & the area's they occupy
as shields against the US attacks. The Afgan civillians were warned to
get out & the Taliban kept them there by force. Are we just supposed to
stop pursuing these terrorists because they have put up these innocents
as human shields? If so, then expect more attacks like the 9/11 attacks.
They're the one's not biding by the Rules of War as per the Geneva
Convention, not us or any other nations in this conflict. I realize the
9/11 attacks effected all countries & I don't want to make it sound like
we're the only nation that is suffering, but you'd think a bit
differently if it were on your home turf.
>
> you have to wonder who the heck
> flies those planes and picks the targets.
You don't understand the pressure that is involved when these pilots (or
any soldier) are trying not to hit allies & dodge SAM's & Anti Aircraft
fire & eliminate the enemy all at one time, so you, nor anyone else,
have any right to critique their judgement. It's not like these pilots
were just killing anything that moved. Also, keep in mind it was just
not the US that was involved in these Wars.
>
> During the gulf war it was British tanks, in
> Afghanistan its the Canadian troops...
>
It was a friggin' accident. Compare the friendly fire casualties of the
Gulf War to that of any other war in history. Would you have prefered
the Allied Coalition just sent in 300k ground troops to go against the
500k Republican Guard? There would've been a hell of a lot more
casualties from many different nations than what we had in the Gulf War.
Why can't people accept that *it's gonna happen*. There's absolutely
noway to avoid this except by not fighting.
>
> Also, America likes to make a show of its
> might every 5 years or so and they make
> plenty of money out of doing so. I just hope
> they don't expect to update their radar arrays
> in England for this missile defence system. It
> takes the piss really, they expect us to
> become a target for attack (the array is part of
> their early warning system) and don't offer us
> any of its protection.. tsk
>
I agree that the US is arrogant & we think we're the Second Coming, but
come on, Red... Do you think we should just say f'k it & let other
countries be bullied or invaded? lol, people will condemn us for not
helping then. Either way, the US is *always* in a Catch-22 & it's the
other countries that put us there because we feel we have to live up to
an image that *you* guys created about us. Maybe we should adopt the
"Every man for himself" motto. lol.
You know how I feel about America, so you should know that I am not
taking up for the US simply because I am from here. But, while we do
hold alot of the resposibility for the f'k-ups during wartime, so do the
many other nations of the World & they need to live up to it as well.
Other nations need to quit pawning all the blame on us.
Flash3
> Also, America likes to make a show of its might every 5 years or so and
they
> make plenty of money out of doing so. I just hope they don't expect to
> update their radar arrays in England for this missile defence system. It
> takes the piss really, they expect us to become a target for attack (the
> array is part of their early warning system) and don't offer us any of its
> protection.. tsk
If Blair says yes, the EU will say no.
--
"Playing RE0 on a Pikachu GameCube would
definitely fell you into an ironic chasm of surrealistic nuance."
>Seed - alt.games.phantasy-star
Flash3
> Flash3 wrote:
>
> > > Osama attacked us several times before 9/11 and Clinton did nothing.
> >
> > Bush just nuked Afghanistan to make Americans happy. Poor Afghans.
> > SO...where in the blue hell is Osama? Bush is an idiot.
>
> F'n Europeans with your lack of the death penalty!!!!
F'n Americans with your 19th century ways!!
Flash3
message news:21922-3C...@storefull-2351.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Flash3 wrote:
>
> > Bush just nuked Afghanistan to make
> > Americans happy. Poor Afghans. SO...where
> > in the blue hell is Osama? Bush is an idiot.
> >
> Perfect example of what I was talking about earlier to Seed. If we'd
> have kept going into Iraq, the world would find some way to generate
> sympathy for them & Bush would've been an idiot.
And going to Iraq to do exactly what? To nuke Bush Sr. friend because they
support Arafat?...
> If we'd have blasted
> Afganistan on Sept. 12th, Bush would be a hero. Funny how memories fade
> fast. heh.
You could even have blasted Afghanistan before 11/9 and Bush would be no
hero. His goal was to take revenge on a people, not on an individual *points
to Osama* because he knows he can't find him. I myself think Osama is inside
the US but Bush is too stupid to realise that.
RedFox
> Ever heard of Casualties of War? You can blame those deaths on the
> Taliban (or Iraqi's) for using innocent Afgans & the area's they occupy
> as shields against the US attacks. The Afgan civillians were warned to
> get out & the Taliban kept them there by force. Are we just supposed to
> stop pursuing these terrorists because they have put up these innocents
> as human shields? If so, then expect more attacks like the 9/11 attacks.
> They're the one's not biding by the Rules of War as per the Geneva
> Convention, not us or any other nations in this conflict. I realize the
> 9/11 attacks effected all countries & I don't want to make it sound like
> we're the only nation that is suffering, but you'd think a bit
> differently if it were on your home turf.
The term 'friendly fire' was invented by the Americans I thought. I don't
hold regrets for striking against the Taliban but I do reject the bombing of
civilian areas - send in ground troops if you must but don't carpet bomb
schools, hospitals and housing. Those people didn't deserve to die, they're
innocent and its not right to kill them just to lower the risk of military
casualities. What I don't understand is how the media can condemn the
Israelis (I condemn their actions BTW) when only a few months before thats
pretty much what happened in Afghanistan.
> > you have to wonder who the heck
> > flies those planes and picks the targets.
> You don't understand the pressure that is involved when these pilots (or
> any soldier) are trying not to hit allies & dodge SAM's & Anti Aircraft
> fire & eliminate the enemy all at one time, so you, nor anyone else,
> have any right to critique their judgement. It's not like these pilots
> were just killing anything that moved. Also, keep in mind it was just
> not the US that was involved in these Wars.
Cruise missiles can be targetted without hitting civilians and there are few
allied troops in the strike zone. Its all done to the cost and evaluated
worth of striking a target and the benefits that'll be gained, but that
'you've got to break a few eggs' mentality is unacceptable and it doesn't
help the Far East's view of the USA and the western world in general.
> > During the gulf war it was British tanks, in
> > Afghanistan its the Canadian troops...
> >
> It was a friggin' accident. Compare the friendly fire casualties of the
> Gulf War to that of any other war in history. Would you have prefered
> the Allied Coalition just sent in 300k ground troops to go against the
> 500k Republican Guard? There would've been a hell of a lot more
> casualties from many different nations than what we had in the Gulf War.
> Why can't people accept that *it's gonna happen*. There's absolutely
> noway to avoid this except by not fighting.
The British tanks had big flags painted on them, how blind to you have to
be? I can blame the pilots for that, they even have laser guidance and
missile cameras. These things can happen, yes, but they almost always seem
to be the result of the American military.
> > Also, America likes to make a show of its
> > might every 5 years or so and they make
> > plenty of money out of doing so. I just hope
> > they don't expect to update their radar arrays
> > in England for this missile defence system. It
> > takes the piss really, they expect us to
> > become a target for attack (the array is part of
> > their early warning system) and don't offer us
> > any of its protection.. tsk
> >
> I agree that the US is arrogant & we think we're the Second Coming, but
> come on, Red... Do you think we should just say f'k it & let other
> countries be bullied or invaded? lol, people will condemn us for not
> helping then. Either way, the US is *always* in a Catch-22 & it's the
> other countries that put us there because we feel we have to live up to
> an image that *you* guys created about us. Maybe we should adopt the
> "Every man for himself" motto. lol.
Well, that is kind of the motto you guys hold, but don't get me wrong, I do
agree with the current strike in Afghanistan. America has a tough
responsibility, I just hate certain aspects of these conflicts and get
pissed off by them. I also strongly disagree with the missile system being
developed.
RedFox
> You could even have blasted Afghanistan before 11/9 and Bush would be no
> hero. His goal was to take revenge on a people, not on an individual
*points
> to Osama* because he knows he can't find him. I myself think Osama is
inside
> the US but Bush is too stupid to realise that.
He's likely in Pakistan so they'll never find him.
-=RedFox
RedFox
> > > Osama attacked us several times before 9/11 and Clinton did nothing.
> >
> > Bush just nuked Afghanistan to make Americans happy. Poor Afghans.
> > SO...where in the blue hell is Osama? Bush is an idiot.
>
> F'n Europeans with your lack of the death penalty!!!!
I agree with the Death Penalty, depending on the method. Lethal injection is
fine.
Ethan Hammond
>
> "Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3CD5E4...@worldnet.att.net..
> >
> > > > Osama attacked us several times before 9/11 and Clinton did nothing.
> > >
> > > Bush just nuked Afghanistan to make Americans happy. Poor Afghans.
> > > SO...where in the blue hell is Osama? Bush is an idiot.
> >
> > F'n Europeans with your lack of the death penalty!!!!
>
> F'n Americans with your 19th century ways!!
F'n rest of the World that tries to be as American as possible.
Unoriginal schmucks!!!!
Ethan Hammond
>
> "Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
> > > > Osama attacked us several times before 9/11 and Clinton did nothing.
> > >
> > > Bush just nuked Afghanistan to make Americans happy. Poor Afghans.
> > > SO...where in the blue hell is Osama? Bush is an idiot.
> >
> > F'n Europeans with your lack of the death penalty!!!!
>
> I agree with the Death Penalty, depending on the method. Lethal injection is
> fine.
They should have the same thing done to them as there victim!!!!
RedFox
> > > > > Osama attacked us several times before 9/11 and Clinton did
nothing.
> > > >
> > > > Bush just nuked Afghanistan to make Americans happy. Poor Afghans.
> > > > SO...where in the blue hell is Osama? Bush is an idiot.
> > >
> > > F'n Europeans with your lack of the death penalty!!!!
> >
> > F'n Americans with your 19th century ways!!
>
> F'n rest of the World that tries to be as American as possible.
> Unoriginal schmucks!!!!
I think that's just America's consumer culture creeping in, like a plague
over our once fine civilisations! Watch the Earth crumble!!!!111
McDonald's opens one 'restaurants' in a city... then another... then
suddenly there's 7 McDonalds! Why??? Seems you can't walk anywhere without
being subconsciously advertised at either, the side of buses, peoples
clothing... erg :/
Seed
> Well, that is kind of the motto you guys hold, but don't get me wrong, I
do
> agree with the current strike in Afghanistan. America has a tough
> responsibility, I just hate certain aspects of these conflicts and get
> pissed off by them. I also strongly disagree with the missile system being
> developed.
As long as you concede that we are, as a whole, in-between a rock and a hard
place, then we are in somewhat of an agreement. All war is a crime and for
us not to concede that is folly. The greater the military presence, the
more opportunity there is for human error. However, if the people of
Afghanistan want to criticize us... then so be it. At least the women can
speak in public now to do it. That's a nice consolation for all parties
involved in the face of our mistakes, I think.
Seed
> I think that's just America's consumer culture creeping in, like a plague
> over our once fine civilisations! Watch the Earth crumble!!!!111
>
> McDonald's opens one 'restaurants' in a city... then another... then
> suddenly there's 7 McDonalds! Why??? Seems you can't walk anywhere without
> being subconsciously advertised at either, the side of buses, peoples
> clothing... erg :/
Ugh... McDonald's... simply ugh. Hate those restaurants. If you don't
like'em, don't eat there. I know I don't. Damn kangaroo meat!!!
Seed
> "Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
> > > > Osama attacked us several times before 9/11 and Clinton did nothing.
> > >
> > > Bush just nuked Afghanistan to make Americans happy. Poor Afghans.
> > > SO...where in the blue hell is Osama? Bush is an idiot.
> >
> > F'n Europeans with your lack of the death penalty!!!!
>
> I agree with the Death Penalty, depending on the method. Lethal injection
is
> fine.
Yep. You can't lock everyone away and believe that makes you any safer.
Pus, I do believe there must be some form of deterrence if the crime can
carry a sentence of death, at least for me that has worked... ;)
Seed
message news:21922-3C...@storefull-2351.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Bush had no choice in the matter. If we'd have kept going after the
> Cease Fire, we'd have been considered murderers by the UN. On top of
> that, Bush was in a Catch-22 situation; either decision (to stop or keep
> going) would reflected poorly on Bush.
I'm not saying we had to kill him. It should have come down in a similar
way as Slobadon Milosevich's reign did. I say Bush Sr. messed up, but
really Clinton and the UN left Hussein creep back into power. And someday
we may pay a very heavy price for that. But I don't think we disagree, to
an extent, about that possiblity
> There was nothing to do in the 1800's as Pres. Sure slavery could've
> been abolished sooner & Van Buren could've done that, but Lincoln was
> probably the only President of that era who even thought about how
> morally wrong slavery was & I think slavery would've lasted long into
> the 20th century had Lincoln not abolished it. Slavery was a way of life
> in those days & it was natural to have slaves well before they were
> brought to America. Changing a way of life is a difficult thing to do.
There is always plenty to do when you are the leader of a nation. I don't
exactly think it was just one huge keg party until the Civil War started. =P
> He may not be remembered, but he didn't screw up either (as far as I
> know ;)). The way I see it, as long as a President doesn't screw up, he
> has done his job. Not all Presidents *have* to be remembered for
> something... I think that's why our recent Presidents suck: they think
> they have to be remembered by accomplishing something that will be
> remembered by all generations.
>
> Besides, Clinton *will* be remembred.... Monica Blewclintski will make
> sure of that. lol.
I will not argue most of these points, but "as long as a President doesn't
screw up, he has done his job" is insaniac in the brainiac. Clinton could
have at least done something about gays in the military or health care. He
did campaign on those issues after all. Damn you slick Willie, a politician
is supposed to set a good example!!! lol
Seed
> Seed wrote:
>
> > > Osama attacked us several times before 9/11 and Clinton did nothing.
> >
> > Yeah, and George Bush Sr. really took care of Saddam Hussein didn't he.
> > Like conservatives are that much better. Yes, however, Clinton did do
> > nothing. History will be kind to him, like it was to Martin Van Buren.
> > Who? Exactly.
>
> The Gulf War was won once Saddam was out of Kuwait. The objective was
> not to take him out. That was 10 years plus ago. Clinton knew Usama
> was a problem and did not take any action.
The objective was to secure our oil interests... you would think insuring
the stability of the area would fall under that heading as well. Clinton
sat on his hands after Reagan sold him the weapons. So, there is plenty of
reflecting to do on how things can be spun.
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
> The term 'friendly fire' was invented by the
> Americans I thought.
>
And why does it matter who coined the term? The point is, we're trying
to prevent friendly fire & civillian casualties by inventing new
technology. Just like every other piece of 'state-o-the-art' technology,
it's not perfect.
> I don't hold regrets for striking against the
> Taliban but I do reject the bombing of civilian
> areas - send in ground troops if you must but
> don't carpet bomb schools, hospitals and
> housing. Those people didn't deserve to die,
> they're innocent and its not right to kill them
> just to lower the risk of military casualities.
If the Taliban is holed up in civilian area's, then like I said, it's
the Talibans fault for the innocents that died. The civilians had plenty
of time before this war started to get the hell out of Dodge & alot of
them didn't do it. I don't know how much clearer Bush coulda been when
he said the Taliban was gonna pay. lol.
If bombing civilian areas means saving lives of our forces, then so be
it. It's not like we don't have good reason to bomb those areas anyway.
You do know that enemy forces like to hide in civilian areas don't you?
Don't believe the media propaganda when they make it sound like our
intent is to kill all Afgans.
> What I don't understand is how the media can
> condemn the Israelis (I condemn their actions
> BTW) when only a few months before thats
> pretty much what happened in Afghanistan.
What people don't seem to understand is that Israel could just bomb the
living hell out of Palastine. But, instead, they risk the lives of their
troops by sending them in instead of bombing. This is what most people
would prefer the US to do apparently. Nothing like unwarranted deaths
from allied forces, eh?
> Cruise missiles can be targetted without
> hitting civilians and there are few allied troops
> in the strike zone. Its all done to the cost and
> evaluated worth of striking a target and the
> benefits that'll be gained, but that 'you've got
> to break a few eggs' mentality is
> unacceptable and it doesn't help the Far
> East's view of the USA and the western world
> in general.
That mentality is acceptable. So would you rather risk the lives of
British troops to save a few civilians? That makes no sense. Might as
well hand the war over to the opposing force & let them have their way
then.
> The British tanks had big flags painted on
> them, how blind to you have to be? I can
> blame the pilots for that, they even have laser
> guidance and missile cameras. These things
> can happen, yes, but they almost always
> seem to be the result of the American military. In the Gulf War they
had big flags one them?! Um, no. They had a small upside down 'V' on
them that were, in a lot of cases, very hard to see. They were no flags.
Besides that, that incident wasn't due to aircraft; they were killed by
a US M-1 tank. The Commander of that brigade even said it was an
unfortunate accident, so why can't you?
> Well, that is kind of the motto you guys hold,
> but don't get me wrong, I do agree with the
> current strike in Afghanistan. America has a
> tough responsibility, I just hate certain
> aspects of these conflicts and get pissed off
> by them. I also strongly disagree with the
> missile system being developed.
That's the motto we hold?! OMG, you didn't just say that. lol. I guess
the other recent conflicts & countries we helped out was nothing more
than a figment of our imagination.
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
> You could even have blasted Afghanistan
> before 11/9 and Bush would be no hero.
Sure he would have. The world wanted revenge for these attacks & if Bush
would've found him shortly after this happened, people would've praised
him. Of course, people like you would be quick to point out his f'k ups
along the way (no matter how small they might be) & would eventually
sway other people's logic along your ways of thinking no matter how much
you had to twist or manipulate the facts or opinions.... kinda like the
BS you wrote below.
> His
> goal was to take revenge on a people, not on
> an individual *points to Osama* because he
> knows he can't find him.
>
That's complete BS plain & simple & you know it. If that were true, then
why would Bush tell the US citizens shortly after the 9/11 attacks that
any hate crimes brought on Arabs or Islam in the US will face swift &
just punishment by te judicial system? Think he was just blowin' smoke?
I think not...
The whole taking revenge against an entire people theory is completely
f'king asinine. Damn, you guys must really hate us....
>
> I myself think Osama is inside the US but
> Bush is too stupid to realise that.
>
lol. Maybe. But, think about how hard it is to find someone w/ no record
or even possible false records amongst 3-400 million people. As much
money as he has & as many people he has helping him, he could disappear
& never be found. The US would be the safest place in the world for him
to be. So Bush's alledged supidity is not an issue here.
>
> "Playing RE0 on a Pikachu GameCube would
> definitely fell you into an ironic chasm of
> surrealistic nuance."
>
> Seed - alt.games.phantasy-star
>
You bastard! I was going to quote that! lol.
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
> They should have the same thing done to
> them as there victim!!!!
>
I agree.... again! That's twice in one week! lol.
An eye for a head & a tooth for a head! Wait, that's not right... lol
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
> I'm not saying we had to kill him. It should
> have come down in a similar way as
> Slobadon Milosevich's reign did. I say Bush
> Sr. messed up, but really Clinton and the UN
> left Hussein creep back into power. And
> someday we may pay a very heavy price for
> that. But I don't think we disagree, to an
> extent, about that possiblity
>
I shouldn't have assumed you meant kill him. lol, sorry about that. But,
I don't think it's Bush's fault we didn't bring him to justice. We can
blame the UN for that.
>
> There is always plenty to do when you are the
> leader of a nation. I don't exactly think it was
> just one huge keg party until the Civil War
> started. =P
>
True, but people's ways of thinking were alot different back then.
People had alot of changing to do back-n-da-day & changing the norm is
one of the hardest things to do. You gotta remember the culture these
people were used to... coming from England & all. (That is a joke, so
don't blow it out of porportion, lol *hides anyway*)
>
> I will not argue most of these points, but "as
> long as a President doesn't screw up, he has
> done his job" is insaniac in the brainiac.
> Clinton could have at least done something
> about gays in the military or health care. He
> did campaign on those issues after all. Damn
> you slick Willie, a politician is supposed to set
> a good example!!! lol
>
I'm not going to get into the gays in the military issue (I am not
saying they don't belong in the military, so don't think that ;)), but
as much as I thought Clinton was an idiot, I think he did the best thing
possible by the "Don't ask, don't tell" method.
..slick Willie, lol.
Flash3
> Flash3 wrote:
> >
> > "Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:3CD5E4...@worldnet.att.net..
> > > Flash3 wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Osama attacked us several times before 9/11 and Clinton did
nothing.
> > > >
> > > > Bush just nuked Afghanistan to make Americans happy. Poor Afghans.
> > > > SO...where in the blue hell is Osama? Bush is an idiot.
> > >
> > > F'n Europeans with your lack of the death penalty!!!!
> >
> > F'n Americans with your 19th century ways!!
>
> F'n rest of the World that tries to be as American as possible.
> Unoriginal schmucks!!!!
Says who?
Flash3
news:4JyB8.930$Jk....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "RedFox" <red...@firenet.ws> wrote in message
> news:ab6b45$fg98c$1...@ID-111763.news.dfncis.de...
> > I think that's just America's consumer culture creeping in, like a
plague
> > over our once fine civilisations! Watch the Earth crumble!!!!111
> >
> > McDonald's opens one 'restaurants' in a city... then another... then
> > suddenly there's 7 McDonalds! Why??? Seems you can't walk anywhere
without
> > being subconsciously advertised at either, the side of buses, peoples
> > clothing... erg :/
>
> Ugh... McDonald's... simply ugh. Hate those restaurants. If you don't
> like'em, don't eat there. I know I don't. Damn kangaroo meat!!!
I like the chips. lol
Flash3
> Flash3 wrote:
>
> > You could even have blasted Afghanistan
> > before 11/9 and Bush would be no hero.
> Sure he would have. The world
Not the world my friend. I dunno if you were watching the news on 11/9 but
the Palestinian were celebrating for some f'n reason.
> wanted revenge for these attacks & if Bush
> would've found him shortly after this happened, people would've praised
> him. Of course, people like you would be quick to point out his f'k ups
> along the way (no matter how small they might be)
In issues like this his f'k ups would never be small.
> & would eventually
> sway other people's logic along your ways of thinking no matter how much
> you had to twist or manipulate the facts or opinions.... kinda like the
> BS you wrote below.
> > His
> > goal was to take revenge on a people, not on
> > an individual *points to Osama* because he
> > knows he can't find him.
Don't you think that if he could find Osama he wouldn't have found him
already?... :\
> That's complete BS plain & simple & you know it. If that were true, then
> why would Bush tell the US citizens shortly after the 9/11 attacks that
> any hate crimes brought on Arabs or Islam in the US will face swift &
> just punishment by te judicial system? Think he was just blowin' smoke?
> I think not...
So why the hell isn't Arafat discussing the peace treaty along with Bush and
Sharon?
> The whole taking revenge against an entire people theory is completely
> f'king asinine.
It's not a theory, it's the sad reality.
> Damn, you guys must really hate us....
I hate your president (and especially his decisions), not you.
> > I myself think Osama is inside the US but
> > Bush is too stupid to realise that.
> >
> lol. Maybe. But, think about how hard it is to find someone w/ no record
> or even possible false records amongst 3-400 million people. As much
> money as he has & as many people he has helping him, he could disappear
> & never be found. The US would be the safest place in the world for him
> to be. So Bush's alledged supidity is not an issue here.
But FBI (or CIA or whatever) quickly found records of supposed Al-Qaeda
members inside the United States.
> > "Playing RE0 on a Pikachu GameCube would
> > definitely fell you into an ironic chasm of
> > surrealistic nuance."
> >
> > Seed - alt.games.phantasy-star
> >
> You bastard! I was going to quote that! lol.
You already quoted the Xbox bashing :P lol
--
Flash3
message news:20913-3CD...@storefull-2356.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> That's the motto we hold?! OMG, you didn't just say that. lol. I guess
> the other recent conflicts & countries we helped out was nothing more
> than a figment of our imagination.
Yeah... but you seemed to forget about East Timor. F'n weapon business with
Indonesia eh?
Flash3
There are no McDonalds (nor Pizza Huts) here in town! Does that mean I am
safe?
RedFox
> > Well, that is kind of the motto you guys hold, but don't get me wrong, I
> do
> > agree with the current strike in Afghanistan. America has a tough
> > responsibility, I just hate certain aspects of these conflicts and get
> > pissed off by them. I also strongly disagree with the missile system
being
> > developed.
>
> As long as you concede that we are, as a whole, in-between a rock and a
hard
> place, then we are in somewhat of an agreement. All war is a crime and
for
> us not to concede that is folly. The greater the military presence, the
> more opportunity there is for human error. However, if the people of
> Afghanistan want to criticize us... then so be it. At least the women can
> speak in public now to do it. That's a nice consolation for all parties
> involved in the face of our mistakes, I think.
A very fair conclusion and one I thoroughly agree with. Well said.
-=Redfox
RedFox
"neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero" <thegrea...@webtv.net> wrote
> > I don't hold regrets for striking against the
> > Taliban but I do reject the bombing of civilian
> > areas - send in ground troops if you must but
> > don't carpet bomb schools, hospitals and
> > housing. Those people didn't deserve to die,
> > they're innocent and its not right to kill them
> > just to lower the risk of military casualities.
> If the Taliban is holed up in civilian area's, then like I said, it's
> the Talibans fault for the innocents that died. The civilians had plenty
> of time before this war started to get the hell out of Dodge & alot of
> them didn't do it. I don't know how much clearer Bush coulda been when
> he said the Taliban was gonna pay. lol.
Its not like they get CNN there. I think you're being a bit harsh on those
people, they didn't deserve to die, period (oh-ho americanisms :)).
> If bombing civilian areas means saving lives of our forces, then so be
> it. It's not like we don't have good reason to bomb those areas anyway.
> You do know that enemy forces like to hide in civilian areas don't you?
> Don't believe the media propaganda when they make it sound like our
> intent is to kill all Afgans.
Of course not - I realise the reasons are legitimate, I just don't think
that its justified to bomb/shell/whatever any location that holds innocent
people.
> > What I don't understand is how the media can
> > condemn the Israelis (I condemn their actions
> > BTW) when only a few months before thats
> > pretty much what happened in Afghanistan.
> What people don't seem to understand is that Israel could just bomb the
> living hell out of Palastine. But, instead, they risk the lives of their
> troops by sending them in instead of bombing. This is what most people
> would prefer the US to do apparently. Nothing like unwarranted deaths
> from allied forces, eh?
Israel couldn't, the world wouldn't let them. They're fighting a propaganda
war and they want to come out as the good guys.
> > Cruise missiles can be targetted without
> > hitting civilians and there are few allied troops
> > in the strike zone. Its all done to the cost and
> > evaluated worth of striking a target and the
> > benefits that'll be gained, but that 'you've got
> > to break a few eggs' mentality is
> > unacceptable and it doesn't help the Far
> > East's view of the USA and the western world
> > in general.
> That mentality is acceptable. So would you rather risk the lives of
> British troops to save a few civilians? That makes no sense. Might as
> well hand the war over to the opposing force & let them have their way
> then.
If we are going in to fight a war then yes, I would prefer soldiers die that
are trained and ready to do so rather then innocent people caught up in the
cross fire.
> > The British tanks had big flags painted on
> > them, how blind to you have to be? I can
> > blame the pilots for that, they even have laser
> > guidance and missile cameras. These things
> > can happen, yes, but they almost always
> > seem to be the result of the American military. In the Gulf War they
> had big flags one them?! Um, no. They had a small upside down 'V' on
> them that were, in a lot of cases, very hard to see. They were no flags.
> Besides that, that incident wasn't due to aircraft; they were killed by
> a US M-1 tank. The Commander of that brigade even said it was an
> unfortunate accident, so why can't you?
Well, he's not going to say, "F'king American bastards killed our soldiers"
is he? :/
I remember it as being a numer of incidents, one being a hellfire attack on
a tank convoy from apache helicopters, but I might be mistaken then?
> > Well, that is kind of the motto you guys hold,
> > but don't get me wrong, I do agree with the
> > current strike in Afghanistan. America has a
> > tough responsibility, I just hate certain
> > aspects of these conflicts and get pissed off
> > by them. I also strongly disagree with the
> > missile system being developed.
> That's the motto we hold?! OMG, you didn't just say that. lol. I guess
> the other recent conflicts & countries we helped out was nothing more
> than a figment of our imagination.
Heh, in general I mean. I don't want this to start into a Charles Doane
style cuss-up, but the kyoto treaty et al seems to prove that America looks
out for itself. Sorry to offend you...
RedFox
> > > You could even have blasted Afghanistan
> > > before 11/9 and Bush would be no hero.
> > Sure he would have. The world
>
> Not the world my friend. I dunno if you were watching the news on 11/9 but
> the Palestinian were celebrating for some f'n reason.
Thats pretty much crap. Over there the news is so corrupted that they were
probably cheering for something totally skewed by the media. All that
happens is you get western news teams pouncing on the story and wham -
you've won the propaganda war in a few minutes. Americans see celebration
and hate is born.
> > That's complete BS plain & simple & you know it. If that were true, then
> > why would Bush tell the US citizens shortly after the 9/11 attacks that
> > any hate crimes brought on Arabs or Islam in the US will face swift &
> > just punishment by te judicial system? Think he was just blowin' smoke?
> > I think not...
>
> So why the hell isn't Arafat discussing the peace treaty along with Bush
and
> Sharon?
He doesn't want peace, he wants the land owed to his people.
> > > I myself think Osama is inside the US but
> > > Bush is too stupid to realise that.
> > >
> > lol. Maybe. But, think about how hard it is to find someone w/ no record
> > or even possible false records amongst 3-400 million people. As much
> > money as he has & as many people he has helping him, he could disappear
> > & never be found. The US would be the safest place in the world for him
> > to be. So Bush's alledged supidity is not an issue here.
>
> But FBI (or CIA or whatever) quickly found records of supposed Al-Qaeda
> members inside the United States.
Yes, and they supposedly knew about the terrorist's plans before they even
took place. Slightly worrying that...
-=RedFox
RedFox
> > I think that's just America's consumer culture creeping in, like a
plague
> > over our once fine civilisations! Watch the Earth crumble!!!!111
> >
> > McDonald's opens one 'restaurants' in a city... then another... then
> > suddenly there's 7 McDonalds! Why??? Seems you can't walk anywhere
without
> > being subconsciously advertised at either, the side of buses, peoples
> > clothing... erg :/
>
> Ugh... McDonald's... simply ugh. Hate those restaurants. If you don't
> like'em, don't eat there. I know I don't. Damn kangaroo meat!!!
Brazilian ranches more like. Chop down some more rainforests Ronald!!
RedFox
> > > > > > > Osama attacked us several times before 9/11 and Clinton did
> > nothing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bush just nuked Afghanistan to make Americans happy. Poor
Afghans.
> > > > > > SO...where in the blue hell is Osama? Bush is an idiot.
> > > > >
> > > > > F'n Europeans with your lack of the death penalty!!!!
> > > >
> > > > F'n Americans with your 19th century ways!!
> > >
> > > F'n rest of the World that tries to be as American as possible.
> > > Unoriginal schmucks!!!!
> >
> > I think that's just America's consumer culture creeping in, like a
plague
> > over our once fine civilisations! Watch the Earth crumble!!!!111
> >
> > McDonald's opens one 'restaurants' in a city... then another... then
> > suddenly there's 7 McDonalds! Why??? Seems you can't walk anywhere
without
> > being subconsciously advertised at either, the side of buses, peoples
> > clothing... erg :/
>
> There are no McDonalds (nor Pizza Huts) here in town! Does that mean I am
> safe?
For 3 months! They read usenet you know!!!
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
> Its not like they get CNN there. I think you're
> being a bit harsh on those people, they didn't
> deserve to die, period (oh-ho americanisms
> :)).
>
Bush's speech was broadcast in Afganistan; they (CNN or MSNBC) even
showed footage. Of course, you guys will just file that under American
propoganda like in any & every other debate.
Also, would you please point out where I said those innocent people
deserved to die? I'd like to kick my own ass for saying that.
>
> Of course not - I realise the reasons are
> legitimate, I just don't think that its justified to
> bomb/shell/whatever any location that holds
> innocent people.
>
Hmmm... different way of thinking, I guess. I am more about saving the
lives of our own [& every other nations involved] soldiers than I am
saving the lives of someone who had plenty of warning to get out of
Afganistan. Especially when there are known terroristshiding out in
these civilian area. If you knew how hard it was to go through an enemy
city searching for an enemy that is hiding behind the innocents, then I
think you would change your mind. There would be more innocent
casualties if we sent troops in rather than bombing the place too. The
more people that engage the target, the more room there is for error.
Urban warfare is the toughest thing about war... especially when you
don't know who is friend or foe.
>
> Israel couldn't, the world wouldn't let them.
> They're fighting a propaganda war and they
> want to come out as the good guys.
>
It's hard to come out the good guys when you have an entire world that
hates you. I'd wage 90% of the reason other nations hate Israel is
because the US supports them. Of course, this accusation will be denied
too.
>
> If we are going in to fight a war then yes, I
> would prefer soldiers die that are trained and
> ready to do so rather then innocent people
> caught up in the cross fire.
>
Um, no. Soldiers are not trained to die. Soldiers are not paid to die.
Soldiers are trained & paid to protect a nation. Maybe in a 3rd world
country they're trained to die, but not here. You have to protect your
nation at all costs.
>
> Well, he's not going to say, "F'king American
> bastards killed our soldiers" is he? :/
>
No, but if he thought it wasn't an accident & didn't realize that even
w/ today's technology that people are bound to make a mistake here &
there, he could've criticized the US for their actions. The reason he
said it was an accident was because he realized these accidents happen.
Why can't everyone else? lol.
OTOH, if he did say it was an accident & didn't truly believe that, then
he's a spineless bastard & has no right commanding a military unit.
Given the way you guys speak about us openly, I don't think he would've
had no problem condemning the US for these actions.
>
> I remember it as being a numer of incidents,
> one being a hellfire attack on a tank convoy
> from apache helicopters, but I might be
> mistaken then?
>
I don't recall that, but I am not saying it didn't happen. But, consider
this: if the Apache's opened up an attack w/ their Hellfire missles,
then there would be alot more than a few deaths. These things are
vicious & you have to see an attack in person to realize how deadly they
are. I saw them literally level an entire town in 2 minutes (no
civilians were there, btw; only Republican Guard). We lost like 146 or
so people in Desert Storm (not Desert Shield) 30-35 of those were from
friendly fire. Being that it may have been a convoy that was attacked,
the Hellfire missles alone would've taken out more than 35 or so people.
>
> Heh, in general I mean. I don't want this to
> start into a Charles Doane style cuss-up, but
> the kyoto treaty et al seems to prove that
> America looks out for itself. Sorry to offend
> you...
>
I think you know you're not going to offend me. :) But, how does a
treaty concerning the climate prove that we only look out for ourselves?
The treaty is about greenhouse gases, correct?
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
>
> Not the world my friend. I dunno if you were
> watching the news on 11/9 but the Palestinian
> were celebrating for some f'n reason.
>
but most people in the world. If you don't believe me, look up some of
the polls where people around the world said they'd support a US attack
shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Maybe you forgot that even though this
attack was on American soil, there were 80 other nations that were
attcked too & it was not just the US.
The reason that Palastinians were celebrating is because the US was
attacked. I thought that was fairly clear. lol. Their hatred for us is
far worse that yours due to our relationship w/ Israel.
>
> In issues like this his f'k ups would never be
> small.
>
Issues like what? Our attacks that caused innocent people to die or our
relationship w/ Palastine & Isreal? We're talking about a couple of
different things here & I got lost. :)
>
> Don't you think that if he could find Osama he
> wouldn't have found him already?... :\
>
Huh? So you think we should just quit & stop looking for him because
chances are we will not find him? We are at war w/ terrorists & bin
Laden is the main one we're after. Just because one may not be able to
achieve one objective doesn't mean we should ignore the other. But, I
don't think we'll find him. He's probably in Pakistan & there are
already villagers in Pakistan ready to take up arms against the US if
the US cross the border (that report came from a BBC corespondent btw).
Of course, if they try to fire against us & when we kill them for doing
so, I am sure they will be considered innocent civilians by the rest of
the world & the US is nothing but a bunch of murders again.
>
> So why the hell isn't Arafat discussing the
> peace treaty along with Bush and Sharon?
>
Because Arafat is no better than bin Laden. The US & Israel are trying
to reach an agreement, it's Palestine that is being stubborn. Of course,
this all comes back to the 'Israel is an ally of the US therefore we
hate them' way of thinking. And what does this have to do w/ you saying
that Bush is taking revenge on a people & not the terrorists?
>
> It's not a theory, it's the sad reality.
>
Wow. I guess you do believe it then. lol. I have no idea why you think
we're at war against Afganistan & not just the terrorists. If this was
true, then why would Bush punish the American citizens for hate crimes
against someone that looks like they're from the Middle East? Why would
Bush tell the nations airline pilots that just because someone is of
Arabic descent, they can't refuse to let them fly? (this happened
shortly after 9/11, btw).
>
> I hate your president (and especially his
> decisions), not you.
>
Is there any President we had that you did like? lol.
>
> But FBI (or CIA or whatever) quickly found
> records of supposed Al-Qaeda members
> inside the United States.
>
But they're not bin Laden. They're supposed soldiers of bin Laden. bin
Laden is not going to go that extra mile to protect his soldiers unless
they're high ranking officials in his terrorist faction. Then we get the
hijacked planes w/ hostages & terrorists demanding the release of those
high ranking terrorists. These people were sent here to accomplish a
mission & once they've done that, they're worthless to him.
>
> You already quoted the Xbox bashing :P lol
>
lmao. That's funny. :)
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
> Thats pretty much crap. Over there the news
> is so corrupted that they were probably
> cheering for something totally skewed by the
> media. All that happens is you get western
> news teams pouncing on the story and wham
> - you've won the propaganda war in a few
> minutes. Americans see celebration and hate
> is born.
>
burned or anything.
> He doesn't want peace, he wants the land
> owed to his people.
>
>
> Yes, and they supposedly knew about the
> terrorist's plans before they even took place.
> Slightly worrying that...
>
window when there was supposed to be a terrorist attack on the US & that
window closed long before the 9/11 attacks & the alert was dropped. The
BBC didn't screw this up, so where did you hear this?
Your facts are a bit off, but I know what you're trying to say though &
I agree w/ you. I still think had the attacks occurred w/ in that window
set by the government, it wouldn't have made a difference & the same
thing would've happened. We were too busy feeling like something like
this couldn't happen on US soil.
RedFox
> > Its not like they get CNN there. I think you're
> > being a bit harsh on those people, they didn't
> > deserve to die, period (oh-ho americanisms
> > :)).
> >
> Maybe not, but they have plenty of other means of communication. And,
> Bush's speech was broadcast in Afganistan; they (CNN or MSNBC) even
> showed footage. Of course, you guys will just file that under American
> propoganda like in any & every other debate.
>
> Also, would you please point out where I said those innocent people
> deserved to die? I'd like to kick my own ass for saying that.
Nah, you didn't say that out right, but perhaps unintentionally it gave that
impression. I know you wouldn't have meant it ;)
I don't know if you saw how life is out there but almost no one has
televisions, its a media blackout except for that controlled by the Taliban.
At least it was....
> > Of course not - I realise the reasons are
> > legitimate, I just don't think that its justified to
> > bomb/shell/whatever any location that holds
> > innocent people.
> >
> Hmmm... different way of thinking, I guess. I am more about saving the
> lives of our own [& every other nations involved] soldiers than I am
> saving the lives of someone who had plenty of warning to get out of
> Afganistan. Especially when there are known terroristshiding out in
> these civilian area. If you knew how hard it was to go through an enemy
> city searching for an enemy that is hiding behind the innocents, then I
> think you would change your mind. There would be more innocent
> casualties if we sent troops in rather than bombing the place too. The
> more people that engage the target, the more room there is for error.
> Urban warfare is the toughest thing about war... especially when you
> don't know who is friend or foe.
But did they know exactly how the attacks would take place? I'm not so sure
the message of America got through to them, it was an opressive sate after a
ll...
> > Israel couldn't, the world wouldn't let them.
> > They're fighting a propaganda war and they
> > want to come out as the good guys.
> >
> It's hard to come out the good guys when you have an entire world that
> hates you. I'd wage 90% of the reason other nations hate Israel is
> because the US supports them. Of course, this accusation will be denied
> too.
Personally, I don't hate either side. I think we should just leave them to
it and I don't think it helps the USA's cause with the Far East when they
support Israel.
> > If we are going in to fight a war then yes, I
> > would prefer soldiers die that are trained and
> > ready to do so rather then innocent people
> > caught up in the cross fire.
> >
> Um, no. Soldiers are not trained to die. Soldiers are not paid to die.
> Soldiers are trained & paid to protect a nation. Maybe in a 3rd world
> country they're trained to die, but not here. You have to protect your
> nation at all costs.
Ultimately soldiers have to face the fact they might die in battle. Its a
risk they accept when they sign up, otherwise they're deluding themselves.
> > Well, he's not going to say, "F'king American
> > bastards killed our soldiers" is he? :/
> >
> No, but if he thought it wasn't an accident & didn't realize that even
> w/ today's technology that people are bound to make a mistake here &
> there, he could've criticized the US for their actions. The reason he
> said it was an accident was because he realized these accidents happen.
> Why can't everyone else? lol.
>
> OTOH, if he did say it was an accident & didn't truly believe that, then
> he's a spineless bastard & has no right commanding a military unit.
> Given the way you guys speak about us openly, I don't think he would've
> had no problem condemning the US for these actions.
Of course its an accident, it doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid thing to do.
Foreign relations would prevent him from saying such.
> > I remember it as being a numer of incidents,
> > one being a hellfire attack on a tank convoy
> > from apache helicopters, but I might be
> > mistaken then?
> >
> I don't recall that, but I am not saying it didn't happen. But, consider
> this: if the Apache's opened up an attack w/ their Hellfire missles,
> then there would be alot more than a few deaths. These things are
> vicious & you have to see an attack in person to realize how deadly they
> are. I saw them literally level an entire town in 2 minutes (no
> civilians were there, btw; only Republican Guard). We lost like 146 or
> so people in Desert Storm (not Desert Shield) 30-35 of those were from
> friendly fire. Being that it may have been a convoy that was attacked,
> the Hellfire missles alone would've taken out more than 35 or so people.
I bow to your superior knowledge ;)
> > Heh, in general I mean. I don't want this to
> > start into a Charles Doane style cuss-up, but
> > the kyoto treaty et al seems to prove that
> > America looks out for itself. Sorry to offend
> > you...
> >
> I think you know you're not going to offend me. :) But, how does a
> treaty concerning the climate prove that we only look out for ourselves?
> The treaty is about greenhouse gases, correct?
And their effect on the world. I'm not going to stir that argument about
global warming again because it ends in stalemate :)
-=RedFox
RedFox
> > Thats pretty much crap. Over there the news
> > is so corrupted that they were probably
> > cheering for something totally skewed by the
> > media. All that happens is you get western
> > news teams pouncing on the story and wham
> > - you've won the propaganda war in a few
> > minutes. Americans see celebration and hate
> > is born.
> >
> Yeah, our pissed off nature had nothing to do w/ an American flags being
> burned or anything.
Thing is, they're brought up to hate America and if they're told of a "great
victory against the infidels" (or similar) but no actual details of what
happened, then they'll celebrate. They weren't told, "Taliban Terrorists
crashed a bunch of passenger jets into a civilian area and killed thousands
of innocent people"
I bet people cheered in America when hospitals were cruise missiled during
the Gulf War. Iignorance is bliss but reality is a stinger when you finally
find out the facts.
> > He doesn't want peace, he wants the land
> > owed to his people.
> >
> Owed?! You're right about Arafat not wanting peace though. lol.
They are owed it, the British promised them land but never delivered.
> > Yes, and they supposedly knew about the
> > terrorist's plans before they even took place.
> > Slightly worrying that...
> >
> Um, we didn't *know* these attacks were coming. However, there was a
> window when there was supposed to be a terrorist attack on the US & that
> window closed long before the 9/11 attacks & the alert was dropped. The
> BBC didn't screw this up, so where did you hear this?
Well, I'm not saying it was public knowledge, but there are facts that make
you raise your eyebrow when you investigate into it a bit. For instance - it
was only hours after the attacks that the FBI were at the houses of the
terrorists and searching for 'clues' as to who was involved. Some prior
knowledge must have been there, even if exact facts weren't known.
Conspiracy theories and all that BS :)
-=RedFox
RedFox
> Huh? So you think we should just quit & stop looking for him because
> chances are we will not find him? We are at war w/ terrorists & bin
> Laden is the main one we're after. Just because one may not be able to
> achieve one objective doesn't mean we should ignore the other. But, I
> don't think we'll find him. He's probably in Pakistan & there are
> already villagers in Pakistan ready to take up arms against the US if
> the US cross the border (that report came from a BBC corespondent btw).
> Of course, if they try to fire against us & when we kill them for doing
> so, I am sure they will be considered innocent civilians by the rest of
> the world & the US is nothing but a bunch of murders again.
Heh, Bin Laden is in Pakistan, I'd place bets on it, but if US forces
crossed the border into Pakistan then there would be a world war I think.
The Pakistani government won't let troops into their country because it
would start a civil war and they have nuclear weapons too, it'd be very
nasty indeed.
> > So why the hell isn't Arafat discussing the
> > peace treaty along with Bush and Sharon?
> >
> Because Arafat is no better than bin Laden. The US & Israel are trying
> to reach an agreement, it's Palestine that is being stubborn. Of course,
> this all comes back to the 'Israel is an ally of the US therefore we
> hate them' way of thinking. And what does this have to do w/ you saying
> that Bush is taking revenge on a people & not the terrorists?
Israel and Palestine are just as bad as each other, its just the USA sides
with the jews. No big surprise there, really.
Ethan Hammond
> I think that's just America's consumer culture creeping in, like a plague
> over our once fine civilisations! Watch the Earth crumble!!!!111
>
> McDonald's opens one 'restaurants' in a city... then another... then
> suddenly there's 7 McDonalds! Why??? Seems you can't walk anywhere without
> being subconsciously advertised at either, the side of buses, peoples
> clothing... erg :/
Its all about the mouse, the milkshake, and the millionaire. Not neccessarily
in that order.
--
All Purpose Cultural Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
Ethan Hammond
> The objective was to secure our oil interests... you would think insuring
> the stability of the area would fall under that heading as well. Clinton
> sat on his hands after Reagan sold him the weapons. So, there is plenty of
> reflecting to do on how things can be spun.
You dare to insult the GIPPER!!!! Them's fighting words!!!! Feel the wrath of
my Shining Wizard!!!!
Seed
> Israel couldn't, the world wouldn't let them. They're fighting a
propaganda
> war and they want to come out as the good guys.
That is to an extent true. To be honest, these people has been fighting for
so long I don't know how it started anymore. I can see why Israel tried to
round up people who may eventually bomb their own civilian population, how
can you not blame them. However, they haven't really given any "olive
branches" as incentive to try and start some form of peaceful coexistence.
Sometimes you just get the impression that neither side wants to work things
out. At least, you can say, that the US and the current Russian union have
put the Cold War behind us for the most part and have contiued to persue
peace. Israel needs to pull out and allow them some space, while Arafat
needs to keep his people's extremists under control and try to restart
negotiations.
> Heh, in general I mean. I don't want this to start into a Charles Doane
> style cuss-up, but the kyoto treaty et al seems to prove that America
looks
> out for itself. Sorry to offend you...
Yes, dear Lord, not that again, lol. I think we've aired the argument out
enough to properly express our individual opinions.
Seed
message news:1404-3CD...@storefull-2358.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> > "Playing RE0 on a Pikachu GameCube would
> > definitely fell you into an ironic chasm of
> > surrealistic nuance."
> >
> > Seed - alt.games.phantasy-star
> >
> You bastard! I was going to quote that! lol.
?!?!?!?! DAMN YOU ALL!!!
and you can quote me on that too... lol
Just for the record, I don't care if people quote me in signatures. It's
not like I'm going to enter the pantheon of genius wordsmiths and stand
alongside Socrates and Shakespeare. ;)
Seed
news:ab75ih$ff50m$5...@ID-135140.news.dfncis.de...
> Don't you think that if he could find Osama he wouldn't have found him
> already?... :\
You can't prove that bin Laden is still breathing. ;) We may never know the
answer to that question either way. I'll take solace that he is either very
dead or very afraid to ever show his face again, proving him to be the
coward that he is.
Seed
> I bet people cheered in America when hospitals were cruise missiled during
> the Gulf War. Iignorance is bliss but reality is a stinger when you
finally
> find out the facts.
Actually, I don't remember cheering during the Gulf War. There was strong
support for the Alied forces to be sure, but we watched the whole war on TV
and were constantly shown press breifings. I don't remember dancing in the
streets, though. ;)
> Well, I'm not saying it was public knowledge, but there are facts that
make
> you raise your eyebrow when you investigate into it a bit. For instance -
it
> was only hours after the attacks that the FBI were at the houses of the
> terrorists and searching for 'clues' as to who was involved. Some prior
> knowledge must have been there, even if exact facts weren't known.
> Conspiracy theories and all that BS :)
Yeah, allot of innocent people were detained at first. At least they did
manage to find quite a few illegal immigrants though.
RedFox
> > I think that's just America's consumer culture creeping in, like a
plague
> > over our once fine civilisations! Watch the Earth crumble!!!!111
> >
> > McDonald's opens one 'restaurants' in a city... then another... then
> > suddenly there's 7 McDonalds! Why??? Seems you can't walk anywhere
without
> > being subconsciously advertised at either, the side of buses, peoples
> > clothing... erg :/
>
> Its all about the mouse, the milkshake, and the millionaire. Not
neccessarily
> in that order.
And a red curly wig!
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
>
> Nah, you didn't say that out right, but perhaps
> unintentionally it gave that impression. I know
> you wouldn't have meant it ;)
>
troops lives over civilian lives when these civillians are either
willingly housing the terrorists or force to hided them shouldn't leave
that impression either. You do know that terrorists are masters of the
media propaganda war, don't you? Look at Arafat. :)
>
> I don't know if you saw how life is out there
> but almost no one has televisions, its a media
> blackout except for that controlled by the
> Taliban. At least it was....
>
to a radio, you don't think the Northern Alliance didn't channel plenty
of information about what was going to happen? These people communicate
by word-of-mouth & it travels very rapidly throughout the people. The
pre-Taliban government is everywhere in that country & I am sure they
made as many people as possible aware of what was going to come. Look at
the way the Jewish people communicated when Hitler was hunting them
down. You have the samething in Afganistan only on a more advanced
scale.
Also, remember seeing the long lines of people that were escaping to
Pakistan shortly after these attacks? How do you think they knew an
attack was coming? They were on their way out when Bush said he's coming
after Osama.
>
> But did they know exactly how the attacks
> would take place?
>
Dunno. I don't recall Bush saying "Bomb, bomb, bomb!" ;) But, if my life
were in danger, I would assume the worst & get the hell outta there.
>
> I'm not so sure the
> message of America got through to them, it
> was an opressive sate after a ll...
>
Being oppressed does not mean you have no way to communicate. These
people know more than we think they know. While their means of
communication may not be as technologically advanced as the rest of the
worlds, they do have their ways.
>
> Personally, I don't hate either side. I think we
> should just leave them to it and I don't think it
> helps the USA's cause with the Far East
> when they support Israel.
>
The Far East? You mean China or are you talking about Saudi Arabia? It
is our fault for being dependant on the Middle East. If we didn't need
that oil, then things would be a lot different. That oil is the only
reason our government tries to negotiate w/ Arafat. Otherwise, Arafat
would be on the same list as bin Laden because we wouldn't have to worry
about pleasing Saudi.
>
> Ultimately soldiers have to face the fact they
> might die in battle. Its a risk they accept when
> they sign up, otherwise they're deluding
> themselves.
>
You're right, but that doesn't mean their lives should be valued less
than an opposing countries people. Say what you said to Jonny's mother
after he gets killed by a terrorist using, what might or might not be,
an innocent civilian as a human shield. If I or anyone in my unit were
in that situation, then they'd both get wacked.
Also, keep in mind a lot of these "innocent civilians" aren't so
innocent. Not saying they all are, but a good chunk of these people
house terrorists of their own free will. Like the same innocents you see
burning Flags on TV. lol.
>
> Of course its an accident, it doesn't mean it
> wasn't a stupid thing to do. Foreign relations
> would prevent him from saying such.
>
Stupidity has nothing to do w/ this accident & foreign relations never
stopped you guys from condemning us before, so why does it matter this
time? I am not trying to make light of this accident, but have you ever
looked at Englands (& the rest of the Coalition's) APC's or tanks that
were used in the Gulf War? Compare those to that of Iraq's T-72's (I am
not sure if that is the correct nomenclature, but it's fairly close to
that; it's an outdated Soviet tank). Then add a few hundred meters &
nice little sandstorm & tell me it's not that easy to mistake it's
identity. When you're in a combat area & the pressure from the fact that
you might die is building w/ each passing minute, it's easy to make
mistakes. We're not a bunch of machines over here. :)
>
> I bow to your superior knowledge ;)
>
j00 bastid! Was that a smart-assed remark? lol. =P
>
> And their effect on the world. I'm not going to
> stir that argument about global warming again
> because it ends in stalemate :)
>
True. Kinda like this BS now. lol. Politics, religion & sexual
preference are three things that shouldn't be argued over because
everybody thinks they're right. :)
But, as for me, I am done talking about this cheet, mang. I am not going
to see your point & you are not going to see mine, so I am done. You
win. lol. I'd rather play games anyway & I think you would too. :)
RedFox
> > I bow to your superior knowledge ;)
> >
> j00 bastid! Was that a smart-assed remark? lol. =P
Heheh. I actually meant it :)
> > And their effect on the world. I'm not going to
> > stir that argument about global warming again
> > because it ends in stalemate :)
> >
> True. Kinda like this BS now. lol. Politics, religion & sexual
> preference are three things that shouldn't be argued over because
> everybody thinks they're right. :)
>
> But, as for me, I am done talking about this cheet, mang. I am not going
> to see your point & you are not going to see mine, so I am done. You
> win. lol. I'd rather play games anyway & I think you would too. :)
Nooo! YES! Ok, back to the games playing :)
-=RedFox
Flash3
> "Flash3" <fla...@netc.pt> wrote in message
> news:ab75ih$ff50m$5...@ID-135140.news.dfncis.de...
> > Don't you think that if he could find Osama he wouldn't have found him
> > already?... :\
>
> You can't prove that bin Laden is still breathing. ;) We may never know
the
> answer to that question either way. I'll take solace that he is either
very
> dead or very afraid to ever show his face again, proving him to be the
> coward that he is.
He is just protecting himself like any other criminal would do.
Flash3
> Flash3 wrote:
> >
> > Not the world my friend. I dunno if you were
> > watching the news on 11/9 but the Palestinian
> > were celebrating for some f'n reason.
> >
> Ok, I was generalizing when I should've been specific. Not the world,
> but most people in the world. If you don't believe me, look up some of
> the polls where people around the world said they'd support a US attack
> shortly after the 9/11 attacks.
But to attack who exactly?
> Maybe you forgot that even though this
> attack was on American soil, there were 80 other nations that were
> attcked too & it was not just the US.
Including mine.
> The reason that Palastinians were celebrating is because the US was
> attacked. I thought that was fairly clear. lol. Their hatred for us is
> far worse that yours due to our relationship w/ Israel.
>
> > In issues like this his f'k ups would never be
> > small.
> >
> Issues like what? Our attacks that caused innocent people to die or our
> relationship w/ Palastine & Isreal?
Yes. If your president was capable of doing something, the situation in the
mid-east wouldn't be like it is right now.
And btw... you have no relationship with Palestine because Bush simply
refuses to meet Arafat and discuss a possible peace treaty. Bush describes
Palestine people as "terrorists", so from Bush's point of view Sharon is an
angel.... :\
> We're talking about a couple of
> different things here & I got lost. :)
> >
> > Don't you think that if he could find Osama he
> > wouldn't have found him already?... :\
> >
> Huh? So you think we should just quit & stop looking for him because
> chances are we will not find him? We are at war w/ terrorists & bin
> Laden is the main one we're after.
Why don't you go get Ariel Sharon who is imo at a worse level than bin
Laden?
> Just because one may not be able to
> achieve one objective doesn't mean we should ignore the other. But, I
> don't think we'll find him. He's probably in Pakistan & there are
> already villagers in Pakistan ready to take up arms against the US if
> the US cross the border (that report came from a BBC corespondent btw).
> Of course, if they try to fire against us & when we kill them for doing
> so, I am sure they will be considered innocent civilians by the rest of
> the world & the US is nothing but a bunch of murders again.
Who guarantees you that villagers in Pakistan would shoot against American
soldiers? Have you been there to say so? Who tells you Americans don't shoot
first? Oh come on... war is war...
> > So why the hell isn't Arafat discussing the
> > peace treaty along with Bush and Sharon?
> >
> Because Arafat is no better than bin Laden.
What are Ariel Sharon and George Bush then?
> The US & Israel are trying
> to reach an agreement, it's Palestine that is being stubborn. Of course,
> this all comes back to the 'Israel is an ally of the US therefore we
> hate them' way of thinking. And what does this have to do w/ you saying
> that Bush is taking revenge on a people & not the terrorists?
> >
> > It's not a theory, it's the sad reality.
> >
> Wow. I guess you do believe it then. lol. I have no idea why you think
> we're at war against Afganistan & not just the terrorists.
Why did this so called "war against terrorism" just started on 11/9?
In Spain there is this terrorist organization named ETA who fights for the
independence of a small region (near the border with France). I have yet to
see what the US are doing to stop these folks.
> If this was
> true, then why would Bush punish the American citizens for hate crimes
> against someone that looks like they're from the Middle East? Why would
> Bush tell the nations airline pilots that just because someone is of
> Arabic descent, they can't refuse to let them fly? (this happened
> shortly after 9/11, btw).
You see, there are 6 billion different people on this planet. Fortunately
Bush seems to understand this *phew*
> > I hate your president (and especially his
> > decisions), not you.
> >
> Is there any President we had that you did like? lol.
Hopefully that will happen someday. Unlikely though lol
> > But FBI (or CIA or whatever) quickly found
> > records of supposed Al-Qaeda members
> > inside the United States.
> >
> But they're not bin Laden. They're supposed soldiers of bin Laden. bin
> Laden is not going to go that extra mile to protect his soldiers unless
> they're high ranking officials in his terrorist faction. Then we get the
> hijacked planes w/ hostages & terrorists demanding the release of those
> high ranking terrorists. These people were sent here to accomplish a
> mission & once they've done that, they're worthless to him.
Are they valuable for the American police?
> > You already quoted the Xbox bashing :P lol
> >
> lmao. That's funny. :)
Indeed lol
Flash3
It's damn true! I heard a rumour of a McDonald's opening in town LOL
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
>
> But to attack who exactly?
>
Um, the terrorists. lol. And don't say we're attacking the Afgans or
Islam as a whole either, because regardless of what you may think, this
is not true. If it were true, then the US would do to US Islamic
citizens what they did to the US Japanese citizens back in the day:
throw them into a prison camp & tell them that it was for their own
safety.
>
> Including mine.
>
Yup. Including yours.
>
> Yes. If your president was capable of doing
> something, the situation in the mid-east
> wouldn't be like it is right now.
>
It has nothing to do w/ our current president; you can blame this one on
Carter. We are dependant on their oil, so we need to support all the
middle eastern countries we can. If it weren't for that oil, there would
be no Palestine & 15 innocent kids (& countless others) inside a pool
hall in Israel would be alive right now.
>
> And btw... you have no relationship with
> Palestine because Bush simply refuses to
> meet Arafat and discuss a possible peace
> treaty. Bush describes Palestine people as
> "terrorists", so from Bush's point of view
> Sharon is an angel.... :\
>
Sure we have a relationship w/ Palestine. It may not be on the best of
terms, but it is still a relationship. Everything doesn't have to be
hunky-dorey to be considered a relationship.
And the Palestinians are terrorists. I think last night only proves this
point even more. Not to mention the 14 year old boys & girls that are
recruited as suicide bombers for Palestine, eh? They started terrorists
attacks on the people of Israel before Israel became a state in 1948.
>
> Why don't you go get Ariel Sharon who is imo
> at a worse level than bin Laden?
>
That is f'ked up. I am not saying Sharon is an angel, but if he was
anything like bin Laden, he'd have carpet bombed Palestine long ago.
Instead, he risks the lives of his troops rather to try to have minimal
Palestinian civilian innocent casualties (not that there are many
innocents in Palestine).
>
> Who guarantees you that villagers in Pakistan
> would shoot against American soldiers? Have
> you been there to say so? Who tells you
> Americans don't shoot first? Oh come on...
> war is war...
>
Oh, I don't know... the villagers they showed on the news maybe? lol.
And what does it matter who shoots first? I hate to be the one that
tells you this, but if someone is pointing a friggin' AK at you, they're
an enemy regardless of who they are. I can see you're already plotting a
rebuttal against any US action here. lol.
>
> What are Ariel Sharon and George Bush
> then?
>
OMG, come on. You really don't believe that shit do you?! I can see
where you might get the idea that Sharon is a terrorist (which he's
not), but you think Bush is a terrorists?! I think your hatred for Bush
is so bad, you would condemn him for anything he has said or done.
If you think Arafat isn't a terrorist, then you're deluding yourself.
Just look at what happened last night in a pool hall in Israel. 15 kids
died from a Palestinian suicide bomber attack. You generate sympathy for
known terrorists killing innocent kids, but when the US military hit's a
civilian area that house terrorists, you condemn Bush. What gives?
>
> Why did this so called "war against terrorism"
> just started on 11/9?
>
Do you think the UN would've allowed us to go into Afganistan to try to
capture bin Laden if 9/11 didn't happen? Why do you think we haven't
went after him 'til now? Because now w have UN support. We'd have done
something long ago if i weren't for the UN.
>
> In Spain there is this terrorist organization
> named ETA who fights for the independence
> of a small region (near the border with
> France). I have yet to see what the US are
> doing to stop these folks.
>
You don't want our help, remember? Eveytime the US tries to help out,
it's for our own good, remember? lol. Is this where your hatred for our
country stems from? I don't like this country either, but I do have a
hell of alot better reasons than that. lol. Maybe you should ask your
country & every other country in the world why they don't help.
>
> You see, there are 6 billion different people
> on this planet. Fortunately Bush seems to
> understand this *phew*
>
> Hopefully that will happen someday. Unlikely
> though lol
>
Yup. Since you already have made up your mind, you are correct. And your
hatred for Bush is misplaced. You have yet to give a valid reason for
why you hate him. You hate him for what past presidents have done & not
for something he has done.
>
> Are they valuable for the American police?
>
You lost me there. I don't know what the American police have to do w/
how bin Ladens terrorist soldiers are worthless to him after they've
accomplish the mission they have been given.
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
> ?!?!?!?! DAMN YOU ALL!!!
>
lol.
>
> and you can quote me on that too... lol
>
I was planning on it anyway. I just haven't gotten around to it. :)
>
> Just for the record, I don't care if people quote
> me in signatures.
>
Yeah, I feel the same way. I have yet to write anything worthy of
quoting though. lol. =P
>
> It's not like I'm going to enter the pantheon of
> genius wordsmiths and stand alongside
> Socrates and Shakespeare. ;)
>
Sir Seed, you don't seem understand... It would be Socrates &
Shakespeare along side YOU & not you alongside them. lol.
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
> Heheh. I actually meant it :)
>
Well thank you for the compliment, but it was undeserving I'm afraid. :)
The only reason I know anything about military vehicles & the Gulf War
is because I was in the US Army & the Gulf War from start to finish.
When a life altering situation happens to someone, they tend to remember
it well & read alot about it. Once I got internet access in '97, I
looked up alot information on it. *Not just US .gov sites either
dammit!!11!!1!1!!!* lol.
>
> Nooo! YES! Ok, back to the games playing :)
>
lol, glad this is over. I hate arguing this crap. :)
But, ya know, all of this got me thinking: I think we ought to send a
few million PC's to Israel & Palestine & give them free internet access.
This way, they can argue their political debates on Usenet & still
accomplish nada-damn-thing without having to kill each other. :)
Flash3
> Flash3 wrote:
>
> >
> > But to attack who exactly?
> >
>
> Um, the terrorists. lol. And don't say we're attacking the Afgans or
> Islam as a whole either, because regardless of what you may think, this
> is not true. If it were true, then the US would do to US Islamic
> citizens what they did to the US Japanese citizens back in the day:
> throw them into a prison camp & tell them that it was for their own
> safety.
So why Afghanistan? Because the Taliban hosted Osama's organization? Because
there are training camps all over Afghanistan? Well, this is no excuse
because they can have training camps all over that area, not just
Afghanistan :\
> > Including mine.
> >
> Yup. Including yours.
And that day was pretty f'n sad. :(
> > Yes. If your president was capable of doing
> > something, the situation in the mid-east
> > wouldn't be like it is right now.
> >
> It has nothing to do w/ our current president; you can blame this one on
> Carter. We are dependant on their oil, so we need to support all the
> middle eastern countries we can.
Isn't your own oil enough?
> If it weren't for that oil, there would
> be no Palestine & 15 innocent kids (& countless others) inside a pool
> hall in Israel would be alive right now.
How many died in Afghanistan or in 11/9?
> > And btw... you have no relationship with
> > Palestine because Bush simply refuses to
> > meet Arafat and discuss a possible peace
> > treaty. Bush describes Palestine people as
> > "terrorists", so from Bush's point of view
> > Sharon is an angel.... :\
> >
> Sure we have a relationship w/ Palestine. It may not be on the best of
> terms, but it is still a relationship. Everything doesn't have to be
> hunky-dorey to be considered a relationship.
>
> And the Palestinians are terrorists. I think last night only proves this
> point even more. Not to mention the 14 year old boys & girls that are
> recruited as suicide bombers for Palestine, eh? They started terrorists
> attacks on the people of Israel before Israel became a state in 1948.
USA attacks with Tomahawks. Israel attacks with tanks. Palestinian attack
with what they have.
> > Why don't you go get Ariel Sharon who is imo
> > at a worse level than bin Laden?
> >
> That is f'ked up. I am not saying Sharon is an angel, but if he was
> anything like bin Laden, he'd have carpet bombed Palestine long ago.
> Instead, he risks the lives of his troops rather to try to have minimal
> Palestinian civilian innocent casualties (not that there are many
> innocents in Palestine).
Who told you that? LMAO!!
> > Who guarantees you that villagers in Pakistan
> > would shoot against American soldiers? Have
> > you been there to say so? Who tells you
> > Americans don't shoot first? Oh come on...
> > war is war...
> >
> Oh, I don't know... the villagers they showed on the news maybe? lol.
So they broadcasted the shooting?
> And what does it matter who shoots first?
Of course it does. You have no reason to attack unless someone else attacks
you.
> I hate to be the one that
> tells you this, but if someone is pointing a friggin' AK at you, they're
> an enemy regardless of who they are. I can see you're already plotting a
> rebuttal against any US action here. lol.
I dunno what really happens in reality, I've never been in a war front line,
so I won't say who is enemy and who is not.
> > What are Ariel Sharon and George Bush
> > then?
> >
> OMG, come on. You really don't believe that shit do you?! I can see
> where you might get the idea that Sharon is a terrorist (which he's
> not), but you think Bush is a terrorists?! I think your hatred for Bush
> is so bad, you would condemn him for anything he has said or done.
I can see you are misinformed of what's going on in mid-east. About Bush, he
has caused many deaths already.
> If you think Arafat isn't a terrorist, then you're deluding yourself.
> Just look at what happened last night in a pool hall in Israel.
I'm not saying he is not.
> 15 kids
> died from a Palestinian suicide bomber attack. You generate sympathy for
> known terrorists killing innocent kids, but when the US military hit's a
> civilian area that house terrorists, you condemn Bush. What gives?
You generate sympathy for terrorists having the Nativity Church surrounded
for weeks? It's a CHURCH for god sake!
> > Why did this so called "war against terrorism"
> > just started on 11/9?
> >
> Do you think the UN would've allowed us to go into Afganistan to try to
> capture bin Laden if 9/11 didn't happen? Why do you think we haven't
> went after him 'til now? Because now w have UN support. We'd have done
> something long ago if i weren't for the UN.
That's bs. You didn't get authorization from no one to nuke Kosovo.
> > In Spain there is this terrorist organization
> > named ETA who fights for the independence
> > of a small region (near the border with
> > France). I have yet to see what the US are
> > doing to stop these folks.
> >
> You don't want our help, remember?
I'm from Portugal brudda. Portugal is a country, Spain is another. If the
Spanish want or not your help, that is none of my business. I don't think
the US would do much anyways.
> Eveytime the US tries to help out,
> it's for our own good, remember? lol.
Is it? ROTFLMAO!
> Is this where your hatred for our
> country stems from? I don't like this country either, but I do have a
> hell of alot better reasons than that. lol. Maybe you should ask your
> country & every other country in the world why they don't help.
*points to nuclear weapons* We don't have them. That's why.
> > You see, there are 6 billion different people
> > on this planet. Fortunately Bush seems to
> > understand this *phew*
> >
> > Hopefully that will happen someday. Unlikely
> > though lol
> >
> Yup. Since you already have made up your mind, you are correct. And your
> hatred for Bush is misplaced. You have yet to give a valid reason for
> why you hate him. You hate him for what past presidents have done & not
> for something he has done.
I hate him because he is incredibly ignorant:
Point number 1: self-defense missile system (yay! cold war again...)
Point number 2: rejection of Kyoto protocol in the name of national economy.
Do you think there can be an economy without planet? Because of your
president's f'n example, the Kyoto protocol is just another piece of paper.
Point number 3: Clinton always dealt with both sides on the mid-east
question. I dunno why Bush isn't.
Point number 4: East Timor question. Why didn't you get in there like you
did in Kosovo? In the name of economy? F'k... you just help (?) who can
possibly bring you financial or extra natural resources.
> > Are they valuable for the American police?
> >
> You lost me there. I don't know what the American police have to do w/
> how bin Ladens terrorist soldiers are worthless to him after they've
> accomplish the mission they have been given.
Osama's soldiers could be useful for the American cops in the endless quest
it is to find Osama. Right?
Seed
> Sir Seed, you don't seem understand... It would be Socrates &
> Shakespeare along side YOU & not you alongside them. lol.
If that be true, I would kick them out. For they stink of the decay of ages
past. They smell like ass... x 1,001. =P
--
____________________________
Seed
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
> So why Afghanistan? Because the Taliban
> hosted Osama's organization? Because there
> are training camps all over Afghanistan? Well,
> this is no excuse because they can have
> training camps all over that area, not just
> Afghanistan :\
>
Why? Because that's where bin Laden has resided since like '95 or '96. I
am not 100% sure, but I am fairly positive he was exiled from Saudi
Arabia (which is his native country). After that, he went to Afganistan
to fight against the Soviets w/ weapons we supplied to him & the Afgans
(imagine that, lol.... can you say STINGER!, lol). His main terrorist
training camps are in Afganistan as well. That's why we started in
Afganistan.
I say "we started in Afganistan" because at first, this war started out
as terrorist cleansing campaign. But, I am sure after bin Laden is dead
or not found after a while, the worlds sympathy will kick in & we'll
have to stop & be right back at point 'A' again.
>
> And that day was pretty f'n sad. :(
>
That it was. :(
>
> Isn't your own oil enough?
>
For a while, yes. I think alot of the problem is, noone wants to be the
president to give the okay to use it because when it runs out, the
fingers will point back to the president that gave that 'okay' & that's
what he will be remembered for in the history books. Clinton should've
done this so he'd be remembered as a f'k-up this way & not in the Monica
Blewclintski way. lol
>
> How many died in Afghanistan or in 11/9?
>
What does that have to do w/ Israel & Palestine? lol.
>
> USA attacks with Tomahawks. Israel attacks
> with tanks. Palestinian attack with what they
> have.
>
Yeah, 14 & 15 year old kids w/ bombs straped to them is what Palestine
has. That's okay by you? Read this article. Especially the part about
how the Jewish settlers where their targets:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/750066.asp?pne=msntv
Nothing like being remembered as a hero for being a child suicide bomber
& killing a few innocents, eh? These kids start learning this in school
aroud the age of 5, btw.
>
> Who told you that? LMAO!!
>
Besides the fact that from the news footage it's quite obvious, I get my
information from MSNBC & the BBCi mainly. I'll read other articles from
various news sites as well. Sorry, but I don't get my information from
the Palestinian Tribune. Time to pick your ass up since you laughed it
off, btw. lol.
>
> So they broadcasted the shooting?
>
A never said anything them broadcasting a shooting. You said something
about who guarantees me that villagers in Pakistan would shoot against
American soldiers. I said the news broadcast. The reason I said that was
because those villagers said they would shoot any Americans that come
across the border.
>
> Of course it does. You have no reason to
> attack unless someone else attacks you.
>
Do me a favor & don't break up my posts & manipulate them to have a
different meaning. The "What does it matter who shoots first?" statement
I made was in conjunction w/ the statements you quoted below. It was the
first sentence of that paragraph.
>> I hate to be the one that tells you this, but if
>> someone is pointing a friggin' AK at you,
>> they're an enemy regardless of who they
>> are. I can see you're already plotting a
>> rebuttal against any US action here. lol.
>>
See how you gave it a new meaning? Not saying you did it intentionally,
so don't it wrong. Or are you pulling a Cam & top-posting on me? lol.
>
> I dunno what really happens in reality, I've
> never been in a war front line, so I won't say
> who is enemy and who is not.
>
You don't have to have ever been on the frontline to know who the enemy
is; it's the guy pointing the weapon at you& it doesn't matter if he's
shooting or not.
>
> You generate sympathy for terrorists having
> the Nativity Church surrounded for weeks?
> It's a CHURCH for god sake!
>
I don't give a fat-baby's ass if it was Heaven that was surrounded for
40 something days. There were 13 highly wanted & armed terrorists in
that church. What about the lives they took? Does that even matter to
you? Why do you think no other country wanted these guys when Palestine
made an agreement to exile these bastards? They tried to get Italy (who
got very pissed off, because it was assumed they would be exiled to
there & noone asked Italy), Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt & many
other countries to take them & noone would. You think that was because
they were 'good ol' boys'? Egypt said they'd take them in transit, but
that's it. Hell, even Sudan wouldn't take 'em. I know an agreement was
reached but I don't know what country decided to take these terrorists.
The fact that Palestine made an agreement to exile them is quite
laughable, but what's even more laughable is the fact that Israel agreed
to the terms & why. They let them go on a friggin' *promise* for God's
sake. The terrorists made a *promise* that they would not commit acts of
terror again. These pos's will be back in Palestine w/ in the year
killing more innocent people. They only reason Israel let them go on a
whim of a promise was because the world saw that the seige was taking
place at Christs supposed birthplace & thought it was f'ked up. Let's
all just forget about *who* was inside, right? lol.
>
> That's bs. You didn't get authorization from no
> one to nuke Kosovo.
>
Do you know what a 'nuke' is? I don't recall any 'nuking' going on.
>
> I'm from Portugal brudda. Portugal is a
> country, Spain is another. If the Spanish want
> or not your help, that is none of my business.
> I don't think the US would do much anyways.
>
Damn. I thought you said you were from Spain a few weeks ago in the beer
thread. lol. And you are right, we wouldn't do much. Does Spain have
anything of interest to us? Don't get me wrong, I know how the US works
& I don't agree w/ most of it, but that is not what I am arguing though.
>
> Is it? ROTFLMAO!
>
Well, yeah. :)
>
> *points to nuclear weapons* We don't have
> them. That's why.
>
And? So, since we have the nukes, we get to be the saviors of all
countries that need help? Why? So you guys can rake up more crap to pin
on us? See where the rock & the hard place comes into play here? We're
damned if we do & damned if we don't. Kinda like what's going on now.
>
> I hate him because he is incredibly ignorant:
>
How so? Elighten me w/ your foreign wisdom please.
>
> Point number 1: self-defense missile system
> (yay! cold war again...)
>
Remember earlier in this post you pointed to the nuclear weapons & said
you don't have them? Well, maybe if you guys had them, then you could be
the saviors of other countries instead of pawning it off on the US. And,
you could just defend yourselves when the time comes & not need our
help. But, I guess this way gives you all something to bitch about.
>
> Point number 2: rejection of Kyoto protocol in
> the name of national economy. Do you think
> there can be an economy without planet?
>
I am not going to get into enviornmental issues. That's a whole 'nother
can o' worms that needs to stay shut. I have already spent 17 minutes of
my time on this post alone & I feel like hammered dog sh*t. lol.
>
> Because of your president's f'n example, the
> Kyoto protocol is just another piece of paper.
>
Pretty easy to blame everything on Bush, eh? Thats all you seem to be
doing. Anything bad=Bush's doing, right?
>
> Point number 3: Clinton always dealt with
> both sides on the mid-east question. I dunno
> why Bush isn't.
>
Ahhh!!!!! You're a democrat from Portugal! That explains your hatred. Or
is it Spain? j/k
Clinton dealt w/ nothing. Did he accomplish anything in the Middle East?
Um, not no, but *hell* no. Clinton was a tool.
>
> Point number 4: East Timor question. Why
> didn't you get in there like you did in Kosovo?
> In the name of economy? F'k... you just help
> (?) who can possibly bring you financial or
> extra natural resources.
>
Pretty much. But there are other variables that factor into why we don't
help a country out too. If you guys had those nuclear warheads you
pointed at earlier, then you guys could make the decision of who to &
who not to help.
>
> Osama's soldiers could be useful for the
> American cops in the endless quest it is to
> find Osama. Right?
>
Well, I don't think Osama's soldiers know where he is either. I would
imagine the only people that know where he is are his closest officers.
Is that what you meant? I am still having trouble making sense of this.
I am *very* tired & *very* sick right now so I can't think straight.
lol.
Ethan Hammond
> And? So, since we have the nukes, we get to be the saviors of all
> countries that need help? Why? So you guys can rake up more crap to pin
> on us? See where the rock & the hard place comes into play here? We're
> damned if we do & damned if we don't. Kinda like what's going on now.
Who cares what Portugal thinks, they don't even have nukes, like
caffine free Coke. And there only natural resource is string cheese.
Oh no, don't beat me down with your waving cheese sticks pretending
they are swords!!!! The horror!!!!
neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero
Damned WebTV caused me to miss this. I have to copy & paste when I quote
& everything is bunched together like one big paragraph. lol.
And btw, if you see some letters missing in this post, it's because my
keyboard's batteries are dying. *Does the Ethan patented *shakes fist*
action* Damn you Shepherd Bill for using AAA batteries in the keyboard &
AA in the remote! =P
>
> I can see you are misinformed of what's going
> on in mid-east. About Bush, he has caused
> many deaths already.
>
So that makes him a terrorist? They are two totally different
situations. The difference between Bush & Palestinians is that Bush does
not target innocents & that is the main target of Palestinians is
innocent Israeli's.
While noone in their right mind wants to see innocents die, it is
unavoidable in a wartime situation. It would be very nice not to have
war, but it is a fact of life. The best thing we (by 'we' I mean
everyone & not just the US) can do, is try to invent new technology that
brings innocent casualties to a minimum. Take a look back in the past
wars & you'll see just how far we have come. If we (by 'we', I now mean
everyone involved in the allied forces fighting in Afganistan) send
ground troops into Afganistan, there would be more innocents killed than
if we bomb them w/ new technology.
I am sure you have not heard this or you chose to ignore it, but Bush
asked the children of America to donate $1 to help the children of
Afganistan. Our government has sent $500 million in humanitarian (sp?)
aid, now who do you think has to authorize that? Also, I saw a lady on
the Fox News Channel (similar to CNN, but not nearly as widely
broadcast) that was the head of sending relief to Afgan civilians (don't
recall the name of the organization) that said there is also going to be
money to help rebuild the schools, hospitals & homes in Afganistan once
this is all over with. Would Arafat do that? Only for the families of
hero suicide bombers.
RedFox
> > And? So, since we have the nukes, we get to be the saviors of all
> > countries that need help? Why? So you guys can rake up more crap to pin
> > on us? See where the rock & the hard place comes into play here? We're
> > damned if we do & damned if we don't. Kinda like what's going on now.
>
> Who cares what Portugal thinks, they don't even have nukes, like
> caffine free Coke. And there only natural resource is string cheese.
> Oh no, don't beat me down with your waving cheese sticks pretending
> they are swords!!!! The horror!!!!
Hoho, I want to beat him down but i can't be bothered. Someone else do it ;)
Flash3
news:3CDB85...@worldnet.att.net...
> neo-the yellow gigasnowball zero wrote:
>
> > And? So, since we have the nukes, we get to be the saviors of all
> > countries that need help? Why? So you guys can rake up more crap to pin
> > on us? See where the rock & the hard place comes into play here? We're
> > damned if we do & damned if we don't. Kinda like what's going on now.
>
> Who cares what Portugal thinks, they don't even have nukes, like
> caffine free Coke. And there only natural resource is string cheese.
> Oh no, don't beat me down with your waving cheese sticks pretending
> they are swords!!!! The horror!!!!
We sell you uranium for your nuclear plants :P
Ethan Hammond
> > Who cares what Portugal thinks, they don't even have nukes, like
> > caffine free Coke. And there only natural resource is string cheese.
> > Oh no, don't beat me down with your waving cheese sticks pretending
> > they are swords!!!! The horror!!!!
>
> We sell you uranium for your nuclear plants :P
The jokes on you then. The paper we give you for uranium cannot defeat us.
Jon
> Ethan Hammond wrote:
>
> > Osama attacked us several times before 9/11
> > and Clinton did nothing.
> >
> thinking we are the 'untouchable nation' for the 9/11 attacks. Thinking
> our security system was l33t was our first fault.
>
> Besides, Clinton would've pussied out halfway through the campaign if he
> decide to attack terrorism like Bush did.
I don't think 9/11 was Clinton's fault either. IMO, I beleive we all felt we
were untouchable, or free from terrorist acts. You start cutting defense
budgets thinking nothing will happen to us (part arrogance) and then the
"unthinkable" happens. I'm not a Bush fan but I am proud how he handled/is
handling the current situation. Clinton I believe would of done the same.
These events have opened my eyes torwards the rest of the world, and not
just the US. It's sad that we sometimes focus on our own little "bubbles"
and not focusing on the whole picture.
--
Jon (LABER1)
Jon
> There was nothing to do in the 1800's as Pres. Sure slavery could've
> been abolished sooner & Van Buren could've done that, but Lincoln was
> probably the only President of that era who even thought about how
> morally wrong slavery was & I think slavery would've lasted long into
> the 20th century had Lincoln not abolished it. Slavery was a way of life
> in those days & it was natural to have slaves well before they were
> brought to America. Changing a way of life is a difficult thing to do.
>
> He may not be remembered, but he didn't screw up either (as far as I
> know ;)). The way I see it, as long as a President doesn't screw up, he
> has done his job. Not all Presidents *have* to be remembered for
> something... I think that's why our recent Presidents suck: they think
> they have to be remembered by accomplishing something that will be
> remembered by all generations.
>
> Besides, Clinton *will* be remembred.... Monica Blewclintski will make
> sure of that. lol.
He could of chosen a better intern though...tsk
--
Jon (LABER1)
Jon
> Seed wrote:
>
> > The objective was to secure our oil interests... you would think
insuring
> > the stability of the area would fall under that heading as well.
Clinton
> > sat on his hands after Reagan sold him the weapons. So, there is plenty
of
> > reflecting to do on how things can be spun.
>
> You dare to insult the GIPPER!!!! Them's fighting words!!!! Feel the
wrath of
> my Shining Wizard!!!!
Ethan, pull up your pants..lol
--
Jon (LABER1)
Jon
> > Flash3 wrote:
> >
> > > Bush just nuked Afghanistan to make
> > > Americans happy. Poor Afghans. SO...where
> > > in the blue hell is Osama? Bush is an idiot.
> > >
> > have kept going into Iraq, the world would find some way to generate
> > sympathy for them & Bush would've been an idiot.
>
> And going to Iraq to do exactly what? To nuke Bush Sr. friend because they
> support Arafat?...
>
> > If we'd have blasted
> > Afganistan on Sept. 12th, Bush would be a hero. Funny how memories fade
> > fast. heh.
>
> You could even have blasted Afghanistan before 11/9 and Bush would be no
> hero. His goal was to take revenge on a people, not on an individual
*points
> to Osama* because he knows he can't find him. I myself think Osama is
inside
> the US but Bush is too stupid to realise that.
Flash, come on man. Osama in the US? His ass would be dead quickstyle. I'm
sure the bastard is too proud to shave his beard. Let the conspiracy
theories begin...
--
Jon (LABER1)