um..
hip hop antagoniser
anyways back to the original topic, i think emma kate has been reading too much michael moore
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Stupid White Americans (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter EmmaKate
- Start date
- Status
-=«MÄLÅÇhïtÊ»=-
Gender: MALE!!!
the bit i dont really get is so what if they have weapons of mass destruction? who says america is the only country allowed to bully people with them?
hatty
Banned
question is.
who would u prefer to have WMD?
America or Iraq?
ill go America
who would u prefer to have WMD?
America or Iraq?
ill go America
freaking_out
Saddam's new life
na, but its hypocritical for america to go and try to stop iraq from getting WMD's whilst, america has a whole arsenal of it. btw, america was the one who really "set up" saddam hussein. saddam was once a very good friend of america did u know?
hatty
Banned
it is hypocritical of America, but if George Bush wanted to nuke a country, it wouldn't be that easy. He would need approval from a whole shitload of people.
whereas Saddam, if he felt like nuking some country, all he had to do is press some fucking button.
i am well aware that the US and Saddam were friends
but....
times change.
England and France fought a war that lasted over a 100 years.
then all of a sudden, they're best friends fighting Germany in WWI.
the argument that the US used to help Saddam and all the shit doesn't work, due to a simple fact that shit changes.
whereas Saddam, if he felt like nuking some country, all he had to do is press some fucking button.
i am well aware that the US and Saddam were friends
but....
times change.
England and France fought a war that lasted over a 100 years.
then all of a sudden, they're best friends fighting Germany in WWI.
the argument that the US used to help Saddam and all the shit doesn't work, due to a simple fact that shit changes.
cro_angel
<3<3<3
its so lame... going to war for the weapons
we were watching this video in business about how russia has weapons and things.. and there is this shed thing only locked by a single lock thing and theres several nuclear (i think?) bombs in there capable of killing a few thousand people.. and theres children like playing about 500m away from it (ok so they probably paid the children to play there but still..)
russia probably has even more powerful weapons but the americans are like scared of them so they go for the smaller fish to fry (mm too much frontline for me..)
we were watching this video in business about how russia has weapons and things.. and there is this shed thing only locked by a single lock thing and theres several nuclear (i think?) bombs in there capable of killing a few thousand people.. and theres children like playing about 500m away from it (ok so they probably paid the children to play there but still..)
russia probably has even more powerful weapons but the americans are like scared of them so they go for the smaller fish to fry (mm too much frontline for me..)
hatty
Banned
lets just completely forget about the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis.
the Russians and Americans were this close ( | | ) from bombing the shit out of each other. if the Americans were scared, JFK wouldn't have taken the firm stance that he did that almost brought the world on the brink of nuclear destruction. America is not scared.
Stupid? maybe
but not scared.
Russia isn't a threat anymore to anyone regarding WMD. Why? Because if their president wants to bomb a country, he would need the approval from lots of people. (unlike the Communists leaders before him, and unlike Saddam, as i have previously pointed out)
cro_angel
<3<3<3
ok so i dont do history or have any prior knowledge of this so sorry
i just think its lame how they can fully launch a war over the weapons but theres so many weapons in other places so easily accessible (possibly by terrorists from other countries) and they dont do anything about it
i just think its lame how they can fully launch a war over the weapons but theres so many weapons in other places so easily accessible (possibly by terrorists from other countries) and they dont do anything about it
Bull. The only approval a democratically elected President needs to blow up something is an election.
*democracy lesson*
When citizens elect a leader, they entrust that leader with defence--full stop. Pre-emptive or not is a different issue. Dir.
And you have to be bllllloody stupid to think that Russia is a non-threat r.e. WMD. They went broke because they put everything towards building them.
I take it you've never heard of a 'state of emergency'.
It's sooo simplistic to think dictators are more capable to fight a war rather than the most powerful democracys on earth.
Just remember that the world's intelligence and thinking doesn't develop as you do. Very naieve.
In regards to bush and his IQ: quote, "To all the C-average students out there, you can be President too" [especially if your dad once was and his friends can help you, and your crooked governor brother screws with the ballots and you hoar yourself to big business esp. oil companys]
*democracy lesson*
When citizens elect a leader, they entrust that leader with defence--full stop. Pre-emptive or not is a different issue. Dir.
And you have to be bllllloody stupid to think that Russia is a non-threat r.e. WMD. They went broke because they put everything towards building them.
I take it you've never heard of a 'state of emergency'.
It's sooo simplistic to think dictators are more capable to fight a war rather than the most powerful democracys on earth.
Just remember that the world's intelligence and thinking doesn't develop as you do. Very naieve.
In regards to bush and his IQ: quote, "To all the C-average students out there, you can be President too" [especially if your dad once was and his friends can help you, and your crooked governor brother screws with the ballots and you hoar yourself to big business esp. oil companys]
hatty
Banned
"Bull. The only approval a democratically elected President needs to blow up something is an election. "
you speak of it as if its really easy to be elected.
President Bush, if he wanted to bomb a country, would have to get approval from Congress and Military advisers. He cant just wake up and say " hmmmm, i feel like bombing Canada" then pushed a button. Saddam on the other hand, can.
"When citizens elect a leader, they entrust that leader with defence--full stop. "
Who was talking about defence? The whole thread is trying to justify America attacking Iraq.
"And you have to be bllllloody stupid to think that Russia is a non-threat r.e. WMD. They went broke because they put everything towards building them."
Give me one piece of evidence (after the 'end' of the cold war) that Russia is a threat. You cant.
They WERE a threat. ( Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis, as I have said previouly), but because they went broke building these things (as you have pointed out), they are no longer a threat.
You contradicted urself.
"It's sooo simplistic to think dictators are more capable to fight a war rather than the most powerful democracys on earth."
So if Saddam wanted to start a war with a country, it would be HARD for him to do so?
Hard as in pulling the zip of his fly up without getting his dick caught.
All the guy had to do was CLICK his fucking fingers, and the war starts. If someone opposes him, they are killed and tortured. Understand?
Bush on the other hand needs approval from a whole range of sources. (inclusive of the UN)
And thats just simple fact.
Most of what you typed us contains these little petty personal attacks on me.
All I have to say is I'm here to discuss something. I'm here to learn.
If you are that childish to get offended by what i say, then maybe u arn't old enough for to read it.
Grow up ok?
If you have an oppinion on this topic, then get ur point across without making these childish attacks and saturating it with smartass comments that are completely irrelevant to the topic.
Regards
you speak of it as if its really easy to be elected.
President Bush, if he wanted to bomb a country, would have to get approval from Congress and Military advisers. He cant just wake up and say " hmmmm, i feel like bombing Canada" then pushed a button. Saddam on the other hand, can.
"When citizens elect a leader, they entrust that leader with defence--full stop. "
Who was talking about defence? The whole thread is trying to justify America attacking Iraq.
"And you have to be bllllloody stupid to think that Russia is a non-threat r.e. WMD. They went broke because they put everything towards building them."
Give me one piece of evidence (after the 'end' of the cold war) that Russia is a threat. You cant.
They WERE a threat. ( Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis, as I have said previouly), but because they went broke building these things (as you have pointed out), they are no longer a threat.
You contradicted urself.
"It's sooo simplistic to think dictators are more capable to fight a war rather than the most powerful democracys on earth."
So if Saddam wanted to start a war with a country, it would be HARD for him to do so?
Hard as in pulling the zip of his fly up without getting his dick caught.
All the guy had to do was CLICK his fucking fingers, and the war starts. If someone opposes him, they are killed and tortured. Understand?
Bush on the other hand needs approval from a whole range of sources. (inclusive of the UN)
And thats just simple fact.
Most of what you typed us contains these little petty personal attacks on me.
All I have to say is I'm here to discuss something. I'm here to learn.
If you are that childish to get offended by what i say, then maybe u arn't old enough for to read it.
Grow up ok?
If you have an oppinion on this topic, then get ur point across without making these childish attacks and saturating it with smartass comments that are completely irrelevant to the topic.
Regards
freaking_out
Saddam's new life
LoL, well he didn't listen to the ppl. when he went to war with iraq did he?
hatty
Banned
he didn't "not listen" to them. why?
because.
they approved. did u ever think of that? lol
you cant fight a war without money.
Bush needed the approval from congress so that a few billion dollars be used on the war effort.
simple facts.
saddam on the other hand has enough money to make toilet flushes out of pure gold.
take it from there.
because.
they approved. did u ever think of that? lol
you cant fight a war without money.
Bush needed the approval from congress so that a few billion dollars be used on the war effort.
simple facts.
saddam on the other hand has enough money to make toilet flushes out of pure gold.
take it from there.
Last edited:
Rorix
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,818
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
The US President needs approval from Congress before offically declaring war on a country. In addition, a majority of American citizens supported the war on Iraq (assuming opinion polls are accurate).
Regarding Russia, America has many agreements with Russia about dismantling missiles. While these agreements are largely symbolic and both sides know nothing is really being done, steps are being taken to deal with the problem.
America did support Saddam as a means of controlling Iran. However, that doesn't mean they can't get rid of him if he poses a threat to the United States. If you get a guard dog, and a couple years later it mauls your leg off, are you saying you're not entitled to get rid of it?
Alexander: Provide any sort of factual evidence from the post Cold War era that Russia is a threat to the United States.
Regarding Russia, America has many agreements with Russia about dismantling missiles. While these agreements are largely symbolic and both sides know nothing is really being done, steps are being taken to deal with the problem.
America did support Saddam as a means of controlling Iran. However, that doesn't mean they can't get rid of him if he poses a threat to the United States. If you get a guard dog, and a couple years later it mauls your leg off, are you saying you're not entitled to get rid of it?
Alexander: Provide any sort of factual evidence from the post Cold War era that Russia is a threat to the United States.
EmmaKate
New Member
Im not a crazy radical, i just dont like injustice. And yes, this war a) isnt over and b) was never about terrorism.
And, one of my best friends Lauren Peterka, is an American AND her mother was killed in the World Trade Centre Disaster. There is alot to be said from being out outsider looking in on the global situation in America. I don't consider myself a racist in any respect - as all nations have something to offer and it is unjust to set apart people based on where they were born, which race they were born into and who their parents were.
My spelling errors in the original note were an intended pun and im sorry if the message got confused.
Basically, I consider myself to have the people at heart. I'm very opinionated about the way this issue is being dealt with - but thats only because it really makes me so angry that stupid men are making such big decisions - which will affect peopinnocent lives.
We, living in a 1st world country cannot begin to empathize with the Iraq citizens - but, from what little uncensored information we do see - they are not having a lot of fun. I'm not saying that Under saddam they were - but i am suggesting that perhaps this war was unnecessary in the respect and caused a helluva lot more damage than good. I consider myself a pacifist - because violence solves nothing. Just think of the children - sure they arent growing up under saddams oppressive regime - but is this really much better?
And, one of my best friends Lauren Peterka, is an American AND her mother was killed in the World Trade Centre Disaster. There is alot to be said from being out outsider looking in on the global situation in America. I don't consider myself a racist in any respect - as all nations have something to offer and it is unjust to set apart people based on where they were born, which race they were born into and who their parents were.
My spelling errors in the original note were an intended pun and im sorry if the message got confused.
Basically, I consider myself to have the people at heart. I'm very opinionated about the way this issue is being dealt with - but thats only because it really makes me so angry that stupid men are making such big decisions - which will affect peopinnocent lives.
We, living in a 1st world country cannot begin to empathize with the Iraq citizens - but, from what little uncensored information we do see - they are not having a lot of fun. I'm not saying that Under saddam they were - but i am suggesting that perhaps this war was unnecessary in the respect and caused a helluva lot more damage than good. I consider myself a pacifist - because violence solves nothing. Just think of the children - sure they arent growing up under saddams oppressive regime - but is this really much better?
um..
hip hop antagoniser
er there's a lot of information to digest here
firstly rorix - the 'guard dog' didnt bite it's owners leg, the owner's priorities merely shifted and the dog fell out of favour. iraq has never opposed a direct threat to america - the only time it would have had the weapons capable to do so was when america was it's ally. so you could say the dog had it's teeth removed (during the first iraqi war and subsequent UN weapons programs) before it could even bite.
hatz - your argument that saddam could have triggered a nuclear war is fundamentally flawed. has it ever been proven that he had nuclear warheads in the first place? or the weapons capable of delivering them? as you saw in the last war, the few scuds he did use were wildly inaccurate, and did not pose a direct threat to anybody. and that donald rumsfield quote about osama bin laden and saddam's weapons is bullshit. using the excuse 'just because because we cant find them doesnt mean they dont exist' does not justify an illegal and unprovoked attack on a soviergn nation.
granted saddam was a brutal dictator and needed to be removed, but there are other countries and leaders that are just as repressive as him, yet nothing has been done to remove them. i mean, look at north korea - they've openly threatened america on a number of occassions in the past few years, but other than a few piss weak tokenistic (theres a new word!) pacts made with them, nothing has been done to counter the 'threat'. how is the distinction made in this 'war' on terror between those that pose an immediate threat and those who dont?
firstly rorix - the 'guard dog' didnt bite it's owners leg, the owner's priorities merely shifted and the dog fell out of favour. iraq has never opposed a direct threat to america - the only time it would have had the weapons capable to do so was when america was it's ally. so you could say the dog had it's teeth removed (during the first iraqi war and subsequent UN weapons programs) before it could even bite.
hatz - your argument that saddam could have triggered a nuclear war is fundamentally flawed. has it ever been proven that he had nuclear warheads in the first place? or the weapons capable of delivering them? as you saw in the last war, the few scuds he did use were wildly inaccurate, and did not pose a direct threat to anybody. and that donald rumsfield quote about osama bin laden and saddam's weapons is bullshit. using the excuse 'just because because we cant find them doesnt mean they dont exist' does not justify an illegal and unprovoked attack on a soviergn nation.
granted saddam was a brutal dictator and needed to be removed, but there are other countries and leaders that are just as repressive as him, yet nothing has been done to remove them. i mean, look at north korea - they've openly threatened america on a number of occassions in the past few years, but other than a few piss weak tokenistic (theres a new word!) pacts made with them, nothing has been done to counter the 'threat'. how is the distinction made in this 'war' on terror between those that pose an immediate threat and those who dont?
...
^___^
very well put there "um.."
mic
Chronic Burper
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2003
- Messages
- 571
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
well done um...!
I mean, while they're at it, why not topple China's communist govt, cos their human rights record is horrendous. What about various African nations eg Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe?
Or the government that is known for boiling ppl alive? I think it's Uzbekistan (correct me if I'm wrong)
Or South America?
Finally, why don't they self-destruct? Their human rights record is terrible. They've held ppl without charge in Guantanamo for 2 yrs and have illegally waged a war. Dubya executed more ppl than all the other states put together while he was Governor of Texas. They also possess the most WMDs, hence they're a threat. Dubya also won an election in circumstances unheard of in a country that prides itself on democratic rights and freedom of speech. What the Republicans did to the African-Americans of Florida is unforgivable.
I mean, while they're at it, why not topple China's communist govt, cos their human rights record is horrendous. What about various African nations eg Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe?
Or the government that is known for boiling ppl alive? I think it's Uzbekistan (correct me if I'm wrong)
Or South America?
Finally, why don't they self-destruct? Their human rights record is terrible. They've held ppl without charge in Guantanamo for 2 yrs and have illegally waged a war. Dubya executed more ppl than all the other states put together while he was Governor of Texas. They also possess the most WMDs, hence they're a threat. Dubya also won an election in circumstances unheard of in a country that prides itself on democratic rights and freedom of speech. What the Republicans did to the African-Americans of Florida is unforgivable.
Butterfly_Wings
Cornflake Girl
Yes, um... is on the ball.
I'm not denying that Sadaam was a baddie, I just find it a tad hard to believe that George Bush is a hero with lovely, pure intentions, who strived selflessly to benefit the human race. Capturing Sadaam just seems like a loophole to make it appear that way.
I'm not denying that Sadaam was a baddie, I just find it a tad hard to believe that George Bush is a hero with lovely, pure intentions, who strived selflessly to benefit the human race. Capturing Sadaam just seems like a loophole to make it appear that way.
- Status