Riot forming group to win $25 million

[quote="Jae"I agree with you. Unfortunately though, I think religion can also give bad parents an escape clause so to speak... I mean this woman can say she's taught her children the love of God etc, and people would probably accept that and think she's done a good job raising them. Ignoring the fact she never taught them anything to actually keep them out of trouble. It's a double edged sword I guess, but it's no coincidence that most religion-gone-right kids are generally well mannered and stay out of trouble.[/quote]Yeah it is, I agree with you. Martin Luther King said that "the church is full of people who give lip service to God but not life service," and "people have more religion in their hands and feet" than in their hearts. Unfortunately, that's true. And it's so frustrating because these people's hypocritical behavior gives the entire religion a bad look for those who are on the fence. I think that's why Jesus came down the hardest on the religous leaders of his time, the Pharisees.

u by not helping with that wud be a problem and shud be taken out too

im saying here if you wont help rid the world of the bad ppl your are just as bad as them

It's called 'establishing a foothold'. Just like Hitler did by securing France and the Scandinavian countries before he could bomb the hell out of London. The subtle difference here, is that the 'coalition' secures trade routes and financial influence upon the decision makers in the region. And if that fails, 'decision makers' are planted. Before you know it, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are surrounded.

For starters, Kuwait is a much smaller country in terms of population and military than Iraq, so why would America go after Iraq first just to create a stronghold to invade Kuwait? It makes no sense, and especially considering they also went into Afganistan before Iraq as well. And why the inverted comma's around coalition? It is a coalition.. As for the decision makers being "planted", that sounds like arab propergander against jews talking. They claim Jews are in control of everything in america.

They actually waited 10 years for another excuse to go back in.

Proof?

Saddam is a beast, granted. The world is probably better without him pulling any strings, as it would be if we got rid of Osama. But that is only the secondary issue here. The benefits of rooting out these sources of evil do not outweigh th eloss of political and personal freedoms throughout the globe.

Lol what? You contradicted yourself there. You said the world is better off without Sadaam, but its not better off becuase of the "loss of political and personal freedom throughout the world"? And try telling the people who live in iraq who can actually start a business now and try to be succesful about the "loss of personal freedoms" they have now endured becuase of sadaams removal.

Although it does on the minds of teens worldwide, hehe. Proof of subliminal manipulation? This is not a courtroom. Actually, I do not have any. One more time, I'll say it, the things I posted are my beliefs based on what I see, what people with inside information are willing to share with me, and from what I have seen with my own eyes.

Then you really shouldnt present them as facts.

For starters, Kuwait is a much smaller country in terms of population and military than Iraq, so why would America go after Iraq first just to create a stronghold to invade Kuwait? It makes no sense, and especially considering they also went into Afganistan before Iraq as well. And why the inverted comma's around coalition? It is a coalition.. As for the decision makers being "planted", that sounds like arab propergander against jews talking. They claim Jews are in control of everything in america.

What pretext would they have to invade Kuwait? They are not mindless , risking setting off the entire world against them. Everybody would know they were in it for the oil if they went into Kuwait. 'Arab' propaganda, you say... you deny the fact that the newly established leaders in Afghanistan, Iraq and even Serbia are clearly pro-American? Or is that just a fateful coincidence?

Proof?

they were contemplating re-invading Iraq as soon as 3 years after the 'Desert Storm'. Saddam was doing that, Saddamn was acting back on his promises, blah, blah,blah. In fact , he actually did but that's exactly what they expected of him. And when the time was ripe, and the benefits would be greater, they invented those WMD in order to justify their intrusion. Or are you still not sure whether the WMD existed or not? Because the fact that the US goverment came out and admitted that the 'intelligence regarding the presence of WMDs in Iraq was up to a point misguided' is one of the greatest political blunders of the century, although it has been downplayed quite admirably, if I may say so myself.

Lol what? You contradicted yourself there. You said the world is better off without Sadaam, but its not better off becuase of the "loss of political and personal freedom throughout the world"?

The world is better off without Saddam. The world will be better off without Osama. And the world would be MUCH better off without the careful planning of the 'coalition' in order to masterfuly reduce 'political and personal freedom throughout the world'. I don't see the contadiction.

And try telling the people who live in iraq who can actually start a business now and try to be succesful about the "loss of personal freedoms" they have now endured becuase of sadaams removal.

'Try telling the people who live in Iraq who can actually start a business now and try to be succesful' how much that ability is weighed against losing your neighbour, your child, your wife, your loved ones, the man across the street who waved hello every morning to an American bomb. And try telling them that a great deal of the money they will make in their endeavours will be taxed by the new Iraqi goverment, so as to empower it's American Puppet-masters even further. One step forward, seven steps back. That is the way to rule the mob. Focus on the few good changes, over-emphasize on them and let the side-effects be buried until they are either forgottem or given up upon.

Then you really shouldnt present them as facts.

I thought it was clear that waht I post here is my opinion, established by facts I alone have experienced, heard and witnessed. To accept them for granted would be as dumb as voting for Bush a third time( thank god that's not going to happen ). I just merely present the other side of teh fateful coin, which just so happens to be my side as well.

America didn't "make up" the WMD intelligence. If that is the case, than atleast 10 other nations "made up" those same intelligence reports because numerous countries had the same intelligence we had. In fact, generals from Eygpt and Kuwait told our military generals that Saddam has chemical weapons and he will use them on our troops. Perhaps, America paid off those other nations?

It is true that George W. Bush wanted to in Iraq even before 9/11 happened. It is also true that current President Bush's dad, former President Bush, told him not to. But even without 9/11 and WMDs there is plenty of reasons why going to war in Iraq was justified, and the United Nations agrees.

You call it Imperial, I call it Interventional. We'll settle our differences with a good old-fashion thumb war.

America didn't "make up" the WMD intelligence. If that is the case, than atleast 10 other nations "made up" those same intelligence reports because numerous countries had the same intelligence we had. In fact, generals from Eygpt and Kuwait told our military generals that Saddam has chemical weapons and he will use them on our troops. Perhaps, America paid off those other nations?

Okay, I get your point , but it is naive. Do you actually think that nations like Egypt and Kuwait would say otherwise when they could 'push' their long-time allies into Iraq? Think about it.

And another fact: If the US Intelligence has an opinion on something, then all the puppet-nations' intelligence will astoundingly bear the exact same info and opinion on the matter. Do I have to explain why? I don't think so.


The UN. Where 8 nations rule all proceedings. Parity my arse. Give me a break. The UN is a global joke, if ever there was one.

You call it Imperial, I call it Interventional. We'll settle our differences with a good old-fashion thumb war.

I would feel embarrased if I won at that game going up against 5 year olds. Because that is the equivalent in this case.

What pretext would they have to invade Kuwait? They are not mindless , risking setting off the entire world against them. Everybody would know they were in it for the oil if they went into Kuwait. 'Arab' propaganda, you say... you deny the fact that the newly established leaders in Afghanistan, Iraq and even Serbia are clearly pro-American? Or is that just a fateful coincidence?

But you said the only reason they went into Iraq was for oil. If that was th case, wouldnt they have been better off just going into Kuwait?

they were contemplating re-invading Iraq as soon as 3 years after the 'Desert Storm'. Saddam was doing that, Saddamn was acting back on his promises, blah, blah,blah. In fact , he actually did but that's exactly what they expected of him. And when the time was ripe, and the benefits would be greater, they invented those WMD in order to justify their intrusion. Or are you still not sure whether the WMD existed or not? Because the fact that the US goverment came out and admitted that the 'intelligence regarding the presence of WMDs in Iraq was up to a point misguided' is one of the greatest political blunders of the century, although it has been downplayed quite admirably, if I may say so myself.

"Up to a point misguided" doesn't mean they never existed. If Sadaam could hide in a hole for 20 years, isnt it possible WMD's could be hidden underground? I'm not saying they are there, but nobody knows for sure. And even if they arent, i'd like to use an analogy. Just say you set out searching for gold, and you find oil instead, is the trip wasted? The coalition did go in there to get rid of wmd's, but instead they got Sadaam. Sure it isnt what they set out to do, but they did do good by getting rid of him.

The world is better off without Saddam. The world will be better off without Osama. And the world would be MUCH better off without the careful planning of the 'coalition' in order to masterfuly reduce 'political and personal freedom throughout the world'. I don't see the contadiction.

How have they reduced political freedom? They have people in their own senate saying they should withdraw from iraq. If it was a dicatorship that would not be allowed.

'Try telling the people who live in Iraq who can actually start a business now and try to be succesful' how much that ability is weighed against losing your neighbour, your child, your wife, your loved ones, the man across the street who waved hello every morning to an American bomb. And try telling them that a great deal of the money they will make in their endeavours will be taxed by the new Iraqi goverment, so as to empower it's American Puppet-masters even further. One step forward, seven steps back. That is the way to rule the mob. Focus on the few good changes, over-emphasize on them and let the side-effects be buried until they are either forgottem or given up upon.

The Iraqi's voted for who they wanted. From what I remember, the president that was annointed is fairly critical of america. You say one foot forward, seven steps back. You have to be kidding. Look at how many people died under Sadaams regime, and compare that to the amount of casualties during the war (most of which have been caused by terrorists). Its hardly "one step forward and 7 back"

I thought it was clear that waht I post here is my opinion, established by facts I alone have experienced, heard and witnessed. To accept them for granted would be as dumb as voting for Bush a third time( thank god that's not going to happen ). I just merely present the other side of teh fateful coin, which just so happens to be my side as well.

That sums it up. Your side is just merely exagerations and opinions, without any true proof as to what you are saying, and also without offering an alternative to this war in iraq.

America didn't "make up" the WMD intelligence. If that is the case, than atleast 10 other nations "made up" those same intelligence reports because numerous countries had the same intelligence we had. In fact, generals from Eygpt and Kuwait told our military generals that Saddam has chemical weapons and he will use them on our troops. Perhaps, America paid off those other nations?

It is true that George W. Bush wanted to in Iraq even before 9/11 happened. It is also true that current President Bush's dad, former President Bush, told him not to. But even without 9/11 and WMDs there is plenty of reasons why going to war in Iraq was justified, and the United Nations agrees.

You call it Imperial, I call it Interventional. We'll settle our differences with a good old-fashion thumb war.

Bush didn't make up any WMD evidence. He was misled by CIA. You aren't going to convince me that WMD's are in iraq because you and I know that's bullshit. Besides, several commisions showed Saddam never had weapons of mass destruction (despite the abnormal ejection of UN Weapons Inspectors). The real reason we invaded Iraq was not for these fictional WMD's , but to free a country helpless under a cruel and ruthless dictator. I think Bush should have apologized for leading America into war in Iraq under false pretense (which he still hasn't done) but we didn't go into Iraq for nothing (kicking Saddam out , giving democracy to Iraq , etc)

Riot , what you said was essentially what I read in the critically acclaimed George W. Bush family biography The Bushes : Portrait of a Dynasty
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038549 ... s&v=glance
In fact , after reading other pre-war books like the one Bob Woodward wrote , there were plans to invade Iraq in the Clinton Administration! This was not a plan limited to the Bush administration. And it is true George Herbert Walker Bush asked his son if he had an exit strategy for the war. (again from the The Bushes book).

Basically I used to be the good old fashioned liberal who hated on Bush and continued to mock his intelligence and failure to find WMD's in video game chats...then I was hannitized and I read the bush biography which revolutioned my politcal philosophy. Now I throw my full support behind American troops and the War in Iraq , and any other Bush-led invasions as long as they are legitimate. I mean , we can't go invading Saudi Arabia for oil (I will not support that) but if Bush wants to invade Iran in the near future you won't find me bitching about it.

So, someone who, I firmly beleive, never were at those territorys, and who, I'm sure has brain washed by CNN

We don't get CNN or any brain washing news services in Australia.

Yes we do, on cable.

I was refering to FTA. God knows what's available on cable.

Saddam did have WMDs, and the question was did he still have them. He admitted to having WMDs in the late 90's and he refused to let U.N. weapon inspectors do their jobs. After 1998, Saddam repaired the facilities from the air strikes in Operation Desert Fox and he continued his chemical and biological weapons program. In fact, Saddam and his regime admitted that they created and hid WMDs in the desert in tunnels and caves. Perhaps they are destroyed, perhaps they are still there. But the fact that Saddam admitted to having them and then he refused the weapon inspectors to do their jobs tells me he plans on continuing such development.

He was also developing missiles that were capable of firing beyond the limit (150k I believe) the U.N. set for Iraq. We have found such missile casing and missiles. Now, those aren't excatly WMDs but they are illegal weapons.

The U.N. gave Iraq plenty of funding for medicine and food to the Iraqi people. Saddam cut that off and decided to spend it on himself and on weapons. He was holding a gun to his people's head. He was holding a gun to Kuwait. He was holding a gun to all his neighboring countries. I know I speak for many of us when I said it's about damn time that fool is kicked out.

"oh...shit, that's horrible man, my bad for talking smack"

yeah.

I was gonna go on a rant but D-Weaver is doing a pretty good job. Glad to know there is another person that isn't brainwashed. Maybe I'll add stuff later when I'm back in school or something.

Yes, people who think catching a terrorist is a good idea are brainwashed.

But you said the only reason they went into Iraq was for oil. If that was th case, wouldnt they have been better off just going into Kuwait?

I explained this already... maybe you missed my post above?

Yes, people who think catching a terrorist is a good idea are brainwashed.

Well they must be because there is probably 0% chance of the group catching the terrorists.
1. The terrorists are probably better trained than whatever people we can get from this forum.
2. The guards probably outnumber whatever number we can amass.
3. They probably have better weapons as well.
4. The yankee army can't find him, you think we can?
5. It's not like the hideout is labeled "HIDEOUT" in big fat letters.

You see, so unless you were brainwashed, I don't think anyone would think it's a good idea.

No Cyanide, my post was in refrence to Dweaver who claimed that oil was the only reason for the war in Iraq. My point was if that was the case, why did they bother going into Afganistan (where there is no oil) and Kuwait (where the oil is tenfold then Iraq) if it was the only reason for the coalition. It clearly wasn't.

Well they must be because there is probably 0% chance of the group catching the terrorists.
1. The terrorists are probably better trained than whatever people we can get from this forum.
2. The guards probably outnumber whatever number we can amass.
3. They probably have better weapons as well.
4. The yankee army can't find him, you think we can?
5. It's not like the hideout is labeled "HIDEOUT" in big fat letters.

You see, so unless you were brainwashed, I don't think anyone would think it's a good idea.

Are you retarded? Or just didn't read the last 20 or so posts?

Actually ignore that, you're exactly right. This whole thread has been about getting a rebel group from the NLSC to fly to Pakistan and chase Osama Bin Laden. In between discussing tactics, Dweaver decided this army (which will be refered to as the NLSCitia) should turn their attentions to George Bush. We're now arguing whether or not we should do this, as Riot has already booked our tickets to the Middle East and of course there are no refunds.

Dear God

Well they must be because there is probably 0% chance of the group catching the terrorists.
1. The terrorists are probably better trained than whatever people we can get from this forum.
2. The guards probably outnumber whatever number we can amass.
3. They probably have better weapons as well.
4. The yankee army can't find him, you think we can?
5. It's not like the hideout is labeled "HIDEOUT" in big fat letters.

You see, so unless you were brainwashed, I don't think anyone would think it's a good idea.

Are you retarded? Or just didn't read the last 20 or so posts?

Actually ignore that, you're exactly right. This whole thread has been about getting a rebel group from the NLSC to fly to Pakistan and chase Osama Bin Laden. In between discussing tactics, Dweaver decided this army (which will be refered to as the NLSCitia) should turn their attentions to George Bush. We're now arguing whether or not we should do this, as Riot has already booked our tickets to the Middle East and of course there are no refunds.

Dear God

Well I didn't mean you as in you, Jae, more like the general you. Like "Unless one was brainwashed, there was no way anyone would agree to it." I thought you were going against me, saying that in a sarcastic way like "Going against terrorists is a noble idea" or something.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

They went into Afghanistan because they had to before invading Iraq. It was a pre-requisite. Imagine how angry people would be if they suddenly just invaded Iraq. Now THAT would be way too obvious. Not to mention they needed Afghanistan to finish that pipeline that sends natural gas to Russia or something?

Why not Kuwait? There is no scapegoat for Kuwait. What can the US say to justify attacking Kuwait? Just because? Even Americans aren't even THAT stupid. Not to mention the original Iraq conflict started because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Wouldn't invading Kuwait mean siding with the Iraqis? If resources weren't a problem, then why not North Korea? They have only a few resources, and they are a bigger threat than Iraq. You know, now they have nuclear weapons. And the Iraqis were and are not living AS miserable as North Koreans, so the humanity or whatever argument doesn't count neither. And if you think North Korea doesn't harbor terrorists, then you don't know North Korea very well do you? What about all those African countries? They're also filled with dictators and what not. Why not help them? So what I think is, oil is the primary reason. The other reasons are just excuses, because people need to be fooled. And why pull off this whole freedom facade? (elections and what not) Well obviously they have to. It's the US. They invaded Mexico and somehow justified it by saying that Mexicans wanted freedom or whatever shit. Massacred Indians and somehow justified it by using something as retarded as manifest destiny. They "freed" themselves by shouting no taxation without representation when they were actually offered representation. The rich nobles just made it seem like they weren't offered representation because they knew direct representation on the parliament was impossible with the long travel distances. All under the name of freedom. So America always needed excuses, and this is no different. People aren't that stupid. Invading Kuwait would have even caused more controversy because it would have been TOO obvious that it was for oil.

Like I said, America is in Iraq to take out Saddam, install a democracy and for our economic welfare. There is no problem with a country fighting for it's people's best interests. I'm not ashamed to say that one of the reasons why we did it is so we can secure the oil fields. However, I refuse to believe that is the #1 goal. And in all honesty, it doesn't matter what the #1 goal is or isn't, as long as it all gets done.

But you said the only reason they went into Iraq was for oil. If that was th case, wouldnt they have been better off just going into Kuwait?

One more time:

What pretext would they have to invade Kuwait? They are not mindless , risking setting off the entire world against them.

Don't make me repeat myself again, I hate wasting time like this.

"Up to a point misguided" doesn't mean they never existed. If Sadaam could hide in a hole for 20 years, isnt it possible WMD's could be hidden underground? I'm not saying they are there, but nobody knows for sure. And even if they arent, i'd like to use an analogy. Just say you set out searching for gold, and you find oil instead, is the trip wasted? The coalition did go in there to get rid of wmd's, but instead they got Sadaam. Sure it isnt what they set out to do, but they did do good by getting rid of him.

As if they would actually say 'they never existed'. Use your brains. Softening the blow of the blooper is the way to go in diplomacy. Just say they went out under the pretext of finding oil, but what they actually wanted to do was establish their own cash registers in the gold depot. Using your analogy, ofcourse.

How have they reduced political freedom? They have people in their own senate saying they should withdraw from iraq. If it was a dicatorship that would not be allowed.

There HAS to be a voice of dissent. There has to be 'fabricated doubt' about the correct course of action. So that the idiocy of teh actual choice can in the end be attributed to 'sacrifices we have to make for freedom'. As I said again, try putting yourself in their shoes and just imagine for a second that what I'm saying about their motives is correct. Could you hav eplaneed it ANY better. In fact, it's twistedly brilliant, unfortunately.

The Iraqi's voted for who they wanted. From what I remember, the president that was annointed is fairly critical of america. You say one foot forward, seven steps back. You have to be kidding. Look at how many people died under Sadaams regime, and compare that to the amount of casualties during the war (most of which have been caused by terrorists). Its hardly "one step forward and 7 back"

Sigh... why is it that you cannot see behind the facade? With all the turmoil around teh neutral world about teh Americans' activity, would the new Iraqi president actually go out and say 'We like America'. That would bring the whole house down upon thmeselves. The infiltration iof multinational corporations and American manufacturing companies into Iraq is solid proof of pro-US policies. As if they could actually say 'no' to anything, puppets that they are.

That sums it up. Your side is just merely exagerations and opinions, without any true proof as to what you are saying, and also without offering an alternative to this war in iraq.

Sometimes I wonder if I am wasting my time on people like you who argue merely for the sake of arguing... If you have anything of value to add other then merely contradicting me every step of the way, be my guest. If you only wish to come on top in an argument that does not really hold any importance to you, you can try, but doing that is also my actual line of work. And I'd rather save my efforts for cases that can actually pay me for it.



Now, about the alternative of the War in Iraq. They said Sadaam is the root of all evil. They had 10 FUCKING years to root him out and assasinate him, for crying out loud. They are dumb, but not totlly incapable... You want to kill a bug in your kitchen, you spray teh place or filter the critter out, you don't incinerate the entire room!

Now, I stated my case. If you have anything actually worthwhile to say, please do so. If you merely wish to continue teh argument for the argument's sake, I have better things to do.

there were plans to invade Iraq in the Clinton Administration! This was not a plan limited to the Bush administration.

I'm not separatimg between the two. The Agenda followed is pretty much the same the past 10-15 years. Democrats and Republicans are merely two different names for the exact same thing.

4. The yankee army can't find him, you think we can?

You know what? I don't buy that. The yankee intelligence and army can find him and capture him in a snap. It's just that he serves a purpose being out there as a ghost threat to 'freedom everywhere'. They want him loose, so that the next time they decide he is hiding in, let's say, his native Saudi Arabia, they can bomb the hell out of teh country who has been hiding him from 'righteous justice'. Osama is a tool, and their most valuable one at that.

You can't just assasinate Saddam because then one of his sons would have taken over, who were arguably worse than Saddam himself.

You can't just assasinate Saddam because then one of his sons would have taken over, who were arguably worse than Saddam himself.

Then, uh.... , lemme think about it... KILL HIS ENTIRE FAMILY LINE!!! If they wanted do, they could doi it. That is my point. Heck, in 10 years, even I could have pulled it off.

You know what? I don't buy that. The yankee intelligence and army can find him and capture him in a snap. It's just that he serves a purpose being out there as a ghost threat to 'freedom everywhere'. They want him loose, so that the next time they decide he is hiding in, let's say, his native Saudi Arabia, they can bomb the hell out of teh country who has been hiding him from 'righteous justice'. Osama is a tool, and their most valuable one at that.

Piss off with your conspiracy theories.

Inside information my foot. You're just a dude sitting in Greece talking about the war as if you know something, really, piss off.