Forums > Social Discussion > Who's next ???
Login/Join to Participatemember
531 posts
531 posts
Posted:
Being that the US, UK, OZ and their "coalition" new motive for war is to liberate opressed people of their oppressors my question is who should we go after next.
Though I think that answer is coming on its own.
More good news from the world today.
Oh boy.
Someone mentioned Morocco recently.
We should definitely put Zimbabwe on that list.Mugabe has been using this war to smoke-screen all the crap that he pulls on a regular basis.It probably wouldn't take long to get rid of him either. Read this and tell me you aren't disturbed by it.
Anyone hear about Iran trying to restart their nuclear program?And we all know the Iranian people don't live much better than the Iraqi's.
I also think we should do something about Ariel Sharon.He's no better than Arafat is.
What do you all think.
[ 10. April 2003, 12:25: Message edited by: poiaholic anonymous ]
Being that the US, UK, OZ and their "coalition" new motive for war is to liberate opressed people of their oppressors my question is who should we go after next.
Though I think that answer is coming on its own.
More good news from the world today.
Oh boy.
Someone mentioned Morocco recently.
We should definitely put Zimbabwe on that list.Mugabe has been using this war to smoke-screen all the crap that he pulls on a regular basis.It probably wouldn't take long to get rid of him either. Read this and tell me you aren't disturbed by it.
Anyone hear about Iran trying to restart their nuclear program?And we all know the Iranian people don't live much better than the Iraqi's.
I also think we should do something about Ariel Sharon.He's no better than Arafat is.
What do you all think.
[ 10. April 2003, 12:25: Message edited by: poiaholic anonymous ]
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Well... if you keep speculating I am sure someone will say France and Germany.
It doesnt matter who is next or if anyone is next. If you have to break a few eggs to make an omlet, then you might just have to disrupt a few governments to get the world to listen.
Well... if you keep speculating I am sure someone will say France and Germany.
It doesnt matter who is next or if anyone is next. If you have to break a few eggs to make an omlet, then you might just have to disrupt a few governments to get the world to listen.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
GOLD Member
member
9 posts
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
member
9 posts
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posted:
Very clearly US is next. We'll have to stop this brain damaged blood thirsty idiots from oppressing hundreds of millions of people around the world by means of terror (including WMD's and all sorts of terror and covert ops) and destroying the earth.
The next country to fall down is US for sure, but it seems the bad kid will get very angry about it and shed more blood. It's really sad that the American people are too ill educated to see this for themselves. No one seems to understand why 911 happened and now they prepared the foundation for a hundred more 911s which will "liberate" the people of America. Sadly many innocent people will die, but isn't that how they taught the world this thing works. The only thing the invasion of Iraq shows is that by US all means (be it illegal, terror or use of WMDs) are OK to use as long as you say "hey these people can't control their leaders and they'll cause problems so we take care". And the same will be done for US. Sooner the better for the world.
Very clearly US is next. We'll have to stop this brain damaged blood thirsty idiots from oppressing hundreds of millions of people around the world by means of terror (including WMD's and all sorts of terror and covert ops) and destroying the earth.
The next country to fall down is US for sure, but it seems the bad kid will get very angry about it and shed more blood. It's really sad that the American people are too ill educated to see this for themselves. No one seems to understand why 911 happened and now they prepared the foundation for a hundred more 911s which will "liberate" the people of America. Sadly many innocent people will die, but isn't that how they taught the world this thing works. The only thing the invasion of Iraq shows is that by US all means (be it illegal, terror or use of WMDs) are OK to use as long as you say "hey these people can't control their leaders and they'll cause problems so we take care". And the same will be done for US. Sooner the better for the world.
(o: May all beings be happy :o)
GOLD Member
member
9 posts
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
member
9 posts
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posted:
By the way
It seems that we'll be hearing a lot about Iran's nuclear program soon. And it's all because it's Russia who supports this program. Whereas here in Turkey, US has been pushing the governments to start building nuclear reactors for almost ten years but with widespread opposition we somehow managed to stop this attempt for now. There are US nuclear missiles in Turkey but that's also somehow "legal". So what the f**k about Iran anyway? And when is US giving up its nuclear program being the only country who ever used this nuclear weapons (plus still using depleted uranium)???
By the way
It seems that we'll be hearing a lot about Iran's nuclear program soon. And it's all because it's Russia who supports this program. Whereas here in Turkey, US has been pushing the governments to start building nuclear reactors for almost ten years but with widespread opposition we somehow managed to stop this attempt for now. There are US nuclear missiles in Turkey but that's also somehow "legal". So what the f**k about Iran anyway? And when is US giving up its nuclear program being the only country who ever used this nuclear weapons (plus still using depleted uranium)???
(o: May all beings be happy :o)
member
104 posts
Location: Stillwater, OK
104 posts
Location: Stillwater, OK
Posted:
Thing is we gave up the program, we just still have the nukes.
As for the American people being too ill educated to understand the reasons behind 9/11......... America hardly has the idiot market cornered, my friend.
I'm sorry if you think we're hell bent on opressing everyone and enjoy baby's blood with our morning coffee, but hey, to be fair, some people here think the same of Arabs; though I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that way and I live in Oklahoma, one of the lesser developed states of the Union.
If the "bad kid" is sure to endure "a hundred more 911s which will "liberate" the people of America" then I for one don't blame him for beating the living daylights out of those who are throwing a party over the destruction of the Sears Tower or the sucessful gassing of a major league baseball game.
I am more than a little irked by the fact that people who at least claim and seem to be intelligent don't understand the differance between military action and terrorist action.
Whether or not you want to admit it- and before you say a damned thing, yes I've seen the photos from Al Jazeera and this is still true- this is one of the single "cleanest" wars ever. Granted any civilian casualty is a tragedy, but the fact is the coalition forces really HAVE bent over backwards to avoid civilian casualties and for the most part have done an excellenet job; showing considerably more compassion than any other invading force has ever bothered with, I might add.
There is no doubt in my mind that were North Korea to begin a push into the south that there would be absolutly no such consideration for civilian life (considering its been confirmed that NK artillery batteries are almost constantly targeting major SK cities, yeah they really care).
Were the Arab League to magicaly- I say magicaly because the chances are just so low- band together and invade and destroy Israel do you have any doubt in your mind that the amount of rape and murder would be catastrophic? I would be surprised if such an action resulted in genocide. Hell, seeing as military service is mandatory in Israel, they could probably justify to themselves killing every man and woman (don't even think there wouldn't be headless Jewish children being shown on the news, wonder if Al Jazeera would show that?) in Israel. Though I think they'd all be rather dissapointed at failing to find the HQ for that secret shadowy council of jews which seemed to control every aspect of American foreing policy and do everything in its powerful (all powerful, right? wait not anymore Israel just been trounced, Oh happy day!) to keep Arab nations down..... Israel is the biggest scapegoat ever for failing to develope one's country- ooo, hey, that's a whole nother rant ^_^
It seems that we'll be hearing a lot about Iran's nuclear program soon. And it's all because it's Russia who supports this program. Whereas here in Turkey, US has been pushing the governments to start building nuclear reactors for almost ten years but with widespread opposition we somehow managed to stop this attempt for now.
Buyer beware, Russia is not where I'd want to get my nuclear teach from. As for refussing a nuclear powerplant, hey good for you, wait for fusion reactors ^_^.
"So what the f**k about Iran anyway? And when is US giving up its nuclear program being the only country who ever used this nuclear weapons (plus still using depleted uranium)??? "
What the f--k about 'em? During the Clinton administration I could swear we'd been making some strides in Iran US relations, but heyif Bush ****s up I wouldn't be surprised.
For a moment I was certain you wanted America nuked out, gassed out, or germed out, but now I'm not sure. Do you not want a country to have the ability to blow us up? Is this concern for "the bad kid", I hear? Are you cleverly trying to tell us that surely America will go on a rampage and Iran's next on our little list (yes the "Axis of Evil" thing was a really bad idea, but hey, we can get past that)? Why do you oppose your country having nuclear power?
So many questions ^____^
Now for the fun one:
Like I said earlier, we've stopped making them and started on dissmantling them. It's a tricky thing though what with everyone still being nervous about nukes (not that you shouldn't be); no one wants to be the first one to take that step and just get rid of 'em all (that and it's pretty damn difficult to do).
Now, for the best part...... the US being the only country to ever use nukes.... well, what can I say other than- be glad. Chances are that had those early- weaker- bombs not been used once showing us all just how bad nukes are the later stronger models would've been used during the cold war by either the US or USSR and things would've gotten much much worse from there. Human kind is curious, when it builds things it likes to try them, not the best excuse but it is at least the truth.
I doubt we're gonna see nuclear weapons used by anyone BUT a terrorist group intered in doing as much damage as possible to a civilian population, but hey, I may be the only one who thinks people who actually train to hurt civilians are the "bad kids".
Whatever.
Think whatever the hell you want, I'm sure my pro-American "propaganda" just rolled right off your shield of "truth".
God I feel snarky!
Thing is we gave up the program, we just still have the nukes.
As for the American people being too ill educated to understand the reasons behind 9/11......... America hardly has the idiot market cornered, my friend.
I'm sorry if you think we're hell bent on opressing everyone and enjoy baby's blood with our morning coffee, but hey, to be fair, some people here think the same of Arabs; though I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that way and I live in Oklahoma, one of the lesser developed states of the Union.
If the "bad kid" is sure to endure "a hundred more 911s which will "liberate" the people of America" then I for one don't blame him for beating the living daylights out of those who are throwing a party over the destruction of the Sears Tower or the sucessful gassing of a major league baseball game.
I am more than a little irked by the fact that people who at least claim and seem to be intelligent don't understand the differance between military action and terrorist action.
Whether or not you want to admit it- and before you say a damned thing, yes I've seen the photos from Al Jazeera and this is still true- this is one of the single "cleanest" wars ever. Granted any civilian casualty is a tragedy, but the fact is the coalition forces really HAVE bent over backwards to avoid civilian casualties and for the most part have done an excellenet job; showing considerably more compassion than any other invading force has ever bothered with, I might add.
There is no doubt in my mind that were North Korea to begin a push into the south that there would be absolutly no such consideration for civilian life (considering its been confirmed that NK artillery batteries are almost constantly targeting major SK cities, yeah they really care).
Were the Arab League to magicaly- I say magicaly because the chances are just so low- band together and invade and destroy Israel do you have any doubt in your mind that the amount of rape and murder would be catastrophic? I would be surprised if such an action resulted in genocide. Hell, seeing as military service is mandatory in Israel, they could probably justify to themselves killing every man and woman (don't even think there wouldn't be headless Jewish children being shown on the news, wonder if Al Jazeera would show that?) in Israel. Though I think they'd all be rather dissapointed at failing to find the HQ for that secret shadowy council of jews which seemed to control every aspect of American foreing policy and do everything in its powerful (all powerful, right? wait not anymore Israel just been trounced, Oh happy day!) to keep Arab nations down..... Israel is the biggest scapegoat ever for failing to develope one's country- ooo, hey, that's a whole nother rant ^_^
It seems that we'll be hearing a lot about Iran's nuclear program soon. And it's all because it's Russia who supports this program. Whereas here in Turkey, US has been pushing the governments to start building nuclear reactors for almost ten years but with widespread opposition we somehow managed to stop this attempt for now.
Buyer beware, Russia is not where I'd want to get my nuclear teach from. As for refussing a nuclear powerplant, hey good for you, wait for fusion reactors ^_^.
"So what the f**k about Iran anyway? And when is US giving up its nuclear program being the only country who ever used this nuclear weapons (plus still using depleted uranium)??? "
What the f--k about 'em? During the Clinton administration I could swear we'd been making some strides in Iran US relations, but heyif Bush ****s up I wouldn't be surprised.
For a moment I was certain you wanted America nuked out, gassed out, or germed out, but now I'm not sure. Do you not want a country to have the ability to blow us up? Is this concern for "the bad kid", I hear? Are you cleverly trying to tell us that surely America will go on a rampage and Iran's next on our little list (yes the "Axis of Evil" thing was a really bad idea, but hey, we can get past that)? Why do you oppose your country having nuclear power?
So many questions ^____^
Now for the fun one:
Like I said earlier, we've stopped making them and started on dissmantling them. It's a tricky thing though what with everyone still being nervous about nukes (not that you shouldn't be); no one wants to be the first one to take that step and just get rid of 'em all (that and it's pretty damn difficult to do).
Now, for the best part...... the US being the only country to ever use nukes.... well, what can I say other than- be glad. Chances are that had those early- weaker- bombs not been used once showing us all just how bad nukes are the later stronger models would've been used during the cold war by either the US or USSR and things would've gotten much much worse from there. Human kind is curious, when it builds things it likes to try them, not the best excuse but it is at least the truth.
I doubt we're gonna see nuclear weapons used by anyone BUT a terrorist group intered in doing as much damage as possible to a civilian population, but hey, I may be the only one who thinks people who actually train to hurt civilians are the "bad kids".
Whatever.
Think whatever the hell you want, I'm sure my pro-American "propaganda" just rolled right off your shield of "truth".
God I feel snarky!
No one knows me like I do.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
This Iraqi war basically said "we don't care if you comply with inspections. You're getting attacked, anyways."
So why should Pyongyang even try?
THIS time, it will be nuclear. And Pyongyang can hit the West Coast of the U.S. And they will.
I'm genuinely afraid that we're going to get nuked. And lest anyone forget, Korea is not a fun place to fight a war. It's no big, flat desert.
This Iraqi war basically said "we don't care if you comply with inspections. You're getting attacked, anyways."
So why should Pyongyang even try?
THIS time, it will be nuclear. And Pyongyang can hit the West Coast of the U.S. And they will.
I'm genuinely afraid that we're going to get nuked. And lest anyone forget, Korea is not a fun place to fight a war. It's no big, flat desert.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Umm duh Mikey, they were not complying with inspections!!!!! What was it, 4 years ago that Saddam kicked out the weapons inspecters??
So he was cooperaiting then huh?? Ohh shite the US is gonna bomb us into the stone age I best pretend to cooperate.
Ask NYC how many of his students only cooperate when they think it will save their own arse.
Lets put it this way Seol the capital of SK has guns trained on it 24/7 all they NK soldiers need is the word and then... KABOOM over a million dead before anyone can react. Dont think for one second that the NK wouldnt target large civilian centers.
Umm duh Mikey, they were not complying with inspections!!!!! What was it, 4 years ago that Saddam kicked out the weapons inspecters??
So he was cooperaiting then huh?? Ohh shite the US is gonna bomb us into the stone age I best pretend to cooperate.
Ask NYC how many of his students only cooperate when they think it will save their own arse.
Lets put it this way Seol the capital of SK has guns trained on it 24/7 all they NK soldiers need is the word and then... KABOOM over a million dead before anyone can react. Dont think for one second that the NK wouldnt target large civilian centers.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
member
531 posts
531 posts
Posted:
Whether he was pretending to cooperate or not,the message that has been sent is that we don't care what the UN or the rest of the world says we will do as we deem necessary.With a war conducted in the manner as such you would have to expect such side effects to arise.
Not to offend or point the finger at anyone but Aykut is a perfect example of why we should have conducted this war more appropriately.
By the way it would seem we are gonna throw NK on the back burner again so we can go beat up on another Middle Eastern country.
Whether he was pretending to cooperate or not,the message that has been sent is that we don't care what the UN or the rest of the world says we will do as we deem necessary.With a war conducted in the manner as such you would have to expect such side effects to arise.
Not to offend or point the finger at anyone but Aykut is a perfect example of why we should have conducted this war more appropriately.
By the way it would seem we are gonna throw NK on the back burner again so we can go beat up on another Middle Eastern country.
SILVER Member
old hand
899 posts
Location: New York City, USA
old hand
899 posts
Location: New York City, USA
Posted:
The way that Rumsfeld is putting the pressure on Syria, it looks like the troops won't have to move very far for the next campaign.
The geniuses running the show are now in the process of giving every Islamic nation cause for uniting against the US.
A chess game? Bush is staring at the board saying "Oooo! A horsie!"
Raph
The way that Rumsfeld is putting the pressure on Syria, it looks like the troops won't have to move very far for the next campaign.
The geniuses running the show are now in the process of giving every Islamic nation cause for uniting against the US.
A chess game? Bush is staring at the board saying "Oooo! A horsie!"
Raph
BRONZE Member
10th degree spoon weilder
171 posts
Location: Halifax, Canada (currently in Korea)
10th degree spoon weilder
171 posts
Location: Halifax, Canada (currently in Korea)
Posted:
man, I'm in South Korea right now teaching english. A half hour from Seoul. I don't know who's next on the US agenda. I'll I know is that talks keep breaking down with the north and they keep sending "test" missils over my head every other week" I'm getting a little tense over the situation here.
man, I'm in South Korea right now teaching english. A half hour from Seoul. I don't know who's next on the US agenda. I'll I know is that talks keep breaking down with the north and they keep sending "test" missils over my head every other week" I'm getting a little tense over the situation here.
-Beeaaatch please, I'm the macaroni with the cheese.
-This message will self destruct in 10 seconds.
HoP Mechanical Engineer
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
Posted:
One thing that puzzles me here: The majority of the protesting seems to have originated over the "divided UN" that couldn't agree on the justification for this war. The major players involved in the anti-war side were France and Germany. We know they had exercised their veto powers in order to protect their own economic interests in Iraq.
If France and Germany had been in favor of the war, would that change any opinions on the part of protestors?
And given that we know their disagreement is based on financial grounds, is that a legitimate reason to avoid a conflict?
A lot of "why" is being thrown around, but maybe to look at it from the "why not" perspective can provide some useful insight. Aside from the obvious humanistic aversion to taking someone else's life or damaging a nation's structures, what are the reasons "not?"
One thing that puzzles me here: The majority of the protesting seems to have originated over the "divided UN" that couldn't agree on the justification for this war. The major players involved in the anti-war side were France and Germany. We know they had exercised their veto powers in order to protect their own economic interests in Iraq.
If France and Germany had been in favor of the war, would that change any opinions on the part of protestors?
And given that we know their disagreement is based on financial grounds, is that a legitimate reason to avoid a conflict?
A lot of "why" is being thrown around, but maybe to look at it from the "why not" perspective can provide some useful insight. Aside from the obvious humanistic aversion to taking someone else's life or damaging a nation's structures, what are the reasons "not?"
What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.
member
106 posts
Location: BC, Canada
106 posts
Location: BC, Canada
Posted:
Someone ask who's next?
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2968775.stm
It's the "either you are with us or against us" attitude that scares me.
Anyone heard of PNAC? The PNAC document provides a “blueprint for maintaining global US pre- eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.”
https://www.newamericancentury.org/
Someone ask who's next?
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2968775.stm
It's the "either you are with us or against us" attitude that scares me.
Anyone heard of PNAC? The PNAC document provides a “blueprint for maintaining global US pre- eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.”
https://www.newamericancentury.org/
member
531 posts
531 posts
Posted:
I find it puzzling that speculation will lead you to believe that France was in it for the money and yet no amount of speculation would lead you to believe the same about the US.
I don't remember hearing anything about Germany, Russia, or China's economic interests in Iraq so if you have then let me know.
Not saying that they didn't veto for said reason but I still don't believe that are reasons were any more noble.
quote:And we didn't invade Iraq for our own economic reasons?
Originally posted by Dio:
We know they had exercised their veto powers in order to protect their own economic interests in Iraq.
I find it puzzling that speculation will lead you to believe that France was in it for the money and yet no amount of speculation would lead you to believe the same about the US.
I don't remember hearing anything about Germany, Russia, or China's economic interests in Iraq so if you have then let me know.
Not saying that they didn't veto for said reason but I still don't believe that are reasons were any more noble.
HoP Mechanical Engineer
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
Posted:
I was simply saying that things might be different if France and Germany had not chosen to oppose the war. Please do not put words in my mouth.
quote:Please tell me where I said anything of the sort, because I'd really like to hear it. I made no statement either justifying or refuting the US reasons for attacking Iraq.
no amount of speculation would lead you to believe the same about the US.
I was simply saying that things might be different if France and Germany had not chosen to oppose the war. Please do not put words in my mouth.
What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.
member
106 posts
Location: BC, Canada
106 posts
Location: BC, Canada
Posted:
Yeah you are right things would be different because there would be a clear reason for the invasion. Bush started out by saying they were a threat because of Sept. 11 and when there was not evidence for the link he moved on to WMD, with all the strong evidence they say they have they didn't convince the council and haven't found any and then wanted to librate the people. Going to war extremely serious and it angered a lot of people that the government wasn't provided suffient evidence for any of it's accusations.
Yeah you are right things would be different because there would be a clear reason for the invasion. Bush started out by saying they were a threat because of Sept. 11 and when there was not evidence for the link he moved on to WMD, with all the strong evidence they say they have they didn't convince the council and haven't found any and then wanted to librate the people. Going to war extremely serious and it angered a lot of people that the government wasn't provided suffient evidence for any of it's accusations.
HoP Mechanical Engineer
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
Posted:
I did not say there would be a more compelling reason or different justification for the war, I said "things might be different." I meant that only in the context that a unanimous UN consent would have drastically altered the approach many people have taken to this war.
I toss out a stick, and people pick up a whole tree in here
quote:I am sitting here waiting for someone to NOT take me out of context and NOT misquote me... and being very disappointed.
Yeah you are right things would be different because there would be a clear reason for the invasion.
I did not say there would be a more compelling reason or different justification for the war, I said "things might be different." I meant that only in the context that a unanimous UN consent would have drastically altered the approach many people have taken to this war.
I toss out a stick, and people pick up a whole tree in here
What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.
member
106 posts
Location: BC, Canada
106 posts
Location: BC, Canada
Posted:
And I agreed with you things would be different. I think that a UN approval would have given a clear consenses to the invasion which is why I think people might have taken a different stance. Sorry if you thought I was putting words in your mouth but I was stating my reason for agreeing.
And I agreed with you things would be different. I think that a UN approval would have given a clear consenses to the invasion which is why I think people might have taken a different stance. Sorry if you thought I was putting words in your mouth but I was stating my reason for agreeing.
member
531 posts
531 posts
Posted:
My apologies Dio.
From reading these threads regularly it was just the impression that I get from the majority of the pro-war peeps.I didn't mean any disrespect by it.
My apologies Dio.
From reading these threads regularly it was just the impression that I get from the majority of the pro-war peeps.I didn't mean any disrespect by it.
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com