Dear god... Saddam, dictator of Iraq, got 100% of his country's vote in its last election. Every single registered voter was accounted for.

Of course that is impossible. Many of the registered votors would be dead and Iraq does have a sizeable rebel group. Neither would vote for him. It is also impossible that they could collect and process ballots from all over Iraq in one night.

This means one undenyable thing. He had all the ballots burnt and just put down the number of registered voters as the number of votes for him.


Was there really any doubt he would do this? ::sigh::

That's still enough to convince some people that Iraqi's love him, and he's no threat.

Surely, someone that popular should be in charge of the UN!

Once upon a time, Englands Parliment had a voting system called that utilised "Rotten Borough's", in the sense that a County (well in this case an area of land that fell beneath the powers of a lord) would have 1 vote. The populous didn't vote, just the lords.

This meant that elections weren't very fair, and didn't take too long to count the votes, although in those days counting might have been a bit of a problem if they weren't tutored how to read or write (or count).

One thing you neglected about Saddam's victory with the voting polls, to which I'll put it forwards with a question:

"How could you lose a one horse race?"

(For some reason there was no opposition, a very democratic election indeed, with one choice.)

blarg. where did you get that info from? i bet it was from an american publication, they would love to justify their actions. if all the voters in iraq voted for sadaam, people in the USA would be REAL nonchalant about bombing the fuck out of them.

which is exactly what the powers that be would do.

So, they have a one horse race whereas we get a real choice - one load of gormless twats or another load of gormless twats.

Did Bush deliver the concession speech?

Come on... its everywhere. Saddam is just gloating over it and waving it in reporters faces. Its all over CNN.

Actually Saddam's name was the only one on the ballots. It simply asked the voter to check a box yes or no on if to re-elect saddam for 7 more years in office.

Doesn't surprise me.

He will fight americans and be HERO of ARAB.

He will lead the Allies in WWIII and the US will be divided into occupied territories for rehabilitation by miscelanious countries, but at least half will be given to the EU, and a large chunk to the Arab world. China will get California.

Remember that I am God (see my topic in the religion forum) so I know these things, I can tell the few tour!

Also after this war religion will fall steadily downhill and will be almost completely gone in 100 years.

i bet it was from an american publication, they would love to justify their actions. if all the voters in iraq voted for sadaam, people in the USA would be REAL nonchalant about bombing the fuck out of them.
Do you think President Bush will use this as an excuse to attack civilians? I'm sure he is more informed than you are.

My personal opinion is that anyone who knows how the 'election' in Iraq is done already knows Saddam will win...whether or not his people like him. I doubt the Kurds in Northern Iraq had a chance to vote, and they make up at least 10% of Iraq's population. So, 100% of the vote really doesn't mean Iraqi's are supporting their dicktaster.

Things that make you go HMMMMMMM:bugeye:

Originally posted by VAKEMP
Do you think President Bush will use this as an excuse to attack civilians? I'm sure he is more informed than you are.

My personal opinion is that anyone who knows how the 'election' in Iraq is done already knows Saddam will win...whether or not his people like him. I doubt the Kurds in Northern Iraq had a chance to vote, and they make up at least 10% of Iraq's population. So, 100% of the vote really doesn't mean Iraqi's are supporting their dicktaster.

Things that make you go HMMMMMMM:bugeye:

If Bush is more informed, then he doesn't understand what they tell him.

Originally posted by reformedtopunk
blarg. where did you get that info from? i bet it was from an american publication, they would love to justify their actions. if all the voters in iraq voted for sadaam, people in the USA would be REAL nonchalant about bombing the fuck out of them.

which is exactly what the powers that be would do.

Of course. We all know that Iraq is a fair, well adjudicated and equitable democracy, so this information must be false and misleading. Just another US-initiated slur campaign to smear the name of this proud, noble and humble man.

*giggle*

Do you think President Bush will use this as an excuse to attack civilians?

Er no. I think he would not want to talk about dubious elections. ;)

Saddam is the threat, not the Iraqi people. Just look at how quickly his army gave up last time. They don't love him. They're just too scared to defy him. If the US/UN decide to oust Saddam, the Iraqi people will be happy to see him gone, 100% vote or not.

Has anyone on this board ever been to Iraqi? Does anyone on this board keep informed via Iraqi media as to whats going on in Iraqi? Does anyone one on this board realize that most of the "violations" the Bushy is talking about happpened years ago and that there is nothing new happening in Iraqi today that wasn't going in before the last UN inspection? Has anyone seen that that war monger in the white house has a agenda which really has nothing to do with Suddam but more with Suddams oil. "W" plans to occuply Iraqi. Does anyone see anything wrong with that? Have we really become a nation of bullies and dictators? DOES ANYONE IN THIS BOARD SEE WHAT THE BIG PICTURE IS? :eek: It boggles the mind that Americans are looking at the world and saying nothing. Can anyone see a reason for war other than 10 year old cia reports? Does it bother anyone that all of the presidents speeched have to do with war? Does it bother anyone that the president hasn't mentioned the economy in months. Does it bother anyone that the rich are getting richer and the poor will all soon be dead. Anyone care that that so called tax cut really only cut needed programs. Anybody know what happened to the surplus of funds the country had the day before bushy took office? Ya know the $300 tax refund isn't gonna matter much when half the country is out of work in a year. :bugeye: Wasn't North Korea part of that Axis of Evil group that bush spoke of? And we know they have nukes. Seems we need to go to orange level and stay there until N. korea is disarmed. but then again, I don't recall N. korea having many oil fields so they get to keep their nukes. Anybody hiring CEO's? I'd like one of the nice jobs were I can steal and Lie and get away with it. First thing I'd do is but a 2 billion dollar house in florida. Ah, Florida. What a nice state. :bugeye:

DOES ANYONE IN THIS BOARD SEE WHAT THE BIG PICTURE IS?
What's the big picture? I think Americans would see it differently if Saddam hadn't attacked Kuwait, hadn't kicked out UN weapons inspectors, hadn't been shooting at US/UK planes in the no-fly-zone. Iraq wasn't quiet after the Gulf War. I don't know how many times I thought we were going to go back to Iraq since then. He is a threat.

You go live in Iraq if you want. More power to you. Come back and tell us how he treats the Kurds. Tel us how you got to roam through the country freely. Tell us all how they have more freedom over there than we do in America. Tell us how you criticized Saddam and wasn't beheaded, or shot in the head. But most of all, I really really want you to prove to us that Saddam isn't a threat.

Come back when you can.

But most of all, I really really want you to prove to us that Saddam isn't a threat.

First of all I've no intention of visiting Suddam in the near future thank you very much!. :D

And since you brought it up - I didn't - please prove that Suddam is a threat using up-to-date data.

Strange you should mention the Kurds. Seems when Suddam was gassing the Kurds {as I've been told}, We meaning the U.S. was supplying the gas knowing full well what he was doing with it. Also, seems kinda strange that Suddam felt he had the full backing of the US government when he attack Kuwait. Why do you think that is?

No Fly Zone? A foreign country tells you that you are not allowed to defend your air space? This foreign country pretty much divides your country into 3 parts and tells you that you have no right to enter your own air space? I'd be blasting planes out the sky left and right! How legal are the actions of the United States when it comes to foreign policy?

please prove that Suddam is a threat using up-to-date data.
He HAS been a threat. He has never ceased to be a threat!

He lost the Gulf War. He really doesn't have the right to say what punishments are imposed on him or his country. He knew what had to be done to lift sanctions, and he failed to meet the terms.

Did he kick out UN weapons inspectors? I believe so. What's wrong with enforcing the punishments?

Threat to whom? The US? He clearly doesn't pose a danger. To other middle eastern countries? Countries that don't feel threatened and are trying to discourage an attack?

You've consistently stated he is a threat, but not justified it. What form will this threat take and to whom?

Did he kick out UN weapons inspectors? I believe so. What's wrong with enforcing the punishments?

You're not just enforcing the existing resolutions, Iraq has said they will comply with these. The US is creating new conditions as intrusive as possible so that he doesn't agree with him. Did you know that America's proposed resolution gives American troops access to anywhere in Iraq?

But most of all, I really really want you to prove to us that Saddam isn't a threat.

The burden of proof isn't on him/her. dk isn't the one who wants to stage a multi-billion dollar invasion that will kill thousands in a sovereign country that poses no direct threat to your own. You can't attack a country because you can't find proof that they are safe. You attack a country because you have proof that they pose a threat. (If, that is, you find preemptive attacks morally acceptable and geo-politically prudent).

He HAS been a threat. He has never ceased to be a threat!

Wow! Well I guess that's all the proof I need! Start droppin' those bombs, fellas!

In fairy tales it's ok to run around saying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" , not many people get hurt. My problem is that people are going to die and to kill people with the only proof being the media and 20 year old CIA reports, well, let's just say I'm more human than you if you think this is a right course of action.

He lost the Gulf War. He really doesn't have the right to say what punishments are imposed on him or his country. He knew what had to be done to lift sanctions, and he failed to meet the terms.

What the hell kind of logic is that? I don't mean to make this personal, but that line of thinking might work in 3rd grade but this is the grown up world. Those "sanctions" imposed on his country might have been more effective had they ever been meant to be lifted. They were imposed with the desire that the Iraqi people would take matters into there own hands and kill Suddam. That didn't work. All 's it did was kill children by the thousands. CHILDERN BY THE THOUSANDS - DEAD! For what?

Did he kick out UN weapons inspectors? I believe so. What's wrong with enforcing the punishments?

First, check your UN facts. The reason for the inspectors getting kicked out was because a certain country, which shall remain nameless, decided that they'd send a few spies in disguised as weapons inspectors. But even before we go there. That same country is guilty of worst UN violations than Iraqi could ever wish to be in violation of. We KNOW that the US has a chemical weapons program. They don't even try to hide it - well expect from the UN weapons inspectors that is. If the world pushed for inspectors on US soil, do you think the White House is gonna throw open the gates and let them in? It is illegal for Israel to have WMD. How many UN inspectors do you think Israel has "asked to leave" it's shores? Much more than Iraq. Let me ask you this. If attacked, who do you think is more likely to use WMD, Iraq or Israel?

Let's say your right. Suddam has WMD and has plans on using them agaisnt the US. How long do you think Iraq would be there once it was determined that they attacked the US? About what, minute and a half? Suddam would have to be crazy not only to have WMD but to think about using them. And before you say "He is Crazy", show me the proof!

The thing that cracks me up is that at least Saddam won the election. It seems there's no question about that whatsoever, which is more than I can say for Americans.

:D,
Tiassa :cool:

I must clarify-

It wasn't election, it was a referendum


about the 100%- we always had 98% in Souviet times:D

dkb218, where do you get your information from? The Iraqi media?

Maybe Iraq didn't kick out weapons inspectors. They left after getting the run-around by the Iraqi gov't.


The reason for the inspectors getting kicked out was because a certain country, which shall remain nameless, decided that they'd send a few spies in disguised as weapons inspectors.

April, 1991

Iraq starts providing information on weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. accuses Saddam of cheating and hiding missiles and nuclear facilities. The U.S., France and Britain declare a 19,000 sq. mile area of northern Iraq a safe haven for Kurds and impose a no-fly zone above the 36th parallel.

Aug. 27, 1992

The United States, backed by Britain and France, declares a "no-fly" zone over southern Iraq to protect Shiite Muslim rebels.

Oct. 29, 1997

Iraq demands that Americans on the U.N. Special Commission inspection team leave; the Americans leave temporarily but return Nov. 20.

Jan. 13, 1998

Iraq temporarily withdraws cooperation, claiming the inspection team had too many U.S. and British inspectors.

Jan. 22, 1998

Iraq refuses inspection of presidential sites.

Feb. 20-23, 1998

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan secures Iraq's cooperation and unrestricted access to inspectors.

Oct. 31, 1998

Iraq ends all forms of cooperation with UNSCOM. UNSCOM withdraws.

Nov. 14, 1998

Iraq allows inspections to resume.

Dec. 16, 1998

UNSCOM removes all staff from Iraq after inspectors conclude Iraq is not fully cooperating. Four days of U.S. and British airstrikes follow.

March 1, 2000

Hans Blix assumes post of executive chairman of UNMOVIC.

November 2000

Iraq rejects new weapons inspections proposals.

July 5, 2002

In talks with Annan, Iraq rejects weapons inspections proposals.

Those "sanctions" imposed on his country might have been more effective had they ever been meant to be lifted.

Feb. 27, 2001

Iraq's foreign minister rejects a U.S. proposal to amend U.N. sanctions, calling it a ploy to justify maintaining the embargo. The changes would have allowed more consumer goods into Iraq while maintaining curbs on assistance to Saddam's weapons program.


Let's say your right. Suddam has WMD and has plans on using them agaisnt the US. How long do you think Iraq would be there once it was determined that they attacked the US? About what, minute and a half? Suddam would have to be crazy not only to have WMD but to think about using them. And before you say "He is Crazy", show me the proof!

July 17, 1990

Saddam Hussein accuses Kuwait and United Arab Emirates of overproducing oil and pushing prices down.

Aug. 2, 1990

The Iraqi army invades Kuwait.



How's that for facts?

Originally posted by dkb218
...Also, seems kinda strange that Suddam felt he had the full backing of the US government when he attack Kuwait. Why do you think that is?

This is a bizarre statement. The U.S. military was publicly conducting exercises to simulate responses to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait well prior to Iraq's actual invasion. It seems unlikely in the extreme that Saddam or anyone in the Iraqi government could have thought they had U.S. support.
No Fly Zone? A foreign country tells you that you are not allowed to defend your air space? This foreign country pretty much divides your country into 3 parts and tells you that you have no right to enter your own air space? I'd be blasting planes out the sky left and right! How legal are the actions of the United States when it comes to foreign policy?
Iraq agreed to the no-fly zones as conditions of the treaty that ended the gulf war. The United States insisted on the no-fly zones because Iraq was routinely using helicopters to massacre unarmed groups of Kurdish refugees as they attempted to flee the country.

Saddam signed the paper accepting the no-fly zone at the end of the gulf war. He didn't have to. We could only have continued bombardment.

Fellas, things have changed since then and now no-fly zones serve different purposes than before. Instead of watching the treatment of the Kurds, people drop bombs on Iraqi interests, cause general trouble, and then get upset when they get shot down by AA fire. :rolleyes: Maybe if they just stuck to watching the treatment of the Kurds, they wouldn't get shot by AA fire. duh.

The day prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Kuwait completed an oil drilling project right next to the Iraqi border which... umm... above ground may have been yards or meters or miles or whatever away, but underground that was... erm... different ;)

Probably that has nothing to do with the war, but it is something to think about.

Remember when the US took Hawai'i? Something about business, territorial claims? We never apologised for that, but suddenly we have to defend Kuwait against the same type of thing? No, I say, just let them invade Kuwait and take over. Plenty of european nations have taken countries with or without bloodshed in the past without any US intervention, even if they were US interests or even when the US actually had the military power to stop it. But noooo... Let them take colonies and kill thousands of people just so we can get more money!!! :rolleyes:

Why is it that the US government never officially apologised for taking Hawai'i, or the persecution of Native Americans, or taking any land that we currently occupy from its previous occupants? Everybody should have to do that unless they already gave the land back (ie nations that decolonialised the world are forgiven because they tried their best to set the new nations on good paths, they gave the land back to the natives) but many nations have not done this, they need to apologise, especially before they get mad at other nations for doing the same type of thing.

Ever heard of Manifest Destiny? Probably. Perhaps Iraq is just thinking in the same way postcolonial America did? lol. They obviously have the Allah-given right to Kuwait because... because... Allah gave it to them! ;)

Vakemp

It has in fact been stated a number of times by people other than Iraq and there is proof (of the same nature of proof that the IDF has that Arafat economically supports terrorism, except a little bit more credible) that the US did send in spies disguised as weapons inspectors. When I gave this to my family as a major reason why Iraq refuses/refused to let weapons inspectors back in, they laughed for a few minutes and said, "that's probably Iraq's side of the story. where did you get that from, the Baghdad Tribune?" or something similar to that. Well, there are plenty of things people say that I don't find credible because compared to my opinion they sound so wild, but they are probably true and for that reason I don't go spouting BS about them getting it from the Weekly Occupied Territories Colonist or the IDF Tribune or whatnot. I often pretend it is credible or tell them that I think it is BS but since I cannot prove otherwise I will just leave it at that.

Also the stuff about the Kurds being traitors-- that isn't just Saddam's BS, Kurds generally don't feel any loyalty to Iraq as a nation (I don't mean to the government or Saddam, but the nation itself), in many parts of the Iran-Iraq war the Iraqi Kurds helped Iran, and since Saddam "couldn't catch" the specific people responsible he just gassed a Kurdish town. Typical national leader... not one for the details... *sigh* Also, if you wanna attack Saddam just for his treatment of Kurds, he's really quite nice to them nowadays, they have an autonomous gov't and they even have representation in Baghdad. If that isn't good enough, the Turks and the Syrians etc. are much meaner to the Kurds than is Iraq, Kurds only have an autonomous region in Iraq, Kurdish is only an official language in Iraq, Kurds are still executed and jailed daily in Turkey because... OK, the Turkish government has a campaign to promote national unity, and just by being different from the average Turk (being Kurdish) the Kurds supposedly oppose this campaign. Of course you could just attack all nations that have sizable Kurdish minorities at all... lol.

Why is it that the US government never officially apologised for taking Hawai'i, or the persecution of Native Americans, or taking any land that we currently occupy from its previous occupants? Everybody should have to do that unless they already gave the land back (ie nations that decolonialised the world are forgiven because they tried their best to set the new nations on good paths, they gave the land back to the natives) but many nations have not done this, they need to apologise, especially before they get mad at other nations for doing the same type of thing.

Please provide some links with information.

It has in fact been stated a number of times by people other than Iraq and there is proof (of the same nature of proof that the IDF has that Arafat economically supports terrorism, except a little bit more credible) that the US did send in spies disguised as weapons inspectors.

Can you provide proof? A link would be helpful.

Thanks.

Please provide some links with information.

It's an opinion you fuckwit. If you really want to know more go to www.google.com and search for decolonialisation hawaii

Can you provide proof? A link would be helpful.

omg. www.google.com and search for iraq weapons inspectors spies

It should be in the first 10! :rolleyes:

http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/History/By_Region/North_America/United_States/West/Manifest_Destiny/?il=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/analysis021698.htm

not exactly what I was looking for but I don't feel like looking for more for a fuckwit like you. :p

watch your language
not cool

This is one time I agree with you, Avatar!:D

Originally posted by VAKEMP
This is one time I agree with you, Avatar!:D
oh- don't recall we've been discussing smthing much

oh- don't recall we've been discussing smthing much

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11944&perpage=20&pagenumber=2

It was brief, I admit.;)

Originally posted by Avatar
watch your language
not cool

Xev says that stupidity is provocation enough to start a flamewar, nobody says stuff like this to her except Bebelina. :rolleyes:

since I'm not a hot chick, people pick on me. *sigh* humans these days...

since I'm not a hot chick, people pick on me
of course- what did you expect:rolleyes:

No, GB-Gil:

A: People say that sort of shit to me all the time. I simply ignore it because I'm not a pathetic little slave who worries incessantly about what others think.

B: If I don't get it as often, it's because I'm not a hypocrite who accuses people of doing things that they don't.

Now, that aside:

Can you provide proof? A link would be helpful.

omg. www.google.com and search for iraq weapons inspectors spies

It should be in the first 10!

You are obviously letting your hatred of America blind whatever mental faculties you have. Iraq made allegations. They were never proven.

Originally posted by Xev
No, GB-Gil:

A: People say that sort of shit to me all the time. I simply ignore it because I'm not a pathetic little slave who worries incessantly about what others think.

B: If I don't get it as often, it's because I'm not a hypocrite who accuses people of doing things that they don't.

Now, that aside:



You are obviously letting your hatred of America blind whatever mental faculties you have. Iraq made allegations. They were never proven.

Xev: I do not worry about what others think, it's just people say that sort of shit to me a lot less than to you so I take more notice of it.

I accuse people of doing things they don't?

Yes, Xev, of course you're right about that, America always does the right thing and never does anything sneaky or mean. (here you might say it's normal to be mean, but I'm saying America is mean, not that it's abnormal to be mean)

Since you are in America, you get no propaganda, during the Soviet era, they got soooo much more propaganda than we did, obviously.

Do you remember when they accidentally made the plans for that disinformation committee public, and then they supposedly dismantled it and apologised? That has "typical American gahmen" written all over it.

We're turning into an Orwellian society, and it's the fault of people like you who can't accept any criticism of your own nation. If you don't recognise the things that are wrong with your nation, you can't improve them.

Also, people like you say terrorists attack because they're jealous: no, it's quite obvious that is not the reason why, it is because they think America is against Muslims (since we supposedly live in a democracy where the people are the government, the government is against Muslims [eg people like Joeman, Jerry Falwell, etc. etc.]) especially because of how we say we are neutral in the Mideast conflict when in fact we sponsor Israel much more in a way that is very obvious to people who are on the side that doesn't get that sponsorship.

So why can't we recognise our phalluses... err... phallacies... try to fix them, and move on with life?

Are you afraid that if we hold dissenting opinions, our nation will colapse? No, generally near the end of their time empires/nations tend to make the mistake of trying to force certain opinions on the public, and this, NOT voices of dissent, makes them crumble. They become more and more corrupt because nobody is ever there to protest corruptness and get it fixed a little, so they never improve and just get worse until they're so bad some other nation/empire invades and the corrupt nation doesn't even put up a fight.

What I'm trying to say is, I do not hate America, but rather I am not blinded by the view that America is always in the right and is a perfect nation as are you, strgrl, and one or two more people (joeman, that stupid kid who says he was raised by natives in the amazon basin, unregistered)

Originally posted by Avatar
of course- what did you expect:rolleyes:

I was joking. However I find it unfair that while the people Xev finds idiotic aren't nessecarily idiotic just because she says so but she insults them and doesn't get banged for it, I get banged for insulting one person that I find idiotic even though they aren't nessecarily idiotic just because I say so.

Why is it OK for Xev to do those things but not for me? Goofyfish sent me a pm... as follows...

originally said in a PM from Goofyfish to GB-GIL Trans-global


I don't feel like looking for more for a fuckwit like you.


I would request that you refrain from this type of post in the future. It truly diminishes you and serves only to enflame others.

Thanks,
Rick


Do you get one of those for every time you insult a stupid person, Xev?

No, she hasn't, as I've only just started as a moderator. But several others who have found it necessary to insult others, or those that have gotten a bit too worked up, have. You got "banged" for it? I made a polite request, where's the problem?

Peace.

during the Soviet era, they got soooo much more propaganda
you talk about Americans or people like me in SSSR those days?

I was joking. However I find it unfair that while the people Xev finds idiotic aren't nessecarily idiotic just because she says so but she insults them and doesn't get banged for it, I get banged for insulting one person that I find idiotic even though they aren't nessecarily idiotic just because I say so. Why is it OK for Xev to do those things but not for me?
aaaaaaw, don't cry

I'll try and continue our discussion, GB-GIL.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/analysis021698.htm

Both U.S. and U.N. officials deny the claims, however, and Iraq has not convinced any independent experts that the commission erred in saying that Iraq is still hiding data, equipment or weapons of mass destruction it was ordered to surrender in 1991. In fact, no military strike would be looming if Iraq gave the U.N. inspectors unfettered access, as ordered by the U.N. Security Council.

A more accurate statement, according to U.S. and U.N. officials, would be that U.N. inspectors do indeed act as spies inside Iraq, insofar as they are attempting to learn things that Iraq prefers to keep hidden. Moreover, many countries -- the United States not the least -- are eager to learn everything the commission knows and use various means to find out about it, from debriefing its experts to observing them from afar.

At the same time, U.S. military planners have many more and higher-quality assets to rely on in planning a military attack, besides commission reports or whatever information the CIA gleans from private exchanges with the United Nations. U.S. satellites take better photos than the U-2, for example, and can do so every day, while the U-2 flies over Iraq just a few times a month.

GB-Gil:
Xev: I do not worry about what others think, it's just people say that sort of shit to me a lot less than to you so I take more notice of it.

Deal with it, GB, because that's the way life is.

Yes, Xev, of course you're right about that, America always does the right thing and never does anything sneaky or mean. (here you might say it's normal to be mean, but I'm saying America is mean, not that it's abnormal to be mean)

Show me where I claimed any of this.

Liar.

Since you are in America, you get no propaganda, during the Soviet era, they got soooo much more propaganda than we did, obviously.

Show me where I claimed any of this.

Liar.

We're turning into an Orwellian society, and it's the fault of people like you who can't accept any criticism of your own nation. If you don't recognise the things that are wrong with your nation, you can't improve them.

A: Don't sully the name of Orwell, slave moralist.

B: Can't accept any criticism? Why, then, do I oppose military action in Iraq? Why, then, do I complain about the increasing political power of the religious fundamentalists? Why, then, do I make fun of Americans for being ignorent of the larger world?

Liar.

Also, people like you say terrorists attack because they're jealous:

Liar. I've never claimed this.

So why can't we recognise our phalluses... err... phallacies... try to fix them, and move on with life?

I don't have a phallus, GB, as I am female.

You do not seem to have one as you are rather dickless and a liar.

Are you afraid that if we hold dissenting opinions, our nation will colapse?

Considering that I'm in a minority regarding values, religion, "political correctness", G.W Bush's competence, the wisdom of attacking Iraq, the wisdom of the "war" on drugs, etc, your criticism is unwarrented, ad hominem and you remain a:

Liar.

What I'm trying to say is, I do not hate America, but rather I am not blinded by the view that America is always in the right and is a perfect nation as are you, strgrl, and one or two more people (joeman, that stupid kid who says he was raised by natives in the amazon basin, unregistered)

Did I ever claim this, liar?

Furthermore, your posting of a pm (hint: the "p" stands for "private") proves you not only a liar, but an exceedingly dishonourable person as well.

Can't you do anything but post false straw men?

Liar.

GB-Gil:
Deal with it, GB, because that's the way life is.

That's what I'm doing :)

Show me where I claimed any of this.

Never said you did. 1. I used sarcasm which lets me conveniently slip out of this accusation 2. I did not mean to accuse you of claiming this directly but implying it in many of your posts.

Liar.

Tell me, please, what I have said that is a lie.

Show me where I claimed any of this.

Again, I never said you did. :p

Liar.

tmpwihstial.

A: Don't sully the name of Orwell, slave moralist.

Moralist? Do you mean absolute morals? They don't exist. I thought you knew that? And when I say Orwell, I don't mean like him (gosh forbid!) but rather like in his book 1984.

B: Can't accept any criticism? Why, then, do I oppose military action in Iraq? Why, then, do I complain about the increasing political power of the religious fundamentalists? Why, then, do I make fun of Americans for being ignorent of the larger world?

Criticism of your own opinions makes people idiots. Some places that is justified because people don't really look at evidence-- ie most of our Theists in the religion forum-- but some do, yet you often insult them anyways.

Liar.

Who? Where? What? Huh? :confused:

Liar. I've never claimed this.

Again, I never said you did.

I don't have a phallus, GB, as I am female.

I meant to say fallacies, you know that very well. ;)

You do not seem to have one as you are rather dickless and a liar.

Please tell me where I have lied, and also please show me proof that I do not have a dick (do not tell me to look at my crotch, there is one clearly visible there, and even if there wasn't it could be invisible or in another dimension etc)

Considering that I'm in a minority regarding values, religion, "political correctness", G.W Bush's competence, the wisdom of attacking Iraq, the wisdom of the "war" on drugs, etc, your criticism is unwarrented, ad hominem and you remain a:

Sorry for my slight anti-semanticism (this word was invented by Joeman... he meant to say anti-semitic, but I do rather like it!) but I did mean not tolerating people opposing your views, not the views of the State.

Liar.

Liar. :bugeye: :confused: Where did I lie?

Did I ever claim this, liar?

Did I ever claim you claimed this?

Furthermore, your posting of a pm (hint: the "p" stands for "private") proves you not only a liar, but an exceedingly dishonourable person as well.

lol. Yes, I know. However the reason this one was private wasn't because of him, it was private because of me and I simply assumed that it was my choice. However perhaps it is private for some reason that is to protect him as well. Not sure...

Can't you do anything but post false straw men?

Where did I do that? :confused:

Liar.

Huh?

Originally posted by goofyfish
No, she hasn't, as I've only just started as a moderator. But several others who have found it necessary to insult others, or those that have gotten a bit too worked up, have. You got "banged" for it? I made a polite request, where's the problem?

Peace.

Sorry, by banged I meant treated differently than others.

And I didn't mean by you if I implied that but rather by other mods.

Sorry if I implied otherwise. :(

PP

GB:
Never said you did. 1. I used sarcasm which lets me conveniently slip out of this accusation 2. I did not mean to accuse you of claiming this directly but implying it in many of your posts.

So you are a coward as well as a liar?

GB-Gil, if you are going to accuse anarchic/democrats of being conservative, you had best back it up or you will be laughed at by them.

Tell me, please, what I have said that is a lie.

You insinuate that I have claimed that Americans do not recieve "propaganda". I have never claimed such thing.

Again, I never said you did.

You insinuated. Are you going to wuss out of your insinuation, you little coward?

Moralist? Do you mean absolute morals? They don't exist. I thought you knew that? And when I say Orwell, I don't mean like him (gosh forbid!) but rather like in his book 1984.

"slave moralist"

http://www.xrefer.com/entry/553547

Criticism of your own opinions makes people idiots.

Glad you acknowledge this.

*Grins*

Seriously, GB, where do I claim this?

Some places that is justified because people don't really look at evidence-- ie most of our Theists in the religion forum-- but some do, yet you often insult them anyways.

And I care because?

Again, I never said you did.

Oh really? You insinuated it:

Also, people like you say terrorists attack because they're jealous:

Sorry for my slight anti-semanticism (this word was invented by Joeman... he meant to say anti-semitic, but I do rather like it!) but I did mean not tolerating people opposing your views, not the views of the State

Show where I do this.

Xev feels offended because you said she was conservative. You're in big trouble, sonny

So you are a coward as well as a liar?

How can I be a liar if I never said something? And I didn't mean it either?

GB-Gil, if you are going to accuse anarchic/democrats of being conservative, you had best back it up or you will be laughed at by them.

Please tell me where in this thread I have accused you of being conservative. (I accused you once quite a while ago)

You insinuate that I have claimed that Americans do not recieve "propaganda". I have never claimed such thing.

No, I insinuate that you believe that. And by you calling me a slave moralist you are doing the same thing-- insinuating that I believe something. Deal with it. ;)

You insinuated. Are you going to wuss out of your insinuation, you little coward?

I insinuated something similar, but I'm afraid I'll have to classify you as anti-semantic. :p

Glad you acknowledge this.

Now you use my wordplay to your advantage but in the opposite manner. You know very well I am not acknowledging this but rather saying that this is what you think.

Seriously, GB, where do I claim this?

Oh, so you have to claim something directly for me to say it. I never said you claimed it. It's just the logical conclusion one would come to after reading all of your posts that you think that.

And I care because?

Did I say you did? Stop saying I said you said things I never said you said.

Oh really? You insinuated it:

Xev, I can say many things of people like you that aren't true of you, you know that. Deal with it. :p

Show where I do this.

Not tolerating = thinking people are idiots because they do not agree with you

Originally posted by Avatar
Xev feels offended because you said she was conservative. You're in big trouble, sonny

Where the hell did I say that? :bugeye:

yes yes yes yes YES:D:D:D
like in good ol times, Xev:):):p

ahh I love you

GIL- I love you too- you make such a good target

GB:
How can I be a liar if I never said something? And I didn't mean it either?

You implied it, GB, and implying something that is untrue is a form of lying.

Please tell me where in this thread I have accused you of being conservative. (I accused you once quite a while ago)

We're turning into an Orwellian society, and it's the fault of people like you who can't accept any criticism of your own nation. If you don't recognise the things that are wrong with your nation, you can't improve them.

What I'm trying to say is, I do not hate America, but rather I am not blinded by the view that America is always in the right and is a perfect nation as are you, strgrl, and one or two more people (joeman, that stupid kid who says he was raised by natives in the amazon basin, unregistered)

Also, people like you say terrorists attack because they're jealous: no, it's quite obvious that is not the reason why, it is because they think America is against Muslims (since we supposedly live in a democracy where the people are the government, the government is against Muslims [eg people like Joeman, Jerry Falwell, etc. etc.]) especially because of how we say we are neutral in the Mideast conflict when in fact we sponsor Israel much more in a way that is very obvious to people who are on the side that doesn't get that sponsorship.

All implied.

No, I insinuate that you believe that. And by you calling me a slave moralist you are doing the same thing-- insinuating that I believe something. Deal with it.

This makes neither linguistic nor logical sense, and has only tenuous connection to reality.

Oh, so you have to claim something directly for me to say it. I never said you claimed it. It's just the logical conclusion one would come to after reading all of your posts that you think that.

This is a cop out.

I like Joeman but we disagree much on politics. I like Unregistered but we disagree much on politics. I like Elkimlaw and Tony1 but we disagree much on religion. I like Prozak but we disagree much on several things. I like Goofyfish but he referred to NIN as "Goth".

I think all these people are intelligent.

Xev, I can say many things of people like you that aren't true of you, you know that. Deal with it.

Yes, and saying or implying that they are true of me makes you a liar.

Not tolerating = thinking people are idiots because they do not agree with you

See ^^. :rolleyes:

I love you too, Avatar. :)

http://www.advanced-g.netfirms.com/3-the_wait2.jpg

Originally posted by GB-GIL Trans-global
Fellas, things have changed since then and now no-fly zones serve different purposes than before. Instead of watching the treatment of the Kurds, people drop bombs on Iraqi interests, cause general trouble, and then get upset when they get shot down by AA fire. :rolleyes: Maybe if they just stuck to watching the treatment of the Kurds, they wouldn't get shot by AA fire. duh.

With the exception of the few days of bombing that occurred when Iraq refused to cooperate with the inspectors, the aircraft that patrol the no-fly zone have only attacked Iraqi anti-aircraft weapons. They haven't been 'dropping bombs on Iraqi interests' or any other such nonsense.

Remember when the US took Hawai'i?...We never apologised for that, but suddenly we have to defend Kuwait against the same type of thing?... Why is it that the US government never officially apologised for taking Hawai'i, or the persecution of Native Americans, or taking any land that we currently occupy from its previous occupants?... they need to apologise, especially before they get mad at other nations for doing the same type of thing.
So, the United States should ignore Iraq because the US has a checkered past of its own? That's pretty twisted logic. The case for war with Iraq stands on its own merits; Saddam is a cruel, ruthless, tyrannical dictator who oppresses and massacres his own people and tries to invade any country he can get away with. It's absurd to say that the US or any other country shouldn't step in simply because they've done questionable things in the past.
Also the stuff about the Kurds being traitors-- that isn't just Saddam's BS, Kurds generally don't feel any loyalty to Iraq as a nation (I don't mean to the government or Saddam, but the nation itself), in many parts of the Iran-Iraq war the Iraqi Kurds helped Iran, and since Saddam "couldn't catch" the specific people responsible he just gassed a Kurdish town. Typical national leader... not one for the details... *sigh*
Huh? I'm not aware of any other nation or leader that's used chemical weapons on civilian villages.
Also, if you wanna attack Saddam just for his treatment of Kurds, he's really quite nice to them nowadays, they have an autonomous gov't and they even have representation in Baghdad.
Ah yes. This is no doubt why he got 100% of the Kurdish vote last week.

You implied it, GB, and implying something that is untrue is a form of lying.

Not if you didn't mean to imply it. If you say something that has an alternative interpretation that you did not mean and is a lie does not mean that what you said was a lie. It really has to do with what you meant.

We=US gov't (strange... "we don't need the un" seems to be popular usage of that kind of thing, it doesn't make sense) or the population of the nation (yay... a rhyme)

You=people like you, but sometimes it really does refer to you

All implied.

But they are not what I meant, but rather alternate interpretations of what I meant.

This makes neither linguistic nor logical sense, and has only tenuous connection to reality.

You just don't get it. I insinuated you believe smth, you did the same by insinuating that I believed something.

This is a cop out.

The statement in the first place is rediculous. I can say "Xev thinks you're an idiot" because you implied it (yes, implied-- see what you said to me about what i said to you about what you said to me about what i said to everyone about you) or because it's a logical conclusion one can come to after reading your posts. I was just getting tired of you calling me a liar for many things which although you may not actually have said them verbally you implied them, and I did not actually say you said them but rather you think I implied that but I don't think I implied that and I think perhaps you don't really think I think you think I implied that but I didn't.

I like Joeman but we disagree much on politics. I like Unregistered but we disagree much on politics. I like Elkimlaw and Tony1 but we disagree much on religion. I like Prozak but we disagree much on several things. I like Goofyfish but he referred to NIN as "Goth".

Generally I find your tastes in politics and religion to suit mine well except for your attitude on America. Other than that we seem to agree a large percentage of the time. Does this mean you don't like me because I don't disagree with you at all? ;)

I think all these people are intelligent.

And so do I. But not Tony1. Well... maybe. :p

Yes, and saying or implying that they are true of me makes you a liar.

No, saying or implying that you said or implied them does not make me a liar if in fact I do think you said or implied them which I do and I also think you think I think I implied that you implied such things as this.

See ^^. :rolleyes:

Is that supposed to be two up-arrows, two raised-to-the-power-of signs, or a smiley? lol. = ^-^"=;;

Originally posted by Xev
I love you too, Avatar. :)

I loves y'all too, but not in that freaky Nelson way and also not in a sexual longing kind of way. lol. ;):p:D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nasor
So, the United States should ignore Iraq because the US has a checkered past of its own? That's pretty twisted logic. The case for war with Iraq stands on its own merits; Saddam is a cruel, ruthless, tyrannical dictator who oppresses and massacres his own people and tries to invade any country he can get away with. It's absurd to say that the US or any other country shouldn't step in simply because they've done questionable things in the past.

Everybody else has already apologised. All I'm saying is that instead of teaching the children that what we did was right and we had a right to all the territory we took or whatever, we should apologise and admit it was a bad thing to do. All I see in historybooks as major things the US did that were wrong are: slavery, segregation, and japanese internment during wwii.

What about all the countries we've fucked over, what about all the territory we've taken from natives?

We are being hypocritical saying that a good reason to invade Iraq is because Saddam invaded Kuwait because we never apologised or admitted wrongdoing for all the territory we've taken. We never apologised for the Viet Nam War (which is a more trivial example of something we should apologise for)

Huh? I'm not aware of any other nation or leader that's used chemical weapons on civilian villages.

Stupid! Don't you get that Saddam did this once, while daily Turkey executes many Kurds totaling many thousands more than what Saddam has done in his whole life? Saddam doesn't even do that shit anymore.

And I am aware of a nation that's done it. Guess who? The US! There are well-documented cases of spraying chemical weapons on US cities as well as Vietnamese villages, etc.

...and we never apologised for those things either.

Ah yes. This is no doubt why he got 100% of the Kurdish vote last week.

Kurds for the most part are not subjected to the dictatorship that is Iraq.

Fucking listen to me: I gave you facts. It's not like they didn't declare 100% from everybody in Iraq. It wasn't JUST the Kurds. Plus, Kurds don't feel loyal to Saddam or Iraq, so generally most of them do not vote because most decisions do not affect them (they do vote in elections for their autonomous region)

Now, I will say it again: Saddam has killed far less Kurds than Turkey, he only did it 2 times both in the same year, the Turks still do it daily, Saddam allows Kurds an autonomous region with their own government, Turkey banned all Kurdish political activity, Saddam made Kurdish an official regional language of his country, Turkey is trying to destroy the Kurdish language.

Saddam is a cruel, ruthless, tyrannical dictator who oppresses and massacres his own people and tries to invade any country he can get away with.

Saddam: cruel is a matter of opinion. Ruthless is a matter of opinion as is tyrannical. Opresses his own people-- we wouldn't know.

Massacres-- massacred. His own people-- traitors.
Tries to invade-- tried to invade.
Any country he can get away with-- Kuwait.

See the difference?

America is a cruel, ruthless, tyrannical nation that oppresses and massacres the rest of the world and sometimes even her own population, and tries to invade any country she can get away with (Hawai'i, Mexico, Britain, Philippines, Guam, &c, &c.)

dkb218, where do you get your information from? The Iraqi media?

http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html

FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting 112 W. 27th Street New York, NY 10001
ACTION ALERT:
Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation

September 24, 2002

Nothing makes a newspaper prouder than a juicy foreign-policy scoop. Except, it seems, when the scoop ends up raising awkward questions about a U.S. administration's drive for war.

Back in 1999, major papers ran front-page investigative stories revealing that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for the U.S.'s own intelligence purposes. "United States officials said today that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors," the New York Times reported (1/7/99). According to the Washington Post (3/2/99), the U.S. "infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency." Undercover U.S. agents "carried out an ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq's intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. and U.N. sources," wrote the Boston Globe (1/6/99).

Each of the three news stories ran on the papers' front pages. At first, U.S. officials tried to deny them, but as more details emerged, "spokesmen for the CIA, Pentagon, White House and State Department declined to repeat any categorical denials" (Washington Post, 3/2/99). By the spring of 1999, the UNSCOM spying reported by the papers was accepted as fact by other outlets, and even defended; "Experts say it is naive to believe that the United States and other governments would not have used the opportunity presented by the U.N. commission to spy on a country that provoked the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and that has continued to tangle with U.S. and British forces," USA Today reported (3/3/99).

But now that the Bush administration has placed the inspectors at the center of its rationale for going to war, these same papers have become noticeably queasy about recalling UNSCOM's past spying. The spy scandal badly damaged the credibility of the inspections process, especially after reports that data collected through UNSCOM were later used to pick targets in the December 1998 bombing of Iraq: "National security insiders, blessed with their unprecedented intelligence bonanza from UNSCOM, convinced themselves that bombing Saddam Hussein's internal apparatus would drive the Iraqi leader around the bend," wrote Washington Post analyst William Arkin (1/17/99).

Suddenly, facts that their own correspondents confirmed three years ago in interviews with top U.S. officials are being recycled as mere allegations coming from Saddam Hussein's regime.

The UNSCOM team, explained the New York Times' Barbara Crossette in an August 3 story, was replaced "after Mr. Hussein accused the old commission of being an American spy operation and refused to deal with it." She gave no hint that Saddam's "accusation" was reported as fact by her Times colleague, Tim Weiner, in a front-page story three years earlier.

"As recently as Sunday, Iraqi officials called the inspectors spies and accused them of deliberately prolonging their work," the Washington Post's Baghdad correspondent wrote recently in a story casting doubt on the Iraqi regime's intentions of cooperating (9/8/02). Readers would have no way of knowing that the Post's Barton Gellman exhaustively detailed the facts of the spying in a series of 1999 articles.

"Iraq accused some of the inspectors of being spies, because they remained on their host countries' payrolls while reviewing Iraq's weapons," the Boston Globe's Elizabeth Neuffer wrote recently, in an oddly garbled rendition of the charges (9/14/02). She could have boasted that her paper's own Colum Lynch (now with the Washington Post) was widely credited with first breaking the story of UNSCOM's spying in a January 6, 1999 front-page expose. But she chose not to.

It's hard to avoid the impression that certain media outlets would rather that UNSCOM's covert espionage had never been exposed in the first place. The day after Barton Gellman of the Washington Post first reported the spying charges, in a story sourced to Kofi Annan's office, his own paper ran a thundering editorial denouncing Annan's "gutless ploy" ("Back-Stabbing at the U.N.," 1/7/99) and instructing the U.N. leader that instead of providing the information to a Washington Post reporter, he and his aides should have "raised their concerns in private."

Originally posted by GB-GIL Trans-global
There are well-documented cases of spraying chemical weapons on US cities as well as Vietnamese villages, etc.

Whaaat? Where are you getting this information? I've never heard of the US using chemical weapons in Vietnam on anything other than plants. I remember hearing something about this a few years ago on CNN, but as I recall they later retracted the story and fired a bunch of the producers for it.

When has the government used chemical weapons on US cities?

does slackening clean air rules count?

;)

Originally posted by Nasor
Whaaat? Where are you getting this information? I've never heard of the US using chemical weapons in Vietnam on anything other than plants. I remember hearing something about this a few years ago on CNN, but as I recall they later retracted the story and fired a bunch of the producers for it.

When has the government used chemical weapons on US cities?

We put some sort of weirdo poison on the n. viet's rice supply.

And how naïve can you be? oh... you're new here. I think it was spookz... or maybe somebody else... who posted that timeline of chemical weapons tests on soldiers who were not given a choice, as well as CIA operatives where they used major US cities as testing grounds and dozens became infected.

Then there's the nukes, use one, tell everybody it wasn't on a civilian population, but oh wait, you dropped it right in the middle of an industrial center in a city with a very large population. The nation is about to surrender, but you wanna speed things up, so you kill a couple thousand more. People still die today from that stuff, but amazingly, Japanese have basically forgiven the US for their terrorism.