A Flash Developer Resource Site

Page 202 of 202 FirstFirst ... 102152192198199200201202
Results 4,021 to 4,034 of 4034

Thread: FK official war thread !!

  1. #4021
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    234
    Originally posted by Bones12484
    I'm sorry... I know I missed something - could you fill me in? When and where do your facts come from that this is imperialism? When did we announce that we were going to occupy Iraq for longer than necessary to rebuild before handing back over to the Iraqis? I know all Bush cares about is an American Empire and control of all oil in the world, but this other stuff I must have missed.

    im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
    n.
    The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
    The system, policies, or practices of such a government.


    given that all of the pre-texts for this occupation have been falsehoods, manipulations and lies, I think it's more than justifiable to question imperialistic motive of the Bush regime.

    You may notice that I refer to the operation as an occupation (Def #3: Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
    The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory. )
    , not an act of imperialism- I am only saying that imperialistic motives are questioned- and quite fairly I believe.

    Oh and BTW:

    "The inspectors didn't find anything and I doubt that we will."

    -Donald Rumsfeld, today.
    Last edited by cyk; 04-18-2003 at 10:04 AM.

  2. #4022
    Aquaverse gdstudios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,789
    Originally posted by cyk
    Hmm liberals question Bush over policies of war, occupation and imperialism, restrictions on the Constiution and personal freedoms. Republicans spent 80 million dollars to find out if the President had oral sex with an intern. I'm sorry was it "liberals" like Rush who dragged the Clinton Family through the dirt and referred to a defensless teenager Chelsea as a 'mutt'?
    This is NOT imperialism by definition. Look it up.

    [edit]Oh, I see you already did. Thank you. Your definition proves you to be making a faulty argument. Since the US is not doing any of the things listed in the definition. Thanks, cyk.[/edit]

    Wanna know what else pisses me off cyk? It's people who change the meaning of words so that they can make their weaker argument hold more water. For example, the word occupation. IT IS NOT A BAD WORD, even though you try your best to make it that way. Guess what, when a country goes and liberates another, they need to occupy it, at least temporarily, in order to restore order. Got a problem with that? Well, if the US invaded Iraq, then left Iraq right afterwards, you'd be first in line to complain that we are NOT occupying. Do you deny that? So your next response will be, "Oh, well none of this would've happened if the US did not attack Iraq in the first place." To that I say, fine. Fine with me. But you anti-war in Iraq folks better never act like you are serving the interests of peace and the good of humanity. Without the invasion of Iraq and the continued sanctions against Iraq, MILLIONS more of Iraqis would have died.


    BTW, real liberals, like the "idiots in hollywood" did and still do speak out against the bombing of Kosovo and other Clinton escapades. You may have noticed that liberals were considerably more silent during the perceivably justified war in Afganistan than the obnoxious occupation of Iraq and will be even more fervant if this sabre rattling, war mongering idiot doesn't shut up and quit while he's ahead.
    This Rush topic is a little off the mark, but I'll bite, sure. On the subject of Rush Limbaugh. You wanna know something? I don't agree with many things that RUSHHANNITYOREILLYSAVAGECOULTER say, but on the whole, I would say that these are the most wonderful people to enter into the Communications inductry. Before them, we really only got one side of the news. Try being a conservative (which I am not) and having to listen to the news media all through the Reagan years, while they took his exceptionally wonderful record and sloshed it through the mud. The same thing happened to Newt in 1994. Newt isn't a bad man at all. I know him personally—used to be a neighbor of mine. It's silly to think that he is out to starve the poor, kill the elderly and poison the water supply as many democrats have suggested. And the media went along and reported that dribble. So to me, Rush Limbaugh is like Radio-Free America.


    Yes, that should have no backlash at all, nobody ever plots revenge against the playground bully
    Anyone who thinks this way and doesn't see the danger in world governance of this nature should be swiftly removed from any semblance of a role of responsibility in government. So while it may be true, it doesn't make it right. In fact, it is perilously wrong.

  3. #4023
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    234
    Without the invasion of Iraq and the continued sanctions against Iraq, MILLIONS more of Iraqis would have died.
    We know, we've been watching YOUR sanctions in action for the last 12 years.

    Look don't tell me what I'm going to say, here's the dictionary definition of Occupation , I'm not twisting the words, I'm using the language to express the sentiment towrds this war of millions of people- if that offends your flag wrapped ass then too bad- maybe you should listen more and preach less

    oc·cu·pa·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ky-pshn)
    n.
    Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
    The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.


    it's doing both of these things, though I know it's hard to see it through Fox colored glasses.

    Anyone who thinks this way and doesn't see the danger in world governance of this nature should be swiftly removed from any semblance of a role of responsibility in government. So while it may be true, it doesn't make it right. In fact, it is perilously wrong
    You should buy a history book and read up on some of the fates of other powerhouses of their days, they rule for a bit but eventually they all fall. Arrogance, ignorance and greed are a deadly combination.
    Last edited by cyk; 04-18-2003 at 10:16 AM.

  4. #4024
    8==========8
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    38
    Originally posted by cyk
    "The inspectors didn't find anything and I doubt that we will."

    -Donald Rumsfeld, today.
    Could it be possible that he was referring to how well hidden they are?

    Not saying there is no possible other motives, just that in my opinion, I see nothing of imperialism thus far. Of course we are controlling Iraq right now. Who else could at the current time? Now that we've taken over, I believe we are required to control it or at least stabalize it until the Iraqis are ready to be handed control.

  5. #4025
    Aquaverse gdstudios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,789
    Originally posted by cyk
    We know, we've been watching YOUR sanctions in action for the last 12 years.
    Huh? Explain how these have been anything other than UN sanctions cyk.


    Look don't tell me what I'm going to say, here's the dictionary definition of Occupation , I'm not twisting the words, I'm using the language to express the sentiment towrds this war of millions of people- if that offends your flag wrapped ass then too bad- maybe you should listen more and preach less

    oc·cu·pa·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ky-pshn)
    n.
    Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
    The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.


    it's doing both of these things, though I know it's hard to see it through Fox colored glasses.
    Cyk, I never said the US wasn't occupying. READ. I said that we are not acting imperially, which we are not. We are, however, occupying. You have just assisted me in making my point. Thank you for being my guinea pig for this experiment. You are acting as though the occupy is akin to Nazism. Oh no, the big bad US is the occupying force in Iraq. Want to know where this b.s. started cyk? It started during the Clinton years, when wordlwide people began to recategorize the Israeli/Arab conflict. For years, it was common knowledge that lawless thugs in the Arab world were terrorizing Israel, until a man named Bill Clinton came into power here. This, in conjunction with the rise of Socialist regimes in Europe led to an interesting world view. That it was Israel who was holding up Middle Easy peace. Somehow Israelis were termed the occupying force in the region. People started to randomly ignore the fact that Syria occupies Lebanon and that the Arab World has launched six wars against Israel in the past half century. I just love how Israel has become the target and aggressor instead of the victim which they obviously are. Even if they are committing some offenses in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which I can accept, why not attack the British for setting up this whole conflict. They gave Israel to the Jews, the Jews didn't force their way in there. Thus, the origins of where the word occupation became a negative word, which is really neutral if anything.


    You should buy a history book and read up on some of the fates of other powerhouses of their days, they rule for a bit but eventually they all fall. Arrogance, ignorance and greed are a deadly combination.
    Cyk, I am more well-versed on historical matters than you could possibly imagine. Their has never been any power like the US is today. You misinterpret and deliberately falsify what is the reality of our superpower status out of envy for us. Most likely, you are one of those who believes that we should feel guilty for our success and money. That we should give more of our money away to solve world problems, while everyone else sits back and grows even stronger. That we should give up the very sovereignty that we graciously helped the rest of the world achieve following the European ineptitude that was the 20th century. That we should have signed Kyoto which would further weakened our country. That we should get rid of the death penalty because we violating human rights by continuing its practice. I'm sorry, son, I just disgaree with you on a profound level.

  6. #4026
    supervillain gerbick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    undecided.
    Posts
    18,986
    you know what I've learned? no matter what level of diplomacy, tact, or even curiousity that you attempt at this site, people will invariably take whatever you say, and twist it to fit their needs.

    bah. I know that's human nature to have to justify yourself, as well as place/categorize people, but you know what? **** the people that feel the need to do that.

    go ahead, hypocrites. turn this into something else I didn't say... ****ing idiots.

    [ Hello ] | [ gerbick ] | [ Ω ]

  7. #4027
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    234
    Huh? Explain how these have been anything other than UN sanctions cyk.
    it's quite clear the perpertrator and the enforcer of the sanctions is the United States, though I will point the blame at the UN for putting their name on.

    Cyk, I never said the US wasn't occupying. READ. I said that we are not acting imperially, which we are not.
    Maybe you should read, I explained this to bones once and he had the sense to understand it, too bad you can't. I said that we question the motive of the administration and IF they act in an imperial manner.

    As for the rest of your rambling, psychotic post, I'm not comparing our occupation of Iraq to any other occupation, I simply calling it what it is, and, BTW, using a term Tommy Franks and Don Rummy have used so if you want to get all rubber-room with someone please start with them.

    I'm sorry, son, I just disgaree with you on a profound level.
    First of all, don't call me son, ever again. And second of all, stoned high schoolers could interpret history more profoundly than you, and lastly the fact that you disagree with me on a 'profound level' makes me nothing if not utterly jubilient.

  8. #4028
    supervillain gerbick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    undecided.
    Posts
    18,986
    keep it civil, both you.

    personally, I'd love to see this divisive piece of **** thread be deleted.

    It's done nothing but lead to trouble, even between mods. I have less respect for a lot of peopple due to their attempts to take simple things, and make them into something else.

    such as you taking that son comment as you did, cyk. but then again, I could be wrong in it's usage. I can't speak for gds.

    and gds, you're being antagonistic again. state the facts without possibly misunderstood verbiage appended to it.

    anyway, keep it up and I'll seriously request that this thread be deleted... as well as any other attempts to start any like it.

    so in otherwords, calm the hell down, and be civil to each other.

    mmkay?

    [ Hello ] | [ gerbick ] | [ Ω ]

  9. #4029
    Aquaverse gdstudios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,789
    In keeping with Gerbick's fair guidelines, I will keep calm here even though I believe an outburst is completely warranted. Gerbs I agree with your assessment of the thread overall and I, myself, have been guilty of this at some point in the thread.

    Originally posted by cyk
    it's quite clear the perpertrator and the enforcer of the sanctions is the United States, though I will point the blame at the UN for putting their name on.
    So another words the sanctions were placed on Iraq by the UN. That's what I thought. How can you possibly blame the US for the ineffective sanctions? What measures would US-less UN have taken to teach Iraq a lesson? Still confused.


    Maybe you should read, I explained this to bones once and he had the sense to understand it, too bad you can't. I said that we question the motive of the administration and IF they act in an imperial manner.
    You CLEARLY stated that the US was an imperialist, occupying, arrogant, bullying empire (straight from that wonderful Newsweek article that has become the bible to the Left). I was merely helping you to separate or differentiate between those terms, as they each carry their own implications. Imperialism is a very serious charge and a policy that no one really supports. There is imperialism here per your posted definition. Occupation is definitely something we are doing but it is to be expected and it is not necessarily a bad thing contrary to media hype. I'll leave the other two charges alone because they haven't come up yet and I want to keep this relatively short.


    As for the rest of your rambling, psychotic post, I'm not comparing our occupation of Iraq to any other occupation, I simply calling it what it is, and, BTW, using a term Tommy Franks and Don Rummy have used so if you want to get all rubber-room with someone please start with them.
    Grow up.


    First of all, don't call me son, ever again. And second of all, stoned high schoolers could interpret history more profoundly than you, and lastly the fact that you disagree with me on a 'profound level' makes me nothing if not utterly jubilient.
    I apologize for the antagonistic use of the word 'son'. Shouldn't have said that, my mistake. I was merely responding to you suggesting that I hadn't read enough of history to understand the fates of similarly powerful empires. Even still, that doesn't excuse your overly dramatic response to the comment.

    I wouldn't mind keeping the thread open so long as we can keep it civil. Cyk, let's just relax—both of us—and have a nice debate. There's no harm in that.

  10. #4030
    Senior Member Hellsbellboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    193
    The whole sancations thing is stupid.. By now Iraq could buy just about anything, except Military Equipment, and Dual Use technology.. they could sell as much Oil as they wanted, the stipulations being that they had to pay off some of what they owed for war damages.. The reason the Iraqi people are hurting from UN Sancations is cause Saddam used the money to buy his stuff, for him and his regime.. And the Iraq people had to live on what the UN gave them.. So the only one to blaim for the effects of Sancations is Saddam and his people.

  11. #4031
    Senior Member Hellsbellboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    193
    Originally posted by Markp.com
    Does anyone know anything about the information minister commiting suicide?
    There was one story in a newspaper about it, but it hasn't been confirmed by any other source.

    here

    this is where i read it.
    Last edited by Hellsbellboy; 04-18-2003 at 12:53 PM.

  12. #4032
    more cowbell DigitalOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    591
    Am I the only one who noticed this was back?

  13. #4033
    Not PWD ViRGo_RK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    1,799
    JUST LET THIS THREAD DIE! PLEASE!


    PAlexC: That's just Chuck Norris's way of saying sometimes corn needs to lay the heck down.
    Gerbick: America. Stabbing suckers since Vespucci left.

  14. #4034
    Retired Mod aversion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    insomnia
    Posts
    7,917
    I suspect someone posted then deleted their post... hmm, not sure why it's here but I'm closing it for now.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width

HTML5 Development Center