70 replies to this topic

[Rappy_Ninja]

according to you not. others may say the book you read isn't true either. it's a matter of opinion.

i'm not having a discussion with you about something that is based on opinions.

actually it isnt its based on F.A.C.T.S

before you make a topic like this at least learn about wtf your talking about before you speak

[Lich]

a 30 year old just got owned by like a 15 year old =(

edit: if anyones for kerry plz read unfit for command first

She didnt get owned because everything that your buddy penguin just like half od what you say on the forums is .....BULLnuts..., Quote from the leading man in the CIA there is no connection and never was any found to Al Quaida... This was posted on CNN.com do a search for no connection.... The lead investigator.. Quote: Iraq has not had any capability of weapons of mass destruction either Chemical or Nuclear for a decade...


A decade A DEACADE, a thousand people soldiers, people who you will never understand because you have never been one or shared the feeling of honor that they have, 6 of which were my Platoon SGT, PL, and soldiers i actually served with died because some DUMB AZZ like you two and any one else who supports bush refuse to se what is actually happening in the world.


I'm republican, but unlike you and apparently alot of other people I look at what has been done and not they SAY has been done.

So get your facts straight before you open your mouth please. Rappy once again STFU!! You get owned on a daily basis and if you cant learn to post on a thread with the topic is wrighten with and use your assults for that ill ask bill/ed to please put you under exp and not rape you in the areana again.

[Lady_Maha]

That was his father.. the current Bush invaded Iraq for no valid reason other than oil. Kuwait was not invaded by Iraq again after Bush senior's term.

Bush junior first claimed his war on Iraq was waged due to weapons of mass destruction, when none were found the reasoning changed to "war on terror" which I find rather amusing since Iraq was never connected to AlQuaida. The first building secured upon marching into Bagdad was the ministry of oil, which proves more than any words I could possibly post on here.

I don't read the forums/play enough anymore to keep up on all these rapid post, but I think it's fairly obvious we didn't go to war for oil, and if you believe that you must be crazy. Next, if you don't remember the countdown before we went to war, it was for Iraq to show what they did with the many many biologial weapons/wmds that they admitted to having. Lastly, there have been links shown between Iraq and Al Quaida, just not Iraq and 9/11 in particular.



edit: /t rappy guessed me a scoosh to young but that's fine

I think it is fairly obvious that the US did indeed go to war because of the resources and no other reason. The countdown was a nice fake to pretend to have a reason, since US inspectors as well as other UN inspectors were present for the disassembling/destruction of said weapons of mass destruction after the first Iraq war. The US claimed there were new ones built and wanted Saddam to show those, which he couldn't, since none existed. Several UN inspections and searches proved there were none, yet the US invaded anyway, claiming they had "proof" which later was proven false.

Lastly, no, there were no links between Iraq and Al Quaida previous to the current Iraq war, get your facts straight. The country more likely to be connected to Al Quaida was Iran, not Iraq. Amazing what a single letter can change.

/t Rappy Owned? I think not. Your friend needs to finish school before making statements.

Edited by Lady_Maha, 09 October 2004 - 04:27 PM.

[Rappy_Ninja]

a 30 year old just got owned by like a 15 year old =(

edit: if anyones for kerry plz read unfit for command first

She didnt get owned because everything that your buddy penguin just like half od what you say on the forums is .....BULLnuts..., Quote from the leading man in the CIA there is no connection and never was any found to Al Quaida... This was posted on CNN.com

you do know that cnn lies and has been cought lieing right ?

/t maha remember 911 ? thats why we went to war

dumbass

Edited by Rappy_Ninja, 09 October 2004 - 04:38 PM.

[Lich]

a 30 year old just got owned by like a 15 year old =(

edit: if anyones for kerry plz read unfit for command first

She didnt get owned because everything that your buddy penguin just like half od what you say on the forums is .....BULLnuts..., Quote from the leading man in the CIA there is no connection and never was any found to Al Quaida... This was posted on CNN.com

you do know that cnn lies and has been cought lieing right ?

/t maha remember 911 ? thats why we went to war

dumbass

Yes she remembers it just fine i was in the Pentagon Dumbass, and that is why we went to war with Afganistan NOT Iraq. This was not just on CNN. you dipshyte it was also on everysingle news channel even AFN in germany and if you dont know what afn means ill tell you . ARMED FORCES NETWORK, what they play from news sources has to be approved by the president himself and or a represenative of him and they can not block news reports that are proven true.

Owned beotch.

[jurian]

911 was cuz of al quaida not cuz of saddam.

ffs ppl i say just ignore rappy he's even worse then mec.

[Rappy_Ninja]

Yes she remembers it just fine i was in the Pentagon Dumbass,

and today I loged on killed captain and got spyglass... hmm no


lich = liar


btw what was it you said that last time ? oh your acct was worth more then mine and chris's combined

grow up nuba


edit: I am Bush so stfu nub

Edited by Rappy_Ninja, 09 October 2004 - 04:46 PM.

[Lady_Maha]

Yes she remembers it just fine i was in the Pentagon Dumbass,

and today I loged on killed captain and got spyglass... hmm no


lich = liar


btw what was it you said that last time ? oh your acct was worth more then mine and chris's combined

grow up nuba

Nice choice of words Rappy, dumbass, liar, still won't change the fact that you are wrong.

The US went to war with Afghanistan because of their connection to Al Quaida, who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Iraq had nothing to do with it.
By the way, I don't watch CNN, I watch news channels that actually give you objective news, not biased ones.

Now if you can stop resorting to name calling, maybe I can stop thinking of you as an idiotic pre-teen who can't even tie his own shoelaces. Suggestion: Open your mouth only when you know what you are talking about, otherwise you look really stupid.

Edit:

Lich indeed WAS in the Pentagon on 9/11 and has proof for it. He didn't see you there though, so I wonder how you can judge the truthfulness of his words.

Edited by Lady_Maha, 09 October 2004 - 04:51 PM.

[Rappy_Ninja]

Open your mouth only when you know what you are talking about, otherwise you look really stupid.

.

[Lich]

Was that dot because you are finnaly Shuting The F up because you are to stupid to get it or was that a sad attempt like all your excuses to save some face not that its a good face, and dont want to get owned again

[Rappy_Ninja]

Was that dot because you are finnaly Shuting The F up because you are to stupid to get it or was that a sad attempt like all your excuses to save some face not that its a good face, and dont want to get owned again

That is a complete distortion of the facts


(I am useing john kerry/edwards argueing style)

[Lady_Maha]

ffs ppl i say just ignore rappy he's even worse then mec.

Agreed. He's not worth the trouble of typing out a post.

[Rappy_Ninja]

That is a complete distortion of the facts

/t maha

Edited by Rappy_Ninja, 09 October 2004 - 05:00 PM.

[Lich]

Hey jurian when you gonna stop taking a break again, because we miss not being aloud at the captain.


Also i like on the news today they said that bush was behind in the poles, thats a good thing what do you think. is the USA waking up maybe.

[Rappy_Ninja]

Hey jurian when you gonna stop taking a break again, because we miss not being aloud at the captain.


Also i like on the news today they said that bush was behind in the poles, thats a good thing what do you think. is the USA waking up maybe.

if kerry is winning so much what happened in last nights Debate ? =(

Edited by Rappy_Ninja, 09 October 2004 - 05:12 PM.

[Lich]

Ok that is a decent question..

Rappy Bush got Owned, he kept trying to answer the question with the same things he has been saying and Kerry was showing the evidence that it wasn't true. Notice i am actually answering your question with out flamming so lets try this this way ok.

[Rappy_Ninja]

Ok that is a decent question..

Rappy Bush got Owned, he kept trying to answer the question with the same things he has been saying and Kerry was showing the evidence that it wasn't true. Notice i am actually answering your question with out flamming so lets try this this way ok.

actually at the end kerry got his ass kicked

btw kerry/edwards use mostly lies

[jurian]

PPL IGNORE RAPPY!!! PLZ

and to continue on the debate, research has shown that ppl thought kerry won the debate altho the difference was smaller then last debate.

according to a reseearch done by abc news 47% of the ppl thought kerry was best. 41% of the ppl said bush won (other had no opinion or said it was equal).

i did think that kerry had a point where he said bush was the only president in 72 years where at the end of his term there were less jobs then afterwards. (and don't blame it on the economical crises or something cuz there have been more)

so who do you think won the debate? btw i ahven't seen all of it but i thought both but specially bush repeated alot of what they said last debate.

[Rappy_Ninja]

so who do you think won the debate? btw i ahven't seen all of it but i thought both but specially bush repeated alot of what they said last debate.

as did kerry

[Lich]

From what i saw as bad as this sound, I think it was more a tie this time in speach. But Kerry had the edge of showing where bush wasn't being truthful, he had more than enough evidence, Yes he was saying the same things in some aspects but he was also showing more evidence as to the incosistencies of bush.

[Lady_Maha]

so who do you think won the debate? btw i ahven't seen all of it but i thought both but specially bush repeated alot of what they said last debate.

I agree that a lot of what was said was a repeating of the last debate.

Overall I think even though the results were tighter Kerry still won this one though.
His statement that Bush took the country to war without making any preparations to restore peace rang awfully true and still does. Over 1000 dead US soldiers prove it to this day, and probably more to come long after the war was declared over.

Edited by Lady_Maha, 09 October 2004 - 06:56 PM.

[Shera]

I'm registered as a Democrat, however I dont go by party lines for who I vote for. I voted based on the persons stance on the issues (not as reported from the media but more based on their voting record and other things that would make this way too long if I actually listed them all so) The only reason I'm registered as anything is because we have to pick something.

I watched last nights debate and it further stengthed my opinions about Bush. If he cant even listen to the Charles dude that was hosting the debate I shudder to think how he conducts himself behind closed doors when he's meeting with other heads of state. The way he conducted himself plus the way he kept either not answering the questions asked to him at all, (I found how he "answered the woman's question about what mistakes does he feel he's made and how has he gone about trying to correct them, VERY funny considering he didnt answer that question.) or how he would just go off about other questions when he was supposed to be answering the question put forth to him by a different person. Yes Kerry did that a couple of times as well, however he did seem to at least try and tie it into the current question before him. Based on all of those reasons I say Kerry did MUCH better then Bush did.

[Rappy_Ninja]

Yes he was saying the same things in some aspects but he was also showing more evidence as to the incosistencies of bush.

mms://media4.streamtoyou.com/gwb/Windsurfing_256k.wmv


look at kerry's "incosistencies"

Edited by Rappy_Ninja, 09 October 2004 - 08:14 PM.

[Rappy_Ninja]

so who do you think won the debate? btw i ahven't seen all of it but i thought both but specially bush repeated alot of what they said last debate.

I agree that a lot of what was said was a repeating of the last debate.

Overall I think even though the results were tighter Kerry still won this one though.
His statement that Bush took the country to war without making any preparations to restore peace rang awfully true and still does. Over 1000 dead US soldiers prove it to this day, and probably more to come long after the war was declared over.

1000 deaths ? thats nothing compared to other wars in the past

how can you talk peace to someone who is willing to strap a bomb to himself and go hug you and kill you both ? hmmm...
maybe the only way to have peace with people like that is by killing them...?

edit: if someone is willing to die for their beliefs I dont think talking peace with them would work is what I am driveing at

Edited by Rappy_Ninja, 09 October 2004 - 08:29 PM.

[Lich]

Wars of the past rappy can't be compared because our way of fighting is different, Hell its even different than when i fought in the first war with Iraq. But it not peace now that she is talking about, what she means is that we should have never went to war there this time to begin with. The sanctions were working as proved by the weapons Inspectors reports of then and now. Continuing with te sanctions and talks and who knows what would have been.

We should have continued in afganistan searching for Osma Bin laden. Not disarming Sadam when he was already disarmed. We should have listened to our Allies in other countries who were all saying no don't do this its not right. We didn't and in typicle hard headed american fashion we stormed in like a bull in a china shop and now 1000 soldiers who did not need to die for someone else's country did.

Soldiers are taught it is pounded in our heads that we are fighting for americas freedom and while i agree that chasig osma in Afganistan where we know that he is right, I will never agree that going after Sadam this time is. When we had Osma cornered we knew where he was he was there, Instead ofusing american troops to capture him he pulled those troops back and hired Mercanaries to go get him, so our troops could be freed up to go to war with Iraq. WHY? they had not attacked us and as we have already astablished and shownhad no connection to either 911 or alquida.


And no flaming Im tired and my dislexia is acting up. Im actually trying to keep this a suttle convo with out tempers for a change.

Edited by Lich, 09 October 2004 - 08:43 PM.

[Zylia]

ffs ppl i say just ignore rappy he's even worse then mec.

lmao

Just a disclaimer. Most (not all) Republicans just seem to whine and whine until they get their way. Look at Bush last night when the moderator wanted to move along the debate. He whined and whined and then finally just said "Screw you, I'm going to talk. I'm better than the rules."

I hear all these republican boosters on television saying 'Oh when Bush put the moderator in his place! It shows us how strong of a leader he is!' lol No it doesn't, it shows that he's willing to go against rules to get his way!

*sighs*

By the way, I will say that Bush did a better job than he did in his first debate. I think everyone will agree its a well-known fact that W has a bad temper and if not for this I think I would've said he'd done a good job.

However.... thats not the case.

I will say though. The War on Terrorism was justified. The War to 'Liberate' Iraq was not. Even if Saddam was a threat, he had not done a thing to us that should prompt millitary action.... Iraq was the responsibilty of the UN. If Bush wanted Saddam out of power, he should've pushed the issue with the UN and told them to take action against violations of sanctions on them. And if you all think that the UN wouldn't have done anything... maybe we should've pressed the issue that the UN needs to get up off their asses and do something instead of haughtily saying 'Screw you guys, we don't need you. We'll fix it ourselves.' The League of Nations failed because of lack of unity and lack of responsibility. I forsee the exact thing with the UN, especially by this statement we've made in Iraq.

[Dan]

Yea when Bush went at the moderator like he did, that wasn't very respectfull imo. I felt he did more then just whine, more like demanded to have his way, ignored the moderator who was allready speaking and decided that he was going to do as he pleased. This sent out a good message, kind of like: if you don't like it, tough.
As for Iraq, I'm dumbfounded on the whole topic. I also believe this was done for oil. The first things secured were the refineries and oil lines, then they proceeded onto other things. I to this day say that Bush's 2 reasonings were for oil and revenge for his daddy.
Kerry said 2 different things reguarding N. Korea sanctions. In the first debate he wanted bilatteral talks, whereas last night he mentioned pulling in a few more countries to help in the talks. Thats fine, shows that he has an open mind. Whereas Bush is telling us, Unless it's done my way, it'll never work. Bush's way killed our economy, Bush's way put thousands of soldiers into harms way by leading them from the hunt for Osama into an un-needed war on Iraq, Bush's way lost some of our allies, etc... etc... etc...
Bush has been running this country for the past 4 years as if it were a personal business making it so more wealth is put into the allready wealthy's pockets. He wants small businesses to join together as one, not a bad idea except that the economics factors are screwed not leaving competition out there for prices to fluxuate.
I could continue on, but you all see whats going on, some people are just to blind to see it clearly.

(I may have mixed some things up, im at work and not thinking straight, and it is a nice refreshing thing to see how people in other countries view the topic)

[Lich]

While i agree with you that it should have been the UN if anything was done Zylia, I will point out one thing no one is thinking about. By UN charter it states that to go to war without Physcal cause. Which there was none as there was no weapons and no proof that there were. Is illegal which is why they were all saying that the USA decision to go to war with Iraq was illegal to begin with. We wrote the rules of conduct not them they were just going by them.

The canisters that he bought for making missles, the weapons inspectors even said they would have been no good for anything except short range missles not strong enough for true payload. Which technically even his buying them was not illegal because it wasn't illegal for him to make small weapons for defence of his lands. So the UN could not have acted because they were forbidden to by the charter that the USA wrote.

Being a Soldier(albeit retired) and someone who does love his country just not what they do at times. For me to say this is like ripping my tounge out but this one time we were more than wrong, we made countries who had been our friends since WW2 hate us because we showed that we didn't care about the rules even the ones we made. Yet at the same time if any other country was to do that then it is us saying hey wait a second that is against the rules. The do what i say not what i do was our biggest flaw, and it was bush that lead us into that.

[Shera]

Rappy almost all of the 1000 soldiers that have died in Iraq died AFTER Bush declared the major fighting over. To me that shows a major misjudgement on his part. He thought everything was going just fine, it's not obviously or people on both sides wouldnt be dying. Bush needs to listen more and speak less. Maybe then he'd keep his foot out of his mouth. Just my 2 cents.

[Stotic]

Republicans just seem to whine and whine until they get their way.

Then who are those people filling up the streets during the RNC and DNC?

Although I disagree with Maha on some points... Rappy, your doing a horrible job arguing them.