Your thoughts

Mar 17 2003, 9:58 pm
SilkWizard	I suppose that it really doesn't matter too much either way...it's not like Saddam would have gone running because the Canadian War Machine was going to be coming for him. It is too bad that Canada decided to withhold their support though. Time to boycott maple syrup.

Mar 17 2003, 10:17 pm

In response to Kunark

Crispy

Kunark wrote:

After that, Austrelia was suspisious on how close of friends the US and Austrelia really were.

Unfortunately, that's absolutely not true. Our Glorious (cough, hack, cough, splutter) Prime Minister John Howard has decided in His Wisdom that President Bush is a God Above All Else and must be followed, lest He strike us down and Howard doesn't get his sorry arse re-elected.

Sometime last year, a particularly controversial politician was disciplined by his party, for calling Johnny an arse-licker. It may not have been the best way to put it, but he was absolutely, one hundred percent right. That's exactly what he is.

Mar 17 2003, 10:25 pm In response to Spuzzum
ACWraith	"Treaties between Canada and the United States, including NAFTA, are all but severed due to some American violations, like trying to buy water (which is a restricted commodity under NAFTA)" Innocently(?) slurps some Aberfoyle, the only stuff that doesn't taste like the bleeping bottle.

Mar 17 2003, 10:35 pm

In response to Dagolar

Mrhat99au

Dagolar wrote:

I am sick and tired of everyone saying we should all back the U.S. in their decision. "Let's just bow down and accept that the United States is the leading super power and that all decisions made there-from are correct. Resistance is futile. Join the willing".

I, for one, will not bow down. This war had a lot of protest to it and for good reason. Those protesters to the U.S. who now bow down are cowards. Stand up for what you believe.

-Dagolar

Or we could not bow down, and all just attack Huddam(Not iraq, all you people who think that its unhumanitrian), kick his ass, and be back in time for tea.

Mar 17 2003, 10:47 pm

In response to ACWraith

Spuzzum

ACWraith wrote:

"Treaties between Canada and the United States, including NAFTA, are all but severed due to some American violations, like trying to buy water (which is a restricted commodity under NAFTA)"

*Innocently(?) slurps some Aberfoyle, the only stuff that doesn't taste like the bleeping bottle.*

I don't think supplies of water for personal consumption are counted in that definition; it's referring more along the lines of transporting water in bulk quantities for re-integration into the American ecosystem (which is obviously not good for our water and not good for the American ecosystem -- it's many levels of unsafe).

(Incidentally, I have relatives that live in Hope, which isn't far from where Aberfoyle is bottled. =))

Mar 17 2003, 10:50 pm

In response to Mrhat99au

Crispy

How is it possible to attack Saddam without inflicting collateral damage on civilians? It's not. Period. Besides, I don't care what kind of advanced laser guided bombs the US has; I will NOT be surprised if they go in and just carpet bomb the hell out of the entire damn country. After all, when there's no (non-Iraq) media there they can basically do whatever they like without fear of too much repercussion.

Mar 17 2003, 10:50 pm In response to SilkWizard
Spuzzum	SilkWizard wrote: I suppose that it really doesn't matter too much either way...it's not like Saddam would have gone running because the Canadian War Machine was going to be coming for him. Hey, our superweapon could have made him shake in his boots. We call it a "trebuchet". It can lob 20-kilogram stones several hundred metres!

Mar 17 2003, 10:58 pm

In response to Spuzzum

Crispy

Spuzzum wrote:

We call it a "trebuchet". It can lob 20-kilogram stones several hundred metres!

Very useful for taking out heavily fortified enemy positions! It's always a good idea to surround them with pikemen and cavalry, though, as the enemy will more than likely send out cavalry (or maybe infantry) to deal with them.

Wait, I'm in Age of Empires 2 mode. Wait a sec... </aoe2> There, all fixed. =)

Confusing games and "real life" aside... Australia's military is nearly as good. We have a few thousand troops, a few spyplanes, and even a couple of submarines! No, wait, the submarines were decommissioned because they were too expensive to maintain. My mistake. ;-)

We're not as enlightened as Canada when it comes to military spending, though - we spend a greatly excessive percentage of our budget on the military, for a force that only serves as a token contribution to US forces in whatever crazed, unneccessary war the US has dreamt up lately.

Mar 17 2003, 11:24 pm

In response to Crispy

Mrhat99au

Crispy wrote:

How is it possible to attack Saddam without inflicting collateral damage on civilians? It's not. Period. Besides, I don't care what kind of advanced laser guided bombs the US has; I will NOT be surprised if they go in and just carpet bomb the hell out of the entire damn country. After all, when there's no (non-Iraq) media there they can basically do whatever they like without fear of too much repercussion.

So what? Its not like all the civilians arent already pritty much in a grim situation

Mar 17 2003, 11:38 pm

Jp

My thoughts is that your president is giving up popularity for the much scarcer and better valued morality. Why should he join Georgie of the urban jungle in an attack on a third world country which has not been proven to have weapons of mass destruction, has the support of most of his people, and has made no threatening moves? And, if Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction, so what? Only america has ever used them, and there are plenty of other countries with weapons of mass destruction that have a worse regime. (coughcoughnorthkoreacoughcough)

Mar 17 2003, 11:43 pm

In response to Mrhat99au

Crispy

Mrhat99au wrote:

So what? Its not like all the civilians arent already pritty much in a grim situation

So you think they should be made to suffer EVEN MORE regardless of the fact that they're suffering already? You utterly pathetic sadist.

Supposing someone else came to your house and stole everything of value (monetary or sentimental) that you own. Should I then be allowed to burn down your house, on the grounds that it doesn't matter as you've already lost all of your possessions?

Mar 17 2003, 11:55 pm In response to Kunark
RaeKwon	Kunark wrote: Well, its not really that the people are pigs, it's more that the american media are pigs, whos influence is the most powerful influence in america. Guess what? I'm a selfish pig. Gimme gime gimme! Give me BYOND! Give me your game, Kunark! I want to be a pig when I'm older to <font size=1>cop<font size=2> =) RaeKwon

Mar 17 2003, 11:57 pm In response to Jnco904
RaeKwon	Jnco904 wrote: I would love to see the little kids smoking the catnip that they just bought from the stores. :) I smoked catnip 5 years ago, makes your throat dry and makes you really thirsty. RaeKwon

Mar 18 2003, 12:46 am

In response to Crispy

Mrhat99au

Crispy wrote:

Mrhat99au wrote:

So what? Its not like all the civilians arent already pritty much in a grim situation

So you think they should be made to suffer EVEN MORE regardless of the fact that they're suffering already? You utterly pathetic sadist.

Supposing someone else came to your house and stole everything of value (monetary or sentimental) that you own. Should I then be allowed to burn down your house, on the grounds that it doesn't matter as you've already lost all of your possessions?

And once we've beaten Suddam up, and kicked him out, well actually help these poor individuals.
The other thing is, i doubt any would break into my house or burn it down, because i dont live in complete anarchy and i never will, and if i do, ill kill my self.

Mar 18 2003, 1:02 am

In response to Mrhat99au

Crispy

Mrhat99au wrote:

The other thing is, i doubt any would break into my house or burn it down, because i dont live in complete anarchy and i never will, and if i do, ill kill my self.

It was an analogy. That doesn't mean it has to be realistic. Duh. Besides, it is realistic - houses get broken into all the time. It's certainly not uncommon. Arson is less frequent, but it is becoming increasingly common recently if you believe the statistics the AFP - Australian Federal Police for you non-Aussies out there - is telling us.

And once we've beaten Suddam up, and kicked him out, well actually help these poor individuals.

Did I forget to mention in my analogy that your house is a bit small? I'm really doing you a favour, burning it down - now you can build it twice as big by buying up the block of land next door, that also caught aflame! I'm just a really generous guy, huh? Don't you wish everyone was like me? Remember kids, arson isn't a crime: it's a service.

Personally, I think conditions won't improve that much for Iraqi residents anyway. Yes, they'll have a "democratically elected" government. Sure they'll have a "democratically elected" government. Everyone gets a vote, but there's only one candidate - the US puppet.

Sarcasm aside, Bush isn't committed to promoting democracy. He's committed to boosting the US economy with a war, and getting his already filthy hands on more oil (again, to lower oil prices and stimulate the economy).

Mar 18 2003, 3:53 am In response to Jp
Dareb	thats my views, i dont think america has the right, hypocrits.. Notice i didnt say americans, since the citizens arent at fault.

Mar 18 2003, 3:54 am In response to SilkWizard
Dareb	uh oh.. now what are you going that have at the IHOP?

Mar 18 2003, 5:05 am In response to Crispy
Dareb	I say we should just dump boiling hot cocoa on Suddam and end it. Not only would he be humiliated, but hed die a delicious death of burning horrible searing pain. maybe even strike a last pose before the chocolate hardens. "Best....death......ever"

Mar 18 2003, 5:07 am In response to Jnco904
Dareb	I love All Quesadias

Mar 18 2003, 5:10 am In response to Dagolar
Dareb	lets leave it at the fact we all know, but hate. Everyone is "BAD"