Should the US bother being in the UN?
Pages :
1 [2]
Cbass
03-09-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Damien
That actualy makes sense. DC did have a point though. The thing is...the longer you wait to take out the nest, the bigger it gets and soon to big for you to possibly handle.
The problem is, you can't take out the nest with a stick. You have to take out the nest through making the wasps not want to sting you. It's not that hard in this case.
That actualy makes sense. DC did have a point though. The thing is...the longer you wait to take out the nest, the bigger it gets and soon to big for you to possibly handle.
The problem is, you can't take out the nest with a stick. You have to take out the nest through making the wasps not want to sting you. It's not that hard in this case.
Cbass
03-09-2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Damien
That actualy makes sense. DC did have a point though. The thing is...the longer you wait to take out the nest, the bigger it gets and soon to big for you to possibly handle.
That actualy makes sense. DC did have a point though. The thing is...the longer you wait to take out the nest, the bigger it gets and soon to big for you to possibly handle.
Damien
03-09-2003, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Cbass
The problem is, you can't take out the nest with a stick. You have to take out the nest through making the wasps not want to sting you. It's not that hard in this case.
Never said it was and never said you should take it out with a stick. I just said you need to deal. And as mentioned before...well, actually not in this thread. It's in the war thread in phiosophizing. Oh well...anyhow...yeah, walk slow and carry a big stick worked for Teddy Bear but Bush is a little less insightful. *coughs* No, there's not way of completely dealing with this calmly. I mean, the US can just keep this calmness for now, but I stick (no pun intended) with what Isaid. YOu'll have to deal with it once and for all. Make sure the freakin' wasps won't come back to your yard. Maybe your neighbors since you don't like them very much. (Had to throw in sarcastic humor...to serious)
The problem is, you can't take out the nest with a stick. You have to take out the nest through making the wasps not want to sting you. It's not that hard in this case.
Never said it was and never said you should take it out with a stick. I just said you need to deal. And as mentioned before...well, actually not in this thread. It's in the war thread in phiosophizing. Oh well...anyhow...yeah, walk slow and carry a big stick worked for Teddy Bear but Bush is a little less insightful. *coughs* No, there's not way of completely dealing with this calmly. I mean, the US can just keep this calmness for now, but I stick (no pun intended) with what Isaid. YOu'll have to deal with it once and for all. Make sure the freakin' wasps won't come back to your yard. Maybe your neighbors since you don't like them very much. (Had to throw in sarcastic humor...to serious)
Cbass
03-09-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Damien
Never said it was and never said you should take it out with a stick. I just said you need to deal. And as mentioned before...well, actually not in this thread. It's in the war thread in phiosophizing. Oh well...anyhow...yeah, walk slow and carry a big stick worked for Teddy Bear but Bush is a little less insightful. *coughs* No, there's not way of completely dealing with this calmly. I mean, the US can just keep this calmness for now, but I stick (no pun intended) with what Isaid. YOu'll have to deal with it once and for all. Make sure the freakin' wasps won't come back to your yard. Maybe your neighbors since you don't like them very much. (Had to throw in sarcastic humor...to serious)
The problem is, that by going after Iraq, a sovereign nation with no links to the terrorist networks targeting the US, the US is likely to create a whole new generation of terrorists, very much bent on killing Americans.
Never said it was and never said you should take it out with a stick. I just said you need to deal. And as mentioned before...well, actually not in this thread. It's in the war thread in phiosophizing. Oh well...anyhow...yeah, walk slow and carry a big stick worked for Teddy Bear but Bush is a little less insightful. *coughs* No, there's not way of completely dealing with this calmly. I mean, the US can just keep this calmness for now, but I stick (no pun intended) with what Isaid. YOu'll have to deal with it once and for all. Make sure the freakin' wasps won't come back to your yard. Maybe your neighbors since you don't like them very much. (Had to throw in sarcastic humor...to serious)
The problem is, that by going after Iraq, a sovereign nation with no links to the terrorist networks targeting the US, the US is likely to create a whole new generation of terrorists, very much bent on killing Americans.
taranaki
03-09-2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Damien
That actualy makes sense. DC did have a point though. The thing is...the longer you wait to take out the nest, the bigger it gets and soon to big for you to possibly handle.
If the nest isn't in your own backyard,you don't need to 'handle' it.If the nest reaches the point where the wasps area constant and real menace in your back yard,sure, deal with it,but there's no way of getting rid of every wasp in the word.Going out to smash up the nest the first time you see it simply results in a hell of a lot of homeless and very angry wasps,plus a whole heap of neighbours who are mad at you because their back yards are no longer safe.
That actualy makes sense. DC did have a point though. The thing is...the longer you wait to take out the nest, the bigger it gets and soon to big for you to possibly handle.
If the nest isn't in your own backyard,you don't need to 'handle' it.If the nest reaches the point where the wasps area constant and real menace in your back yard,sure, deal with it,but there's no way of getting rid of every wasp in the word.Going out to smash up the nest the first time you see it simply results in a hell of a lot of homeless and very angry wasps,plus a whole heap of neighbours who are mad at you because their back yards are no longer safe.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-09-2003, 08:47 PM
if there is a wasp next in your back yard threataning your kids when they play then you must take care of it. FYI wasps are an aggresive insect. if its if no immediate threat but a threat to someone else then there is always an extirminator to take them out there. this metaphor has gone on too long and is stupid.
-GTi-VR6_A3
-GTi-VR6_A3
taranaki
03-09-2003, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
this metaphor has gone on too long and is stupid.
-GTi-VR6_A3
why stupid?everone else appears to be following it well enough.
maybe you just don't like the valid point that it makes.
this metaphor has gone on too long and is stupid.
-GTi-VR6_A3
why stupid?everone else appears to be following it well enough.
maybe you just don't like the valid point that it makes.
1985_BMW318i
03-09-2003, 09:10 PM
Valid Point indeed, Now lets change the insect. Killer bees are responsible for killing a number of people. Makes sense to wipe them out. Also makes perfect sense to remove a dictator like Saddam as well.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-09-2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
why stupid?everone else appears to be following it well enough.
maybe you just don't like the valid point that it makes.
i brought up my use of it too if ya didnt read.
-GTi-VR6_A3
why stupid?everone else appears to be following it well enough.
maybe you just don't like the valid point that it makes.
i brought up my use of it too if ya didnt read.
-GTi-VR6_A3
Darth Cypher
03-10-2003, 01:47 AM
We can even change the insect yet again. Ants. Sure they are far enough away not to do you harm. Soon enough though they will be in your house, in your sugar jar, etc. So which is the wisest to treat the threat? When it's in your backyard or when it's in your house?
And when we keep pushing against the al-quada, terrorists will see that we are not messing around. The clinton administration is over. This of course will not be realized in our time perhaps. But if it is kept going then terrorism will be a crime not worth the time.
And saddam calling for a ji-had? How many times has he called for one that actually happened? Anyone? Don't everyone answer me all at once.
You want facts to my "factless Cold War metality"? Fine. USS Cole and Kobar Towers. All we did was lob a few cruise missles and call it a day. Nothing to the scale of what we are doing now. We did nothing to them except maybe help them fight off a mutual enemy (the Russians who took over thier country).
We backed them up knowing full well that they are willing to wage a war against us. Yes, the CIA knew they would fight us as eagerly as they did the Russians. However, we both had a mutual enemy that took precedence. Russia was the bigger threat to us and Russia was the one occupying thier country.
They would have attacked us anyway as we have seen in the examples above. Now we were easy on them by only taking out a few training grounds in response to the Kobar Towers and USS Cole. Too soft IMO. Then we got Sept. 11.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Now tell me that a first strike would not have possibly prevented any of the above incidents? Iraq might or might not have links with al-quada. But don't think for a moment that saddam won't sell them any WMD. He has a track record of harboring international terrorists. He might not agree with al-quada but "money talks". Don't believe it, ask Russia about some of thier nukes.
And when we keep pushing against the al-quada, terrorists will see that we are not messing around. The clinton administration is over. This of course will not be realized in our time perhaps. But if it is kept going then terrorism will be a crime not worth the time.
And saddam calling for a ji-had? How many times has he called for one that actually happened? Anyone? Don't everyone answer me all at once.
You want facts to my "factless Cold War metality"? Fine. USS Cole and Kobar Towers. All we did was lob a few cruise missles and call it a day. Nothing to the scale of what we are doing now. We did nothing to them except maybe help them fight off a mutual enemy (the Russians who took over thier country).
We backed them up knowing full well that they are willing to wage a war against us. Yes, the CIA knew they would fight us as eagerly as they did the Russians. However, we both had a mutual enemy that took precedence. Russia was the bigger threat to us and Russia was the one occupying thier country.
They would have attacked us anyway as we have seen in the examples above. Now we were easy on them by only taking out a few training grounds in response to the Kobar Towers and USS Cole. Too soft IMO. Then we got Sept. 11.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Now tell me that a first strike would not have possibly prevented any of the above incidents? Iraq might or might not have links with al-quada. But don't think for a moment that saddam won't sell them any WMD. He has a track record of harboring international terrorists. He might not agree with al-quada but "money talks". Don't believe it, ask Russia about some of thier nukes.
taranaki
03-10-2003, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
And when we keep pushing against the al-quada, terrorists will see that we are not messing around. But if it is kept going then terrorism will be a crime not worth the time.
These are people who are prepared to take control of fully fueled aircraft and fly them into buildings.They are prepared to go to their certain deaths for their beliefs.Do you seriously think that any military action is going to deter them?The more they get attacked,the more they will retalliate.The more countries that get invaded in this futile hunt for alleged terrorists,the more arabs will turn against the U.S.Sure,the U.S. has enough bombs and missiles to incinerate the entire Middle East if they want to,but guess what?The terrorists don't give a damn.Their best people are already in the States,waiting patiently for the day when they are asked to walk into a crowded shopping mall and blow themselves and as many others as they can into tiny pieces.All that Bush will succeed in doing is bring more death and destruction to his civilian population.It's time the dinosaurs in charge of the military realised that they are not fighting against nations or tanks,they are fighting against blind prejudice and animal cunning.
And when we keep pushing against the al-quada, terrorists will see that we are not messing around. But if it is kept going then terrorism will be a crime not worth the time.
These are people who are prepared to take control of fully fueled aircraft and fly them into buildings.They are prepared to go to their certain deaths for their beliefs.Do you seriously think that any military action is going to deter them?The more they get attacked,the more they will retalliate.The more countries that get invaded in this futile hunt for alleged terrorists,the more arabs will turn against the U.S.Sure,the U.S. has enough bombs and missiles to incinerate the entire Middle East if they want to,but guess what?The terrorists don't give a damn.Their best people are already in the States,waiting patiently for the day when they are asked to walk into a crowded shopping mall and blow themselves and as many others as they can into tiny pieces.All that Bush will succeed in doing is bring more death and destruction to his civilian population.It's time the dinosaurs in charge of the military realised that they are not fighting against nations or tanks,they are fighting against blind prejudice and animal cunning.
Darth Cypher
03-10-2003, 05:51 AM
Ok, then what should we do? Sit and wait and take it? What should we do? Tell me that.
YogsVR4
03-10-2003, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by taranaki
These are people who are prepared to take control of fully fueled aircraft and fly them into buildings.They are prepared to go to their certain deaths for their beliefs.Do you seriously think that any military action is going to deter them?The more they get attacked,the more they will retalliate.The more countries that get invaded in this futile hunt for alleged terrorists,the more arabs will turn against the U.S.Sure,the U.S. has enough bombs and missiles to incinerate the entire Middle East if they want to,but guess what?The terrorists don't give a damn.Their best people are already in the States,waiting patiently for the day when they are asked to walk into a crowded shopping mall and blow themselves and as many others as they can into tiny pieces.All that Bush will succeed in doing is bring more death and destruction to his civilian population.It's time the dinosaurs in charge of the military realised that they are not fighting against nations or tanks,they are fighting against blind prejudice and animal cunning.
Dont make them mad! You wont like them when their mad! :rolleyes:
Claiming that disarming and eliminating a terrorist will cause more terrorism is a slippery slope arguement. Its barely worth responding to.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
These are people who are prepared to take control of fully fueled aircraft and fly them into buildings.They are prepared to go to their certain deaths for their beliefs.Do you seriously think that any military action is going to deter them?The more they get attacked,the more they will retalliate.The more countries that get invaded in this futile hunt for alleged terrorists,the more arabs will turn against the U.S.Sure,the U.S. has enough bombs and missiles to incinerate the entire Middle East if they want to,but guess what?The terrorists don't give a damn.Their best people are already in the States,waiting patiently for the day when they are asked to walk into a crowded shopping mall and blow themselves and as many others as they can into tiny pieces.All that Bush will succeed in doing is bring more death and destruction to his civilian population.It's time the dinosaurs in charge of the military realised that they are not fighting against nations or tanks,they are fighting against blind prejudice and animal cunning.
Dont make them mad! You wont like them when their mad! :rolleyes:
Claiming that disarming and eliminating a terrorist will cause more terrorism is a slippery slope arguement. Its barely worth responding to.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
1985_BMW318i
03-10-2003, 02:48 PM
Yes there are terrorists residing in the US and regardless of whether or not we attack Iraq they will blow something up and kill as many people as they can. Are you saying that we should not have even went after Bin Laden after 9-11? It sure sounds that way. We're going to hunt them down. We're going to find them and we're going to kill them. The US will no longer sit idly by and listen to the rantings and whining of a few people that are more worried about what the US is doing then what is happening in their own back yard. First we'll deal with Saddam then next will be North Korea and after is all said and done we'll spend US taxpayers dollars with the UN kicking in very little as always by comparison rebuilding those countries. After a few years we'll forgive that Debt owed to the US like we did to Germany and Japan after WW2. Which is OK since its the US taxpayers burden. Since this affects US taxpayers more then the rest of the countries on this planet why do you persist in being so against what the US president is doing? We elected him and if we didn't want him as president then he would be ousted. You very much underestimate the resolve of the US taxpayer Taranaki. However you have some valid points occassionally. However I do believe that getting into a spitting war over Bush is useless since you will never appreciate the pride of being a US Taxpayer. We have a saying here in the US. If you don't vote then don't bitch about them. When other countries are allowed to elect the US President then you will have bitching rights
GTi-VR6_A3
03-11-2003, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Yes there are terrorists residing in the US and regardless of whether or not we attack Iraq they will blow something up and kill as many people as they can. Are you saying that we should not have even went after Bin Laden after 9-11? It sure sounds that way. We're going to hunt them down. We're going to find them and we're going to kill them. The US will no longer sit idly by and listen to the rantings and whining of a few people that are more worried about what the US is doing then what is happening in their own back yard. First we'll deal with Saddam then next will be North Korea and after is all said and done we'll spend US taxpayers dollars with the UN kicking in very little as always by comparison rebuilding those countries. After a few years we'll forgive that Debt owed to the US like we did to Germany and Japan after WW2. Which is OK since its the US taxpayers burden. Since this affects US taxpayers more then the rest of the countries on this planet why do you persist in being so against what the US president is doing? We elected him and if we didn't want him as president then he would be ousted. You very much underestimate the resolve of the US taxpayer Taranaki. However you have some valid points occassionally. However I do believe that getting into a spitting war over Bush is useless since you will never appreciate the pride of being a US Taxpayer. We have a saying here in the US. If you don't vote then don't bitch about them. When other countries are allowed to elect the US President then you will have bitching rights
o so many valid points. i especially love you rlast part. if i really though the guy was horrible and everyone else did he wouldnt have been elected. and if he rigged it he would be shot. HELL people we like get shot...
-GTi-VR6_A3
Yes there are terrorists residing in the US and regardless of whether or not we attack Iraq they will blow something up and kill as many people as they can. Are you saying that we should not have even went after Bin Laden after 9-11? It sure sounds that way. We're going to hunt them down. We're going to find them and we're going to kill them. The US will no longer sit idly by and listen to the rantings and whining of a few people that are more worried about what the US is doing then what is happening in their own back yard. First we'll deal with Saddam then next will be North Korea and after is all said and done we'll spend US taxpayers dollars with the UN kicking in very little as always by comparison rebuilding those countries. After a few years we'll forgive that Debt owed to the US like we did to Germany and Japan after WW2. Which is OK since its the US taxpayers burden. Since this affects US taxpayers more then the rest of the countries on this planet why do you persist in being so against what the US president is doing? We elected him and if we didn't want him as president then he would be ousted. You very much underestimate the resolve of the US taxpayer Taranaki. However you have some valid points occassionally. However I do believe that getting into a spitting war over Bush is useless since you will never appreciate the pride of being a US Taxpayer. We have a saying here in the US. If you don't vote then don't bitch about them. When other countries are allowed to elect the US President then you will have bitching rights
o so many valid points. i especially love you rlast part. if i really though the guy was horrible and everyone else did he wouldnt have been elected. and if he rigged it he would be shot. HELL people we like get shot...
-GTi-VR6_A3
taranaki
03-11-2003, 05:21 AM
[i] You very much underestimate the resolve of the US taxpayer Taranaki. However you have some valid points occassionally. However I do believe that getting into a spitting war over Bush is useless since you will never appreciate the pride of being a US Taxpayer. We have a saying here in the US. If you don't vote then don't bitch about them. When other countries are allowed to elect the US President then you will have bitching rights [/B]
So political freedom is allowed in the U.S.,and the U.S. is prepared to go to war to secure it for the oppressed masses in Iraq,but Naki can get stuffed because he's not an American Taxpayer?
Pull your head in.If I think that Bush is a dangerous halfwit,I'll say it.If I think the U.S.is using fatuous excuses for their invasion of Iraq,I'll say that too.If I think Bush needs to spend more time watching war movies and less time wishing to star in them,Hell,I'll say that too and without apologising to anyone.I might even want to point out that Bush has the lowest I.Q. of any president in modern times.I could even go on to say that Saddam is a bully and a warmonger,but on a far lesser scale than Bush.I could point out that the rest of the civilised world does not support Bush's stance on Iraq,the British Labour party does not support their own leader's stance on Iraq,and even George Bush Senior has publicly criticised his own son's proposed invasion.
I will stop criticising George Bush when he starts acting like a leader of the world's most powerful democracy and stops behaving like the head of the Clampett family with a bad case of road rage.
So political freedom is allowed in the U.S.,and the U.S. is prepared to go to war to secure it for the oppressed masses in Iraq,but Naki can get stuffed because he's not an American Taxpayer?
Pull your head in.If I think that Bush is a dangerous halfwit,I'll say it.If I think the U.S.is using fatuous excuses for their invasion of Iraq,I'll say that too.If I think Bush needs to spend more time watching war movies and less time wishing to star in them,Hell,I'll say that too and without apologising to anyone.I might even want to point out that Bush has the lowest I.Q. of any president in modern times.I could even go on to say that Saddam is a bully and a warmonger,but on a far lesser scale than Bush.I could point out that the rest of the civilised world does not support Bush's stance on Iraq,the British Labour party does not support their own leader's stance on Iraq,and even George Bush Senior has publicly criticised his own son's proposed invasion.
I will stop criticising George Bush when he starts acting like a leader of the world's most powerful democracy and stops behaving like the head of the Clampett family with a bad case of road rage.
YogsVR4
03-11-2003, 07:02 AM
Actually FDR had the lowest IQ of modern presidents. JFK wasn't far behind. Your knowledge of our presidents appears to be very poor indeed.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Damien
03-11-2003, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
Actually FDR had the lowest IQ of modern presidents. JFK wasn't far behind. Your knowledge of our presidents appears to be very poor indeed.
Well said...but remeber what this topic is about people. We all are intitled to our opinions here. Let Naki say what he wants. He may know more, he may know less compared to anyone else but you don't know either so? Technically, you can let him bitch all he wants and say he's an idiot for doing so, since this doesn't involve him, he doesn't live here, and that he's just some stupid Bush hater like most of the world. The truth is this, we are probably going to war within the week. They have until March 17th to decide and then we're supoosedly going to attack them with military force. Now, back on topic about the UN...we're doing this despite their decision. The resolution that is now being passed and needs 9 votes has 2 againist already. Briatain is postponing it for now. But either way, we're going. Whether this is a smart move or not, we'll see. there's not much else one can do. I see logic in it and then i don't. yes, Naki is right that attacking them might cause a total Ji'had to a point where they say screw it. Then just destroy anything and everything without a care. Then again, we can't just sit here and play diplomacy. We're already doing that with the UN. So what are our options? A coin flip...in Bush's case he used a double-sided coin but still. That is all it is and that's that. From the moment it starts, can we really sit over here and protest how stupid an idea it was? Is Vietnam worth it again? No. I'm not much of a Bush fan myself but he's better than the other options we had. But when the time comes, I'll support him to get us out of anything. I won't vote for him next time possibly, but right now support is what's needed. It maybe a dumb decision, it may not, but in time will know soon eneough and if you want to continue this bickering...someone will have a right to say "Nani nani boo-boo"...adults...*rolls eyes*
Oh, and Naki. I just reread this, the top isn' insulting you. Just pointing out how people are acting. There was no offense intended and I can't find a better way of wording that. Sorry...
Actually FDR had the lowest IQ of modern presidents. JFK wasn't far behind. Your knowledge of our presidents appears to be very poor indeed.
Well said...but remeber what this topic is about people. We all are intitled to our opinions here. Let Naki say what he wants. He may know more, he may know less compared to anyone else but you don't know either so? Technically, you can let him bitch all he wants and say he's an idiot for doing so, since this doesn't involve him, he doesn't live here, and that he's just some stupid Bush hater like most of the world. The truth is this, we are probably going to war within the week. They have until March 17th to decide and then we're supoosedly going to attack them with military force. Now, back on topic about the UN...we're doing this despite their decision. The resolution that is now being passed and needs 9 votes has 2 againist already. Briatain is postponing it for now. But either way, we're going. Whether this is a smart move or not, we'll see. there's not much else one can do. I see logic in it and then i don't. yes, Naki is right that attacking them might cause a total Ji'had to a point where they say screw it. Then just destroy anything and everything without a care. Then again, we can't just sit here and play diplomacy. We're already doing that with the UN. So what are our options? A coin flip...in Bush's case he used a double-sided coin but still. That is all it is and that's that. From the moment it starts, can we really sit over here and protest how stupid an idea it was? Is Vietnam worth it again? No. I'm not much of a Bush fan myself but he's better than the other options we had. But when the time comes, I'll support him to get us out of anything. I won't vote for him next time possibly, but right now support is what's needed. It maybe a dumb decision, it may not, but in time will know soon eneough and if you want to continue this bickering...someone will have a right to say "Nani nani boo-boo"...adults...*rolls eyes*
Oh, and Naki. I just reread this, the top isn' insulting you. Just pointing out how people are acting. There was no offense intended and I can't find a better way of wording that. Sorry...
YogsVR4
03-11-2003, 09:47 AM
I do think that Turkey will have its new leader sworn in soon and the vote to allow US troops to use Turkey as a launching point will be brought up again quickly. After their market took a 12% tumble and the military is saying that they want the US to launch from there, its much more likely to pass now. Turkey wants a say in how Iraq is reconstructed and they realize its in their own best intrests to be involved.
Because of that, the 17 deadline may be moved. If Turkey says - "go" then the time will be taken to get the troops in place and the actually launching date will probably be adjusted accordingly.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Because of that, the 17 deadline may be moved. If Turkey says - "go" then the time will be taken to get the troops in place and the actually launching date will probably be adjusted accordingly.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
1985_BMW318i
03-11-2003, 10:23 AM
Saying that Bush is a bigger war monger then Saddam is a stupid remark. Bush has never gassed any of his people here in the US. Saddam has continously refused to disarm and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Yesterday it was reported that the UN's Cheif Weapons Inspector Hans Blix failed to report the discovery of 2 Remotely piloted vehicles that could reach Iraq's neighbors and have the ability to spread virus's or chemical weapons. But since he's paid by the UN and they certainly have their own agenda such as kissing ass I suppose that is ok. More proof that the UN wants hidden or disguised since they have to many poseysniffing liberals
dolla_bill0913
03-11-2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Cbass
http://slate.msn.com/id/2074302/
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp
The UN never set up those zones, the US, Britain and France used resolution 668 as an excuse to enforce them, although they were never mentioned in R668. Don't you think if the UN had anything to do with the no fly zones, they'd be calling for action against Iraq? Opinions and loop holes, Plain and simple the NO FLY ZONE was set up by the UN after the Gulf War to protect those @ Saddam until he disarmed. He still hasnt disarmed, get the point.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2074302/
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp
The UN never set up those zones, the US, Britain and France used resolution 668 as an excuse to enforce them, although they were never mentioned in R668. Don't you think if the UN had anything to do with the no fly zones, they'd be calling for action against Iraq? Opinions and loop holes, Plain and simple the NO FLY ZONE was set up by the UN after the Gulf War to protect those @ Saddam until he disarmed. He still hasnt disarmed, get the point.
taranaki
03-12-2003, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by YogsVR4
Actually FDR had the lowest IQ of modern presidents. JFK wasn't far behind. Your knowledge of our presidents appears to be very poor indeed.
Your source is clearly different to mine.
http://66.70.168.235/august/prez_iq.html
The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W. Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.
Actually FDR had the lowest IQ of modern presidents. JFK wasn't far behind. Your knowledge of our presidents appears to be very poor indeed.
Your source is clearly different to mine.
http://66.70.168.235/august/prez_iq.html
The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W. Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-12-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
http://66.70.168.235/august/prez_iq.html
that source seems very biased to me... i would believe it if they sited sources or told us how they knew all of this and when each person took their test. and sometimes IQ doesnt mean as much as it could. really a silly test
-GTi-VR6_A3
http://66.70.168.235/august/prez_iq.html
that source seems very biased to me... i would believe it if they sited sources or told us how they knew all of this and when each person took their test. and sometimes IQ doesnt mean as much as it could. really a silly test
-GTi-VR6_A3
taranaki
03-12-2003, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
that source seems very biased to me... i would believe it if they sited sources or told us how they knew all of this and when each person took their test. and sometimes IQ doesnt mean as much as it could. really a silly test
-GTi-VR6_A3
Did you not read the text thoroughly?Clearly you don't like its findings,so I suspect you are biased in your approach to it and skimmed the relevent information.
Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published it's research to the education community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others. According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak
with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.
The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton Pennsylvania think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner
R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist.
This study was commissioned on February 13, 2001 and released on July 9, 2001 to subscribing member universities and organizations within the education community.
I'm quite satisfied that this is bona fide achademic research from a credible source.If you can find research that contradicts this from another credible source,I'd give it consideration.But quite honestly,just dismissing it as a 'silly' test shows a lack of respect for facts and an egotistical denial of anything that conflicts with your personal opinion.
that source seems very biased to me... i would believe it if they sited sources or told us how they knew all of this and when each person took their test. and sometimes IQ doesnt mean as much as it could. really a silly test
-GTi-VR6_A3
Did you not read the text thoroughly?Clearly you don't like its findings,so I suspect you are biased in your approach to it and skimmed the relevent information.
Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published it's research to the education community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others. According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak
with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.
The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton Pennsylvania think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner
R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist.
This study was commissioned on February 13, 2001 and released on July 9, 2001 to subscribing member universities and organizations within the education community.
I'm quite satisfied that this is bona fide achademic research from a credible source.If you can find research that contradicts this from another credible source,I'd give it consideration.But quite honestly,just dismissing it as a 'silly' test shows a lack of respect for facts and an egotistical denial of anything that conflicts with your personal opinion.
Damien
03-12-2003, 04:07 PM
GTi is quite correct. Continued research would have shown that IQ has little to do with such issues as preidency. Don't get me wrong, it affects it a great deal but the real factor is EQ. The emotional quotient that tests a persons capabilities as a person and not an intellectual or whatever you believe IQ is for. EQ is somethin new, but not. Research has shown how a person can have quite a low IQ but there EQ is quite high and helps deal with such ordeals like leadership positions. The higest score for an EQ test us 100 Bush score around a 91.
taranaki
03-12-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Damien
GTi is quite correct. Continued research would have shown that IQ has little to do with such issues as preidency.
Sorry,but you shouldn't entrust your country to a right-wing hick who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time.If he didn't have the family connections,he'd be struggling to land a job that didn't involve manual labour.
As for "EQ",this would be the first I've ever heard of it.Do you have a link to a credible source,or is it just some new-age claptrap put together to disguise the fact that GWB IS a dummy?
GTi is quite correct. Continued research would have shown that IQ has little to do with such issues as preidency.
Sorry,but you shouldn't entrust your country to a right-wing hick who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time.If he didn't have the family connections,he'd be struggling to land a job that didn't involve manual labour.
As for "EQ",this would be the first I've ever heard of it.Do you have a link to a credible source,or is it just some new-age claptrap put together to disguise the fact that GWB IS a dummy?
Damien
03-12-2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
Sorry,but you shouldn't entrust your country to a right-wing hick who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time.If he didn't have the family connections,he'd be struggling to land a job that didn't involve manual labour.
As for "EQ",this would be the first I've ever heard of it.Do you have a link to a credible source,or is it just some new-age claptrap put together to disguise the fact that GWB IS a dummy?
Me entrust him? Like I have a choice. EQ, no link yet. Just read the post and am responding. besides, it's fun to watch people yap about something without full info. Goes for all of us. It was before Bush though.
Sorry,but you shouldn't entrust your country to a right-wing hick who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time.If he didn't have the family connections,he'd be struggling to land a job that didn't involve manual labour.
As for "EQ",this would be the first I've ever heard of it.Do you have a link to a credible source,or is it just some new-age claptrap put together to disguise the fact that GWB IS a dummy?
Me entrust him? Like I have a choice. EQ, no link yet. Just read the post and am responding. besides, it's fun to watch people yap about something without full info. Goes for all of us. It was before Bush though.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-13-2003, 02:00 AM
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/lovenstein.html
like i said i would like some sources... NUFF SAID
-GTi-VR6_A3
like i said i would like some sources... NUFF SAID
-GTi-VR6_A3
taranaki
03-13-2003, 04:08 AM
Nice....you win this round:D
I'll be back next time Dubbya does something dumb though.I only hope I have time to make some coffee first.:devil:
I'll be back next time Dubbya does something dumb though.I only hope I have time to make some coffee first.:devil:
Darth Cypher
03-13-2003, 04:25 AM
Honestly, who cares about IQ? Einstein wasn't good at math.
taranaki
03-13-2003, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Honestly, who cares about IQ? Einstein wasn't good at math.
I don't remember Einstein ever trying to start a war either. anybody got any further comments on the future of the U.N.?
Honestly, who cares about IQ? Einstein wasn't good at math.
I don't remember Einstein ever trying to start a war either. anybody got any further comments on the future of the U.N.?
Damien
03-13-2003, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by taranaki
I don't remember Einstein ever trying to start a war either. anybody got any further comments on the future of the U.N.?
What!?! Going back on-topic!!! :eek:
Well, it might end. Really depends on how bad the war becomes. As it is, with the US not caring what the UN thinks and going on about their business. I don't though see it truly failing mainly because I'm sure it does solve a lot of problems we don't know about. Even if we do drop from it in some weird occurance, we'll be back in once a democrate comes into office.
I don't remember Einstein ever trying to start a war either. anybody got any further comments on the future of the U.N.?
What!?! Going back on-topic!!! :eek:
Well, it might end. Really depends on how bad the war becomes. As it is, with the US not caring what the UN thinks and going on about their business. I don't though see it truly failing mainly because I'm sure it does solve a lot of problems we don't know about. Even if we do drop from it in some weird occurance, we'll be back in once a democrate comes into office.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-13-2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
Nice....you win this round:D
I'll be back next time Dubbya does something dumb though.I only hope I have time to make some coffee first.:devil:
HAHA CHAMPION!!! hey man im first to critiseze stupid htings he does. lol like choke on a pretzel...:rolleyes: or givea tax return.
-GTi-VR6_A3
Nice....you win this round:D
I'll be back next time Dubbya does something dumb though.I only hope I have time to make some coffee first.:devil:
HAHA CHAMPION!!! hey man im first to critiseze stupid htings he does. lol like choke on a pretzel...:rolleyes: or givea tax return.
-GTi-VR6_A3
Murco
03-20-2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/lovenstein.html
like i said i would like some sources... NUFF SAID
-GTi-VR6_A3
So, so, soooo, BUSTED!!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!!
:biggrin2: :eshooter: :hehehe: :apoke:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/lovenstein.html
like i said i would like some sources... NUFF SAID
-GTi-VR6_A3
So, so, soooo, BUSTED!!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!!
:biggrin2: :eshooter: :hehehe: :apoke:
Pick
03-20-2003, 01:20 PM
THe U.S. being in the U.N. is like Bill Gates asking a cubicle worker to take care of a problem MIcrosoft are having eith a rival company. Its going down in power. The U.N. is for WEAK nations to come together and have some type of coalition to fight for them when they get in trouble.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-20-2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Murco
So, so, soooo, BUSTED!!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!!
:biggrin2: :eshooter: :hehehe: :apoke:
YA HEARD MEEEH!!!!
-GTi-VR6_A3
So, so, soooo, BUSTED!!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!!
:biggrin2: :eshooter: :hehehe: :apoke:
YA HEARD MEEEH!!!!
-GTi-VR6_A3
1985_BMW318i
03-20-2003, 10:48 PM
HAHA CHAMPION!!! hey man im first to critiseze stupid htings he does. lol like choke on a pretzel... or givea tax return.
Gti
That tax return paid for my daughters dentist visit. Of course some people would rather not look at all the issues
Gti
That tax return paid for my daughters dentist visit. Of course some people would rather not look at all the issues
GTi-VR6_A3
03-20-2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Gti
That tax return paid for my daughters dentist visit. Of course some people would rather not look at all the issues
im glad it payed for your daughters dentist visit. most people i know that got it just spent it on random crap. i would have rather seen it spent on not creating a deficit or paying off the debt. but at least some people used it wisely.
-GTi-VR6_A3
Gti
That tax return paid for my daughters dentist visit. Of course some people would rather not look at all the issues
im glad it payed for your daughters dentist visit. most people i know that got it just spent it on random crap. i would have rather seen it spent on not creating a deficit or paying off the debt. but at least some people used it wisely.
-GTi-VR6_A3
Milliardo
03-21-2003, 03:36 AM
Since the U.S. finds no use for the U.N., it should voluntarily leave that body. Bush would be very happy to do that--now he can go after all those rogue nations. Problem is, the U.S. will be just another rogue nation as well. Of course, no one in the U.N. will vote for a resolution to kick the U.S. out of it--the U.N. is in New York, and one would rather keep silent than be called by the U.S. as an "enemy" of world peace, or really the peace that the U.S. imposes upon the rest of the world. Come to think of it, the U.S. still has a use for the U.N.: as long as it is in U.S. soil, it's virtually its plaything, using it as a tool for its own purposes when it sees fit. If it finds no use for the U.N., it conveniently disregards it, and do as it likes. Has anyone wondered that if any other nation behaves like this, the U.S. automatically wants to convene a U.N. General Assembly and there condemn that poor nation? Yet now the U.S. acts like a rogue nation, not caring nor wanting the U.N., unless it wants to play with it.
YogsVR4
03-21-2003, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by Milliardo
Since the U.S. finds no use for the U.N., it should voluntarily leave that body. Bush would be very happy to do that--now he can go after all those rogue nations. Problem is, the U.S. will be just another rogue nation as well. Of course, no one in the U.N. will vote for a resolution to kick the U.S. out of it--the U.N. is in New York, and one would rather keep silent than be called by the U.S. as an "enemy" of world peace, or really the peace that the U.S. imposes upon the rest of the world. Come to think of it, the U.S. still has a use for the U.N.: as long as it is in U.S. soil, it's virtually its plaything, using it as a tool for its own purposes when it sees fit. If it finds no use for the U.N., it conveniently disregards it, and do as it likes. Has anyone wondered that if any other nation behaves like this, the U.S. automatically wants to convene a U.N. General Assembly and there condemn that poor nation? Yet now the U.S. acts like a rogue nation, not caring nor wanting the U.N., unless it wants to play with it.
I wish he were happy do move us out of the UN. It cannot happen soon enough.
Your take on the US using the UN as it sees fit is true for every member nation. France’s insistence that it would use its veto power regardless is just as “unilateral” is another nation you asked that behaved like that.
The UN is a organization that chokes on its own bureaucracy and is unwilling to stand up to its own declarations. Its weak, ineffective and its time for it to fold.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Since the U.S. finds no use for the U.N., it should voluntarily leave that body. Bush would be very happy to do that--now he can go after all those rogue nations. Problem is, the U.S. will be just another rogue nation as well. Of course, no one in the U.N. will vote for a resolution to kick the U.S. out of it--the U.N. is in New York, and one would rather keep silent than be called by the U.S. as an "enemy" of world peace, or really the peace that the U.S. imposes upon the rest of the world. Come to think of it, the U.S. still has a use for the U.N.: as long as it is in U.S. soil, it's virtually its plaything, using it as a tool for its own purposes when it sees fit. If it finds no use for the U.N., it conveniently disregards it, and do as it likes. Has anyone wondered that if any other nation behaves like this, the U.S. automatically wants to convene a U.N. General Assembly and there condemn that poor nation? Yet now the U.S. acts like a rogue nation, not caring nor wanting the U.N., unless it wants to play with it.
I wish he were happy do move us out of the UN. It cannot happen soon enough.
Your take on the US using the UN as it sees fit is true for every member nation. France’s insistence that it would use its veto power regardless is just as “unilateral” is another nation you asked that behaved like that.
The UN is a organization that chokes on its own bureaucracy and is unwilling to stand up to its own declarations. Its weak, ineffective and its time for it to fold.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Milliardo
03-21-2003, 11:40 AM
With a lot of politics in the background, the U.N. will always be ineffective. Nations, especially the powerful ones, have their own goals and agenda. They bring these agenda into the U.N., with a mind for their own profit. If they cannot get it, then they go their own way. The lesser nations get to be reprimanded and handed down a U.N. resolution, calling them rogue nations. The powerful ones get away with just about anything they do--much like how society is, by the way.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025