Go Back   the Magicball Network > Forums > MBN Main Forums > Off topic
Buy LBA1/Relentless from GOG.com Buy LBA1/Relentless from DotEmu Buy LBA2/Twinsen's Odyssey from DotEmu Buy LBA2/Twinsen's Odyssey from GOG.com Buy Little big Adventure from GOG.com or DotEmu Buy Little big Adventure 2 from DotEmu or GOG.com

Welcome to the Magicball Network.

You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Off topic General off-topic chat goes in here.

View Poll Results: Should the US declare war on Iraq?
Yes. 5 15.15%
No. 26 78.79%
Who knows? or cares? 2 6.06%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #51  
Old 2003-02-10, 06:10
Double-J's Avatar
Double-J Double-J is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axx, in the What Really Happened Thread. Facts? what you just said up there was your usual crap, i have proof
Please Axx, don't tell DF that his is insulting anyone while you tell Annie his opinions are crap, let's keep this truthful and a non-flame discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 2003-02-10, 12:30
Atresica Atresica is offline
What is this place?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere far far away
Posts: 12,667
Send a message via ICQ to Atresica Send a message via AIM to Atresica Send a message via MSN to Atresica
It seems they are planning to send a UN taskforce to the region and triple the inspections

I'm going to laugh if that happends
__________________
*Blub*
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 2003-02-10, 13:27
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 23,836
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Axx
First of all,. going on with the attitude of people being ignorant/idiots should stop, i havnt seen anything concrete coming from you, and the logic you state is far beyond unrealistic. Just stop, argu, but without the insults[QUOTE]

What, the logic that people have been showen evidence and have chosen not to believe it?
Its their right not to believe it, but to say "they havent showen us prove" is WRONG.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Axx

Everyone has an opinion, but being wrong for stating an opinion is not valid, ill make my words more clear...
UN, and america have yet to prove they have long range missles.
[QUOTE]

I never said they did, but missles of that range are possible and do exist in the world.
I was saying it was POSSIBLE for Iraq to launch missles against the US, not that it was capable at the moment.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Axx
Nothing powell said could even be considered proof when he came to the missles topic. That site was visited, and nothing of want america talked of was their.
You could say they transported them, but when did we ever see them? Its a matter of "may's" "could of"'s that isnt proof when a person says "it might have had", and never can it be a solid reason for war, yet even being a reason is ridiculous.
[QUOTE]

1. There was a truck at a site for months that only moved the day before the inspectors arrived.
Co-incidence maybe, but there are a lot of "co-inicidences" like this.

* They didnt have access for 12 years, they had 8 years and found quite a few things, a 4 year gap then 2 months. (which isnt long enough to search a country, btw).

* Satalight images, gezz...and eye witness's too probably. They HAVE iraq scientists that were only willing to talk to the Inspectors if they were brouht back.
why? Because their too scared to speak freely in that country!!

* Far more chemicals where found in storage then was really needed for the purposes the Iraqs claimed they were for.
(not proff, no, just another co-inicidence.)

* Saddams reputation.

The last one I put heavly weight on.
Thanks to Saddam we dont know much about what he has, not because of him "stalling the inspectors" or anything, but simply the air of fear people have for saying anything against him.
Sure, these things arnt prove for war, but they ARE prove enough to be very,very worried.
And their certainly prove enough that something needs to be done.




2. (refering to the rest)
Yadadada
If you were paying attention I was against war.
The argument that he has weapons does IS NOT the same as the argument we should go to war.
Oh, and no mater how you try to twist facts around Tony Bush or George Blair are not nearly as dangerous as Saddam is.
(mainly because people can say NO to them without being shoot).





[QUOTE]Originally posted by Axx
[B]
The case bush made about hydrogen cars failed, one they are way too expensive, 2, they wont reduce dependancy for a long time, as all the cars today are oil powered, and i doubt that will end soon, also the power that hydrogen cars generates are obsolete in comparison to a petroll powered engine. So many people will prefer oil cars.

Your behind the time here.
Hydrogen cars exist, fully developed and are ready to go on sale.
BMW even advertises EVERY future car model it make will be avaible with the option of a Hydrogen engine. (Advertised in recent issues of the NEW SCIETIST, FOCUS and a few newspapers)
And no, the preformance of the car is as good as, if not better then petrol. (slower top speed, but faster acceleration, if you want the nitty-gritty)
Of course, it will take the public awhile to adapt, perticularly the US marker.
As I said, Bushs thing was a cheap publisity ploy,If he wanted to make a difference he would need to put a plan in action to tax Oil based fuels, but not Hydrogen.
Of course, that wont be a vote-winner, so hes not going to do that.
But the Hydrogen car is comming a lot sooner that you think.
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 2003-02-10, 14:05
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 9,491
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
Quote:
Originally posted by Darkflame

Anakin ~ Do you have the right to stop someone loading a gun if they are about to kill you?
Thats how the US sees it.
Whether they are using the right method or not is questionable, but you gota see this from thier viewpoint too.
Ofcourse, but, that should go both ways.
What I mean is, America are gonna attack Iraq. For no proven reason. So, according to your statement, Iraq should nuke U.S. before they make a move, to defend themselves.

The whole thing is, Iraq has the exact same right to attack America, according to america's excuse for attacking.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
there's no room for subtleties, which are so important in personalities such as mine.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 2003-02-10, 14:24
Atresica Atresica is offline
What is this place?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere far far away
Posts: 12,667
Send a message via ICQ to Atresica Send a message via AIM to Atresica Send a message via MSN to Atresica
Hmm.. someone mentioned that Germany, France, China and Russia have benifit with Sadam?

France and Russia have
I'm not sure about China
Germany doesn't
__________________
*Blub*
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 2003-02-10, 14:44
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 23,836
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
French and Germany has stakes (ver a company ) in Iraqs Oil
Perfectly legal agreements, signed by Saddam himself.
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 2003-02-10, 15:06
Morden279 Morden279 is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,678
Quote:
Originally posted by Anakin
Ofcourse, but, that should go both ways.
What I mean is, America are gonna attack Iraq. For no proven reason. So, according to your statement, Iraq should nuke U.S. before they make a move, to defend themselves.
The US has credibility and backing behind it which Iraq does not. Therefore if Iraq *did* attack the US, the whole of NATO would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

If Iraq takes ANY military action, they're done for, be it "defensive" or offensive.

Regards,
Morden
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 2003-02-10, 23:44
Axx's Avatar
Axx Axx is offline
The return of
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,677
Quote:
Originally posted by Morden279
The US has credibility and backing behind it which Iraq does not. Therefore if Iraq *did* attack the US, the whole of NATO would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

If Iraq takes ANY military action, they're done for, be it "defensive" or offensive.

Regards,
Morden
Id like to remind you how america was defeated by the very weak viatnamese, now, saying america will win either way dosnt work, as who know what saddam may do, he might nuke them? Then taking down us, with iraq. And nato wont come down "like a ton of bricks" because if iraq shows willingness to use WOMD, who would be willing to risk thousands of thier soldiers lives?

Df, yo have an opinion, as i do, im not bothered to argue >_<
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 2003-02-11, 01:40
Double-J's Avatar
Double-J Double-J is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,411
Quote:
Originally posted by Axx
Id like to remind you how america was defeated by the very weak viatnamese, now, saying america will win either way dosnt work, as who know what saddam may do, he might nuke them? Then taking down us, with iraq. And nato wont come down "like a ton of bricks" because if iraq shows willingness to use WOMD, who would be willing to risk thousands of thier soldiers lives?

Df, yo have an opinion, as i do, im not bothered to argue >_<
Hey, I know you like to pull facts, so I'm pulling mine...during the Vietnam War, there was important info leaked to the Vietcong by traitors inside the US Government. Besides, the guerrilla warfare in Vietnam was something our soldier weren't prepared for.

If Saddam uses a nuke, on UN or American/British forces, I fully expect a B-52 drop shortly after, turning Iraq into a parking lot.

Nuclear fallout is not something I look forward to, and Saddam isn't stupid enough to use a nuke on the soldiers, the results would be catastrophic, even if NATO wouldn't respond (which they would) the UK and US would be ready and willing to respond.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 2003-02-11, 01:57
demonixz demonixz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Ukish
Posts: 606
Darkflame -

Bull. The bush administration has the strongest ties to any opil in any place: they even hired a private jey to have any bin Ladens flown out of the U.S. right after sept 11th, why? Because they'd been dealing with the family since Poppy Bush's time.

Nobody is arguing that Saddam isn't a bad person - What I'm saying is that some VERY blurry satellite pictures are not sufficient evidence to go to war.

Hydrogen powered cars:

Bush repealed legistaltion to enforce tighter miles-per-gallon on cars in the U.S., and with regards to recucing dependence on forgeign oil - yeah, by drilling for it in Alaska!

In addition, the Bush administration initially planned to install a U.S. general in control of Iraq.

Sounds suspect to me.

Not that I'd kid myself by imagining for a moment that the U.N. could exercise any control on the U.S. beyond that which they decide to allow.

Don't kid yourself that the U.S. doesn't want some of the Iraqi oil, and don't kid yourself that a president who's campaign recieved a LOT of money from the oil industry, and who happens to be senator of Texas, has no oil related motive for invading Iraq.

Get rid of the man, fine. He's a crazed dicatator who'd murdered a lot of people. A war on the country? Far, far, far, less justified.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 2003-02-11, 02:04
Double-J's Avatar
Double-J Double-J is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,411
Quote:
Originally posted by demonixz
Darkflame -

Bull. The bush administration has the strongest ties to any opil in any place: they even hired a private jey to have any bin Ladens flown out of the U.S. right after sept 11th, why? Because they'd been dealing with the family since Poppy Bush's time.

Nobody is arguing that Saddam isn't a bad person - What I'm saying is that some VERY blurry satellite pictures are not sufficient evidence to go to war.

Hydrogen powered cars:

Bush repealed legistaltion to enforce tighter miles-per-gallon on cars in the U.S., and with regards to recucing dependence on forgeign oil - yeah, by drilling for it in Alaska!

In addition, the Bush administration initially planned to install a U.S. general in control of Iraq.

Sounds suspect to me.

Not that I'd kid myself by imagining for a moment that the U.N. could exercise any control on the U.S. beyond that which they decide to allow.

Don't kid yourself that the U.S. doesn't want some of the Iraqi oil, and don't kid yourself that a president who's campaign recieved a LOT of money from the oil industry, and who happens to be senator of Texas, has no oil related motive for invading Iraq.

Get rid of the man, fine. He's a crazed dicatator who'd murdered a lot of people. A war on the country? Far, far, far, less justified.

Hmm...I'd have to say, that France and Germany are quite tight with the Iraqies, perhaps more than US, and if a war breaks out, their supply could be comprimised...that's why they oppose the war. :

Blurry satellite photos...what is it gonna take? A friggin pic of saddam holding up a vial of powder that says "anthrax"?

I never heard anything about the US putting a general in power, but would that be so bad until the country could become stable again? Maybe the people will enjoy some freedom for a change.

The US currently has surplus oil that is released into the system when OPEC gets to greedy, the US was looking at prospects in Alaska...so what, it's our territory! You don't see anyone bitching at BP over their stuff....

The problem is that you can't directly attack Saddam, otherwise it would have been done already. Why couldn't they "take out" Hitler...gee...I wonder...
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 2003-02-11, 02:10
demonixz demonixz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Ukish
Posts: 606
The problem with Alaska is that its a national park, destroying a conservation area in order to further screw the planet over: A grade idea.

And its going to take more than entirely inconclusive, and quite possibly dubious evidence to concinve me that we need to attack Iraq. Sorry.

And I still say that nobody in the world has more interest in oil than the U.S. :\ Sorry.

Re: the general.

No, not entirely - look at Japan. But the issue is that they wanted to put one of their men in control of the largest oil reserve in the world which they don't presently have virtually unrestricted access to, I think.

Re: Taking out Saddam

Wonder if they have a file full of Castro-style plans for it But seriously: I doubt it would involve more effort and loss of life than attacking with thousands of men...
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 2003-02-11, 12:00
Atresica Atresica is offline
What is this place?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere far far away
Posts: 12,667
Send a message via ICQ to Atresica Send a message via AIM to Atresica Send a message via MSN to Atresica
I do not think Germany has ties, I got to look that up...

Further more, can someone tell me what the heck it is with the Nato?
I mean, if you ask me, they really blew it up, I mean, what's wrong with waiting 4 days?
It's not like mister Sadam is suddenly going to attack Turkey with all those americans breathing down in his neck...
__________________
*Blub*
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 2003-02-11, 14:04
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 23,836
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
Indeed, he has weapons, but its no reason to go to war, thats my argument.
--
demonixz ~ If you read the small print the satalight images were degraded on purpose for the public, so the exact location couldnt be determained.
Why, I dont know, but the news program I saw certainly said that they had been given lower-res pictures then the intelgence agences had.

Also, there is evidence that the British have tried to take out Saddam a few times with Co-vert opps.
Destroy Saddams infostructure and the "fear" he imposs's in people is the easier method to kill him actualy.
Taking him out other ways has been proved time and time again to be impossible. (or at least extreamly hard).

Of course, im not saying the easy method is the right method, but War is indeed the easy method.
=====================


Incidently, there is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq has Nukes,they are a thousand times harder to make them chemical/biological.
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 2003-02-11, 14:18
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 9,491
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
Quote:
Originally posted by Morden279
The US has credibility and backing behind it which Iraq does not. Therefore if Iraq *did* attack the US, the whole of NATO would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

If Iraq takes ANY military action, they're done for, be it "defensive" or offensive.

Regards,
Morden

True. But do you think that is the way it should be?
America only does what's in their best interest, just like anybody else. The only difference is that America makes it look like they are working for common good.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
there's no room for subtleties, which are so important in personalities such as mine.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 2003-02-11, 17:53
the_angry_monkey's Avatar
the_angry_monkey the_angry_monkey is offline
formerly just angry
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bradford, UK
Posts: 2,530
America and Britain are the roots of Saddam Hussain. IN fact America supported the AQ network at its creation - cos it was dealing with some unsavpoury problems in the middle east. When Iraq invaded Iran back in 1990(1) it did so with the consent of the old Bush administration - it was only when Hussain was a cheeky bastard and invaded Kuwait as well that the west thought twice about their strategy. The US was stiffed and it din't like it. Donald Rumsfeld fought in the Gulf, and said back then that he would have eloved to run a pipeline from the oil in Iraq. This war is about oil not about Saddam Hussain. This is all coupled with the hypocrisy that british and American firms are covertly instructed to supply the middle east with weapons. There are many madmen in this world who own nuclear arsenals - and Bush is one of them!
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 2003-02-11, 19:18
Panda's Avatar
Panda Panda is offline
Still in a dream...
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,047
EXACTLY. Its not about oil. Look at America. They have 2 years worth of reserves. We have about 6 months worth, and north sea oil. Egypt, Saudi, etc supply our oil also. Anyone who thinks this is about oil is stupid. I agree with DF .
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 2003-02-11, 22:17
Double-J's Avatar
Double-J Double-J is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,411
Quote:
Originally posted by Pandemona
Anyone who thinks this is about oil is stupid. I agree with DF .
SMART PEOPLE LIKE US RULE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 2003-02-11, 22:30
Snapman's Avatar
Snapman Snapman is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,584
Anyone who thinks this war isn't about oil is pig-ignorant. Oil is the ulterior motive behind the damn war.

This war is only to serve the interests of George Bush.

Question: Why is America so adamant on attacking Iraq when North Korea is more of a threat?

Answer: Oil.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 2003-02-11, 23:11
Panda's Avatar
Panda Panda is offline
Still in a dream...
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,047
NO. AMERICA HAS FUCKING ENOUGH OIL TO LAST 2 FUCKING YEARS!!!

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES MUSt IT BE SAID!?!?!?

America can get oil from Iran, Saudi, North Sea, Pacific, Atlantica has some I believe. Oil isnt an issue.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 2003-02-11, 23:28
Double-J's Avatar
Double-J Double-J is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,411
The US has enough surplus oil so that whenever greedy little OPEC cranks the price up, we release it into the system to lower the price. Our surplus as well as unexplored resources are much greater than Frances or Germany, that's why they oppose the war, they are tighter with Iraqi oil than we are.

The war is to stop a genocidal madman. But I guess you can't understand that, since to you, America will always be the big bad imperialist because no other country besides UK had the guts to become the worlds policemen, a role we didn't want but took anyways.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 2003-02-11, 23:38
Snapman's Avatar
Snapman Snapman is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,584
Quote:
Originally posted by Pandemona
NO. AMERICA HAS FUCKING ENOUGH OIL TO LAST 2 FUCKING YEARS!!!

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES MUSt IT BE SAID!?!?!?

America can get oil from Iran, Saudi, North Sea, Pacific, Atlantica has some I believe. Oil isnt an issue.
Panda, 2 years is nothing. NOTHING. Also oil is a freaking limited resource, it's damn expensive.

Also about the war to stop a genocidal madman is just a cover up. For the last freaking time, America wants Iraq's oil. If Iraq does have missiles, they won't be able to get anywhere near America. They'd be able to reach into central Europe and that's about it.

So why does America want to declare war? To seem like the big goody goody saviour of the world? No. To get some oil. America has just 2 years of surplus oil left. That is a problem for them. Jesus, some of you people need to open your eyes a bit more.

EDIT: Uhm, I believe the UN is the world's "policeman", not the US.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 2003-02-12, 11:59
Morden279 Morden279 is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,678
Quote:
Originally posted by Snapman
EDIT: Uhm, I believe the UN is the world's "policeman", not the US.
I actually do think that America is the world's policeman, just not a very credible one. *Thinks of Chief Wiggum*

Regards,
Morden
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 2003-02-12, 13:29
Double-J's Avatar
Double-J Double-J is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,411
How can you say that, then why is Britian going into the war Snap? Is BP going downhill? No, its to stop a madman, someone who threatens the well being of people internationally.

We also have unexplored oil resources, as well as good ties with BP and Russian oil...OPEC is a bunch of greedy bastards who know we need oil, and exploit it, but if we needed oil so bad, wouldn't we attack the Saudis then?
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 2003-02-12, 16:06
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 9,491
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
Well, it's obvious America is exploiting the WTC incident to it's fullest. They want to achieve as many ends, as quickly as possible. And now that hatred against Islam is reaching new heights, is the best time to do it.

Double-J>> Because they have more of an excuse to attack Iraq, than they do to attack Saudia. The Saudian government have done nothing wrong, so why attack them?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
there's no room for subtleties, which are so important in personalities such as mine.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
War Discussion (Split from "Holy Mother...") Reek Off topic 49 2005-09-30 01:49
World War III (Bush War on terror!) Guitar Off topic 6 2005-02-23 09:29
Concentration camps, trait of the nazis, and how Americans are jelous Axx Off topic 39 2004-12-11 11:50
Deus Ex 2: Invisible War Double-J Off topic 39 2004-06-09 17:27
Torture, think youve read about it? ***Warning Gross Pictures*** Axx Off topic 137 2004-05-21 01:29


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 16:40.


News Feed
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, the Magicball Network