Messages

I'm not a moderator.

I'm just a simple-minded user making a request to other users.

I'm not really into the whole "forum games" thing nowdays.

Welcome back, Hitman!

This is just a polite request to ask to give the forum games (like the word association and story games here) a bit of a miss.

They're hard to manage and there are probably a lot of other webpages that are specifically designed for such games.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, but if someone wants to be part of a game here, there's always plenty of stuff happening in the competition forum.

Once again, it's just a polite request.

Thanks.

Though I like Homestar Runner, it ain't no Seanbaby.

I miss that rainbow-haired nutjob!

that better? hopefully now you'll avoid calling me a dickhead. tho it's ok, when confronted with childish behaviour i'll come back at you with teh same childish remarks.
"sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me."

I know you are but what am I?  

pow's should be treated with dignity, but to the point consummate with the safety of the troops holding them. talk about actual mistreatment of POW's not questinoable concerns about teh dignity of the situation.

Once again, you're trying to justify cruelty.

the range is verified?? explain to me how 2000 people may or may not have been killed. the nice thing about being dead is that once you're dead you're dead.
you can't die again, and you can't live again. if iyou die and i shoot you in the face you don't get more dead.

so are those 2,000 people dead or not? are theirdeaths verified or not? if they are verified than you have 8,000 people dead. if they're not, than you can only say you have 6,000 people dead.
your statistics has a "range" of error of 2,000 people. the AP has a total sum of 3240 dead. do the math. which figure seems faulty?

Because the majority of sources I've read commonly quote a figure between 6000 and 8000 -- but hey, I'm sure your AP figure is exactly the number of civilians that have died, but I question your reasoning when you only take one figure and accept it blindly without taking into account various other sources.

hazard pay does more harm than good? what the hell? i dont' even think i can argue this with you anymore, you've crossed over on to the side of illogical. should the remaining UN workers in iraq lose their hazard pay as well as the US troops? will that bring everyone home quicker?

They're better off unemployed than dead.

the UN's mandate is to maintain peace. it will need to go into iraq to fufill its mandate.

It wouldn't have to if the US hadn't entered into a non-UN approved war.

and when you say something like "there's no solution" and "let them clean it up on their own", that couldn't be a clearer example of turning your back on the situation. is english your first language? or were you just unaware of what that words would actaully mean when combined into a sentence? It's called reading. Top to bottom, left to right, group words together as a sentence. Take Tylenol for any headaches...Midol for any cramps.

And you take a laxitive cause you're talking shit now.

I support the people of Iraq and their decisions -- but they've been fucked over so many times (by the US governement and their own leaders) that it's hard to see a solution anymore.

And as for the US Government cleaning it up on their own, yes, they should -- That's still not turning my back upon Iraq, it's turning my back upon the US Government.

a civilian who takes up a weapon is no longer a civilian, a hospital full of weapons and ammunition is no longer a hospital, just the same as a plane crashing into the side of a building is no longer a plane, it's a weapon.

I disagree -- your arguement is a very utilitarian one, and is far from an ethical argument.

and fuck you in the ear twice for making this argument personal. why these attacks on me? no reason to threaten me with violence just because i'm making some valid points that your argument can't deal with.

Your last comment was personal -- how dare you automatically asusme I'm turning my back on something when you know fuck all about me?

As for your "valid" points, I fail to see the ethical side of your "validity".

speaking of points you can't deal with, i notice you didn't say anything about the possibility of WMD lying under 10 feet of sand in iraq. want a refresher course??

iraqs have the capability to bury tons of large objects under the sand.

ex 30 FIGHTER JETS

they haven buried WMD in the past

ex Chemical and biological weapons found by UN inspectors in the 90s

isn't a reasonable conclusion to draw that there might be more things buried in the sand in a nation the size of california?

So, I skipped over some your shamblalic argument.

Anyway, if you want to prove it to me, go grab a fucking shovel and dig em out yourself.

The current weapons inspectors seem to be having trouble finding them, so maybe you can tell them where they are, smartarse?


In conclusion, believe what you like, taryuu, and don't believe me -- I don't care whether you take my points seriously or not, cause quite frankly I'm just some other blank face across the other side of the world.

Justify all you like, say I'm turning my back, argue the shit out of my points till your lungs turn blue -- I don't care, cause you tried to challenge my points of view and I tried to give you the best answers I could.

But quite frankly, they're just my opinions, based upon what I've read (and after studying journalism, you read a lot on current events) -- I'm not from Iraq, and neither are you -- I'm not trying to discredit your point of view, only trying desperately to give you the answers you expect, but that simply don't exist (yet).

How the fuck I'm I supposed to know whether the WMDs are buried beneath the Iraqi soil?

I'm just a student from Australia.

So, in conclusion, what do you gain by trying to prove a student from Australia wrong on a shitty debate in an adventure game forum?

To me, it sounds like a waste of time, but that's just my retarded point of view -- I'm sure this will be something you can tell your grandkids about.

Well, here you go, son: You win the argument.

Now, I'll just get back to writing my opinion in peace.

My guess is the fan base will grow and the diehard fans will will get sick of the over-popularity, then like all fads it will die and become just a small fan base thing again.

Kinda like what happened to South Park.

Whats up noodle dicks. I see that you all still remain nerds, and loveless wonders, (unless we are talking about your male companions). Sorry  i've been gone so long. I had to make several stops at each of your mothers homes. Dont worry about the hickies all over her nipples. I'm sure that she can still breast feed you.

Once again, for those who still want to buy T-Shirts:


Woo -- I'm back in business!

How many people here are getting some!?

Yeah, with your mother.  

A pow is just that, a PRISONER.  they can expect to be tied up, and under threat of fatal retaliation if they try to escape.  

A POW is a human being that deserves dignity as much as you or I.

And I doubt they can get very far with hands tied behind their backs.

A gun pointed at their heads while feeding water is unnecessary.

I don't think i did miss your point, as earlier you said

But I prefer to pay them less

You're going to have to accept the fact that you will have soldiers in harsh environments for a given amount of time DG.Hazard pay is a standard practice, not only with soldiers, but in countless other professions.
The UN has listed Irq as a place where additional pay is authorized to its staff, so why not soldiers?
http://www.un.org/Depts/OHRM/salaries_allowances/allowances/hazard.htm
If you revoke their extra  pay it will have an adverse effect on soldier morale. which is bad right?

First, use my full quote, dickhead -- I hate people who only partially use my quotes and thus take my comment out of context.

Second, I do not wish to risk any person in a hazard area -- Therefore, I see hazard pay as more of a harm than a good.

Besides, when more soldiers are killed after the war than during the war, I'd say the morale is pretty much fucked anyway.

No extra amount of dollars is going to bring them back to life.

Simply because that's your preception doesn't make it untrue.  notice i never yor figures were innacurate, i merely pointed out that the error in those 2  numbers is fairly substantial.  what does that tell you?

There's no error.

It's a range, and it's verified.

It tells me you're poncing around with this mythical "two figures" argument.

However, if you want a more accurate reading than my range, go to Iraq and find out for yourself!

Are you aware of the purpose of the UN?  

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
  1. To maintain international peace and security

Iraq is one of those places where the UN should go.  They're just waiting for the US to allow for increased foreign control of operations.  

Did anyone else notice that France and Russia haven't said shit about those 30 fighter jets that were found buried in the desert?

I'm very aware of the UN's purpose.

However, how can the UN do its job properly when the US government goes against the UN -- The Iraq war was not approved by the UN, so why should they become involved in the "road map to peace" when the very same "road map" is causing damage.

Not to mention most of the UN reps were against going to war in the first place due to flimsy of evidence.

And, in recent months, reports show the evidence is now even flimsier!

Quote:
But that's the thing -- I don't even think the UN or any any country should get involved in the mess the coalition created.

The coalition "won" the war as Bob said, so let them clean it up on their own!

DG, turning your back on iraq won't make it go away. it'll still be there, and it will still be a world problem. not an american or british problem, but a world problem. which needs a solution from the whole world. hopefully we'll see a resolution that all of the sides can agree to soon, and then we can get to the future of iraq.

Fisrt of all, you've already use my above quote in your previous reply -- you don't have to do it twice.

Secondly, it is not a world problem at all -- statistically, most of the people around they world were against the war -- Thus, it's a US government problem (more so the defense department), especially since Iraq has been high on Rumsfeld's list of countries on his axis of evil years before Bush came to power (even before Bush Sr too).

It's more Rumsfeld's problem.

Thirdly, there is no solution -- that's idealistic nonsense, cause the situation is fucked beyond belief.

The US government can't even provide decent aid for most of its own country so how does it expect to provide aid in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

And fourthly, never ever accuse me of turning my back on Iraq, you fuck --notice I was the one who brought the whole topic of the war back up and I don't see you wanting to face facts.

No, it seems like you want to justify a war with spin and bullshit, and then forget about it, like how most people forgot about Panama (which, as I have said, is practially the same situation as Iraq -- just substitute drugs for WMDs and Noriega for Saddam).

The US government comprimised the truth so many times in the lead up to the war and that is a fact on so many accounts -- you've probably read about them in the last month?

But don't ever accuse me of turning my back on a far-off country -- I have worked a lot with humanitarian groups, pledged financial support for third-world countries, and shown my support against many injustices.

Yes, I hate Saddam and all he has done -- But, my respect of the truth stands high above anything else, even above my hate for a dictator, and as sanctimonious as it may sound it is far greater than trying to justify a war.

So, next time you want to accuse me of turning my back on a country that's been turned into a crater, you'd better wear some thick, steal underpants or else find my steel-capped boot up your arse, kiddo!


As for Barcik:

And DGM - it is quite likely that the Iraqi did hide weapons in schools and hospitals. The Palestinians do the same.

That is no excuse for the US Army to destroy a hospital or a school -- I expect better of them than that.

YARR!!!

Avast ye bunch of Monkey Island coconuts!!

Shiver me timbers -- It be International Talk Like A Pirate Day on the 19th of September!!!

I suggest we be all talking like pirates on that particular day, and fill the forums full of bloodthisty, foul-smelling pirate talk!!

For more information, see this link ya scury seadogs: http://www.yarr.org.uk/

YARR!!!

(This one goes out to Pesty, the bloodthirstiest pirate that ever graced the AGS forums!)

Now they need the UN's help.
Nope. They want it.

They may say they "want" it, but in reality they need it.

The US budget can't handle the aftermath.

Anyhow, the UN is the biggest P-O-S ever. Why?
Because it doesn't work. It's like a bottle of mineral water that's empty, and has a message inside saying 'just ad water'.

And to quote Jack Nicholson, "People who talk in metaphors ought to shampoo my crotch!"

Also, the idea of having countries represented is pointless if the people aren't represented.

I don't need to say how redundant this comment is -- UN Ambassadors also represent the people.

That's the whole point of having an Ambassador.

I'm not going to say much about WMD, since it doesn't apply much to my reasons for supporting the Iraq war.

And oddly that was the main reason the US went to war.

The coalition did not destroy most of the hospitals and schools. Some were destroyed, but I should think the Iraqi ammunition stacked next to them would have had something to do with it. I'm not going to say that no public services were hit, but likewise its foolish to say all or lots were.

But lots were -- and you're making empty excuses now.

And in Kuwait, your buddy Saddam wasted not only the oilfields, schools and hospitals, but he went around personally smashing up cars with baseball bats. Okay, he didn't, but cars were smashed up. Likewise, the USATCO wasn't directly responsible for all of the decay of all of the schools.

Firstly, don't call him my buddy -- I don't support him and I hold him in the same regard as I hold that deadbeat Bush.

Secondly, are you trying to say that what ever Saddam does is okay for the US military to do, even if not to the same extremity.

I think you're trying to water down the US military's role by comparing them to Saddam.

I'm not comparing them to Saddam at all -- why shoudl I?

I'm saying this -- If you're a gobal superpower (like the US is), then you should set a responsible agenda for keeping control.

And the US's role in the Iraq war was grossly irresponsible in many respects.

And now it's an even poorer country.

Hmm. The USA wasn't exactly doing brilliant economy wise in 1777.

The US isn't doing brilliant economy wise right now either -- so what's your point?

The rioters in the streets of Bagdad are no more likely to become terrorists than the average tax-hating American is to open fire on the IRS lackeys.

I think the loyalists would beg to differ.

I believe that's what happened in Afghanistan... Now, Heroin dealers are out in force, Karzai carries a sidearm, and the 3 different forces in there have to flip a coin in order to decide what to do.

Congrats! Now you've come to the same conclusion I came to before the war -- There's no solution to this problem.

I saw posters, shouting out thousands of reasons that the masses are meant to digest without thought. I met talented spin doctors who used surgical precision. I saw people on TV shows, making fun of the opposition. All of those bore the little green anti-war sign. People appealed to vegitarian, liberal non-intellectuals, just as the Republicans used 'If you didn't like terrorists, you'll HATE these guys' tactics. Both of them are pretty despicable. But is it the politicians fault that people are stupid? Nope.

And my point is that no one should prey upon stupid people.

Especially political figures.

I don't see a resolution to this debate.

Aye.

But that's part of what AGS Talk and Chat is for.

We should have freestyles more often!  

Ah, The Wave -- where I go to get my Seanbaby fix since he "abandoned" his website.

[Israel]

Do I need to say again that "I" is an egoistic term? If yes, then allow me to rephrase my comment: Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat Israel anymore.

I don't see what a great threat Iraq was to Israel.

Israel had way more firepower than Iraq.

Once again, the absence of WMDs makes me think that Iraq was just a puppy compared to the pitbull the US spin doctors made it out to be.

Yeah, yeah, Saddam was a maniac, etc, etc -- but he was a maniac in charge of a very resource-poor country.



Panda:
Aye, I heard the same thing.

We won the war. Get over it.

Despite whether you think you won the war or not, I doubt the ethicality of such a victory.

Hemmingway once said: "Never think for a minute that war, no matter how necessry or how justifiable, is not a crime."

If you think "you won the war", I question your ethics Bob -- I really do.

And I feel sorry for you.

and what was all that about "embarassing POW's"?  were you trying to compare the supposed "UN violation" of the  delousing of pows to the aforementioned UN violations of saddam hussien?  look at the big picture.

Giving water to a tied-up, unarmed POW while another soldier sticks a gun directly at his head counts as a UN violation in my book.

and why would paying the troops less make them come home sooner? why would US troops be pulled out sooner simply because their various hazard pays were revoked?  show me the correlation cuz i just don't get it.   bonuses for being in hazardous locations are standard for almost every job, why not for those who face some of the most dangerous working conditions imaginable?

You miss my point completely -- I'm saying get them the fuck out of there, instead of keeping them in there and paying them (or their widows) a high salary.

your total of 6,000 to 8,000 is also debatable. the error in reporting both of the figures you quoted is almost as much as the TOTAL the associated press lists.

I said the figure is between those two values -- no one can get an accurate reading.

its 5 week investigation counted civilian casualities at 3240.  part of this death toll can be attributed to iraqi soldiers riding around in amublances,  storing weapons in mosques and schools, exploding ammunition piles that iraqis had stored in residences and iraqi shells aimed at US planes falling back into residential areas.  

This seems highly inaccurate to the numerous body counts I've read.

I never said anything about lynch, nor did i say anything about the treatement of pows.  what i did say that you seemed to have overlooked was this

moving back to the subject, if the US wants more countries to offer up the blood of their country then they should allow for a unified control of combat operations, not just using other soveriegn nation's troops as pawns in their game of terrorist chess.

you skipped right over that and added this at the end

Bush is keeping them in there for no reason but to keep a dominant hold (Notice how the current UN resolution states that the US will keep a dominant role in maintaining order in Iraq, while other international forces do their bidding)

But that's the thing -- I don't even think the UN or any any country should get involved in the mess the coalition created.

The coalition "won" the war as Bob said, so let them clean it up on their own!

Wow -- that's pretty damn good!  

and DG i think you've lost sight of the fact that the iraqi  men,women, and children are no longer being murdered or tortured.

But that wasn't the reason that the US went to war in the first place.

They used (exploited) those people to satify their own agenda.

And sure, those people aren't tortured or murdered anymore, but now they don't have much to return to anyway.

And don't forget the US soldiers being killed off every day by streetfire -- they have families too.

and if you're thinking of saying something about US bombs or US troop fire, find some evidence about the pre-meditated US torture or execution of  iraqi women and children before you come back with a snide remark.

I can come back with a snide remark any time I want to, thank you very much, bucko, cause I certainly don't need your permission!  

Right now, the reported civillian deaths in Iraq is between 6000-8000.

Not only that, I can provide several pictures that show a violation of UN treaties due to the US tying up POWs in the nude and practically embarrassing them.

Oh, wait -- The Iraqi soldeirs tortured American POWs too, like Jessica Lynch.

Even though a) she was injured in a vehicle accident and not Iraqi fire, like the Petagon press office reported b) She was taken to an Iraq hospital for treatment and was quoted as saying the doctors were very kind to her.

But, nooooo -- she's a hero because she survived a POW camp -- that's what Uncle Sam told me, so it MUSt be true.

by the way why are you against the extra pay for soldiers serving in a desert war-zone?  it's recognition that their job is tougher to do than just the reservists sitting in tampa.  

I'm not against it.

But I prefer to pay them less and get them out of Iraq ASAP before another one gets shot.

You can't put a price on people's lives.

Bush is keeping them in there for no reason but to keep a dominant hold (Notice how the current UN resolution states that the US will keep a dominant role in maintaining order in Iraq, while other international forces do their bidding)

Wait, you're probably saying, if you remove the soldiers, Iraq will fall in to anarchy.

There was a simple solution to that -- Don't invade Iraq in the first place (cause they didn't have those mysterious WMDs in the first place).

Iraq was just an excuse to make people feel better about Sept 11 and fulfill the Bush-Cheeny-Runsfeld agenda.

But it's too late now.

[Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat anymore]

Oh boy ... here we go again!!  

The UN did fail.  I didn't say they disappeared.  If a football team loses (fails) they're still a team and move forward.

If they did fail, then why's the US government seeking help from such "failure" now?

I think it's a smart thing to get the UN involved now. Of course the rest of the world will see it as 'crawling back' ... it's typical.

That's because it IS crawling back.

Look at how subtle and low-key Powell is being -- Now he wants on the UN's good side cause they can't handle a widdle war.

It's still pathetic that France didn't help out.

Yeah, it's pathetic they didn't help up in making a fucking mess fo Iraq.

Also, as I stated in another thread, I was against all the 'freedom fries' and boycott on French products ... but of course that didn't get quoted  And I believe it was 'liberty fries'

I never actually said it was you who made those comments -- I said most of the US, which is pretty accurate.

I know there's a lot of US AGSers who'd never jump on the whole "french to freedom" bandwagon, which is why I said "most" and not "all".

In other words, my comment was related but not directed at you.

And DGM - It's Darth MANDARB ... not Mandrub  I hope that wasn't intentional.

No, it's a typo.  

I'm pretty sure that Gore would seem just as silly as bush does in this predicament. It's just easier to place the blame on one person though....

I doubt Gore and Co would propagate a war in Iraq to justify Sept 11.

Now, the budget allocation can change. Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat anymore.

If that's the case, try walking down the streets of Iraq.

Or did you mean an "international threat"?

If that's the case, where are those mysterious WMDs?

Could it be possible they just magically vanished?

And keep in mind that Saddam is still alive.

I don't understand why you people rate the UN so highly. Has the UN solved any serious conflict in all its years of existence? Besides giving humanitarian help here and other, it has done almost nothing of importance.

So why is the US government practically sticking their tongue down the UN's pants right now?


EDIT: I am now scoffing!

I first thought Bush was an idiot -- now I think it's got a mental disability (called 'dickheaditis').

Read this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030906/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq

The line I like is this:

The president, in a speech in Indianapolis on Friday, acknowledged that continuing military operations in Iraq and in the broader war on terrorism were aggravating the federal budget deficit, which is approaching a record $500 billion.

But he said, "This nation will spend what it takes to win the war on terror and to protect the American people."

"My attitude is, anytime we put our troops in harm's way, they deserve the best pay, the best training and the best possible equipment," he said.

Umm, the American people don't need any more protection from Iraq, Bush, seeing as your army blew up most of the buildings, killed off several people (soldiera and civies), destroyed the power grid and ravaged the hospitals.

You're actually putting Americans as risk by keeping them in Iraq -- And paying them a high wage isn't going to help them once they get shot.

As a minor point, don't forget the $500 billion in the red (And if $500 billion in the red is a minor point, you know for sure it's a fucked up situation).

I'm becoming less cynical of mass media -- I think they just play along with dickhead leaders until several months down the track they fuck up, and the media can see the fucked-up aftermath coming even before the war begins.

Probably makes for more news stories, thus more $$$!

I'm glad I'm studying journalism -- I'm never going to be out of work as long as there's politicians.c

No way, Las!

I'm walking over to your house right now!

See you in a week!