TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- TATU says: "FUCK WAR" (shocking t-shirt message on NBC show)
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by CynepMeH 2. Tatu have nice tatas. Their t-shirst should say XY� HAM B POT

I'm not gonna get drawn into another political debate. I just wanna post that the above comment by superman gets my vote for funniest post in the thread.

quote:

Originally posted by CynepMeH Let me tear your opinion apart, one by one: 2. IT IS ABOUT FIGHTING TERRORISM - if it ain't so, then perhaps you can enlighten me why Russia is sending thousands of its troops to die in Chechnya? Iraq sponsors and harbors terrorists - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Saddam Hussein pays families of suicide bombers $25,000 each. $25,000 in Middle east buys a lot. Saddam Hussein supplies terrorists with weapons. Palestinians/Hammas and others are sponsored by Saddam. Al Samoud missle has a range of over 150KM, enough distance to reach Israel. Do you think Saddam is planning to bomb Jordan or Iran???? Wake up! 3. GET A CLUE - every war is fought because of economic interests. It's not about pussy or about better real estate values. IT IS ABOUT MONEY. Are we clear? so, in esssence the war has not changed its nature in the last 6000 years or so... Although back then, it was probably about better pussy and real estate values

If it's about fighting terrorism, why don't we get involved in Iran and Pakistan who both harbor and finance terrorists and have much stronger links to Al Queda?
both of which are much stronger countries and are much more of a threat to peace than Iraq. Both have nuclear weapons.
Pakistan has been on edge with India for years, if a war broke out between them it would be very devistating.
Also if we are so obsessed with liberating people and bringing our values of freedom (which seems to be hypocritcally valued by many in this country), why don't we get involved in N. Korea. Their leader is much more "evil" than Saddam. The list of human rights violations that have gone on in that country is endless.

now, i think this war is about oil, but not solely that.
i agree that yes most wars are fought for economic reasons, as this war has alot to do with economics (WW2, probably the only just war, wasn't fought for economic reasons).
do you think its right to kill people and send our boys and girls to die just so the rich people who run our nation can have more money lining their pockets?
Bush and the republicans were losing support before the senate elections. thats when all this talk of iraq started up.
bush used the idea of going to war to gain support. now he's dug himself into a hole, and is hoping that he can go to war, win quickly and win reelection.

those are my thoughts. there are other reasons that i think we are also going to war, and id talk more indepthly about my previous stated reasons, but i have to leave in a few minutes.

now you can go ahead and "rip apart my points one by one" and shove my two cents so kindly up my ass

damn.

bout time some real debatin' is happening.

this is the real shit my friends.

this is what im talkin about.

i saw some damn good posts there.

I STILL havent seen the video yet and im getting rather annoyed : / i wanna see some sexy tartan mini skirts !!

i think their message would've been receivedalot better if their shirts said "FUCK US" and in little letters below it said fuck war too

quote:

Originally posted by montie If it's about fighting terrorism, why don't we get involved in Iran and Pakistan who both harbor and finance terrorists and have much stronger links to Al Queda? both of which are much stronger countries and are much more of a threat to peace than Iraq. Both have nuclear weapons. Pakistan has been on edge with India for years, if a war broke out between them it would be very devistating. Also if we are so obsessed with liberating people and bringing our values of freedom (which seems to be hypocritcally valued by many in this country), why don't we get involved in N. Korea. Their leader is much more "evil" than Saddam. The list of human rights violations that have gone on in that country is endless. now, i think this war is about oil, but not solely that. i agree that yes most wars are fought for economic reasons, as this war has alot to do with economics (WW2, probably the only just war, wasn't fought for economic reasons). do you think its right to kill people and send our boys and girls to die just so the rich people who run our nation can have more money lining their pockets? Bush and the republicans were losing support before the senate elections. thats when all this talk of iraq started up. bush used the idea of going to war to gain support. now he's dug himself into a hole, and is hoping that he can go to war, win quickly and win reelection. those are my thoughts. there are other reasons that i think we are also going to war, and id talk more indepthly about my previous stated reasons, but i have to leave in a few minutes. now you can go ahead and "rip apart my points one by one" and shove my two cents so kindly up my ass

I don't particularily see eye to eye with you and I really think the whole argument on this forum about it is rather silly. What I do think, independed of mass-media, slogans and glory cries is that you got to pick your battles one by one. I will bet you serious cash that strategists in Pentagon have thought out the plan of action a million times. We are dealing with rather small bits of info, as you can imagine. However, strategy is not always motivated by politics and vice versa. I do agree that it does seem a bit fishy because Bush Sr. did not finish the job, the oil is rather scarse commodity, terrorism is the shield for actions.

I agree that Junior's big mouth got his ass in deeper shit than he bargained for; I also agree that Korea, Iran, Pakistan are more of a threat. However, you also have to consider geo-political situation. You cannot go after all fishes at the same time. Russian proverb: "When one chases two rabbits at the same time, he won't catch either". So, with that said - Korea, Iran, and eventually Pakistan will get theirs. If you think like a strategist, even from military perspective, not just oil, you would position your forces where they would make the most impact. By having Iraq as a jump-off point US places the following countries in check:
1. Iraq 2.Iran 3.Sudan 4.Jordan 5.Egypt 6.Lybia 7.Saudi Arabia 8.Kuwait and bunch of other terrorist hives. You can't argue with the strong strategy behind that.

Besides, no matter what mass media tells you about protests all over the middle east, you have to realize that most of the people in those countries could care less for their shithead dictator leaders. They would probably have a better life and better everything even if US would outright occupy their countries. If you did your history check - US does not occupy countries. Now, that's all trivial depending on how you view military bases but nonetheless, it's not like Germany occupied Poland, Chechoslovakia, and other Eastern-european countries.

By having Afganistan and Iraq as US bases, you are surrounding Iran and within arm's reach of other threats. God forbid, next time shit happens - US should be in a position to deliver swift response right away.

Now, to the subject of North Korea - they are a state stuck in 1940-50 Stalinist era of former Soviet Union. Daily brainwashing of the people with "american agression" and "emperialist swine" as well as "capitalist pigs" doesn't mean shit. You have to realize, if country as big as USSR fell appart - North Korea is even more prone to failure. The nuclear program in NK is easy to shut down - one tactical nuke and problem is solved. I doubt Korea has a delivery system for transcontinental nukes. Even that's not needed - blokade the ******s, let them starve to death. I feel sorry for children and innocent people who suffer because of their leadership. But as the saying from "Men in Black" goes - "Person is smart, people are stupid"

Anywho. enough politics. You are entitled to your opinion, I was pissed off at Joker for uttering totally stupid shit about Russia not being antisemitic country - easy to say so if you've never been subjected to it or feel it on your own skin. Whatever, hope he grows up and gets a clue...

Cynep "Larry King" MeH

quote:

Originally posted by montie If it's about fighting terrorism, why don't we get involved in Iran and Pakistan who both harbor and finance terrorists and have much stronger links to Al Queda? both of which are much stronger countries and are much more of a threat to peace than Iraq. Both have nuclear weapons. Pakistan has been on edge with India for years, if a war broke out between them it would be very devistating. Also if we are so obsessed with liberating people and bringing our values of freedom (which seems to be hypocritcally valued by many in this country), why don't we get involved in N. Korea. Their leader is much more "evil" than Saddam. The list of human rights violations that have gone on in that country is endless. now, i think this war is about oil, but not solely that. i agree that yes most wars are fought for economic reasons, as this war has alot to do with economics (WW2, probably the only just war, wasn't fought for economic reasons). do you think its right to kill people and send our boys and girls to die just so the rich people who run our nation can have more money lining their pockets? Bush and the republicans were losing support before the senate elections. thats when all this talk of iraq started up. bush used the idea of going to war to gain support. now he's dug himself into a hole, and is hoping that he can go to war, win quickly and win reelection. those are my thoughts. there are other reasons that i think we are also going to war, and id talk more indepthly about my previous stated reasons, but i have to leave in a few minutes. now you can go ahead and "rip apart my points one by one" and shove my two cents so kindly up my ass

Hmmm deja vu ... feels like I've argued this with you before . Anyway with regards to your argument that we should invade Pakistan and Iran, how do you know what kind of threat they pose, what their links are to Al-Qeada, and how much money they contribute to terrorists? I'm assuming that you're a private citizen like the rest of us so how can you come to the evalation that they pose a greater threat or that they have more links to terrorism? That's something that one would think the NSA or the CIA would have better information on.

At any rate you keep listing Pakistan as a threat. And you're correct that there have been some association with the taliban in the past, but the current regime is not supporting terrorist causes against the US! If I recall their intelligence services is cooperating with us and just handed over a major al-queda leader. There may be few INDIVIDUAL members that are pro-taliban/al-queda but the official stance of the government is to support the US. Don't you think it would be kind of silly if they were trying to help us and harm us at the same time?? At any rate their conflict with India is off-topic ... that has nothing to do with the war on terror.

The reason why we don't invade N. Korea is because we have a truce agreement with them. We signed an agreement to cease hostilities and there's not much we can do about it unless N. Korea invades S. Korea or committs some other SIGNIFICANT hostile act. The reason why we are threatening Iraq is because they are in violation of their truce agreement with us. N. Korea and Iraq are completely different scenarios, and this war was never originally about a humanitarian issue.

With regards to the oil and economics issue, it's simple ... it's going to cost A LOT more money to fund the buildup abroad, actually wage the war, and finally station 200,000 troops in Iraq to keep the peace than any kind of economic benefit as a result of this conflict. It's simply too infeasible for this to be about improving the economy because it's too much of an uncertain gamble. There are too many risks involved. It would have been insanely more effective to simply use all that money to reinvest in capital or invest in other oil assets overceas. Hell we have untapped oil supplies in Alaska that we haven't even utilized. Don't you think it would be more effective to utilize oil assets on our OWN territory rather than create this whole mess and invade another country to get their oil?? As a matter of fact the threat of war is seriously HURTING our economy rather than making it better. It seems counterintuitive that we would be doing this for our economy when it's obviously damaging it.

quote:

Originally posted by CynepMeH I don't particularily see eye to eye with you and I really think the whole argument on this forum about it is rather silly. What I do think, independed of mass-media, slogans and glory cries is that you got to pick your battles one by one. I will bet you serious cash that strategists in Pentagon have thought out the plan of action a million times. We are dealing with rather small bits of info, as you can imagine. However, strategy is not always motivated by politics and vice versa. I do agree that it does seem a bit fishy because Bush Sr. did not finish the job, the oil is rather scarse commodity, terrorism is the shield for actions. I agree that Junior's big mouth got his ass in deeper shit than he bargained for; I also agree that Korea, Iran, Pakistan are more of a threat. However, you also have to consider geo-political situation. You cannot go after all fishes at the same time. Russian proverb: "When one chases two rabbits at the same time, he won't catch either". So, with that said - Korea, Iran, and eventually Pakistan will get theirs. If you think like a strategist, even from military perspective, not just oil, you would position your forces where they would make the most impact. By having Iraq as a jump-off point US places the following countries in check: 1. Iraq 2.Iran 3.Sudan 4.Jordan 5.Egypt 6.Lybia 7.Saudi Arabia 8.Kuwait and bunch of other terrorist hives. You can't argue with the strong strategy behind that. Besides, no matter what mass media tells you about protests all over the middle east, you have to realize that most of the people in those countries could care less for their shithead dictator leaders. They would probably have a better life and better everything even if US would outright occupy their countries. If you did your history check - US does not occupy countries. Now, that's all trivial depending on how you view military bases but nonetheless, it's not like Germany occupied Poland, Chechoslovakia, and other Eastern-european countries. By having Afganistan and Iraq as US bases, you are surrounding Iran and within arm's reach of other threats. God forbid, next time shit happens - US should be in a position to deliver swift response right away. Now, to the subject of North Korea - they are a state stuck in 1940-50 Stalinist era of former Soviet Union. Daily brainwashing of the people with "american agression" and "emperialist swine" as well as "capitalist pigs" doesn't mean shit. You have to realize, if country as big as USSR fell appart - North Korea is even more prone to failure. The nuclear program in NK is easy to shut down - one tactical nuke and problem is solved. I doubt Korea has a delivery system for transcontinental nukes. Even that's not needed - blokade the ******s, let them starve to death. I feel sorry for children and innocent people who suffer because of their leadership. But as the saying from "Men in Black" goes - "Person is smart, people are stupid" Anywho. enough politics. You are entitled to your opinion, I was pissed off at Joker for uttering totally stupid shit about Russia not being antisemitic country - easy to say so if you've never been subjected to it or feel it on your own skin. Whatever, hope he grows up and gets a clue... Cynep "Larry King" MeH

yeah, we both don't see eye to eye.
you seem to have a more military perspective (sorry if this seems offensive) and i a more pacifistic.
i agree with you that we can't chase all the rabbits at one time and that taking over iraq would put us at a great military advantage in the middle east.
i was just using the arguement that Pakistan and Iran are islamic countries that are much more of a threat to us than iraq, but yet we decide to go after iraq. and bush tries to justify it by saying that we are freeing the people and saddam is some big threat to the world, and makes up all this bullshit to try and justify it.
and i guess you can say he's right in the long run that he's trying to combat terrorism by taking over iraq so that he can put america in a more powerful position so that they can put more pressure on iran and pakistan.
the only thing i don't really agree with you on is about the people being better off under america than under a dictator (saddam). I definantly im not a supporter of saddam, i think he's a crazy fuck, but i don't think they will be any better under an american endoresed leader. I think america will put in some other dicatotor who will do what we say, but yet be just as tyrannical over the people as saddam was. so they will be trading in one crappy leader for another just as bad.
i feel of all the countries, the biggest threat to peace is n. korea.
yeah they are definatly stuck in the 40-50's stalinist (or maoist) mentality.

anyway, my feelings are: i don't think we should go to war with any of these countries. the best thing to do is to just try to slowly get our interests out of these countries, and let them battle eachother until they reach a state of "maturity" or development as western europe and america has.
its like trying to help a person who's mentally fucked up, you can't help them until they help themselves.
but anyway im more of a "pussy" pacifist. everyone is entitled to their opinions. i think the disadvantages completly outweigh the advantages of going to war with iraq.



(sorry if this post sounds kinda dumb and incoherent, im definatly not in the right state to be responding intelligently to posts since im quite drunk right now, but oh well, i can laugh at how dumb i sound in the morning....now i gotta reply to occrider)

quote:

Originally posted by CynepMeH Let me tear your opinion apart, one by one:

i know my facts... and don't call me a nimrod. i know the history of my fatherland quite good to oppose any of your arguments. YES, there were concentration camps and there was oppression of nations (not only jews, but also chechens, dagestanians and so on), BUT it was under the rule of Stalin, which were the black history of our days. and don't tell me shit about american acceptance - you are forgetting about which was the country to drop the nukes on two civil cities (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) back in 1945 and about reservations for Indians - the only true pure representatives of American nation. There are many countries where racism is MUCH MORE observable than in Russia... Yes, there are some slogans like "Punch Jews, save Russia", screamed out occasionally by some retards, but that's because of common folk being pissed off that jews rule the media, the government, etc. etc... I don't share their hatered, but some people are - just out of envy. I remember, when Audiogalaxy closed, the first post in the forums there was something like "it's all th jews fault - they run the media", and it was said by none other than a person from America.

yes, Boris Abramovich (in couple with Boris Berezovsky) are blamed for many sins - but that's because they are multibillionaire THIEVES (grown up under Yeltzin's wing and known under a nice alias of "oligarhs", which is none but a synonym to "thief"), who made their capitals in the early 90s with speculations with privatization schemes. and even if Boris Abramovich was Boris Ivanov, I would not stop to blame him, because I don't care whether he is a jew or not - but he is a fucking thief.

and jews fleed from USSR becuase they were smarter than the ordinary people. everyone wanted to flee from that communist shithole of a country that it was, but only jews would actually have courage to leave everything, including mothers and fathers, behind them to taste the freedom. but in my argument, i am not talking about USSR, i am talking about modern Russia, which you obviously don't know shit about.

yes, again, there are certain racial organizations, that act in Russia (the best known is RNE, of course), but then again, there are such organizations in all the countries, and in Russia the repercussions of their acts are all but massive. I bitterly regret the incident, which happened last year, when the woman tried to dismount a road sign, over which the racial statement was painted ("death to jews"), and that sign was booby-trapped, but our country showed exactly how it feels about this, by president Putin awarding Medal of Courage to that woman...

now to the war... yes, i agree the world is better off without Saddam, just like it was better off without taliban government in Afganistan, but this time the interests of USA are transparently clear: US will go to war to take control over the country, hence control of oil fields, hence dramatical drop in oil prices. yes, they will fight terrorism, but the way they are trying to conspire the obvious fact of economic interest in the region is pissing the whole world off.

Finally, TaTu is produced by a RUSSIAN producer...

and just a question for yourself: how would you act, if people came to your land, took 2/3s of it away from you and said that now it's the land, where your worst enemy will live. that's exactly what happened in 1946, when Israel was formed on the 2/3 of Palestine lands. and of course, the whole world couldn't foresee what insane radical islam fanatics would be grown up on as the crops of palestine hatred toward jews, but it was at least clear, that nobody would peacefully give up their lands...

and the last question: if you hate Russia and everything about it so much, why do you try to write your nickname as "SuperMan" written in cyrillic, and why recently you put up an avatar of a russian cartoon hero, Masyana?

the last couple of word about your remark of me saying utter shit about antisemetism: my grandfather was sued and put in jail for 9 years as a part of a political process for nothing... After Stalin's death in 1953, in USSR they didn't care which race or nation you were... you could be a jew and lick the ass of the regime and be on top. or you could be a jew telling political anekdotes and being put to jail for the rest of your life.

quote:

Originally posted by CynepMeH blokade the ******s, let them starve to death. I feel sorry for children and innocent people who suffer because of their leadership. But as the saying from "Men in Black" goes - "Person is smart, people are stupid"

very humanistic, you know...
now i wonder whether you really are a jew believing in God, or a frenzy fucked in the head radical mother******.

dammit

this website is sooooo slow.
now when it lets me reply again, its the next day and im sober.

anyway, i personally don't think we should attack Iran, Pakistan or N. Korea.
I was just using the arguement to say that if we are so concerned with liberating people from horrible dictators and keeping the world safe from terrorism there are much bigger fish to fry than Iraq.
About Pakistan,I agree the official stance of the government is against terror. hell they allied themselves with us right before we attacked afghanistan.
I think thats just a front though to keep america publicly out of their business. they have a history of supporting terrorism (especially in india), and i think still are through the "underground." I wouldn't put too much trust in their support.
and you say that this war is a bad thing for the economy?
if you'll remember america was in a not to good recession right before the gulf war, and afterwards during the 90's there was an economic boom.
the government will be spending alot of money to finance a war, and that money goes to american businesses (the whole military-industrial complex).
by taking over iraq we get the economy boost of war, plus get to take over their oil supplies.
I don't know too much about the oil situation in alaska. (don't know how accurate this info is) what i have heared though is that we don't have as much up there as is claimed and also there is alot of public sentiment agianst the pumping of oil out of alaska because of environmental reasons. so pumping oil out of there would cause a politician to lose public support.

quote:

Originally posted by montie dammit this website is sooooo slow. now when it lets me reply again, its the next day and im sober. anyway, i personally don't think we should attack Iran, Pakistan or N. Korea. I was just using the arguement to say that if we are so concerned with liberating people from horrible dictators and keeping the world safe from terrorism there are much bigger fish to fry than Iraq. About Pakistan,I agree the official stance of the government is against terror. hell they allied themselves with us right before we attacked afghanistan. I think thats just a front though to keep america publicly out of their business. they have a history of supporting terrorism (especially in india), and i think still are through the "underground." I wouldn't put too much trust in their support. and you say that this war is a bad thing for the economy? if you'll remember america was in a not to good recession right before the gulf war, and afterwards during the 90's there was an economic boom. the government will be spending alot of money to finance a war, and that money goes to american businesses (the whole military-industrial complex). by taking over iraq we get the economy boost of war, plus get to take over their oil supplies. I don't know too much about the oil situation in alaska. (don't know how accurate this info is) what i have heared though is that we don't have as much up there as is claimed and also there is alot of public sentiment agianst the pumping of oil out of alaska because of environmental reasons. so pumping oil out of there would cause a politician to lose public support.

Yes I definetely think there are other countries where people are worse off but I never really thought that this whole thing was about humanitarian aid to begin with. Anyway, I would agree that Pakistan has connections to terror groups in India but I doubt that they would support terrorist actions against the US, simply because the potential fallout and risks involved would be tremendous.

Anyway war is by no means an effective, efficient, or for sure way to stimulate the economy. If it were so successful, you would see a lot more economically depressed countries utilizing war as an economic tool. Yes the arms industry does get a boost in demand but it's such a small sector of the economy, that its economic effect on the entire economy as a whole is miniscule to the point of negligeble. We didn't see economic booms in the Vietnam or the Korean war. It did have an impact in WW2 but that was more as a result of the economy being propelled to full employment after the depression. At any rate it would be far more efficient to simply to take the money used in defense spending and pump it back in the economy or lower taxes. The boost in the economy after the gulf war was as a result of the IT/Internet tech boom rather than the war. No economist would ever preach war as a sound economic tool.

With regards to the Alaskan oil fields and political fallout, don't you think the President is experiencing MUCH more public fallout in America AND the rest of the world??? There are a lot more people against war than there are against drilling in Alaska ...

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax here is the way i look at it. hes fucked up so is his regime. he should have been taken out long ago by a coalition or something. US has nothing to fear from 100 mile missiles. I think this is a grand opportunity to do a great thing. go in, set up a democracy, and then we can leave. We can get rid of our bases in saudi arabia, pakistan, and iran, because the iraq threat will be gone and then the middle east can be well rid of us. Bush probably isnt doing it because hes a sweetheart, but does that mean it shouldnt be done? Its very clear what we are going to do with our bombing strategy, and the civilians know it. Its their fucking choice to be his shields if thats what they want to do. People should evacuate and get the hell out of there and leave Saddam to his fate. Bush isnt going to be the one in Iraq, the regular American troopers are and THEY are going to be the ones implementing the day to day treatment of the people. Americans, believe it or not, feel fuckin sorry for those people. I think regardless of what Bush says, the troops are going to go in there and do their best to help the people. Hopefully after this is done, UN will realize whats up and help get a solution for pakistand/Israel while were over there. God, itd be so nice to never haave to think about the middle east again.

American idealism at it's greatest

quote:

Originally posted by SuperFarStucker American idealism at it's greatest

Id say getting .001% of the world population mobilized for rallies and thinking thats going to impress the other 99.9% is idealistic.

Phef, what's the big deal? The shittiest pop band in the world is against war. And what then...?
Iraq needs to be liberated from the psycho-freak who's in power. Only in that case trance will play on its soil! lol

I totaly agree, it'd look much better if the lingo's said "FUCK US" - and no need to interpret with our brains - our "units" would do it for us haha

Why is this thread still going?????

cuz it's all about flaming

quote:

Sarin - The chemical released by terrorists into a subway system in Tokyo, Japan in 1995. A small amount killed 12 and injured several thousand, including hundreds whose lungs were completely burned. One of the most common nerve agents. Shelf Life - The period of time a gas mask and/or filter will last while in storage (at normal temperatures and humidity).

quote:

Botulin - 3 million times more potent than sarin.

I think a lot of people are overlooking the fact that Saddam IS a threat, regardless of how cool it is to say fuck war...

if the states gets Bio'd i'm getting the fuck out of Toronto

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.